He got it but will they?

It is apparent from the noises our government gives off that it is a very difficult thing to see what is going on outside the goldfish bowl.

Even if tax credits could be backdated and officially all losers get compensated via a combination of tax credits and various other credits/benefits, it still doesn't solve the problem as most people can't/won't claim tax credits.
I'm self-employed so practically I can't claim tax credits even though I'm entitled to them.
Even if I could claim them I wouldn't bother because the amount of time that it takes to fill in the forms and process it all from my side means that it makes more financial sense for me to spend that time working than it does to claim the tax credit, and the risk of having hmrc banging on your door because they overpaid you is something that most people don't want to shoulder either.
Tax credits are a nice idea and work well in some situations, but in around 80% of situations they simply don't work because of practical barriers and because they demean the claimant. Not taking the money away in the first place is obviously infinitely cheaper/better/easier.

So here we have reference to "average losses" again. Is suspect this means that they will average out the compensation so that overall they are covering the losses but some individuals will gain and others will lose. If so, then that isn't acceptable. Also Nick, you said on last night's Newsnight that some Labour MPs said this wouldn't have happened under Tony Blair. Surely it did! Blair was PM when Brown announced the doubling of the 10% rate and as I recall he seemed to approve of it. Blair is just as much to blame as Brown. Or maybe (conspiracy theory), Blair foresaw the effect it would have and deliberately let Brown get on with it.

Quote AD:"potential changes to the tax credits system to allow the average losses from the removal of the 10p starting rate of income tax to be offset"

Oh brilliant! You will claim your tax credits, then spend the next 3 years paying back what they have overpaid you through no fault of your own. I know, trust me.

So yet again Brown and Darling are twisting and trying to get away with doing less than the story they have spun.

They really must think we are stupid.

Luckily some Labour MPs do appear to be showing some backbone, albeit belatedly.

Watch this space, but I gravely fear that as soon as the political wind blows in a different direction the Treasury will wriggle out of giving most of those affected by the doubling of the 10p band their money back.

Anyone with GCSE maths could tell, as soon as this was announced, that the burden would fall on the lower paid. It's simply not credible for Brown to suggest that the repurcussions have only just come to light.

If there are only to be few losers when the dust settles, can someone tell me where the money to fund the 2p cut in the basic rate is coming from?

Watching this government U turning on its U turn is reminiscent of watching the opening titles of The Italian Job!

I would agree that the government could explain things better and the backbenches could do with some more maturity. Politicians just need to grasp the big picture and details, and look at the reality of what's being proposed instead of putting their own ego in the way. Things are far short of perfect but the beginnings of a better approach are being seen. Perception lags reality so it might take a little while but, I believe, the Labour party has turned the corner and some sense of purpose and ease will begin to grow.

When this distraction evaporates I'll still be curious to see how the government will deal with Britain's ISP cartel and their planned carve up of the internet and invasion of people's privacy. The assault on net neutrality and privacy is an abuse just to raise revenue for the few at the top. This landgrab and ignoring of human rights in an age when data and the flow of data is essential in creating new opportunities for business and education is as oppressive as the bullying and greed of any feudal lord.

I'm generally of the mind that big business in Britain has exhausted itself. The decades of fear and greed have stripped out any genuine merit. They're mostly running on momentum while whole communities that have been battered into the ground. I believe, the Prime Minister may have some appreciation of this but big business needs to develop a sense of humility and the people develop a proper measure of confidence.

All hail Blessed Leader!

What on earth is going on Nick? Has Brown done a deal with Frank Fields without consulting Darling? Looks a dog breaksfast of a solution.

So once again we have another shambles from Brown and Darling, this time regarding the multiple compensation packages for Brown's attack on the Underclasses.

And with further future dire consequences.

The 'compensation' for the younger workers requires Employers to raise the minimum wage for Apprentices, young low paids etc.

All adding to Inflation of on the rest of the population of course as employers can only recover costs via higher prices.
Didn't Miss Cooper have the brain to pick this up or doesn't she 'do inflation'?

And socially, is there now any incentive to take on younger workers and train them, when for the same cost, a work experienced older worker can be employed - probably from overseas?

So that is 'training the indigenous young' out of the window.
Didn't Darling have the brain to pick up on the impact of the employability of the young - or doesn't he 'do youth inclusion'?

Brown's initial Tax Attack on the Underclass shows zero Vision and demonstrate his lack of thinking as to consequences.

Darlings ham fisted responses demonstrates the NewLab failure of Strategy and demonstrate the lack of thinking as to consequences.

Cooper's diversionary shouting and overspeaking responses to sensible directed questions demonstrate the NewLab total lack of argument.

So, No Strategy, No Vision, Poor Tactics and an Inability to Think through problems and consequences before they occur, leads to the continuing mess and mayhem created by Brown and Co.

(and the NewLab MP's cheer away and support their Unthinkers as the Underclasses get stuffed and humiliated yet again )

The other problem with all this is that only 20% of tax credits get claimed by the people who are due them - because the system is simply too complicated. It's frankly unscrupulous that Brown and co use credits as a way of saying that they are giving money to the poor - safe in the knowledge that most of it wont get claimed. Its a way of looking good but spending very little.

And Yvette Cooper on Newsnight last night - shocking. Good job for her she's married to the chancellors best friend, or she'd be out on her ear.

Brown out of his depth; Cooper out of her depth; Darling already holed below the water line - the economy's not in very safe hands , is it....

Nick

In an article in Mondays Guardian Newspaper they reported that Blair asked Brown before that budget how many people would be effected by the doubling of the starting rate of tax.

Brown is said to have replied about 25,000, which is rather less than 5.2million. So this has been spun for more than a year.

This is yet another example of the spineless, gutless morons who infest the Labour benches these days. They do not have the intellect to work things out for themselves, but just blindly accept any spin Brown or Darling feeds them.

I personally will loss out with this "improvement" to the tax system. I am not holding my breath that I will be compensated any time soon.

Socialists do not make me laugh, moral compass an even bigger laugh. No more spin, pleeeease.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I enjoyed very much watching Yvette Cooper squirm last night on Newsnight. She is useless.

How did she become an MP - oh I remember now.....

Doesn't this show that Gordon Brown missed a trick allowing Frank Field to fester on the backbenches? The man has talent, insight and authority. As the saying goes they would have been better served having him on the inside of the tent aiming outwards.
Gordon Brown needs to realise he is not the only one in parliament with the required intellect to master this sort of brief

What I do not understand is why Brown and Darling should think someone between 25 and 60 does not qualify for compensation. Are these people worth less to the economy than the under 25s or the over 60s? Or worth less in any other way: as human beings perhaps?
Secondly, compensation will partly be - or so I understand - through minimum wage increases. What this boils down to is that a) someone else (the employer) picks up the tab, and b) the general level of taxation on minimum wages goes up, thereby increasing the wedge.
Well done, Messrs B and D. Fits nicely with progressive taxation policies!
The populace may then hope, beg, pray, whatever, that they will be getting the money first taxed out of their pockets back in some other shape or form.
I would contend there is very little to be argued against the state trying its utmost to keep its fingers out of the people's pockets; only to put them there for the necessities of running a civilized society: that is costly enough as it is. But it certainly does (should!) not include taking money from A just to give it to B for the fun of it, just because B happens to have been irresponsible (yes, one can only say that, at 6 billion plus and counting) enough to have children.
Tackling child poverty (such as there is; much of it is down to a very distorted view of poverty) should first and foremost be done by stimulating (and helping) parents to pick up the tab themselves - it's their kids, so their basic responsibility. It should most certainly not be done by subsidizing those who get themselves lumbered with children before they can afford them - nay, often have them because they are a meal ticket or because they don't have the sense/decency to uncouple a night out from getting laid.

I've emailed Mr Field directly... to paraphrase I said 'you've been conned mate'.

The measures announced yesterday take care of the pensionners.

Youth minimum wagers may be helped...at employers' expense.

What about the other 5million who have been robbed by Brown's last budget? Nothing, absolutely nothing now. Nothing backdated. Maybe, if you're lucky, at somepoint after November you might get back the national 'average' of what's been lost. But no promises...ok?

(intresting fact: at no point during Brown's last budget speech did he have the nerve, political or otherwise, to announce that the 10p rate was being abolished... it was buried in the 'Red Book' ...the coward)

I too saw that perfomance by Ms Cooper lastnight. The smug righteousness of that 'we sorted it so what is all the fuss about' attitude was truely shocking.

If Brown/Darling had any sense of what was good for the country, they would call a general election today.

They don't, they won't.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I would like to give you an example of what the new tax regime means for me:
Last year I earned £966 gross per month, £813.27 net.
This year I will get a 3.5% rise to £999 gross. Net I will be left with £829.94 which is approximately only a 1.75% increase compared to my net income last year. Of this £33 gross rise I pay 50% in taxes!
And of the £16.50 rise in my net income immediately £3 is taken up by my rise in council tax (just over 4% rise this year).
For me, it is very clear that this government is robbing me in broad daylight. And being not married and almost 50 years old this government also says to me (and has been saying for years): you are not important to us, because we will not change the rules for the likes of you (not being young, not being married and not having children). Shame on them!

I like to keep things simple. What could possibly be wrong in cancelling the abolition of the 10% tax band?

I don't think it's clear at all to anyone exactly what is being offered to who and how. As with everything that Gordon brown gets involved with, it's overcomplex and teh devil is always well hidden in the detail.

Yvette Coopers dismal performance on newsnight last night has hardly helped things either. Simply chanting out the briefing notes repeatedly and euphemistically referring to people losing out as "those who don't benefit" merely confirms that she doesn't "get it". With people like her in government, it explains a lot about how they got into this situation. We deserve much better than this.

The "rebel" backbenchers seem have accepted these non descript concessions a bit too easily. Does anyone actually really know what is going on ?

More spin and lies from Brown and his henchmen (and women). If Cooper had said "Pre Budget Report" once more on last nights Newsnight I would have broken the TV. Autumn may be ok for her, not for the those who will be paying the higher tax right now. Disgraceful and it seems Frank Field has been warned off !
A genuine good politician with his constituants at heart.
Brown also told MP's this will be the only policy he is willing to discuss and change HIS mind on ! Isnt that what the commons is for ? MP's debating ! if not, and dictator Brown makes all the decisions without reference to the Commons then we may as well do without the whole charade of electing them and let " Ruler Brown do anything he pleases.
Labour MP's have kept quiet in fear of loosing their nominations, sticking with Brown they will loose their seats anyway so may as well now have the last say. Puppets spring too mind.
How sad the worlds mother of democracy has come down to this.

Grumpy BoB . Bolton

David Ginsberg suggests that Gordon Brown should have people like Frank Field inside the tent. Field is a man of serious intelect and integrity. He lacks the talent for self delusion and to deliberately delude the public, at least one of which is an entry level requirement for living in Brown's tent - preferably both.

He was in the tent before but didn't last long, due to the influence of who was it ? Oh yes, Gordon Brown. The reason Field is excluded isn't that he doesn't have the intelect and integrity - but that he does.

Sadly, it is more likely that Brown would invite Arthur Daley or Del Boy Trotter into the fold.

Brown may have the intelect to master this sort of brief. As for the integrity - - ???

Okey dokey

Heres the thing, we are all being blind sided and lost in the confusion of this debate.

I feel a massive sweep under the carpet coming up. This is going to snow ball into a giant debate over the leadership of the country.

We will end up losing the point or getting tied up in internal politics of the Labourless party. No one will be made better off and we will stumble into the next big government disaster with the tax band issue dropping off the radar.

Living in an area not having the luxury of Gas and heating fuel is oil this time last year 30.95 per litre this week 49.5 in my book that over 60% rise . Basic food inflation well above 8%, council tax up 4% Petrol up 20% this is the real world .

Mr Darling and Mr Brown want to look very carefully at the crystal ball, before the winter, as pensioners will not just putting on extra jumpers they will be wareing shrouds.

Winter fuel payments are not the long term answer , its all very basic, raise the basic allowance by £2000.00 this helps the lower paid, reduces cost on tax credits, helps pensioners. The aim should be take the lower paid out of the tax system.

Nick you are able to question the goverment and the opposition we are not and we need you to get the feeling accros , it no good having jam tomorrow we need bread today.

MacMillan said "never had it so good", Browns goverment via Darling and Cooper "it all in the pre budget statement"
Its to late then

Thanks for the 12:00pm update Mr Robinson.

There can now be absolutely no doubt that Mr Field and the other Labour rebels have been well and truely conned.

To misqoute Neil Kinnock's party conference speech regarding Dereck Hatton's Liverpool admistration... 'the obscene sight of a labour government... a LABOUR government, going around making the poorly paid worse off' ...is terrible to observe.

The assurances given are very weak there are several points I would like to see the goverment pushed on.

1. The tax change lasts for ever, winter fuel payments etc can be withdrawn after one year. Is the government pledging to ensure that people are compensated every year.

2. Does the tax credits system not unfairly penalise the intellectually poor, the illiterate and inumerate and those with poor english who may need the money most but will have no clue how to claim them.

3. Is the collecting and redistribution of taxes in this way not hugely bureaucratically expensive and open wide to mass fraud.

4. There are still 650,000 to a million people who will be worse off. It is not exactly good news for the 'prinicpled' MPs who were opposing that they are still willing to see people lose out.

What a parlous state these incompetent fools land themselves.

NuLabour - champion of the working classes - can't even work out how many people are affected by their proposals or how much it will cost according to Yvette Cooper-Balls.

No government in history until NuLabour 2008 has ever targeted the poorest people in the land for a tax increase. That is the "distraction" for this high minded, high handed 'government'.

Their proposals for the employed - increasing the minimum wage - merely hand the problem to someone else; employers.

These people are cowards who perfom u-turns on non doms, u-turns on capital gains and now u-turns on the finance bill of all things.

Even Ken Livingstone is walking away from their support claiming to be an Independent candidate for Mayor of London - if your idea of independent is supporting suicide bombing Tamil separatists and Muslim Clerics.

The rats leave the sinking ship.

Does the tax credits system not unfairly penalise the intellectually poor, the illiterate and inumerate and those with poor english who may need the money most but will have no clue how to claim them.

This is why simplifying the tax and benefits system is a good thing as it reduces the hurdles at the bottom and loopholes for those at the top to exploit. The government has already indicated to the Low Pay Commission that it will have a stronger hand in raising the miniumum wage. I think, that's better in the long-run because it sends a signal that people on low incomes shouldn't be dutch auctioned out of the market. By having larger incomes they'll have more power and not be subject to a two tier system or have to go cap in hand for welfare.

Looking from the outside, Nick, I'm more than a little concerned about the goldfish-bowl aspect of all this. Apart from those directly affected by the tax changes, does this affair seem the same outside the bowl as it does to you lot inside it? The people on Newsnight last night seemed more like characters in a movie than inhabitants of the same world as the rest of us. Are the population at large really as outraged as you and your colleages are at the very thought that elected representatives might have an influence on government policy - usurping, presumably, the rightful role of journalists and TV presenters! But we elect them, not you, for exactly that purpose. Many people would regard it as quite reassuring that they are flexing their muscles for once. Yesterday you said that while the electorate may soon forget about all this, Brown is still down the tubes because 'the political world is not so forgiving'. After all, what does the electorate matter? Meanwhile, out in my world, the polls, despite the Tory lead, are really quite respectable by normal (i.e. pre-Blair) mid-term standards. Could it be that besotted with golden memories of the last years of Major, when you all had such fun, you are trying to wish a huge crisis into existence, where there's really only a blip and a stumble? Believe me, it will all be forgotten six months from now, and something new will have come along for you all to have fun with.

With a massive decrease in the amount of revenue the chancellor will get from Banks it is understandable that he has to balance the books and we at the bottom end are the best targets.

The chancellor only has one eye on the May elections thats all he is spouting these so called promises to help people.

All that is needed is for personal allowances to be raised to an appropriate level that helps everyone.Not more form filling ......think of the rain forests, or is he trying to backhandledly support the paper industry as well.....

This Government appears increasingly to be floundering; directionless and listless. Though they continue to operate with astounding arrogance (hijacking party conferences, anouncing policy during an elction 'amnesty'), and though no-one seems seriously prepared to hold them to account, it does look as if the wheels are coming off any way, all by them selves.
Mr Brown may, or may not, have been a good chancellor (cutting the 10p rate was not one of his better ideas); one thing for certain is that he is not a good Prime Minister. I never believed he had the skill or ability to lead a country; he is proving that now on a daily basis. I don't believe he has leadership, nor do I believe he has creativity, certainly not charisma, and definitely not a relationship with his nation. He will never earn my respect; I loathe him.

I am one of the affected people. This has cost me 5.50 a week by my reckoning. I don't have kids, I'm not ion my 60's and I'm not entitled to credits.

These measures to rectify things do not apply to me.

I am a staunch Trades Unionist. I have voted Labour all my life since 1976 as a matter of principle and beleive me, post-Iraq that took some doing. However, I will never vote Labour again whilst this shower of charlatans are still in the party let alone holding positions of authority.

Brown - a coward, Darling - weak man, Blears and Harmann - harridans of little relevance, Straw - deluded. I could go on. The whole cabinet is a shables.

For pensioners aged 60-64, whose incomes tend to be more stable, we have put in hand work to see if those households who have lost out from the removal of the 10p starting rate of income tax can be helped through the mechanism that already exists to pay the Winter Fuel Allowance.

As a sign of the Government's intent, we do not wish to wait unnecessarily until November. Whatever conclusions we come to, all the changes will be backdated to the start of this financial year.

Quoted from the mouths of babes and sucklings. Well actually AD's letter.

Weasel words? Or just another example of an abject failure on the part of Alistair Darling, Yvette Cooper and their minions to understand the REAL world?

Surely only one pensioner, the eldest, aged 60 to 64, in a household is entitled to the Winter Fuel Allowance. So what impact will this apparent sop have on the combined household income for two pensioners falling below the £18K threshold?

Um … my brain aches. Sorry, that was meant to be an impression of the 'Iron' Chancellor. Which one you may well ask.

Yvette Cooper is a relic from the Blair past. He was incapable of missing any opportunity to insult our intelligence. Gordon Brown used to carefully avoid this but he too has started down the slippery slope. Why would anyone think it is good tactic? Those whose intelligence could be insulted don't listen and everyone else changes their voting intentions. But if you can get a 67 seat majority with 34% of the votes cast I guess you can afford to insult the electorate.

Surely it would be as simple to revise the personal allowance for those affected. An increase of £1410 in the personal allowance of those affected negatively would compensate for the maximum loss of £282.

I liked how Mr Brown explained how he has not done a U turn, because he said he wasn't going to stop the scrapping of the 10p tax rate - and as he hasn't done that he therefore hasn't done a U turn! Pure Blairism at its best!

Questions that he needs to be asked -

Did he know how many people would be afected by scrapping the 10p tax rate?

If he did - why didn't he anticipate the possible unrest and come up with a strategy to deal with it?
If he didn't know how many people would be affected and why, then why didn't he know this? And therefore why should we have any confidence in the rest of his calculations on the rest of the budget - what else has he missed?

martinp79 wrote:

"Surely it would be as simple to revise the personal allowance for those affected. An increase of £1410 in the personal allowance of those affected negatively would compensate for the maximum loss of £282"

It would indeed be that simple
Of course, that would destroy any case at all for the iniquitous means-tested tax credits and all of the other burdens that GB has placed upon the low paid over the last decade

martinp79 wrote:
Surely it would be as simple to revise the personal allowance for those affected. An increase of ?1410 in the personal allowance of those affected negatively would compensate for the maximum loss of ?282.

= SIMPLE = LOW COST = EVERYONE WINS = NOT LABOUR

Even if they come through with the good this time, what about the 2009-10 tax year.

I can't help but believe that this is a one off at low cost this year, and they hope it will be forgotten next year.

Re having Scots in charge, how about the EIP and forget UKIP.

I hope I am not being racist and risk being imprisoned by saying that I hate Scottish MPs with a passion.

Brown has found out the hard way that his sly use of 'fiscal drag' has now bitten him.

In the beginning, when Brown introduced the 10% tax band, it was widely seen as a political gimmick because at least a third of 'low-earners' did not make enough money to even reach this marginal rate.

Fast forward ten years and Brown scraps the band for the sake of gesture politics but now many more low-earners are affected as their earnings have climbed into this band over the intervening years.

All of which constitutes a nice line in irony, provided you are not one of the affected people.

If only politicians could grasp one simple rule ... the English people generally speaking, simply want politicians to stay out of their lives.

It is not much to ask for.

I used to think that Mr Brown was a nicer person than Mr Blair and company. I was so wrong. He is completely out of touch with people. He has proved to be completely untrustworthy. Sooner we can vote him out the better. Things can't get any worse for the people the better. Just see how much the prices of ordinary basic foods have gone up in shops. Can he live on my State Pension for example?

What's the chances of Brown doing an Estelle Morris and saying: "Sorry, I've come to the realisation that this is not the right job for me. Being Prime Minister needs a different set of skills from those I have. It'd be better if someone else was Prime Minister and I took a new role."?

Close to NIL - if not exactly nil.

Surely the only option is to vote against the finance bill.There is no evidence that this government is good to its word and so the only option is to vote against the budget. Sorry Gordon but no confidence from too many areas for us to believe you on this one!

Q: What has Yvette Cooper got that qualifies her for government? A: Balls.

Ed "So What?" Balls is just a younger, version of Gordon Brown without the psychological flaws. He is a nasty piece of work: a sort of Iago without the silken tongue, standing close behind his master as this is the best place from whence to slip in the knife when he thinks the time is right.

It appears that the Iron Chancellor has rusted...

What ever happened to the old old principle of raising tax thresholds? Oh, that wouldn't put people on the handout list would it!

Brown as chancellor has done all he can to force more and more people onto the welfare rolls, mmaking the dependent (he hopes) on a labour governemnt to keep their income at survival levels

Thomas Babington Macauley put it best
"Democracy can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury"

By this shameful decade of vote buying, coupled with the fact that the majority of his government's enactments do not affect the majority of ministers' constituents north of the border, Brown has hastened the collapse of a free democracy in Britain

Nick, Who exactly are you referring to when you say it is :

'odd that it took the treasury so long for it to get its message understood'?

I got the message within one nanosecond.

Its taken days for journalists (Britain's finest) to get the same message.

Shouldn't I be the journalist?

Politics is a piece of cake. Call me, I'll be waiting by the phone.

Gary

To number 32:

if the government and all its apologists had a shred of decency about them they would read the comments of Red Lenin at #32 and instantly hot foot it to the Treasury to reverse this disasterous tax decision.

Nobody in their right mind makes the worst off in society pay higher tax. That means hang all your definitions of child poverty, the new deal, tax credits and all the other twaddle that has been peddled out to defend this mind blowingly stupid decision.

Labour, Tory and LibDems should come out in support of Red Lenin, whoever and wherever heis; he's just a working man doing his job.

Gve him his money back, Mr Brown.

martinp79 wrote:
"Surely it would be as simple to revise the personal allowance for those affected. An increase of £1410 in the personal allowance of those affected negatively would compensate for the maximum loss of £282."

Yes but it should have been done in the budget, INSTEAD of raising the 40% threshold by £1400.

We still need to know what "average losses" means. I suspect there is a devil in that detail.

How can Yvette Cooper get away with statements such as "the greatest help is actually targeted on the 1/3 poorest households in the country" and "this is about doing more to help those on low incomes" and "in the end it is about what you do to help the poorest people in the country", on last night's Newsnight?

And, "this government's record has always been about putting more support into, particularly families with children", while failing to mention that she and Ed. Balls have three children themselves, bearing in mind that Child Benefit is tax-free and is paid irrespective of income and savings. How is that targetting the poor?

Of course, "poorest" isn't the same as "on low incomes", since people on high incomes can make themselves poor by living beyond their means.

Nick, i'm surprise you haven't realised that its just a con so that the 40% fiscal rule on borrowing isn't smashed.

onlibertynow.blogspot.com

It is now increasingly clear that New Labour will lose the next general election. Scotland will probably vote for SNP candidates to Westminster, England and Wales will either vote Tory or abstain, with a sprinkling of Lib Dems for balance. I suppose New Labour can count on Charles_E_Hardwidge and Gary Elsby, but there seem few others prepared on these blogs to defend Gordon Brown and his shambolic team. So far so good; it may be a while before we get the chance to vote but this lot are on their way out. My concern is over the next government, probably Tory. Will they reverse so many of the taxes imposed by this administration over the last ten years? Will they scap the ludicrously expensive and inefficient tax-credit system? Will they honour their pledge on a referendum on the EU? I can understand their not being able or willing to be specific about tax cuts at this time - who knows what mess we will be in by the time they take office - but some firm general commitments on direction would be comforting. I would like at least to see the bright, sunlit uplands, even if I can't yet stand in the warmth.

Now for something different.

95% (or more?) of these posts are negative to the extreme about Mr Brown's work. Granted, those who agree with what he is doing may not bother to write in, but still, I think this sort of thing conveys a very strong message. What does it say about the person(s) at the receiving end when they show no - too little, in any case - sign of understanding or compassion, let alone remorse?

What is it that drives a politician like Mr Brown? Do genes for thick-skinnedness always combine with a sense of superiority of the "trust me, I know best"-type? Or is it the very base instinct of wanting to be able to have one's way; wanting to be able to decide, no matter what?

Mr Blair was/is a preacher, with a knack of relating to his audience; at least most of the time. Mr Brown seems to me similarly preacher-like, but with no capacity or wish (I don't know which would be the worse of the two) to relate to his audience at all. To me the conclusion is clear: his audience will boot him out. So, yes, this looks very much like a poll-tax moment. Personal conviction is all very well, but it has to be about what the electorate will swallow. If Mr Brown is as smart as everyone would have him be, why does he not see this? Or might it be that being number two for such a long time has somehow blurred his vision? Whatever the answers to these questions, the conclusion must be that Mr Brown is unfit for the job.

There is this famous dictum that says that every person rises to his personal level of failure. Looks like Mr Brown has reached his. It's a sorry nation that has to endure him for as long as it will now take for the next election to be called.

#51 MalcolmW2

If you think back to 1996-7 Labour didn't give any policies until close to the election. Sensibly they just sat back and watched the Conservatives self-destruct.

This time round, the Conservatives have watched Labour, without any new ideas, steal (or should I say appropriate) theirs.

I suggest that the Conservatives will do the same as Labour while hitting hitting them at every opportunity - dithering, u-turn, sleaze - and then come out with costed figures nearer the time.

This board suggests that Brown has few friends - just let them self-destruct. Its fun watching!!!

Am I the only one who thinks there is more to Frank Field's swipe at Brown than meets the eye ?
It isn't the first time Field has seen fit to put himself forward as the People's Champion against a Labour leader - the last time, as I remember it, was a very Machiavellian attempt to embarrass the leadership... nobody, as I recall seemed to be able to work out why he really resigned as a junior minister. Is this another fathomless escapade ? .. or is he simply enjoying kicking a three legged dog ?

The above posts adequately cover what I would wish to say about this incompetant and shamblolic government have already been clearly expressed so I will not repeat them here. I would however like to make one serious point and one with tongue in cheek!
On a serious point, Brown has always surrounded himself with yes men and women and no doubt this has served him well in the past. However, this will not be the case in government where you need strong personalities to sort things out and get them done properly. With the possible exception of Jack Straw this government is all second division or up and coming youngsters and it shows in their performance. Quite frankly they are not up to the job and the sooner they go the better for all of us.
My second point is rather more tongue in cheek.
In Africa there is a leader who is black and hates whites; we have a leader who hates things being black and white.
In Africa there is a leader who ignores the will of the electorate; we have a leader who is frightened of facing the electorate either in the form of a general election or referendum.
In Africa there is a leader who has surrounded himself with sycophants; we have a leader who has done the same.
In Africa their is a leader who has brought his country to its knees; we have a leader who is certainly not being very prudent!

Ok. I know it may not be a very fair analogy but we are going down a very dangerous road and things need to change.

Can I be chancellor/PM next?

My first policy would be that anybody who is paid less than £10k per year would pay NO TAX whatsoever. Poor just got richer and those on very little can now buy food/keep warm.

My second would be to abloish Road Tax. So now the little people can now drive freely.

My last act would be to remove all target driven departments, police, hospitals and such like. That should make the lower class workers feel better.

Then I will sell my story claiming I have some eating disorder whilst having a chat with God.

Am I mad, bad or just ready to join New Improved Labour/Useless Tories?

As taxpayers receiving less than £13380 per annum will lose out by anything up to £250 per annum, and the Government does not wish to be seen admitting to its mistake, let alone doing anything to right it, perhaps they would consider instead extending council tax relief to all income earners receiving less than £13380 per year, and not making council tax relief automatic upon the receipt of benefits.
This would neatly sidestep the responsibility for the mistake, doing the thing that all Governments have favoured since the days of Thatcher - hitting Local Authorities.
Not only that, but many hard pressed people who choose to earn a living rather than live off benefits would no longer see their neighbours living completely tax free.
Who knows? Just like poll tax, it might even become a vote winner!

This post was previously removed by the moderators.

I am not at all clear why this was the case but I have modified it anyway:

"I suspect the English are nearly at breaking point with non-English politicians who are plying their trade at Westminster.

It is time they packed up and went home to their own countries to practise their trade there.

Please leave the English to govern England.

It is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

We English have been too passive, politically speaking and this is the result."

I hope this version proves acceptable.

What a mess. I was reading in the Guardian yesterday that the government can only help 1 in 4 of the people who have been hit by the loss of the 10p income tax band due to financial constraints (i.e. not having any money).

https://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Sir Alan put it in a nutshell when he said on Wednesday's Apprentice that it's not what he wants to sell that sells, it's what the customer wants that sells.
Perhaps Gordon should stop telling us about HIS vision, and trying to impose what HE wants to happen on the long suffering British people. He talks about humility and then acts as if he is the only person who knows what's best for us all. In fact it seems he is stuck in that 'teenage' mode when we all thought we knew everything there was to know and never listened to other people's advice!

I tend to think that Grodon Brown's idea of life in the UK is that everyone should act like a Presbetarian son of the Manse and be frugal. With his current policies, if we can call them that, we shall all have to be very frugal because of the stealth taxes this government has impemented over the last 10 years.

If I was able to give advice to the whole population for the forthcoming elections it would be

"screw Brown because he has screwed you for the last 11 years"

It is quite entertaining to visualise a trembling Gordon Brown trying to explain his attempts to 'sell' the removal of the 10% tax band to Sir Alan Sugar.

One can see a scowling Sir Alan rapidly losing patience and finally snapping :

"Gordon, you don't know you a*se from your elbow. You're fired!".

Well, one can dream.

I don't know the ins and outs of the tax system and why exactly they wanted to abolish the 10p tax bracket.

All I'm not aware of is that I will be worse off, by however much per month, per year. And even if the tax credits system is changed, i will still be worse off. I earn enough to not be eligible for tax credits, but under the amount that means I am affected by this change. I don't have children, I am not a pensioner. None of these 'new' measures will help me.

And even if I was eligible, I dont *want* to claim tax credits, I want to go back to the older rate of tax thanks. Call me simple and naive.... claming tax credits is not something i'd like to do, and surely the time taken to fill in the form and the admin required by departments will cost more in the long run.

i am not the worst off person by a long shot, but that doesnt mean its ok to take more of my money.

We've gone from "Whiter than White" to "Browner than Brown" in a very short time. Brown promised "a new dawn for politics, more openness, more listening, more opportunities for all (not just for the few, etc). With news that more than 100 MPs employ family members and that "Home Secretary Jacqui Smith lists her husband, Richard Timney, as a "senior research/parliamentary assistant", which attracts a salary of between £27,780 and £40,052" (the words 'troughs' and 'pig's in' come to mind) it seems like it's business as usual.

Alastair Darling, Gordon Brown's Costello to his Abbott, will not go down in history as a great, or even good, chancellor no matter what he does now. Brown handed him a pup and he's been left to walk the dog.

Roll on election time!

Would the Labour party researcher who's job it is to follow what is posted on Nick's blog please tell us if Gordon Brown is given a printout of our comments?

To ask for his reaction would be too much, and probably unprintable!!!!

In answer to mikepko, a busy man like Gordon Brown would not have the time or inclination to read even a summary of the comments on these blogs.

Don't you know he's got a country to run?

Problem is, nobody is too sure exactly where that country 'Britain' is any more.

I'd hazard a guess that it got lost sometime during the 1970's.

What makes me chuckle (or it would, if it were not so serious for a lot of people) is the implication that the Browns and Darlings of this world somehow intended such a course of action 'all along'...
Did they hell - they've had to modify policy on the hoof...!

I'm sorry to come back again but all apologists for this government need to think hard about who actually dreamed up this plan in the Treasury.

Whomsoever decided that the poorest in society should have their taxation doubled?

The person responsible for inflicting this heinous injustice on a civilised country should be named. I don't care if it's Brown or Balls or Cooper or some underling they should be named.

Not only should they be named but they should never again be allowed to intefere with a single piece of government policy.

Naturally the individual should be dismissed and asked never to return.

If anyone can offer a single reason why this should not happen please fell at liberty to explain themselves.

At 5:24 pm on 25 Apr 2008, RobinJD wrote:

"The person responsible for inflicting this heinous injustice on a civilised country should be named. I don't care if it's Brown or Balls or Cooper or some underling they should be named. "

I suspect a "Balls-up". (I had to get that in before anyone else).

He was Economic Secretary to the Treasury May 2006 to June 2007. For info, read his Wikipedia entry.

Every single Tory supporter and voter who have criticised the Govt over this is being a cynical,dishonest hypocrite. The tories have NEVER - not for so much as a single day - worked to improve the lot of the poorest and most deprived members of our society.

All they have ever done is declare war on the poor; taken their jobs, destroyedd their communities, cut their benefits, slashed budgets for essential services the poor rely on, re and then demonised them and gave them pious little moral lectures; all so to make them and their rich mates richer.
Speaking as a working class bloke, they are our mortal enemies and have proved it at every time of asking. They simply don't care about the poor - it's in the very nature of the tory beast.
The ONLY honest criticisms of this - admittedly awful - policy are ones from the point of view of govt competence (I mean - what a total and utter rickett they made of this one! talk about the Paul Robinson approach to government!) and, more importantly, ones made from a socialist standpoint.
The single biggest defect in this govt is that they are so UNsocialist - they deserted socialist principles before even coming to power.
They have still, however, lifted millions out of poverty, and - in contrast to the view of some terminally delusional posters on this thread - most of us are materially better off than when they came to power, and I can't see why the well of shouldn't pay more tax.

Post 70#,

Your comment had me in stitches!, have you been taking lessons from Charles?.

Labour are the only Socialist government anywhere in the world who have taken from the poor to give to the rich.

You may also like to know that class warfare is as discredited as the loony left who subscribe to such pathetic behaviour.

It is your very own socialist party which has raided all our pensions, doubled council taxes, lost control over immigration, given away our independence to the European Union etc etc.

But at least your comments were funny if somewhat bizzare.

Gordon Brown does, in my opinion, have a lot to answer for.

One of the root causes of the huge rise in property prices over the last ten years was Browns ill-fated decision to start taxing i.e. remove the tax relief, on pension funds in 1997.

Quite a number of people looked at this and thought, hang on, I don't think I'll keep ploughing money in a pension, I'll put it in property instead.

Hence, from practically nothing, the huge growth in the buy-to-let property business and the concomitant rise in property prices.

Obviously there were other factors at work but this one should be laid squarely at Browns door, care of 10 Clowning Street.

#70 Streathamite in Milano:

Ermmm. It was a Tory government that allowed council tenants to buy their houses and flats at knock-down prices, enabling them to get onto the housing ladder out of which they have done extremely well. Last time I looked, council tenants could not be described as "the extremely well off", and it did more to improve people's financial futures than anything the left wing (or New Labour) has ever done. It was Labour that opposed the policy, a position that would have kept these aspirational people forever as an underclass. Margaret Thatcher allowed them to join the property-owning masses. What is wrong with that? The class war has been over for a long time, though just like the forgotten Japanese soldier after the last war, there are a few isolated class warriers still lurking in the jungle who don't appear to know. Maybe if you really are in Milano, that may explain it.

He got it but will they? that's the question Nick.

Yes we got it! Us ex Tories had got it years ago and so far we are still voting Labour. Why? because the alternative is a fake with a terrible economic past! Have a nice day Nick.

This is a right "bùrach" for the "socialist" New Labour Party and I can't see any way of sorting the siuation fairly without re-instatement of the 10p tax banding. This would, of course, lead to the reintroduction of the 22p levy instead of the ammended 20p band. The beginning of the end for our pal, Gordon, and his sidekick, Darling?

Using Pension Credits to return pensioners money back to them - sounds great innit?

Is it me but would it make more sense to not takepensioners money and then hand it back using a system which is only used by 40%
I suppose it keeps someone busy:(

Careful now Digital Teifion, you're in danger of introducing common sense into this business.

.. still, some people seem to like Gordon's/Alisair's solution to the whole sorry business .. Frank Field for one. Some people are easily satisfied, aren't they ?

scaladale (75): 'The beginning of the end for our pal, Gordon, and his sidekick, Darling?'

I think the end had already begun, to be honest - anyone losing to Cameron's conservatives in the polls has to be at least half the way down the long slide.

This whole idea does seem to be lacking in merits through and through. With the evidence saying that the rich are fast getting richer, they don't really need Government assistance by my judgement, while the poor could do with a helping hand that just isn't coming - reimbursement from the robbers seems to be all they're getting from this Government.

Really, this is just another nail in the coffin - let's hope the gravediggers don't go on strike again until they've buried New Labour for good.

The thing is, people who work hard to earn a living, obey the law, and are happy to pay reasonable taxes in order to pay for a civilised society and support those who need financial help, find it a bit much to be constantly cast as the villains of the piece by a bunch of jealous lefties with chips on their shoulders. Seeing billions of pounds being sunk into Gordon's stealthy attempts at social engineering (yes, we do know what you are up to, Gordon), just to do down the good people of Britain does tend to stick in the craw, as it flys in the face of everything Britain stands for (cue Rule Brittania!)

I would have thought that anyone savvy enough to use the blogsphere is equally as bright enough to know that the argument of Gordon Brown robbing the poor to fund the richlist shopping trips to Dubai, may be a little false.

Is there any chance that the BBC could fund a simpler Education blog for the politically dysfunctional and lean them towards a more Robin Hood friendly truth?

Tax credits, winter fuel allowances,free eye tests and free bus travel? You know, that sort of stuff.

Yours with no anticipation or expectations whatsoever,

Gary

re post 80:
Technically I think you're right, that gordon brown's changes have officially made some sections of society a lot better off. But that's assuming that everyone who's entitled to the various credits claims and gets them, and that simply doesn't happen in the real world.
eg I'm entitled to tax credits but I don't claim them because I'm self-employed so it's impractical with a variable income.
Gordon Brown does deserve some credit/praise, I admit that, for taking some people out of the poverty trap, but he's hurt a lot of people too.
Yours is an excellent posting though, because there are some core questions where I think there should be a link to a debate on the details about specifics with an initial bbc-created topic where the real details are explained.
Classic example of such a debate would be where the bbc explains the real effects of the recent 10pct abolition (eg people on a-b incomes get their tax doubled and it costs them £200, people on c-d break-even, people on e-f get a reduction etc; I got a pen and paper out when I heard about the original doubling/abolition/reduction and worked it out; it took me about 30 seconds to work out I'd probably lose a fair amount, although I might break even if I have a very good year and am very lucky, but I wouldn't get to the stage where I become a winner, not sure why it took gordon brown over a year to work it out).
Anyway; I'm all for an educational blog area about specifics.

Re post 80: I'm not sure that you directed your post at me, but it certainly applies to what I said - I'm sure that I am ignorant of much in this subject, having never taken much of an interest in the economic side of politics. As I say, I am going solely on the evidence I've seen, but it would seem that I may have got the wrong end of the stick.

I'm all for the idea of enlightenment in any way possible, to be honest.

Tax credits should never have been layered on top of the PAYE system, as that in itself was simply not accurate enough to predicate anything on.

It is almost irrelevant now anyway, as the whole tax edifice is in entropy.

You might wonder why we do not migrate away from this towards a simpler 'flat-tax' system with a lower threshold set high enough to take most low-earners completely out of the tax system with additional other hypothecated taxes where applicable.

That might seem perfectly sensible and sane to you or me, but to the average politician, such a system is a horrifying prospect:

a) No more control over the people.

b) No more pork-barrels.

c) No more bloated bureaucracies to lord it over.

So, until we start voting for a totally different type of politician, I am afraid that we are stuck with what we have.

It's really a joy to read that all the Tories out there have suddenly revealed that they do really care about the lower paid workers of this country, Ahem! I mean if you were a cynic you might say that it was a unprecedented U-turn strange how these people have become suddenly interested in the low paid, they didn't seem to be around when theTories were forecasting doom and gloom and massive unemployment also the destruction of thousands of businesses wnen they were vehemently opposing the minimum wage or the new deal or tax credits and the Tories said at the time that they would abolish the winter fuel allowance when they eventually get back in power the poor people didn't seem to matter to you Tories at that time. These actions were being perpetrated by the very people that you Tories are struggling to get back in power, the same people who have now jumped on the bandwagon provided by Frank field and the labour rebels, had they not have raised the question. Cameron and his cronies would not have said a word. Nevertheless I think most fair people will realise that a mistake was made and the government will have to compensate all those affected, these observations are not in any way directed at anyone genuinly affected but only at the hyercritical Tories who are trying to make political capital out of poor peoples misfortune,dont be fooled they dont really give a damn.

Prime Minister Brown I feel so ashamed of your attack on the poor through your abolition of the 10% tax band, that I am obliged to send you my cheque for £10 from my limited income, to be used to mitigate the iniquitous effect of your policy on those with low incomes.
I will NOT have you carry out this policy in my name.
I suggest that you and your wealthy colleagues might follow my example and so regain some element of integrity.
You will acknowledge receipt of this charitable donation and ensure that £2.20 is added in respect of tax I have already paid.

The crux of the matter is that this government have tinkered about with the tax system and made it all so complicated, that they know very little about the workings of the system now. If they did, we wouldn't be in this state.

Don't be fooled - Gordon and his cronies care very little about the people who will lose out. After all, they'll be fine with their expenses acounts and their John Lewis Lists.

Perhaps we should all push to get Frank Field to take over at No. 10 when Gordon is ousted. I have never voted Labour but I do believe that Frank is a man of integrity (a word not usually featured in a politician's vocabulary) and I would trust Frank 100% more than I have ever trusted Gordon.

So this (Wednesday) morning I hear on the radio that Mr Brown admits mistakes have been made with the 10p tax rate abolition.

One might conclude mr Brown has now indeed finally got it. One thing, however, keeps nagging me. Why keep saying the move was the right one until the very last, why keep saying no U-turn was performed, and why then, with less than a day to go until the local elections, eat the dirt?

In days not all that long gone I would have been hesitant to say all of this smacks of hypocrisy, but not anymore. I seriously hope everyone will see this latest ploy for what it is: a last-minute attempt to avert electoral disaster.

Let's just hope the country doesn't let itself be conned. If Messrs B, D, and the rest of them do not want to listen, let them feel!

Many companies implement their annual pay increases starting in April.

I think that Gordon Brown was relying on any decreases in net pay due to his tax changes being offset to some degree by annual pay award increases. So hopefully fewer people would notice !

This works both ways though, as any increases in salary due to the tax changes are lost in the annual pay increases. So not much credit for him there either !

On the other BBC pages I now find:

'He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme this had helped the poorest in society most "because 85% of the benefits [of the old rate] went to the highest earners."'

Maybe I don't understand: did 85% of the benefits (if you can call anything to do with tax that) of the 10% band [the old rate] go to the highest earners? How is that? And how is it any different now with the 22% band reduced to 20%, as a result of which it is only the lower tiers of low paid people losing out. doesn't a 2% reduction in the second band go to the higher earners as well?

If it was unpalatable to Mr Brown that the 10p rate predominantly benefitted the highest earners why did he then include the 2p reduction in his plans?

From what I gather (admittedly not having done any sums) up to well into 40k salaries the new system is advantageous; perhaps above those levels as well? If so, the remedy is worse than the illness it is supposed to cure.

So Mr Brown's justification seems to be a bit on the thin side.

Secondly, Mr Brown's comments make me think he has difficulty with the fact that everyone gets taxed the same way on the same income (in principle at least): up to x: a%, from there up to y: b% etc. I get the impression Mr Brown would like to see the length of the scales 0-x, x-y, y-z etc. to be different depending on the total income a person has. So not just an increasing marginal tax rate, but one which varies (increases) over the whole of (or at least over more of) one's income upon reaching certain levels.

Well, well. All of this in the name of equality, equal opportunity, combating poverty, etc., presumably.

Mr Brown's most important flaw is that he has no eye whatsoever for keeping things simple (as the tax credit malarkey amply illustrates). Maybe the simplest thing is handing him his notice.

Post 73 The selling of council houses although many people benefited from it was a grave mistake. it left a situation were the housing for young couples and people on low incomes were denied the chance to rent their homes that were built specifically for that purpose, you think Thatcher did them a favour, you probably think that selling our oil , electricity steel gas water even bridges and closing down the minefields not in a measured way but overnight was a great thing to do. as was said earlier Tories have never done anything for the poor in this country,Post 70 your comments were not only not funny but where a bit manic Post32 So you claim to have been a Labour supporter for all those years but you say you as a single person have lost a few pounds a week, probably debatable, but socialism is based on helping people who are less well off than ourselves, I am afraid that you were never a true socialist, you've allowed yourself to be brainwashed by the Tory press and media as many others have, you have to give the establishment credit they can handle people like you with great ease, instead of thinking solely about what you've lost think of all the people less well off than you that have gained thats if your a true socialist of course. Or have you always been a latent Tory?