John Healey spent years as defence’s best friend inside Labour. Then he got the Treasury keys and ditched them. Not such a good mate after all. He said his dramatic resignation from government expressed his personal commitment to defence and our armed forces – demanding that Starmer take our security seriously. I liked that a lot and it made me like Healey too.
Back in August when my mate Paul, a builder, asked me what I thought of new Chancellor Healey, I said “he’s a good guy…I think he’ll always do what’s right.” How wrong I was. Of course he and his supporters will cry that he is committed to funding defence properly, just later on. But we all know what that means don’t we – mañana, as they say in Spain.
Reeves and Starmer were the absolute king and queen of promising better things later on – critical things like economic growth and cuts to spending. But they were never going to happen and that pair were really just trying to buy time – hoping that something or other would pop up and get them out of the mess. But that never happens.
The only way to deal with an imminent financial crisis is to face it head on. Sadly for us confronting unpleasant truths is just not something our government thinks important. The big boss – Andy Burnham – is only driven by his desire to be popular. He exists to be loved and that’s what this budget was about – avoiding anything that might cause pain to voters, today.
The budget is terrifying because it pretends that there isn’t a real risk of war on our doorstep. And it just doesn’t want us to twig that we are hurtling towards national bankruptcy that will torture the poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
Instead of cutting welfare or even limiting its dangerous expansion Healey’s focused on woke politics and trinket-like giveaways. These little ‘gifts’ cost billions when you add them up. All the while spending on working-age benefits balloons at the cost of defence and paying down debt.
Look at the gimmicks, a hundred quid for council tax bands A to D. Of course, families under pressure will welcome that money but we must not pretend that this is a plan. It costs about £2.6billion, paid for in part by temporarily jacking up the bank surcharge. Scrapping gas standing charges sounds tough until you notice it doesn’t start until 2027. Even then it’s just reshuffling who pays – the total bill is the same.
Mr Healey went full woke at a few points, funding a £15million misogyny prevention fund and £100million for a women-only business fund. These acts might be sexist, but they are also negligent when we are close to war and insolvency.
Debt is still rising. It is already £14billion a year higher than the March forecast and to make things worse the OBR has cut next year’s growth from 1.6% to 1%. Labour promised growth. We need growth but this wasn’t a budget for that. It was a budget for short term popularity.
Kemi Badenoch put it simply: overspent, overborrowed, overtaxed. She’s right. Healey once said that without a firm date for 3% defence spending our country was not safe. I think this means we are not safe.
I’ve spent more than a decade raising £7million to fight homelessness through CEO Sleepout. Healey put another £430million toward ending rough sleeping. Good. Every penny that gets someone off a doorway matters. But a bed for the night is not a home. And in the same Budget he’s put up tax on rental income, discouraging landlords from renting properties – thereby shrinking the number of homes available and worsening homelessness.
The OBR itself say that fewer landlords and higher rents will now follow. More will be on the streets. You can’t end rough sleeping while you squeeze the supply of homes. Build them.
I am not surprised. I am dismayed. We were sold a Chancellor who put national security first and took the difficult decisions. We got one who ditched his friends in defence so the welfare juggernaut could keep rolling. And his boss could stay loved.
Britain does not need a leader who only wants to be liked. It needs one who will be respected when the bills and the threats land.
This was a Budget for Burnham, not for Britain.
• Andy Preston is a former fund manager and was the elected mayor of Middlesbrough from 2019 to 2023
John Healey’s Budget Was a Budget for Andy Burnham – Not Britain
John Healey’s latest Budget has sparked a heated political debate, with critics questioning whether the Chancellor’s financial plans genuinely serve the interests of ordinary British households or are primarily designed to support Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s political ambitions. While the government has presented the Autumn Budget as a programme for economic recovery, critics argue that its priorities reveal a political strategy focused more on protecting Labour’s position in Westminster than addressing the country’s most urgent problems.
The Budget comes at a challenging time for Britain. Families continue to face pressure from high living costs, businesses are struggling with operating expenses, public services remain under significant pressure and concerns about national security are growing. Against this background, Healey was expected to present a clear economic strategy capable of restoring confidence and improving living standards. However, opposition politicians have questioned whether the announcements go far enough.
One of the main criticisms concerns the government’s approach to taxation. Many working households are concerned that frozen income tax thresholds will gradually increase their tax burden as wages rise. Although employees may receive higher salaries, a greater proportion of their earnings could become subject to taxation. This phenomenon, known as fiscal drag, can reduce the financial benefits of pay increases and leave families with less disposable income.
For ordinary workers, this creates an uncomfortable situation. They may earn more money on paper but still struggle to afford housing, food, transport and energy. Critics argue that the government should have introduced stronger measures to protect working people from increasing financial pressure.
Another important issue is the government’s approach to public spending. Healey has announced financial assistance for selected households, alongside investment in housing, infrastructure and public services. However, opposition politicians argue that these measures do not adequately address the scale of Britain’s economic difficulties.
The question of defence spending has also become increasingly controversial. With international tensions continuing and NATO members strengthening their military capabilities, Britain faces pressure to invest in modern equipment, recruitment and national security. Critics believe the government should provide a clearer timetable for increasing defence expenditure rather than relying on longer-term commitments.
This issue has created a political challenge for Andy Burnham. As Prime Minister, he must demonstrate that his administration can protect Britain’s national interests while maintaining essential public services. Balancing defence investment against welfare expenditure and other government priorities will require difficult decisions.
Immigration is another area where the government faces criticism. The cost of accommodating asylum seekers, particularly through temporary hotels and alternative facilities, has generated considerable public debate. Labour has promised to reduce reliance on expensive hotel accommodation, but opposition parties question whether its proposed measures will deliver substantial savings.
The announcement of additional funding to convert former military facilities into migrant accommodation has also attracted criticism. Some politicians argue that the government should concentrate more heavily on border enforcement and faster asylum decisions. Others maintain that providing appropriate accommodation is a legal responsibility and that alternative facilities could reduce long-term costs.
Housing is equally important for Britain’s economic future. High property prices and expensive rents have made it increasingly difficult for younger generations to become homeowners. Although the Budget includes additional support for housing development and first-time buyers, critics argue that Britain needs a much more ambitious construction programme.
Small businesses have also been looking for greater financial certainty. Many companies are dealing with increased employment costs, energy bills and taxation. While the government has announced adjustments to business rates and investment incentives, business representatives will want evidence that these policies translate into stronger growth and more employment opportunities.
Supporters of Healey’s Budget argue that the government must work within financial limits and that economic recovery cannot happen immediately. They point to measures supporting pensioners, low-paid workers and households facing energy costs as evidence that the administration is attempting to distribute financial assistance across society.
Nevertheless, the central political question remains whether the Budget reflects a coherent national economic strategy or primarily reinforces the political priorities of Burnham’s government.
A successful Budget should provide more than short-term announcements. It should explain how Britain will increase productivity, attract investment, improve public services and maintain sustainable public finances. It should also provide clear objectives that can be measured over time.
Ultimately, John Healey’s Budget has exposed significant disagreements about Britain’s economic priorities. Critics believe that Andy Burnham’s administration has not done enough to address taxation, defence, immigration and the cost of living. The government, meanwhile, argues that its financial plans provide a foundation for stability and long-term economic improvement.
In conclusion, the claim that Healey’s Budget was designed for Andy Burnham rather than Britain reflects the wider political battle over Labour’s economic direction. Whether that criticism is justified will depend on the results of the policies introduced. British households will judge the government not by parliamentary speeches or political promises, but by whether their wages go further, public services improve, businesses prosper and the country becomes more secure. Ultimately, the success of the Budget will be measured by its impact on the lives of ordinary people rather than its political value to those occupying Downing Street.