CentreRight

An open letter to Alan Duncan

As Conservative Home reported on Monday, Alan’s Duncan on BBC called Miss California a ‘bitch’ and joked that if she was found murdered he would be responsible because she disagreed with gay marriage…

Dear Mr Duncan,

Many people in our party and also outside it hold you in high esteem. You have risen to hold high office in the shadow cabinet. It is one of the virtues of our party that although we hold to certain core values, such as freedom of speech, the party is by no means intolerant of those who hold a range of opinions on other issues. It was therefore deeply disappointing to hear your comments made on BBC about Miss California (Carrie Prejean) who had been called a b****** and a c*** by one of the Miss USA judges simply because when asked about her views on gay marriage she politely stated her honest and deeply held belief that “I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there”. The very gracious way that she responded both to that question and to the subsequent abuse from the judge who asked her the question set a standard for the rest of us to follow.

Alan we all know that you personally disagree with her. However, the manner in which you expressed your disagreement with her comments caused very deep offence to many people, including many whom the Conservative Party will be asking to vote for them in the next few weeks.

Mr Duncan, you called the lady a ‘bitch’ and joked that she should be murdered because of her deeply held beliefs that ‘marriage is something that is between a man and a woman’. A few weeks ago Stonewall circulated a briefing note to MPs citing a rap song with lyrics suggesting that gay people should be murdered. They cited it as an example of the sort of comment, however intended, that should be criminalised. I have no doubt whatsoever that as a gay man you would have found such a song deeply offensive. Would it therefore be too much to hope that reflecting on this might help you in turn to understand how deeply offensive your comments were to those who, out of religious or moral convictions, disagree with your own views on gay marriage?

Those of us involved in politics know that at times we all make mistakes, we say something that was inappropriate, something that offends those we did not mean to hurt or abuse. However, it is how we respond to that situation afterwards that shows our true character. Boris made his famous Liverpool comment, but responded by apologising, saying how stunned he was by the offence he had caused. No one thought the worse of him for it, in fact it raised him in many people’s esteem, it showed him to be the greater man. Alan, for the sake of those you’ve hurt, it’s time to do a Boris…

Incoherent Conservatives

Most days of my professional life, I ponder the importance of coherence. That's because the concept has a very technical meaning - it has a life that escapes the bounds of its common English usage. Essentially, to be coherent means to make statements of induction ('What can I say about the Universe, based on these data in front of me?") which obey the calculus of probability. That probably sounds uncontroversial but in fact the dominant school of statistical inference resolutely refuses to obey what, for me, is one of only two laws of inference worth bothering about. Everything I subscribe to, in my working life, follows from obedience to a desire for coherent induction.

Well, and life would be dull indeed if it followed consistent patterns, no? Which is why Alice Miles' article in the Times this morning annoyed me a little. Ms Miles' view is that Tory policy is 'incoherent', a claim which she substantiates by saying that the Tories may increase spending on Health, but not on Education. Ms Miles' view, if I've understood her argument correctly, is that spending should increase on Education, but perhaps not on Health.

An original claim to coherent reasoning, but not one I wish to dwell on further. Instead I want to thank Ms Miles for helping me put my finger on what has been irritating me about lots of Tory coverage for some time. 'What are your precise plans?', Mr Cameron is asked, endlessly. 'Will you cut x% from budget y in department z? Or z% from budget x in department y? or both? or, like, neither?'. I don't find this a particularly productive line of questioning, not least because Mr Cameron isn't fool enough to provide any hostages to fortune. More, though, it's because these questions are just surrogates, taking the place of the question which perhaps the interviewer isn't even conscious of wishing to ask: What Sort Of Ideology Will Drive A Cameron Government? I solidly hope that the answer to this question is 'None'. More than that. I positively desire David Cameron's government to be incoherent.

Swine flu: time to start worrying

Glancing at the Agence France-Presse news wire a new minutes ago, I noticed that our esteemed Prime Minister has had the following to say about the current swine flu epidemic.

"Britain is among the best-prepared countries in the world [to deal with the outbreak]"

Hang on a minute; doesn't this sound rather familar?

"Britain is uniquely well placed to weather any economic storms".

Time to start worrying.

Quality matters

Three cheers for David Cameron in his strong rebuttal of the Times' unfair attack about us being a party of sad, shuffling men in suits. With more women in the Shadow Cabinet than the Labour Cabinet and with us set to treble female MPs to near 60 if we win the General Election we have much to shout about on how much the Conservative Party has changed.

It's disappointing that the debate about women in politics always seems to be about numbers, not quality.  Now numbers do matter. But we can see from the Labour benches that is not always the whole story.  We know from Margaret Thatcher's amazing leadership of our country that quality matters too. 

It is striking just how much talent there is across the board in today's Conservative Party. In particular, I have long been inspired by the great quality we will have in female MPs should the Conservatives form a Government after the next election. The more so after attending the Spring Forum at the weekend. David Cameron's aspiration for one third female ministers is clearly achievable. And the country - not just Times jounalists - are in for a shock at just how much they will shake up our national life for the better. Bring it on! 

Flu forecast?

The current evidence backs up Ryan Air boss Michael O'Leary's assertion in today's Times that swine 'flu is only a real threat to slum dwellers. Speaking to my brother yesterday, a professor of Mexican studies, he too pointed out that it was poor Mexicans who can't afford the doctor's fees who have died.

I don't want to diminish the global significance of a new, rapidly transmitted virus - especially one like 'flu that could mutate and get worse over time. But will the unfolding tragedy really be that there is another new form of disease, like diarrhoea, like pneumonia, that is entirely treatable and which is an inconvenience to the rich in the west, but a death sentence for the poor? If so, what are we going to do about it?

The Labour Government: dishonest, self-serving and rotten to the core

Winston Churchill said of Russia some 70 years ago “it was a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. One can only speculate as to how he would have described the rotting and crumbling Labour Government of today. But it strikes me that it is a dishonest wastrel, wrapped in spin, inside a fraudulent self-serving and imploding machine.

Barely had the pundits finished picking over the bones of the less-than-tasty dish served up in last week’s Budget when we were served the delights of Harriet Harman’s latest effort to tie the business community up in yet more pointless bureaucracy. In her “Equalities Bill” annual reporting of pay for men and women (or should that be women and men?) would become a legal requirement in 2013 if employers failed to comply “voluntarily”. So now we know what voluntary means in Ms Harman’s lexicon. It means you must do it or, if you don’t, we’ll force you to.

Behind this move was the notion of the “gender pay gap”, the difference between average pay rates for men and for women, and how it “must be closed”. Ms Harman quoted the gap at 23%. But she chose to include part-timers – mostly low paid women – producing a far higher figure than the official ONS estimate of less than 13% which is for full-time employees and may be regarded as a significantly more meaningful statistic. Figures apart, there is the implication in Ms Harman’s comments that the gap was the result of “unfair” discrimination against women by employers. Yet this accusation is ill-supported by a strong body of research and survey evidence that shows the pay gap can overwhelmingly be explained by the different career and lifestyle choices of individual men and individual women. The implicit accusation against employers is therefore a grossly unfair slur.

Eric Pickles reveals his top five websites

Party chairman Eric Pickles' YouTube "War Room Briefing" is well worth a watch if you haven't yet seen it. His performance in front of the camera is infinitely better than the recent effort by the Prime Minister (although that isn't really saying much, is it?) and I can't imagine his Labour counterparts being so willing to take a video camera behind the scenes at party HQ right now.

And as we watch him sat as his computer, he unwittingly reveals the top five websites on his favourites list, which are entirely uncontroversial, but I thought I'd point them out anyway:

1. Benedict Brogan's blog
2. ConservativeHome
3. Er, Eric Pickles' website
4. Google
5. Guido Fawkes

Incidentally, watching Eric stand in front of the map pointing out some of the key electoral contests around the country made me wonder whether he had ever thought about pursuing an alternative career as a TV weatherman...

Tax and tactics

It comes as little surprise that early opinion polls suggest an overwhelming majority support the government's plans to impose a new higher tax band on those earning over £150,000.  Our Party Leadership has correctly identified that this blatantly political gauntlet has been thrown down purely to embarrass us  - after all it stands to raise negligible additional income.  Accordingly we are entirely justified in declining to play to this discredited government's tune. The most urgent priority of any incoming Conservative government will be to stabilise the public finances.
 
As I have frequently observed there is an increasing sense of insecurity amongst an ever larger proportion of the UK workforce that the spoils of globalisation are being spread inequitably. This will grow especially amongst middle-class professionals outside the once gilded corridors of financial and associated services.  However, the predictable truth of this imposition is that the super-rich will pay not a penny more of tax at all.  They are either non-domiciled or in the privileged position of being able to characterise much of their income as capital gains (subject to an unchanged 18% tax rate).  Additional revenue will come only from modestly successful entrepreneurs (who will have even less incentive or collateral to expand their enterprises) and salaried workers unable to avoid this increase and frequently earning sums not wildly in excess of the threshold, whose instincts to do the right thing on savings and pensions will be blunted as their disposable income falls.
    
Conservatives understand the critical importance to our national economic health of promoting small, start-up business. Competitive tax rates are essential to encourage entrepreneurs especially as we make our way out of this deepest of recessions.  Conservatives appreciate that raising tax now even on the wealthiest in our communities risks prolonging the UK's economic downturn.
 
A decade or so ago the decision of the then Labour opposition to "stick to Tory tax and spending plans" was an explicit recognition that our economic strategy was right for this nation.  This is in stark contrast to the situation today. Even in these turbulent times the public should not be taken for fools. No-one out there believes that the Labour government's recklessness with the public finances is worthy of emulation.   

The battle of the petitions

At the time of writing...

Brown must go has 21,216 signatures.

Brown must stay has 9.

PS The Sir Ryan Giggs petition I'm helping with has 524.

Beware triumphalism!

Opinion polls leads of nearly 20%, possible Conservative majorities of 170, journalists are only interested in what the Conservatives have to say... well it's all in the bag isn't it?  Er . . . not quite. As every marginal seat candidate will tell you, history teaches that poll leads tend to tighten towards elections, we should take nothing for granted and we must not be complacent. Above all we must avoid the smug triumphalism that cost Labour in 1992.

We are entering a potentially dangerous time. The media are looking at the Conservative plans in detail now. It could be tempting for some to get over confident, get carried away and say daft things.  Things that would be seized on by our opponents. It could be tempting for campaigners to work less hard as they think we've won already. And we have an important set of elections coming up - low turnout elections where door knocking and getting out the vote will make a big difference and ensure our momentum continues.

I don't want to sound like Cassandra or a party pooper but we do need to keep our feet rooted firmly on the ground and beware triumphalism!

Not Immune – immediate government action required

If we are lucky, this new swine H1N1 strain of 'flu will fizzle out and we will merely be sending heartfelt condolences to the people of Mexico. However we can't simply wait for that 'if' to materialise and the government needs to show leadership today including:

• Acting to reassure the nation that they have systems in place to cope with an influenza pandemic, even though swine ‘flu that is being spread out from Mexico by global travellers has so far proved less virulent in the countries to which it has spread.
• Willing to be honest: there is no way of containing a virus like this even if borders are closed. So clear information and instructions should be immediately issued to all international arrivals at our airports and ports.
• Publicising our position re stockpiles of the two ‘flu drugs that seem to be effective against it – Tamiflu and Relenza. The risks and benefits should be clearly publicised by the independent Health Protection Agency to avoid scaremongering by the anti-jabs brigade.
• Reviewing all the literature around the 1976 outbreak of the same H1N1 virus [though we are probably dealing with a different strain] which caused major alarm in the USA but which never developed into the feared pandemic. Why – was it just luck or did certain measures make all the difference?
• Considering how we can support our less-developed Commonwealth partners if they should need our help.
  

A pandemic is not inevitable, neither is panic. We're not immune but we can be prepared - time will tell if this is something this government was ready for.

BBC Indian Election Train

Having been either away or submerged in family illness, I'm just venturing forth again with a few questions.  Firstly, am intrigued to know what CR readers think of their money being spent on a BBC Indian Election Train? I know we paid for a bus to follow the US elections, but that was about the next leader of the world's greatest super power. India is a developing nation, granted has a significant geo-strategic position and I'm a fan of the World Service, but is this train a good use of our licence fee?

Must Try Harder

It was great that Boris Johnson decided that, after years of wanton neglect, St.George's Day should be properly marked this year, and launched London's celebrations himself on Thursday at Leadenhall Market in the City.

So it's a bore to carp, but it has to be said that the culmination - a St George's Day Festival in Trafalgar Square - proved a dismal, threadbare affair. Bereft of flags or decorations, the Square, with its fountains covered in scaffolding, looked rather forlorn.

The crowds that came - and these were drawn from all age groups - were treated to a succession of folk bands and performers who must have been unfamiliar to most of them, all playing at high decibal level. It seems to be assumed when public events of this kind are organised now that this is what people want - simply to stand and listen to live bands. But it almost never works. It tends to alienate and dominate at the same time. It takes the focus off the event and puts it instead onto the anonymous figures on stage.

There was also virtually nothing for kids to do (surely a couple of brightly decorated carousels can't cost much?), no stalls to speak of, and a general air of nothing-to-see-here.

It's a great idea to celebrate, and it's to be hoped that yesterday's half-hearted display doesn't put people off in the future. If you're going to do it an event such as this, you might as well do it properly

Should the Conservatives help the Damian Green whistleblower to get a new job?

Christopher Galley, the Home Office whistleblower who fed Damian Green with the leaks that got him into trouble with Bob Quick's anti-terrorist police, has lost his civil service job.  Martin Bright thinks that the Conservative Party should help find him new employment: "I believe there is a duty of care on the part of those who directly benefit from the work of whistleblowers towards those who have taken risks on their behalf... [the Conservatives] should help Christopher Galley back into employment immediately."

Do we agree?

Cutting the NHS health care budget : it can be done

 

"The key to involvement is developing the learning capacity of everybody to recognise and realise the potential for involvement. The challenge for us is to find practical and creative ways of developing the capacity of everybody through learning and development opportunities both within formal learning and also in everyday work capacity." 

Rachel Horley : the NHS Centre for Involvement

As we approach the next general election, the Tories are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to suggesting cuts in the health care budget. And yet, with expenditure now topping £2 billion a week, there is no better area in which to start economising. The amount of money that has been wasted over the last twelve years is breathtaking. Much of the waste comes from the government obsession with the process of healthcare as opposed to its delivery. 

There is no better example of egregious waste than the NHS Centre for Involvement. The “centre for involvement”? What does it mean? Spend a few minutes on their website where you will find gems like this. 

"The NHS Centre for Involvement supports and encourages the NHS and other organisations to involve patients and the public in health and social care decision-making. We engage with organisations in order to create, encourage and support a healthcare culture that involves individuals and communities on many levels."   

Is that clear? If not, then watch the video above. Tubby Tritter, an NHS BLOG DOCTOR favourite, explains all. Please do not laugh. The government spends £millions a year on the NHS Centre for Involvement.

But could someone help me with the quote from Rachel Horley?  What does it mean? Can anyone translate it into English?

How do they find bread for "the News Sandwich"?

Bloomberg's report on anger management inside the Downing Street bunker (which sounds increasingly  like Downfall, the main difference being it cost us considerably less to defeat Hitler and fight the Second World War than it did to have Gordon Brown as Chancellor and Prime Minister):

"One staffer says a colleague developed a technique called a “news sandwich” -- first telling the prime minister about a recent piece of good coverage before delivering bad news, and then moving quickly to tell him about something good coming soon."

I'm intrigued: how do they find anything good to talk to him about, let alone two pieces of good news for every piece of bad news?

Sunshine and the New Town

To my left, a vast chemical-green sign announces: Asda 24 hours. To my right, the cathedrals of Matalan and TKMaxx, squatting in unholy alliance. Behind me a functional block of Town Hall, facing down onto this Water Garden. Concrete benches amongst clipped box hedges with a few steaming ponds of non chemical-green water, where bloated goldfish gasp for air. A fat man is throwing bread to the fish, while his wife looks on, impatient: --Poor f*ckers don't get 'nuff food. It is lunchtime, after all.

Even concrete melts in springtime sun. Lie on my back and close my eyes, let the space behind my eyes be dazzled, so that when they reopen the scene is bleached of colour. Voices buzz over the hot, heavy air, like flies adrift on the gentle warm wind. --[Don't you] 'ckin ignore me! --Awright I see ya! They're laughing, really.

I had stopped to pick up a coffee at the shop on the park's edge. --You don't look like your facebook photo, I mean, you look like I remember you at school, no it's a good thing. You can see I've shaved mine a bit since then, I'm a no-photo man I am, I'm the most unphotogenic man goin'. I sneak a look at them both - life tourist - while I'm waiting for my coffee. He's talking rubbish. They're both beautiful, both late 40s. Something good is starting here, the woman is smiling fondly while the man babbles faster, incapable of not releasing information he's been carrying about alone, for too long. --I lost my dad last year, thing is I told him I loved him just in time. A first date? Not their last.

How should you vote in the European Elections?

One of those quizzes helps you decide.  Take it here.  My result is below.  The most interesting thing is, perhaps, the quiz authors' view that the Tories are pretty neutral on EU integration.  I also have a big quarrel with the BNP has neutral on the right/left scale.  I'd put them clearly on the left.  (And for the avoidance of any doubt I shall be voting Conservative in June!).

1.45pm: I'm told there's this Vote Match too.

Will a Cameron landslide bury the Labour party AND Tory backbenchers?

YouGov's new opinion poll for the Daily Telegraph would produce a Conservative majority larger than won by Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and almost as large as the Blair win of 1997. Do we want to win so big?

A Conservative majority of 150 and more would bury Labour for a generation and it would give David Cameron all the power he needs to take the tough decisions that will be needed. So far so good but do we wanted an elected dictatorship, even if we think it will be a benign dictatorship?

Francis Pym was frozen out by Margaret Thatcher after his famous 1983 warning against a large majority. He worried that a super majority would protect the Cabinet from having to listen to the breadth of backbench opinion and could lead to arrogance. He was right. She began to lose the plot when she ran Britain from Downing Street. Tony Blair never had to listen to backbench opinion.

David Cameron is already semi-detached from his parliamentary party. A massive majority could intensify the problem. He could ignore the Right and govern on the back of the A list intake.

On balance my preference is for a solid majority of 50 to 80. That's enough for Cameron to govern effectively but not enough for him to ignore the the opinions of John Redwood, David Davis and John Whittingdale. Or for that matter John Gummer and Ian Taylor.

If you thought Conservative MEP selection procedures were flawed...

It was just over a year ago that ConservativeHome published this damning account of the selection process for Conservative MEP candidates, which rigged the vote in favour of incumbents over new hopefuls and in favour of female candidates over men.

In no way do I dissent from the justified criticism of the party contained in that piece, but if there is a small crumb of comfort, it is to say that at least we don't live in Italy.

Both The Times and The Sun have given coverage today to the way in which Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has recruited new candidates for his People of Liberty party to stand in the European Parliament election in June.

The conclusion can only be drawn that it has not been an entirely meritocratic process.

They include:

• Angela Sozio - a former contestant in the Italian version of Big Brother
• Barbara Matera - a former Miss Italy contestant
• Camilla Ferranti - An actress in an Italian soap
• Eleonora Gaggioli -  Another TV actress

None is understood to have any experience of politics, but, as The Times reports:

"Party officials said that the final selection from a shortlist of candidates would be made in the next few days, but added that the four were guaranteed to stand."

The Government is chasing the golden geese off the farm as it milks the middle classes

New Labour famously came to power by telling the middle classes that old style socialism was dead.  After twelve years we know that it was deceit all along.  We saw the size of the state grow and grow.  We saw ever larger parts of the population being pushed into state dependency.  We saw state employment going up and up.  Taxes going up by stealth, so we wouldn’t notice.  All of this resulting in the economic crash.  Caused by Labour’s policies; yet used to attack capitalism and used to increase the size of the state even further.

It was die-hard socialism all along.

Yesterday the masks came down.  Now even class struggle is back.  50% tax for the rich will make the Socialist Worker’s readers swoon.

The rich will be off soon,  if they haven’t moved already.  The rich never pay tax: they pay tax experts.

It's the same with companies. Many companies have moved abroad: Shell, Hiscox, Beazley, Omega, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Henderson, Charter, Rhodes, Experian and Invesco all have escaped Brown’s British Dream.

United Business Media, WPP, Astra Zeneca, Diageo, Amlin, Smith & Nephew, International Power, BP, BAE Systems, Brit Insurance, Vodafone, ITV, Aegis, and GlaxoSmithKline have either expressed concern or have threatened to leave. These lists are non-exhaustive.  Many banks have contingency plans to move departments to Switzerland .

We are not killing the golden goose: we are chasing it off the farm.  What remains is the middle class cow: to be milked.  And milked.  And milked.

Bond market will finish Brown

It was James Carville, President Clinton's advisor, who famously articulated how he was stunned by the power the bond market had over governments: "I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everyone." For those who doubted in any way the power he attributed to the bond market the events that may now unfold, after yesterdays shocking budget, should put paid to that. Its the bond market, not this shambles of a government, that will now decide the destiny of our country.

Yesterday Darling announced future borrowing levels only usually associated with wars. He stated that the budget deficit would equal 12.4% and 11.9% of GDP this year and the next, not only the highest of any leading economy, but higher than most developing nations such as Indonesia and Brazil. In short, such deficits can only be paid for by very strong future growth, higher taxes, drastic spending cuts or by printing money. Darling seems to be relying on future growth - but does not have an once of credibility. In just 6 months, he changed his growth forecasrt drastically. Not a single independent economist accepts the forecasts he made yesterday.

The government has relied on the benevolence of the bond market. We saw a failed auction already a few weeks back. Yesterday, Gilt yields shot back up to pre-QE levels.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the bond market is about to demonstrate its awesome power.

Mark Field: The pressing issues we now face in the wake of yesterday's Budget

By Mark Field MP

If there are any crumbs of comfort to be gained for the Chancellor in yesterday's Budget – and I suspect there are very few – no-one can accuse him of putting an overly bright face on our nation’s bleak economic prospects.

It lacked any credible narrative of a pathway for economic recovery. Yet still the seriousness of the situation is only slowly dawning on the political class, let alone the general public.

Last year’s budget predicted £40 billion public borrowing for 2009-10; by autumn the figures were £78 billion for last year, £118 billion this. Now we know that over the next two years aggregate borrowing will be around £350 billion. In short, over the near term – whoever is in government – for every £4 that government spends, it will raise only £3 in tax. This overspend cannot possibly be described as ‘investment’ - it is purely spending to consume today what will need to be financed by a future generation. Remember too this is only if the Government’s figures - persistently over-optimistic - prove accurate.

There has been a precipitous collapse in tax receipts, especially from business. But this also applies to the Government’s slice of bonuses earned by the wealthiest in more clement economic times. No bonuses means no tax, which means, as ever, that it is predominately middle-income salary earners who will foot much of the future bill for the Government’s over-expenditure.

The Government has flunked the really tough decisions on public spending that needed to be made.  Instead, action on this has been delayed until a General Election is behind us.

Attention is understandably moving away from financial institutions as the ‘real’ recession takes hold, but as the City of London’s MP I'd like to highlight here the pressing issues which I believe will emerge in the months ahead.

St. George's Day: Labour have squandered what Churchill fought to defend

To mark St George’s Day 1933 Winston Churchill made a broadcast speech entitled ‘England’, edited excerpts of which I have reproduced below, (courtesy of the Royal Society of St George to whom Churchill made the speech). Read today, his comments are a sobering verdict on the present government who have undermined and even discarded values that Churchill believed were indisputably integral (though not exclusive!) to ‘England’. Churchill began by speaking about the legend of St George and the dragon:

"I have been wondering what would have happened to him and his story if he had lived now-a-days. St George would have arrived in Cappadocia accompanied, not by a horse, but by a secretariat. He would have been armed, not with a lance, but with some flexible formulas. He would, of course have been welcomed by the local branch of the League of Nations, and, encouraged by them, he would have proposed a conference with the dragon. He would have made a trade agreement with the dragon and would certainly have lent him a lot of money raised from the Cappadocian taxpayers. The question of the maiden’s release, which is very important in the story, would no doubt have been referred to Geneva. It being understood that the dragon reserved all his rights in the meantime. Finally, St George would have been photographed with the dragon, inset the maiden."

The Budget is full of holes

At the TaxPayers' Alliance, we've spent the day going through the Budget.  It's still early days yet but it is already clear that the rhetoric in Alistair Darling's speech - and even some of the figures presented in the report - don't remotely represent the reality of the position we're in.  We've found a number of critical problems with a Budget not even a day old:

• After the Pre-Budget Report, we exposed how - even adjusted for RPI inflation - the Government were planning to borrow twice the amount borrowed during the First World War.  Even if we accept the new figures announced in the Budget as legitimate, borrowing is now set to be more than was borrowed during the Napoloeonic Wars, the First World War and the Second World War put together.  William Norton sets out the details.
• Ruth Lea points out that the growth projections that the Budget's borrowing estimates are based on are "simply not credible".  If those start to fall apart, even the dismal borrowing figures outlined by the Government will turn out to be far too optimistic.
• While the £15 billion of spending cuts announced by the Government is a welcome sign that they don't want to heap the entire burden of tackling the public finance crisis on the public, the savings might not be reliable.  Mike Denham discusses how there are a lot of similarities between the plans they're outlining and policies that, when tried as part of the Gershon review, actually increased spending.
• Equally, it doesn't look like they've honestly accounted for the cost of the banking bailout.  Mike Denham sets out how, while the Budget report might insist that it includes a high end estimate of the cost of the bailout, its estimate is actually "extraordinarily optimistic".  William Norton argues that the Treasury is hiding the full cost of responding to the financial crisis using exactly the same accounting tricks the banks have been accused of.
• Maria Fort exposes how the car scrappage scheme creates an exposure of up to £14 billion and will mostly be a transfer from ordinary Britons to the shareholders of foreign car companies.  I discussed how an academic study examining the record of attempts to create "green jobs" in Spain suggests the 400,000 green collar jobs that the Budget hopes to create will come at the cost of 880,000 jobs in the rest of the economy.
• As our initial response made clear, this Budget shows that ordinary people and the poor are going to pay for the huge debts announced in this Budget, people are going to face higher taxes on everything from driving to work to a pint at the end of the day.  Susie Squire argues that the new 50 per cent tax rate will send the worst possible message to those thinking about investing in Britain, drive a brain drain that will leave Britain much worse off and lose the Government money, according to estimates from the CEBR.  Finally, William Norton notes that, while the Treasury has now decided to treat shifting income into pensions as a tax dodge, the HMRC website explicitly advises people on how to make use of "salary sacrifice". 

There is some seriously bad news hidden in the small print of this Budget.