The British Chancellor, Mr Clarke, was his usual ebullient self, the leader of the opposition, Mr Blair, responded with verve and vigour; but the still, small centre of yesterday's pre-electoral storm in the House of Commons was a remarkably dull budget, unlikely to overstimulate an already burgeoning economy or rock any boats. The stated aim, however, of reducing the government's slice of GDP to 40 per cent by next year would arouse envy in most of the electorates of Europe.
The net effect of his proposals, Mr Clarke claimed, was £2 billion off public spending and £2 billion off the tax bill, with a bias towards helping the poorer sections of the community by raising the tax threshold and widening the lower bands, plus some goodies for small business, married couples and the long-term unemployed. There were some strong electoral points, strategically repeated throughout his speech: more money for education, law and order, and the National Health Service. Everywhere else, more pruning is intended, with tax increases largely focused on worthy causes: 15p on cigarettes, 3p a litre on petrol and diesel, nothing on wine and beer to combat smuggling, and a reduction on whisky (the Chancellor's sustaining fluid while he was on his feet) and other spirits to bring their price more into line with other European countries.
Thus far, with the addition of a penny off the standard rate of tax, the general thrust of Mr Clarke's belief that "good economics is good politics" could be said to have been achieved. If the economy, after a succession of tax-reducing budgets, is now in good shape and getting better, a generally neutral budget adroitly presented and unashamedly based on the principle that people will vote for personal tax cuts, and not notice how they are paid for, is in the best possible interests of the Conservative Party.
But there were a number of unexplained hostages to fortune. Mr Clarke - with splendid ambiguity - outlined a schedule for reducing the public sector borrowing requirement that would, he said, enable Britain "by a happy coincidence" to meet the Maastricht borrowing criteria next year, making a real choice of the open question of whether or not to join the common European currency. Mr Portillo, a Eurosceptic, sitting beside him managed a weak smile of agreement. But, as Mr Blair pointed out in his answering speech, a large question-mark hangs over the Chancellor's "spend to save" strategy, under which £830 million is to be invested in a concerted onslaught on tax fraud and smuggling to raise almost £7 billion extra in the next three years. Does this bonanza, underpinning Mr Clarke's budget calculations, really exist, or is it the figment that Mr Major's government said it was when Labour identified it as a source of additional revenue?
The agenda, at any rate, has now been written for the British general election campaign. Mr Clarke's talk of prosperity and expansion has been countered by Mr Blair's contention that the real effect of the budget is substantially increased taxes when the give-and-take of the Chancellor's arithmetic is translated into the real life of the average family. More money for education and the NHS, the Labour leader argued, must be set against a skills crisis in industry and a reduction in new hospital building. At least Mr Clarke probably undid any political disadvantage for the Tory government resulting from the extensive leak of his proposals in some of the morning newspapers yesterday by shifting the focus firmly on to the political battles lying ahead.