says that, pauljohnson of the ifs says that, pauljohnson of the ifs says you — says that, pauljohnsonays that, pauljohnson of the ifs says you can't do _ says that, pauljohnson of the ifs says you can't do that _ says that, pauljohnson of the ifs says you can't do that any- says that, pauljohnson of the ifs says you can't do that any more, i says that, pauljohnson of the ifs . says you can't do that any more, we have _ says you can't do that any more, we have the _ says you can't do that any more, we have the obr — says you can't do that any more, we have the obr and _ says you can't do that any more, we have the obr and treasury - says you can't do that any more, we have the obr and treasury figures, | have the obr and treasury figures, we know— have the obr and treasury figures, we know how— have the obr and treasury figures, we know how bad _ have the obr and treasury figures, we know how bad it _ have the obr and treasury figures, we know how bad it is. _ have the obr and treasury figures, we know how bad it is. $— have the obr and treasury figures, we know how bad it is.— we know

pauljohnson from the institute _ which they will do it. it. pauljohnson from the institute for fiscal- from the institute for fiscal studies, thank you forjoining us and sharing your thoughts about the chancellors statement. listening to that interview is somebody with a slightly different perspective. joining me now is george dibb, associate director for economic policy at institute for public policy research — a charity that says it wants a fairer, greener and more prosperous society. thank you forjoining us here on couege thank you forjoining us here on college green. what is your reaction to what extent does the statement today meet your requirements, your aim for that today meet your requirements, your aim forthat fair today meet your requirements, your aim for that fair society? i today meet your requirements, your aim for that fair society?— aim for that fair society? i think we knew before _ aim for that fair society? i think we knew before the _ aim for that fair society? i think we knew before the election - aim for that fair soc

absolutely, and that is the big problem, because we heard this morning from pauljohnson from the instituteou are looking at an increase of 5.5%, he says that would mean an extra £1 billion for teaching staff, and double that for nhs workers. that becomes a bit of a problem in terms of where you get the money from, because of course we know the chancellor has set herself tight financial rules. she has not got a lot of wiggle room. we heard labour same throughout the campaign that public sector finances are in a dire state and public services are in a dire state, so that would mean you would think that they don't want to take money from budgets elsewhere. we also know the labour party doesn't want to increase taxes and has set quite strict rules on that. and also they have said they don't want to increase borrowing, so the question will be, where is this money going to come from? it will be a difficult first decision in the first few weeks of the chancellor's new role. given those various questions and dilemmas, what would be the logic for going so far above the inflation rate? this is obvio

but pauljohnson from the ifs hasjust said that it appears that these overspends are genuinely unfundedd do, if the shadow chancellor could do, if the shadow chancellor could do all the things he talked about today, why were they not in the forecast? if as he says, he was able to make those in year changes in welfare and productivity, they would have been in the forecast. they were not. on the issue of the pay review bodies, the previous government set the remit for the pay review bodies, but they refused to give them any indication of affordability. that is almost unprecedented. the teachers reported before the election, and that recommendation sat on the former education secretary's desk. today, we are drawing a line on the industrial action. the £1.7 billion cost of the nhs alone last year, 1.4 million cancelled appointments, and we are incorporating a third of those pay increases into efficiencies into our public services, as the shadow chancellor suggested we should. and when it comes to tax, i am not going to take any lessons from the party opposite! the party opposite, who took t

pauljohnson, director about asylum.e met our fiscal rules. two autumn statements, all of them we met ourfiscal rules. i two autumn statements, all of them we met our fiscal rules. i would have been able to continue meeting our fiscal rules, taking the books add up. but what will make people angry is that labour knew they were going to cancel rwanda, they knew they would want to ask for anything from the unions in return for pay rises because the unions are frankly in the election, they election, they knew they wanted to soft pedal and welfare reform, which is why it was not in the king's speech, they knew all of those things but they did not plan for it. that means they are going to have to do tax rises, and it is very cynical indeed to try and blame those tax rises on a fictional black hole left by your predecessors, when actually, your decisions have caused those pressures. decisions have caused those pressures-— decisions have caused those pressures. decisions have caused those ressures. �* .: , pressures. but in fac

if any one person is looking at the fiscal— any one person is looking at the fiscal situation, pauljohnsonrvices. so if it's not— demands on public services. so if it's not low— demands on public services. so if it's not low taxes, what is it? if is not _ it's not low taxes, what is it? if is not neurotic for the session deception— is not neurotic for the session deception with sovereignty which defines— deception with sovereignty which defines what brexit has gone to, what _ defines what brexit has gone to, what is _ defines what brexit has gone to, what is it? — defines what brexit has gone to, what is it? they need to work out what _ what is it? they need to work out what they— what is it? they need to work out what they stand for. there are incredible _ what they stand for. there are incredible responses to the challenges facing the country with people _ challenges facing the country with people in— challenges facing the country with people in the centre ground of this country _ people in the centre ground of this country |— people in the centre ground of this count . ., ., ., , ., cou

this is pauljohnson from the institute for fiscal studies.ing that if this problem is about £20 billion big, that that — problem is about £20 billion big, that that is exactly the scale of the national insurance cuts implemented byjeremy huntjust implemented by jeremy hunt just before _ implemented byjeremy huntjust before the election. if those cuts were _ before the election. if those cuts were implemented in the knowledge there was— were implemented in the knowledge there was this kind of hole, that is not good _ there was this kind of hole, that is not good policy to put it mildly. that _ not good policy to put it mildly. that was — not good policy to put it mildly. that was pauljohnson at the ifs, who says the £20 billion shortfall is what it cost to implement the national insurance cuts. the conservatives were not honest with the public about the state of the finances, were there? this i the public about the state of the finances, were there?— the public about the state of the finances, were there? as i said a moment ago _ finances, wer

and we are talking to pauljohnson on that.e are talking to paul johnson from the institute of fiscal studies, who is the to be honest, he is the seer, the sage of all public finances to see whether labour are protesting too much about the scale of the £20 billion black hole. >> one of the things the chancellor said she might do is sell off some empty government buildings. that sounds quite sensible to me. yeah, but i've heard it all before. yeah. i'm sure. right. up next, find out where a radical muslim cleric plans to buy a small island in the uk to turn it into an islamic homeland for all believers. his quote this is britain's newsroom on gb news. >> this is his private army >> welcome back to britain's newsroom. it's 949 now. a controversial muslim cleric is raising funds to buy a remote scottish island and turn it into his own islamic state, where shana his own islamic state, where sharia law would be practised. >> so he's called sheikh yasser al—habib. he's already raised £3 million for the purchase. the owner of torsa, w

we knew all that and pauljohnson on friday said, i don't think it's really very credible at all if you are performing considerably worse than they were before covid. we've seen birmingham and other local authorities are going bust. we've always known public sector pay is a long way behind private sector pay. they shouldn't be any sense of surprise that there is a big issue here. what you're saying you were surprised. irate you're saying you were surprised. , certainly always knew the inheritance was going to be bad. all the way through the election, it was only three weeks ago we were still fighting that election. people constantly saying to keir starmer and rachel reeves, he should spend more on this, invest in that, nationalise the other. we were very clear all the way through we were going to be responsible with the public finances because we understood the scale of the problem. i'm putting to you that you knew all this because it was in the obr document which is right here, which i'm sure you've read, it's all there and has been laid out publicly since march. ,., , ., and has been

but i am back to the ifs again, pauljohnson, the director, has said the plan leaves literally no moonidal. this not only will help us cut energy bills for every viewer, it will also create those good well—paid jobs. will also create those good well—paidjobs. in will also create those good well—paid jobs. in the end, because well—paid jobs. in the end, because we are weaning ourselves off international fossil fuel markets, it means that we will, people will not be hammered with the big energy spikes that we have seen under the conservatives. bud spikes that we have seen under the conservatives.— spikes that we have seen under the conservatives. and are you sure that will honestly — conservatives. and are you sure that will honestly save _ conservatives. and are you sure that will honestly save you _ conservatives. and are you sure that will honestly save you enough? i conservatives. and are you sure that. will honestly save you enough? yeah, we have done — will honestly save you enough? yeah, we have done our— will honestly save you enough? yeah, we have done our calculations. - will h

as pauljohnson of the institute for fiscal studies have said, the books are wide open, fully transparenting unemployment in the long term. i further note to the government does not desire to impose new potentially rigid legislation on technologies like artificial intelligence. we are third only to the us and china in the size of our fast growing technology sector and lead to the world when it comes to ai safety. we should all in this house be careful not to endanger this country�*s leading position in this field which will drive growth and prosperity for decades to come. while today because that speech did contain a slew of bills, what was missing was a concrete plan to tackle the unsustainable post covid rise in the welfare bill. without action, the cost of providing benefits to the working age population with a disability or health condition will rise to £90 billion. more than we spend on our national defence, schools or policing. that is not only unsustainable but also unfair to taxpayers and that is why in government we had laid out a plan to significantly reduce the welfare bill but