Letter: A Budget that ends consumerism
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It would have been too much to have expected the Chancellor in his Budget speech to apologise to the nation for the 10 quarters of falling manufacturing output, for the pounds 12bn current account deficit rising to pounds 17.5bn in the coming year, and for the prospect of a borrowing requirement for 1993-94 of pounds 50bn. Nor did the Chancellor express any regret that, so soon after the election, the Government had broken its promise not to extend the scope of VAT or raise the level of National Insurance contribution.
However, given that the economy is not yet on a firm recovery path, it was sensible of the Chancellor to introduce a broadly neutral Budget this year. It was also a good idea to commit the Government in advance to raising revenue in the following two years, in order to reduce the vast budget deficit.
My criticism of the Chancellor's Budget is not so much of his overall strategy but of his failure to pay more than lip service to reducing unemployment or increasing investment in infrastructure projects. By his own admission, his jobs package will help only one in 10 of the long-term unemployed, while his announcement on private investment in rail projects sounded half-hearted. What about the pounds 5bn in capital receipts, which the local authorities could quickly spend on housing and other useful programmes? And as Holly Sutherland pointed out (17 March), the Budget measures will hit the poorest hardest.
If the strategy of delaying the biggest tax increases until the economy has recovered is going to work, it will depend crucially on the prestige and authority of the Chancellor. The problem with Mr Lamont is that he has lost his credibility. It would be far better if the 'Augustinian' policy of putting off the pain was carried out by a new Chancellor.
Yours etc,
GILES RADICE
MP for Durham North (Lab)
House of Commons
London, SW1
17 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments