16/03/2016 Newsnight

More borrowing, fading his own targets, lower growth and a bleak

long-term picture, as well, it was the day when the Chancellor's luck

ran out. Productivity growth across the West is too low and the outlook

for the global colony is weak and it makes for a dangerous cocktail of

risks but one that Britain is well prepared to handle. George Osborne

tried to put a positive gloss on this and we will ask whether the

latest plans are feasible with the help of the Business Secretary, the

Treasury Secretary from the Shadow Cabinet, and a guest from the

Financial Times. His mum should have told him

to clean his teeth every day. They could have been

as nice and clean as mine. I think it's illiberal,

regressive, patronising, But most importantly it will hit

consumers in their pockets. Remember last year,

the Autumn Statement. The forecasts were rosy,

he had ?27 billion more to play with this parliament

than he'd thought. The growth forecasts are down,

significantly, the ?27 billion has been taken away - and another

?28 billion as well. So this was a testing budget

for George Osborne - one of the ones, where the economic

newsflow has been against him. And it comes at an awkward

time, what with a Brexit You might ask, what words would USA

shape with George Osborne? I will start with one beginning with F,

failure -- what words you would associate with George Osborne. The

luck has run out. This was the old graft, borrowing coming down through

the parliament, year by year, and this is the picture now, higher

borrowing through the next few years, but he is still showing a

surplus at the end of Parliament. He has used a convex device to help

deliver that, and he has also failed to hit his own target of getting the

stock down and he has failed to cap well fed spending like he said he

would. -- complex device. He did not draw attention to these failures in

his beach. -- speech. Eight years ago Britain

was the worst prepared of any of the major economies

for the crisis we then faced. Today Britain is amongst the best

prepared for whatever challenges may lie ahead and that is what our

long-term economic plan has Up to a point. I will keep the F

word going for a moment. The other failing was productivity. That is

what we each produce for each hour, here at work, the more the better,

but the obvious for budget responsibility has hoping for a

surgeons in British productivity but it gave up the ghost and accepted we

may not improve as much as we had hoped -- the Office for Budget

Responsibility had hoped for a resurgence. There is a second word

you could use about the Chancellor, S, slasher, he has piled new cuts

onto old cuts already announced for late in this Parliament, even though

he called them efficiency savings. By the end of the Parliament, the

proportion of the economy spent by government is set to be where it was

in the era of this man. I think that the great

thing about the budget was that we resisted the temptation

to give away too much money. It is always a temptation to relieve

tax, in fact rather more, We are heading to a reshaped state,

simmering proportions to where it was in the 1950s, but this time with

more older people taking pensions and health care -- similar in

proportions. The Chancellor is a more interesting person than those

words alone Empoli, and I can give you some more positive ones -- those

words alone imply. They tax reformer, he is pushing changes,

overlapping and duplicating changes, but a new ISA looks like it could

have a radical effect on the pensions industry.

Young people can put money in, get a government bonus,

and use it either to buy their first home or save for their retirement.

And then, of course, George Osborne the reform of local government, he

is announced mayors taking over certain regions and there was more

of that today. There will be a new mayor of East Anglia. I'm sure there

is a joke to be made, but I can't think of one. Piece by piece it is a

new layer of government. A final word, for now at least, George

Osborne the pragmatist, he has listened when it comes to business,

the Google tax misstep, this time he has put taxes up on big business and

cut them for smaller firms. And that the party piece, the sugar tax, not

altogether to the taste of many Tory MPs, who feel a bit like this about

it. Homer, when are you going to give up

this crazy sugar scheme? I can't live the buttoned-down

life like you. The terrifying lows,

the dizzying highs, But it is a gesture to Jamie Oliver,

and it must be said, a convenient headline distraction

to all the less sweet news So all in all, a complex package

today, not a great hand to play. And a little trickery deployed

to help get through it all. But of all the words that apply

to the Chancellor, the word "politician" is a key one:

so for the way he handled the political challenge,

here's David Grossman. Those bottles of sugary

drink the Chancellor would like to discourage need

to be handled carefully. Exactly like the Conservative Party

right now, all fizzed up The Chancellor had two big

political jobs today, the first was to attempt

to distract from some starkly The second was to try and hold

together his divided party. Many on his side of the chamber

are very angry with both him and the Prime Minister,

who they accuse of not playing fair The Chancellor turned to the EU

referendum early in his speech, The House knows my view,

Britain will be stronger, safer and better off

inside a reformed European Union. And I believe we should not put

at risk all the hard work the British people have done

to make our economy strong again. But even this was too much for some

on the Conservative benches, who reacted as if a door had been

left open, and a sudden icy wind He is the Chancellor,

he was at the dispatch box, I was a little disappointed he felt

the need to have a partisan dig We felt in the chamber momentarily

a sense of real disappointment because the Prime Minister asked

us to pick our side, to fight the campaign

we believe is the right one, and that is what we are all

doing, so I felt it was But to be honest, the budget

was a strong and robust one, and we can get over

that and move on. The Chancellor was keen

to move on, as well. The early mention of the EU out

of the way, he hurried towards happier Conservative

territory, capital gains tax cut from 28% to 20%, the higher rate tax

band raised to ?45,000 from 2017, the tax-free allowance

raised by ?500 to ?11,500. He ended on a much more positive

tone for the Conservative Party cuts to personal taxation

and the cuts to capital gains tax. This was not really

a budget about Europe. It was a budget which was dealing

with the figures he was dealt by the OBR which were the worst

economic growth numbers. It was providing enough surprises

and good news to make everyone For Jeremy Corbyn this

was an important day too for him His outfit as he left home may not

have reassured MPs sceptical But by the time he reached

the Commons chamber his attire was as sharp as his criticism

of the Government. This budget, Mr Deputy Speaker,

has unfairness at its very core. Paid for by those who

can least afford it. He could not have made

his priorities clearer. Half a million people

with disabilities are losing over ?1 billion in personal

independence payments, corporation tax is being cut

and billions handed out in tax cuts Some on the Conservative side I have

spoken to are deeply worried that this charge -

tax cuts for the rich, paid for by benefits

cuts on the vulnerable Campaigning is, after all,

under way in elections for London Mayor, the Northern

Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, English councils and

the Scottish parliament. There was some good things,

things to be welcomed Tax changes in oil were good,

on whisky and fuel was good. But the big picture on that

budget was appalling. He confirmed and brushed away

complete failure on every big target To just give one example,

the ?20 billion or so borrowing he promised this year,

he now won't hit for four years. What an unmitigated

failure of the so-called No doubt the froth of tomorrow's

headlines will all be about the sugar levy,

but more challenging details lurk Often with budgets the sparkle of

the day turns rather flat overnight. We have more on the sugar levy very

soon. Here with me now -

Robert Chote, the chairman of the Office of Budget Responsibility,

Sajid Javid, the Business Secretary, and Seema Malhotra, the shadow

Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I will start with Robert Chote, if I

may come at the figures were quite a lot worse, and yet in the 2019, 2020

years, you have the same surplus, moral less, predicted as before, is

that an easy way to explain that? -- more or less. There is a weaker

outlook for economic growth and a weaker outlook for revenues, tax

that is the main driver there, in terms of how the hole has been

filled in, partly by announcing they will be less expenditure on public

service is in that year, and that will be partly funded by an

efficiency review which will be reported in 2018, and there are also

things which move money between years of the forecast. ?6 billion

tax on corporate profits which has been moved into that year and there

are capital investment spending which has been moved out. That does

not affect the underlying health of the public finances. 2019 is the

thing they have set their credibility against, having a

surplus in that year. Many people looking at it, they say, hang on,

they have read timed it, they have shoved ?6 billion into that year

which accounts for half or more of the suppers they have achieved, but

you cannot use the words smoke and mirrors? -- surplus. How this has

been achieved is for other people to apply those adjectives. Mirrors and

smoke, perhaps. Productivity is a big story, it has turned out

disappointing. To be clear, the growth forecast has come down more,

pessimism on growth, is still growing all the way through, but

what was driving that? The productivity? Or something to do

with China and the world economy? Mostly the productivity of

assumptions, the striking feature in the UK and many other economies, the

productivity, the amount of output out of every hour worked, has been

growing much less quickly after the financial crisis than it did

beforehand. We were shooting we would get back to the precrisis rate

of growth relatively swiftly -- we were assuming. Figures have shown

productivity growth picking up nicely in the middle of last year

along with earnings, but that has fizzled away in the fourth quarter

and that has left you with a period of weak postgraduate collectivity

growth getting longer and we have placed more weight on that as a

guide to the medium-term. Although this is not a revision driven by

news on the outside world, it is not something which is unique to the UK.

If you look at the revisions which have been made in the United States,

they are almost exactly the same. But we are starting from a lower

base because we have a lower productivity rate. The Chancellor

was quoting you with abandon regarding Brexit and the

consequences if we leave the EU. Looking at the document, it was not

clear if you had done any work on this, what is your position on

Brexit? Parliament has told us to be deuce hour forecast on the basis of

current government policy, and that is to stay in the EU, and our

forecasts are done on that basis and we have not done any projections of

what difference it would make if we left. He was quoting you as though

we had -- as though you had. If you look at the things that City

economists and others are saying, if there was to be a vote to leave

people would expect a period of uncertainty while the new

relationship with the EU is negotiated and that could have

implications for consumers and confidence on financial markets and

so we cited what other people have been saying. But you had done no

work on that? No. You are not experts on that particular topic?

No. What was the reason for shifting ?6 billion of corporation tax

revenues into the year that you have to hit a surplus target?

That goes back to the previous budget where the Chancellor

announced he wanted to change the timing of corporation tax receipts

to make sure they come in earlier. A number of companies as part of the

consultation process became back and said we don't want this but can you

give us more time and this is a consequence of the Chancellor

agreeing to give more time. Of course that's going to have a

shifting impact and that has a net result on the numbers. You would be

happy for to us see the papers on this change and to release all the

e-mail that is have been exchanged and why you are doing it? I think

actually the... It is a bit convenient, isn't it, to get six

billion in the last year. All the information is already out there, if

you look at the announcement in the previous budget, the stops from a

lot of the companies. But the overall result of this budget, from

what we have seen today, of course, there was a change in the growth

forecasts, we just heard from yourself and Robert, some of that

was to do with productivity changes. Some was to do with changes in the

global economy. We are one of the most open economies in the world.

When the... Robert was just told us it's less to do with the global

growth than it is to do with the productivity. It's to do with both.

Let's look at the productivity issues. That is also very important

and I am glad you are highlighting it because we as a country have had

a long-running productivity problem over successive governments.

Something that's just been confirmed. When there is a change in

productivity, of course it can have an impact but we have also seen the

last year, as Robert mentioned, the congressional budget office

downgraded their productivity by more than we did. They are starting

from 20% ahead of us. Absolutely they are. It is interesting. You

have been in power, you haven't been best Secretary, so it's not been you

that whole period. What do you think we should conclude about

productivity? You have been in power for six years, Conservative-led

Government. Should we basically think actually productivity is

something governments can't really change? No, I think that would be

wrong. Productivity is one of our number one priorities this

parliament. But let's just go back. The question is we have been in

power, obviously with the coalition Government to begin with, but since

2010. Our priority back in 2010 was frankly economic rescue. We had just

gone through the biggest recession in almost 100 years. We had the

biggest budget deficit of any G20 economy. We had the biggest bank

bail out so economic rescue was the priority. It wasn't productivity, it

was economic rescue, we had to get the economy growing again. We had

numbers today that confirmed we have more people employed than ever

before. We have done well on employment. The priority of this

Government is product yft and that's why in the first few weeks of this

new Government, along with the Treasury, I published a productivity

plan, very detailed. You are welcome to read it. You probably already

looked at it and action we can take. Have you modelled the effect it is

going to have on productivity? These are long-term changes. There is no

silver bullet. Things like investing in skills, in infrastructure, more

competitive markets, exports, that's part of the plan. What I have

modelled is that if we could match as a country US productivity

levels... We would be 20% richer. We could stop going to work on Friday.

?25,000 for every household and that's the only way we are going to

raise living standards and that's why we take it seriously. Just to be

clear, you do think you can affect productivity? Over the long-term.

There is no overnight solution. 2019 we can come back to you and say...

It will take a number of years. I am glad this Government is the first to

deal with it. Let's look at some things that you have said you will

do and you have not. The overall debt level was first I think going

to fall as a percentage of GDP 2014. It didn't. Then 2015. Now it's 2016.

What should we make of the fact that you failed that more than once? Who

has been fired for failing to meet the fiscal mandate on that important

story? First of all, let's respect that we actually now for once have

an independent body, the OBR, it's a good opportunity to give credit to

Robert and his team for the work they do. They have transformed the

way that we look at these fiscal events because now we can rely on

these numbers and they take into account a lot of external factors.

There used to be a time when Chancellors... Robert didn't set the

target. You set the target. Absolutely. Robert merely told us

that you failed to meet the target. Leave him out of it! I am asking who

is losing their job because you failed to meet your target, and you

went into the election saying trust us, we are credible and know what we

are doing. When there is a change in forecasts, even the smallest change

in GDP can have a big knock-on impact in numbers. Our central

mission that the Chancellor set out back in his first budget of this new

parliament was that we are going to make sure this country starts living

within its mean again. He said there will be a surplus by the end of this

parliament and that's still what is forecast. The welfare cap, because

you introduced it in 2014. You said at the time, under Labour our

welfare bill has got out of control. That is why we are introducing the

welfare cap. You failed to meet - to hit the welfare cap. Well, again, a

small change in forecasts can have an impact. We knew there were going

to be changes, that's why people said don't introduce a silly welfare

cap at the time. People were saying at the time, a welfare cap, you are

going to be like 2% off and you are going to miss your welfare cap. And

you have. Are you saying we shouldn't judge you on your failure

to meet the welfare cap? No, I am saying you judge us on the

discipline that we provide to try to bring the public finances under

control. What we have seen since... This is an important point. Are you

saying we shouldn't judge you on failure to meet the welfare cap? We

should be judged on our central mission which is to make sure this

country lives within its means. Put aside the welfare cap and not judge

that one on its own? You put a lot - you invested a lot of reputation and

a lot of people at the time said it was simply put there to make life

difficult for the Labour Party, it was a partisan thing. You put a lot

into it and you appear now to be saying judge us on the whole

picture, not that? It's actually put there to install discipline for

whatever... It hasn't worked, up haven't met it. Let's judge it on

the basis that we have got this cap. If the cap is breached. It has been

breached. The welfare Secretary will come in front of parliament and

explain what happened. Is Iain Duncan Smith going to do that? Is he

going to lose his job and apologise, is he going to be taken to court for

breaking the law and not meeting the welfare cap? What it will make sure

happens is that the discipline that we have put in place works. Now the

Government of the day, which ever, this isn't put in for the Labour

Party or the Conservative Party. It hasn't worked. What consequences is

there for you failing to meet it and if it doesn't have consequence in

what way is it imposing discipline? When the Government now looks at

this and as we have set out is that we have to make sure that welfare is

controlled and spending and we continue to cut it and we have the

proper measures in place to make sure that we can meet the overall

budget targets. That's interesting. A lot of people will say it is

because you have not delivered the welfare reform that you wanted that

this week you have had to go out and take more than a billion away from

people on personal independence payments to try and get welfare

under the cap. Still hasn't worked incidentally but to keep welfare

down, in effect, you are asking people with disabilities to be

poorer because you have failed to deliver the welfare reforms that you

said you were going to. That's not the case. That is wrong on many

accounts. First of all, the welfare reform that we put in place is

delivering results, for the first time we have a system in place that

makes sure that people who are out of work that choose work will always

be better off. That was not the case before. If you look at the reports

on uniform credit it has made a sea change to people's attitude to

taking up work. Then also on personal independence payments, they

and the predecessor, the DLA, they're up three billion in real

terms since 2010. The number of people getting those payments is

higher. A lot of people are saying that's a failure of the welfare

reform. No - look, please let me respond. It's actually a recognition

that you have a welfare system that looks after the most vulnerable in

society. Of course I put disabled people at the top of the list.

That's why spending has increased, even during the life of this

parliament it's projected it's going to rise by another billion. I don't

accept for a second that we have cut spending on disabilities payments. I

will play one clip and give you a chance to answer.

Graeme Ellis is a lifelong Conservative voter who today quit

the Conservative Disability Group and took the group's website

We reached him earlier over the internet -

The first story I came across on the BBC news website

was about the proposed changes to PIP and proposing to take 200,000

people out of the benefit and lowering the eligibility of others.

Then I went on to read the story about the raising of the threshold

for higher rate earners and immediately it just hit me

that it was a case of robbing the vulnerable to pay the rich.

They're saying they need to make savings and yet they can make tax

cuts and I am sure people in this country would rather see people

looked after, rather than see huge tax cuts.

What's your answer to Graeme? I would say please don't believe all

the misinformation that's out there. I would not be part of a Government

that cuts benefits for disabled people. You have taken a billion,

you are making ?1 billion of savings. We have increased benefits

for people that are disabled by three billion over the last

parliament and they're rising by a further billion projected during

this parliament. That's an increase. We need to hold it there. Thank you

very much indeed. Listening to that and the budget

today, Seema, your Shadow Chancellor said it was morally reprehensible to

cut benefits for people with disabilities, is that your view? I

think people will be staggered to hear what Sajid has just said. Four

billion taken out in terms of support for people with

disabilities. It's over lots of years. We normally do it per year.

In the final year, as well, that is set to be 31% of the net savings in

that final year, coming on the backs of those with disabilities. Do you

feel it's morally reprehensible? That's a phrase John used and one

people will understand. Do you use it? I would say it is close to that,

because what you are saying, what you are saying is that you will do

almost like a reverse Robin Hood, this is taking from people who use

those payments to be able to make improvements in their home, to get

to work. It's going to be a cost to the state in other ways to take this

away. This is a budget that was built on the back of George

Osborne's failures and has failed to invest for the future. Let's ask

what you would do. You have a borrowing target, it's not nearly as

ambitious as the Conservative borrowing target. Meeting the cost

of day-to-day spending, not all spending. We are not doing that at

the moment. Just give me in a couple of sentences what you would do if

you were giving your budget today. You are absolutely right, what we

would be looking for would be fair taxation, so tackling tax avoidance,

there are some measures brought in today and we will look at the

detail. We would also be saying that you need to invest for growth. This

was an attempt... Before we get to the growth bit. Give us the

difficult decisions, not the easy ones. I think this is an important

point. This is saying you want to invest in new technologies. This

sounds like more borrowing, not less. Some might need to be

borrowing for the future. That's what we have said. You would need to

invest for the future. You need to invest so that you can see the

growth in productivity, whether that's through developing skills,

through developing infrastructure. But also we would say you would want

to tackle waste. Just one example, Evan... You say waste. We have been

through the most horrific change in the public sector. Everything has

been trimmed and you are still saying you can go out there and find

waste. Housing benefit, it's forecast to be ?350 million more

than George Osborne suggested last summer. The reason is the Government

has failed to invest in housing. We know from recent data as well that

there are over 200,000 fewer households owning their own home

than when George Osborne became Chancellor. Just to be clear, your

budget today would have had more spending, maybe some cuts in

avoidance of tax and some increases through avoidance. But there is no

difficult decision that you would have made basically, nothing that

would have been taking something from somebody? I wonder whether that

is exactly what people fear about the Labour Party, is that they see

what's morally reprehensible but have no tough decisions they want to

take themselves. I don't think that's fair. What we are saying here

is if you want to balance the books you can do that through two ways.

One is cutting spending. You can do that through waste, as well. The

other is making sure that you have ways increasing tax receipts. What

we have said is that you need to be investing for growth. We have seen a

Government now, if you look at the failures on exports, failures on

wage growth, also set to fall. These are ways in which you are seeing

people paying the price of the failures to run the economy well.

There is a huge debate about whether those measures work or they achieve

what you want. We won't get into that now. Let me ask this, the

Conservative Government is aiming to take us back to a relatively small

state. 37% or thereabouts of national income. Give us a clue,

roughly, what sort of size have you in mind for the state? We will lay

out our plans as nearer the time obviously to the next election. You

don't know, roughly? Within 5% of national income? We will say... 40%?

This is a Government... You are getting back to them. I am asking

about you. Local Government decimated, this is a budget that's

done nothing for the health service and the health deficit that we are

seeing. So, in terms of saying what do people care about, what do people

want? This is a long non-answer to my question! People want public

services and they want a state that's on their side. A state that

works in partnership with industry for growth. There are different

roles of this state. We believe is the state should be there to provide

public services and support for individuals but also be there to

generate growth. We look forward to more precision being put to that

answer. Thank you all. Well, the biggest surprise

was the sugar tax. It wasn't long ago we'd been told

it was off the agenda, then out of the packet it was there

in the Chancellor's budget. How, you might have wondered,

does that bloke on the telly manage to fill even my

widescreen TV so fully? It's because of my

rather unhealthy diet. One that the Chancellor today,

and the budget, said I'm not prepared to look

back at my time in this Parliament doing this job and say

to my childrens' generation, I'm sorry, we knew there

was a problem with sugary drinks and we knew it caused disease

but we ducked the difficult So today I can announce

that we will introduce a new sugar The new ?500 million levy

was a bit of a surprise, and this is the share price

of drinks maker Britvic You can see clearly

when the announcement was made. And here is Jamie Oliver,

who has been campaigning for this I'm over the moon and now I expect

a lot from the obesity strategy Now, public health officials hope

that this measure will have a double whammy effect when it

comes to children. First of all, the money raised

will be spent on school sports. Secondly, a quarter of the sugar

that children take in comes from sugary drinks and they hope

this tax will diminish that number. We do have a problem

with childhood obesity. Around one third of 11-year-old

children are either They are on track

to health problems. And remember, children in the very

poorest neighbourhoods are twice as likely to be obese

as children from the richest. Unfortunately obesity

is the new smoking. It is one in five kids

overweight across the country. It is obesity which causes may be

one in five cancers and is costing us all ?5 billion a year

in NHS treatment. We do need to take action and doing

something about the extra fizzy, sugary drinks which our children

are consuming is a very good British food companies have

already cut a lot of sugar from their products in recent years

and they have got two more years to cut more if they want

to avoid the new levy. This Tory MP who used to work

in the drinks industry is wary. I've had a long-standing

objection to any kind of sugary drink tax,

largely because I think it is illiberal, regressive,

patronising, it is Nanny statism at its worst, but most importantly

it will hit consumers It would not surprise you that this

fluorescent orange drink has enough These five drinks over here have

just as much of it is these ones, They are not putting any sugar

taxes on these yogurts, even though they have higher sugar

content than all of these drinks. In fact, this cheese

sandwich, if I was to sell this as a drink,

would have a high enough sugar But because I'm selling it as a

sandwich, it doesn't. I'm sceptical that this will work on evidence from

other countries that have tried similar taxes sure it doesn't work,

and people switch from one sugary product to another, and what it

doesn't do is change behaviour to low-calorie products. This sugar

levy is a idea that the government ruled out a month ago but it seems

the drinks companies were just too easy a target. Look at this. 23

sachets of sugar in that single container. Furthermore, it is a good

distraction from the gruesome fiscal news, perhaps that is the most

important reason why we ended up with the big new public health

policy. In a moment, we'll pick over the day

with our eminent panel here. If this was a pre-election budget

we'd be going to a marginal seat The next electoral test is

the referendum on whether to leave So let's hear from the kinds

of voters the Government will want to keep sweet

if they are to keep Britain Katie Razzall went to Wiltshire

to see how the budget is going down The Wiltshire Ramblers have

had this Wednesday walk The small matter of a budget

wasn't going to stop them. Nine miles of beautiful

countryside lay ahead. And the turnout

suggested for these folk the Chancellor's pronouncements

aren't a must-watch. This county went entirely blue

at the last election. With the referendum in the offing,

George Osborne wants to keep the good people in Wiltshire

who supported the Conservatives At Hartham Park near Corsham

a business show for local companies. The Chancellor claimed his budget

is a rocket boost for enterprise, for the likes of the hundred

or so businesses offering They are running right at me. A

clown with a chair. Andrew Hawkins runs a local shopping centre. --

Andrew Hall. You are going to be selling these? I would love them. It

is interesting business rates are being reviewed, this is biggest cost

to our business, business rates and VAT, and that being addressed will

have a real large impact on retail, and for that alone I would put a

very large plus. Anita runs a local business magazine and she raged

George Osborne as a Chancellor but does not buy his warnings that

leaving the European Union will advertise the affect the economy.

There will be a few bumps along the way, but we have got enough of an

economy and workforce out there that work very hard and they will keep

pushing and I think we would never be really out on a limb. The

economic benefits seem straightforward. If we are out of

the EU, I've no doubt it would make it very difficult for businesses to

export or import. Is it time to head for the hills? Surely our Ramblers

do not want be left ignorant of today's big financial news. They

were in luck thanks to modern technology, we could bring George to

them. It keeps Britain on the move. No rise to fuel duty. We are pleased

about that. That is a good one. Fewer Judy, but what are raising tax

allowances? -- fuel duty good. If we did not pay ?53 million every day to

Europe, that would go a long way to paying for it or he made a little

dig, he said the forecast for the economy, although scare back, not as

bad as it would be if we left Europe. I disagree with that. If

they had a vote that lunchtime today, I would vote to come out at

tea-time tonight. Others back George Osborne on the deficit. We need to

get our expenditure down, and cuts are never palatable, especially when

they affect you, but he's sticking to his guns. He is right to keep

cutting? He is right, otherwise he will get a few years down the line

and face a general election and the opposition will slaughter him

because he has not achieved what he set out to do. But in a pub in

caution we met a husband and wife who are not quite as combination

three. Alan is a conservative councillor and Gladys was chairman

of the local branch until she left in dismay at what her National party

was doing. After working very hard for 78 years and thinking we have a

Conservative government and therefore a Conservative Chancellor,

and therefore a conservative budget, I find I have a socialist

Chancellor. Conservative is for smaller government. Each individual

is responsible for their destiny. Why do we have to encourage people

to save? Why have we got a sugar tax? People should not be eating

sugar. Conservatism is about freedom of choice, not about the government

telling you what you should and shouldn't do, it is about the

government in enabling you to do what is right and what you can do.

The sugar tax? I'm against any of those kind of legislations,

interference, it is micromanagement. What is the path ahead? Even in

conservative Wiltshire there are so many opposing views, and the party

supporters here are sure to be divided again come June. We can now

take stock of the budget. Joining me now are Lionel Barber,

the editor of the Financial Times. Jayne-Anne Gadhia,

CEO of Virgin Money. Fraser Nelson, editor of

The Spectator and Mariana Mazzucato, economics Professor

at the University of Sussex. In a few days we can say what the

budget really achieved or didn't. What will we be talking about? We

will be talking about the big picture internationally which is

marked by pervasive uncertainty. Uncertainty about growth in China,

the slowdown and the impact on emerging markets which have driven

world growth over the last decade. We will talking about Donald Trump

for the nomination. A great protectionist. Several countries in

Europe without governments and finally we will talk about Brexit

and the threat, that is the backdrop. In terms of the individual

measures and the numbers, I guarantee you you will not be able

to remember the numbers. They had changed in a period of three months

and George Osborne has got himself in a terrible tangle, trying to meet

his goal of the surplus given that the forecasts a change, and lastly

we will remember the sugar tax, even though that is two years away. And

cuts in capital gains tax and relief finally for small businesses, who

they need to vote against Brexit in the referendum. That is the Brexit

backdrop. What do you think we will remember about the budget? I hope

that we remember we live in a thriving economy, that has been

missed, we have high employment and the budget is about driving

employment. We have wage growth, another that has slowed slightly, we

have taxation benefits which mean people have more disposable income

and the fact that oil prices have come down has given consumers

greater confidence and that has encouraged everyone. The fact the

Chancellor has helped the oil industry, that is a good thing, and

therefore we have a good, strong economy for the future and this

budget is built on that and we should look at this positively. You

are on a business Council for the Chancellor, correct? I am in the

Prime Minister's business advisory group. In a broad business sense,

there was a bit of a hit on bigger businesses, he learned his lesson

from Google, seemingly. You are not complaining about that? The tax

position in terms of managing corporation tax is a wise thing to

do, 1% reduction in corporation tax will mean that people, businesses,

bring more of their profits into the UK and that will pay for itself very

easily in that way and encourage investment into the UK and that is

very important. Mariana, you are an adviser to John McDonnell, you are

one of the panel of seven, aren't you? What did you make of this

budget? It will be remembered for our short-term and superficial it

was, because it did not tackle the sources of the problem. It had token

measures. In terms of productivity, how to solve that problem, that is

about increasing public and private investment, and private investment

is falling in this country, that will not increase through tax cuts.

Tax cuts in the short term are simply making profits increase,

profits continue to be at record highs, and if we want to be like the

United States which Sajid Javid was saying, we should increase corporate

income tax, to 39%, but that... There is no evidence that cutting

capital gains tax or corporate income taxes going to increase

business index. Is that correct? Boosting investment clearly helpful

on the productivity side? Tax is very important. In enabling small

businesses to invest in their own development is really important and

I think small businesses in this country deserve further investment

and support from the Chancellor and I think they got back today. I

encourage that. Small businesses internationally, from the ones in

Israel to the United States, in China, you want them to grow, you

don't want them to remain small, and what small businesses need is

patient, long-term committed finance, but what did we do with the

few attempts in this country to get the kind of finance? We privatised

the business bank and the green investment bank, but those are the

concrete tours which will increase investment and innovation in this

country. We are turning this, the business department into an

enterprise zone. No regulation, low tax, we want to be like Ireland,

fine. Fraser, what struck you about this

budget? A lot of different Chancelloring on show. Thatcher and

Hezza and a little bit of Gordon Brown in there. There is a lot in

it. There is. He had a political objective here and that was to annoy

as few Conservatives as he can before the referendum. He can not

afford another omnishambles budget. You thought he was weeding out

anything seen to cause a political provsh for him down the road. He

choose the sugar tax, predominantly a tax on the poor which is a

regressive measure but one the Labour Party welcomed and the Lib

Dems, a sure sign it's a bad idea. By and large enough to keep Tories

happy, a small cut in corporation tax, an increase in the threshold.

So, it smooths the way for the EU vote which is all he is really

thinking about right now. Can I just ask you all about this devolution

package. No one ever seems to talk about this. Step by step we are

getting a big reshaping of the country, aren't we? Mayors and

regional governments and joining up authorities and it's the Chancellor

leading it. I don't know why? I look forward to the new Wessex regional

authority. They're going back to the old region. There is a serious point

here. Certainly the Financial Times have argued for a long time this

country is too centralised, too much built around Whitehall and if you

are seeing the kind of devolution that we have seen the last couple of

years in Scotland, then you need to have some compensating factors in

England. But, of course, there is a sting in the tail here. The

Chancellor talked eloquently as ever about the devolution revolution and

yet here is a Government that's actually really nationalising our

education policy, even to the point of dictating that everybody should

study maths until they're 18 years old. I gather late tonight that may

be now receding into the distance. Right. We heard one of those

constituents in Wiltshire talking about it being a socialist

Chancellor. Yeah, you can completely see why. Can you really? Is it

really? Look at the ideas he has taken from Ed Balls, the ?9 minimum

wage. The bashing of the big banks that never stops. Look at the

budgets today, he tells you all the good causes he is giving bank fines

to, these evil banks, let's give it to nice people. He is going to help

small business, good. Again he is using a lot of language and it does

make Conservatives wonder why he bothered winning a majority if he is

going to implement all these Labour ideas. Ask yourself what in this

budget couldn't really have been delivered by a Labour Chancellor?

There isn't that much. Sorry, that's completely wrong. It's called the

centre ground. This is an incredibly regressive budget. The income tax

cuts are also benefitting snoochlt the poor to the rich through

different measures How are you guys doing? What do you think is there an

alternative at the moment? Absolutely. Is Labour delivering...

The numbers are very worrying in terms of families we have the

projection of something like 164% of household debt to disposable income,

this is bringing us back to the levels of indebtedness we had just

before the crisis. How is the Labour Party, in your view, you are advisor

to them, doing in terms of framing a good alternative, credible

alternative I think this emphasis on the strategic state which I am happy

if you want, that's to be carried through systemically, it shouldn't

just be used as a token measure. Having an agenda which is focussed

on investment-led growth as opposed to consumption-led growth which

continues to be the situation here. Therefore, debt to income levels

rising. It's keeping us going the last five years. We need

investment-led growth. We need a coherent plan and that also means

strengthening those public institution that is will actually

allow us, like the US, to have that kind of growth. We have to leave it

there. Thank you all very much. One more thing we learned today,

among the million jobs the Chancellor says he will create

this parliament is a new role There'll be a Mayor

of the West of England too. But what will the holders of these

grand titles actually be Happily, the Mayor of Trumpton

provided a detailed job description Fire Brigade, library,

road repairs, postage stamps, rubbish bins, swimming baths,

broken window panes, parked gates, waterworks,

painting all the street lamps, dust carts, youth club,

Church bazaar, drains.