Healey's Budget lost comfortably, yet hardly anyone on either side called it bold. One No voter said it felt like going to a work meeting about the company's future and being handed “a book-token”; a Yes voter's top-rated defence was that it was lacklustre but better than the alternatives.
The most-respected No case was the most ideological: a voter citing the line that socialism eventually runs “out of other people's money”, and describing the UK as in a bad state. But the better-liked lines were about timidity. Voters called it “a total nothing burger” and said it avoided upsetting anyone ahead of an election, with another reading it as built to squeeze a general election in.
The Yes side's most-respected case argued that for ordinary households it offers targeted, necessary relief, and that borrowing to stabilise the ship is what a responsible Chancellor should do. Others were more muted: “Nothing to particularly celebrate”, said one. Even some No voters conceded it was not the disaster of earlier budgets, though they called it tinkering.
The argument sits inside the wider row over tax, welfare and growth. No voters wanted lower taxes and tighter spending; Yes voters wanted stability after earlier turmoil. Neither group described a Budget that moved the dial.
In the end, the verdict was a shrug that happened to count as a no.
48 Opinions
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Some Grantham greengrocers daughter said that, it's very true. TBF the UK is in a shit state. The welfare state is a runaway behemoth, the NHS is badly managed, immigration has been destroying communities, and utilities, food, in fact everything is so expensive now, unless you're lucky, you'll be in the poor house if you could afford it I wonder if The Donald™ is granting asylum to Brits yet?
I feel like I went to a work meeting about the company's plans for the future, and got given a book-token.
It was a total nothing burger, evidently avoiding upsetting anyone in preperation for a general election.
Borrowing up, growth not delivered, key decisions delayed. Almost a total non-entity of a budget, although not the disaster of his predecessor’s budgets.
Initially, I heard a few headlines that made me think, "They get it!" Talk of AI (in tiny amounts, but trying), entrepreneurs, and help for small businesses. Then I listened to Andrew Neil rip it all apart. Later, I saw a stat showing you start paying tax at only 1.8 times the new minimum wage. Pub?
If you voted yes you need to give your head a wobble. Safe, uninteresting budget that just maintains the status quo of managed decline.
No, but it wasn’t for the country. It was for Burnham & Labour interests. If you are on welfare it was just fine If you work for a living, it has just got worse When even Poundland are going bust, you know it’s really bad
A nothing budget, just as I had said would be the case to my friends. The reason….this hard left socialist government does not want to spook centre leaning voters, in an attempt to hoodwink them into voting Labour at the general election that Burnham will call by May 2027 at the very latest. If Labour had done a typical tax raising, benefit giving budget that doesn’t get rid of illegals, doesn’t fund defence then centre voters would see they are the same hard left morons.
Fiddling while Rome burns. Zero growth policies, just sticking plasters at best.
More taxes, more welfare spending, more waste. A bad budget by a bad government. Jenrick’s Reform alternative budget would have been far better