Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

No, we have no time, as the hon. Member for Northampton South said. Those on the Liberal Benches—the real Liberal Benches —seem to be listening to the Government propaganda. I wonder whether they read David Smith in The Sunday Times the week before the Budget. David Smith—not a well-known Labour supporter—drew our attention to the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which was set up by the Chancellor. The OBR produced a report, which I see one member of the Front-Bench team has read and understands, containing its forecasting from June, based on the Labour Budget of March. We are talking about the choice for the Liberal Members who entered the Government, having taken their Business Secretary's word that Mervyn at the Bank told him that things were so bad that we had only one option—to push through the cuts, which are reminiscent of the '80s—but we do not. This is David Smith's introduction to the Office for Budget Responsibility's report:""The 'before' version, the OBR's baseline projection, was contrary to some reporting last week, a rather attractive vision for the economy over the next few years."" That is our legacy: "a rather attractive vision for the economy". What was in that projection? The answer is that""growth averages 2.7% from next year until the end of the parliament,"" in 2014-15, and""inflation sticks to the Bank of England's 2% target,"" throughout the life of the Parliament. As for unemployment —this is the choice that those on the Government Benches are making—it will go up with the Budget. Under the Labour Budget, as analysed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility,""unemployment falls despite…Labour's planned spending cuts."" "Unemployment falls"—can those on the Government Benches say the same? The article continues:""The economy rebalances away from consumer spending and government towards exports and investment. The saving ratio steadies,"" with""borrowing falling from 11.1% of GDP in 2009-10 to 3.9% by 2014-15 and the current account deficit, 1.7% of GDP this year, falling to 0.8% in 2014,"" and both the structural budget deficit and the cyclically adjusted deficit falling. That was all in the independent report that the Chancellor called through. So when those on the Government Benches are walking through the Lobby to force cuts on people—kids who want to go to university; disabled people; people on incapacity benefit—[Interruption.] Oh yes, of course, it is all emotional, but these are people. We are taking a gamble with the Budget, and it is an unnecessary gamble. Professor Budd spelled out in his report that it is unnecessary. When those on the Government Benches go through the Lobby to vote for the Budget—this great risk, as the Business Secretary admitted in the House last week—they ought to know what they are doing to ordinary people in their constituencies and our constituencies. The Budget has been described by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) as tough but fair, but the word that she left out was "unnecessary". The Budget this year will mean a difference of £6 billion, but before the Chancellor brought it forward, he had to admit, when the result came in, that we were £11 billion better off. It is an unnecessary Budget and it is a gamble. Ordinary people will pay for it, and that is a disgrace.