Piers Morgan Launches Savage Two-Word Attack on Rachel Reeves Following Autumn Budget

Piers Morgan has once again made headlines with his no-holds-barred commentary, this time targeting Chancellor Rachel Reeves after she presented the autumn Budget earlier today. Known for his outspoken and often provocative style, Morgan didn’t hold back, delivering a scathing critique that left viewers both shocked and engaged in a heated debate online.

The Budget, delivered by Reeves, outlined sweeping changes to taxes, benefits, and wages that are set to impact millions of households across the UK. Among the measures announced were adjustments to income tax thresholds, increases in energy bills, and hikes in National Minimum and Living Wage rates depending on age. In addition, duties on tobacco and alcohol are set to rise in line with inflation.

In total, Reeves unveiled plans for £26 billion in tax increases, following last year’s controversial £40 billion revenue-raising measures. While she insisted she would not seek further taxes beyond these figures, she did not rule out the possibility of additional tax increases in future Budgets.

Morgan, never one to stay silent on political developments, took to X (formerly Twitter) immediately following Reeves’ speech. Alongside a picture of the Chancellor holding her signature red briefcase, Morgan posted a brutally concise caption that summed up his assessment of the government’s financial strategy:

“Labour’s plan for Britain: Growth DOWN Inflation UP Borrowing UP Taxes UP Debt UP. Thanks, Rachel.”

The tweet struck a chord with his followers, sparking a flood of responses that amplified the criticism. One user sarcastically remarked: “Labour’s plan for Britain: everything up except the things we actually want. Thanks, Rachel, my blood pressure is now nationalised too.” Another commented: “Piers nailed it. Growth down, inflation up, borrowing exploding, taxes at a 70-year high, debt still crushing us, and she smiles like she fixed everything. This budget is a disaster for working families. Labour owns this mess now.”

Morgan’s post not only highlighted his disapproval but also reflected the wider public sentiment among critics of the Budget, portraying the measures as a heavy burden on ordinary households already struggling with cost-of-living pressures. The stark, two-word sign-off—“Thanks, Rachel”—underscored the journalist’s perception that the Chancellor had delivered more challenges than solutions.

In response to questions about her Budget, Reeves defended her approach, stressing the limitations imposed by existing economic conditions. “I can’t write future budgets,” she said, “but if you are asking ‘is this a Budget I wanted to deliver today,’ well, I would have rather the circumstances were different.”

The Chancellor continued, explaining that her role as head of the Treasury requires her to make difficult choices within the constraints of reality rather than personal preference. “As Chancellor, I don’t get to choose my inheritance and I have to live in the world as it is, not the one that I might like it to be. And I believe that I made the fair and the necessary choices given the fiscal circumstances,” she added.

Despite Reeves’ careful framing of the Budget as a necessary response to complex economic conditions, critics quickly seized on what they saw as evidence of mismanagement. Morgan’s post, in particular, distilled the key points of contention into a stark, memorable critique: that while the government is pursuing ambitious plans, the costs to growth, debt, and household finances are soaring.

The reaction to Morgan’s commentary also demonstrates the increasing influence of social media in shaping public discussion around government policy. Millions of users engage with posts, retweeting, commenting, and amplifying narratives that often simplify complex economic realities into digestible—and sometimes provocative—soundbites. Morgan’s two-word punchline exemplifies this trend, turning nuanced fiscal debate into a viral talking point.

While some applauded the Chancellor for attempting to navigate a challenging economic landscape, others echoed Morgan’s sentiment that the Budget could have significant consequences for working families. As the public and media continue to dissect the measures, debates are expected to intensify, particularly around issues like energy costs, taxation, and the living wage, all of which remain highly sensitive topics in the UK.

Whether one agrees with Morgan’s harsh assessment or Reeves’ rationale, the exchange highlights the starkly divided perceptions of Labour’s fiscal strategy. On one side, social commentators like Morgan portray the measures as a heavy-handed misstep; on the other, the Chancellor frames them as unavoidable steps necessary to manage a complex economic reality.

As the autumn Budget continues to spark discussion, Reeves’ challenge will be to balance economic necessity with public sentiment, while critics like Morgan remain vigilant, ready to voice their disapproval in sharp, attention-grabbing terms. Today’s exchange is likely only the beginning of a long debate over the impact of Labour’s fiscal decisions and their implications for the nation’s financial future.