Why we should consider ditching the annual ‘Budget’ event - David Blunkett

Unless there is some room for manoeuvre in the spending figures, and particularly in the capital budget, much of it has already been outlined.

If this is the case, it's going to be a very rocky ride in the immediate future for public services and particularly those reliant on delivery from local government. A relatively small uplift in the budget for social care will be more than absorbed by the employer's National Insurance hike. Other local government funding has been earmarked for rough sleeping and homelessness (quite rightly) but what's left will also be absorbed by the employment costs necessarily incurred by local government because the bulk of their expenditure is on staff.

The same is true of the criminal justice system, which is vital not just for our safety and community well-being but also for tackling the 65,000 backlog in serious cases to be taken through the Crown Court.

Equally mystifying was to take a penny off the pint of draught beer for no discernible gain but to raise the cap on bus fares by as much as a pound.

Perhaps, therefore, consideration could be given to replacing the one day a year razzmatazz, with rational incremental changes whilst providing long term certainty for businesses and public service.

There was, however, one clear message. Rachel Reeves’ budget was about stability rather than growth. In that sense it did its job. It filled the gaps where commitments have been made to deliver services, but the funding was not in place.

It dealt with unfunded commitments left by the Conservative government including £8bn compensation for those affected by the contaminated blood scandal.

All of this was critical, but if we are to meet Labour’s ambition to reach 2.5 per cent national growth by the end of this Parliament, the government is going to have to do a great deal more alongside business to make this happen.

Public investment can bring forward substantial sums of money from the private sector. This is true of major infrastructure programmes if they can be properly planned, and the government brave enough to give the go-ahead and ensure that long-term planning for skills is put in place.

Skills were mentioned in the budget, but only £300m was allocated to further education.

But this is capital and therefore not available to cover the cost of increased National Insurance and improved salaries for lecturers who are paid a lot less than their counterparts in schools.

A pity, therefore, that the levy on business – now to be called the Growth and Skills Levy and originally intended purely for apprenticeships – was not mentioned. Expanding this is an imperative and, above all, ensuring that the whole of the sum raised (which is well over £3bn a year) is devoted to investment in skills and learning, and not clawed back into Treasury coffers.

What was even more surprising was that the government didn't announce anything about higher education funding until last Monday, and even then only an inflation increase for fees of £285 per year.

Not enough to solve the genuine crisis in university funding but sufficient to get an ill-informed hit on how this might affect students. As Martin Lewis has pointed out, this will be added over the 40 years and not affect the annual payments by students. A pity this wasn’t explained clearly.

Not least so that everyone could plan ahead, and any logical and rational uplift can also be matched by government investment in research, which is also crucial to innovation and, therefore, to growth.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Not everything can be fixed by the budget of 10 days ago. It's clearly going to take time, further brave decisions and real collaboration will be necessary – because this is not down to the government alone.

Most people understand that the massive outlay that occurred in combating Covid – not least that the eye-watering sums spent on furlough needs to be repaid at some point.

We now know the extent of the challenge, the pain that businesses will undoubtedly be feeling in order to make their contribution, and the need to put in place the long-term investment for long-term gain.

What is needed now is a clear vision. Call it what you wish: a narrative; or a picture in which the painting comes to life gradually and everyone can see the improvement and road ahead.

David Blunkett is a Labour Party politician, and served as the MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough.