Chancellor Rachel Reeves has faced widespread condemnation and calls for her resignation following revelations from the fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), that she was aware for months that there was no 'black hole' in the public finances. Despite this, Ms Reeves continued to issue grim warnings about the economy, even hinting at potential income tax hikes, before announcing a substantial £30 billion package of tax rises, a significant portion of which was allocated to welfare increases.

The controversy intensified after the OBR released a letter confirming it had informed Ms Reeves as early as September 17 that tax revenue increases had offset any productivity downgrades. By the end of October, the OBR explicitly told her she was sitting on a £4.2 billion surplus and was on track to meet the government's fiscal targets. Nevertheless, just days later, Ms Reeves held a press conference speaking of 'challenges' and hinted at breaching Labour's manifesto promises on income tax. Critics, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Shadow Chancellor Sir Mel Stride, accused her of 'lying' to the public to justify increased taxation and welfare spending, with Julian Jessop of the Institute of Economic Affairs branding it a 'shocking' scale of deceit that would cause 'permanent damage' to public trust and markets. Downing Street and Treasury spokesmen, however, denied she misled the public, stating she was clear about the country's challenges and her decisions.

Further scrutiny has fallen on Ms Reeves' Budget regarding business rates, which critics have labeled a 'smoke and mirrors' tactic and a 'stealth tax.' While the Chancellor announced reforms aimed at a 'new golden era for hospitality' and 'the lowest tax rate since 1991' through a tiered system, a separate government agency simultaneously released higher assessments for business property values. This, combined with the unmentioned expiration of a 40% business rates discount introduced during the pandemic, is expected to lead to significant tax increases for average high street businesses, undermining any perceived benefits of the reforms and potentially triggering mass shop closures.

Another significant and controversial aspect of the Budget involves cuts to the Motability scheme, which provides leased vehicles to disabled individuals. Previously a champion of the scheme, Ms Reeves stated it was 'not to subsidise the lease on a Mercedes-Benz,' ending £300 million a year in tax breaks and removing premium brands. This move, executed without prior consultation with disability groups, followed a sustained campaign by right-wing media and social media accounts, which propagated claims of disabled people receiving 'free' luxury cars. Critics like Kemi Badenoch and Lee Anderson had called for restrictions, suggesting a return to simpler, less expensive vehicles. While Treasury insiders claimed civil servants had long identified the scheme as needing rebalancing due to public perception of unfair luxury subsidies, disability organizations vehemently opposed the changes. They argued that many larger, 'premium' cars are necessary for severely disabled users to accommodate equipment like wheelchair hoists, and that the lack of consultation demonstrated a disregard for their specific needs, making life more expensive and difficult for many.

Additionally, the Budget introduced a 'mansion tax' that is expected to affect the Royal Family. Under Ms Reeves' plans, properties valued over £2 million will incur an annual charge, ranging from £2,500 for homes between £2 million and £2.5 million, up to £7,500 for those exceeding £5 million. This means royal residences such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace, and private properties like Sandringham, Bagshot Park (£30 million), and Forest Lodge (£16 million) could face substantial bills. The exact implications remain unclear due to complex property ownership structures and ongoing consultations on exemptions, including for those required to live in a property for work. The tax will be based on 2026 property values but will not take effect until April 2028.

Overall, the Budget has been met with a negative public reaction. A YouGov poll found only 21% of voters considered it fair, while 48% deemed it unfair. Only 11% believed Ms Reeves was doing a good job as Chancellor, contrasting with 59% who felt she was performing poorly, highlighting a deep dissatisfaction with her financial statement and her handling of public expectations.