After much political drama these past years, now elections are out the way, isn’t it time for a dose of honesty, not just between us, but even to ourselves?

And as much as it is fun seeing cocky Labour find every week is long and hard in government, and I’ve enjoyed rubbing it in alongside a great many other PB posters, I have decided that to be taken seriously, the best thing is to be more honest about it now.

Inflation up this winter, pulled up by energy costs that are themselves up largely due to how EU is exposed still to Russian imports – and growth has been sliding to this point all year – these fundamentals were going to be much the same this day regardless who won the election. And so too: tough, unpopular, tax raising budgets were going to happen regardless who won. It would be laughably dishonest to try and claim otherwise.

The budget giveaways prior to the election came from Hunt’s headroom found by cutting departmental budgets in the 2024-2029 parliament, this coupled with the spending commitments both main parties shared before the election, 2.5% of GDP defence spending, repair and rebuilding of hospitals and schools, recruitment of doctors, nurses and teachers, patsy pre election budgets were destined to be followed by tough post election budgets. The question is, how do we think the Conservatives would have raised the money differently? Both parties making a play to protect working households, both refusing to raise the most progressive direct taxes, whoever won was setting themselves a tricky exam paper.

In the Conservatives credit – in my opinion anyway – though the fact likely supports those who complain the Conservatives have wasted 4 straight election wins not being Conservative enough in cutting state and tax take – during these 13 years the fact stands out: the governments income, in all ways transparent and stealthy it is taken, transferred from poorest to the wealthiest. It was some of the stealthiest means of raising money, threshold freezes – that largely achieved this.

I think the most honest criticism of Reeves budget is that it didn’t actually have enough serious income raising schemes for amount of spending it promised, if we presume these spending and policy commitments will happen – I don’t – the amounts of money the budget will raise won’t meet what Rachel’s Treasury claimed at the time. It’s not a balanced budget, if spends more than it will actually raise – this points to borrowing, and the costs of the extra borrowing being the budgets inherent vice – not the fact it needed to be, the country needed it to be, a budget that raised money to spend.

How would the Conservatives have raised the money? To not hit working households, and maintain record of wealthiest carrying greater burden of government spending, then, apart from different bits around the periphery – not invoking tractorgeddon for one – largely the same budget measures I reckon.

By all means mark my exam paper. Am I miles out?

MoonRabbit