The recently announced spring Budget by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt includes cuts to national insurance, changes in child benefits, and levies on vaping products, amidst opposition critique over increased living costs and deteriorating services.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt recently announced the spring Budget, making several key alterations including a 2 per cent cut to national insurance, modifications to child benefits, the introduction of a levy on vaping products, and significant changes to the ‘non-dom’ tax status. These changes come amidst critique from Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer, who accused the government of increasing costs for citizens while services deteriorate, particularly highlighting the ongoing cost of living crisis.
The Budget includes the extension of the Household Support Fund (HSF) for an additional six months, aimed at assisting vulnerable households, although some have expressed concerns over the brief extension period. Further relief efforts include the doubling of the budgeting advance loan repayment period for Universal Credit recipients to 2 years and the removal of the application fee for Debt Relief Orders starting from 6 April. However, with benefits set to increase by only 6.7 per cent from 1 April, amid higher inflation rates, critics argue that the measures may not sufficiently address the growing poverty gap in the UK.
Despite the £800 million support fund extension for England’s struggling households, charities have labeled it a temporary solution, warning of a potential increase in hardship by winter without a lasting crisis support system. Organizations like the Trussell Trust and Turn2us stress the need for tackling poverty’s root causes, emphasizing that the country lacks a permanent support mechanism for those facing financial emergencies.
Chancellor Hunt also suggested a drive towards reducing state expenditure, indirectly criticising council spending on consultants and diversity projects as unjustifiable. However, research from the Centre for Progressive Policy disputes this assertion, indicating that consultant use often stems from a lack of in-house expertise due to staffing and resource constraints. Additionally, the expenditure on diversity schemes, which is minimal, plays a crucial role in enhancing service delivery, contrary to the Chancellor’s implications.
Overall, the Budget has introduced measures aimed at providing immediate relief to vulnerable groups and attempting fiscal responsibility. Nonetheless, the responses and critiques highlight a complex debate on addressing long-term issues of poverty, council funding, and the effectiveness of the proposed changes in combating the cost of living crisis in the UK.
