What's NOT in the Budget? Healey kicks tough decisions on cutting benefits and funding defence down the road in safety-first Budget that could pave the way for early election

Cuts to the bloated welfare bill and a plan to meet Britain’s defence spending commitments were missing from the Budget as John Healey kicked the tough decisions down the road.Despite howling calls from some Labour MPs, the Chancellor also backed away from wealth taxes in a safety-first Budget that opposition parties fear could pave the way for an early election.Kemi Badenoch branded it a ‘Budget for getting by’ as she slammed Labour for leaving Britain ‘overspent, overborrowed, overtaxed and drowning in an out-of-control welfare system’.Mr Healey delayed the difficult decisions needed to slash spending on sickness and disability benefits – set to cost £100billion a year by 2030 – as Labour awaits the outcomes of a series of reviews.The Chancellor recognised ‘there is more to do’ on welfare reform but insisted this could not be done before the publication of major reviews into youth unemployment and disability benefits.He confirmed the reviews by former health secretary Alan Milburn into the million young people not in education, employment or training (Neet), and by welfare minister Sir Stephen Timms into disability benefits, will report back next month.‘This government will then set out our response before the end of the year, with a white paper and legislation to follow next year,’ Mr Healey said.‘As the Prime Minister and I have both said, we will bring down the welfare bill, and we will do it in a Labour way.’ Chancellor John Healey failed to set out a clear plan for Britain to meet its target of raising defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by the end of the decade at the Budget Mr Healey acknowledged ‘there is more to do’ on welfare reform but said he and Prime Minister Andy Burnham will bring down the benefits bill 'in a Labour way'However ministers have already ruled out the Timms review identifying any savings and Mr Milburn has indicated that his proposals will not save any money before the end of the decade.The Centre for Social Justice branded Mr Healey’s fiscal statement a ‘Fudge-it Budget’ that ‘leaves Britain’s welfare crisis unresolved’.Joe Shalam, the think tank’s policy director, said: ‘The government has, for now, handed out a few sweeteners and fudged the hard choices until the next review.’Meanwhile the Chancellor also failed to set out a clear plan for Britain to meet its target of raising defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by the end of the decade.Mr Healey quit as defence secretary in June over Sir Keir Starmer's refusal to commit to the 3 per cent target, saying it was the minimum needed to keep Britain safe.But on Wednesday the Chancellor delayed the tough decisions needed to fund Britain spending 3 per cent on defence by 2030 until the spending review expected in autumn 2027. What the Budget really means for you Hi, I'm Simon Lambert, publisher of This Is Money, and now that the Budget has landed, it's important you get your finances in order. We now know exactly what the Budget included and what you need to do to protect your money. But it's not just this Budget we need to worry about, as a painful set of tax raids were already on the way. So, I've enlisted the help of leading financial experts to create a six-week plan. We explain what you need to know and how to protect your finances. > Click here and sign up to Protect Your Money now So far, Labour has only committed to setting out a plan to meet the Nato target of spending 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035, but not the 2030 target. Currently defence spending is only set to nudge up from 2.6 per cent to 2.7 per cent by the end of the decade.Mr Healey again committed to setting out a plan for 3.5 per cent by 2035 but said only that 3 per cent by the end of the decade would be a 'target'.He told the Commons: ‘At the spending review next year, I confirm that I will set out the details of how we will meet our Nato commitment to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035, with a target date for 3 per cent in 2030.’Conservative leader Mrs Badenoch slammed Labour for failing to grasp that ‘if Russia launches an attack on Nato in the next three years, as the government's own intelligence suggests, we will be at war without the means to properly defend ourselves’.She added: ‘You can't have social security without national security. Because if you cannot defend your country, there will be nothing left to defend.’'There was very little detail on how the Chancellor plans to get to 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2030,' said Helen Miller, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).'There is much further to go to get to 3 per cent of GDP on defence and it is hard to believe that this government will want to get there without topping up spending totals.'Mr Healey also resisted calls to raise capital gains tax on the sale of second homes, shares and other investments at the Budget, despite some briefing that it was under consideration.Cabinet ministers Wes Streeting and Louise Haigh had both previously voiced support for raising capital gains tax – which is levied at 24 per cent – before Andy Burnham became Prime Minister in July.But the Chancellor resisted the calls after economists warned this would further damage Britain’s sluggish growth and could cost the government money if wealthy individuals left the UK or deferred selling assets.Instead Mr Healey announced a new capital gains tax relief, dubbed ‘Founder’s Relief’, in a bid to keep companies founded in the UK operating here.He said the capital gains tax relief would be a 10 per cent rate on lifetime gains of up to £10million ‘for the founders of our most successful firms’.Mrs Badenoch said: ‘There are some things in this Budget I will welcome. Some of the Chancellor's colleagues, the deputy prime minister, the defence secretary, the energy secretary, they were calling on him to increase capital gains tax.‘Can I thank him for ignoring them. They were wrong. Tens of thousands of wealth creators have already fled Labour's Britain, and if he listened to his colleagues' bonkers ideas, many more would be heading for the departure lounge.’