Rachel Reeves is facing mounting criticism following her spring statement, which many fear will deepen the UK’s economic and social woes.
When we asked for your views, many were concerned about the chancellor’s £14bn package and accused Reeves of balancing the books “on the backs of the chronic sick and disabled” while protecting wealthier interests.
Improving living standards topped readers’ priorities in a poll, with 35 per cent saying Reeves should have focused on this in her spring statement, followed by tax reform (19 per cent) and driving economic growth and job creation (15 per cent).
These results were echoed in the comments, with the decision to cut welfare spending, despite claims it would push people into work rather than poverty, being labelled by readers as a re-run of failed Tory austerity.
Many argued that benefits like Universal Credit and housing support primarily prop up low wages and the rental market, benefiting businesses and landlords more than claimants. Several called for structural reforms such as taxing capital gains like income, introducing rent controls, and restoring social housing, rather than targeting the poorest.
Frustration was also directed at Reeves personally, with criticism of her acceptance of concert freebies and the growing view that she is “out of touch.”
Amid warnings from economists about a likely “blockbuster” autumn budget, many readers expressed anger and disappointment, fearing that Labour is adopting the same short-sighted economic orthodoxy they had hoped to reject.
Here’s what you had to say:
Resignation call
I want to see the resignation of Reeves and Starmer so that the real Labour Party can get on with the job of rebuilding the UK. Meanwhile, instead of dishing out money on building houses, buy up empty ones and deal with the ludicrous rental market. This lot have no idea about the economy and what is wrong with it at all.
mindful
Fix the housing crisis
Simples… tax capital gains at the same rate as income tax. Charge pensioners 2 per cent national insurance (NI) to cover NHS costs.
Remove the NI hike from employers, and introduce local council-led rent controls.
All of this would raise more money, whilst reducing costs to businesses and stopping councils from using council tax to subsidise private landlords.
chrispykreme
UC top-up is not a benefit for poor people
The UC top-up for working people is not a benefit for poor people, it’s a benefit for business owners that allows them to pay wages that people can’t survive on. Increase the minimum wage to a genuinely liveable amount and this will reduce UC spending.
Similarly, the housing benefit/the UC housing element is not for the benefit of the claimant, they’re a benefit for landlords. Stop selling off council housing, replace the stock that was sold off by building or by claiming empty homes/commercial buildings, and you’ll also reduce UC spending.
To sustainably reduce sickness/disability benefits, the NHS and social care need to be properly funded. We have more disabled people because we’re not caring for sick people properly, and we’re not providing the care that those who are already disabled need to live healthier and more independent lives.
If we’re going to be entirely mercenary about this and only value a person based on the benefit they provide to society and whether they’re “economically active”, we also need to recognise that paid work isn’t the only way people contribute. Activities like childcare, caring for adults, and volunteering reduce the need for government funding and we need to recognise that people who are too unwell or elderly for regular paid work are doing a lot of this kind of work instead. You’re not saving money if you now have to pay someone to do what they were doing for free.
Cutting everything without any care for the knock-on effects is just Tory austerity all over again. It didn’t create a sustainable system the first time, it made people sicker and poorer and left us in the situation we’re in now. We need genuine change, not the same short-sighted demonising nonsense all over again.
I Like Armadillos
If a job can’t pay enough, is it really a job?
If there is a job that a benefit claimant can do and it’s available, they must accept that role or lose the benefit.
Rent claimants should only receive the equivalent to local council house rental values, and landlords should not be allowed to charge more.
The sale of any council housing property should be abolished. It is just not viable to sell them privately and maintain enough social housing. Why is there a discount given to buy council property? It just does not make sense.
Any job should be paid enough to cover the cost without any form of subsidy, otherwise, it’s not really a job, is it? If a job doesn’t warrant enough money, what is the point of the job?
Martyn
Balancing the books
Reeves is balancing the books of her disastrous November budget on the backs of the chronically sick and disabled while she accepts free tickets to be seen with those who are so much more well-off. What goes around, comes around.
Kernow
Just because they call themselves the Labour Party…
Look, I don’t understand why poor old Rachel is getting so much stick. It’s been obvious for some time that getting old, being disabled, and having a terminal illness are all lifestyle choices. Why should the well-off have to subsidise people who have chosen to live like that? Also, just because they call themselves the Labour Party, you shouldn’t automatically assume they have anything in common or affiliation with a party that traditionally cared about ordinary people….
BillyHunt
Genuine poverty
Failure to address genuine poverty and the growing differential in income while failing to maintain and upgrade infrastructure and public sector service delivery will never create the environment for growth, while the UK suffers low productivity and reliance on imports from low-wage, low-environmental-standards and poor working conditions.
The West has relied on imports of high-human-input products from its ex-Empire while selling its technologies and machinery to developing nations, each in turn destroying the West’s ability to grow or prosper. Trump’s tariffs will not solve that — they’ll simply create domestic inflation and increased poverty. Without redistribution of wealth and an end to the ‘greed is good’ mindset, the West will decline — seemingly the UK government policy.
Topsham1
Fixed it for you, Rachel
Performative cruelty on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, hidden behind a made-up fiscal rule as justification. Solution:
- Reduce interest rates to 3 per cent in line with inflation and the ECB interest rate — saves the public money on mortgages and limits rent increases, and saves the government tens of billions in interest payments on the BoE reserve account balance (circa £800 billion).
- Tier the interest payable on the BoE reserve account in line with other central banks such as the ECB and Bank of Japan, e.g., full three per cent on the first £200 billion, then reduced interest rates on the remaining £600 billion.
- Junk the fiscal rules fiasco and absorb the OBR corner of the Treasury back into the Treasury.
These three actions would raise enough money per annum to avoid punishing the poor, invest in defence, the NHS, public services, and provide investment capital to grow the economy. The only losers would be the banks by not being able to siphon off quite so much from the Treasury. There, fixed it for you, Rachel.
Inspector
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.
The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.
