18th July 2026
As the new government wrestles with tight budgets and rising expectations, economist Ruth Curtice at the Resolution Foundation sets out a refreshingly sober roadmap for recovery.
Her three‑step plan—balancing the books, tackling long‑term pressures, and boosting investment cuts through the noise to show how fiscal realism could support communities like ours, where every pound spent on energy, pensions, and infrastructure matters.
1️⃣ Balance the books
Curtice argues that the UK must match day‑to‑day spending with tax revenue to avoid an “explosive debt path.”
That means:
Restraining departmental spending while protecting health and defence.
Avoiding crude benefit cuts or broad tax hikes on working families.
Considering a fairer tax mix, shifting some burden from employee National Insurance to Income Tax and taxing non‑employment income more evenly.
2️⃣ Tackle long‑run pressures
She warns that ageing and illness will keep pushing costs up unless policy changes.
Key points:
Reform the pension triple lock, so pensioner incomes don’t automatically outpace workers’.
Contain spending on disability benefits and social care while improving health outcomes.
Modernise property and wealth taxes to support local government and close loopholes.
3️⃣ Boost investment
Curtice calls for doubling the National Wealth Fund to replace lost access to the European Investment Bank and drive infrastructure growth.
She notes that the UK invests far less than other advanced economies, undermining productivity.
Her proposal: invest about £7 billion more annually by 2031, within existing fiscal rules.
Her closing message is blunt: the UK can’t keep deferring tough choices. Honest fiscal realism—balancing, reforming, and investing—is the only way out of the hole.
For The More Right Wing View
1️⃣ Balancing the books — right‑leaning framing
Groups like the Institute of Economic Affairs, Centre for Policy Studies, and TaxPayers’ Alliance generally argue:
The UK’s fiscal hole is caused by overspending, not undertaxing.
The priority should be shrinking the state, not reshaping taxes.
Welfare and disability spending should be “re‑targeted” or capped.
Income Tax and National Insurance should ideally be cut, not rebalanced.
This contrasts with Curtice’s view that the tax mix itself needs reform.
2️⃣ Long‑run pressures — right‑leaning framing
Typical arguments include:
The triple lock should be kept, not reformed, because pensioners “earned it.”
NHS and social care pressures should be addressed through market mechanisms, not higher public investment.
Local government funding should rely more on business‑friendly growth, not property tax reform.
3️⃣ Investment — right‑leaning framing
Right‑leaning think tanks tend to say:
The state should not expand investment funds like the National Wealth Fund.
Infrastructure should be financed through private capital, deregulation, and lower corporate taxes.
Public investment is often framed as “crowding out” private investment.
This is the clearest contrast with Curtice, who argues for more public investment within fiscal rules.
For readers who want the detailed analysis check out - Ruth Curtice, “The three steps needed to climb out of the UK’s fiscal hole,” Resolution Foundation, 16 July 2026. Click HERE