Will Rachel Reeves bend her fiscal rules to help balance the books?

Unlock the editor’s digest in free

FT editor Raula Khalaf selected his favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Rachel Reeves was stubborn. After announcing the $ 40 billion of higher taxes at his first budget last October and about £ 70bn extra £ 70bn, the Chancellor told a business audience that he painted a line in sand.

“I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more orrow taxes,” he told the CBI employer agency last November that the public financial money is now in “steps”.

These words are not well adult, such as Reeves face a summer in the summer that he will be in the clustrophobic limitations of his revenue rules – or both – or orrows – or both – or both will be forced to increase.

Reeves got some comfort from the IMF on Tuesday, which said the Chancellor’s financial strategy was “credible and growing-friendly”. However, it was warned that it has “significant risk” related to supply, it is necessary to increase the extra tax or to deduct the cost “if a push appears”.

IMF, which spent several weeks with Treasurer before checking its annual “Article Fourth” in the British Economy, suggested Tweet to the UK financial structure To promote “policy stability” in the budget.

Problems are piling: Cost of taking orrow Growing up and trying to save money to overcome the benefits of the Chancellor has strongly opposed the public and the labor MPs, whose tolerance for cuts seems to be over.

Last week, the government’s $ 1.5 billion in the government’s $ 1.5 billion plans to restrict how many pensioners of Sir Care Starrs took over the winter fuel. Now he wants to cut the conservative-age two-infant benefit cap at a cost of $ 3.5 billion.

Add to the predictions of medium-term growth in transparency, Donald Trump’s trade war and budget responsibilities and the disadvantages of the office have become clear in the potential downgrade of the forecast for the productivity of the office.

Some economists have regarded the £ 9.9bn headroom of Reeves against his financial rules, and he must find a few billion pounds to balance the books.

“The [fiscal] Stephen Millard, the interim director of the National Economic and Social Research Institute, said the rules were going to be broken.

He added, “If the Chancellor currently planned his plan does not match him. But I will be interested in raising the higher rate of income tax even if I am not the initial rate.”

“It’s pretty inevitable that he has to raise taxes because I do not see what I can’t see.”

Senior Research Economist Isabel Studies of the Institute for Fisheries Studies, Isabel Studies, said the government could still get “lucky” but it would definitely “probably give something else” to pay “to increase the public expenditure, scraping such a two-infant benefit cap to permanently increase for public expenditure.

“There are plenty of options here, but it is always difficult to increase the original amount in such a way that without touching the three big taxes,” they added.

Reeves allies emphasized that the Chancellor would not use his next autumn budget to free up his financial rules and free it from his financial straw. “They are non-negotiable,” said one. Reeves have called them “iron clad”.

However, the IMF has suggested that in the future OBR only operates a single annual evaluation of the budget – budget time – the budget time – the budget period.

Funds want to stop constant public imagination about the financial “headroom” and probably increases the tax that they think that the government is responsible for the weak decision taken in the government. IMF officials have noted that no other country is so obsessed with its public financing.

The Treasury would like to see this event to avoid the kind of chaos that could avoid the spring statement in March, when OBR’s forecast was forced to make $ 14 billion in the last -minute savings to stay within its financial rules.

James Smith, director of the Resolution Foundation, said the problem was not only a specific goal, but the headroom had “very high levels of low level”, which means that the government needed to strengthen the policy to give a push.

OBR is the mandatory responsibility of predicting the law of Parliament of 20, who is currently evaluating whether the government is fulfilling its financial rules. It has to be changed, though the government tweeted OBR’s responsibilities with the complementary law in 2024.

Although it can help the Chancellor avoid more tax growth in the 2026 spring statement, it does nothing to help keep him away from the hook when this year’s budget issue comes, which makes it more problematic a day.