norman lamont there. denis healey a couple of times in the 70s.hi sunak�*s mid pandemic tax rise. where will rachel reeves sit among her male predecessors? this is where we think her budget will stand, not far off the biggest tax rise in recent memory, expected to be about £40 billion per year. let's dig down on that. about half of that will be in the form of a rise in employer national insurance. not, say labour, part of their manifesto promise. the rest could come from capital gains, inheritance tax, may be fuel duty. it seems like a huge amount, but previous government did not leave enough cash in their day—to—day kitty for public services. they say there is a £22 billion hole in spending. £5 billion in manifesto promises, like nhs queues. and to end austerity, to protect all department budgets, from inflation. at least £16 billion per year. and this doesn't include one—off costs of billions for compensation for inflected blood and post office horizon scandals. the important thing is, whatever they spend down here will have to be matched by tax

you will see norman lamont is in here, denis healey, rishi sunak and his mid—pandemic tax rises.f the briefings are correct this is where we think are budget will stand, not far from the biggest tax rise in recent memory, expected to be about £40 billion, about half of that will be in the form of a rise in employer national insurance stop the rest could come from all these measures here because of that does seem like a huge amount and why is that? the government argues the previous one simply didn't leave enough cash in the kitty for the day—to—day running of public services. they say there is a £22 billion black hole including for public sector pay. there were £5 million in manifesto promises, then £16 billion class to under 30, to protect all department budgets from inflation. this doesn't include one—off costs for compensation like for the infected blood or the post office horizon scandals. so this 0ffice horizon scandals. so this gives you the scale of the change. the important thing is, whatever they spend here is going to have to be matched by tax rises here. this is the ch

you'll see norman lamont in there. rishi sunak�*s mid—pandemic tax rise. but where will rachel reeves�* budget sit among all her male predecessors? if the briefings are correct, this is where we think her budget will stand. not far off the biggest tax—riser in recent memory. expected to be about £40bn per year. lets dig down on that. about half of that will be in the form of a rise to employer national insurance. not say labour part of their manifesto promise. the rest could come from capital gains, inheritance tax, maybe fuel duty. it all seems like a huge amount — why so? well, because the government argues the previous one simply did not leave enough cash in the kitty for the day to day running of public services, they say there is a £22 billion "black hole including £9 billion for public sector pay. there were £5 billion in manifesto promises. and to "end austerity" — to protect all departments budgets from inflation — that's at least £16 billion a year. and this does not include one off costs of many billions for

comfortably surpassing denis healey�*s double, gordon brown, rishi sunak mid—pandemic, beaten only by norman lamontax—raising measures, 40 billion in fact in a year — we're showing you 2028—29 here as an example. it includes that employers' national insurance, raising 25 billion, although 5 billion is paid by the government. we have capital gains and inheritance tax raising 4 billion in that year. and the crackdown on non—doms, £3 billion in that year. but it's also a budget with some big spending going on. departments will get an extra £49 billion a year to cover things including pay — much of that will go to the nhs. there's £2 billion for compensation payments for the infected blood and the post office scandal. and then £24 billion extra in this year, long—term investment in major capital projects — road, rail, hospitals. all of that added together far exceeds what is raised in tax — by over £30 billion and that will be funded by extra borrowing. it's worth a pause — these are all massive numbers on any ordinary scale. and keep an eye on this one, which happens every year and is enabled by the c

it's the most since norman lamont in 1993.including tax rises on inheritance, capital gains, and employer national insurance contributions. controversial list given that labor had said there would be no tax rises beyond what was promised in its manifesto. and yet, for all of this, the fiscal watchdog predicts that the package is only going to marginally increase growth. indeed, looking out the statistics from the office of budget responsibility, the fiscal watchdog only sees the economy growing marginally, and it sees it smaller by not .1% that it was forecast to be in march under the conservative government. and even though this growth is going to be anemic, the package is expected to slow the pace, which the bank of england could cut rates because of the inflationary impact via high minimum wage and via this 142 billion pound increase. we look at the gilt market reaction yesterday, you can see where rachel reeves was speaking on the first line when she sat down, the second yellow line, and then this pretty ferocious selloff

two big gambles, one political and one economic and the political one is that, john major and norman lamont rises, criticising the labour party for their plans and a 1993 norman lamont had to put in place one of the biggest tax rises and history and the conservative reputation for economic competence never recovered in the 905. the political risk being taken today is a big tax ri5e5 when it clearly i know there's a what of argument about what was ruled out and what was not at the tone of the election campaign was no tax rises, everything is fully funded. we will clearly get a big tax rise and the political gamble i5 clearly get a big tax rise and the political gamble is that by and the next election voters will have forgotten the tax rise and the money that has been raised or made sufficient deference to public services, voters will say ok it was worth it. the economic risk she is taking as the additional borrowing for infrastructure and changes to fiscal rules. again that is probably more significant in terms of raw that lead to an improvement in economic performance or something that mark