The Chancellor’s spending review is being billed by Labour as a signal moment for a government that is haunted by banana skins of its own making.

It paints events as a moment for national renewal after 14 years of Tory chaos. It is nothing of the kind. 

An analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows, despite the hype and hand-outs for favoured constituencies, Rachel Reeves barely moved the dial on capital investment spending.

All she did was maintain capital budgets, such as those for science and tech, at the same ‘high’ level of national income as Jeremy Hunt, the most recent Conservative Chancellor. IFS’s director Paul Johnson doesn’t pull his punches.

He says if anyone was ‘baffled’ by the Chancellor’s speech ‘so were we’. He goes on to suggest that it wasn’t a serious effort to provide useful information to anybody.

It also exposed Reeves’s ineptitude in framing arguments. There was no attempt to elevate and explain the spend, with focus on the white heat of technology, in terms of the nuclear, digital, and biotech revolution which will change Britain forever. 

Pride before the fall: The Chancellor believes her fiscal rules, which require current spending to be matched by taxation, but allow borrowing for investment, have secured the UK’s budget 

Instead, there was revived talk of ‘securonomics’ (buried since Labour has been in office) and misleading crowing about the state of the economy.

The boast that the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of the year was accurate. But as Reuters reported yesterday it was a case of ‘pride comes before a fall’.

Reeves and her team must have had early sight of the April growth data which showed output shrank by 0.3 per cent. A big factor was Trump’s tariff war, which caused car, steel and other exports to stumble.

One might have thought someone at the Treasury, or a special adviser, might gently have suggested the G7 comparison was a rhetorical trap which might have been avoided. The April data may be rogue because of Trump tariff uncertainty.

The Government hopes the trumpeted trade accord with the US will soon come to fruition and the UK’s upmarket car makers – Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley, and Rolls-Royce and the more eclectic Mini – will soon be back to normal business.

However, it will take time for the logistics and supply chain to be revised. The downturn also was partly the result of policy.

The end to concessions on stamp duty predictably produced a lull in home sales, despite the good househunting weather and the easing of the bank rate.

Tax does make a difference. It is not wise for a government making a big bet on the housing market to bypass it as a recovery tool by punishing homebuyers, especially younger people seeking the first rung on the ladder.

There is one G7 table which Rachel Reeves didn’t mention.

The Chancellor believes her fiscal rules, which require current spending to be matched by taxation but allow borrowing for investment, have secured the UK’s budget after the Liz Truss disorder. 

Markets don’t believe it. The yield on Britain’s ten-year bond – or gilt – at 4.5 per cent in latest trading is the highest among the rich Western democracies.

Reeves makes the reasonable case that UK yields move in lockstep with those in New York.

There is, however, a serious flaw in the thinking. The Chancellor appears to believe that if the current budget is in balance, it is fine to borrow to invest.

That may be the case in Japan and Germany, where bond rates are 1.46 per cent and 2.53 per cent respectively, because their governments’ overall interest bill is, by UK standards, under control.

In Britain’s case, every pound that is borrowed for a new roundabout or bypass behind the Red Wall comes with interest at high rates.

So the extra borrowing for Labour’s £2 trillion or so of capital spend inflates the current budget via borrowing charges. In the autumn, the Treasury estimated the interest bill for 2025-26 at £126billion.

If gilts had a similar yield to the German bund there would be an extra £60billion or so for education, health or even an end to the freeze on income tax thresholds which punish hard work and enterprise.

Britain’s national accounts do not provide a free pass for capital projects.

DIY INVESTING PLATFORMS

AJ Bell

AJ Bell

Easy investing and ready-made portfolios

Hargreaves Lansdown

Hargreaves Lansdown

Free fund dealing and investment ideas

interactive investor

interactive investor

Flat-fee investing from £4.99 per month

InvestEngine

InvestEngine

Account and trading fee-free ETF investing

Trading 212

Trading 212

Free share dealing and no account fee

Affiliate links: If you take out a product This is Money may earn a commission. These deals are chosen by our editorial team, as we think they are worth highlighting. This does not affect our editorial independence.

Compare the best investing account for you