Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Mel Stride and Alex Ballinger

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

That brings me to another point, which is that the Chancellor has taken a conscious decision to reduce the headroom, in the primary target, from around £24 billion to £15 billion. That is a mistake. If he had taken the radical measures necessary to get on top of public spending, particularly the welfare bill, he could have increased the headroom. He talks about the risks ahead—that is the very reason why we have the buffer of that headroom. If we have low headroom, we end up paying a premium on the debt servicing costs to which my right hon. Friend just referred.

The average headroom that Chancellors have come forward with since the instigation of the OBR runs at about 1.4% of GDP. In today’s terms, that would be about £40 billion of headroom. We are now down to £15 billion. Members across the House should therefore not be surprised if the Chancellor comes back at a future date and tells us, just as was the case with his predecessor, that the headroom has entirely evaporated, once again, because of reasons beyond his control. This is a mañana Budget. This is a Budget kicks the can down the road.

When the Chancellor resigned as Secretary of State for Defence, he made it very clear that his resignation from Government was nothing to do with the defenestration of the previous Prime Minister, and was instead a matter of principle: he did not believe that our country was going to be adequately protected as a result of not coming up with the money to fund the 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. He now has his hands on the levers, and he has failed to do even that on this occasion.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in his statement, the Chancellor he did commit to reaching 3% of GDP by 2030. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Conservatives reached 2.7% of GDP on defence?

[Sir Mel Stride]

We will have to look very closely at the wording that the Chancellor used, because my recollection is that he said that the Government would be committed to the NATO target of 3.5% by 2035, with a target to reach 3% by the end of 2030. The word “target” is not the same as the word “commitment” when it comes to reaching that particular figure. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman looks closely at that.

When it comes to this Chancellor and his principles, I am reminded of the late Groucho Marx, who said,

“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.”

It seems to me that that is where we are on this particular matter.

The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly correct in identifying the unrealistic expectations and assumptions contained within the numbers the OBR has had to work with. While the OBR sets out its assessment of what various interventions will mean for growth, inflation and so on, it has to take at face value the spending envelope that the Government come forward with, which was inherited from the Chancellor’s predecessor. As we know, that spending envelope sees a very strong squeeze in spending right at the end of the forecast period. In fact, if health spending increases in the spending review next year by 2.7% in real terms, as it did in the last review, and the 3% defence target is met, there will be a black hole of £20 billion in the figures that the Chancellor has just presented.

We have seen the march of the PuFins—public financial institutions—in the Budget measures that have just been announced. We have seen £20.4 billion placed in the National Wealth Fund. Make no mistake: it should be clearly understood that this is additional borrowing. It does not matter whether it falls within the current definition of debt—the public sector net financial liabilities definition—and would have fallen outside the old definition of public sector net debt; the reality is that it is more money that this Government are borrowing.

Taxes

Debate between Mel Stride and Alex Ballinger

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

I agree. Of course, higher taxes are bearing down on living standards, but so is inflation. We have the highest level of inflation in the G7 and are forecast to have the highest in the G7 next year, too. Within that sits food inflation, which is running way above the headline rate of inflation. Who does that impact the most? It impacts the very people that Labour professes to stand up for the strongest: the poorest in our society. It is a direct consequence of the policies pursued by this Chancellor.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Chancellor recognise that the previous Government were the only Government in living memory to oversee a reduction in real living standards over the course of five years? Does he accept that the difficult situation with the cost of living is in large part due to his Government’s decisions over those five years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to correct the record, because I know this has been spun by the Labour party. At a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference, there was a long, extended debate about just how bad things are, with speculations about all the “what ifs” and “maybes” of different scenarios. If the hon. Gentleman reads the full transcript of those exchanges, he will see that the point I was very clearly making was that there is an alternative to putting up taxes, which is controlling spending. That is the point I was making.

What is happening to the wealth creators in our country? About 16,000 of them have fled—they are going by the day. These are the people who generate the wealth, jobs and growth that we are all striving to achieve. Look at the cumulative tax take that has just walked out of the door with the 16,000 who have gone—it would probably require a third of a million to half a million people on average earnings to fill that gap. It is not sustainable.

There is an alternative. The Conservatives set out this alternative at our party conference: a way forward through control of Government spending. Government spending could be controlled to the tune of at least £47 billion, which were the savings we identified. Of the £47 billion, £23 billion can be found from the welfare budget by getting people off benefits and into work. It is better for the economy, but equally, for those who have mild mental health conditions such as mild anxiety, mild depression and ADHD, it is a better outcome than parking them on benefits, which the Government are doing through time. By focusing on actual need rather than simply transfer payments and on medical diagnosis rather than self-assessments and by not paying benefits to non-UK citizens, we can make real savings. In some cases they are tough choices, absolutely. However, these are decisions that the Government have made.

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving way. He will of course remember his time as the Work and Pensions Minister, when he oversaw a £33 billion increase in the welfare budget. Of course he is talking about cuts now, but not about welfare cuts, because he had the opportunity to make those cuts and failed to do so. He is talking about cuts to teachers, nurses and our armed forces. Which of those three areas is he talking about cutting right now?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised my tenure at the Department for Work and Pensions, when I was the Secretary of State. I was very clear that we needed to arrest the rising welfare bill, and—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

Why didn’t you, then?

[Sir Mel Stride]

We did, actually. We did arrest it. We made changes to the work capability assessment, which the OBR scored at £5 billion-worth of savings. The OBR also scored the fact that there would be 450,000—almost half a million—fewer people going on to those benefits as a consequence. We had already started a consultation on personal independence payment, which I will come back to in a moment, but it was interrupted by the general election. The first thing the Labour Government did when they came into office was scrap all of that and then come forward with some ill-thought-through proposals that did not survive contact with their own Back Benchers.

There are other areas where we can make savings. The size of the civil service is one. The civil service has grown by 37% since 2016. We could cut it back by 25% and make about £8 billion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) should listen carefully to this, because he is about to sit on those benches on the 26th of this month and listen to his Chancellor come up with some pretty unpalatable things. These are good alternatives that should be taken seriously.

Raising taxes is simply a choice. The Labour Government are too weak to make the choice to control spending, so they fall back on taxes. They had to U-turn on the welfare reforms they brought through, and £5 billion was added to Labour’s black hole in an instant. We have seen the terms of reference for the Timms review of personal independence payment. They show quite clearly that there is no intention of saving any money from the PIP budget. That is grossly irresponsible. It is spiralling ever skyward.

From what we hear, it is highly likely that the two-child limit will be scrapped and abolished. Why? Probably because the Prime Minister, shackled to his Chancellor, is feeling that he is being squeezed halfway out the door of No. 10 and thinks he had better do something to settle the troops on the Back Benches. But that comes with a price tag of £3.5 billion. The only choice that this Chancellor is taking is to fail to get on top of spending and to put up taxes in order to fund ever more welfare.