Summary of the day
It was a busy morning today as reaction to the chancellor’s autumn statement emerged. Here are all the key points:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), a leading thinktank, said in a briefing that the key takeaway from the autumn statement was that the UK had got “a whole lot poorer” after a “series of economic own goals” by the Conservatives, and because of the “extraordinary scale” of spending on debt interest due to high borrowing in recent years, combined with sluggish long-term growth and the pressures of an ageing population.
The IFS director, Paul Johnson, said the tax burden was unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels for decades, and that threshold freezes meant the country was in a “new era” of high taxation and high public spending. He added that the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, had done “the minimum he needed to regain credibility” following the disastrous mini-budget of his predecessor Kwasi Kwarteng.
In the morning, broadcasters grilled Hunt about his decision not to abolish the non-dom tax loophole. He defended the move as encouraging the super-rich to stay and continue to spend their money in the UK, which he suggested was good for the economy. Labour accused the chancellor and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak – whose wife is a non-dom – of shielding the super-rich from paying their fair share of taxes.
Hunt also said it had been a “difficult” decision to delay the social care cap, but said that he had to do it for the country.
Hunt also conceded to broadcasters that Brexit had harmed the economy and said the UK needed “unfettered trade” with the European Union.
The latest Ipsos Political Monitor, taken 9-16 November shows the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, would be preferred as chancellor to Hunt, as high levels of economic pessimism persist and Labour retains a healthy poll lead over the Conservatives.
The Resolution Foundation, another leading thinktank, said that Britain’s workers would miss out on pay rises worth £15,000 over the next five years as the chancellor’s tax-heavy budget pressured the nation’s “squeezed middle”. Its research director said Hunt’s cuts did not appear achievable, and that unprotected departments would face George Osborne-style “2014-15 levels of austerity”.
Thanks for following the blog today, we’re closing for the evening but will reopen again on Monday morning. Have a wonderful weekend.
Updated
The Guardian’s political correspondent Aubrey Allegretti reports on how a veteran objector has managed to get a private member’s bill through all stages in just three minutes.
Fridays in the Commons are often sleepy – with most MPs back in their constituencies and the few that do hang around in Westminster trying to get their ideas for draft laws put on to the statute book.
They do this through what is called a “private member’s bill”, and these are usually taken and considered by the dozen or so MPs who sit in parliament to listen to such suggestions.
The Tory backbencher Christopher Chope is well-known for his objections, and caused controversy in the past by blocking such bills (including one to outlaw “upskirting”).
This is because he believes bills that have the government’s support but which are introduced through the private member’s bill system are clogging up the method used for backbench MPs to enact their own laws.
It only takes one MP to shout “object” to kibosh a private member’s bill, so it was a great surprise on a normal Friday sitting when Chope managed to get one of his through without a government whip alert enough to block its progress.
The “mobile home pitch fee bill” was presented by Chope, but remained unopposed – meaning it flew through its first reading, second reading, committee stage then report stage, and finally passed its third reading without opposition.
The whole process took three minutes and 11 seconds – a speed remarked upon by the deputy speaker Eleanor Laing, who confirmed it was the first time a private member’s bill had completed all its stages at once since 1998.
She said to laughs from the Commons:
Many a worthy bill has appeared to have support of all members but one.
It is noticeable that this particular bill is brought by that very member and its worthiness has therefore outweighed its procedural position. Interesting and notable.
Updated
