John Healey is another Labour chancellor, and he delivered another Labour Budget (Image: Getty)

Reeves walloped the nation with £40billion of tax rises in 2024, followed by another £26billion in 2025. Both her Budgets descended into chaos and confusion as leaks piled upon leaks, tax hikes were floated and reversed, and taxpayers took a beating. Yesterday’s Budget was a bit of a yawn, but Healey’s job isn’t to entertain the nation. It’s to sort out the nation’s finances. Dull but reassuring would have been fine by me. Instead we got dull but deadly.

This was supposed to be a “steady-as-she-goes” Budget. A “do-no-harm” Budget. Ultimately, though, it was just another Labour Budget, and we all know what that means. More tax, more spending, more borrowing, more debt. This morning the numbers are in, courtesy of accountancy group UHY Hacker Young, and they’re ugly. Despite all his bland talk, Healey still managed to increase taxes by a whopping £8.6billion.

That’s small beer compared with Reeves, but remember, yesterday’s haul comes on top of what she’s already taking. Since 2010, UHY Hacker Young calculates that Budgets have increased taxes by an average of just £4.9billion. That includes the tax blitz by former Tory chancellor Jeremy Hunt in the aftermath of Covid and the Liz Truss crisis. Yesterday’s £8.6billion was a staggering 75% more than that, piled on an economy desperately in need of a break. Healey just lifted the tax burden to the highest ever.

The last thing hard-pressed savers and businesses needed was another classic Labour tax grab, coupled with a failure to get a grip on the rocketing benefits bill. That’s what we got. Again.

Ordinary people got off relatively lightly, with ‘just’ £2.3billion in extra taxes, much of it courtesy of his deeply misguided attack on people’s savings. I wonder how many savers will be delighted to discover that the money they’ve squirrelled away will be raided to pay other people’s benefits. Perhaps they’ll feel a virtuous glow. Perhaps not.

Healey went to town on businesses while pretending he was helping them. It’s a familiar trick. He pulled it with the armed forces and the banks, too. Not such a nice guy after all.

Brian Carey, tax partner at UHY Hacker Young, said: “Recent Budgets have significantly increased the cost of doing business, and this one is no exception.”

You might think taxing businesses more heavily at least spares the rest of us. It doesn’t. Companies will pass on costs by raising prices, hiring fewer staff or holding down wages. Some will just go bust, and more jobs will go. We ultimately pay.

As higher taxes choke off growth, we pay again through fewer jobs, lower wages and a weaker economy. All on top of the cost-of-living crisis and Labour’s tax blitz. And £100 off energy bills won’t reverse that.

I dread to think what Healey would do if Andy Burnham calls and wins a snap election. His next Budget might even put Rachel Reeves in the shade.

True Cost of John Healey’s Budget Revealed – It’s Even Worse Than You Feared

John Healey’s latest Budget has come under growing scrutiny after concerns emerged about its long-term financial consequences for British households, businesses and taxpayers. Although the Chancellor presented his financial statement as a plan to support economic growth and protect working families, critics argue that the true cost of the measures could be significantly higher than initially suggested.

The Budget was introduced at a difficult time for the British economy. Millions of households continue to face pressure from food prices, housing costs, energy bills and taxation. Businesses are struggling with rising operating expenses, while the government must find ways to fund public services without allowing national debt to increase uncontrollably.

One of the biggest concerns involves the government’s taxation strategy. Although Healey has announced several measures intended to provide financial assistance, the continued freezing of income tax thresholds could gradually increase the amount workers pay in tax. This process, known as fiscal drag, occurs when salaries rise but tax thresholds remain unchanged, pushing more income into taxable brackets.

For ordinary employees, this could mean that receiving a pay rise does not necessarily result in a substantial improvement in their financial position. Workers may find themselves paying more income tax even when their purchasing power has not increased significantly.

Middle-income households could be particularly affected because they often earn too much to qualify for certain benefits while still facing substantial mortgage payments, childcare expenses and household bills.

Another important issue concerns the government’s borrowing requirements. Public spending commitments involving healthcare, housing, infrastructure and defence require substantial financial resources. If economic growth fails to generate sufficient additional tax revenue, the government may face difficult choices involving higher taxation, reduced spending or increased borrowing.

The consequences of higher borrowing could extend beyond government finances. Increased debt interest payments may leave less money available for public services and future investment. Financial markets will also be monitoring whether the government can maintain confidence in its economic plans.

Energy costs represent another major concern. The government has introduced a £100 payment for eligible households in England living in council tax bands A to D. While the measure could provide some assistance during winter, critics argue that it does not address the deeper causes of high energy prices.

Families facing substantial heating and electricity expenses may find that the payment offers only temporary relief. Long-term improvements will depend on energy supply, infrastructure investment and the cost of generating and distributing electricity and gas.

The Budget’s wage policies have also attracted attention. The planned increase in the National Living Wage from April 2027 is expected to benefit millions of lower-paid workers. However, employers will face higher wage bills, potentially increasing pressure on small businesses.

Some companies may respond by increasing prices, reducing recruitment or limiting investment. This could create difficulties for businesses operating in hospitality, retail and other sectors where profit margins are relatively small.

Pensioners are another important group affected by the government’s financial decisions. Maintaining the State Pension triple lock provides protection against certain increases in living costs, but the wider impact of taxation and changes to public services could influence retirement finances.

Older people who depend mainly on their State Pension may still face difficulties covering housing, food and energy expenses. The government will therefore need to ensure that its support measures provide meaningful assistance rather than simply offering temporary financial relief.

The cost of immigration and asylum accommodation has also become a controversial element of public spending. The government has committed additional funding to convert former military facilities into accommodation for asylum seekers, with the intention of reducing reliance on expensive hotels.

However, converting these facilities requires substantial investment in housing infrastructure, sanitation, security and essential services. Critics question whether the government can achieve the promised savings once construction and operating costs are included.

Defence spending presents another financial challenge. Britain faces growing international security concerns and pressure to strengthen its military capabilities. Additional investment in equipment, personnel and infrastructure will require long-term funding commitments.

The government must therefore balance defence priorities against healthcare, education, welfare and other public spending responsibilities. These competing demands make it increasingly important for ministers to explain exactly how future commitments will be financed.

Opposition politicians have argued that the Budget fails to provide sufficient answers. Conservative representatives have criticised the government’s taxation policies, while Reform UK has focused on immigration costs and the financial burden facing ordinary taxpayers.

However, supporters of Healey’s approach argue that economic recovery requires patience and responsible financial management. They maintain that sudden reductions in public spending or large-scale tax cuts could create further instability.

The real question is whether the government’s policies will generate enough economic growth to make its commitments sustainable. Stronger productivity, business investment and employment could increase tax revenues and reduce pressure on public finances. Without meaningful improvements in these areas, the government may struggle to meet its objectives.

Ultimately, the true cost of the Budget cannot be measured by a single announcement or headline figure. It must be assessed through its combined impact on taxation, borrowing, public services, household incomes and business investment over several years.

In conclusion, John Healey’s Budget has raised important questions about the financial future of Britain. While the government has promised assistance for households and investment in economic growth, the longer-term consequences of frozen tax thresholds, public spending commitments and borrowing requirements remain significant concerns. British taxpayers will ultimately judge the Budget by whether it improves their living standards or leaves them facing additional financial pressure. The Chancellor’s greatest challenge will be demonstrating that his economic strategy is affordable, sustainable and capable of delivering genuine benefits for the country.