Fraser Nelson

The Guardian have an odd story today. “Business chiefs who backed cuts now doubt UK growth,” runs the headline — suggesting that these sinners are now being confronted with the error of their own ideology. Who are the business chiefs? We have Archie Norman, the retired head of Asda, now part-time chairman of ITV. He “said the government's growth targets were too optimistic”. Set aside the fact that the government doesn’t make growth targets now, and has subcontracted that the Office for Budget Responsibility. Where is the connection between growth downgrades and cuts? In the imagination of The Guardian, I suspect.

There is extraordinary news today, suggesting that the Academies revolution is continuing apace. What was a trickle under the Labour years is turning into a flood. This time last year just 1 in 16 state secondaries had 'Academy' status: that is, operationally independent within the state sector. Now, it is 1 in 6. By Christmas, it should be 1 in 3. And by the next election, the majority of state secondary schools in Britain — about 1,600 — should have turned into Academies. Had Gove suggested such an expansion before the election, he would have been laughed at. The last time the Conservatives sought to give state schools independence was under Kenneth Baker, when just 50 availed themselves of such freedoms in three years. Now, freedom appears to be contagious.

To disguise the radical nature of reform, one need only make it boring. And here Chris Grayling has succeeded spectacularly. Today he has announced further details on the ‘Work Programme’ and the ‘Benefit Migration’, which sound like the type of well-intentioned but doomed reforms that ministers tried over the Labour years. The welfare state has incubated the very ‘giant evils’ it was designed to eradicate. There are, scandalously, 2.6 million on incapacity benefit right now – a category which ensures they don’t count in unemployment figures. Brown didn’t care much, but Grayling is taking this head-on.

We had a sell-out debate on global warming at The Spectator on Tuesday and, as I found out this morning, the debate is still going on. The teams were led by Nigel Lawson and Sir David King, and I was in the audience. I tweeted my praise of Simon Singh’s argument as he made it: it was a brilliant variation on the theme of "don’t think – trust the experts". He seems to have discovered the tweet this morning, and responded with a volley of five questions for me. Then David Aaronovitch weighed in, followed by Simon Mayo. At 8.35am! I had the choice between replying, or carrying on with my gourmet porridge. I chose the latter, and promised to blog my response later on to Simon Mayo and the Breakfast Crew. So here goes.

This morning's newspapers have a feast of analysis on the Budget. I've covered 15 of them, and what journalists normally do is spend the day trawling the small print of the Budget document hunting for stories. But this time, the stories seem to have migrated to the Office for Budget Responsibility's accompanying report, packed with new analyses and metrics — even disaster scenarios — which those with an interest in UK economics will find useful. The OBR document is now released with the Red Book, and speaks with the authority of government economists who (unlike the rest of us) have had weeks to chew over Osborne's claims. The OBR must now be considered part of the Budget's small print.

George Osborne has today done some massive juggling. It wasn't a Budget for jobs after all, but a Budget to help people cope with the soaring cost of living. North Sea oil companies and banks were stung for various income, fuel and corporation tax cuts. The Chancellor spotted — immediately — that cost of living was the No.1 issue and turned on a sixpence. His skills as a politician were again demonstrated. But let's not fool ourselves. Fiscally, today's is not a big Budget. What movement there has been is to make the cuts programme even milder than it already was. The "total cuts" figure is, oddly, not printed in the Budget. Perhaps because it's so embarrassingly small. After the Autumn Statement, it was 5 per cent over four years. Now it's back to 3.

Today’s OECD Economic Survey of the UK (download the complete pdf here ) contains some devastating passages about our education system. As it's 148 pages in size, we thought CoffeeHousers might appreciate some highlights. Here's your starter for ten: “Despite sharply rising school spending per pupil during the last ten years, improvements in schooling outcomes have been limited in the United Kingdom.” This is rather a staggering indictment of Tony Blair's "education, education, education" policy. But what about the ever improving exam results that we hear about each summer?