Undoing Rachel Reeves’s errors is the work of years. John Healey should start here (Image: Getty)
I suspect the majority would plump for her politically disastrous decision to scrap the winter fuel payment for 10million pensioners within weeks of the July 2024 election, which crushed Labour’s popularity at a stroke. It was designed to make her look tough, an iron Chancellor, but her reputation turned to rust when she was forced into a humiliating U-turn. But I don’t think that was her worst mistake.
For me, it was slapping a £25billion tax on employing people. Reeves didn’t just hike the National Insurance rate employers pay on staff, she designed it so the burden fell on lower paid and younger workers. Youth unemployment has since rocketed by around 120,000 and is still rising. This is ruining young lives, not to mention our high streets.
There are a string of other contenders, such as Reeves’s campaign of doom before her maiden Budget, and the chaos surrounding her second, when she floated a controversial 2p income tax rise then quickly did another U-turn, while a mass of leaks turned the whole thing into a right old mess. There are many more but I don’t have space. I’d love to see new chancellor John Healey reverse her biggest errors in his upcoming Budget on October 28.
He could start by scrapping her decision to slap inheritance tax on unused pension pots, which comes into force next April. This will deter people from saving for a pension, as families could end up losing up to two thirds to HMRC if policyholders die at the wrong time. It will also pile the administrative burden on grieving families, who must sort out all the IHT due within six months, with penalties if they don’t.
Healey should also clear up her Cash ISA rule fiddle, which is another mess, and scrap her inheritance tax raid on family businesses. I’ve heard heart-rending stories of people who may have to sell businesses they spent generations building, to pay inheritance tax on wealth tied up in the company. It isn’t money sitting in their bank accounts. Reeves greedily went after it anyway. Healey should put a stop to that too.
There’s a reason Reeves was voted the worst of the last five chancellors in a recent poll. And I haven’t even mentioned her ignorant and disastrous inheritance tax raid on family farms, which caused fury and dismay across rural communities. This is another main contender for her most brainless move.
Family farms often have to pass to the next generation because they’re the only people who understand them well enough to keep them going. But that never seemed to occur to Reeves. I sometimes wonder if the only thing she knows about the countryside is that Harry and Meghan live there.
She was forced into another humiliating U-turn but the threat lingers. I’m now crossing my fingers, having read reports that Healey wants to scrap her family farms raid altogether.
I’d love Healey to come through for farmers. But there’s a problem. He’s in a total mess, with his fiscal headroom disappearing by the day. There’s even talk he’ll have to hike taxes by £35billion just to balance the books. She’s left him in a complete hole. Which is stopping him from reversing policies he knows are ridiculous. It’s the final slap in the face for our new chancellor.
If anybody in the Treasury is reading this, please, please, please do the right thing by farmers. It’ll give us something to cheer amid the misery fest to come, and reverse one of Reeves’s biggest blunders. Unfortunately, thanks to the mess she left, her policy may yet win through. And farmers will be the losers. But then, we all are.
Rachel Reeves Left John Healey in a Hole – and She’s Just Delivered the Final Insult
Rachel Reeves has left behind a difficult economic inheritance, and John Healey is now facing the consequences as he prepares to make crucial decisions about Britain’s finances. From controversial tax measures to changes affecting pensioners, farmers and employers, the policies introduced under Reeves have become a major source of political disagreement. Critics argue that the new Chancellor has been handed a narrow financial margin for manoeuvre, making it harder to reverse unpopular decisions even where there is pressure to do so.
The dispute is particularly significant because Healey must balance competing demands. Households want relief from rising costs, businesses want a more predictable tax environment, and farmers want certainty about the future of family-owned farms. At the same time, the government must maintain control of borrowing and find money for public services and national priorities.
The phrase “final insult” captures the frustration expressed by critics of Reeves’s record. But beneath the political language lies a serious question: how much freedom does a new Chancellor really have to change course when the public finances are already under pressure?
The Financial Inheritance That Cannot Easily Be Reversed
A new Chancellor may want to change the direction of economic policy, but reversing decisions made by a predecessor is rarely straightforward. Tax measures can be built into government forecasts, departments may already be relying on the expected revenue, and businesses and households may have made financial decisions based on the rules that are due to take effect.
This creates a difficult situation for Healey. If he abandons a controversial tax, he may need to find replacement revenue or reduce spending elsewhere. If he retains it, he risks disappointing voters who expected the change of leadership to bring a different approach.
An opinion article published by the Daily Express on October 12, 2026, argued that Reeves’s policies had left Healey with limited room to manoeuvre before the forthcoming Budget. It singled out employer National Insurance, inheritance tax changes and earlier decisions affecting pensioners as examples of policies the new Chancellor should reconsider. These are the author’s political judgements, rather than proof that every measure has produced the consequences claimed. <Cite refs={[“turn624343view0″,”turn624343view1”]}/>
The broader problem is that governments cannot promise unlimited tax reductions while also maintaining spending commitments. Any serious proposal to reverse an existing policy must explain how the resulting financial gap would be addressed.
For Healey, that calculation will be central to every major Budget decision.
Employer National Insurance and the Pressure on Businesses
One of the most contentious measures associated with Reeves was the increase in employer National Insurance contributions announced in the 2024 Budget.
The government defended the change as a way to raise revenue for public services. Critics argued that higher employment costs could discourage recruitment, limit wage increases or encourage businesses to raise prices. Smaller employers, which often have less financial flexibility than large companies, were particularly concerned about the additional burden.
The debate is not simply about whether businesses should contribute more in tax. It is about how the tax is likely to affect decisions made by employers.
When the cost of hiring rises, businesses may respond in different ways. Some may absorb the increase through lower profits. Others may reduce recruitment, delay expansion, increase prices or attempt to improve productivity. The effect will depend on the industry, the size of the employer and the condition of the wider economy.
Critics of Reeves argue that the policy risks making it harder for younger people and lower-paid workers to find employment. Supporters of the tax increase counter that public services need sustainable funding and that the government cannot rely indefinitely on borrowing.
Healey therefore faces a difficult choice if he considers changing the measure. Reversing it could ease pressure on employers, but it would also reduce the revenue available to the Treasury unless the lost income were replaced.
The government would need to assess the likely effects on recruitment, investment and public finances rather than assuming that either a tax increase or a tax cut would automatically deliver the desired outcome.
Pensioners and the Winter Fuel Payment Controversy
Another major source of criticism was the decision to restrict eligibility for the Winter Fuel Payment in 2024.
The original policy change removed the payment from many pensioners who had previously received it, limiting eligibility largely to people receiving qualifying means-tested benefits. The government argued that the measure was necessary to control public spending, while critics warned that some older people with modest incomes could struggle to afford heating during colder months.
The decision generated considerable political controversy and was later modified, with the government announcing a return to broader eligibility for the 2025–26 payment period, subject to income-related arrangements. <Cite refs={[“turn624343view1″,”turn818692search0”]}/>
For critics, the episode illustrates the political risks of introducing a major change before the public has been convinced that the policy is fair. For the government, it demonstrates the difficulty of balancing targeted financial assistance against the cost of providing universal benefits.
The issue also highlights an important distinction between reducing spending and delivering a policy that people regard as legitimate. A measure may generate savings on paper while creating public anger or requiring later adjustments.
Healey cannot simply reverse every unpopular decision without considering the financial consequences. But the government must also recognise that repeated changes can weaken confidence in long-term policy commitments.
Pensioners need to understand what support they can expect, particularly when heating costs and other essential expenses consume a large share of household income.
Inheritance Tax and the Future of Family Farms
Inheritance tax has become another contentious issue, particularly for farming families and owners of long-established businesses.
Changes announced under Reeves’s tenure brought certain agricultural and business assets within a more restrictive inheritance tax framework. The government argued that reforms were needed to make the tax system fairer and limit the use of reliefs by the wealthiest estates. Farmers and business owners warned that the measures could create difficulties for families whose wealth is tied up in land, buildings, equipment or a company rather than cash.
The distinction matters. A farm may have a high assessed value but generate a comparatively modest annual income. If an inheritance tax bill becomes payable, a family could face pressure to sell land or other assets to raise the necessary funds.
However, the actual effect would depend on the value of the estate, the reliefs available, the applicable thresholds and the circumstances of the transfer. It would be inaccurate to suggest that every farm or family business would automatically face a tax bill or be forced to sell assets.
The government must nevertheless consider whether the rules provide sufficient protection for viable businesses that need to pass from one generation to the next.
Critics want Healey to revisit the inheritance tax changes and provide greater certainty. But a complete reversal would have consequences for government revenue and would raise questions about how the Treasury would distinguish between genuine working businesses and assets held primarily for wealth preservation.
The Chancellor must weigh those competing objectives carefully.
The Pressure to Deliver a Different Budget
The forthcoming Budget offers Healey an opportunity to explain the government’s economic priorities and demonstrate whether it intends to change course.
Yet the available choices are constrained. Increasing spending without identifying funding risks undermining the government’s fiscal commitments. Raising additional taxes could put pressure on households and businesses. Cutting spending may require difficult decisions about public services and government programmes.
The government’s financial position is also affected by borrowing costs and changes in economic forecasts. The Financial Times reported in October 2026 that Healey intended to fund proposed Budget measures through taxation or spending adjustments rather than additional borrowing, while maintaining a cautious approach to the public finances. <Cite refs={[“turn818692news26″,”turn818692news22”]}/>
That approach reflects a central tension in economic policy: the government wants to support growth and provide relief where necessary, but it also wants to convince financial markets that its spending plans are credible.
The consequences extend beyond the immediate Budget. Businesses deciding whether to invest need to understand the tax environment they will face. Families planning their retirement need confidence in pension rules. Farmers need to know how inheritance tax will affect succession planning. Employers need to estimate the cost of taking on new staff.
Frequent changes can make those decisions more difficult, even when a new policy is intended to correct problems created by an earlier one.
Is There Room for a Policy Reset?
Healey could choose to review the most controversial measures rather than attempt to reverse the entire economic programme.
A targeted review could examine the impact of employer National Insurance on recruitment, the consequences of inheritance tax rules for working farms and businesses, and the effectiveness of support for pensioners. It could also assess whether adjustments would deliver better outcomes without creating an unsustainable gap in public finances.
Such an approach would require published evidence and clear criteria. Ministers would need to explain which groups would benefit, how much changes would cost and how any loss of revenue would be funded.
The government could also consider transitional arrangements where sudden changes create uncertainty for households or businesses that have already made long-term plans. Transitional protection would not eliminate the cost, but it could help reduce disruption.
At the same time, a review should not assume that every tax criticised by an opposition party or campaign group is necessarily ineffective. Tax policies have distributional effects, and a complete assessment must consider who pays, who benefits and what public services the revenue supports.
A policy reset would be credible only if the government could explain both the problems it intends to solve and the trade-offs it is prepared to accept.
The Political Cost of Broken Expectations
The controversy surrounding Reeves’s legacy is also a debate about public trust.
Voters often accept that governments must make difficult choices, particularly when public finances are constrained. What they are less likely to accept is a series of policy changes that appear inconsistent or poorly explained.
When a government introduces a tax, modifies it after public opposition and then considers another adjustment, people may question whether ministers understood the consequences from the beginning. Businesses can become reluctant to commit money, while households may postpone financial decisions until the rules become clearer.
For Healey, this means that communication will be almost as important as the measures themselves. He will need to explain why a policy is being retained, changed or abandoned and show how the decision fits into the government’s longer-term objectives.
He will also have to avoid promising more than the public finances can support. A dramatic announcement may generate immediate approval, but that support can fade quickly if the government later discovers that it cannot afford to deliver the promised change.
The challenge is to demonstrate that the Budget represents a coherent plan rather than a collection of responses to political pressure.
A Difficult Test for John Healey
The criticism that Reeves has left Healey “in a hole” reflects the frustration of those who believe the previous economic approach created unnecessary difficulties for households, employers and family businesses. The phrase “final insult” adds to that political message, but it should not obscure the practical questions facing the new Chancellor.
Which policies have produced the greatest unintended consequences? Which changes could be reversed without undermining public services? How much financial flexibility remains? And what alternative measures would be needed to fund any tax reductions?
These are the questions that matter most.
Healey has an opportunity to demonstrate that the government can learn from policies that have attracted widespread criticism while maintaining a credible approach to public spending. But he cannot resolve every problem simply by abandoning his predecessor’s decisions.
A successful Budget would need to balance economic growth, household security, support for employers and the funding of essential services. It would also need to provide the certainty that families and businesses require to plan for the future.
Ultimately, the debate is about accountability as much as taxation. Reeves’s decisions will continue to be judged by their effects, while Healey will be judged by the choices he makes now.
The new Chancellor must decide which policies deserve to remain, which need reform and how any changes can be paid for. His challenge is to turn political criticism into a workable economic programme—and to demonstrate that the government can change direction without creating another set of problems for the people it is supposed to serve.