Economy

Refugees could contribute £266,000 each to the UK economy: that’s the claim made by the Together with Refugees coalition and the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union in a report that says ‘fair and humane changes to the asylum system’ could benefit Britain. Unfortunately, something isn’t quite adding up. Spectator Verify has investigated, and we’ve found that not only is the £266,000 figure highly dubious, but that it’s reasonable to believe the policies proposed could have a significant net cost to the economy. The report makes no secret of the fact its proposals are extremely expensive The report, ‘Welcoming growth: the economic case for a fair and humane asylum system’, proposes

Andrew Bailey recently claimed that the Bank of England has saved the government £125 billion. The Bank’s governor was responding to criticism from Reform deputy leader Richard Tice that the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street has cost taxpayers a fortune. Just weeks earlier, Reform leader Nigel Farage questioned the very idea of central bank independence, suggesting he might replace Bailey if he became prime minister. So is the Bank of England too independent for its own good? Independence, once a shield against politics, has become a licence for technocracy The concept of central bank ‘independence’ has certainly morphed into something it was never intended to be. Independence wasn’t about granting unelected officials

Keir Starmer’s ‘reset’ talks between the UK and EU are continuing. Having agreed in principle to renewing the post-Brexit diplomatic and economic relationship in May, there is now negotiation over the details. Naturally enough, some of these negotiations concern money – and specifically how much the UK will pay to Brussels. Many EU programmes require funding for complex administration – the processes and institutions agreeing, detailing and enforcing common rules – and set-aside funds to deal with contingencies. Obviously the UK isn’t seeking to rejoin the EU as a whole, so its participation in these programmes will be circumscribed and, accordingly, any financial contribution it makes will be likewise less

What a week. Seven days ago, we were wondering what Rachel Reeves was up to with her pre-Budget messaging. At the start of this week the future of the Prime Minister was seriously called into doubt with a bunch of calamitous late-night briefings to the media. At the end of the daftest seven days in British politics since 2022, it’s as if the Chancellor called up No. 10 and said: ‘Hold my beer.’ At 10 p.m. yesterday, the FT – the constitutionally expected route through which the Treasury leaks – revealed that Labour is ditching plans to raise income tax by 2p in the pound. One Labour MP noted: ‘We rolled the

If Rachel Reeves was hoping for a glimmer of good news in today’s GDP figures, she has been left disappointed. We now have a whole year of data since she delivered her first Budget, and it does not look good. Labour’s promise to put ‘growth, growth, growth” at the heart of the economy looks increasingly forlorn. She may have to rethink her standard attack line of accusing Liz Truss of ‘crashing the economy’, on the grounds that it could equally well apply to her. When Labour came to power in July 2024, economic growth was enjoying a fillip – GDP had increased by 0.6 per cent over the previous quarter.

Worry not, dear taxpayer, there are more bills for you to pay. Not only must you pay for the lockdown that kept you in your cramped apartment for a disease that didn’t affect you, and don’t forget the deficit payments of over £100 billion a year – really, you should just shrug it off. Even if you have your expensive degree, which creates negligible returns, and levelled with record living costs and taxation, you can of course pay for more benefits for a small minority of retired people who didn’t pay attention to changes in their state pension benefit. Let’s be clear – in 1993 when Ken Clarke announced a change to

There were cheers in the Treasury in September when statisticians found an unexpected £2 billion ‘down the back of the sofa.’ The tax man had underreported VAT receipts to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and it meant Britain’s borrowing figures for the current year had been overestimated. A lucky discovery for HMT but an indictment of Britain’s statistical systems.  At the ONS headquarters in Newport, morale is collapsing. The agency, long criticised for data blunders, has become a symbol of a deeper crisis: Britain’s economic numbers can no longer be trusted. Across government, the data infrastructure that underpins policymaking is crumbling. Surveys have shrunk, sample sizes have collapsed, and

As New York’s wealthy elite weigh up the options under their new ‘democratic socialist’ Mayor Zohran Mamdani, many of them are now reported to be considering fleeing to London instead. But will it really offer them the safe harbour they are searching for? The truth is that under the Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Mayor Sadiq Khan, Britain’s capital has become an even worse place to be rich than the city they are looking to get out of.  There are plenty of reasons for American billionaires to feel nervous about the Mamdani regime. The new mayor has promised an extra 2 per cent tax on incomes above $1 million (£758,000)

It is time to win again. Britain does not have to be in decline. The state of our country today is the result of the choices our politicians have made. Through their indecision and incompetence, they chose to prioritise consensus in committee rooms over progress, and over us. Be in no doubt: none of this was inevitable. They did this. They chose to effectively make theft legal, and to preside over declining living standards and little economic growth. Our national story has never been one of surrender, or acceptance of mediocrity In the run-up to the Budget, our political class remain stuck in the same tired conversations that have characterised