Conservative politician Kemi Badenoch sharply criticized the Labour Party’s recent budget plan, arguing that it fails to address key economic challenges and risks increasing the tax burden on British citizens.

Speaking during debate on the budget delivered by Labour’s Shadow Chancellor John Healey, Badenoch characterized the proposals as insufficient for stimulating growth and managing public finances. She highlighted Labour’s rising debt interest payments, which she said now exceed combined spending on the military and education. According to her, the benefits bill is projected to rise by tens of billions of pounds, contributing to what she described as the highest tax burden in the country’s history.

Healey, who resigned as Defence Secretary in June over the government’s refusal to fund defence at three percent of gross domestic product (GDP), failed, according to Badenoch, to allocate adequate resources in his budget to meet the defence spending target that prompted his resignation. She also criticized Labour’s policies for making employment, energy, and mortgage costs more expensive through increased job taxation, Net Zero initiatives, and borrowing respectively.

Badenoch proposed an alternative approach under the Conservative government, promising cuts to public spending totaling over £70 billion, including £36 billion from welfare. She indicated that half of these savings would be directed towards deficit reduction to maintain fiscal stability, while the remainder would fund defence and reduce taxes for individuals.

The exchange between Labour and Conservative members grew increasingly adversarial during the budget debate. Badenoch challenged Labour’s frontbench team directly, confronting Labour MPs Angela Rayner and Lucy Powell over their responses. Referencing geopolitical tensions, she criticized Healey’s pledge to meet NATO spending targets only within nine years, mockingly suggesting that Britons would require “a drink” if Russia were to launch an attack.

Labour defended the budget as a necessary measure to support those “just getting by,” emphasizing increased welfare spending as vital to protect vulnerable populations. However, Conservative members dismissed these arguments as fiscally irresponsible, warning of the long-term economic consequences of increased borrowing and taxation.