Prime Minister Andy Burnham's government, holding an effective majority of 167 in the House of Commons, has delivered what is being described as the most timid budget in recent memory, according to analysis from Alex Brummer in the Daily Mail.
Despite Burnham's stated agenda to challenge the neoliberal consensus, address the social care crisis, end the NEETS (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) problem, take public utilities under state control, and find £28 billion to meet NATO's 3% defense spending target by 2030, the budget presented by Chancellor John Healey has been characterized by a lack of decisive action.
While certain economic groups, including landlords and savers facing tax surcharges, and bingo halls impacted by new regulations on gambling machines, have voiced complaints, the budget's approach to profitable banks was notably more moderate than anticipated. Healey included a less substantial levy than expected and implemented a 15-month timeout for banks.
The budget contained 98 measures, but many are considered to be minor. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has critically analyzed the budget, pointing out that it has reduced the budget headroom left by former Chancellor Rachel Reeves and has decreased capital reserves set aside for the next three years by 25%.
The analysis draws parallels to past economic challenges faced by leaders such as Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, whose tenures were impacted by the £370 billion pandemic cost, and Liz Truss, whose premiership was cut short by market reactions to her tax-cutting mini-budget. The report identifies the £44 billion in gas subsidies as a significant expenditure, exceeding the cost of Healey's measures for households.
Concerns are raised that Burnham and Healey could face significant consequences for this perceived weakness, especially in light of ongoing global uncertainties, including the war in Ukraine, tensions in the Middle East, and the potential risks associated with artificial intelligence.
The article suggests that a key opportunity for restoring fiscal resilience lies in addressing the substantial £430 billion social security budget. It references the approach of Margaret Thatcher, who, despite Burnham's potential aversion to her policies, demonstrated considerable bravery in implementing tax cuts, confronting unions, deregulating the City of London, and defending the Falkland Islands.
The critique concludes by echoing the famous question posed by former US Vice-President Walter Mondale: "Where's the beef?", implying a lack of substantive impact from the presented budget.