JUST as every budget these days is presented as a budget for “hard-working families”, so it is also presented as a “budget for business”. Gordon Brown’s tenth was no exception. It would, he said, “support the dynamism and enterprise of business”. Did it succeed? According to a survey of leading businessmen by Price Waterhouse Coopers, the chancellor fell a long way short.

Of 80 chief executives and finance directors polled, only 7% thought the 2006 budget would have a positive impact on their business. For 74% it was neutral and for 19% it was negative.

Nor, taken together with the chancellor’s previous measures, does business think this government is enterprise-friendly; just 14% think he has encouraged enterprise while 74% say Brown’s policies have had the opposite effect.

“It would appear the chancellor has some work to do to convince business of the effectiveness of the government’s commitment to back Britain’s enterprise culture,” said John Whiting, tax partner at PWC.

The good news for Brown, according to the survey, is that 81% think the economy is in good shape. The bad news is that business believes he has undermined competitiveness; 56% say Britain’s business tax system has become worse in relation to those of competitors, and only 8% say it is better.

That was also the verdict of Sir Digby Jones, outgoing director-general of the CBI, who described the budget as “a wasted opportunity”. “UK firms have watched while other countries have reduced business taxes to help their companies compete in this era of globalisation,” he said. “Yet the UK continues to do the opposite.”

Andrew Smith, chief economist at KPMG, cited his firm’s research finding that Britain has slipped from third to sixth in the global league for cost competitiveness. “We are still in the premier league but we are slipping, and this budget did nothing to address that,” he said.

There was some good news for business, notably the final shape of real-estate investment trusts (Reits), which was close to what the property industry wanted, notably the so-called entry charge of 2%.

There was also a clampdown on tax loopholes, many of them related to the overseas activities of British firms. Each such move these days results in a new piece of legislation.

“There’s a big question here,” said David Cruickshank at Deloitte. “They clamp down on schemes and plans they don’t like but the bit that’s missing is the dialogue between

UK plc and the government about what proportion of their overseas profits should be taxed.”

The City welcomed Brown’s commitment to further asset sales, including the government’s 65% stake in British Energy and the sale of the Tote, subject to regulatory approval. There was no sign that the government has lost its enthusiasm for the private finance initiative (PFI). But there was disappointment on the low level of gilt issuance — £63 billion — planned for the coming year.

Brown’s “big idea” was to give extra money to schools, with a downpayment of £270m direct to head teachers in 2006-7, followed by £440m in 2007-8, as a prelude to an even more ambitious plan to raise state school spending per pupil, currently £5,000, to £8,000.

He also pledged £1.6 billion of capital spending on schools between 2007-8 and 2010-11. Much of this, however, was smoke and mirrors. The Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out his pledges on capital spending in schools imply a lower rate of growth than over the past five years.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive