Osborne has not solved the cost of living crisis

Britain needs convincing ideas about how to ensure that real wages rise.

Stand back from the detail of today's Budget and what we observe is Britain's political class trying – and failing – to respond to the crisis in living standards facing Britain.

They are doing this at the same time as they, of course, seek to outmanoeuvre their political opponents and build support among their friends. One manifestation of this will be the growing tussle over tax cuts, which will increasingly dominate party politics in the years ahead (see tomorrow's NS).

Until there are convincing ideas that resonate with the public on how to ensure that real wages will rise, party leaders will remain in the familiar territory of fighting over tax and benefit changes.

The political need to support living standards and kick-start growth, which greatly outstrips the practical ideas on how these goals can be achieved, resulted in a number of contradictions that ran through today's Budget.

Changes to personal tax – billed as reducing the burden on low-to-middle-income Britain – actually result in by far the biggest gains going to those in the top half of the income distribution. A statement of vaunting ambition about the need to reform and simplify the whole of our tax and National Insurance system immediately gets submerged in a sea of tax wheezes. And the heralding of a new model of growth is fleshed out with a set of micro-measures that will be wearily familiar to anyone who has spent time in Whitehall over the past decade.

There are, naturally, things to welcome. Steady growth in apprenticeships, extra support for science, a helping hand for first-time housebuyers and taxing private jets are all to the good. The extension of mortgage interest support will prove important in a year that is going to see more and more households pushed closer to repossession due to the impending hike in interest rates. And there may be some begrudging acknowledgement from an angry public for the cut in fuel duty.

But the real measure of today's political class will be whether they can develop a compelling account of what really underpins shared growth, in which the gains are more fairly spread across the working population. Without this, all of today's tax tweaks and the associated reform rhetoric will be neither here nor there.

Gavin Kelly is the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation.

Gavin Kelly is a former adviser to Downing Street and the Treasury. He tweets @GavinJKelly1.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496