Podcasts about budget responsibility

Is the UK heading for a fiscal crisis? Or can policymakers still steer the public finances back to a sustainable path?The Office for Budget Responsibility's latest Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report warns that, without action, UK government debt could climb above 270% of GDP by the 2070s - driven by rising borrowing, an ageing population, and the fiscal impacts of climate change.In this episode of IFS Zooms In, Helen Miller (Director, Institute for Fiscal Studies) is joined by Richard Hughes (Chair, OBR) and Ben Zaranko (Associate Director, IFS) to explore the forces shaping the long-term outlook for the public finances, the 50 risks highlighted by the OBR, and what can be done now to avoid a crisis later.Become a member: https://ifs.org.uk/individual-membershipFind out more: https://ifs.org.uk/podcasts-explainers-and-calculators/podcasts Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With migration continuing to make headlines in the media, we unpack what actually defines a “migrant”, and how the UK's largest producer of official statistics goes about counting them.  We also shed light on the misuse of migration figures.    Transcript    MILES FLETCHER  Hello and a very warm welcome to a new series of Statistically Speaking - the official podcast of the UK Office for National Statistics. This is where we hear from the people producing the nation's most important numbers, about how they do it and what the statistics are saying.   Now it's hard to think of one statistic that could be said to have been more influential these past few years than net international migration. Suffice to say it's the one ONS statistic that probably draws more media attention than any other.  But to fully understand the migration figures, and the swirling debate around them, we'd say it pays to know a little about how they are put together. And the first thing you need to know about that is what, or who, is a migrant in the first place. As usual, to unpack and explain the migration statistics we have the top experts from the ONS and beyond. Mary Gregory is director of population statistics here at the ONS. Madeleine Sumption is director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, and new chair of the National Statistician's Advisory Panel on Migration. And to help us understand how the numbers are used and abused in public debate, we're also delighted to welcome Hannah Smith, senior political journalist at fact checking charity Full Fact. Welcome to you all.   Madeleine, to start with you if I may, with that fundamental question, quite simply, what is a migrant?   MADELEINE SUMPTION  Well, there are actually lots of different definitions of a migrant and we use different definitions at different points in time. The standard definition of migration that we use in this country is long term migration, so people moving for at least 12 months, and so the Office for National Statistics figures on immigration, emigration and net migration are all using that definition. And people in that data, they're migrants regardless of whether they are British or not British. So you could have a British person who's gone to live overseas for a few years and coming back they would be counted, in theory, at least in the data, as a migrant. There are other definitions though that are very useful for policy. So sometimes people talk about migrants, meaning people who don't have British citizenship, and the value of that is that these are people who are subject to immigration control, effectively that the Home Office is regulating their status. But it's also sometimes quite useful not to look at whether someone's a citizen now, because of course people can change their citizenship, and many migrants to the UK do become British citizens. So it can be useful to look at whether someone has migrated in the past. The standard definition for that is whether someone is born abroad. But now we've got all these exciting new data sets from administrative data, and so there's a new definition that's creeping in and being used a lot, which is someone who was a non-citizen at the time they registered for their National Insurance Number, regardless of whether they've subsequently become a British citizen. So it's a bit confusing sometimes for the external user, because for various reasons, we have to have all of these different definitions. You just have to know which one you're looking at at any point in time.    MILES FLETCHER  But the basic headline definition, as far as the ONS is concerned -and I guess internationally too because it's important that these figures are comparable- is that it is a person traveling from one country to another for a period of 12 months.   MADELEINE SUMPTION  That's right  MILES FLETCHER  And I guess that is something that is perhaps not widely understood. People understand that migration has a degree of permanence, so they move from one country to another, and yet you can be a migrant in quite a sort of transient way.   MADELEINE SUMPTION  That's right, we have short term migrants as well. So we have a lot of people who come to this country to do seasonal work. For example, they spend up to six months in the country. Then you have people who are long term migrants by the ONS definition and they may spend two to three years here, for example, if they're a worker or an international student. So you're right. I think in people's minds, often when they think about who is a migrant and who comes to mind, they will typically think of someone who is moving permanently. But actually a lot of migrants to the UK only stay for a couple of years.   MILES FLETCHER And none of these people, when it comes to measuring them, none of these people arrive Paddington Bear style with labels around their necks saying “I am a migrant”. The ONS in measuring migration has to classify whether these people qualify or not.   MADELEINE SUMPTION  That's true, and that is very tricky. And it's something I think the non-technical user of the statistics finds it difficult to appreciate quite how hard it is for ONS to work out who is a migrant or not. Because we have millions of people crossing our borders every year, most of them not migrants. We have tourists or people who come in to visit family members. There are all sorts of people and reasons why those people come and go, so ONS is really looking for the needle in the haystack, and a relatively small share of people who are crossing the borders are actually migrating.   MILES FLETCHER  Well, that seems a good moment to bring in the person who is in charge of finding that needle in the haystack statistically. Mary, tell us how we approach this task. Perhaps start off by explaining how we used to do it. MARY GREGORY  Previously we used a survey called the International Passenger Survey, and there we would ask a sample of people as they came into the country, or as they left the country, what their intentions were, and we'd be able to provide very early estimates based on people's intentions to stay or to leave.   MILES FLETCHER  This is people at airports and other ports of entry, ferry ports, for example, simply approaching people as they wander along the corridors, almost in a random sort of way.   MARY GREGORY  Exactly that, you might have seen them. If you have travelled through an airport you may have seen a desk that sometimes says Office for National Statistics. And there would sometimes be people there with very carefully scheduled timetables to make sure that we collect a good cross section of people.   MILES FLETCHER  So the International Passenger Survey is essentially a big sample survey. Nothing wrong with that, and yet, the number of people being stopped at airports who did actually identify themselves as being migrants was quite small, and that made for some very broad-brush estimates didn't it?   MARY GREGORY  Yes, as you can imagine, people travel through airports or ports for many different reasons, and a lot of those people traveling will be traveling for a holiday or business or to visit family. And so the proportion of those people who are actually going to become residents or leaving for more than 12 months is very small, which makes it really difficult to pick up a good sample of those people.   MILES FLETCHER  And because it's fair to say the International Passenger Survey was never set up to measure migration in the first place, and that was something ONS found itself pointing out for a long, long time before things actually changed. MARY GREGORY  For a number of years we made clear that it was being stretched beyond its original purpose, and that it was the best measure we had at the time but now we think we can do better. And I think one other really important aspect of that is understanding that the survey was asking about people's intentions, and intentions don't always match reality of what we then see.   MILES FLETCHER  Because you might arrive as a student, end up working, settling, starting a family...   MARY GREGORY  Yes. Or you might find that you've arrived planning to stay for a year and then change your mind and you've left again. So it could go in either direction.   MILES FLETCHER  So the case for change was strong. What has changed? How is migration measured now?   MARY GREGORY  So now we have a variety of different ways to measure depending on the nationality of the people arriving. So for anybody from outside the EU, we have good data around visas from the Home Office, so we can use that to understand who is coming and what their reasons for travel are, and we can come on to that a little bit later. For people within the EU, that was a bit more difficult because prior to exiting the EU nobody needed a visa. And so at the moment, we use administrative data, so that's data collected for other purposes, and we use data from DWP, so the Department for Work and Pensions, to understand who has come into the country and who is staying in the country for more than 12 months. And for British nationals, we still, at the moment, use the International Passenger Survey, but we hope to change that very soon.   MILES FLETCHER  And essentially, the last use of the IPS, as far as migration is concerned, is to capture British passport holders leaving the country because nobody else is counting them out.   MARY GREGORY  That's right, and it's actually just stopped collecting that data. So we will move to the new methods very soon.   MILES FLETCHER  Okay, so how successful would you say this shift has been?   MARY GREGORY  I think we've definitely improved the data we can provide. It's a better reflection of people's behaviours. We know that because we've compared the different methods and looked against the census and how the population has changed there. But there are also other advantages as well. So we can now look a lot more at why people have come to the UK, or which are the people who are leaving, so we know more about the reasons for migration as well.   MILES FLETCHER  Madeleine, you run what's recognized as one of the leading think tanks in this area. How much of an improvement is the current system?   MADELEINE SUMPTION  I think the data that we have, particularly on non EU citizens, is much better than it was in the past. Just to give an example, back in the early 2010s there was a big political debate about what the right level of net migration should be, and the government had a target of getting net migration down to under 100,000 from where it was. It was around 200 to 300 thousand at the time. So of course, the biggest question was, how do we do this? And the problem was that, based on those old data, we had no idea how many students were leaving the country. If someone came on a student visa we maybe caught them coming in but there were various problems. We just couldn't measure accurately enough the students going out. And so this most basic of questions, how can the government meet its net migration target, was not possible to answer with the data. Fast forward now ten years, and at least for non EU citizens, we now have pretty detailed data so we can say, okay, this number of people came in on student visas, this share of them left, that share is actually a bit lower than people were expecting. So those are quite interesting data. At the moment we can do the same for work visas, family members, refugees - so that's a dramatic improvement. There's still work to do I think on EU citizens. The ONS is measuring quite high levels of both EU immigration and emigration, of people who don't seem to be coming on visas and probably have a status from before Brexit, but we don't have a great sense of that. And as Mary mentioned, we currently don't really have any data on British citizens migrating, so that will need to be fixed. But yeah, I think the overall picture on immigration and emigration is much better than it was. Separately in the system, there are some challenges, let's say, with the surveys that give us data on the population of people in the country, their characteristics and so forth. And that, I think, has deteriorated a little but hopefully will come back on track.   MILES FLETCHER  And bedding in the new system has brought about the need for some pretty big revisions. And that, of course, brings challenges doesn't it. Around confidence in the numbers when you have to revise by several hundred thousand the number of people that have been classified as migrants. And you get these sort of headlines about the ONS, you know, missing the population of Cambridge or wherever it was. But it wasn't a question of missing people as such, was it? It was just getting better data to understand which of the people coming and leaving should actually be classified as a migrant.    MADELEINE SUMPTION  Yes. There were a number of issues there. There were a couple of cases where it was a case of missing people. There were some Ukrainians, for example, that got lost in the data. But that was a relatively small part of the overall revisions. Mostly, I think there's a challenge, and this challenge is not going to go away entirely but I think that the situation is improving, that when people's behaviour is changing the ONS still has to make assumptions about how long people are going to stay if they want to produce the data quickly. And so when you have a big policy change, you've got new groups of migrants coming in who don't necessarily behave, you know, leave and arrive after the same amounts of time as the previous groups of people who came in. Then you're more likely to have some revisions. And that's one of the things we've seen over the past few years.   MILES FLETCHER  Let's trace the story of migration, if we can, just over the course of this century so far because it's been one of, if not the biggest, political stories. And you might argue, one of the factors that has determined the course of political events in this country. Obviously the ONS is not a political organization, but its figures do tend to have an enormous influence in that direction. Migration really became a big issue in that sense around about the early part of the 21st century when countries were joining the EU from the old Eastern Bloc. And suddenly there was a perception not only that there were large numbers of people arriving as a result of EU enlargement, but that the ONS was struggling to actually keep track of them as well.   MADELEINE SUMPTION  Yeah. I mean, I would say that the increase in migration was even a few years earlier than that. The EU enlargement was one of the biggest events in migration in the last 30 years but there had already been a bit of an uptick in non EU migration, even from the late 1990s, and that is something that we saw across a number of countries. So the UK has been a major destination country, and is, if you look at comparable European countries, towards the top of the pack. But interestingly, we've seen some broadly similar trends in quite a lot of high income countries towards higher levels of migration. And that, of course, you know, as you've said, it's made migration much more salient in the political debate, and it's greatly increased the demand for accurate migration stats. And not just stats on the overall numbers, which of course are important, but really understanding who is coming to the UK. You know, what kinds of visas are they on? What do we know about their characteristics, their nationalities? How do they do when they get here...So I think that the demand for good migration statistics is just much higher than it was at a time when the UK experienced relatively limited migration.   MILES FLETCHER  It's arguable that it was indeed rising EU migration that actually led to the events that led to Brexit. What has changed in terms of migration flows because of Brexit?   MADELEINE SUMPTION  Well, the changes have been really big actually. I mean before Brexit quite a substantial share of all migration was from EU countries. After the referendum, even before the UK left the EU but after the referendum vote had been taken, there was already a decline in EU migration for a host of reasons including the exchange rate and so forth. So in some ways Brexit did what it was expected to do in reducing EU migration to the UK, because when free movement ended we saw quite a dramatic decrease in EU migration. And net migration from EU countries is now actually negative. So we've got the EU citizen population in the UK shrinking. But what was unexpected about Brexit was that then there was quite a big increase in non EU migration for various reasons. So partly policy liberalisations that at the time didn't necessarily look like a massive liberalization, but I think that the take up from migrants was much more enthusiastic than perhaps the government had expected. Lots of things came together. More international students, more workers, the war in Ukraine of course and lots of Ukrainians coming to the UK. And all of those came together at the same time and meant that we then ended up unexpectedly with these record high levels of net migration, peaking at just over 900,000 between 2022 and 2023. And now, of course, the numbers are coming right down again. So we had a record increase, we've then had a record decline to back to what are actually still pretty high levels of over 400,000. So we've really been on a roller coaster ride in terms of the migration patterns in the last few years.   MILES FLETCHER  Yes, and statistically the contrast between what's happened recently is that these migrants have become much more conspicuous and much more measurable because they're being covered by visa data, whereas previously, the EU migrants in the early part of the century weren't actually picked up until the until the census in 2011 were they?   MADELEINE SUMPTION  Yes and my hope is that because we're now measuring migration using visa data, when we get to the next census hopefully it will mean that those revisions - especially given that we'll have planned revisions over the next few years to the data - the hope is that that will mean we won't need such big revisions at the next census because we will have had a slightly more accurate measure between the censuses.   MILES FLETCHER  And I guess the three elements in this recent wave of migration that have attracted particular attention, yes, people have come to work and people have come to study as previously, but in this latest wave, people were bringing more of their dependents with them weren't they? Perhaps because they were coming from further afield?   MADELEINE SUMPTION  There's a bit of a puzzle about precisely why that increase in the number of dependents happened when I think it seems like there were probably two main factors. You've got international students bringing family members. We saw a shift in the countries as you mentioned, the countries that students were coming from. A lot more students from Nigeria, and they're more likely to come with their family members. We also saw a really big increase in the number of people coming to the UK as care workers after the government opened up a route for care workers. And so in one year alone, in 2023, there were visas issued to over 100,000 care workers, and they brought more than 100,000 family members with them, partners and children, that is. But that's now changing, because in response to these changes the government then introduced restrictions on the migration of family members, specifically of care workers and international students. So we've seen over the last year that fewer people are now bringing their family members with them.   MILES FLETCHER  Interesting example of better data enabling a policy response in that sense.   MADELEINE SUMPTION  Yes, and I think it has been very helpful that we've had these data on dependents. Ten years ago we would not necessarily have known. We would have seen that migration was high but it wouldn't have been very easy to distinguish whether people were coming as the partner of an international student or the partner of a health and care worker and now we do have those figures which is incredibly helpful for the policy debate.   MILES FLETCHER  Oh, Mary, one thing we haven't spoken about so far is the impact of COVID. How did the system cope with that period? In measuring the negligible flows to start with, but then the turning on the taps again as things returned to normal...   MARY GREGORY  I think in terms of measuring the statistics it was a massive challenge because the International Passenger Survey stopped and then it was agreed that it wouldn't restart measuring migration, and it actually accelerated our progress to what is now a better measure, but it happened under very difficult circumstances. So we very quickly moved to using administrative data. So data collected by government already to help us measure. And of course there was so much going on then that added to the challenge. Exiting the EU, changes to the immigration system etc. So it was really important we were very careful about how we make sure we understood what had caused the changes and how we measured it really accurately.   MILES FLETCHER  There was indeed another test of the credibility of the ONS migration estimates when it was announced that a very large number of people had applied for settled status just as we were about to leave. These are EU citizens applying for settled status in the UK just as we're about to leave the EU. How do we reconcile those two very different estimates, because a lot of people use them to suggest that there were far more people here than you've been telling us for all these years.   MARY GREGORY  What we can do is we can look at the data sources available to us. The census is a really valuable source in that respect because it gives us the most comprehensive view of the whole population for England and Wales, done by ONS. Obviously, Scotland and Northern Ireland are done by their own statistical offices but we can look at that to get a much better understanding of the full components of the population. But of course, it was really difficult. When there was free movement across the EU we wouldn't know for sure how many people have come and how many people have left. And that's actually become a little bit easier in terms of a statistical viewpoint, because now people do need to have visas in order to travel unless they've got settled status already.   MILES FLETCHER  The new system has been bedding in these last couple of years, and you've had the unenviable job of announcing some pretty large revisions to the figures. Have things settled down now?    MARY GREGORY  So I think we've made really good progress on people traveling from outside the EU as Madeleine already referred to. We know a lot more about them. We're more confident in that aspect, and we would hope therefore, that the revisions in future will be much lower in scale. There will always be some revisions because we are making assumptions about people. Just to pause on that for a second. We publish data five months after the reference period, but obviously it's 12 months before somebody meets the definition of being a migrant. So we have to make some assumptions about who will stay and who won't, but those are relatively small and should be small in terms of revisions. So I think with non EU numbers we have made really good progress and that is the largest part of the picture. So just to put that in perspective, in terms of immigration just over four in five people immigrating in in our latest data are from outside the EU, so that's positive. Where we do have more work to do is those people coming from within the EU and British nationals, and we've got plans to develop the methods for both of those so we will see revisions coming up in both of those areas. We will put out more information in the autumn about the progress we've made, and if they're ready and we think the quality is good enough, we will implement those methods in November. Otherwise, we'll wait until the following publication because for us it's really important that when we do this we do it properly.   MILES FLETCHER  And important for everybody to remember that the ONS, in the job it does, can only make the best of the information that's made available to it at any given time.    MARY GREGORY  Yes absolutely. And I think especially with the British nationals where there are a lot of challenges. Because, of course, if you're a British national you come and go as you please. The other things that we are looking to improve are going to be less significant in terms of the headline numbers but are also really valuable. So if we can change the methods for EU, for example, we should be able to do more on people's reason for migration. And we also hope to do more on breaking down those from outside the EU, to understand a bit more detail about how long people are staying and if they change visas, that kind of thing.   MILES FLETCHER  Mary, thank you very much. That seems a good moment to bring in Hannah.   Hannah, then, from what you've heard, as someone who's in the business of tackling misinformation and ensuring that debates are properly understood, what is your assessment of how useful, how reliable, the ONS migration data are?   HANNAH SMITH  Now as we've been hearing from Madeleine there's been some significant improvements in the way that the data is collected and published. I think another thing that can give people confidence is how transparent the ONS has been with not only the strengths of the data, but also the limitations and the work they're doing surrounding ongoing development with that. I think that's absolutely key when we're talking about access to good information –transparency- understanding what the data can tell us and what the data can't tell us, and what the ONS is looking to do to change that. I think ultimately this is, as we've been hearing, a really complex issue, and trying to reconcile that with the fact that it's of massive public interest. And, as Madeline has been saying, someone who is not a technical user of the statistics, it's really important for someone like that to be able to understand these issues in a straightforward way, and trying to find that balance between getting the right level of detail that can be understandable for a general user is difficult. But I think the ONS has been really open about the challenges with that, and this conflict between the idea of timeliness and completeness of data, as Mary was just saying, we don't have complete data at the moment that the first statistics are published, but obviously the alternative is just to wait a really long time until that full data is available. So I think trying to strike that balance is also key, and something that, like I say, just being transparent about that is the best way to approach it.   MILES FLETCHER  In your work for Full Fact, what do you come across as the major misuses of migration figures, the deliberate misunderstanding of migration figures. And how well equipped Are you to combat those?  HANNAH SMITH  It's hard to know how much of it is deliberate misuse of migration figures, and how much of it is, as you say, due to just misunderstanding the data. I think there are obviously some things that we don't know, some information gaps. So, for example, the scale of illegal migration is something that's perhaps a bit harder to capture, just by the very nature of it. That's something that we found is a really common theme in the things that we're fact checking. You know, we've seen surveys that show that a quite significant proportion of the public thinks that the data shows that more people are entering the country illegally than legally. We fact check politicians who make similar claims. So we know this bad information does cause real harm, and I think that's why the information that the ONS is publishing is really, really important for reasoned debate, and just having that information available is the first step to help counter the bad information that's out there. MILES FLETCHER  You mentioned illegal immigration or undocumented migration, that by its very nature is a tricky one, because it's difficult to accurately measure isn't it, and to come up with a robust estimate that can counter exaggerated claims.   HANNAH SMITH  Yeah, of course. And we know that some of the people who are arriving in the country, either undocumented or illegally are captured in the data. So for example, the data we have on small boat arrivals, but it is ultimately, like you say, hard to estimate. And I think similarly to what Madeleine was saying earlier about the different definitions of what constitutes a migrant. Different people will have different views or different understandings of what constitutes illegal migration. So that's another thing that we have to bear in mind when we're talking about this issue.   MILES FLETCHER  And do you feel you've got the tools to effectively combat the worst excesses of the Wild West that social media often is?   HANNAH SMITH  Yes we do work with social media companies. So we have a partnership with Meta which allows us to directly rate misleading content that we see on their platforms. And we definitely do see a lot of content specifically related to migration which thanks to that partnership we are able to have influence on. But at Full Fact I think we're always calling for improvements in how better to combat misinformation, not only in this space, but just generally. So media literacy, for example, we think is a really vital step that's needed to ensure people are equipped so that they can spot what's fact and what's fiction. And we've been making a lot of recommendations in what can be done to improve media literacy to meet the public's needs. We also think that legislation needs to be strengthened to tackle this kind of misinformation and other sorts of harmful misinformation that crop up online. So yeah, we do have a lot of tools at our disposal, but we think that the information environment and the regulations surrounding it could always be strengthened.   MILES FLETCHER  That's interesting. And what sort of areas do you think it could specifically be strengthened? As far as the production of statistics are concerned?   HANNAH SMITH  I think, as I say, transparency and accessibility is key. I think perhaps trying to anticipate where misunderstandings could crop up. A lot of the work we do, or an approach that we can take with fact checking, is something we call pre bunking, which is trying to look at what topics are resonating with the public, what things we think might crop up, and then producing content that puts the correct information out there. Ideally, trying to get ahead of the bad information. I don't know if I'm going to butcher this saying, but a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth had time to put his boots on. I think that pre bunking is an effort to try and reverse that. And I think there's a parallel there with anticipating, as producers of information, where the misunderstandings might be likely to fall, and putting content warnings on or health warnings as prominently as possible, and also making sure that the people that are using the information, whether that's the media, politicians, other people, are aware of potential pitfalls to try and minimize the risk of that spreading to a wider audience.   MILES FLETCHER  Survey information we have from our own sources - the public confidence in official statistics survey - suggests that people who have heard of the ONS tend to recognize the fact that it is independent, that we are not subject to political control, and therefore you might think people should have confidence in the figures. Is that corroborated by your experience?   HANNAH SMITH  That's really interesting. I'm not entirely sure. I think from a fundamental point of view, I think trust in organizations like the ONS, knowing that you're getting impartial evidence, knowing that you're getting unbiased information that's been put through the most robust scrutiny that it can be, can only be a helpful thing. We know that trust in politics is at a very low level, so having those impartial producers of information that we know aren't subject to any political control or affiliation, I think can only be beneficial for that.   MILES FLETCHER  Madeleine, this is where the National Statistician's Advisory Panel on Migration comes in, the body that you chair. Can you just tell us a little about its work? What its role is?   MADELEINE SUMPTION  Yes. So this is a new body that will advise the ONS on migration statistics. Obviously, the ONS migration teams have been soliciting expert advice in various ways for several years. I know this because I've been part of that process as well, but the arrangements are being formalized now, actually building on the model that I think has worked quite well in some other areas of migration statistics, like labour market data, for example, to have a panel of independent experts who help advise on things like whether the statistics are really answering the questions that users have. Obviously ONS has a lot of excellent statisticians, but they're not expected to be deep in the weeds of the policy debate and really sort of understanding exactly how people want to use the data and so forth. So the idea of this panel is to have some of that independent voice to help ONS shape its vision of what kinds of data it can produce. How can it make them more relevant and accessible to users, that kind of thing?   MILES FLETCHER  And I guess when you ask most people whether they think migration does have a role to play, particularly in modern economies, answering that question depends on having good data, having data that meets the needs of experts in economics and so forth. So we can see whether indeed, migration is having a positive economic benefit.    MADELEINE SUMPTION  Yes there are lots of things that the data are needed for. So looking at the impacts on the economy is one of them that the Office of Budget Responsibility, for example, uses the migration data when it's making its forecast of how much money there is effectively. So you know, how big is the population? What are people likely to be paying in tax? What are we likely to be spending in addition on services? Because we have more migrants, more people in the population. So it's important for the financial impacts. It's important for planning public services. How many school age kids are we going to have? How's that changing? What do we need to do to plan school places? And yeah, then it's important for the broader policy debate as well, understanding different categories of migration, what should the Home Office do? What should other government departments do, and thinking about how to respond to the impacts of migration.   MILES FLETCHER  Yeah. And you can't calculate GDP per head of population until you know how many heads there are, to reduce it to its most simple terms.   MADELEINE SUMPTION  Indeed. Yep. And that's been one of the challenges. There are more challenges along those lines, when thinking about the impacts of migration, we're getting a lot more administrative data, so data from basically the records of different government departments and agencies around the country, that will tell us things like how many migrants are claiming benefits, or how many migrants are imprisoned, or any number of things. And it's really important that if you want to be able to interpret those statistics, you really must have a good idea of how many migrants are from different countries, different parts of the world, are in the country in the first place. Otherwise you might make your calculations wrong. And I think there is still more work to be done in that area, in particular looking at population. We've been talking mostly about migration in and out of the country. There's still a fair amount more to be done on making sure that we have really accurate statistics on the number of people who are here at any one point in time.   MILES FLETCHER  Mary, finally from you then, do you support that good progress has been made, but important steps are still to come?   MARY GREGORY  I think so. I mean, there's always improvements that can be made. No matter how good we get, we will always want to do better. But I think also it's such a privilege, but a huge responsibility, to work on something so important, and we don't take that lightly in ONS. We know that these numbers make a difference to so many people, and as Madelene said, the number of people in the country is a really important number, but so often the thing driving that is the migration figure. So without the really good migration data, we don't have the really good population data, and so we will keep working on that together as well as we can.   MILES FLETCHER  And on that positive note we must come to the end of this podcast. Thanks to you, Mary Madeleine and Hannah, for your time today, and as always, thanks to you at home for listening.   You can subscribe to future episodes of Statistically Speaking on Spotify, Apple podcasts and all the other major podcast platforms. You can also follow us on X, previously known as Twitter, via the @ONSFocus feed.   I am Miles Fletcher, and from myself and producer Steve Milne, until next time, goodbye.    ENDS  

UK correspondent Hugo Gye talks about the French President Emmanuel Macron's state visit, anew report by the Office for Budget Responsibility finds the outlook dire for British finances and  Wimbledon in heatwaves.  

Israel's endgame for its Gaza genocide is now public… Plus; What the Office for Budget Responsibility's Fiscal risks and sustainability report means for you, Tucker Carlson's Shock Interview With Masoud Pezeshkian and, where have the Epstein files gone to now? With Aaron Bastani and Marcus Barnett

A former Finance Minister believes there's a need for a publicly funded body to find out what election promises would cost. Act and New Zealand First have shot down current Finance Minister Nicola Willis' proposal, which would have allowed resources from the public sector to cost policies of political parties up to 10 months before an election. Ruth Richardson was the Finance Minister in the 1990s and told Ryan Bridge Willis is on the right track, but the proposal falls short of what's required. She says we want a publicly resourced body, independent of the executive to ensure more informed public and parliamentary debate. Richardson says the UK's Office for Budget Responsibility is a gold standard example of what we should be creating. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey has urged the government to strike a deeper trade deal with the European Union to improve growth and “minimize negative effects” of Brexit. He welcomed the recent agreement with Brussels to reduce border checks on food, and rejoin the EU’s electricity market and emissions trading system in exchange for 12 years of access to UK fisheries, and called on officials to go further.The government expects the EU deal to add 0.2% to the level of GDP by 2040 but the boost pales against the 4% overall hit to the UK economy from Brexit, as estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility. He spoke at a fireside chat at the Irish Association of Investment Managers Event with Francine LacquaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour was elected to deliver ‘change' but Starmer, Reeves and Morgan McSweeney have been cautious and vague about their ambition to move on from the recent past. Instead Labour communications use the term ‘reform' as if it were a policy in itself. Now Labour faces the Reform Party, the Greens, the SNP and Lib Dems, all pitching bolder versions of change. Yet in government Labour is trapped by fiscal rules, the power of the Office for Budget Responsibility and a lack of clarity and coherence at the top. Can Starmer become a clear-sighted political teacher? • Rock'n'Roll Politics is live at Kings Place this Thursday, May 8th. Tickets available here. • Subscribe to Patreon for live events, bonus podcasts and to get the regular podcast a day early and ad free.  Written and presented by Steve Richards. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Slovakia, dubbed Europe's Detroit, might be harshly hit by US tariffs. Economy Minister Denisa Saková has warned that Slovakia would definitely be “among the top three” most affected countries in the EU. Martin Šuster, member of the Council for Budget Responsibility, Alexander Matušek, President of the Association of the Automotive Industry of the Slovak Republic, and Roman Karlubík, President of the Association of the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry of the Slovak Republic, spoke about the possible impact on Slovakia. Culture tips for foreigners living in or visiting Slovakia invite to music, visual art and traditional Easter crafts.

Slovakia, dubbed Europe's Detroit, might be harshly hit by US tariffs. Economy Minister Denisa Saková has warned that Slovakia would definitely be “among the top three” most affected countries in the EU. Martin Šuster, member of the Council for Budget Responsibility, Alexander Matušek, President of the Association of the Automotive Industry of the Slovak Republic, and Roman Karlubík, President of the Association of the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry of the Slovak Republic, spoke about the possible impact on Slovakia. Culture tips for foreigners living in or visiting Slovakia invite to music, visual art and traditional Easter crafts.

Steph and Robert speak to Richard Hughes, head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, who has run scenarios on what will happen to the economy as Donald Trump imposes tariffs and the world responds. He also discusses whether the OBR has too much influence over government and stultifies growth, and how Rachel Reeves' fiscal “headroom” may be wiped out again very shortly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rachel Reeves is back to where she started after the Spring Statement, with her £9.9billion of budget headroom restored but at what cost. The Chancellor was true to her word and didn't turn this week's economic update into a second Budget, with no tax changes coming in. But a wave of spending cuts was announced, along with growth forecasts going both down and up. We also got the Office for Budget Responsibility's update on what Reeves' Autumn Budget tax rises will cost us, a threat to cash Isas and no reprieve for home buyers on stamp duty. On this podcast episode, Georgie Frost, Lee Boyce and Simon Lambert dive into the Spring Statement to explain why it happened, what it means and tackle the question of whether taxes are going to have to rise again in autumn. They look at the very important assumption being made by the OBR, which if it turns out to be wrong could mean there is a £48billion black hole in the sums. And is the entire thing a charade anyway and damaging to our future prospects? Simon explains why he thinks so. Finally, campaigners like Gary Stevenson claim this could all be solved with a wealth tax - is that where we will eventually end up?

In this episode of V-FM Pensions, hosts Darren and Nico pick up on some of the key topics from the last few episodes. Our one-one 'specials' have often been based around responses to consultations, but, in an evolution of the podcast format, once a month we're going to explore in more depth some of the issues raised on the regular podcast. So tune in and hear about the Spring Statement and the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility; systemic stewardship and fiduciary responsibility, including the role of pension funds in addressing society's big issues; and systems thinking in financial services. And we also discuss the recent acquisition of Barnett Waddingham by Howdens.

Today, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a set of measures aimed at restoring her fiscal headroom.Adam and Chris are joined by Faisal Islam and Dharshini David to unpack everything the Chancellor revealed today, including cuts to welfare spending. Plus we dive into the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast - and their many, many, charts. You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say "Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast”. It works on most smart speakers.You can join our Newscast online community here: https://discord.gg/m3YPUGv9New episodes released every day. If you're in the UK, for more News and Current Affairs podcasts from the BBC, listen on BBC Sounds: https://bit.ly/3ENLcS1Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. It was presented by Adam Fleming. It was made by Miranda Slade with Anna Harris, Shiler Mahmoudi and Julia Webster. The technical producer was Rohan Madison. The assistant editor is Chris Gray. The editor is Sam Bonham.

This week's AJ Bell Money & Markets podcast takes a closer look at the key items from Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her Spring Statement. There were big changes to economic and inflation forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility. However, the Chancellor insisted her longer-term plans were still intact – namely, to bring public finances under control and drive growth in the economy. Laura Suter, Charlene Young and Dan Coatsworth analyse the major announcements in the Spring Statement and how they will impact your money. They also chat about key areas that were missing from the Spring Statement and whether they might be coming later on – or not at all, given what the Chancellor has just announced. The team talk savings, investments, pensions, ISAs, mortgages and how markets reacted to the news.

Is Rachel Reeves gearing up for a standard Spring Statement — or are we in emergency budget territory? In this episode we dig into what form next week's parliamentary statement might take and why it may be more than just an economic update. We trace the history of the “one fiscal event” a year rule, explore the tough choices facing the Chancellor, and ask whether Parliament still has any real say over tax and spending. Plus, could post-legislative scrutiny finally be coming into its own?___ In this episode, Ruth and Mark cut through the fiscal fog surrounding Rachel Reeves' upcoming Spring Economic Statement — officially billed as a routine forecast update, but with growing signals it could be something much bigger. With whispers of an “emergency budget” and mounting pressure from the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) latest projections, they weigh the procedural factors that will determine whether Reeves will take action now to meet her fiscal rules, or kick the tougher decisions down the road to the autumn Budget and the Comprehensive Spending Review. They also take a step back to explore how we got here. The current approach of having just one major fiscal event per year was introduced in 2016 by then-Chancellor Philip Hammond, aiming to bring predictability and control. But when long-term economic forecasts suggest those all-important fiscal rules are at risk — especially ones that stretch five years into the future — that system starts to show its cracks. They also speak to Professor David Heald, who delivers a sobering assessment of how little control Parliament has over public finances — before spending takes place. He argues that the UK's budget-setting process is executive-dominated and ripe for reform, but political incentives keep the status quo firmly in place. Later, Ruth and Mark highlight an encouraging sign of reform: the growing use of post-legislative scrutiny, with the Football Governance Bill now including a statutory review clause. They reflect on how tools like these could support longer-term thinking in Parliament — if only they were used more systematically.____

In her Budget last Autumn, the Chancellor set out plans to boost public spending and investment by £300 billion, alongside the largest tax increases in over 30 years. She also announced new, binding fiscal rules and left herself £10 billion of headroom against meeting them. But the UK economy – and the world – has changed in the past five months…   To what extent will the UK's poor recent economic performance feed through into the Office for Budget Responsibility's new economic and fiscal outlook, and how it will affect the amount of headroom the Chancellor has? What policies may be required – on tax, welfare and public service spending – to hit the fiscal rules? And how do these policies sit in the wider context of the UK needing to defend itself and its allies, grow its economy, and boost living standards throughout the country?

This week, Ed Balls and George Osborne take on some of the most difficult challenges facing society today. With millions of people of working age not in a job - officially called economically inactive - the pair consider the current costs to society and how to fix them. Columnist for the Times and former MP Matthew Parris asks George directly: Didn't he see this coming with the introduction of personal independence payments? And the Office of Budget Responsibility is meant to be apolitical – but does the government of the day at least have a little sway on its forecast? And considering the size of public spending in the UK, is the Trump Administration's Department of Government Efficiency, referred to as DOGE, even more relevant in this country?Plus, how can psychology play a greater role in politics and policy … You could have been listening to this episode of EMQs early and ad-free! And not only that… join Political Currency's KITCHEN CABINET to enjoy early and ad-free listening, access to live EMQs recordings, and exclusive Political Currency merch.Subscribe now: patreon.com/politicalcurrencyProduction support: Caillin McDaidTechnical Producer: Danny PapeProducer: Rosie Stopher and Miriam Hall Executive Producers: Ellie Clifford Political Currency is a Persephonica Production and is part of the Acast Creator Network. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Subscribe now on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Ed Balls and George Osborne look at what makes a smart, successful opposition party. Is disagreeing with everything the government of the day says the best way to do it? Or are there some judicious, selective compromises to be made? And who are the best examples of politicians who've made some well played, cross party agreements? Amid global tumult, they consider the question: is democracy dead? What will happen if President Donald Trump's policies are a roaring success? And the pair remember being interviewed by Andrew Neil. Was it an opportunity to relish, or one to avoid? Plus, former Tory adviser Malcolm Gooderham phones in to ask: can the Office of Budget Responsibility keep to their growth forecast of 2 percent? And what would the fallout be if there were to be a downgrade?You could have been listening to this episode of EMQs early and ad-free! And not only that… join Political Currency's KITCHEN CABINET to enjoy early and ad-free listening, access to live EMQs recordings, and exclusive Political Currency merch.Subscribe now: patreon.com/politicalcurrencyProduction support: Caillin McDaidTechnical Producer: Danny PapeProducer: Rosie Stopher and Miriam Hall Executive Producers: Ellie Clifford Political Currency is a Persephonica Production and is part of the Acast Creator Network. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Subscribe now on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Regno Unito, la situazione a 5 anni da BrexitCinque anni fa veniva sancita l'uscita del Regno Unito dall'Unione Europea. Il 31 gennaio 2020, alle ore 23.00 (ora di Londra), mezzanotte presso la sede dell'Ue a Bruxelles, il Regno Unito lasciava ufficialmente il blocco dopo 47 anni di appartenenza che avevano portato la libera circolazione e il libero scambio tra il Regno Unito e altri 27 Paesi europei. Per i sostenitori della Brexit, il Regno Unito era ora una nazione sovrana responsabile del proprio destino. Per gli oppositori, era un Paese isolato e limitato. Cinque anni dopo, le persone e le imprese stanno ancora lottando con le scosse di assestamento economiche, sociali e culturali. L'Office for Budget Responsibility del governo prevede che le esportazioni e le importazioni del Regno Unito saranno entrambe inferiori di circa il 15% nel lungo periodo rispetto a quelle che si sarebbero avute se il Regno Unito fosse rimasto nell'Ue, e la produttività economica sarà inferiore del 4% rispetto a quella che sarebbe stata altrimenti. Commentiamo insieme a Giorgia Scaturro, collaboratrice di Radio24 da Londra.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies  - or IFS - has become the nation's go to institution for judgements about tax, spending and borrowing. And the Office for Budget Responsibility – the OBR – is the independent official watchdog that assess the viability and sustainability of the government's economic plans. Our guest today, Sir Robert Chote has run both organisations and knows better than anyone on the planet how they both work. He now heads the UK Statistics Authority.  Season 7 of the We Society Podcast from the Academy of Social Sciences continues to tackle the big questions through a social science lens. Throughout this series, you'll be hearing some of the best ideas to shape the way we live. Hosted by journalist and Academy President Will Hutton, we interview some of Britain's top social scientists and public figures from across the globe to explore their evidence-led solutions to society's most pressing problems. Don't want to miss an episode? Follow the We Society on your favourite podcast platform and you can email us on wesociety@acss.org.uk and tell us who we should be speaking to or follow us on X https://twitter.com/AcadSocSciences This is the first episode of Season 7, and there will be episodes released every week so be sure to subscribe and rate the podcast. Find out more about the Academy of Social Sciences here: https://AcSS.org.uk

Inflation's spell below the Bank of England's 2 per cent target has been brief and the latest CPI figure came in at a higher than expected 2.3 per cent. Meanwhile, Bank of England boss Andrew Bailey has joined the Office of Budget Responsibility in stating that the recent Autumn Budget is likely to lift inflation, as employers face higher costs from national insurance and the rising minimum wage. On the other side of the Atlantic, President-elect Donald Trump is seen as bringing his own inflationary pressure, which could spread from the US to the rest of the world. So what does this mean for interest rates? Are cuts about to stall - and what happens next for borrowers and savers? On this week's podcast, Georgie Frost, Helen Crane and Simon Lambert, talk inflation, rates, mortgages and savings. The team also look at whether those needing to get a mortgage now should fix for two or five years. Plus, why the row over inheritance tax and farmers is symptomatic of Britain's bad tax system - and Simon's plan for a trade-off on IHT-free land. Crane goes on the case of money refunded ffor a faulty coffee machine much later to an empty gift voucher that had understandably gone in the bin. And finally, the listener question of the week is up and running, and it's one on sticking it to the man and having enough money to quit work for good.

As President-Elect Trump's new administration takes shape, all eyes are on fiscal policy that may follow. Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter uses the United Kingdom's recent election as a guide for how markets could react to a policy shift in the US. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about the US election and fiscal policy and what lessons we might be able to draw from the fiscal experience in the UK. It's Wednesday, November 13th at 10am in New York. In a lot of our recent research, the US election has figured prominently, and we highlighted three key policy dimensions that the US administration is going to have to confront. Immigration, tariffs, and, of course, fiscal policy. We're going to keep elections as a theme, but it might be useful to draw some comparisons to the UK to see what lessons we might have for the US. We think the experience in the UK, which recently proposed a new fiscal budget months after an election, is relevant mostly because of the time between taking power and the budget being presented. While markets are in the business of anticipating changes, the process of actually creating policy is a lot more cumbersome and time consuming. In this week, where we've seen lots of expectations already being priced in, it's probably useful to try to think about that process of forming policy in the UK and see what lessons it implies for the US. Back in May, the UK elected a new government, changing party control after 14 years. A key moment for markets came just over a week ago, though, when the new government's presentation of their budget for the next fiscal year came up. Now, we should remember, the trust government had faced a market test when the announcement of their budget proposals led to a big sell off in interest rates. As a result, markets were keenly attuned this time to the new labor government's budget, particularly because the US fiscal position requires a primary balance to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio. And in particular, when their debt costs rise, when interest rates go up, the primary balances that are needed keep increasing if they want to keep the debt stable. Now, the new labor government proposed to fill a funding gap through tax increases while simultaneously increasing Government investment spending. To manage some of the communication challenges here, many of these proposals, especially about the tax increases, they were made public in advance. The likelihood of additional government spending was also well known, and UK rates had moved higher for months leading up to the formal presentation of the budget. But, markets reacted on the day of the budget reveal, despite all of that prelude. The degree of front loading of the investment spending was seen as a surprise in markets, as was the Office of Budget Responsibility's concurrent assessment that the policy would lead to higher growth, higher inflation, and as a result, a need for higher interest rates. Now, conversations with clients have brought up the similarities of the US and the UK. US interest costs are steadily rising as the cost of the debt reprices to the current yield curve. And, over time, the ratio of interest expense on the debt relative to, say, the GDP of the country, well, that's going to continue to rise as well, and it will very soon eclipse its previous all time high. So, fiscal consolidation would be needed in the United States if we really want to see a stabilized debt to GDP ratio. Markets will need to assess the credibility of fiscal policy and the scrutiny will increase the higher the interest burden gets. The budget process for the US is much less clear cut than that in the UK and deliberations and debates will likely happen over most of 2025. And there's an additional question of how much revenue tariffs might be able to generate on a sustained basis. History suggests that trade diversion tends to limit those revenue gains. All of these facts taken together suggest that the outlook for US fiscal policy will continue to evolve for quite some time. Well, thanks for listening, and if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or a colleague today.

Want to understand how to become as tax efficient as possible?Connect with Johnny here: https://www.dentistswhoinvest.com/reducing-tax-bill/———————————————————————You can download your FREE report on how you can avoid financial mistakes as a dentist using the link just here >>>  dentistswhoinvest.com/podcastreport———————————————————————Delve into the financial landscape shaping dental practices with Johnny Minford as he breaks down the latest budget from the Chancellor. This episode offers a critical look at how fiscal policies, particularly those influenced by political motives, may create unforeseen challenges for principal dentists. We examine the economic implications on the profession and the role of bodies like the Office of Budget Responsibility in guiding future strategies, providing a comprehensive view of the financial environment dentists face today.Johnny explains the nuances of recent national insurance changes and how they uniquely impact dental practices and GPs who often can't leverage exemptions due to private partnership structures. We discuss alternative ways to address the financial burden these policies place on employers and the importance of strategic financial planning to keep practices sustainable amidst tax changes.Explore how these adjustments influence dental practice valuations and highlight the importance of pension planning and varied financial strategies for dentists. The conversation touches on potential capital gains tax shifts and how they might create urgency in the market, ultimately affecting practice valuation. This episode underscores the need for knowledgeable financial advisors to support dentists in making informed decisions and securing their financial future in an evolving tax landscape.———————————————————————Disclaimer: All content on this channel is for education purposes only and does not constitute an investment recommendation or individual financial advice. For that, you should speak to a regulated, independent professional. The value of investments and the income from them can go down as well as up, so you may get back less than you invest. The views expressed on this channel may no longer be current. The information provided is not a personal recommendation for any particular investment. Tax treatment depends on individual circumstances and all tax rules may change in the future. If you are unsure about the suitability of an investment, you should speak to a regulated, independent professional.Send us a text

Former chancellor Jeremy Hunt joins Kamal and Gordon Rayner in the Daily T studio for an exclusive sit-down interview.He calls this week's upcoming Budget as being the “most damaging since the 1970s”, accuses the Office for Budget Responsibility of doing political favours, and describes Rachel Reeves' talk of a £22 billion black hole as ‘fiction.'Kamal and Gordon also ask him what it's like to deliver a Budget as chancellor, as well as who he's voted for in the Conservative leadership contest.We want to hear from you! Email us at TheDailyT@telegraph.co.uk or find us on X, Instagram and TikTok @dailytpodcastSenior Producer: John CadiganExecutive Producer: Louisa WellsAdditional production from James ShieldPlanning Editor: Venetia RaineyStudio Operator: Meghan SearleVideo Editor: Luke GoodsallSocial Media Producer: Rachel DuffyOriginal music by Goss Studio Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Gareth Mitchell sits down with David Miles, Professor of Financial Economics at the Business School, about his research on ageing populations and declining birth rates - are they really that bad? Professor David Miles is a member of the Budget Responsibility Committee of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Between May 2009 and September 2015, he was a member of the Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England. His current research focuses on policy issues connected with financial stability, the housing market and the setting of monetary policy. 

We've been decrying the fact that the UK has crippled its own economy by imposing its own made up and entirely useless fiscal rules - in other words the rules on what it can and cannot borrow, and for what - for a long time. But the Office of Budget Responsibility (itself also pointless) has published a report suggesting these should change. Will they? Why might this government finally change them? Will this definitely be good? Tune in LIVE to find out! Enjoyed this? Please do consider supporting #Railnatter at https://patreon.com/garethdennis or throw loose change at me via https://paypal.me/garethdennis. Merch at https://garethdennis.co.uk/merch. Join in the discussion at https://garethdennis.co.uk/discord.

When it comes to governing our economy, estimates rule the day. We want to know what effect a policy might have on the government's budget, on economic growth, on employment…in the next 1 year, 5 years, 10 years…you get the idea. If you want to make (or critique) public policy, you better have numbers to back it up. To get those types of estimates, economists and politicians often rely on institutions like the Office for Budget Responsibility in the UK, or the Congressional Budget Office in the United States. As a result, their estimates and fiscal projections form crucial data points in our modern politics and policymaking. We like to think that these estimates and projections (not to mention, the people who make them) come from somewhere outside of our partisan politics. That while our values might be debatable, the numbers, at least, aren't.But, as Mark Blyth's guest on this episode explains: that idea is a fantasy, and to the extent it obscures the values and politics that are baked into organizations like the Office of Budget Responsibility, it's a dangerous one. On this episode, Mark Blyth talks with Ben Clift, author of “The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Politics of Technocratic Economic Governance.” In it, he pulls back the curtain on Britain's Office for Budget Responsibility, and reveals the hidden processes and ideologies that shape the estimates and projections that come out of it. In doing so, he shows how the OBR – and other institutions like it – are much more political than they appear. Learn more about and purchase “The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Politics of Technocratic Economic Governance”Learn more about the Watson Institute's other podcastsTranscript coming soon to our website

We're back from our Easter break, and since we were last on the airwaves a book has been published by a certain former UK Prime Minister arguing – among other things – that elected politicians are unduly constrained by unelected technocrats, and that ministers should be freed from such fetters in order to enable them better to represent the will of the people. Not least, the book argues for scrapping the UK's Office for Budget Responsibility, which currently offers advice on the likely implications of different fiscal policy decisions.Well Liz Truss is – for better or worse – not our guest on today's podcast. But the person who is has thought a great deal about how – and by whom – fiscal rules should be set. That person is Stefano Merlo, Associate Lecturer in the Politics of Economic Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Stefano is also currently finishing off a PhD in Political Economy and Political Theory at John Stuart Mill College in the Free University of Amsterdam. Mentioned in this episode:Stefano Merlo. 'A Republican Assessment of Independent Fiscal Institutions.' Journal of PoliticsStefano Merlo. 'A republican fiscal constitution for the EMU.' Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy UCL's Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy offers a uniquely stimulating environment for the study of all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory, human rights, public policy-making and administration. The Department is recognised for its world-class research and policy impact, ranking among the top departments in the UK on both the 2021 Research Excellence Framework and the latest Guardian rankings.

The Battle of BrusselsWith co-pilot Pearson making a triumphant return to the rocket this week there's much madness to discuss including the Cass report, what the Office of Budget Responsibility is really about and some drama from Brussels…Joining your co-pilots to share what really happened at the explosive National Conservative Conference in Brussels is MP Miriam Cates, who explains why the events that unfolded were so chilling for our freedom of speech.Allison also reveals some exclusive extracts from her recent interview with former Liz Truss and Liam explains why the claims that the former PM ‘crashed the economy' are simply a myth.Also hopping aboard to discuss the worrying state of Iranian relations to the West is UK-Iranian Journalist Daniel Kazan Rad.Read more from Liam: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/liam-halligan/ |Read more from Allison: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/a/ak-ao/allison-pearson/ |Read Allison's interview with Liz Truss: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/15/liz-truss-interview-ten-years-to-save-the-west/ Need help subscribing or reviewing? Learn more about podcasts here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/podcasts/podcast-can-find-best-ones-listen/ |Email: planetnormal@telegraph.co.uk |For 30 days' free access to The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/normal | Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Chancellor has delivered his Spring Budget for 2024 announcing a 2p National Insurance cut for millions of working people under the age of 66. Jeremy Hunt says this will save the average worker £450 a year.But, analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility says maintaining a freeze on the personal tax allowance - the amount earned before tax is paid - will mean 3.7 million extra people paying income tax by 2028, when the freeze comes to an end. So will you be better or worse off? We'll be looking at the numbers.What would you do if you got a letter through your door asking for almost £2000 owed by a complete stranger? That's what happened to one of our listeners who spent weeks trying to sort it out with a debt recovery company. We hear from a senior MP calling for tougher regulation.And an investigation into car finance agreements taken out before February 2021 could eventually lead to compensation for millions of motorists. Discretionary commission agreements meant some lenders allowed car dealers to adjust interest rates on finance deals. The Finance and Leasing Association told us: "In practice, having discretion to move the interest rate often meant that dealers lowered it to be more competitive."Presenter: Paul Lewis Reporter: Dan Whitworth Researchers: Sandra Hardial and Jo Krasner Editor: Sarah Rogers (First broadcast 12pm Saturday 9th March 2024)

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and the owners of the Daily Mail have held talks about a potential joint bid for the Telegraph with UAE-backed investment fund Redbird IMI, people familiar with the matter have told Bloomberg. Our global business editor Jamie Nimmo bring us details of the exclusive reporting, and tells us why the media deal is getting so much attention in Westminster. Also today: the head of fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility faces questions from MPs over its latest forecasts. Our senior economics reporter Philip Aldrick joins us to discuss. Hosted by Caroline Hepker and Stephen Carroll.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Chancellor has revealed his Budget but the rocket of right-thinking has spotted a shadowy figure on the horizon heading towards Mr Hunt - the Office for Budget Responsibility.Strapping into the rocket to help navigate the nuances is Helen Thomas from Blonde Money, a former advisor to then-Chancellor George Osborne. Helen thinks that the ghost of ignoring the OBR in the now infamous Autumn Budget of 2021 is haunting the current government, and making them over cautious.Liam thinks the OBR is at loggerheads with the Treasury as the Chancellor wanted to give a big cut to grab headlines but he had to compromise with a cheaper option.And Co-Pilot Pearson, aka Velma, also has some concerns about these spooky shenanigans - namely that the government has missed the mark by not addressing first time buyers and social mobility.Plus, as ever, we delve into the bulging PN mailbag.Read more from Liam: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/liam-halligan/ |Read more from Allison: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/a/ak-ao/allison-pearson/ |Read Allison: 'Stop being scared of Islamophobia. Start worrying about Anglophobia' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/03/05/the-government-new-extremism-laws-needs-engage-muslim-women/Need help subscribing or reviewing? Learn more about podcasts here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/podcasts/podcast-can-find-best-ones-listen/ |Email: planetnormal@telegraph.co.uk |For 30 days' free access to The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/normal | Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jeremy Hunt said the government would cut National Insurance by 2 per cent, would abolish the non-dom tax status and would raise the threshold for child benefits in his Budget today. To discuss the new measures, Katy Balls speaks to Kate Andrews and David Miles, from the Office for Budget Responsibility.

On this week's Macrodose, James Meadway breaks down chocflation - why Easter Egg prices are so high (2:07), how the world is becoming uninsurable as climate change meets capitalism (8.40) and a listener question - how do the Office for Budget Responsibility make their economic forecasts (15:02)? Find the full MACRODOSE READING LIST here: uk.bookshop.org/shop/macrodosepod - for each book you buy from the list Macrodose gets 10% of what you pay, so for every book you buy, you'll be supporting our independent, climate-focused economic journalism. Sign up to our newsletter The Fix: mailchi.mp/45d9275470d6/macrodose A massive thank you to all of our existing Patreon subscribers, your support keeps the show running and we are very grateful. If you have the means and enjoy our work, head over to patreon.com/Macrodose and subscribe today. SOCIALS:⁠⁠⁠⁠ linktr.ee/macrodosepodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠ We want to hear from you! Leave a comment or get in touch at ⁠⁠macrodose@planetbproductions.co.uk⁠⁠ For more about the work we do at Planet B Productions, go to ⁠⁠⁠planetbproductions.co.uk⁠

National Insurance will be cut for millions workers from today. It'll be cut from 12% to 10% - the lowest main rate for more than twenty years. The government says this cut will save an employee on average earnings around £450 a year. However, some experts including the Office for Budget Responsibility say that gain is far less than the cost of freezing personal tax allowances from 2021 while wages rose. What will it mean for you?A new set of regulations designed to help victims of fraud should see up to 90% of them get the money stolen from them refunded by their banks. That's according to Chris Hemsley, who runs the Payment Systems Regulator. He says he hopes the change will encourage the industry to do even more to stop fraud from happening in the first place. HM Revenue and Customs says it will only take what it calls 'priority calls' on its Self Assessment helpline ahead of the 31st January tax deadline - sending everyone else to its online services. How will that work in practice?And what parents of small children need to do to apply for the new 15 hours of free childcare.Presenter: Paul Lewis Reporters: Dan Whitworth, Sandra Hardial and Eimear Devlin Editor: Jess Quayle (First broadcast 12pm Saturday 6th January 2024)

George Parker, political editor of the Financial Times, assesses the latest developments at Westminster as the Prime Minister authorises air strikes against Houthi rebels in the Red Sea and pays a surprise trip to Ukraine. George speaks to former UK ambassador to Washington and former national security adviser, Lord Darroch, about the military action and the global security situation. With the Post Office scandal taking centre stage in Parliament this week George brings together Conservative MP and former postal services minister, Paul Scully, and SNP MP and chair of the Post Office All Party Parliamentary Group, Marion Fellows. Conservative MP Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and Labour's Dame Angela Eagle debate the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility in shaping economic policy. And, as Rishi Sunak pitches himself as the continuity candidate ahead of a general election, George speaks to John Major's former political secretary, Lord Hill, and Keir Starmer's former director of policy, Claire Ainsley, about whether the 1992 election provides any lessons for the main parties.

Governments often tackle similar issues again and again – from day-to-day matters to major challenges such as natural disasters, public health threats or global financial or security crises. So it is vital that governments learn from experience about what works – and what doesn't – to improve the functioning of government. But extensive churn in ministers – and the civil servants who support them – means that institutional memory can be lost. In the mid-2010s, the Treasury was grappling with how to maintain and improve public service performance as budgets were squeezed. Senior officials in the department identified the need for a review of historic evidence to ensure they understood what the experience of previous decades showed about how to manage public spending effectively The Nuffield Foundation funded a project involving the Institute of Fiscal Studies (Paul Johnson, Rowena Crawford and Ben Zaranko) and a team based at the Blavatnik School of Government in Oxford (Christopher Hood, Iain McLean, Maia King and Barbara Piotrowska). The task of the IFS team was to assess what happened to UK spending over 1993–2015 from the available statistics, while the Blavatnik team explored the more qualitative aspects of public spending control over the same period from a mixture of published sources, interviews and archival material – now published in book form (The Way the Money Goes: The Fiscal Constitution and Public Spending in the UK). Drawing on that work, this event will reflect on the value – but also the challenges – of historical research on government and explore what can be learnt from past experience in the planning and control of public spending. To discuss these questions and more, we were joined by a panel of experts: Sir Charles Bean, Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics and former member of the Budget Responsibility Committee at the Office for Budget Responsibility (2017–21) Mark Franks, Director of Welfare at the Nuffield Foundation Catherine Haddon, Programme Director at the Institute for Government Professor Christopher Hood, Visiting Professor at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University Conrad Smewing, Director General, Public Spending at HM Treasury The event was chaired by Dr Gemma Tetlow, Chief Economist at the Institute for Government.

The Chancellor used the Autumn Statement to announce tax cuts for businesses and workers, including a larger-than-expected cut in the rate of National Insurance. The government's improved financial position was overshadowed, however, by the Office for Budget Responsibility cutting its economic growth forecast for next year to 0.7%. We bring you highlights from the speeches by Jeremy Hunt and Rachel Reeves, plus analysis and market reaction from Bloomberg's Sam Unsted. Hosted by Stephen Carroll, Caroline Hepker and Yuan Potts.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Has Brexit damaged UK trade? Was the OBR's prediction correct? In this week's podcast, IEA Director of Public Policy and Communications Matthew Lesh sits down with Trade Economist Catherine McBride. Catherine is also the author of the IEA's latest publication, Has Brexit Really Harmed UK Trade? Countering the Office for Budget Responsibility's claims. To learn more, check out the full paper: https://iea.org.uk/publications/has-brexit-really-harmed-uk-trade-countering-the-office-of-budgetary-responsibilitys-claims/

Technological changes have economic impact. It's not just that technology allows more goods and services to be produced more efficiently and at greater scale. It's also that these changes disrupt previous assumptions about the conduct of human lives, human relationships, and the methods to save money to buy goods and services. A society in which people expect to die around the age of 100, or even older, needs to make different plans than a society in which people expect to die in their 70s.Some politicians, in unguarded moments, have even occasionally expressed a desire for retired people to "hurry up and die", on account of the ballooning costs of pension payments and healthcare costs for the elderly. These politicians worry about the negative consequences of longer lives. In their viewpoint, longer lives would be bad for the economy.But not everyone thinks that way. Indeed, a distinguished professor of economics, from the London Business School, Andrew J Scott, has studied a variety of different future scenarios about the economic consequences of longer lives. He is our guest in this episode.In addition to his role at the London Business School, Andrew is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic Policy Research and a consulting scholar at Stanford University's Center on Longevity.His research has been widely published in leading journals in economics and health. His book, "The 100-Year Life", has been published in 15 languages, is an Amazon bestseller and was runner up in both the FT/McKinsey and Japanese Business Book of the Year Awards.Andrew has been an advisor on policy to a range of governments. He is currently on the advisory board of the UK's Office for Budget Responsibility, the Cabinet Office Honours Committee (Science and Technology), co-founder of The Longevity Forum, a member of the National Academy of Medicine's International Commission on Health Longevity, and the WEF council on Healthy Ageing and Longevity.Follow-up reading:https://profandrewjscott.com/https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0Topics addressed in this episode include:*) Why Andrew wrote the book "The 100-Year Life" (co-authored with Lynda Gratton)*) Shortcomings of the conventional narrative of "the aging society"*) The profound significance of aging being malleable*) Joint research with David Sinclair (Harvard) and Martin Ellison (Oxford): Economic modelling of the future of healthspan and lifespan*) Four different scenarios: Struldbruggs, Dorian Gray, Peter Pan, and Wolverine*) The multi-trillion dollar economic value of everyone in the USA gaining one additional year of life in good health*) The first and second longevity revolutions*) The virtuous circle around aging research*) Options for lives that are significantly longer even than 100 years*) The ill-preparedness of our social structures for extensions in longevity - and, especially, for the attainment of longevity escape velocity*) The possibility of rapid changes in society's expectations*) The three-dimensional longevity dividend*) Developments in Singapore and the UAE*) Two important political initiatives: supporting the return to the workforce of people who are aged over 50, and paying greater attention to national statistics on expected healthspan*) Themes from Andrew's forthcoming new book "Evergreen"*) Why 57 isn't the new 40: it's the new 57*) Making a friend of your future selfMusic: Spike Protein, by Koi Discovery, available under CC0 1.0 Public Domain Declaration

The writer, satirist and broadcaster Armando Iannucci returns to the New Statesman Podcast to co-host our third series of Westminster Reimagined. In six special episodes, Iannucci explores the parts of British public life he believes are broken and works out how to fix them with guests from inside and outside Westminster. In this episode, Iannucci and Anoosh Chakelian, the New Statesman's Britain editor, discuss the B-word. Six years after Britain voted to leave the EU, Boris Johnson's promise to Get Brexit Done rings hollow. The Northern Ireland protocol is an ever-present sore spot, the Office for Budget Responsibility believes bluntly that Brexit has delivered a “significant adverse impact” on trade and, according to a YouGov poll, the number of Britons who believe it was a mistake now stands at 56 per cent. Our special guests this week are two brothers divided by Brexit, each with businesses that deal with Europe. Ian Baxter, founder and chair of Baxter Freight, voted Remain in the 2016 referendum, while his brother, Nigel Baxter, managing director of RH Commercial Vehicles, voted Leave. Can they come together and unite after years of division? The panel discusses why the brothers found themselves on opposing sides of the Brexit debate, and how their decisions have impacted their relationship, businesses and world-view. Plus, if they have any regrets, and how we as a society can begin to move on.Podcast listeners can subscribe to the New Statesman for just £1 a week for 12 weeks using our special offer: visit newstatesman.com/podcastoffer to learn more Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In anticipation of Chancellor Jeremy Hunt's Autumn Statement, Patricia and Christian talk to economist and author Dr Phil Armstrong about currency crises, inflation, the shortcomings of monetary policy, the national (so-called) debt, the Office for Budget “Responsibility”, and what economic opposition might look like.   Please help sustain this podcast! Patrons get early access to all episodes and patron-only episodes: https://www.patreon.com/MMTpodcast   For an intro to MMT: Our first three episodes: https://www.patreon.com/posts/41742417 Episode 126 - Dirk Ehnts: How Banks Create Money: https://www.patreon.com/posts/62603318   All our episodes in chronological order: https://www.patreon.com/posts/43111643   All our episodes with Phil Armstrong: https://www.patreon.com/posts/42072846 Phil Armstrong on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilArmstrong58   Phil Armstrong: “Can Heterodox Economics Make A Difference?”: https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/can-heterodox-economics-make-a-difference-9781800370883.html           Relevant to this episode: “Is exchange rate depreciation inflationary?” by Professor Bill Mitchell: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32922 Phil Armstrong's Chapter on conservation of saving is in "Contemporary Issues in Heterodox Economics”: https://www.routledge.com/Contemporary-Issues-in-Heterodox-Economics-Implications-for-Theory-and/Hermann-Mouatt/p/book/9780367509101   More on government bonds (and “vigilantes”): Episode 30 - Steven Hail: Understanding Government Bonds (Part 1):https://www.patreon.com/posts/29621245 Episode 31 - Steven Hail: Understanding Government Bonds (Part 2): https://www.patreon.com/posts/29829500 Episode 143 - Paul Sheard: What Is Quantitative Easing?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/71589989?pr=true Episode 147 - Dirk Ehnts: Do Markets Control Our Politics?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-147-dirk-72906421 Episode 144 - Warren Mosler: The Natural Rate Of Interest Is Zero: https://www.patreon.com/posts/71966513 Episode 145 - John T Harvey: What Determines Currency Prices?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/72283811?pr=true Quick MMT reads: Warren's Mosler's MMT white paper: http://moslereconomics.com/mmt-white-paper/ Steven Hail's quick MMT explainer: https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-modern-monetary-theory-72095 On government debt: “Some Numbers Are Big. Let Me Help You Get Over It”: https://christreilly.com/2020/02/17/some-numbers-are-big-let-me-help-you-get-over-it/   Episodes on monetary operations: Episode 20 - Warren Mosler: The MMT Money Story (part 1): https://www.patreon.com/posts/28004824 Episode 126 - Dirk Ehnts: How Banks Create Money: https://www.patreon.com/posts/62603318 Episode 13 - Steven Hail: Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Banking, But Were Afraid To Ask: https://www.patreon.com/posts/41790887 Episode 43 - Sam Levey: Understanding Endogenous Money: https://www.patreon.com/posts/35073683 Episode 84 - Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 1): https://www.patreon.com/posts/46352183 Episode 86 - Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 2): https://www.patreon.com/posts/46865929    Episodes on inflation: Episode 7: Steven Hail: Inflation, Price Shocks and Other Misunderstandings: https://www.patreon.com/posts/41780508 Episode 65 - Phil Armstrong: Understanding Inflation: https://www.patreon.com/posts/40672678 Episode 104 - John T Harvey: Inflation, Stagflation & Healing The Nation: https://www.patreon.com/posts/52207835 Episode 123 - Warren Mosler: Understanding The Price Level And Inflation: https://www.patreon.com/posts/59856379 Episode 128 - L. Randall Wray & Yeva Nersisyan: What's Causing Accelerating Inflation? Pandemic Or Policy Response?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/63776558   Job Guarantee episodes: Episode 4 - Fadhel Kaboub: What is the Job Guarantee?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/41742701 Episode 47 - Pavlina Tcherneva: Building Resilience - The Case For A Job Guarantee: https://www.patreon.com/posts/36034543 Episode 148 - Pavlina Tcherneva: Why The Job Guarantee Is Core To Modern Monetary Theory: https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-148-why-73211346 Pavlina Tcherneva's Job Guarantee FAQ page: https://pavlina-tcherneva.net/job-guarantee-faq/     Details of Modern Money Lab's online graduate and postgraduate courses in MMT: https://modernmoneylab.org.au/   Sign up for alerts from The Gower Initiative For Modern Money Studies about their forthcoming MMT book: https://gimms.org.uk/   A list of MMT-informed campaigns and organisations worldwide: https://www.patreon.com/posts/47900757   We are working towards full transcripts, but in the meantime, closed captions for all episodes are available on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEp_nGVTuMfBun2wiG-c0Ew/videos   Show notes: https://www.patreon.com/posts/74755372?pr=true

This week: How long will the pain last? The Spectator's economics editor Kate Andrews asks this in her cover piece this week, reflecting on Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt's autumn statement. She joins the podcast with Professor David Miles, economy expert at the Office for Budget Responsibility, to discuss the new age of austerity (00:58). Also on the podcast: After Donald Trump announced that he will be running for office in 2024, Freddy Gray writes in the magazine about the never ending Trump campaign. He speaks to Joe Walsh, 2020 Republican presidential candidate, about whether Trump could win the nomination (18:42). And finally: In the arts lead in The Spectator Mathew Lyons celebrates the bleak brilliance of the Peanuts comic strip. He is joined by Christian Adams, political cartoonist at the Evening Standard and long-time fan of the strip (29:02).  Hosted by William Moore.  Produced by Oscar Edmondson. 

Rachel Cunliffe, Freddie Hayward and Rachel Wearmouth dissect the Autumn Statement, which will leave Britain with highest tax burden since the Second World War. They discuss what to make of the Office for Budget Responsibility's bleak forecast that living standards are set to collapse by the largest amount on record, and recap how we got to this point just 55 days after Kwasi Kwarteng's ill-fated tax-cutting “mini-Budget”.If you have a question for You Ask Us, go to newstatesman.com/youaskusPodcast listeners can subscribe to the New Statesman for just £1 a week for 12 weeks using our special offer. Just visit newstatesman.com/podcastoffer. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This morning the Chancellor has announced that the government will bring forward both its medium term fiscal event and the accompanying Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. Will Kwarteng exercise some spending restraint to calm the Bank of England? Also on the podcast, after Truss appointed Sunak ally Greg Hands as Minister of State for Trade Policy, is she extending an olive branch to unite her party? Natasha Feroze speaks to James Forsyth and Katy Balls. Produced by Natasha Feroze and Oscar Edmondson. 

From the BBC World Service: After a chaotic week for the British pound, Liz Truss meets representatives from the Office of Budget Responsibility. The economic watchdog will want to discuss the effects on the U.K.’s economy of last week’s proposed tax cuts. Later this week, Brazilians will go to the polls to elect their president, and a bunch of James Bond stuff goes up for auction.

From the BBC World Service: After a chaotic week for the British pound, Liz Truss meets representatives from the Office of Budget Responsibility. The economic watchdog will want to discuss the effects on the U.K.’s economy of last week’s proposed tax cuts. Later this week, Brazilians will go to the polls to elect their president, and a bunch of James Bond stuff goes up for auction.

As energy prices go up for millions of households this weekend, Money Saving Expert Martin Lewis and The Economist's Soumaya Keynes explain what could happen to our bills. Alex is in Westminster to talk through the PM's emergency meeting with the Office for Budget Responsibility. And comedian and documentary maker Michael Palin tells Adam about his recent travels through Iraq, his previous experience in Ukraine, and why Monty Python director Terry Gilliam's humour is unique.   Today's Newscast was made by Daniel Wittenberg with Miranda Slade, Alix Pickles and Tim Walklate. The editor is Jonathan Aspinwall. Thank you to ITN Productions, Prominent Television, Passepartout Productions and Arts and Entertainment for use of the Michael Palin clips.

Despite rejecting the Office for Budget Responsibility's offer of a forecast to accompany last week's so-called fiscal event, this morning it appears that the government have u-turned. What can we expect from the OBR's statement ahead of the November budget?  Also on the podcast, after last night's YouGov poll put Labour ahead by 33 points, how has the news been received by Conservative MPs? Will Truss row back on her economic plans? Katy Balls speaks to Fraser Nelson and James Forsyth.  Produced by Natasha Feroze and Oscar Edmondson.

Prime Minister Liz Truss and Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng are set to meet with the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, known as the OBR and the country's independent forecaster, to discuss the situation. One of the reasons the markets reacted so badly to the chancellor's tax cutting plans released a week ago is that there was no accompanying economic forecast from the Office for Budget responsibility. Last night, the OBR confirmed that it was ready to produce an updated assessment of public finances to be published with the mini-budget a week ago, as is usual practice, but the offer was rejected. Today's Mishal Husain and Justin Webb spoke to Mel Stride, Conservative MP and Chair of the Treasury Select Committee and Andrew Griffith, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. (IMAGE CREDIT: Chris Radburn/PA Wire)