Chancellor Rachel Reeves's first Budget has sparked a fierce debate among Metro readers, with opinions divided on who the real winners and losers are. From a new levy on electric vehicles to protests over inheritance tax, the public reaction highlights the complex trade-offs at the heart of the government's fiscal plans.
The 'Fairness' of a New EV Tax: Revenue or Rhetoric?
A central announcement was the introduction of a 3p-per-mile tax for electric vehicle (EV) drivers, framed by the Treasury as a matter of fairness. Chancellor Reeves argued that as all cars cause wear and tear on roads, EV owners should contribute alongside petrol and diesel drivers who pay fuel duty.
However, reader Ant Hodges challenged this narrative directly. He pointed out that fuel duty, averaging 7p per mile, goes into general taxation and not specifically to road funding. With EV adoption rising, the Treasury faces a looming £25-30 billion annual shortfall. "It's easier to sell a tax when you frame it as fairness," Hodges wrote, urging the government to be transparent about protecting its revenue rather than spinning a convenient story.
Public Sympathy for Farmers and Budget History Lessons
Another flashpoint was the arrest of farmers protesting in Whitehall on Budget Day over inheritance tax reforms. Reader Molly Neville from Sheffield expressed belief that public sympathy lies with the farmers, many of whom had travelled from the north only to be told last minute they couldn't bring tractors. Their core request is simply a meeting to outline their concerns.
Meanwhile, Robert Hughes from London drew a historical parallel, noting the current government's position bears similarities to the Conservatives after Norman Lamont's 1992 'Budget for recovery'. He questioned whether Prime Minister Keir Starmer would have the courage, as John Major did, to call a snap election to secure a mandate amidst economic challenges.
Benefit Cap Lift and Calls for European Re-engagement
The Budget's lifting of the two-child benefit cap, aimed at lifting 450,000 children from poverty at a cost of £3 billion a year, also drew mixed responses. Clark Cross from Linlithgow argued that simply giving parents more cash might not guarantee a better start for children, suggesting food or clothing vouchers could be a more effective alternative.
In a broader critique, Andrew McLuskey from Middlesex praised the Chancellor's "chutzpah" during her speech but expressed a hope for future boldness on Europe. He argued that re-engagement with the EU single market and customs union is essential for funding an adequate welfare state and securing stable economic growth for the UK.
The reader letters, published on December 1, 2025, showcase a nation grappling with the practical and political implications of a major Budget. From debates on tax transparency to welfare policy and constitutional direction, the public discourse reveals a keen awareness of the details behind the headlines.
