DAILY MAIL COMMENT: This trivial tinkering is no substitute for a serious fiscal plan
Published: | Updated:
On becoming Prime Minister, Andy Burnham promised a new economic model, bringing 'growth in every postcode and hope in every heart'. Is it possible his Chancellor didn't get the message?
Instead of being a blueprint for national renewal, John Healey's first Budget yesterday was a holding statement, putting off every major decision facing the country.
With borrowing and debt soaring, a million young people idle, a deepening energy crisis and a black hole in defence funding, we hoped for radical action and fresh ideas.
Yet despite the tumultuous times, the Budget he served up was short on ambition and devoid of solutions. True, there were a few sensible moves, such as ditching his predecessor Rachel Reeves' plan to cut cash Isa allowances and giving modest rate relief to High Street businesses.
He sprayed a few crowd-pleasing millions around the regions to pacify Labour backbenchers and offered more devolved funding for mayors (though whether they spend it wisely remains to be seen).
He announced the scrapping of standing charges on gas bills, an end to green levies and a £100 bung to help band A-D council taxpayers with energy costs this winter. But even these apparent handouts come with a sting in the tail.
On becoming Prime Minister, Andy Burnham promised a new economic model, bringing 'growth in every postcode and hope in every heart'
Those standing charges will now be incorporated into overall bills, with some 40 per cent of customers paying more, the green levies will continue to be paid but out of general taxation, and the £100 bung will be swallowed up by a rise of nearly £300 in the average bill in January.
It was hard to escape the feeling Mr Healey was throwing out these crumbs to distract from the massive problems he dared not face.
Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts show debt and borrowing continuing to spiral over the next five years. We currently borrow £109billion just to service existing debts and this is expected to rise to £130billion by 2029-30.
That's more than the entire defence and schools budgets combined. Yet far from tackling this terrifying debt pile, the Government goes on spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave.
Labour should be planning to cut welfare spending – already £333billion a year and soon to top £360billion. Yet even the slightest benefit reform is vehemently opposed by Labour MPs, and Mr Burnham clearly has no appetite to take them on.
Then we come to the defence of the realm. Just a few months ago, Mr Healey resigned as defence secretary, hastening Sir Keir Starmer's demise and Mr Burnham's ascent to Downing Street.
He claimed to be quitting on principle because Sir Keir had failed to give a date by which UK military spending would be increased to 3 per cent of GDP, thereby making the country less safe.
As Chancellor, he had the power to rectify that yesterday but instead kicked the decision into the long grass. By his own standard, he is imperilling national security. So much for principle!
Taken as a whole, this Budget accentuates the feeling that Mr Burnham and his Chancellor are out of their depth – tinkering around the fringes but deferring all the hard decisions.
As Kemi Badenoch put it yesterday, their fiscal policies are 'not good enough, not strong enough, not bold enough'. A cap on bus fares, minuscule cuts to energy bills and a few pence off a jar of gherkins do not constitute an economic plan.
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.