The Prime Minister said he could be trusted with Britain's finances despite claims he had misled the public.

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

56% : Asked whether he had exaggerated the situation to pave the way for a $16 billion welfare increase, Reeves said policy choices on welfare and winter fuel allowances over the past six months should also be considered.
55% : The only thing that wasn't funded was her welfare payments.
51% : " Asked whether he had violated the spirit of the tax proclamation by freezing income tax thresholds, Reeves said, "I know I didn't say that in the proclamation, but since then we've had not only a significant decline in our productivity forecasts, but we've had tremendous disruption around the world.
44% : Kuenssberg outlined what the prime minister said in a speech on November 4, when Reeves pointed out that the country would have less cash than previously expected due to lower productivity and would likely have to raise taxes as a result.
33% : [benefit] Cap - This was funded by raising taxes on online gambling, cracking down on tax evasion, fully funding the bill and lifting half a million children out of poverty.
33% : " Kemi Badenoch on Reeves: 'I believe she should resign' Badenoch said he was "absolutely not satisfied" with Reeves' explanation and said welfare spending should have been cut instead.
32% : The Conservatives accused the Prime Minister of giving an overly pessimistic picture of public finances as a "smokescreen" for tax rises, while Badenoch claimed Reeves had "lied to the public".
32% : She said: "The Prime Minister called an emergency press conference to tell everyone how dire the finances were, but now we've seen the OBR tell her the exact opposite." "She raised taxes to pay for welfare.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.