Healeys "riskanter" Haushalt kritisiert, weil er das schlimmste Jahrzehnt für das britische Wachstum in der Geschichte nicht bewältigen konnte

Chancellor John Healey faced immediate criticism following the delivery of his first Budget, with influential think tanks warning that the measures expose the United Kingdom to greater economic volatility and fail to address the nation’s worst decade for household income growth on record. The Institute for Fiscal Studies described the strategy as risky, noting that the reduction in financial headroom leaves the government less prepared for future adverse economic developments. This assessment coincided with warnings from the Conservative Party that planned increases in banking taxes would inevitably drive up mortgage rates, a view echoed by some Labour figures who argued that businesses are being treated as an unlimited source of revenue. The core of the controversy centers on the government’s fiscal position. The fiscal headroom available to the Treasury has been slashed by more than eight billion pounds, dropping to fifteen billion pounds for the 2029/30 fiscal year. This represents a significant decrease from the twenty-four billion pound estimate previously projected by the Office for Budget Responsibility under the previous administration. Helen Miller, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, stated that while allowing headroom to fall to absorb higher borrowing costs is reasonable, the move carries inherent dangers. She cautioned that higher borrowing requires repayment and that a lower buffer makes the Chancellor more vulnerable to unexpected negative news. Miller emphasized that temporary cost-of-living packages are insufficient substitutes for a robust economy, expressing frustration at the lack of structural solutions to slow growth. The Institute for Fiscal Studies specifically targeted the government’s reliance on temporary measures to assist households. The main announcement in the Budget was a one-off payment of one hundred pounds for approximately twenty million homes to offset rising energy bill costs. While intended to aid the poorest households, critics argued the sum was inadequate given the broader economic landscape. The think tank suggested these measures appeared to mimic the approach of Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who has focused on minor reductions in energy bills and capping bus ticket prices at two pounds. The IFS concluded that no amount of such temporary relief could fix the underlying issue of stagnant real household disposable income, which has seen virtually no growth in the seven years since the pre-pandemic baseline. Separate analysis from the Centre for Social Justice highlighted a different aspect of the fiscal squeeze. The organization identified what it termed a thirty-three billion pound stealth tax on workers, resulting from the continued freezing of income tax thresholds. This policy drags more individuals into paying the basic rate of twenty percent, the higher rate of forty percent, and the top rate of forty-five percent. However, the Centre for Social Justice noted that this additional revenue is effectively wiped out by a three-point-four billion pound increase in benefits payments. Joe Shalam, the policy director at the Centre for Social Justice, pointed out that sickness and disability benefit spending is forecast to exceed one hundred billion pounds by the end of the decade. With six point seven million people currently receiving out-of-work benefits, Shalam argued that public support for protecting the most disadvantaged is reaching a breaking point as the rest of the population faces higher taxes to fund perceived governmental inaction. The reaction from the business community was equally critical. The Confederation of British Industry labeled the Budget a nothing exercise, stating it did not meet the scale of ambition set out by the Prime Minister. The Resolution Foundation, established to support lower and middle-income groups, similarly dismissed the package as doing little to address the sharp challenges facing Britain. This rebuff was particularly stinging for the Chancellor, as the Resolution Foundation was headed by Torsten Bell, the current pensions minister, until just two years ago. Professor David Miles of the Budget Responsibility Committee offered a sobering perspective, describing the overall economic and fiscal position as pretty grim after nearly two decades of shocks and stagnation that have pushed up national debt. Political opposition sharpened the critique regarding specific tax policies. Shadow Chancellor Andrew Griffith warned that levying billions of pounds in extra taxes on major banks would backfire on consumers. He argued that mortgage rates, already extremely high, would have to increase to compensate banks for the higher tax burden. Richard Walker, a Labour peer and former cost-of-living adviser, reinforced this sentiment, urging the government to make it easier for businesses to grow rather than squeezing them. Walker described the current environment as complicated, hard, and expensive for enterprise, asserting that business is not an endless piggy bank. Internal dissent within the government further complicated the narrative. Alex Depledge, the Treasury’s entrepreneurship lead, announced her resignation this week. Depledge compared her initial integration into the Treasury to organ rejection, claiming officials attempted to sideline her upon her arrival last year. She criticized the government for treating entrepreneurs as a sideshow compared to legacy industries like car manufacturing and steel production. Her departure embarrassed the Chancellor, whose Budget rhetoric had promised support for bloody-minded entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, the Office for Budget Responsibility maintained that the UK’s economic and fiscal situation remains very challenging, citing the cumulative effect of recent historical shocks. The debate extends beyond immediate fiscal metrics to longer-term strategic direction. Some commentators argue that the Budget fails to leverage emerging technologies to boost productivity. They suggest that artificial intelligence offers a pathway to transform public services, particularly the National Health Service, which holds extensive patient data. Proponents of this view contend that integrating AI could enable preventative healthcare, reducing long-term costs and improving outcomes. They argue that the current focus on traditional tax and spend mechanisms ignores the potential for technological innovation to resolve deep-seated inefficiencies in sectors where spending has grown faster than the broader economy. Despite these arguments for a technological pivot, the immediate consensus among economic analysts and political opponents remained focused on the perceived inadequacy of the current measures to stimulate sustainable growth.