in one budget to turn both of those things around. the last spring budget before a general election. another cut in national insurance and a surprise change to child benefit for middle earners. but was this the gamechanger conservative backbenchers had demanded? over the next hour, we'll do the politics and the economics does it change anything about when the next election will be held and who'll win it? meanwhile, in the us... nikki haley pulls out of the race for the republican nomination, which means it will be the contest two thirds of the coutry said they didn't want. biden v trump. good evening. for british chancellorjeremy hunt, this was the last budget before the election. it didn't quite feel like the launch pad for an immediate campaign. the centrepiece of the budget, a widely touted 2p cut in national insurance rates, which, together with a similar cut introduced in january,

will save the average worker about £75. but is that the budget "rabbit" that conservative backbenchers were after? the answer plainly is no, but the truth is, there was simply not enough money to deliver the cut in income tax they had demanded. after the measures announced today, the office for budget responsibility estimated the chancellor has just £8.9 billion of headroom left, down from the 13 billion he had in the autumn statement. that the second smallest on record, yet the chancellor gave us a relatively optimistic view of the economy, after covid, a war in europe, and the damage inflicted on the british economy economy this, he said, was a budget for long term growth. today's obr forecast also shows that we have made good progress on the prime minister's three economic priorities. compared to when the three pledges were made, inflation has halved, debt is falling in line with our fiscal rules, and growth is fully 1.5 percentage points

higher than predicted. clamouring. and as growth returns... they don't have a growth plan, so they might as well listen to ours! as growth returns, our plan is for economic growth,

to improve efficiency. neither are right. it's not fair to ask taxpayers to pay for more when public service productivity has fallen. nor would it be wise to reduce that

funding given the pressures that tax as other uk residents. the chancellor said, all in all, it was a tax cutting budget. that might raise eyebrows. the overall tax burden is as high as it has been since 1948. but the chancellor insists the conservatives will always stick to their broader philosophy. we believe that in a free society, the money you earn doesn't belong to the government. it belongs to you. hear, hear! and if we want to encourage hard work, we should let people keep as much

of their own money as possible. conservatives look around the world at economies in north america and asia and notice that countries with lower taxes generally have higher growth. economists argue about cause and correlation. but we know that lower taxed economies have more energy, more dynamism and more innovation. we know that is our future too. we will focus on keir starmer�*s response shortly. butjoining us to unpack the chancellor's statement is pauljohnson, director of the institute for fiscal studies. is good to see you. right now, the economy is not great, we are in a recession, income per has fallen. people can feel it. there's a 2p cut in national insurance, on the back of a similar in national insurance, on the back ofa similar cut in national insurance, on the back of a similar cut injanuary help people with a squeeze of the feeling? people with a squeeze of the feelin: ? , , ., people with a squeeze of the feelina? , , ., , , people with a squeeze of the feelina? , _, , ,~ feeling? yes, it is a pretty chunky tax cut, feeling? yes, it is a pretty chunky tax cut. putting — feeling? yes, it is a pretty chunky tax cut, putting those _ feeling? yes, it is a pretty chunky tax cut, putting those two - feeling? yes, it is a pretty chunky i tax cut, putting those two together, and if you are a little bit above average earning, may be only 40,000

average earning, may be only 40,000 a year, that is worth rather more than £1000 a year to you, and if you are on a 50,000 a year, it is worth £1500. -- 1000 are on a 50,000 a year, it is worth £1500. "1000 £500. there's a £1500. —— 1000 £500. there's a pretty £1500. "1000 £500. there's a pretty chunky tax cut that comes across quite a poor period for living standards, but those cuts by themselves are worth... that is a big tax cut for some people. we shouldn't ignore the threshold phrases which are ahead, fixed for the next three years, so is the chancellor taking with one hand while giving with the other? yes. chancellor taking with one hand while giving with the other? yes, he is, while giving with the other? yes, he is. absolutely- _ while giving with the other? yes, he is, absolutely. there _ while giving with the other? yes, he is, absolutely. there are _ while giving with the other? yes, he is, absolutely. there are some - is, absolutely. there are some people already, even with these national insurance cuts come in april, we will still be —— they will still be significantly worse off, lower earners, people earning under £25,000 also, they will be worse off, and people earning over £60,000... and if we keep those threshold phrases for another two years, then the number of losers

increases. a one off improvement for the national insurance cuts, but losses, definitely, for the threshold and allowance reasons. jeremy hunt said today, when it comes to public services, is not about how much we are spending on these services, it is about efficiency, what we get out of them. how true is that? is efficiency, what we get out of them. how true is that?— how true is that? is partly true. clearl , how true is that? is partly true. clearly. you _ how true is that? is partly true. clearly, you want _ how true is that? is partly true. clearly, you want the _ how true is that? is partly true. clearly, you want the public- clearly, you want the public services to be as efficient as possible, and more —— than more efficient they are, the better use to get out of public spending, but it is pretty clear that, in some areas of public service, there simply isn't enough money to clear backlogs in the justice system, the asylum system, prisons are full, social care is struggling. there is a limited amount more that you can do without additional resources, and some of those areas, and of course, the whole budget is constructed around the assumption that you can actually manage cuts in some of those areas, over the next five

years. something which i think will be, to put it mildly, extremely challenging given how much some of them are struggling already. there was a really _ them are struggling already. there was a really good _ them are struggling already. there was a really good points _ them are struggling already. there was a really good points made in werk times, in that both parties seem to be identifying very small pots of money, you could look at the non—dom issue, you know, cutting waste and public services, and these amounts in the grand scheme of things, they are pretty tiny. the elephant in the room is the debt. neither side seems to be engaging with how we will tackle that. i think that is exactly right. there are some very big numbers knocking around. this has been a very, very big tax freezing parliament, so the changes we have seen today are really small compared to the big increases we have seen over the last few years. debt interest spending is pretty much at record levels. the national debt is at its highest

level since the early 1960s. when you compare the money you get from non—doms, private schools, so one, with the scale of those issues, not to mention the issues of demographic change, ageing population spending on health and pensions, someone, they are very small numbers. the reality is that whoever is chancellor after the next election, they will have some very big decisions about what to make, what they will really implement, these spending cuts, or if they were going to have to find some substantial tax rises, or if they think they can get away with more borrowing. these are big decisions that will have to be made. i'm afraid a lot of them have been kicked down the road a bit, this time around, but in particular these numbers about public spending. we have learnt nothing more about where the chancellor intends to make cuts. . ~ ., ., cuts. the talking about the headroom that i mentioned, _ cuts. the talking about the headroom that i mentioned, just _ cuts. the talking about the headroom that i mentioned, just over _ cuts. the talking about the headroom that i mentioned, just over 8 - that i mentioned, just over 8 billion, which is pretty small in a treasury terms, we don't know when

the election will be, but some were betting there would be another financial statement before they call the election. does this limit his options? he the election. does this limit his 0 tions? . , ., the election. does this limit his otions? . , ., , the election. does this limit his otions? ., , ., , the election. does this limit his otions? ., ., , , options? he has had his options very limited today — options? he has had his options very limited today by _ options? he has had his options very limited today by the _ options? he has had his options very limited today by the fiscal _ options? he has had his options very limited today by the fiscal rules - limited today by the fiscal rules that he was following, because of that he was following, because of that very limited so call to headroom against his fiscal targets, that he was made to do more. the very odd way in which these targets are constructed means that arithmetically, if he does another fiscal statement in the autumn, everything gets pushed forward again and by pushing it forward, that probably gives him more apparent in space, he has another year of a very tight spending plans, a little bit more growth in the economy, it might give him a chance to have some more tax cuts, because his target is, very oddly, at the moment, that debt should be falling between march 2028 and march 2029, but, come the autumn, his target will be that the

debt should be falling between march 2029 and march 2020 umaga 2030. if that sounds a bit mad, that is because it is, that is the set of the targets that the chance physically focusing on. because the target will change in the autumn, it may mean yet more space against his very specific, odd targets. and may mean yet more space against his very specific, odd targets.— very specific, odd targets. and he has ut very specific, odd targets. and he has put himself— very specific, odd targets. and he has put himself in _ very specific, odd targets. and he has put himself in a _ very specific, odd targets. and he has put himself in a straitjacket, l has put himself in a straitjacket, thatis has put himself in a straitjacket, that is a percentage of gdp, there are other countries who would say, welcome you need to spend to grow, and the united states, although he talks about them as a low tax economy, they have spent a lot of money, look at the reflation —— inflation reduction act, they are spending money to grow, why are we not doing the same? we spending money to grow, why are we not doing the same?— not doing the same? we are not like the united states, _ not doing the same? we are not like the united states, yet _ not doing the same? we are not like the united states, yet is _ not doing the same? we are not like the united states, yet is a _ the united states, yet is a continental size economy, and the world's reserve, of currency and we don't have the level of freedom that they have. and as i said, we already have debt and debt interest spending at pretty much record levels, or

certainly record levels in recent times. we are having to sell more government debt over the next few years, by a factor of two or 2.5, compared to what we have done in the last 25 years, so there are limits on what we can do in that context. is that a hangover from the trust budget? though? the way the markets were spooked? is the government more careful, we more careful, a result? i don't think anyone will be talking about doing anything quite as radical as liz truss and kwasi kwarteng were trying to do. this did give us an indication of the limits of what is possible. i certainly don't think that if the chancellor said that he was wanting to borrow another five, said that he was wanting to borrow anotherfive, ten, 15 billion a year of the next few years, that would massively spook the markets, in fact what he is doing is the reverse, because he is putting in place some really serious investment spending cuts, so he has been quite tight on

a day—to—day spending, he has been a much tighter on investment spending, which he is looking to cut by tens of billions in the next few years. paul, really grateful for your time tonight. i know you have had a very long day, so we appreciate you coming on the programme. thank you. that was pauljohnson. the other side of the break, we will be joined by our political panel to discuss the budget. with us tonight, former communications director at number 10, guto harri, the conservative former economic secretary to the treasury, justine greening, keir starmer�*s former policy director, claire ainsley, and uk economist at deutsche bank, sanjay raja. we will be right back. for our uk viewers, let's have a look at some of the story is making news today. 181 trials that have been delayed, rape cases, when i have to go before a jury. the gesture in charge of the plan said victims have faced unacceptable delays. a fire in

the southampton�*s stadium has resulted in their match being called off. smoke plume from industrial units could be seen for miles around. one person has been treated for the effects of breathing in smoke. junior doctors in northern ireland are taking strike action over pay for the first time today. the british medical association says the deal put to them was the minimum junior doctors could have been offered. the department of health in northern ireland said the proposal�*s amounted to an average pay increase of more than 9%. you're live with bbc news. jeremy hunt did what all chancellors do on budget day — he accentuated the positives. there was much talk of how the economy has turned a corner, with growth rates revised. he was keen to point out that taxes had been cut by £900 for the average worker,

since his autumn statement last year, but he forgot to mention that the freeze on tax thresholds, for the next three years, will suck much of the spending power out of the economy. the ratings agency moody's said today, "the chancellor's announcement of pre—election tax cuts while maintaining restrained spending plans will perpetuate the uk's fiscal challenges." the labour leader defined in much stronger terms it. for over 14 years, we have seen our fair share of delusion from the party opposite. a prime minister who thinks the cost—of—living crisis is starting to ease. an education secretary who thinks concrete crumbling on our children deserves her gratitude. a former prime minsister who still believes crashing the pound was the right path for britain. where is she?! and today, a new entry in this hall of infamy — the chancellor who breezes into this chamber in a recession and tells the working people of this country

that everything is on track. "crisis? what crisis? !" or as the captain of the titanic or the former prime minister herself might have said, "iceberg? what iceberg"? smiling as the ship goes down, the chuckle brothers of decline, dreaming of santa monica or maybe just a quiet life in surrey and not having to self fund election. that was a keir starmer speaking in the house after the chancellor's speech. justin, it is a very sensible budget, according to some conservative mps, but not a very political budget, is it, for a party thatis political budget, is it, for a party that is 20 points behind in the polls? i that is 20 points behind in the olls? ~' ., that is 20 points behind in the olls? ~ ., ., that is 20 points behind in the olls? ~' ., ., ., polls? i think one might argue that it is not political— polls? i think one might argue that it is not political enough. _ polls? i think one might argue that it is not political enough. that - it is not political enough. that clip, i think, it is not political enough. that clip, ithink, showed it is not political enough. that clip, i think, showed that the government has lost the narrative on what is happening with our economy. the reason for that is because of the election coming up, wanting to see everything is getting better, but that does not match ordinary people's experiences of the cost of

living at this state, and the state of our public service at the moment, and the fact for many of them that taxes are significantly higher than they have experienced before. that is because of the impact of covid—19 on our economy, the cost of living challenge, and then having to take action on energy bills. i think what the government has failed to do is really explain the backdrop to the decisions it is taking in the budget today. as a result, as we had, labour will fill in that space, they will set out why they see the decisions, they will of course a point truss's disastrous budget in october 2022. this is the challenges that they face. it is not only narrowly —— only the narrative of the past, but it is also very difficult winning an election looking ahead. i think the missing piece for the conservatives and the government is what has happened to levelling up? that less rishi sunak has talked about this, the worse the

conservatives have done in polls. there was nothing in the budget today about skills, on improving prospects, when it's the neck was asked about levelling up today and pm keys, he simply pointed to pots of money being given to councils. —— when it rishi sunak. we were doing levelling up at the department for education before all of this. it was about skills, education. i think the big question for me, if i am a tory backbencher today, big question for me, if i am a tory backbenchertoday, is, rishi sunak, does he understand what envelope despite levelling up means? if he doesn't understand it, how can he implement it? what does that mean for the conservatives? that implement it? what does that mean for the conservatives?— implement it? what does that mean for the conservatives? that would be music to keir— for the conservatives? that would be music to keir starmer's _ for the conservatives? that would be music to keir starmer's years, - music to keir starmer's years, claire, but it has to be said, he has nicked one of your policies today, the non—dom issue, that labour were looking at as a pot of money under the carpet. he is closing down a labour options, isn't he? i closing down a labour options, isn't he? ., ., , , closing down a labour options, isn't he? ., , he? i thought it was very tactical to do that- _ he? i thought it was very tactical to do that. it — he? i thought it was very tactical to do that. it is _ he? i thought it was very tactical to do that. it is interesting that i to do that. it is interesting that that is—

to do that. it is interesting that that is a — to do that. it is interesting that that is a policy for the conservatives, effectively, that they were ridiculed when it was first released by labour to make sure _ first released by labour to make sure that — first released by labour to make sure that non—dom is paid their way in the _ sure that non—dom is paid their way in the uk _ sure that non—dom is paid their way in the uk -- — sure that non—dom is paid their way in the uk. —— non—dom. we see the conservative — in the uk. —— non—dom. we see the conservative chancellor now announcing it. ithink conservative chancellor now announcing it. i think it really showed — announcing it. i think it really showed that it is the labour party that are _ showed that it is the labour party that are coming forward with some of those _ that are coming forward with some of those ideas. — that are coming forward with some of those ideas, and i thinkjustin is right, _ those ideas, and i thinkjustin is right, the — those ideas, and i thinkjustin is right, the big idea that the conservatives had was levelling up, it was _ conservatives had was levelling up, it was about investing in the economy _ it was about investing in the economy. we just did not see any of that today — economy. we just did not see any of that today. we did not see a plan for growth — that today. we did not see a plan for growth. i don't think it is going — for growth. i don't think it is going to _ for growth. i don't think it is going to be a game changer for voters. — going to be a game changer for voters, but supposedly, i don't think— voters, but supposedly, i don't think it — voters, but supposedly, i don't think it is — voters, but supposedly, i don't think it is going to stimulate the economy— think it is going to stimulate the economy in the way that we need it to come _ economy in the way that we need it to come in— economy in the way that we need it to come in order to deliver those proceeds, — to come in order to deliver those proceeds, that would allow us to reinvest — proceeds, that would allow us to reinvest in — proceeds, that would allow us to reinvest in public services and, over— reinvest in public services and, over the — reinvest in public services and, over the long term, bring the tax burden— over the long term, bring the tax burden down.— over the long term, bring the tax burden down. . , , , , burden down. some are very restless backbenchers — burden down. some are very restless backbenchers already _ burden down. some are very restless backbenchers already responding - burden down. some are very restless backbenchers already responding to i backbenchers already responding to that, suella braverman has been out, saying it is not the budget that she

wanted. does it become a political problem for the prime minister tomorrow? i problem for the prime minister tomorrow?— problem for the prime minister tomorrow? ~ , ., , , tomorrow? i think the problem is too many backbenchers _ tomorrow? i think the problem is too many backbenchers being _ tomorrow? i think the problem is too many backbenchers being breathless| many backbenchers being breathless for too long, demanding all kinds of things in the short term, just to get people through a difficult few weeks. last year, a couple of years ago, 37 billion pounds spent on subsidising fuel bills. will anyone vote at this election, saying, i voted conservative because they billed me as at that point? no. that won't be the case. the reality today is that the room for manoeuvre is minuscule, because —— the they are arguing over now, versus spent, that hardly anyone in the uk is arguing against it, and so, justine is right, the government needs to explain that the reason we're here is not because they have been on a crazy spending spree, not because of

consumption, but playing the price of getting britain through tough economic times, they think the direction of travel now, and the philosophical approach of the conservatives is now back on track and cliff also the sea. it may not be enough to convince for the general election, i think that is the most responsible way of going into a general election, with i general differences. we are the debate has been about whether there should be a cut in taxes, we attack —— cut in public services or more money, i beg your pardon, into public services and i would dare say that people would want both, in an ideal world. they want more money pumping into the nhs and education and to pay less in tax, but you only get to that, if you have productivity. that is something that the british economy is just not doing. do you see anything in this budget today, that convinces you that we are on a clearer path to growth? i5 that we are on a clearer path to urowth? , ., that we are on a clearer path to trowth? , ., that we are on a clearer path to urowth? , ., , ., growth? is a good question, christian- — growth? is a good question, christian. there _ growth? is a good question, christian. there were - growth? is a good question, christian. there were some | growth? is a good question, - christian. there were some good policies — christian. there were some good policies on — christian. there were some good policies on this, _ christian. there were some good policies on this, let's _ christian. there were some good policies on this, let's not - christian. there were some good policies on this, let's not be - christian. there were some good policies on this, let's not be so l policies on this, let's not be so dismissive _ policies on this, let's not be so

dismissive of— policies on this, let's not be so dismissive of this, _ policies on this, let's not be so dismissive of this, and - policies on this, let's not be so dismissive of this, and some . dismissive of this, and some surprises. _ dismissive of this, and some surprises. like— dismissive of this, and some surprises, like policy- dismissive of this, and some . surprises, like policy measures dismissive of this, and some - surprises, like policy measures we were _ surprises, like policy measures we were looking — surprises, like policy measures we were looking for~ _ surprises, like policy measures we were looking for. that _ surprises, like policy measures we were looking for. that will - were looking for. that will certainly _ were looking for. that will certainly boost _ were looking for. that will certainly boost the - were looking for. that willl certainly boost the growth, something _ certainly boost the growth, something like _ certainly boost the growth, something like 20—30 - certainly boost the growth, | something like 20—30 basis certainly boost the growth, - something like 20—30 basis points. is it something like 20—30 basis points. is it a _ something like 20—30 basis points. is it a game — something like 20—30 basis points. is it a game changer— something like 20—30 basis points. is it a game changer for— something like 20—30 basis points. is it a game changer for the - something like 20—30 basis points. i is it a game changer for the economy chris mccann — is it a game changer for the economy chris mccann not _ is it a game changer for the economy chris mccann not so _ is it a game changer for the economy chris mccann not so convinced - is it a game changer for the economy chris mccann not so convinced about| chris mccann not so convinced about this. chris mccann not so convinced about this as _ chris mccann not so convinced about this as some — chris mccann not so convinced about this as some of— chris mccann not so convinced about this. as some of the _ chris mccann not so convinced about this. as some of the other— this. as some of the other panellists _ this. as some of the other panellists have _ this. as some of the other panellists have said, - this. as some of the otherj panellists have said, there this. as some of the other. panellists have said, there is this. as some of the other- panellists have said, there is no strategy — panellists have said, there is no strategy for _ panellists have said, there is no strategy for growth, _ panellists have said, there is no strategy for growth, there - panellists have said, there is no strategy for growth, there is - panellists have said, there is no strategy for growth, there is no| strategy for growth, there is no clear-cut— strategy for growth, there is no clear—cut strategy _ strategy for growth, there is no clear—cut strategy for _ strategy for growth, there is no clear—cut strategy for growth, i| clear—cut strategy for growth, i should — clear—cut strategy for growth, i should say _ clear—cut strategy for growth, i should say, and _ clear—cut strategy for growth, i should say, and all— clear—cut strategy for growth, i should say, and all of- clear—cut strategy for growth, i should say, and all of the - clear—cut strategy for growth, i| should say, and all of the policy measures— should say, and all of the policy measures it _ should say, and all of the policy measures it is _ should say, and all of the policy measures it is not _ should say, and all of the policy measures it is not quite clear. should say, and all of the policy. measures it is not quite clear how sustainable — measures it is not quite clear how sustainable these _ measures it is not quite clear how sustainable these tax _ measures it is not quite clear how sustainable these tax cuts - measures it is not quite clear how sustainable these tax cuts will- measures it is not quite clear how| sustainable these tax cuts will be. not for _ sustainable these tax cuts will be. not for the — sustainable these tax cuts will be. not for the tax _ sustainable these tax cuts will be. not for the tax rises, _ sustainable these tax cuts will be. not for the tax rises, and - sustainable these tax cuts will be. not for the tax rises, and with - not for the tax rises, and with public— not for the tax rises, and with public finances _ not for the tax rises, and with public finances under- not for the tax rises, and with| public finances under scrutiny, not for the tax rises, and with - public finances under scrutiny, and public— public finances under scrutiny, and public finances _ public finances under scrutiny, and public finances being _ public finances under scrutiny, and public finances being vulnerable, l public finances under scrutiny, and i public finances being vulnerable, we have seen _ public finances being vulnerable, we have seen the — public finances being vulnerable, we have seen the shocks _ public finances being vulnerable, we have seen the shocks that _ public finances being vulnerable, we have seen the shocks that we - public finances being vulnerable, we have seen the shocks that we have i have seen the shocks that we have seen _ have seen the shocks that we have seen in _ have seen the shocks that we have seen in the — have seen the shocks that we have seen in the park— have seen the shocks that we have seen in the park last _ have seen the shocks that we have seen in the park last couple - have seen the shocks that we have seen in the park last couple of- seen in the park last couple of years— seen in the park last couple of years alone, _ seen in the park last couple of years alone, i_ seen in the park last couple of years alone, i think— seen in the park last couple of years alone, i think there arel years alone, i think there are bigger— years alone, i think there are bigger questions— years alone, i think there are bigger questions about - years alone, i think there are bigger questions about how. bigger questions about how sustainable, _ bigger questions about how sustainable, how— bigger questions about how. sustainable, how challenging bigger questions about how- sustainable, how challenging the public _ sustainable, how challenging the public finances _ sustainable, how challenging the public finances will _ sustainable, how challenging the public finances will be _ sustainable, how challenging the public finances will be once - sustainable, how challenging the public finances will be once we . sustainable, how challenging the i public finances will be once we get to the _ public finances will be once we get to the spending _ public finances will be once we get to the spending review, _ public finances will be once we get to the spending review, once we . to the spending review, once we start— to the spending review, once we start putting _ to the spending review, once we start putting actual— to the spending review, once we start putting actual numbers - to the spending review, once we start putting actual numbers to. start putting actual numbers to departmental_ start putting actual numbers to departmental spending, - start putting actual numbers to - departmental spending, day—to—day spending. _ departmental spending, day—to—day spending. public— departmental spending, day—to—day spending, public spending, - departmental spending, day—to—day spending, public spending, and - departmental spending, day—to—day spending, public spending, and i- spending, public spending, and i think— spending, public spending, and i thinkthen— spending, public spending, and i thinkthen we _ spending, public spending, and i think then we will _ spending, public spending, and i think then we will start - spending, public spending, and i think then we will start to - spending, public spending, and i think then we will start to see i spending, public spending, and i think then we will start to see ai think then we will start to see a bit more — think then we will start to see a bit more of— think then we will start to see a bit more of the _ think then we will start to see a bit more of the reality- think then we will start to see a bit more of the reality of- think then we will start to see a bit more of the reality of the i bit more of the reality of the current— bit more of the reality of the current state _ bit more of the reality of the current state of— bit more of the reality of the current state of finance. - bit more of the reality of the current state of finance. i. bit more of the reality of the . current state of finance. i think bit more of the reality of the - current state of finance. i think we have _ current state of finance. i think we have taken— current state of finance. i think we have taken a — current state of finance. i think we have taken a route _ current state of finance. i think we have taken a route for _ current state of finance. i think we have taken a route for some - current state of finance. i think we j have taken a route for some cheap tax cuts, _ have taken a route for some cheap tax cuts, yes, _ have taken a route for some cheap tax cuts, yes, it _ have taken a route for some cheap

tax cuts, yes, it will— have taken a route for some cheap tax cuts, yes, it will beast - have taken a route for some cheap tax cuts, yes, it will beast real - tax cuts, yes, it will beast real disposable _ tax cuts, yes, it will beast real disposable income _ tax cuts, yes, it will beast real disposable income to - tax cuts, yes, it will beast real disposable income to some . tax cuts, yes, it will beast real - disposable income to some extent. —— boost~ _ disposable income to some extent. —— boost~ i_ disposable income to some extent. —— boost~ ithink— disposable income to some extent. —— boost. i think the _ disposable income to some extent. —— boost. i think the jury— disposable income to some extent. —— boost. i think the jury is _ disposable income to some extent. —— boost. i think the jury is still— disposable income to some extent. —— boost. i think the jury is still out - boost. i think the jury is still out on the _ boost. i think the jury is still out on the rest _ boost. i think the jury is still out on the rest i— boost. i think the “my is still out on the nah boost. i think the “my is still out on the teeth on the rest. i think he was certainly _ on the rest. i think he was certainly aiming _ on the rest. i think he was certainly aiming for - on the rest. i think he was certainly aiming for a - on the rest. i think he was certainly aiming for a very| certainly aiming for a very particular part of the electorate, the middle earners, the raising of the middle earners, the raising of the threshold for child benefits, higher income families can benefit, was a bit of a surprise. it was almost going after middle england, saying, we are trying, and if we had the headroom, we would do more. i think he is trying to send a signal that this is still the conservative party. it still likes where it can to cut taxes for a wide group of people, the national insurance reduction today will be benefited by millions and millions of workers. i think the challenge for me is that what i would like to see is that there was a much economic strategy to really get canet —— public finances back on track. the reality is that it is off—track, in a trouble, with the heaviest on public

finances. it is not... part of this is about how to get that reset to tilt our expenditure from funding failure to funding success? but we won't know _ failure to funding success? but we won't know what _ failure to funding success? but we won't know what labour _ failure to funding success? but we won't know what labour are - failure to funding success? but we won't know what labour are going| failure to funding success? but we i won't know what labour are going to do, because they will keep their manifesto closely guarded for obvious reasons. do you think they are trying to work out that plan? yes, basically, labour�*s central yes, basically, labour's central strategy— yes, basically, labour's central strategy is— yes, basically, labour's central strategy is to have a plan for growth — strategy is to have a plan for growth that actually would be a successor to levelling up, would be a strategic — successor to levelling up, would be a strategic plan for the country, that meant we are investing in things— that meant we are investing in things that are going to be long—term drivers of growth, to improve — long—term drivers of growth, to improve our productivity. some of those _ improve our productivity. some of those policies thatjust improve our productivity. some of those policies that just was talking about _ those policies that just was talking about in— those policies that just was talking about in terms of education, skills, actually, _ about in terms of education, skills, actually, it— about in terms of education, skills, actually, it is— about in terms of education, skills, actually, it is really important that _ actually, it is really important that they _ actually, it is really important that they are integral to our

economic plan. that is i think where they will— economic plan. that is i think where they will go — economic plan. that is i think where they will go. there'll be some discussion over the next few months of how— discussion over the next few months of how labour will fund this, but that is— of how labour will fund this, but that is not— of how labour will fund this, but that is not really the big topic at the moment. that is not really the big topic at the moment-— that is not really the big topic at the moment. stay with us, plenty more to come. — the moment. stay with us, plenty more to come, we _ the moment. stay with us, plenty more to come, we will— the moment. stay with us, plenty more to come, we will stay - the moment. stay with us, plenty more to come, we will stay with l the moment. stay with us, plenty. more to come, we will stay with that topic. hello there. wednesday started off with quite extensive mist and fog, some of which was dense. this weather watcher picture shows the low cloud and fog trapped underneath what we call a temperature inversion with clear blue, sunny skies above. but on the whole, west was best for sunshine. turned out to be a lovely day here in the isle of arran. now, during this evening and overnight, we're going to see fog patches reform. some of that will become dense, visibility down to 100 metres. so it might be worth allowing a little bit of extra time for any morning travel you might have into thursday morning. there'll be a few patches of rural frost around as well, so mist and fog to start the day, that should tend to lift and clear. then we're looking at a lot of dry weather. 0k, there could be one or two showers for england and wales, but hardly any of these.

so the vast majority of us having a dry day with the best of the sunshine, likely once again across western areas of the uk, temperatures by and large close to average for the time of year, but a little below average for east scotland and northeast england given the onshore winds coming across the chilly north sea. the high pressure to our northeast, low pressure to our southwest got a bit closer on friday. and so it's going to get a little bit windier. now, on the whole, it's going to be a quieter day, less mist and fog to start off the day. with the winds coming in from an easterly direction, the uk's only named wind, the helm wind will be blowing across great cross fell into cumbria and over into the west of high ground. it will be quite a gusty day with gusts reaching into the forties, maybe low fifties of miles an hour and continue to be quite chilly for east scotland and northeast england. 0n into the weekend, the low pressure to our south starts to throw bands of rain northwards across the uk. so there will be rain at times.

won't be raining all weekend, butjust rain at times. saturday sees the first band of rain then push across england. wales reach northern ireland. late in the day, eastern scotland will have frequent showers so be quite a wet day for the eastern mountains, the grampians, probably the best ot the dry and bright weather will be across western scotland where we should stay with some sunny spells. temperatures for many of us, quite close to average. sunday sees some further outbreaks of rain moving generally northwards and westwards across the uk, perhaps something a bit drier and brighter at times working in towards the south and east and temperatures still by and large close to average, but a bit below for east scotland and northeast england. bye for now.

hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. local government here in britain, which provides so many of our services, has been warning of a 2.4 billion pound funding gap this year. and yet they got very little mention in the chancellor's budget today. we will talk about local counsel shortly, a big issue for a lot of people out there in the country, but first, let's get a check on the sport. let's begin with the uefa champions league. we'll find out two more quarterfinalists tonight. both real madrid and defending champions manchester city took leads into the second leg

of their last 16 ties. manchester city scored two goals in ten minutes to take their aggregate score to 5—1. alvarez on the score sheet, but mohammed hasjust score to 5—1. alvarez on the score sheet, but mohammed has just scored for fc copenhagen 5—2 on aggregate there. meanwhile he does still go list so far and the other game. free on leading rb leipzig 1— 01 aggregate. well, jude bellingham started for real madrid in that tie in the spanish capital, but the england international will miss matches against celta vigo and 0sasuna in la liga after receiving a two—match ban for his protests at the weekend after being denied a goal at the end of real madrid's 2—2 draw with valencia. all square, one matching that competition this evening between sporting lisbon, atalanta, it finished 1—1. england's cricketers have artie lost the series against india.

but the final test at least gives them the opportunity