Essentials of the anonymous Budget

You might remember Budget day 2003 – but not necessarily because of the Budget!. It took place on April 9th, but the afternoon television pictures were dominated not by the cheery countenance of Gordon Brown, but rather by pictures from that haunt of another Scottish Labour MP, Baghdad. It was an afternoon for dragging down statues in the full glare of the world’s press and detailed analysis of the Budget was a little limited. But, in truth, there was less to analyse than in many past years.

Conspiracy theorists could have had a field day – the Jo Moore school of media management would have had an ideal opportunity to bury a mountain of bad news. But the problem with that theory was that there was not much in the way of bad news, not even on the tax front – especially if one discounts the bad news announced well in advance of Budget day.

This Budget continued a new tradition – if you can have a new tradition – of taking place after the commencement of a new tax year. Last year, the decision on timing was driven by personal tragedy affecting the Chancellor. This year, as acknowledged in the opening words of the Chancellor’s speech, it was a War Budget – the first since the last Korean war.

Various allegations were made as to why the Budget was delayed. The hope may have been that it could appear in the immediate wake of a successful conclusion to  the  Iraq war, when triumphalist popularity was at its height. Perhaps the idea was to lose the Budget in the war generally – and if that was the aim, then the result of it happening on the very afternoon when the news was dominated by a statue of Sadaam Hussein being dragged down could scarcely have been bettered.

Incidentally, some closer to home might pause to consider the sight of the destruction of the effigy of a supremely confident war leader; a religious believer, apparently losing popularity even in his own party;  with a power base in the North of his domain; who likes self-publicity;  with older children who like the good life, one of whom has his own palace in the west of the country; someone who appears to ignore  the opinion of the United Nations. It makes one think.

Unlike most recent years, there were no plans (at least for tax measures) stretching into an infinity beyond at least one election. There was no delayed tax increase, set for a year ahead, although of course the main tax increase from LAST year has now come into effect, with the increases in National Insurance biting in April. The illusion of this being anything other than a tax increase is fast fading. The freezing of the personal allowance at the same level as in 2002/03 is also now in effect. But the important tax credits, which to some extent balance this increase are also now in effect.

The Budget was short, especially in pure tax measures. It used to be that there was a clear divide between the November statement, in which spending decisions would be announced and the March Budget, when announcements would be made about how the money would be raised to pay for the spending. But these days, both statements mix up tax-raising and spending announcements as suits the Chancellor – and plenty more are slipped in at other times in case fat tax lawyers get bored.

In the new family-friendly House of Commons, the Chancellor began speaking at 12.30 on a Wednesday – and stopped in time for him to get a late lunch, if he hadn’t had to listen to Iain Duncan Smith and Charles Kennedy. Even the onslaught of papers following the Budget did not contain as much as in some years, although there are a large number of consultations ongoing.

The Finance Bill was more of a disappointment – two large volumes, including a brand new tax in the shape of stamp duty land tax.  That obviously is something with which solicitors will have to get to grips (and on which there will be at least one separate article in due course).