Rachel Reeves’ plan to tax the rich is exactly what this country needs.

There was a time when you could find out directly from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was going to be in the Budget; now most of it is published in the newspapers a few days before. So we have a good idea of ​​what Rachel Reeves will say on Wednesday when she rises to deliver Labour’s first budget in 15 years and the first female chancellor in British history.

We know, for example, that a number of taxes are going up: almost certainly employers’ national insurance, very likely capital gains tax, quite possibly inheritance tax. We know borrowing will also rise: Reeves has adjusted her so-called budget rules to allow an extra £50 billion of investment in new infrastructure. And when it comes to everyday expenses, we’re told the NHS will be a top priority.

There will also be some unpopular changes, such as the government’s decision to raise the maximum bus fare from £2 to £3, which is likely to increase transport costs for millions of low-paid workers. And there will be ongoing debate over Labour’s manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people and whether increasing national insurance for business owners is compatible with this.

But despite all the criticism she’ll face over specific changes, Reeves deserves credit for what she’s trying to do with this budget. The Chancellor had various options in trying to plug the £22bn black hole she insists the Tories left her, none of them particularly palatable. Should it cut costs to recoup some of the money, as George Osborne did with such devastating effect between 2010 and 2015? Should she instead borrow much more money to overhaul public services and risk spooking markets, as her party’s left would like? Should it raise taxes to raise billions but risk slowing economic growth?

Reeves seems to have chosen a smart combination of all three. The plan seems clear: prioritize urgent investments in public services and new infrastructure to keep the economy growing, and pay for it through carefully calibrated tax increases, typically paid by those most able to bear the burden, as well as a small amount of additional borrowing. and some budget cuts elsewhere.

Prioritizing government spending is the right decision. Everyone can see that British services are failing. Ambulances line up outside emergency rooms and patients lie in agony on trolleys in the hallways. Students are crammed into classrooms that have never been fuller. Elderly people wait in vain for health workers who do not come. The police are informed of a crime and there is nothing they can do. Motorists and cyclists avoid potholes on streets that increasingly resemble the surface of the moon.

The British state has ceased to function to the standards we have a right to expect in a developed country like ours. This won’t be resolved in one budget, but Reeves seems to have realized something needs to change. Investing where it’s needed most is a vital start. The public knows this, even if political opponents and right-wing commentators decry any additional tax increases. Polls show that more voters want government services to function even if their own taxes rise than want immediate tax cuts.

Raising some taxes to increase investment in public services is not only the right thing to do, it’s also the politically smart thing to do. Labor ministers know they will be judged most on how they deliver on the changes they promised. If voters want to re-elect a Labor government, they need to start feeling better about themselves – and soon. Reeves understands this. The reported decision to raise the minimum wage by 6 percent—above the rate of inflation—would help more than one million low-wage workers feel better almost overnight. These are the positive changes that people will notice.

But if the government wants to convince voters that the country is truly on the upswing, increasing bank balance sheets by a few pounds won’t be enough. People need to feel that it is becoming easier to see a GP, send their children to their local school or find a decent home. They need to see that the police are actually showing up, that the country’s transport system is starting to work, that the hospitals are not overcrowded. Fixing public services is a key part of Labour’s promised change. And this will require money.

Read more

The provision of money was not inevitable. After years of austerity, Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party went to the polls promising £17 billion a year in tax cuts. With Britain’s public services in crisis, they would likely have to make significant budget cuts to fund their endowments. Reeves takes a much more sensible approach.

However, there is a risk here. The Chancellor must avoid the temptation to simply invest in those areas that will bring the fastest and most tangible results. For example, throwing money at the NHS may help reduce waiting lists in the short term, but will not solve fundamental problems unless accompanied by a program of modernization and a proper plan to improve social care. Likewise, local councils need a whole new funding formula that would allow them to provide services, from road maintenance to help for children with special educational needs, without constantly requiring more handouts from Whitehall. Short-term investments should not be made at the expense of long-term changes.

The government has spent the summer warning us about the difficult choices and unpopular decisions that will be included in this budget. Some of them have already been announced, and no doubt there will be more. But we cannot continue as we are. Everyone can see that the public sphere is broken and cannot be fixed cheaply. In this context, Reeves’ careful use of the tax system to reopen government services is absolutely the right approach.

Ben Kentish presents his show on LBC Monday to Friday at 10pm and is a former Westminster editor.