A question of competence

Despite one or two glitches with her CV, Rachel Reeves is supposedly highly qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some would argue that this fact alone should have mitigated against her appointment, simply because she is likely to take a technical approach to managing the nation's finances rather than a political one.

Given her qualifications, how then can we excuse the latest blunder, which not only raises questions about whether the Treasury are able to use a calculator, but also makes us doubt their, and Labour's, commitment to protecting the poorest in our society?

The Guardian reports that Reeves is planning to make additional welfare cuts in her spring statement this afternoon after the Office for Budget Responsibility rejected her estimate of savings from the changes announced last week.

The paper says that it is understood final estimates from the OBR suggested the changes announced by Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, which included tightening the criteria for the personal independence payment, would not save the £5bn needed to meet Reeves’s self-imposed fiscal rules:

The chancellor is expected to announce an additional £500m in benefits cuts to make up part of the £1.6bn shortfall, first reported by the Times – with the rest of the gap filled by spending cuts elsewhere.

Reeves and her team were already braced for a renewed backlash over welfare as they prepared to publish impact assessments alongside Wednesday’s statement, which will show the full impact of the cuts.

The additional measures are expected to include freezing the extra universal credit payment made to those people least able to work until 2030, after an initial cut.

Some frontbenchers had previously suggested they could quit over a proposed freeze to Pip, which was not included in Kendall’s package.

With some analysts warning that even after promising spending cuts, Reeves may still have to increase taxes to meet rapidly growing pressure for higher defence spending, Labour are hardly projecting confidence in their competence to manage the nation's books.