Andy Burnham promised a sharp break from decades of market orthodoxy, but the Budget delivered by Chancellor John Healey on Wednesday 28 October carries the fingerprints of someone outside government altogether. Guardian columnist Aditya Chakrabortty argues that the package owes more to Martin Lewis, the consumer finance campaigner who appears almost daily on television and podcasts, than to a new prime minister’s vision for the economy.
Chakrabortty’s verdict is that the Budget is neither the bold reinvention Burnham has spoken about, nor the careful repair job expected from a cautious chancellor. He describes it as a collection of everyday fixes aimed at household pressures, the kind of practical measures Lewis has long championed. The columnist’s central point is that such fixes are poorly matched to the scale of the moment facing the country.
The political context is significant. Burnham has framed his premiership around ending what he calls “40 years of neoliberalism”, a phrase that signalled an intention to rethink the role of the state and markets. Chakrabortty suggests that the Budget does not reflect that ambition. Instead, it operates within the constraints Healey has highlighted: record-high taxes, public debt of about £3tn, and an economy that has struggled to gain momentum.
Early reaction has been mixed and depends on who is responding. In Makerfield, the constituency represented by Burnham, voters welcomed the announcements, which included a pay rise for minimum wage workers and help with energy bills. Local coverage described the measures as a win for working-class people and for the Prime Minister. Hospitality businesses took a different view. Trade groups welcomed changes to the business rates relief threshold but said they were disappointed that a VAT reduction had not been included in this year’s Autumn Budget, arguing that the measures would not be enough to ease their pressures.
Commentators in the right-leaning press were sharper still. One national newspaper described the Budget as a “nothing-burger” delivered at the worst possible moment, pointing to the gap between the rhetoric of change and the substance of the package. Chakrabortty’s critique runs along similar lines from the left, though for different reasons: the Budget, in his reading, lacks the structural ambition the government itself has promised.
Burnham has also been asked about the political calendar. He has ruled out calling a snap general election within the next 12 months, following the delivery of the 2026 Budget. The decision removes the prospect of an early contest and places the onus on the government to show results from the measures announced this week.
The episode raises a broader question about how a new government with a stated mission of systemic change translates that aim into fiscal policy when the public finances are stretched. For Chakrabortty, the answer so far is that the Budget has leaned on familiar, incremental tools rather than the transformation Burnham has described. Whether that assessment holds will depend on how the measures land with households and businesses in the months ahead.