On a Thursday morning after the chancellor's first Budget, Britain's newspapers reached a rare near-agreement: the package was small. John Healey, having tried to steady nervous bond markets rather than gamble on something bolder, offered a modest set of measures, including £100 toward energy bills and a tax on banks. Whether that restraint was wisdom or a postponement of harder choices is the question the country's press keeps returning to, and the answer will only become visible once the welfare bill and the fiscal pressures behind it are finally confronted.
Healey's First Budget Draws Verdicts From Modest to 'a Snoozer' Across the Press
The sound of cans being kicked down the road
Mark
Why does nearly every paper land on the word modest?
Mimi
Because even the government side seems to accept it. A senior figure told the FT the Budget wasn't radical, but that markets wouldn't have tolerated something bigger.
Luke
Worth noting that's one unnamed source, and it's a defence, not a measurement. Nothing here shows what the markets would actually have done.
Mark
So the papers disagree about what was missing?
Mimi
Yes. The Mail, Sun and Telegraph say the welfare bill went untouched and that taxes rose on banks, savers and landlords. The Mirror says families and struggling firms got help.
Luke
And the Mirror's own columnist, Kevin Maguire, asks if it should have gone further on banks and oil and gas. So even the friendliest paper has doubts.
Mark
What about the £100 for energy bills?
Mimi
It's the headline measure for households, alongside the bank tax. The coverage here doesn't give more detail on either.
Luke
Right, so we can't say how much the bank tax raises or who qualifies for the £100. Those are gaps.
Mark
And the Farage story?
Mimi
It's a side note about seating. He says a slip was removed; the Guardian says it lacked a proper date stamp.
Luke
That's his claim of a possible altercation against the Guardian's explanation. Nothing confirms any confrontation was ever likely.
Der Puls
- Newspapers across the spectrum call Healey's first Budget modest, a holding statement rather than a bold new direction.
- The Mail and Sun accuse the chancellor of kicking cans down the road while banks, savers and landlords absorb new taxes.
- Tory voices including Kemi Badenoch and Sir Ben Wallace attack the package as not bold enough and favouring benefits over defence.
- The Mirror celebrates support for struggling families, yet its own columnist wonders whether bigger levies on banks and energy firms were possible.
- The unresolved welfare bill hangs over the government, and the next moves on it will decide whether this caution was strategy or delay.
On a Thursday morning after the chancellor's first Budget, Britain's newspapers reached a rare near-agreement: the package was small. John Healey, having tried to steady nervous bond markets rather than gamble on something bolder, offered a modest set of measures, including £100 toward energy bills and a tax on banks. Whether that restraint was wisdom or a postponement of harder choices is the question the country's press keeps returning to, and the answer will only become visible once the welfare bill and the fiscal pressures behind it are finally confronted.
John Healey is on the front of every national paper this Thursday, and most of them agree on one verdict: his first Budget as chancellor was small. The Financial Times and The Times both called it modest, and the FT quoted a senior government figure who admitted it was "not radical" but argued that the markets would not have tolerated anything bigger. The Guardian described a low-key speech shaped by fragile bond markets. The package included £100 for energy bills and a tax on banks.
The sharpest criticism came from the Daily Mail, which called the Budget "a snoozer" and described it as a holding statement that put off every major decision facing the country. The Telegraph and the Sun focused on who pays, arguing that Healey had raised taxes on banks, savers and landlords without tackling Britain's ballooning welfare bill. Kemi Badenoch called the Budget "not bold enough," and former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace accused the chancellor of putting "benefits before bullets."
The Mirror was the warmest voice, headlining its coverage "For the Many, Not the Few" and praising measures for cash-strapped families and struggling firms. Even so, its columnist Kevin Maguire asked whether Healey could have been braver, with a larger tax raid on banks and on oil and gas companies.
Elsewhere in the news, the Guardian reported Nigel Farage's claim that he stayed out of the Commons on Budget day to avoid a "physical altercation" over seating, a row that traced back to an improperly stamped reservation slip. The Mirror also reported a grandmother's jewellery collection, found in a Malvern attic, selling at auction for more than £500,000.
The open question is whether Healey's caution was a strategy or a delay. Even the Mirror wonders whether more was possible, while the right-leaning papers insist the welfare bill remains the problem nobody has yet dealt with.
John Healey is on the front of every national paper this Thursday, and the verdict on his first Budget as chancellor is, for the most part, that it was small. The Financial Times and the Times both call it "modest." The FT quotes a senior government figure who offers a candid defence: it was "not radical, but we don't think the markets would have worn something bigger."
That concern with the bond markets runs through the coverage. The Guardian describes a low-key speech, designed with febrile bond markets in mind. The package itself included £100 for energy bills and a tax on banks.
The harshest line comes from the Daily Mail, which calls the Budget "a snoozer." In an editorial, the paper argues that rather than a blueprint for national renewal, this was a holding statement that postponed every major decision facing the country.
The Daily Telegraph and the Sun focus on who pays. Both say Healey has raised taxes on banks, savers and landlords while failing to deal with Britain's ballooning welfare bill. The Sun's judgment is blunt: all the chancellor had to offer, it says, was the sound of cans being kicked down the road.
The Daily Express puts the reaction of the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, on its front page. She called the Budget "not bold enough." The paper also spoke to Sir Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, who accuses Healey of putting "benefits before bullets."
The Daily Mirror is the warmest. Its coverage is headlined "For the Many, Not the Few," and it says Healey has unveiled a raft of measures to help cash-strapped families and struggling companies. Even so, its columnist Kevin Maguire asks whether the chancellor could have been braver and more radical, with a bigger tax raid on the banks and on oil and gas companies.
Away from the Budget itself, the Guardian is among the papers highlighting a claim by Nigel Farage. He says he stayed out of the Commons on Budget day to avoid a "physical altercation" with another MP, in a row over seating. Farage said a green paper slip reserving his seat had been removed. The Guardian reports that this happened because the slip had not been properly stamped with the date.
And the Mirror reports on a find from Malvern in Worcestershire. A grandmother's jewellery collection, discovered in a dusty attic during a house clearance, has sold at auction for more than £500,000. The hoard included pieces ranging from the 19th century to modern times.
The open question left by the papers is whether caution was a strategy or a delay. Even the Mirror's columnist wonders if more was possible on banks and energy firms, while the right-leaning papers point to the welfare bill as the unresolved problem.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
Not radical, but we don't think the markets would have worn something bigger.— Senior government figure, quoted by the Financial Times
The Budget was not bold enough.— Kemi Badenoch, Conservative leader, via the Daily Express
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei BBC News ↗
Economy & Finance