taikinq _ institute for fiscal studies talking about _ institute for fiscaledium term position in— talking about the medium term position in tax _ talking about the medium term position in tax and _ talking about the medium term position in tax and spending, . position in tax and spending, and — position in tax and spending, and saying _ position in tax and spending, and saying if— position in tax and spending, and saying if we _ position in tax and spending, and saying if we go— position in tax and spending, and saying if we go on- position in tax and spending, and saying if we go on as - position in tax and spending, and saying if we go on as a l and saying if we go on as a country— and saying if we go on as a country we _ and saying if we go on as a country we are, _ and saying if we go on as a country we are, we - and saying if we go on as a country we are, we won't l and saying if we go on as a i country we are, we won't be able _ country we are, we won't be able to— country we are, we won't be able to fund _ country we are, we won't be able to fund our—

we are joined by paul johnson, director of the institute for fiscal studies. speech as — morning ahead of the conference speech as is often the case with— speech as is often the case with the _ speech as is often the case with the chancellor and she said — with the chancellor and she said there will be no return to aesthetic— said there will be no return to aesthetic under government spending would increase in real terms — spending would increase in real terms. how realistic is that? the — terms. how realistic is that? the government certainly will increase in real terms overall over the next four or five years and the last government was planning at but the question is whether that means it will be able to increase in real terms for all parts of government, so whatjeremy hunt, the previous chancellor was planning is spending on public services would increase i% public services would increase 1% a year over the next five years. the problem with that is because spending on things like health and defence in child care will increase a lot faster than that that wo

they— blame, again and again, and they must note that all of the independent experts, the institute for fiscal studiest's incompetence and it is snp — government's incompetence and it is snp mismanagement of money— it is snp mismanagement of money from a government i am afraid _ money from a government i am afraid has— money from a government i am afraid has long since lost its way, — afraid has long since lost its way, and _ afraid has long since lost its way, and the culture are blaming _ way, and the culture are blaming someone else is its cost — blaming someone else is its cost which is meted out injobs and service cuts and we have that — and service cuts and we have that longest nhs waiting lists in history and attainment is dropping in our schools. scots are left— dropping in our schools. scots are left paying more and getting less, and almost half of the — getting less, and almost half of the total adjustments laid out today are pulled from a one off raid — out today are pulled from a one off raid on— out today are pulled from a one off raid on scotland money. lost — off raid on scotland money.

he spoke to the director of the institute for| director of the institute for fiscal studies.hat he said.— what he said. government spending _ what he said. government spending will _ what he said. government spending will increase - what he said. government spending will increase in l what he said. government i spending will increase in real terms — spending will increase in real terms over the next four or five — terms over the next four or five years _ terms over the next four or five years. the last government was planning that. the question is whether that means be able to increase in real terms for all parts _ to increase in real terms for all parts of government, so what — all parts of government, so what the _ all parts of government, so what the previous chancellor was — what the previous chancellor was planning was that spending on public— was planning was that spending on public services would increase by 1% a year over the next _ increase by 1% a year over the next five _ increase by 1% a year over the next five years. the problem with — next five years. the proble

what we thought it was going to be, but what the office for budget responsibility, the institute for fiscal studies have had to take some really difficult decisions that we would not have wanted to have taken around things like targeting and the winter fuel payments. the reason we do that is because the deficit was much higher than anyone thought, and the spending was higher than anyone thought, if we hadn't taken that action we would have seen a run on the pound, the economy crashing and the people who pay the price for that of the poorest and pensioners and those on fixed incomes. that was mp lucy powell a little bit earlier. but is there a positive that the government is trying to highlight? there are certainly labour mps who want to see that, they want more of a positive message because they worry there is too much gloom. part of the job of lucy powell is timetabling the agenda of parliament and what she was to say is that there is this packed agenda of legislation that the government is going to bring in, the biggest one day same of any government in decades and there's going to be all sorts o

that the institute for fiscal studies said they are not victimless., shareholders or their pay. during the general election we knocked on thousands of doors and people told us over and over again that everything was broken, nothing was working and they wanted their public services to work. we set out clearly how we wanted to do that. i think i said it on your programme a number of times. we were very clear about how we would raise those public to pay for our public services and the public voted for it in large numbers. public voted for it in large numbers— public voted for it in large numbers. ., ~' , numbers. thank you both very much. before _ numbers. thank you both very much. before we _ numbers. thank you both very much. before we go, - numbers. thank you both very much. before we go, a - numbers. thank you both very much. before we go, a nod i numbers. thank you both very much. before we go, a nod to| much. before we go, a nod to the budget. that will be an opportunity for both opposition parties to stake their claim. what is a bit odd that the c

what the — thought it was going to be, but what the office for budget responsibility, the institute for fiscal studiesmuch worse in terms of the in year situation for the country's finances _ situation for the country's finances. so we have had to take — finances. so we have had to take some really difficult decisions that we would not have — decisions that we would not have wanted to have taken around _ have wanted to have taken around things like targeting and the _ around things like targeting and the winter fuel payments. the reason we do that is because _ the reason we do that is because the deficit was much higher— because the deficit was much higher than anyone thought, and the spending was higher than anyone — the spending was higher than anyone thought, if we hadn't taken — anyone thought, if we hadn't taken that action we would have seen _ taken that action we would have seen a _ taken that action we would have seen a run — taken that action we would have seen a run on the pound, the economy— seen a run on the pound, the economy crashing and the people who pay— economy crashing and the peopl

that was what the independent institute for fiscal studies were also clear about, where they said theyhe change would be minimal. what we are seeing in certain areas, in are seeing in certain areas, in a small number of areas, because of that demographic bulge that we're seeing, that's kind of coming through the system, particularly with older teenagers , is that there are teenagers, is that there are some pinch points, but i just don't anticipate or recognise the characterisation of the kind of change that people are scaremongering about, frankly. and i'd say to the conservatives who are peddling this, look, if they want to reverse this, how are they going to pay for it? firstly. and secondly, well they might they reflect might they reflect . reflect. >> well they might pay for it with the 10 billion that's just been handed back to the treasury by the bank of england, which could indeed wipe out your winter fuel allowance, cut and wipe out this. why doesn't rachel reeves spend this money she's just been handed to reverse these hugely unpopular policies? >> we're going to have a budget

because if you actually look at the people who've looked at this like the institute for fiscal studiesnk that there will be very few moving, right. there might be people who decide not to send their children, but the movement will be very low in, particularly in the 11 to 16, the sixth form, lots and lots of private school children go to state schools. state sixth forms, partly because they think it'll it'll give them a better chance to go to university of north london. >> that happens all the time. you know as well as i do that the wealthy north london families put their kids through private school to 16, and then in order to get to oxford and cambridge or the lse, then the last two years are at the. >> so this is, this has been going for on ages. and actually i mean, jacob rees—mogg said about because eton is putting its prices up by 20% and he said you don't have to. there's enough money in eton that you do not have to do that. now. if jacob rees—mogg feels that he's one of the less wealthy parents at eton and he he feels and actually, you know, private schools on jacob's money from

. >> yes, a new report from the institute for fiscal studies.eople are claiming these benefits. now with a 150% increase. yes. you heard that right. 150% increase by the under rigigoodi% increase by the rigigood afternoon; by the rigigood afternoon britain. it is >> good afternoon britain. it is now 139 and the number of people claiming disability benefits in the uk is soaring. >> yes, a new report from the institute for fiscal studies. well, that data shows that under 4 million people, just under 4 million people are claiming these benefits. now with a 150% increase. yes. you heard that right. 150% increase by the under seconds. claiming disability benefits in the past four years. >> wow. now that is a stark statistic. there's also been a sharp rise in the number of benefit applications on mental health grounds. this is where it's really growing. mental health claims. >> well , joining us now is >> well, joining us now is simeon lee, a researcher at the taxpayers alliance. because simeon, this this is a pretty stark reality. we had a government

but i just wanted to say what the at the time, the institute for fiscal studies, they did.quoted them many times when you were in opposition, but they said, i think there were some things that were hidden from view. but the overall picture over the next 4 or 5 years is very, very similar to what we knew before the election. so, i mean, they're basically saying you sort of you're overegging this. well let me take that head on, because i think what we what we did know going into the election, what everyone in the country knew is that difficult years lie ahead in terms of the fiscal situation. >> what we didn't know and what in fact, the office of budget responsibility said confirms they didn't know either was the in—year spending pressures. that's where the £22 billion comes from. so it's not like pressures which are going to happen next year or the year after or in the years ahead. it's money being spent this yean it's money being spent this year, which the previous government had not accounted for. you know, within that 22 billion, £6 billion of that is overspending on acco

that was what the independent institute for fiscal studies were also clear about, where they said theyt the change would be minimal. what we are seeing in certain areas in a small number of areas, because of that demographic bulge that we're seeing, that's kind of coming through the system, particularly with older teenagers, is that there are some pinch points, but i just don't anticipate or recognise the characterisation of the kind of change that people are scaremongering about, frankly, and i'd say to the conservatives who are peddling this, look, if they want to reverse this, how are they going to pay for it firstly and secondly? well, they might they reflect , might they reflect. >> well, they might pay for it with the 10 billion that's just been handed back to the treasury by the bank of england, which could indeed wipe out your winter fuel allowance, cut and wipe out this. why doesn't rachel reeves spend this money? she's just been handed to reverse these hugely unpopular policies ? policies? >> we're going to have a budget next month. and at that point, the whole the entire kin

no, but but talking to paul johnson from the institute for fiscal studies, he did say he said he said>> right. those were the two that he absolutely put it put in, but actually if you're going to grow up and have a proper membership, then the trouble begins as any of us who come from parties with rather large memberships, no, i mean , it'll memberships, no, i mean, it'll it'll be very interesting because then the other thing is, when we talk about professionalising, it's about time nigel farage became a professional mp and actually visited his constituency. that's what you're supposed to do. you're supposed to look after your constituents. you're supposed to represent them . supposed to represent them. >> okay? i mean, henry, you know , >> okay? i mean, henry, you know, as a former ukip leader, you would be expecting to be supporting reform. >> and but i look , i look. >> and but i look, i look. >> and but i look, i look. >> tell me more. >> tell me more. >> no, look, i wish reform well. and i actually think that they are quite provocative, obviously. but in doing so what they are doi

you mention the iff some of the institute for fiscal studies, let's talk about it for a moment. processes _ government. the obr is looking into the processes around _ government. the obr is looking into the processes around the _ government. the obr is looking into the processes around the estimates l the processes around the estimates and these kind of figures, that is not unusual for government departments to have in the year spending pressures which are usually worked through by way of supplementary estimates or indeed by controlling expenditure within other parts of that particular department. but the central point here is that the labour party is coming forward with this £22 billion so—called black hole, it does not stack up, as i have said, have of it relates to be political choice they took to pay public sector workers above inflation pay increases without any strings attached whatsoever, and thatis strings attached whatsoever, and that is what is really going on here, and this isjust to that is what is really going on here, and this is just to cover the fact that labour,

departments, saying that her demands for these departmental cuts are going too far and the institute for fiscal studiessome areas are sort of more sensitive areas, such as local government, prisons, courts. further education are very vulnerable and that she'll need to raise spending by 10 to 20 billion just to kind of maintain real terms, sort of parity. we've got obviously october 30th, we've got the first labour budget in nearly 15 years and very, very painful choices are expected to be made. we've seen lots of painful choices already. we've seen decisions which have raised lots of eyebrows about sort of cutting winter fuel payments for people for many, many pensioners, and it's all about now whether these tax rises are going to be as painful as everyone's as everyone is expecting and where the money is going to come from , basically. going to come from, basically. >> jonathan. >> jonathan. >> well, yeah, i mean, that's an effective summary of the, of the article. i have said, yeah, i mean, i kind of you didn't really make it a point i could sort of argue with in a sense, clearly the government is go

for everything that's wrong. the institute of fiscal studies, who institute of fiscal studies, who i would, i would trust with my credit card and my chequebook because they're honourable men and women there said, you can expect labour to blame the state of the books when they take oven of the books when they take over. and it's all dreadful, and it's nonsense because actually, sue gray and the leadership of the labour party have known for months and months what the real state of the public finances are, and so to say, they suddenly found a £20 billion black hole, i think is complete nonsense. as i said at the beginning, i think that keir starmer is risking a lot within his own to party prove to the electorate that he can be trusted with the economy, even when it comes to taking tough decisions. but i think it also shows is that they don't like people who stand on their own two feet and they don't like wealth creators . so watch the wealth creators. so watch the budget for an increase in capital gains tax, >> i think that's a that's a wise watchword there. of course, we're expecting many different tax rises poten

ma kahn, he's a professor at the institute of business administration and crunchy school of business studies. thanks very much for being with us here on l to 0. the fiscal can you just give us a little bit of context? i mean, how much tax of people of business is actually expected to pay what, what sort of increase in percentage of that. and so we talking here on the, uh, not a lot to be on this uh directly. only the side of the clause and the golf page, corporations paid taxes, all a lot of the agriculture the whole. so then reduce that goes, do not pay any taxes at all. so what they're going to do, what they're doing is adding a small, big stag, says that these become part of the tax there. the problem with this is it's an arbitrary number and largely not related with any economic ration, not incomes kind of the problem though, and more importantly, since these are areas are being tax properly for the 1st time, there was also a lot of resistance there as well what would you say a small amount of between 510 percent less. if i person 2 to 3 percent of your daughter, don't know what, but that becomes a problem. the goal is taxes. here i am both on the b