Gordon Brown's Budget spelled gloom for Winchester, the city's MP, Mark Oaten, said.
The Chancellor had failed to explain how his National Insurance tax increase would improve the health service, failed to abolish tuition fees and had done nothing to help reduce council tax bills in this area.
"Worse still is the announcement that John Prescott can now step in and override local councils on housing," Mr Oaten said. "This could spread concrete over green fields if Bulldozer Prescott believes targets are not being met."
The MP welcomed the move to regional pay levels for police and nurses, based on local living costs. But he warned these would be meaningless if health and police authorities had to pay the higher wages without any additional grants.
British Chambers of Commerce, to which North Hampshire Chamber is affiliated, gave the budget a cautious welcome. "There are many positive proposals," said David Frost, the Chambers' director general.
"We very much welcome the priority given to research and development investment and to new business start-up support. The Chancellor has also heard our calls to improve access to finance for small businesses." But the rise in National Insurance contributions took away much more than the Chancellor had given, particularly when combined with the £21bn of extra regulations piled on business since 1997.
Romsey MP, Sandra Gidley, criticised the Chancellor for his failure to deliver greater productivity and "to save 500,000 manufacturing jobs, or for plummeting investment."
But she said: "The surprise announcement of the £50bn fund for primary education and healthcare in the developing world is particularly welcome. There are welcome measures to improve the financial situation of pensioners. The tax breaks for small business and the scrapping of the direct tax on bingo are also welcome."
Labour MPs for Southampton, John Denham and Alan Whitehead, said the budget was good news for pensioners and children. They highlighted the new Child Trust Fund giving every new-born child £250, rising to £500 for the poorest, to make sure every child had money in the bank to spend at the age of 18.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article