# If the cap fits: tax and spend, with better TikTok videos _Andy Haldane says the markets now see a traditional tax-and-spend socialist government with better TikTok videos. The Prime Minister’s reply was to cite scrapping digital ID as a difficult decision._ Neil Woodford · 17 September 2026 · 3 min read ![Prime Minister Andy Burnham and his Chancellor John Healey](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/v3acfbvo/production/22eacfb2af52b6d8ba0bee418cd4f4ca497f4294-3756x2504.jpg?w=1600&fit=max&auto=format) _Burnham and Healey have a battle on their hands heading into the first Budget._ --- I am pretty confident that one of the primary qualifications for political life is to develop a very thick skin and to be somewhat deaf to criticism, even if it is well founded. Those that develop the thickest hide, the deafest tin ear and an apparent absolute belief in their own bullshit should be well qualified for high office, and so it has proved with the current government. I have been particularly impressed with the tone-deafness of Mr Burnham, but most impressive on this front in recent days has been the new Chancellor. Scarcely a day goes by without some kind of fatuous nonsense emanating from the Second Lord of the Treasury. I wrote about the worst of it, from his defining mission of growth to the “scar” of youth unemployment, when he gave [his first major speech](https://www.noisecancelling.co/read/the-new-chancellors-misdiagnosis) earlier this month, but best of all remains his risible claim that Britain is paying some kind of Liz Truss premium on its borrowing costs. _Neil on John Healey's growth speech:_ [The new Chancellor’s misdiagnosis](https://www.noisecancelling.co/read/the-new-chancellors-misdiagnosis) — John Healey's first major speech as Chancellor, delivered in a Coventry factory weeks before his budget, was a torrent of platitudes rather than an accurate diagnosis of what ails the economy. Anyone who is vaguely financially qualified, unlike Mr Healey, knows that this is a shopping list of vacuity with absolutely no substance, but sometimes I wonder whether politicians themselves actually believe any of it. Might there be a chance that Mr Healey thinks he can do these things, or that any of it is true? Those with some first-hand experience of the ruling class might be better placed to comment, but my increasingly cynical side tells me that the majority think it’s total rubbish, as does their audience. The veil of conviction some surround themselves with might convince acolytes, but for the rest of us it has worn so thin that we can see right through it. I am reminded of the note Liam Byrne, the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury, left for his successor in 2010: “Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck!” Or, more recently, of [Pat McFadden](https://www.cityam.com/mandelson-files-top-starmer-ally-moaned-every-meeting-is-about-who-we-can-tax/), who wrote: “Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.” ## Criticism from inside the tent _[Embedded media](https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/andy-burnham-has-been-crowned-britains-first-tiktok-pm-5Hjdgbw_2/)_ Which is why, when someone inside a particular political tent offers up well-argued criticism, the response tends to be more extreme from those who rely on this veneer of belief. A good example cropped up this week after Andy Haldane gave an [interview to LBC](https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/former-bank-of-england-chief-economist-triple-lock-scrapped-5HjdhWS_2/) on Tuesday. Andy is the former chief economist at the Bank of England, now president of the British Chambers of Commerce, and advised Mr Burnham informally before he returned to Westminster, although he declined a formal role in his government. > The fiscal Achilles’ heel of this government thus far has been its unwillingness and/or inability to cut public spending. > > — Andy Haldane, LBC · 15 September 2026 In the interview, Andy correctly pointed out that the key weakness of this government is its inability or unwillingness to cut public spending. He went on to say that financial markets now see it as a traditional tax-and-spend socialist government with better TikTok videos, and I could not have put it better or more clearly. The fact that it came from Andy, and not from someone outside the Labour tent, meant that it cut deeper and, not surprisingly, it was met with all sorts of [rebuttals on Wednesday](https://www.cityam.com/burnham-warns-of-challenging-budget-and-hits-back-at-socialists-with-tiktok-jibe/). The Prime Minister, for example, insisted that he was prepared to take “difficult decisions” on the economy, that he wouldn’t take risks with it and that he had already made some difficult choices. The example he offered was his decision to scrap the rollout of digital ID. The fact that Mr Burnham had to cite the ID decision as a difficult choice tells us all we need to know about his and his Chancellor’s willingness to make the really difficult ones, the ones that might not go down too well with his backbenchers, or with the unions for that matter. Indeed, the money earmarked for digital ID was reallocated within days to cut VAT on household electricity bills, and Darren Jones, a cabinet minister under Sir Keir Starmer, pointed out at the time that the funding for the scheme had not yet been allocated. So scrapping it didn’t save anything at all. _[Embedded media](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwp93jp4p7xpo)_ ## The budget Which brings me to the budget on 28 October, where the challenges are coming thick and fast for both Mr Burnham and Mr Healey. The OBR’s conditioning assumptions look likely to move in the wrong direction for these two and, consequently, any extra spending, for example on relief for household energy bills, will have to be funded by cuts elsewhere or, more likely, by further increases in tax. _[Embedded media](https://www.cityam.com/haldane-warns-burnham-on-tax-and-spend-socialist-government/)_ My bet is that, despite the howls of protest this week, the political reflex of this administration is exactly as Andy Haldane described it: a traditional tax-and-spend socialist government. I would like to think I am wrong, but the realist in me says otherwise.