Changes proposed in the fabled Green Book review could end up being highly consequential and tell us how the government is thinking — which worries me

Rachel Reeves is to allocate between competing priorities with her spending review, and a 2.5 per cent rise for health could mean cuts elsewhere

The rise of Reform and the Greens is healthy for democracy, but not if their manifestos are sheer fantasy 

Public sector pension rules are a mess that helps neither workers nor the government. Fixing them could be a win-win.

Rachel Reeves should consider increasing the basic rate, just as Denis Healey did in 1975 

The tortured maths behind the chancellor’s fiscal headroom suggest her ‘ironclad’ fiscal rules are having unintended consequences on real-world policy

Rachel Reeves gives herself so little room for manoeuvre that she creates costly uncertainty when the choice is obvious: raise taxes or cut spending 

The government’s decision to boost military funding out of international aid felt panicked. But this a watershed moment that needs a proper strategy.

We borrowed and spent more than other countries to respond to the pandemic and the sharp rise in energy prices two years later.

Confusion is built into our approach to net zero. We need to be more pragmatic about whether emissions will genuinely be new. 

"Shifting the performance of an entire economy requires a long-term, consistent and persistent direction." Paul Johnson writes for the Times.

A government with a big majority should have had the political will to do more than just set up another review.