Rachel Reeves's decision to slash welfare benefits by billions has been branded "disgusting" by former Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, following her Spring Statement on Wednesday.
Reeves announced cuts of £4.8billion in the House of Commons as she laid out the Government's economic plan for Britain.
Confirming the cuts, Reeves told MPs: "The Labour Party is the party of work. We believe that if you can work, you should work. But if you can’t work, you should be properly supported."
The Government's own impact assessment predicts that more than three million families will be affected by the changes.
Speaking to GB News, Baker claimed that the cuts were "disgusting" and that the Chancellor should have focused on targeting "American billionaires" rather than vulnerable Britons.
Baker stated: "Of course, they had a terrible inheritance when they came into power, but there are choices they can make.
"They can, for example, increase the digital services tax and start getting some of these American billionaires to pay more money.
"They can look at the huge profits being made by the big banks at the moment, which they're not touching. Instead, they're cutting people's disability allowances. It's disgusting actually."
Delivering his verdict on the Statement's impact on the economy, Baker claimed that the policies announced are "not good news" for both Britons individually and the economy as a whole.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
Baker told GB News: "We've got the failure to change the barrier where you move from lower tax to higher tax, so we'll feel we've been pulled into the tax bracket as we go on, and there's no respite really.
"And of course this affects the economy, because people have got more tax to pay and they've got less money in their pocket to buy stuff and help the economy generally. So this isn't very good news for individuals or for the economy in my view."
In agreement with Baker, commentator Alex Armstrong argued that the Chancellor's statement could be "the Conservatives 2.0", predicting a period of "austerity" for Britain.
He explained: "When you do those blind taste tests like beans and you don't know whether it's Heinz or Lidl, rip off the Labor Party logo and this could be the Conservative Party 2.0.
"It's austerity. We're talking about severe cuts to the welfare state. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or a good thing, but is it what people voted for is the question, and I don't think this is what the country voted for. This is not what they were promised. This is not what they were promised to deliver economically."
He added: "We're being sold another new budget, which was never meant to happen as some sort of gleeful 'well done, everybody'. This is a disaster."
Responding to Armstrong's remarks, Baker concluded by criticising Reeves in her role as Chancellor, claiming she fails to "command respect" from her peers.
Baker said: "Rachel Reeves is the weakest link in the cabinet, in my view, and doesn't doesn't command respect and authority as Chancellor and doesn't look like a Chancellor, I'm afraid."
Find Out More...
Reeves announced cuts of £4.8billion in the House of Commons as she laid out the Government's economic plan for Britain.
Confirming the cuts, Reeves told MPs: "The Labour Party is the party of work. We believe that if you can work, you should work. But if you can’t work, you should be properly supported."
The Government's own impact assessment predicts that more than three million families will be affected by the changes.
Speaking to GB News, Baker claimed that the cuts were "disgusting" and that the Chancellor should have focused on targeting "American billionaires" rather than vulnerable Britons.
Baker stated: "Of course, they had a terrible inheritance when they came into power, but there are choices they can make.
"They can, for example, increase the digital services tax and start getting some of these American billionaires to pay more money.
"They can look at the huge profits being made by the big banks at the moment, which they're not touching. Instead, they're cutting people's disability allowances. It's disgusting actually."
Delivering his verdict on the Statement's impact on the economy, Baker claimed that the policies announced are "not good news" for both Britons individually and the economy as a whole.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
- 'A glum day for the economy!' Reeves warned of 'grave impact' of Spring Statement on Britons
- Britons face 'triple whammy' tax hit as hidden costs in Reeves’s budget spark major concern
- ‘Austerity on steroids!’ Glasgow residents give their verdict on Rachel Reeves’s Spring Statement
Baker told GB News: "We've got the failure to change the barrier where you move from lower tax to higher tax, so we'll feel we've been pulled into the tax bracket as we go on, and there's no respite really.
"And of course this affects the economy, because people have got more tax to pay and they've got less money in their pocket to buy stuff and help the economy generally. So this isn't very good news for individuals or for the economy in my view."
In agreement with Baker, commentator Alex Armstrong argued that the Chancellor's statement could be "the Conservatives 2.0", predicting a period of "austerity" for Britain.
He explained: "When you do those blind taste tests like beans and you don't know whether it's Heinz or Lidl, rip off the Labor Party logo and this could be the Conservative Party 2.0.
"It's austerity. We're talking about severe cuts to the welfare state. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or a good thing, but is it what people voted for is the question, and I don't think this is what the country voted for. This is not what they were promised. This is not what they were promised to deliver economically."
He added: "We're being sold another new budget, which was never meant to happen as some sort of gleeful 'well done, everybody'. This is a disaster."
Responding to Armstrong's remarks, Baker concluded by criticising Reeves in her role as Chancellor, claiming she fails to "command respect" from her peers.
Baker said: "Rachel Reeves is the weakest link in the cabinet, in my view, and doesn't doesn't command respect and authority as Chancellor and doesn't look like a Chancellor, I'm afraid."
Find Out More...