Budget contained 'broken promise after broken promise', Conservative leader Rishi Sunak claims in response to chancellor's statement

Rishi Sunak criticized Rachel Reeves for making "broken promise after broken promise" following her presentation of Labour's first budget in over a decade.

Mr. Sunak was probably making his final appearance as the leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons while reacting to the recent financial announcement.

The budget aims to generate £40 billion in tax revenue, boost borrowing, and increase expenditures as well.

Stay updated: The largest budget increase in taxes since 1993.

In reaction to the budget, Mr. Sunak remarked, "When he assumed office, the prime minister expressed his desire to rebuild trust in British politics through tangible actions rather than mere rhetoric."

"Today, his decisions are clear, showcasing a budget filled with unfulfilled commitments. This highlights the undeniable fact that the prime minister and chancellor have not been honest with the people of Britain."

He highlighted that his party repeatedly cautioned that Labour would "tax, borrow, and spend" more than they had pledged during the election campaign.

The former prime minister's harsh criticism followed Ms. Reeves' own attack on the track record of Mr. Sunak and the previous Conservative government.

She stated that the Conservatives have let this nation down.

"They destroyed the National Health Service with their strict budget cuts," she stated.

"Their Brexit agreement negatively impacted UK companies, and their small budget led to families facing increased mortgage costs."

"The British population has passed down their shortcomings."

The chancellor reiterated her accusations that the previous administration concealed a £22 billion budget shortfall and overspent the Treasury's funds by three times.

Ms. Reeves referenced the Office for Budget Responsibility, stating that the previous government failed to share all the necessary information.

According to the current chancellor, this indicates that comparing today's forecast with March's is misleading because the Conservative Party concealed the truth about that public spending plan.

Check out the full details of the budget: Important highlights include the Chancellor's plan to collect an additional £40 billion in taxes, along with an almost 7% increase in the minimum wage.

Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative chancellor who presented that budget, appeared to be denying the claim as Ms. Reeves made her argument.

Mr. Sunak accused Labour of manipulating the statistics.

"They have increased taxes to unprecedented heights," he stated.

"They have failed to keep their commitments, and now it’s the working individuals in this nation who will face the consequences."

He mentioned that he was aware of Ms. Reeves' "unapologetic political motives" and understood why it benefits her to create a misleading justification for her plans.

Mr. Sunak stated that the figure of £22 billion was not mentioned in the OBR's report.

Although the statement is accurate, the specific figure is only mentioned in connection with Ms. Reeves' reference to it. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) indicates that the Treasury's analysis related to additional government spending was not provided before Mr. Hunt's fiscal event in March.

Spreaker This material is offered by Spreaker, which may be utilizing cookies and similar technologies. To access this content, we require your permission to use cookies. You can modify your preferences using the buttons below to accept Spreaker cookies or to allow them just for this occasion. You can adjust your settings anytime through the Privacy Options. Unfortunately, we aren't able to confirm if you've agreed to Spreaker cookies. To access this content, you can click the button below to permit Spreaker cookies for this session only.

???? Tune in to Sky News Daily using your favorite podcast platform ????

The OBR stated that if they had access to the proper information, their assessment of the Conservative budget would have significantly differed.

However, it's difficult to determine right now just how much extra spending would have occurred, as more analysis was required back then.