Mini Budget

Greater borrowing - just what we need in this time of economic downturn and instability!

This is little more than a sap to try and win a few extra votes in Crewe where I'm sure they really aren't as stupid as Labour would like to believe.

How were the Tories wrong-footed? Please give the British Public some credit,it's a short-term blatant panic measure and the Tories will be delighted at this Government's abject failings and total disarray making the headlines again.

Here we go again, another bribe before an election - albeit a by-election.

This government seems to make a habit of insulting our intelligence, but make no mistake most of us have long memories and we will remember this at general election time. This is a one off sop for short term gain.

When will this government realise we can no longer be fooled!!!

I think this is a great announcement.
Not only has it kept the more simplified tax system that the abolition of the 10p band achieved, but has righted the wrong caused by its abolition.

Sure the greater borrowing isn't the best thing, but the effects the increase will have counter the negative of the borrowing in my eyes.

This seem sensible and pretty obvious. Why the hell with the combined brain power in the Treasury couldn't it have been done weeks if not months ago?

Much as I hate to agree with the smirking George Osbourne, this looks very much like electioneering - buying votes with a one-off tax present. I too will want to see the small print.

I also don't think it has wrong-footed the Tories or LDs, it just reinforces the impression of incompetence and political ineptitude we have seen ever since GB became our Dear Leader.

I wouldn't place any bets on it saving the Labour majority at Crewe and Nantwich, although it may help at the margins.

Perhaps instead of relying on the usual crutches of more tax and more borrowing the government should consider trimming away some of the fat from the bloated public sector, thus reducing their level of spending.

Or maybe they need all those dependants on benefits and a public sector wage. Where else would they get their votes from?

So all the waffle about not being able until the autumn was just that waffle ???

Just trying to grab headlines before a by election he has to find the money for this from somewhere doesnt seem to explain from where. Perhaps he doesn't know.

Having read the statement I think that this increase in the personal allowance applies to THIS year only. All the way through he speaks of "this financial year" - so what will happen next year.

Given this government's previous form on being deceitful with tax changes, I suspect that this is not a reduction of £120 per year, but a one-off payment to provide short-term headlines.

That's obscene; doing a half-baked version of what people urged them to do over a year ago, but doing it in such a way that it costs more money than the correct fix would have done, purely in a bid to win a by-election.

If they fixed it properly they could have given back all of the 10pct doubling rate grab, and reduced the 22pct rate, and still have it end up costing less money than the original budget.

They obviously don't understand basic maths/logic.

I hope the good people of Crewe see past the headline and into the real motives and results from that totally bogus change.

More borrowing? Wow; do they not understand that they could avoid more borrowing simply by shifting the various allowances and the 22pct-to-20pct change about a bit? They could, if they wanted to, make everyone happy and still have it save money compared to the previous budget.

"Wrong footed the Tories"

Hmmm... Isn't this how the problem started? In just about the last sentance of Browns last Budget where he announced the cut in basic rate tax to wrong foot the Tories - paid for by the abolition of the 10p tax band.

Despite the Chancellor refusing to spell out who still loses it seems pretty clear to me. The young low earners were not compensated in the budget at all by increases in Tax Credits.

As the "compensation" is based on the average loss, taking account of the increased tax credits announced in the Budget, it is those that do not get the Tax credits that are still net losers.

Hmm - won't lowering the 40% threshold bring more people into the higher tax band, rather than just make the changes neutral for existing higher-rate payers?

What this amounts to is that the country has been committed to another £2.7b of borrowing in order to limit Labour’s damage in the forthcoming by-election.

Clearly I am wrong but I thought there were rules preventing this sort of pork barrelling immediately prior to an election.

According to the Treasury Select Committee report households without children or anyone over the age of 65, and on incomes below £18,500 a year, would lose out on average £232 a year.

According to the BBC Chancellor Alistair Darling has put up the personal tax allowance by £600, meaning every basic rate taxpayer will pay £120 less tax this year.

£232 - £120 = £112

£112 will be the average LOSS to those 5.3 million people on LOWEST incomes and wages.

The gap has not been closed so this measure by Alistair Darling is NOT the full compensation promised.

It is worse than that it means that people who earn more £18,500 now have a double bonus, tax rate reduced from 22p to 20p and personal tax allowance increase of £600.

The poorest workers and those on low incomes are still paying higher taxes that benefit the better paid.

Nick - you're in a bubble in Westminster and clearly have no idea how the Government is viewed or a grasp of the implications of this announcement. How can it be positive for the Government to revise their own budget within weeks because they fear losing a by-election?

If Brown stuck to his guns we might respect him despite disagreeing with the policy, but this just emphasises how politically weak he is. He just will not learn that short term tactical measures just look clumsy and opportunistic, and in this case incompetent. He is making Cameron look statesmanlike!

Can you confirm if higher rate tax payers actually benefit by £240 p.a. and therefore twice as much as basic rate tax payers? This is the case if the allowance increased for all.

Seriously, this is what makes Labour MP's happy? The 10p tax debacle has been a huge mess that the Chancellor has had to borrow a whacking £2.7bn to clean up. Not sure how it wrong foot's the Tories particularly.

Anyway, I'm waiting for the small print. We'll have to pay for this one way or another.

Using my basic maths,I understand from this that all basic rate taxpayers will get an extra 120 pounds in their pay packetsbut I fail to see how the lowest paid who were the biggest losers in the original budgethave gained parity.The majority of people getting the extra allowance were no worse off after the last budget so they are 120 pounds in pocket the lowest paid were said to be 200 pounds worse off so minus the 120 pounds they have a net loss of 80 pounds.Could someone please explain why it seems to me that the majority of by election voters will be better off at yet again the lower paid.

Sometimes I worry about you Mr Robinson. What on earth is wrong footing the tories about borrowing more money in order to put a plaster on an earlier error? Short termism is the name of this governments game.

Sorry just seen 40% band reduced accordingly.

Wrong foot the Tories?! Darling has done exactly what they have been calling for. Just because they may have been expecting him to make a bigger hash of it doesn't mean they are "wrong footed".

1). Why did it take them so many weeks to come up with such a blatantly obvious answer? How stupid are these people?

2). So the Government will have ot borrow even more to stump up this money. Not a sign of economic competence

3). This act was bourne of political desparation forced upon them by the blatant exposure of the gross contempt that they showed for 5 million of the poorest workers, during an economic downturn whilst billionaire bankers were being bailed out.

Make no mistake, the labour party are now seen as a vile and malignant caricature of the old nasty Tory party.

One of the main arguments put forward recently by ministers, in favour of the abolition of the 10p rate, was that the rich would no longer benefit from that rate on any of their income.

Maybe I misunderstand these things, but isn't an across the board increase in the personal tax allowance going to benefit everyone - including the rich?

So, we have a Government that defended their actions - and then abandoned their policy by changing it to one that has the same flaw as they were claiming to have corrected.

They cannot have it both ways.

"all basic rate taxpayers will be £120 better off"

"The worst affected losers in the 10% tax rate change will be £232 worse off"

Doesn't add up does it?

Of course doing a U turn and not abolishing the 10% tax rate would be too simple.

Looks to me as if Labour have once again miscalculated.

Darling isn't going to reveal the details about this until the Autumn..........it'll take him that long to figure out how he's going to alter the tax system to make it work.

@ number 8 and number 11... Totally correct. This is labour trying to make a slik purse out of a pigs ear of a budget.

A mini-budget? Dennis Healey was rather fond of those. We also have a queue for mortgages, banks being bailed out by the Bank of England, rampant inflation.... The only question is, does David Cameron have the willpower of Margaret Thatcher to dig us out of this mess?

If, as was said in the House, the Labour party distributed a leaflet in Crewe and Nantwich giving details of this announcement this morning, they have exposed their cynical attempts at manipulating a by-election result.

They are not compensating everyone. Those they are leaving with little or no compensation are those with the lowest income.

How does that square with their commitment to the poor?

Cynical and shameful.

The announcement of an increase in my personal tax allowance of £600 does not bridge the gap between my current allowance and that of my husband who is 65 and drawing state pension. I will be 60 in August and will also draw my state pension but am being penalised by the labour government because I am under 65, and a woman who is retiring at 60. If I am eligible for my state pension why can I not be eligible for the full increased tax allowance? I hope Gordon Brown loses every vote from 60 to 64 year olds (if he hasn't already)!

Osborne's whiny bawling of abuse and lack of policy backed up by his side's calling 'Get back to Scotland' should be contrasted with Vince Cable's measured targetting of the important questions.

The Tories don't care about the poor. They just want anything to beat the Government with to their hands on power again and will let Cameron be as 'wet' as he likes...until they get in that is.

Mr_cookie, just to explain the 40% higher tax rate "decrease" by £600. It means that no-one who is now paying higher rate tax is any worse off than the new system allowed for them. Effectively, the £120 bonus you would have received from the fact your basic rate of income tax kicking in at the £600 new tax free allowance is offset by the fact you are now going to pay £120 more within the higher rate level. So long as you are earning less than the new higher rate threshold you will be better off (but it will taper off until you "reach" the old higher threshold), at least from the proposals post the 10% aboliton of income tax. I'm still trying to figure out where these 1.1m losers are - the confusion is that the new system, of the famously abolished 10% rate has hardly taken hold before these revisions are made.

So presumably the 40% rate threshold will drop to £35700 to make it neutral for those currently in the higher tax bracket??

"all basic rate taxpayers will be £120 a year better off"

"maximum amount any single individual could be worse off by is £232 per year"

Looks to me like Labour has miscalculated again.

10 emergency statements from a Chancellor who has been in office (though not in power or control) for 10 months

That is hardly evidence of a government that has direction and focus.

Lurching from disaster to disaster more like.

The devil with any of Gordon Brown's financial fiddlings is in the detail (and it is GB not Darling who is doing all of this). The poorest will be those who continue to suffer

But the Labour MPs will gloss over that fact

Cost £2.7 billion ?

Is there no cap on the amount spent on by-electioneering ?

How have the Conservatives been wrong-footed, please Nick?

If Labour MP's are happier than they have been for weeks, they won't be smiling when they lose the Crewe and Nantwich by-election next week.

They must think we all came down with the last shower if they think we want to wait until the autumn to hear about how Darling is going to get them out of this mess.

This is just the repeat of the LABOUR TAX CON by Gordon Brown in 2007.

Forget the headline figures, the lowest paid workers and those on low incomes are still losing out to the tune of £100.

It amazes me that political pundits like Nick Robinson can be so easily fooled.

Well, at least what we can glean from this what Gordon Brown values his own job at.

Borrowing from the Gilt market is obviously calculated to save his own skin.

Though I would guess the taxpayer stumping up £2.7Bn (don't forget to add the annual interst of £121.3m on that) to stay in office would compare with the best of lifetime hauls for dictators.

this labour lot introduced the 10p band. was this a good idea? then they scarpepd it. was that the right idea? then they fiddled some benefits to make that change not seem so bad. was that the right idea?
now they have fiddled with the whole system to undo what they just did.

If they don't know what it is they want to do with our tax system, can they please resign and let some people who have clear ideas run the government?

2.6 Billion might buy 1 by-election. It won't buy the general election and they know it. Its time for cameron to call for a cote of no confidence and try to force an election.

==I voted labour all my life until the Iraq war==

This whole situation is a farce.

Surely the government could have worked this one out for themselves.

Where is the £2bn going to come from ....
Ans ... Us all ..... Next year and the next

One question .. What about higher rate taxpayers .. just because they earn a reasonable salary doesnt mean they are wealthy.

The problem is that the National Insurance Threshold was raised in the last budget from £34,000 odd to £40,000 odd ... so anyone earning over £40,000 gets to pay 11% more on about £6000.

.... and what about the forthcoming Fuel tax increases ?

Nobody mentions this one ...... It comes to a pretty state of affairs when a budget change has to be reversed.

I for one have had enough

Why is the Chancellor and the government always talk about helping “families”. What about single people? It is often single people who struggle far more than couples with increasing house prices and living costs. Why should single people be penalised for not having a family?

Erm, no...

What is looks like is the UK Economy steadily sinking due to calamitous mis-management.

Who do you think is going to pay for the extra Borrowing? Why do you think the Electorate can't see through this?

It will be fascinating a) to see what the BBC's Economics bods will make of this, and b) what the Crewe and Nantwich voters make of it!

An as expected cynical response from a Government under siege with a lack of moral fibre.
The increase in all fuel charges is bringing in increasing amounts of taxation which appears to be vanishing, attempts are made to rob from the already hard up and yet we see no effort by central Government to curb their spending.
Instead the Country is again increasing its borrowing, please explain why the Labour MP's are so happy!!

Tories Wrong footed?

To labour spin doctors.

Give us some credit; we are not that stupid to believe that hogwash.

1) You created the 10p disaster, to try and kill the Tories support.

2) If ppl hadn’t protested and kicked labour in the teeth over it, you would not have lifted a finger to help those affected

3) Brown tried to get out of it by deceit and denying it was a problem.

4) When you where forced to do something, you now trying say it is a labour victory.

5) 2.7 billion borrowed - few weeks ago brown said it would cost way a few hundred million to help those.

6) To top it all some will still be worse off.

If you think the Tories have been wrong footed you been smoking too much of the substance you reclassified last week.

It is a humiliation nothing more nothing less.

The great chancellor brown, give me a break - his decisions in this 10 pence saga alone simply proves he is a fraud.

120 pounds will not make me forget what you did in the first place and how you tried to weasel out of it.

Labour can not be trusted simple as that.

Who puts the words in your mouth Robinson?

How can the Tories possibly be wrong footed by a tax cut funded by debt? Terrible parroting of government spin.

Are you a ventiloquists dummy or a journalist......

To be fair to Nick Robinson he did not say the tories were wrong footed just they looked wrong footed. Evidence of that was George Osbourne's inability to think on his feet and ask the questions that needed to be asked. That was left to Vince Cable who rather than just hurl insults as Osbourne did actually asked what this would mean. But i guess we know which will get on the Six O'Clock news because insults and a rant make better TV.

Sorry Nick - but I am getting a bit frustrated by your desire to help Gordon get his message over.

You are here to be impartial and provide informed commentary - not fall for what you are told.

Wrong footing the Tories? They've just lost control of London for the next four years.

Clutching at straws would be more appropriate.

Labour MPs are always happy at tax and spend policies; that's why we're in this mess

Labour MP's smiling? Tories wrong footed?

On the same day Carloline Flint's faux pas exposes the government's true feelings on house prices; that they will fall by 10% or more at best. I don't see millions of homeowners laughing at that prospect.

Yes, Nick, the tories have really been put in their corner by Labour u-turning on a u-turn.

What a farce! This is the sort of 'compromise' that leaves everyone unsatisfied....

... and low-income earners are still worse off.

Two minutes worth of close scrutiny and this whole 'mini-budget' falls apart. The only people to be 'wrong footed' by this are the Labour MPs who applauded it.

Wasn't one of the other reforms that came in this year an alignement of point where you stop paying NI with the start of the 40% tax band (I seem to think this was coming and and assume this was the reason for a not insignificant increase in my NI payments last month!) ... if so then does this mean there's going to be a reduction in NI when high rate limit goes down ... or do we now have a smal band where tax rate is 50%!

Anyway, just heard the main statement on radio and its clear AD was emphasising 22million better off and 4.3 got at least as much as they had lost ... gives the distinct impression that there will be some who are still out of pocket (or why wouldn't he say everyone who lost has got as least as much as they lost back) ... wonder how long it will take for labour backbenchers to work this one out>

Nick, it really does surprise me that you've fallen hook line and sinker for the blatent opportunism of the government. The whole reason, for about 5 minutes, the Tories were appearing to be on the back foot was because Osborne was only given the Chancellor's statement to prepare a response. That's precisely why the tax con trick worked in 2007, until the proposals were actually enacted this year. And, if the reports are true that election material was produced or distributed for the by election campaign before today outlining today's changes, then I'm afraid this Government is in very murky electoral waters indeed.

Borrow more money so that you can tell the clients what they want to hear and then your staff will be all be happy. So that’s how you wrong foot the opposition… Sorry can’t chat now, I’m off to the bank.

The chancellor stated previously that it would cost £7 billion to reverse the decisions. - Agreed?

The Chancellor states that his package will cost £2.7 billion. Agreed?

Therefore £4.3 billion is still being gouged out of the poorer. Agreed!

And this is for THIS YEAR ONLY! Next year we're back to fiscal drag and more stealth taxes.

At least in 2010 the Conservatives will be able to implement their own budget to correct the 2010 March give-away (bribery) budget that will be presented.

Hasn't Labour shot the Labour fox? How can Darling and Brown complain of unfunded tax cuts from the Tories!!

Nick - read the comments here - in term so of economic competence an ERM moment I think.

Mr Robinson, you always managed to find something to accuse the Tories of doing something wrong/sly/opportunistic.

I do worry about your impartiality.

I think for once everyone should be agreed the Government got the 10p wrong but have put it right.

It has nothing to do with the Tories.

Chancellor Alistair Darling has put up the personal tax allowance by £600 - meaning anyone earning up to about £41,350 will gain £120 this year. “At a cost of £2.7bn, I will increase the individual personal tax allowances by £600 to £6,035 for this financial year, benefiting all basic rate taxpayers under the age of 65,” he said.

Note that phrase - “all basic rate taxpayers under the age of 65?!!

This means the age allowances will be REDUCED by £600 so that state pensioners will get the same benefit as anyone earning over £41,350 - bugger all.

Why no mention of the losers in any of these articles? if you are a higher rate tax payer you are now worse off as the re-creation of the 10% band is paid for by the lowering of the higher band, so what you used to pay 20% for is now 40%. Therefore you pay 10% more tax on the difference. great...

Maybe its just me, but are all the pound signs broken in the blog comments here?

Nick,

Explain to me how, by forcing this inept government into a 'mini-Budget', the Tories have been 'wrong-footed'?

Nick - seems as if I am not the only one to question your response to this statement.

Am I missing something here... Point 24 of the Chancellors statement is "...I am therefore reducing the threshold at which an individual starts to pay tax at the higher rate by £600."

The previous threshold was £36,000 so I assume this is now being reduced to £35,400

In order to ensure that higher rate tax payers pay the same amount the threshold needs to be reduced by £1200

OH Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear!!

When Gordon Brown had his final flourish as Chancellor by reducing the basic rate of income tax, but failing to mention the abolition of the 10p rate, it was lauded as "pulling a rabbit from the hat."

Poor old Alastair Darling has now tried to repeat the trick... and produced a rather fetching Norwegian Blue, but as with all Norwegian Blues it is simply a Dead Parrot.

Hang on, Hang on, Hang on

From my figures, Darling is hitting the Higher Rate payers by a net minus £120.

Lower rate band raised by £600
=600 x 20p = £120

Higher rate band lowered by £600
= 600 x 40p = £240

Net loss = £120 - £240 = £120 worse off

So thats a lot of people paying a lot more tax.

True, or not ?

Once upon a time, Gordon Brown said that he would be "prudent" and only borrow to fund "investments".

How does that square with borrowing to fund a (currently) one-year adjustment in tax thresholds in order to compensate people he so royally shafted?

Brown bleats that, should any cuts be made to existing spending promises, public services would suffer.

Does he really not believe that the QANGOs he manages (at second hand) could not cope if they made a 1% efficiency cut?

That would deliver about £6Billion of savings.

Brown wanted a bonfire of the QANGOs when he came to office as Chancellor. Where exactly has he delivered?

Face it, Gordon. Blair walked at a good time.

Who would now offer you a £5Million advance to publish your book on "How I rescued the UK economy"?

Nick states "...to wrong foot the Tories since they have called for help for the 10p losers.." Not sure that I understand the logic. How can you be wrong footed when someone gives you what you are asking for?

Don't see how the Tories have been wrongfooted but Labour have just shot themselves in the foot-again. Under the original proposals someone earning £10000 a year would have paid £913 per year tax, under the new proposals they will pay £793 per year tax. Sounds good, until you realise that if the 10p rate still existed they would have paid £700.50 per year so they are still £92.50 per year worse off plus £2.7 billion is to be added to the nation's debt pile. If Labour think this will turn the tide they really are living in La-La land

Nick

I personally lost out by £250 when the 10p tax rate was doubled, joy of joys I am now getting £120 back between now and December.

The fact that this months installment of my largess in helping the well off get even more money, is coming out of my income now is apparently incidental.

I have no doubt the idiots behind Darling were cheering, just as they were when Brown doubled the starting rate of tax.

Let the Labour idiots cheer, but we have long memories, which will sustain us until the bungling bottler final sounds his death knell, sorry calls an election.

P.S. I am really glad your take home pay has gone up, you really deserve it.

Looks like the contributors to this discussion are doing a better job of examining the detail of this announcement than the journalists at the BBC.

What price proper scrutiny?

Lets hope the good people of Crewe and Nantwich have the good sense NOT to be suckered into voting for Labour.

Gordon Brown is clearly taking them for fools on this one.

Nick,

Thank god for the comments. Without them your blog post would read like a piece of unadulterated Labour spin.

So much for the impartial BBC.

But then again you lot have got your snouts in the public trough as much as Gordo and chums.

Yes the Labour members of Parliament should be happy and whatsmore they should be getting behind Brown.
Plus the fact it is high time they started to analyse all the guff Cameron has been putting out of late and attacking it instead of going numb.
And it is high time that the press and media in this Country started to question Cameron as so far he has had it all his own way, he has been on kami kazi raids trying to fool the unsuspecting.
Some of the fools in this Country can be bought by glib words but the press and media should not fall into that category or will they?
How about starting with Andrew Lansley's claim that any hospital that overspent it's allocation of cash would be allowed to go into receivership.
He said so on another channel and was not questioned or taken seriously enough by the political editor of that channel who seems to be in cahouts with the Tories.

It appears he hasn't shown by how much he's dropping the threshold for the top rate of tax - I'm assuming to make it netural he'll drop it by GBP300 (40 percent of GBP300 is GBP120). The point has to be made however that by lowering it by just these GBP300, he'll be taxing some people more ... so it's ok to give to the poor by taking from the rich? I don't think so ...

So to make these changes everyone will have to receive a new PAYE tax code plus every wages dept in the country will have to receive new tax tables??????????
How much will this cost?

I wrote to Alistair Darling before the budget to ask him how he was going to compensate the low paid for the loss of the 10% tax band
It was obvious that increases in the personal tax rates would be needed

I listened carefully to the Budget when it was broadcast to hear that he was going to do nothing
When he and Gordon were challenged about the unfairness of the changes we were treated as if we were idiots and did not understand the intracies of the budget, which was an absolute disgrace!

This is a fiasco of the first order and means that this government has no credibilty left

How the tories can put the country back on its feet will be a major problem as they sold most of it off when they were in power!

Perhaps we should all go and live in France!

Gordon Brown and his advisers are incompetent - that is the only conceivable explanation for their catastrophic 10p blunder. They should be thrown out at the first opportunity.

earlier today I posted that I respected Frank Field for sticking to his guns, I take that back he should not have apologised and it should be Gordon and Alistair that are saying sorry to the British public.

they now are attempting to buy a by election by making an announcement of policy. The fact that the new policy doesn't really fit the bill, leaving some people (actually whole nation as we shall be borrowing to do it) worse off rather than returning the poorest to the status quo is not on... and the fact it is one year only shows treasury haven't had time to properly consider it.

if, big if, rumour is true this change was leafleted this am in the by-election area then surely the matter needs an inquiry for it is proper such things should be first announced in the house and not to one group of voters who might (but probably wont if they have sense) change their intentions.

The Labour backbenchers seem to have greeted this with almost as much enthusiasm as they did Brown's announcement that he would abolish the 10 pence band.
We were told that change had back-footed the Tories too, weren't we?

It is indeed correct that he should reduce the higher rate threshold by the same £600. Higher rate tax payers are only paying 20p more in the pound on that last £600. They were paying 20p in the pound, and they are now paying 40p

600x(40-20)=120

Gordon Brown - from all that we know - was never a team player. There is no way that he will ever be able to lead the Labour Party back from the current situation.

He does not have any good will left - he has lost that in perhaps the most spectacular way in recent political history.

There is almost something tragic about it.

The events of today are further evidence of a real sense of panic at the centre of the government. They couldn't find it in them to offer an apology for their failings. Without some humility, they will never regain the trust of the people they have hurt.

Seeing Frank Field cave - again - was just too humiliating for words.

Of course it's electioneering. But wasn't this always the most blindingly obvious solution? And with the added benefit of simplifying the income tax system.

Now the staggeringly simple solution of tweaking the threshholds is announced I feel I am missing something about the real motive for the then Chancellor not doing it in the first place.

The half-baked effort at replacing the 10p rate with bureaucratic means tested 'credits' - you might guess I am one who would never benefit from them - always did sound more complicated.

Wasn't tweaking the allowances and threshholds always the way to encourage working and help lift the lowest paid out of poverty? What am I missing?

Was Brown determined to leave a poisoned chalice to his successor as Chancellor, to make himself look better by making his successor look a fool?

Was he, and the whole machine that supports him, so completely divorced from reality that nobody realised substantial numbers of people would lose out? Or maybe that was the intention?

Was the object deliberately to eschew simplicity in an ever more unintelligible tax system in favour of actively increasing its complexity?

I'm grateful to the Labour rebels who forced the issue. But what genuinely worrries me is the real motivation of the man who created this particular mess in the first place.

Some idiots do not understand simple maths Nick. First they complained that they were going to loose out when the 10% was removed, and now the same persons are saying that they pay 40% tax and are going to loose out, ha ha haj! Who do you lot think you are kidding?
If only our misery of non stop taxing under the Tories were solved in this way, we would not have suffered as much in them days, especially when on top of these, we used to have increases in VAT which went up from 8% to 17.5% with Capital gains tax up to 40%, and interest rates at 15% + the fuel escalator to bring our fuel price more then double that in Europe!
Those days are over guys!
Have you lot (which are now furious at Field's apology), forgotten what the people of this country had to endure?
What will you lot be saying when the now 20% basic rate is reduced to 18%? Oh, we were better off paying 24%? That is exactly where we started!

Nick, you're too young (I think)to recall the last time Labour bribed a by-election electorate. It was during the Hull North by-election in January 1966 that Barbara Castle confirmed the project to build the Humber Bridge, generating hundreds of jobs at a time when Harold Wilson held a precarious Commons majority. Unfortunately, it was a bridge from nowhere to nowhere - but in winning a marginal seat, Wilson went to the country later that year and won. If Labour win Crewe, I can't see Brown having the guts to follow suit!

Nick, Are you going to come clean on YOUR finances? I am sure that you must be paid directly or by back-hander to blatantly support this calamity Brown.

You are supposed to be impartial and this is the most blatant attempt at pro-labour spin I have ever seen on the BBC.

Through scrappily messing about with various threshholds, Labour have managed to INCREASE taxes and leave over 5 milion of the poorest working and retired people worse off by over 110 pounds, (rather than 232) and you attempt to spin this as GOOD news? They have made a bad situation worse and you think we should all start giving credit to labour?

Labour MP's smiling? well that shows their true colours then. Kicking the poor and middle classes when they are down is par for the course with that lot. They launch wars based on blatant lies, double taxed on the poorest whilst bailing out billionaire bankers. This kind of maliscious and malignant betrayal of their core support always seems to please them. Nick, you should be exposing this not actively trying to cover it up!

This adds insult to injury and if you do not report that during this evenings broadcasts I may be looking to launch official proceedings against the BBC in general and you personally for breaching the BBC guidelines.

I sent a comment on this at 1740 - where is it?

i must admit having seen what the chancelleris going to do to redress the 10p tax fiasco, that this special allowance to be paid to the lower paid, is only applicable to the under 65s

i, like thousands of other pensioners in this country, are surely, amognst the lower paid, so why , are we not to benefit for this rethink re the 10p. .

unfortunately perhaps we dont have the loudest voices, and as usual are bottom of the

heap

Is phony concern for the low payed not electioneering? Especially a party that didn't believe in the minimum wage and wants the low payed to work more than 48hrs a week on a lower hourly rate to earn a decent wage.

It is not in their best interest to reduce the differential between rich and poor as it will devalue their rich supporters money.

The phony concern shown was all about undermining the Labour vote in the council and Mayoral elections because the conservatives have nothing positive to offer other than PR and hypocrisy.

I wonder how many times Nick Robinson will be accused of left wing bias on this page?

This move reminds me of a bankrupt individual who borrows from a money lender to pay off his other debts thereby getting himself further and further into financial trouble. The P.M. is borrowing in order to get himself out of a political hole! It's a cheap trick and fools noone!

I haven't seen any accusations of left wing bias

I have seen plenty of people who believe that Mr Robinson is too quick to post the line being spun to him.

He should be better than that

In 2007 the police pay rise was staged because the additional 30 million pounds would have been inflationary.

On 13 May it is announced that inflation has gone from 2.5% to 3% using the ludicrously understated CPI.

On 13 May Darling announces 2.7 billion pound tax cut.

By my sums, that is nearly 100 times as much as the inflationary pay rise that was withheld.

So my question is, were Labour lying about the reason for staging the pay rise or are we in for 1970's style inflation?

#76 - Shadwell the Old

I agree, your analysis of the higher rate payment is correct and my worries of actually paying more are unfounded (#62)

I shall now have a Frank Field moment and then go for a long lie down.

Thanks

I wonder what we will see in the small-print which no doubt will emerge over the next few days or weeks.

The problem with any budget announcement from this government is that the full picture is never given.

Thus some in the media are still repeating the (false) mantra that in the March budget everyone earning over about £18000 was better off.

That was the headline, but the reality was different because the rise in the NI threshold was announced in the following days.

This meant that all "how does the budget affect you" publications in the aftermath of the budget were simply wrong.

It makes me wonder if the government's financial announcements and budgets should only be reported a few days later, when the small print attracts the light of day!

I cannot believe this.
The moment he dropped the 10% rate (which was no more than a gimmick), it was obvious all he had to do was to raise the basic tax threshold, and reduce the 40% threshold to make up the difference. for weeks they said that was far to complex!!
wonderful what a bad week can do!

for reference i pay 40%, but i prefer this cheap fix to another whelter of gordon's "non tax ncreasing solutions"

78 asks why on earth Brown makes everything so complicated. (1) it's second nature to him - he can't help micro-managing, because he knows best and has never lived on Planet Earth like the rest of us and (2) because of the way targets are measured. By 'giving' money to low-paid families, so their incomes are constant, and increasing tax on poor single people, for instance, he can announce that more children have been lifted out of poverty - because 'poverty' is defined as a relative term, if he makes everyone else poorer fewer children live on less than the 40% (I think) of median earnings defined as the poverty line - even if they are no better off. In my view it's pretty dishonest.

So, Darling will have to find or borrow £2.7 billion to put right Brown's mistake.

It's odd that Nick think this panic measure makes the Tories look "wrong footed".

Let us not forget that when Brown sold off half of our gold reserves at the wrong time, at the wrong price, the cost to the taxpayer has been estimated at £2 billion.

It's a pity he didn't hang onto it for a rainy day!

Sorry to say the former "Iron Chancellor" (as the BBC referred to him) is looking a bit rusty.

Nick -

You are not the only one - but I must object to your use of the expression "giveaway budget" here.

The State is not giving anything away - it is condescending to steal slightly less of its subjects' own money.

The real "giveaway" happens when the stolen money is spent.

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

All that this furore reinforces is the realisation that most working people are 'employees' and therefore totally at the mercy of some politician in Government e.g .Brown/Darling.

That is not this Englishman's idea of freedom.

The late great John Lennon brutally delineated the plight of working people 'You're still ... peasants as far as I can see".

Nothing has changed since Lennon penned that.

I'm puzzled by the Chancellor's use of the word 'household'.

What does it mean when he says:

"The remaining 1.1m households will see their loss at least halved.

"In other words, 80% of households are fully compensated, with the remaining 20% compensated by at least half."

Is a 'household' a different unit to an individual? What the heck is it?

#96

Why, he means precisely what he has decided it means, of course (see Alice in Wonderland).

In my sometime career as a systems engineer, I noticed that 'thresholds' often cause difficulties.

So generally speaking, the less thresholds, the better.

Given the current problems, this rule would certainly be usefully applied to the tax system.

Read the comments of kiwilegs and you will find the true definition of the term 'deluded'.

As a Tax Consultant I am still not able to grasp how Mr Darling thinks that by removing the 10p tax rate and giving back £120 back can make any sense.

In 2002/03 10p Tax Rate = £192
In 2003/04 10p Tax Rate = £196
In 2004/05 10p Tax Rate = £202
In 2005/06 10p Tax Rate = £209
In 2006/07 10p Tax Rate = £215
In 2007/08 10p Tax Rate = £223
In 2008/09 10p Tax Abolished

Firstly it is like taking £223 and giving back £120 not to take into account that in 2008/09 the amound would actually have been around £230, so people are still worse off by around £110.

The only solution is to increase everyones tax codes to allow for £230 in real terms to be received by people in the Basic Rate Band to benefit, so the "allowance" given of £600 is not adequate and the increase sould be £1150 x 20% = £230

This would be the correct solution to be applied and HMRC can do this without much difficulty. The GOVT to need to cover some admin costs, but they caused the problem in the first place. I want the BBC to put this to the Treasury Minister and see if this is viable. I support those who will suffer for the change, especially as the £120 is not going to be paid for 6 moths, how are ordinary people going to manage with higher fuel costs, higher mortgagees, a 100% increase in Gas and about 92% increase in Electricity and the increase in CTAX and Parking fines, increase in utility bills, such as water rates. This is increasing poverty for the most vulnerable people in society.

"It is high time that the press and media in this Country started to question Cameron as so far he has had it all his own way, he has been on kami kazi raids trying to fool the unsuspecting.
Some of the fools in this Country can be bought by glib words but the press and media should not fall into that category or will they?"

Yet another ridiculous post by kiwilegs. It is he that is the fool for believing everything he is told by a weak, ineffective, indecisive, incompetent excuse for a leader!!! The Press and The Media have tth public mood exactly right!