Phillip Inman looks at the prospects for "growth in every postcode" - arguing that there's a danger that there's going to be a distinction between those that will experience growth and those that won't - and that this is largely going to be a function of the extent to which they are devolved or not.
That is going to be dependent upon the extent to which there's reorganisation of local government or not, and thus not everywhere is going to benefit.
The distributional effects of the Budget are discussed in this Guardian article that suggests that pensioners are gainers, as is Paddington Bear, whereas banks and betting shops lose out.
Although there's not been much criticism of the Budget, one outspoken critic of it is the Resolution Foundation, which has highlighted the scattergun approach to the cost of living crisis, and the fact that energy support doesn't appear to be particularly well-targeted, in giving nearly as much to the rich as the poor.
That said, the idea of targeting policy is far simpler in theory than in practice.
This BBC article unpicks the OBR's take on the Budget and its implications for the wider macroeconomy: it highlights the prospect of moribund growth in 2027, before it rebounds, more persistent inflation than was forecast, lower spending power and higher than expected borrowing.
However, it also suggests that the longer-term strategy of the government is broadly working - the electoral question is whether the current government will be able to sell this. The reality is that the current government inherited a pretty grim set of public finances, in large part designed to trap them, and external events have also conspired against them.
The OBR take on the effects of the Budget on the wider macroeconomy highlights the fact that the main determinant of the UK's economic performance in the short-to-medium term is external: the war in Iran.
Even though the economy has remained relatively resilient, it will act as a drag on growth and may perpetuate inflation for longer than expected.
The details from today's Budget: apparently it's being seen as a boring budget. As a friend who's a tax accountant replied "Aren't budgets meant to be boring..."
A quick heads-up, it seems as though the Rosebank oilfield is going to be approved, with the government finding a form of environmental accounting chicanery to suggest that any carbon emissions that result won't count against the UK's carbon budget.
Bankers have barely begun to repay the billions they cost the country after 2008. In this PM they may have met their match, says Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee
Polly Toynbee suggests that the Chancellor should raise the bank surcharge and effectively give two fingers to the banks' attempts to lobby against this. She suggests that the banks' still haven't really 'paid' for their role in the global financial crisis of post-2008 and this justifies an increase in the surcharge.
Certainly the news that HSBC's profits are up by 32%...
Is inflation on the point of picking up in the latter part of the year? Certainly, the British Retail Consortium is suggesting that shop price inflation is picking up and is going to put increased pressure on the economy's poorest members.
I quite like this Heather Stewart article because it looks at one of the "constants'" of my time as an Economics teacher: the phrase "a bonfire of red tape" - seemingly a constant, irrespective of who's in power.
To be honest, the phrase has been used so often in the last 40 years, it's amazing that there's any red tape left at this point in time. And if it were the panacea for economic growth, you would have thought that every economy would be completely deregulated by now.
However, there's an equilibrium position here - the level of regulation should be such that the marginal cost of regulation equals the marginal benefit derived from it. And we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that some of this regulation is actually a good thing at protecting us from dominant firms and establishing a safe working environment.
Is the opportunity cost of increased training for young people fewer opportunities for older workers. Certainly, there's a suggestion that in order to incentivise training of younger workers, the government might make it more expensive to train older workers.
To me, this doesn't seem like good economics - although I can see the thinking behind it. As the General Secretary of the Fabian Society suggests, training older workers might actually be giving more qualified people access to further training at the expense of young workers lacking qualifications.
The annual primer as to what the Budget entails: it's a guide to the shape of the day and some of the policy measures that the Chancellor might adopt. Worth a read.
The main theme of the budget appears to be dealing with the ongoing cost of living crisis, and putting it in a broader political context.
It's a good summation of the current challenges and the legacy left by both the previous Conservative government and the previous Chancellor, Rachel Reeves.
The chancellor is right to focus on pure affordability, but £100 handouts and delayed decisions won’t shield consumers from the next wave of price hikes
As Nils Pratley suggests the Budget is a bit of a temporary fix, and in the longer-term does nothing to tackle those factors that have driven energy costs upwards, and the next wave of energy price hikes.
In this case, there's a trade-off between clean energy and cheap energy.
Businesses not massively in favour or opposed to the Budget, with most of them arguing that the Chancellor hasn't done enough to help them, with many of them arguing that costs are still rising faster than revenues - even with cuts in business rates and a limited increase in the minimum wage for young workers - and that without a coherent approach to creating a business supporting environment, they will still be under pressure.
Dharshini David's take on the Budget: exactly the same as mine. Wait and see...this Budget isn't designed to move the needle, it's a stop-gap designed to buy time.
Some vox pops responding to today's Budget. It smacks of a compromise: a solution that satisfies no-one. However, for all the disappointment that people feel in that the Chancellor hasn't done as much for them as he might have done, there's also a sense that he hasn't done anything egregious and he's prepared the ground - potentially, if external events allow - for more boldness next year.
Income tax thresholds are being held until 2031, when they're then expected to rise in line with inflation. It's a lovely example of fiscal drag - increasing the total tax take without seemingly increasing taxation.
Even most Reform voters are in favour of a tax on the super-wealthy. Yet the first budget of the Burnham era looks set to dodge the issue, says Faiza Shaheen, executive director of Tax Justice UK
Campaign group Tax Justice UK believe that there's public support for higher taxes on the rich, with survey data suggesting it has widespread public support. However, is this a classic example of a poll failing to reveal what consumers actually want from policymakers - a difference between what they feel they should say and what they actually believe?
Worth a read, and also worth remembering that wealth taxes rarely raise as much as you'd expect them to.
I'm not going to 'scoop' too much this morning; I'll wait until after the event. However, these six charts provide context - looking at the factors that are going to underpin the budget. These range from devolution, tackling youth unemployment and increasing defence spending. It's worth a read to work out what the government's objectives are and how there might be trade-offs in trying to achieve them.
Rob Conway's take on the Budget, which, apart from the initial hyperbole about the importance of the Budget is, I think, reasonable in covering all of the major points in the context of the broader macroeconomic context.
The first budget leaks appear to suggest that the government are going to cut some tariffs on food imports and continue to freeze fuel duty, in line with the forecast that this Budget is more about not making decisions and trying to buy time for the economy to improve.
Whither monetary policy? Well, it's going up, given the persistence of inflation but this article suggests that the City consensus is that the prospect of rates reaching 4.75% are overstated, and that the peak level of interest rates is going to be considerably less than this.
The proposals for reindustrialisation need to be led from No 10 North, according to a number of Labour MPs because they think the civil service lacks the skills to do so. I think that there's a grain of truth in this but that it's a little bit simplistic, albeit it also reflects the metropolitan nature of the UK body politic.
It would seem that it's part of a larger move towards devolution being pushed by the Burnham administration.
Faisal Islam looks forward to this week's Budget, with mercifully few, if any, leaks, arguing that for all the doom and gloom, the UK economy has remained remarkably resilient in the face of external shocks, although inflation remains stubbornly high.
Against this background, and the decreasing 'fiscal headroom' it will be interesting to see what the Budget entails - although Faisal seems to think that it will be more of a holding budget in the hope of the external environment improving and potentially allowing for increased infrastructure investment in future.
To get content containing either thought or leadership enter:
To get content containing both thought and leadership enter:
To get content containing the expression thought leadership enter:
You can enter several keywords and you can refine them whenever you want. Our suggestion engine uses more signals but entering a few keywords here will rapidly give you great content to curate.
Phillip Inman looks at the prospects for "growth in every postcode" - arguing that there's a danger that there's going to be a distinction between those that will experience growth and those that won't - and that this is largely going to be a function of the extent to which they are devolved or not.
That is going to be dependent upon the extent to which there's reorganisation of local government or not, and thus not everywhere is going to benefit.