Kemi Badenoch summed it up perfectly: “Is that it?” she asked Chancellor John Healey after he delivered the most ineffective, cowardly, lacklustre Budget of modern times. “The PM promised to reverse 40 years of neo-liberalism – we got 4p off gherkins,” she mocked. And she was right. This Budget wasn’t about saving a country that’s on the brink. It wasn’t about making like easier for struggling families. This was a selfish, cynical, do nothing, budget for a PM who’s buying time to get ready for his snap election and who’s prepared to sacrifice this country on the altar of his own ego to do it.

Andy Burnham can say ‘til he’s blue in the face that he’s not calling an election – but, as we know, the man lies. Remember he told the people of Makerfield Brexit “was done” when he was begging for their vote? Then back in May he said: “I respect the decision that was made at the referendum. It will undermine everything I have said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote.”

So, he lied. For him Brexit is nowhere near done. And not only has he disrespected the biggest democratic vote in our history, he’s spitting on it because he’s spent months crawling around EU boss Ursula von der Leyen begging for a deal to get us back into the failing bloc.

And this week’s Budget was yet another betrayal because Burnham isn’t interested in trying to ease the suffering of the British people. He’s not interested in looking for ways to pay down the £3trillion debt or get to grips with welfare or out-of-control immigration. This Budget was him playing politics with our lives and buying what Healey kept calling “breathing space” so that he could get his election plan in place. In simple terms he didn’t want the budget to scare the horses – and the horses are us.

And he’s been aided and abetted in that by the treacherous Healey who was out celebrating after his useless little Budget playing drinking games when he should have been writing his resignation letter citing dereliction of duty and principals as the reason. Because Healey dodged this country’s biggest problems in order to suck up to his useless boss and facilitate his dream (our nightmare) of ten years in power.

Never mind that Britain is on a fast track to oblivion, our Chancellor thought it more prudent to kowtow to his boss’s political ambitions than come up with a credible fiscal plan to save us. He had no proper plan for surging energy prices or the cyberwar we’re told is coming. There was no plan to get to 3% of GDP for Defence. He just threw out a few crumbs which will help nobody in the long term.

What he did do was deliver a punishment beating to savers, those people who’ve worked hard and done everything right so as not to be a burden on the state, by adding another 2% tax to the profit on their savings – money they’ve already paid tax on. And he’s hitting the banks with even more taxes which will make it harder for the rest of us to get loans and mortgages because the banks will pass the costs on to us. Does Healey not know that, for all their faults, banks actually drive the economy?

So, look what he does when our economy is downgraded to 1% growth next year – he hammers them with a spectacular own goal. So as living standards plummet, as the housing market heads for a crash, as 1,000 people every day sign on for sickness benefits, the cost of which hit £100BILLION by the end of the decade, as the interest on our national debt hits £130BILLION a year, Healey serves up a 4p saving on gherkins.

And just 24 hours after his Budget, analysts have hammered it saying the £33billion in stealth taxes the Government will raise through will be immediately wiped by the rocketing benefits bill. Are you terrified? If you’re not, you should be. Because straight after this shambolic Budget the IMF said it would be responsible for a decade of pain for British people and that Healey’s “unhelpful fiddling” would mean the worst growth in household incomes since records began”

How the hell do Burnham and Healey sleep at night?

This is the outfit 68-year-old Madonna wears to flog her new range of candles – one of which is strategically placed in front of her crotch. Really? At 68 isn’t it time she gave the sex kitten act a rest because it’s all looking a bit desperate. And if this is what she wears to sell candles, God knows what she’d be sporting to sell underwear.

Is £135million not sexy enough for you, Jen?

Jennifer Lawrence says she’s had a boob job because she wants to be a “sexy Mum when dropping off her kids”. “I want to look like a woman who’s got her s**t together even when I’ve just woken up and don’t have my s**t together.”

I’m just wondering how having perky boobs at the school gates makes her look like she’s got her s**t together. Surely her £250million fortune does that?

Radio daze

As we’re all prepping for Doomsday, why is everyone busting a gut to get their hands-on wind-up radios? Why aren’t battery ones good enough? And still on wind-up radio – does listening to Radio 4’s Today programme not constitute wind up radio?

A new poll says women want blokes who are in touch with their emotions, not six-pack, alpha males. Those polled said they’d choose Harry Styles over Jason Statham. Really? I’m not sure I’d want to be dating a bloke who wore feather boas and pearls when we went out for dinner.

Nothing to do with blokes wearing women’s stuff, jewellery or a bit of lippy. More to do with how much time they’d spend in front of the mirror getting ready to do out. Women know how long it takes to get an outfit together. Who wants to be with a man who takes longer?

This isn’t anxiety, it’s just laziness!

According to a new survey, eight out of ten people suffer from “laundry anxiety” (under Labour they can probably claim disability benefit for it) and are too scared to wash their favourite clothes in case they ruin them. Some even admitted they’d never even put their jeans in the wash (yuk!).

A spokesman for the Samsung survey said: “Most of us have items left hanging in the wardrobe because we dread the washing guesswork.”

There’s no guesswork numpty. Every item of clothing has clear washing instructions stitched inside. This is laziness (and dirtiness) pure and simple and I’m guessing the 2,000 people polled were Gen-Zedders who have turned anxiety (and laziness) into a fine art.

The work’s rolling in for Meghan

Remember when she’d just got engaged and Meghan was telling us all how she was going to save the world’s poor and needy, empower women, devote her life to people less fortunate? Well, her big career announcement this week is that she’s going to be co-hosting Junior MasterChef in Australia. So hang on, not even grown-up Master Chef and not even main host – she’s co-hosting the kiddies’ show in a country of just 28million people?

So, what about all the stories Team Sussex are putting out that Megan is being bombarded with fabulous film and TV scripts? Are things really that bad she has to go to a different hemisphere for work?

Andy Burnham’s ‘Gherkin’ Budget Wasn’t About Saving the Country – But Buying Time

Andy Burnham’s latest Budget has sparked a heated political debate, with critics questioning whether the government’s financial plans are genuinely designed to rescue Britain’s struggling economy or simply provide temporary breathing space for a government facing growing pressure.

Described by some critics as the ‘Gherkin Budget’, the financial package has become a symbol of the difficult choices facing Labour as it attempts to balance economic growth, public spending and political survival.

While ministers have presented their plans as an important step towards rebuilding Britain’s economy, opponents argue that the measures do not address the deeper problems affecting households and businesses.

Instead, they suggest that the Budget may be more about buying political time than delivering the fundamental changes the country needs.

The criticism comes at a particularly sensitive moment for Labour. After entering government promising economic stability, improved public services and higher living standards, the party is facing increasing expectations from voters who want to see tangible results.

For many families, the economic situation remains difficult.

Food prices, housing costs, energy bills and everyday expenses continue to place pressure on household finances. Although inflation figures may improve, that does not necessarily mean people feel financially better off.

For ordinary workers, the most important question is whether their wages can cover their monthly expenses.

This is where the government’s economic strategy faces its greatest challenge.

A Budget can contain ambitious announcements, new investment commitments and long-term targets, but voters ultimately judge politicians by what happens to their finances and living conditions.

A Budget Under Political Pressure

Burnham’s financial plans have been presented as an attempt to restore confidence and create a more stable economic environment.

The government argues that Britain needs investment in infrastructure, stronger public services and policies that encourage businesses to expand.

However, critics believe that these ambitions require more than carefully presented financial announcements.

They argue that Labour must explain how its spending commitments will be financed and whether the proposed measures can generate enough economic growth to improve the country’s financial position.

The concern is that Britain could remain trapped in a cycle of rising public spending, weak productivity and disappointing economic growth.

If that happens, the government may find itself returning to taxpayers for additional revenue while struggling to deliver the improvements it has promised.

For businesses, uncertainty over taxation and employment costs is another important concern.

Companies need confidence that the government has a consistent economic strategy before committing to major investments or creating new jobs.

If employers believe that costs will continue rising, they may delay expansion plans or reduce recruitment.

That could create further difficulties for an economy already struggling to achieve stronger growth.

Why Critics Say the Budget Is About Buying Time

The central criticism surrounding the Budget is that it may postpone difficult decisions rather than solve Britain’s underlying economic problems.

Political opponents argue that Labour is attempting to maintain confidence while avoiding choices that could create immediate political difficulties.

There are several reasons why this criticism has attracted attention.

First, public finances remain under considerable pressure.

The government must fund the NHS, education, defence, transport and welfare while also dealing with the consequences of previous economic difficulties.

Second, economic growth remains essential.

Without stronger productivity and business investment, the government will struggle to generate the additional tax revenue required to finance its ambitions.

Third, voters are becoming increasingly impatient.

People who supported Labour because they wanted improvements in public services and living standards will expect the government to demonstrate progress.

Simply promising that conditions will improve in the future may not be enough.

Critics therefore argue that the Budget provides political breathing space without necessarily offering a convincing long-term solution.

However, government supporters would argue that rebuilding an economy cannot happen overnight and that difficult financial decisions sometimes require several years to produce measurable results.

The Cost-of-Living Crisis Remains a Major Concern

For millions of British households, the most important economic issue is not the language used in the Budget but the amount of money remaining at the end of each month.

Families continue to face pressure from rent, mortgage payments, electricity bills, food shopping and transport expenses.

Even when inflation slows, prices generally do not return to their previous levels.

This means households can continue experiencing financial difficulties despite improvements in official economic indicators.

Pensioners are also concerned about whether their incomes will keep pace with living costs.

Younger people face a different challenge, particularly when trying to save enough money to buy their first home.

High rents and expensive mortgages have made home ownership difficult for many workers.

Labour will therefore need to demonstrate that its economic policies can improve living standards across different generations.

If people continue feeling financially insecure, the government’s promises of economic recovery may struggle to convince them.

Businesses Want More Than Government Promises

Another major challenge concerns Britain’s business community.

Companies need affordable energy, access to skilled workers, predictable taxation and a regulatory environment that encourages investment.

Small businesses are particularly vulnerable because they often have fewer financial resources than large corporations.

Higher employment costs, commercial rents and energy expenses can quickly reduce their profit margins.

Some employers may respond by increasing prices, reducing staff numbers or postponing expansion.

This creates a difficult situation for Labour.

The government wants businesses to invest more, employ additional workers and contribute greater tax revenue.

However, companies need confidence that the economic environment will allow them to grow.

Without that confidence, the government’s ambitions could become difficult to achieve.

Labour’s Political Problem

Beyond the financial figures, the Budget also carries important political consequences.

Labour entered government promising change after years of Conservative rule.

The party argued that it could restore public confidence, improve economic management and rebuild struggling public services.

However, governing has exposed the difficulties of turning election promises into practical results.

The government must now deal with competing demands from taxpayers, public sector workers, businesses and local communities.

Any decision to increase taxes can create dissatisfaction.

Reducing public spending can generate opposition from people who depend on essential services.

Borrowing more money can raise concerns about the country’s financial position.

This leaves Labour facing a difficult balancing act.

Opposition parties, particularly Reform UK and the Conservatives, are likely to use economic difficulties to challenge the government’s record.

They will argue that Labour has not delivered the improvements voters expected.

For Burnham, the challenge is to demonstrate that the Budget represents a credible economic strategy rather than a temporary political solution.

Can the Government Restore Confidence?

The success of the Budget will ultimately depend on what happens after the announcements.

Britain needs stronger economic growth, higher productivity and sustainable public finances.

It also needs investment in transport, housing, technology and infrastructure.

The NHS requires long-term planning, while schools and local authorities need sufficient resources to meet increasing demands.

These challenges cannot be solved through financial announcements alone.

The government must establish clear priorities, explain how its plans will be funded and demonstrate measurable improvements.

Businesses need to see a stable environment in which they can invest.

Workers need better opportunities and wages that keep pace with living costs.

Families need confidence that their financial situation will improve rather than deteriorate further.

Without visible progress in these areas, political criticism is likely to intensify.

Conclusion

Andy Burnham’s ‘Gherkin’ Budget has become a focus of wider questions about Labour’s economic priorities and its ability to deliver meaningful change.

Supporters argue that the government needs time to rebuild Britain’s finances and address problems that developed over many years.

Critics, however, believe that the financial package risks postponing difficult decisions while offering insufficient solutions to the country’s deepest economic challenges.

The real test will be whether the Budget produces stronger growth, better public services and improvements in household living standards.

For millions of ordinary people, political announcements matter far less than the reality of their everyday lives.

They want affordable homes, secure employment, manageable bills and a properly functioning NHS.

If Labour can deliver those improvements, its economic strategy may gain greater public confidence.

If it cannot, accusations that the Budget was designed to buy time rather than save the country are likely to become an increasingly important part of Britain’s political debate.