13:32

For six years George Osborne, as chancellor, David Cameron and all their ministerial colleagues were able to bulldoze through opposition to their policies by asserting that they had a “long-term economic plan”. It passed the test of all good soundbites by becoming so familiar as to be groan-inducing. In some respects the term was misleading, because Osborne missed his targets and had to rejig his plans, but the claim that the Conservatives were on a path towards eliminating the deficit seemed to impress the public and this strategy helped Osborne and Cameron to win the 2015 general election.

Today Philip Hammond consigned the LTEP to the dustbin. In truth, it collapsed the day the UK voted for Brexit but Hammond had to tell MPs that the EU referendum result has blasted a huge hole in the national finances and he has all but abandoned any hope of getting the budget into surplus on his watch. Osborne’s targets have been abandoned, the government plans to carry on borrowing and spending (the autumn statement envisages a fiscal loosening of almost £9bn by 2021-22) and, although the Treasury hopes to balance the budget in the 2020s, it won’t say when this might happen. All of this is quite sensible, but it is not the economic prudence that won the Tories the 2015 election.

In the past governing parties have been consigned to opposition for a decade or more for economic mismanagement on this scale. But there is no sign of this happening to the Conservatives. Cameron did not ask the country to vote for Brexit, and nor did Hammond, or Theresa May. Hammond’s political authority remains intact.

Yet the autumn statement will have disappointed those who expected May’s “Jam”-focused government to be quite different from Cameron’s. When she became prime minister in July May said she would focus her attention on those just about managing (the Jams). Today was her first big chance to strike out in a new direction but, although the statement contained some progressive measures (eg universal credit and letting agents’ fees), what was striking was the continuity with Osborne, not the contrast. How much difference has she made? Just 7%, according to a Resolution Foundation analysis. (See 5.33pm.)

That’s all from us for tonight.

Thanks for the comments.