John Healey’s debut Budget was, by all accounts, a snooze fest. One could’ve swallowed a handful of sleeping pills and they would’ve been met with the same outcome. As he stood there at the despatch box, his shiny head protruding amongst government ministers for all to see, he delivered something so utterly unremarkable it begs the question of whether he was actively trying to be dull.
In fact, Badenoch’s clash with Burnham at PMQs prior to the statement was perhaps of greater interest. The two did battle, with the focus this time on Brexit, and whether Burnham would seek to take us back into the EU.
Repeatedly, Badenoch asked the Prime Minister whether he would rule out a referendum on rejoining the EU. Repeatedly, the PM insisted that he would remain faithful to his party’s 2024 manifesto, arguing that nothing would occur for the remainder of “this parliament.” On and on it went. Six questions, all about Brexit. Gosh, did we travel back in time to 2017?
But alas, following the conclusion of PMQs, the Deputy Speaker called on the Chancellor to deliver the Budget. Despite being a tad flat, it is still worthy of at least some level of discussion. Our Editor has already offered an immediate reaction to the speech, branding the occasion as “lots and lots of little gherkins, but any meat delayed.” It’s a fairly accurate description of the affair.
Healey seemed unable to offer much in the immediate short term. Bar single handedly bringing down government webpages, the Chancellor seemed to kick most of the difficult things down the road. Most of the big announcements and policies were set to be implemented way down the line – with many coming into force in the spring of next year. Indeed, Healey’s unwillingness to take aim at the big, structural issues of the day have left many to believe that it was a missed opportunity: the Chancellor fiddled with his fingers as Rome burned around him.
The few things he did announce, however, were to be funded by throwing the gambling lobby and banks under the bus. Shed a tear for the lobbyists who watched on yesterday, as years of hard work went down the plughole. Not only would Machine Games duty be raised to 25 per cent, but adult gaming centres – ‘gambling shops’ isn’t politically correct, don’t you know – would not be included in business rates relief. Similarly, the single biggest revenue raiser from yesterday, the bank surcharge, will only be raised by three per cent. That’s really it. The city boys in their Patagonia gilets will likely breathe a sigh of relief.
Aside from that, there wasn’t much to write home about. His Freudian slip of claiming that Miatta Fahnbulleh opposed the Jackdaw gas field got some laughs but everything else was fairly lacklustre. Even Nancy Pelosi had walked out by this point.
Kemi’s response to Healey, meanwhile, was rather interesting and actually worth drawing some attention to. The Leader of the Opposition’s response to the Budget is often tipped as being a rare opportunity for them to strut their stuff. To prove to the public that they can indeed put on a performance and hold their nerve. Badenoch, much like last year, did not disappoint.
Perhaps the most damning line she delivered was when she put Burnham directly on the spot. “The Prime Minister came in promising that he would ‘reverse 40 years of neoliberalism.’ Instead, we got 4p off gherkins.” The comment elicited some laughs from the hacks sat next to me, as did her attack on the Education Secretary, Lucy Powell. “Can she count?” quipped Badenoch, drawing an array of ‘ooohs’ from those watching. She looked comfortable in her position – something which many are beginning to notice as of late.
But as much as the Leader of our party sought to ridicule the government yesterday, her jibe about neoliberalism did in fact reveal a more pressing issue. And that is that Burnham remains hamstrung by Labour’s 2024 manifesto commitments. He’s clearly a very eager beaver. Someone who wants to go in with a socialist, 1970s-style agenda, and tear up the post-Thatcher rule book. It’s evident to everyone watching that he wants to hike taxes and increase public sector spending. But he knows that, as long as he remains shackled to Sir Keir Starmer’s policy platform, he will be unable to. The ghost of Starmerism lives on, it appears.
Consequently, what we witnessed yesterday has been regarded as one of the most inconsequential Budgets in living memory. Nothing has changed. Rules were tinkered with, and platitudes were peddled, but it seemed as though Britain remained on its current trajectory, albeit with a different person in charge.
Of course, there still remains the question of whether this is a pre-election Budget. Many have been quick to jump to social media, believing that yesterday’s showing was proof, if any more were needed, that Burnham will go early in May. Many of the benefits looked set to come into force in the spring of next year, and Healey made repeated mentions of policies that would be looked at well into the 2030s.
But whether he chooses to go early or not, the fact remains that yesterday’s Budget was severely underwhelming. It’s a fairly straightforward, uninspiring comment, but the reality is that there is no other way to say it.
Perhaps what made it most underwhelming was that just a few months ago, Andy Burnham toppled Keir Starmer, and promised that there would be hope in every postcode. He stood at the steps of Downing Street, looked the nation in the eye and said that things would be different.
And yet, if yesterday’s dealings were anything to go by, it appears as though that promise has been broken. Because what we saw yesterday was not a break from the past, but merely a continuation of it. The Tories have been criticised for labelling Andy Burnham as ‘Keir Starmer 2.0’, but maybe they were right after all.