Kicking cans down the road is an improvement on scoring own goals

Chancellor John Healey leaves no11 Downing Street, London before delivering his first Budget. PIC: Stefan Rousseau/Press Association

Thank goodness for a workmanlike budget, low on claims to cure deep-rooted ills which have developed over decades and were unlikely to be fixed by rhetorical flourishes to win plaudits on the day.

It’s part of the Budget process that they usually unravel pretty rapidly after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sat down. There isn’t much of that this time, largely because there was not a lot to unravel. It was, as John Healey said, a “breathing space” Budget.. It did plenty of useful things, mainly around energy and other household costs. By taking money from the banks, landlords and gambling companies to fund them, Mr Healey indicated a direction of travel with no pretence that this was more than a first step.

How could it be otherwise? There are two dreadful wars going on which have a direct impact on costs that are beyond the control of any Chancellor. The consequences could get worse before they get better.

No government can make its own decisions without reference to these circumstances. Just don’t cause more upheaval. Cutting energy bills will remain a forlorn hope for as long as the price of oil and gas is being forced up. Fundamental solutions are for the longer-term and governments can only ameliorate rather than prevent the reality of higher bills this winter. Mr Healey has done his best but he can’t hold back the tide created by other people’s wars.

It is true that there are vast issues to address which the Budget did not touch, such as establishing a national care service. As Scotland demonstrated, that is a lot easier to promise than to deliver. There is a bloated benefits bill and the vast army of young NEETs which Labour is making the first genuinely serious attempt to address; a societal challenge of the first order.

At the same time, there is a pressing obligation to catch up on areas of defence spending that were neglected when the world seemed a more orderly place. The potential to turn this into a huge industrial opportunity holds promise, not least for Scotland, but it all takes time.

To be plausible in addressing these big questions, it’s a good idea to have worked out the answers before making grand announcements or spending commitments. And the straightforward fact is that the Burnham government isn’t there yet. How could it be? So don’t pretend otherwise.

Kicking cans down the road is an improvement on scoring own goals as Rachel Reeves did in her early efforts to forge an identity as an iron chancellor. Unlike Mr Healey, she did not fear to offend rather large interest groups – the elderly and disabled among them, which seemed like the wrong targets without the necessary groundwork to justify the rationale. These mistakes have not been repeated.

It is also fair – and unusual – to recall that measures introduced by the Starmer-Reeves interregnum raised half a million children out of poverty so that even an unpopular Labour government delivers meaningful change. As always, though, it has to spend a couple of years reversing the legacy it inherits, in this case the one left by Johnson, Truss and the rest of them.

First stop for the kicked cans will be next year’s Spending Review by which time both solutions and priorities should be clearer. In the meantime, I think many fair-minded voters will recognise the genuine efforts being made to drive progress in the face of exceptionally difficult headwinds which governments cannot control.

One of the England-only measures announced by Mr Healey was the increased threshold for business rates relief which means, he said, that “half our shops, restaurants and gyms will pay no business rates at all”. That would be music to the ears of the same kinds of businesses in Scotland.

As we survey dismal high streets and recognise the pressures on Scotland’s hospitality sector, surely this is something that should now be emulated? Trade bodies have long pleaded for equivalence of treatment from Edinburgh and, unless that happens, this new announcement will widen the disparity.

There always has to be a Scottish grievance and this time it involved the long-running saga of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project about which I beg permission to be just a little sceptical. For starters, it is difficult to reconcile some of the more excitable comments with what the project’s owners said themselves..

The Budget announcement “does not change Acorn’s current development programme which continues with UK government support”, as also confirmed by the Government. The next phase, if it ever happens, will depend on “securing long-term funding via loan or equity investment”, working with UK and Scottish governments, says Acorn. It doesn’t sound like the apocalypse.

Carbon capture and storage remains largely a mirage which has been spoken of as a solution since I was around as energy minister, more than 20 years ago. Since then, not a lot has happened globally, though billions have been spent. If, as the Scottish Government claims, their net zero targets depend on Acorn coming together, then their strategy is tenuous indeed.

I also find Tory and SNP calls for the Energy Profits Levy – introduced by the Tories in 2022 - to be scrapped slightly ludicrous. With oil trading yesterday at $117 a barrel, the companies are making profits hand over fist. Why on earth would any hard-pressed government choose this time to remove or reduce a tax rate which is, incidentally, exactly the same as Norway’s?

The North Sea industry and its supporters, among whom I number myself, would do well to concentrate on credible demands. There is no obligation to act as lobbyists for the oil industry to pay less tax than it can well afford.