Rachel Reeves can’t win, can she?

I completely agree that further increases in debt are not an option. So that leaves either:

1. Further increases in taxation which will further slow the economy
2. Cuts in Government spending which are unacceptable to Labour backbenchers.

So in answer to OP's original question then yes Reeves can't win either way and the net result is doom loop of managed economic decline where tax rises slow the economy which reduces taxation revenues are reduced, this results in a need for further tax rises (this budget) which further slows the economy and so on.

A bust economy affects all of us.

Will the extra UC for families with more than 2 DC be immediate, or will they have to wait until next April?

Apart from the fact we can't really take on any more debt because the markets will charge a punitive price.

So we do have to live within our means by balancing taxation and spending. There is no more putting it on the tab.

It's called being in power.

Every decision you make is going to annoy some people and some people are going to make some noise about it.

Time to woman up, decide what the party stands for and implement it in spite of the internet.

Otherwise you are just a leaf blown around in the wind.

That's a very good analysis and summary.

It’s also the approach of the treasury now, run by Torsten Bell. He pioneered analysing every policy to see what effect it will have on different income segments of society and then prioritising the effect on the lowest 10%.

This sounds fine and nice and even noble. But running this playbook consistently drives the whole economy down. Yes, relative poverty reduces, a good thing, but this is achieved by pulling everyone else down. I don’t think Torsten actively wants to squash the top and middle. He just doesn’t care. Their well being is incidental.

The problem is that Labour aren't able, due to the membership of the party and their base, to do what is needed. Which is lower tax lower spending. If your base is the benefits class and you are making decisions in their interests, this is not really going to be a successful economy. We will I bet see this in the Budget. Higher welfare spending rather than cuts, and higher tax which won't raise any more money. So we spend significantly more than we earn. Plus £20billion/month servicing our ever growing debt. Thats on Labour.

Very true. Things actually work.

@WhisperingAngelisnotbad RR has counterparts who , with the exception of Brexit, are also dealing with the aftermath of Covid, major wars and fuel crises. She seems to blunder from one miscalculation to another without thought of the consequences to the economy or population.

I think they get good services for their taxes and unemployment is transitional not permanent for most people. That is very different to the UK.

Rachel Reeves can’t win? No she can’t. Neither can Keir Starmer. Neither could Rishi Sunak. All decent politicians - compared to Boris Johnson and co - but the hand they have all been dealt is impossible. The aftermath of covid and Brexit and major wars and fuel crises etc.

Youve slightly missed my point. I think morals come into it. I think its immoral to have such a large state that we can't afford it and the whole country will be wrecked. Labour need to cut spending including welfare not make low earners (or anyone including high earners who pay more than their fair sharw and have done for many years) pay more.

You can't make working people already struggling pay more to support those on benefits that could actually work. Thats immoral.

How is it a recipe for social cohesion to tax the 'rich' till the pips squeak and leave the country? Or high earners to say F it and withhold their toil to join the middle earners below 100K.

This will leave the middle to low earners to do the heavy lifting to support the non-contributors. Perhaps that is Labour's end goal.

I am not sure morals come into this.

It would surely be immoral to tax low earners more to support those on benefits particularly those who have never contributed? Perhaps that's where we are heading. Not a recipe for social cohesion.

It would be lower earning workers too.

If you ignore the fact that the UK has millions of economically inactive working-age people, the comparison will always look flattering to the Nordics. But those countries tax everyone more heavily, not just the rich. Middle-income and even lower income workers pay significantly higher income taxes + VAT at 25%. They also have a sovereign wealth fund so don't need the rich as much as the UK does.

This 💯

Sure. I’m just interested in what the under-taxed middle would be in UK terms, on the ‘Scandinavian’ comparison - presumably including Sweden, Denmark and Finland, as well as Norway.

Would it be a big tax hike for those earning, say, £30k or £60k, or what? Where’s the ‘UK middle’?

Second that

Norway has 5 million people and is the richest country in the world per capita. I don't really think we can relate much sadly.

What - out of genuine interest - would be the ‘middle’, income-wise, that would pay more tax that would get us closer to a Scandinavian model?

Yes nails it

According to the latest DWP data (Oct 2025), there are 2.6 million UC (Universal Credit) claimants in employment, which is about 33% of all Universal Credit claimants.
I would query how many of this 33% are working part time only and receiving top ups.
It’s a question of choice. I would spend the money differently, on sure start centres or more targeted help. The reality is in a metric basis children are removed from poverty. But is the money reaching children and improving outcomes?