Outpoll | Brexit has had ‘severe and long lasting’ impact on economy, says Reeves, as she confirms budget tax rises

News
AI
Brexit has had ‘severe and long lasting’ impact on economy, says Reeves, as she confirms budget tax rises – UK politics live

Brexit has had ‘severe and long lasting’ impact on economy, says Reeves, as she confirms budget tax rises – UK politics live

MAMark Johnson

2 days ago7 min read7 comments

The political arena crackled with tension as Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered her stark economic assessment, framing Brexit not as a distant political decision but as a live grenade still rolling through Britain's economic corridors. Reeves didn't merely list Brexit; she weaponized it, placing it in a devastating trifecta alongside years of austerity and the explosive Liz Truss mini-budget—a strategic move that felt less like a fiscal report and more like the opening salvo in a carefully orchestrated campaign ad against the previous administration.This was political jujitsu, using the opposition's own legacy as a battering ram. Meanwhile, across the partisan divide, a different kind of battle was unfolding, one centered on a potent but questionable claim from Helen Whately.Her conference speech assertion that 'millions' on benefits received free Motability cars was a classic piece of political theater, designed to paint a picture of a system rife with dependency. It was a soundbite engineered for resonance, not accuracy, and Radio 4's 'More or Less' swiftly fact-checked it into oblivion, exposing the gap between campaign rhetoric and on-the-ground reality.This factual misstep creates a significant vulnerability for the Conservatives, particularly for figures like Kemi Badenoch, who has promised a crackdown. Badenoch's pledge to prevent individuals with specific conditions like ADHD from accessing these vehicles reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how disability assessments actually function—they evaluate need and mobility, not diagnostic labels.To fulfill such a promise wouldn't be a simple policy tweak; it would necessitate a radical, top-to-bottom demolition and reconstruction of the entire disability benefits framework, a legislative and administrative war that would consume immense political capital and ignite fierce public backlash. The juxtaposition is telling: a government deploying historical economic analysis as a political cudgel, and an opposition struggling to align its compelling, simplified narratives with the messy, complex mechanics of governance. We are witnessing not just a debate over budgets and benefits, but a masterclass in political framing, where every economic indicator and every welfare statistic becomes a pawn in a larger game for public trust and electoral advantage.