This was in the foreword of the OBR's report. Agree with @peston it's weird that despite sending Rachel Reeves its *final* forecasts on 31 October (with all details about tax take more than wiping out productivity deficit) she still went ahead with Downing Street speech laying groundwork for income tax rate rise four days later. And then a week after *that* she doubled down on rate rise in interview with @bbc, responding to a question on it by saying: "It would, of course be possible to stick with the manifesto commitments, but that would require things like deep cuts in capital spending". Yet days later - after a very bumpy week for Keir Starmer's leadership - it emerged she had opted not to go ahead with plan, with Treasury sources briefing that tax take from higher than expected wage growth meant she didn't need to proceed. Hard to escape feeling that this was a political choice amid anxiety over fall-out from manifesto breach. If not then why stick with the narrative for so long with all the market implications that entails?🤷

Higher taxes and weaker borders. That’s what Keir Starmer stands for. 21 hours to stop the Labour supermajority.