You could have knocked me down with a feather

3 years after the even they have an agreed strategy ? is that good news

11 billion of efficiency saving , BUT 7 to be re-cylced to spend ion the bit she has just cut , saving £4billion

if he had started 3 years ago on his figures that would have saved around £12Billion

SO are they saying that they have been profligate in the past ?

More smoke and mirrors, think there is an lot of double counting going on on both side of the equaution, resulting in a majic reduction of the increase of the debt,

So they have only just managed to slwo the increase of the debt ?

What about the interest going up in the debt during this period.

How many years is it goig to take to get the debt protrata back to the pre 2007 level ?

£19 billion of tax rise may actually harm growth, go if I aint got it I cannot spend it and I can spend better than GB.

£25 billion from strong Growth, as if that does not happen which is the most likely opion , see no more than 1% per years for years or a double dip ?

So nothing to do with sorting out the structural debt and the 6+million on some sort of benifit then ?

Brown was a bad Chancellor.

The stastics prove that. Increased public debt during what should have been a period of growth?

I have no idea why others could believe his abject management of the UK economy suggests he could be the politician to deliver a way forward.

The man has been a disaster.

And Blair allowed him to do it.

A Plague on this awful regime.

I don't really care who manages the UK. But Brown has been a real loser
and infantile party wonk.

I don't really mind who gets power. Just hope however it may be doesn't waste so much money.

I believe we have wasted BILLIONS on the NHS and "Education" because a Brown driven agenda assumed that more money equalled better delivery.

One day this government will wake up and realise that there are millions of Indians using the old-fashioned UK eductional structure who make our boys and girls look really, truly silly.

In announcing hard cuts before the election, it sounds like New Labour’s plan is to force voters into asking themselves whether they really want even harsher cuts (which people assume a Tory government will bring). The assumption is that voters will be so shocked and afraid of further cuts that they will vote Labour to avoid a Conservative budget.

Rather clever, you have to give Mr. Darling that.

www.governing-principles.com

Are they expecting to inflate there way out of this then
I here the printing presses starting to roll again ?

No tax rises and how many have we had in the last 13 years when in a boom situation but in a bust there will be no more , that almost worth voting labour in to see them have a budget with no tax rises for 4 years.

They could try cutting the TV licence from 145 to 50 that would give me more money to spend on worth while "economic" activity

So, they've laid out their stall now.........at long last some speculation will silenced.

I have but two questions:

1. How can they be so sure that strong growth will be achieved?
2. What 'difficult decisions about National Insurance contributions' have been made? Are they going to increase them, and thereby increase costs to employers and reduce disposable income for employees?

With the fuel taxes going to go sky high in April, how on earth is this going to help people live and employers survive in already excrutiatingly difficult financial times?

I just hope there is more to help UK business kick start, or none of the 'strong growth' Alistair Darling is basing his budget on will happen.

I do wonder if, having thought the Conservatives were going to win by a landslide some months ago, Labour was following a scorched earth policy. Now that there may well be a hung parliament, they're in a little bit of a tizzy trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

it seems quite clear buy this and other announcements that the labour party are playing rough and lose with the rules on "air time", where they can announce as part of the HMG and get lost of coverage but the other cannot get the same to "announce" but only respond.

Thus by not calling it yet GB is affording himself a great advantage over the others.

"They forecast that £25bn will come from growth (assuming a strong recovery in the years ahead)"

And if there isn't a strong recovery?

"Gordon Brown told me yesterday that he would not apologise for the deficit."

Well, theres a surprise. He is pathalogically incapable of apologising for anything that he is responsible for.

"The Conservatives reply that, in fact, the deficit stems from irresponsible spending and borrowing leading up to the crisis."

Whilst not maybe 100% accurate (bank bailout notwithstanding), they may just have a point.

And as for Byrnes quote: "we've made some difficult decisions about National Insurance contributions"... great. The tax on jobs. Just what we all need, employers and employees.

What is it that could have knocked you down with a feather Nick? That Darling seems to have prevailed? That maybe there was no truth in the "Labour investment/Tory cuts" blather we heard so much of at PMDAQ over the last 8 months?

"Now, of course, the Conservatives, who say that the deficit needs to be cut quicker, must be planning to cut even more than £31bn which they, too, have not specified (though they have announced plans for a wider pay freeze than the governments and a delay in the pensionable age)."

Must? Must? Says who? You?

"They forecast that £25bn will come from growth (assuming a strong recovery in the years ahead), £19bn will come from tax rises - which have already been announced, but which have not yet been implemented - and £38bn will come from spending cuts - which have not been announced in any detail. £7bn of those cuts will also come from efficiency savings."

Thats pretty optimistic for growth, considering we're on the horns of a dilemma, if your colleague Steph is to be believed and that the stimulus is going to end in a month, not to mention other events. Seven billion efficiency savings? Seven Billion?? And, efficiency savings is just another misnomer for "cuts". What kind of efficiency savings? Renegotiating outsourcing deals? Cant see it adding upto 7bn somehow. Turning the lights off in the office when everyone goes home?

No. efficiency savings means more civil serpents being shown the door. Which is going to mean more aggro from the unions. Efficiency savings indeed. Just say what they are and have done with it... cuts. Nobody seems to have any trouble saying it when its the opposition.

Pardon my scepticism as to whether this is going to work or not.

You're right in saying that it leaves questions to be asked from the others who have to put some flesh on the bones. Labour are trying to draw the sting by getting their figures out first.

We shall soon see whether it works or not.

#7 agree rather glever from politics point of view , but is that what the country really needs GB and AD playing games.

what is required is clever cut and system reforms not politicing

You could have knocked me down with a feather

That's how I felt when I heard that the budget due in two weeks was not going to be a "big give-away". The news came from no less an authority than the chancellor himself - speaking tonight to my BBC colleague Hugh Pym.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

What kind of false story is this Nick

This is today's Labour spin line

not going to be a "big give-away".

I wasn't surprised about this as I heard it today on the BBC's Daily Politics. Liam Byrne gave this information out.

Now your faining shock to gain more attention for Labours announcement.

Or

You really don't know what going on in the BBC or Westminster.

Which is it? But something is not right here.

There are two problems:
The government is somewhere over the rainbow regarding growth.
The government got us into this mess but don't think they're to blame.
The government will be a great deal less than truthful about the solutions and ring fencing secure money for services.
I voted labour last time and look what's happened to me since.

"we've made some difficult decisions about National Insurance contributions"

Oh dear. Is that code for "NI is going to double after the election"?

7. At 8:15pm on 11 Mar 2010, Governing Principles wrote:
"In announcing hard cuts before the election, it sounds like New Labour’s plan is to force voters into asking themselves whether they really want even harsher cuts (which people assume a Tory government will bring). The assumption is that voters will be so shocked and afraid of further cuts that they will vote Labour to avoid a Conservative budget.
Rather clever, you have to give Mr. Darling that."

While it would be naive to rule out political calculation in the policy, there are also judgements about the timing and extent of cuts which are substantive.A problem with cuts which are premature and large is that it may exarcerbate the problem with which it is meant to deal by restricting output and employment,reducing tax revenue and increasing debt/deficit.This is the orthodix Keynesian position as spelt out recently by Stieglitz and other Nobel laureates of a Keynesian persausion.

A pet political theme of mine is, don't laugh, honesty in Government.

So, I am looking for Government to at least try and behave in a fairly straightforward way in its dealings with us, the English public.

But what have we here?

Andrew Neil: "So there will be no need to increase VAT to say 20%?"

Byrne: "We don't see a need to do that because we've made some difficult decisions about National Insurance contributions."

Unfortunately, Mr. Byrne illustrates just how hard it is for Government to be honest, at least regarding tax.

By now, there can be hardly anybody left in England who does not realise that 'National Insurance' has been stretched and perverted by politicians such that it no longer bears any resemblance to the hypothecated tax that it was orginally intended to be.

We English need to give up on the same old, same old, Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems and give some political newcomers, who might actually be honest, a chance.

Nick

Given that the government is legally committed to making £57,000,000,000 worth of tax rises and spending cuts to deal with Britain's budget deficit, only the "economically illiterate" could imagine that there was any scope for a big give-away budget.

Yet

"You could have knocked you down with a feather" that there isn't going a big give-away budget?

This knocks me down, the size of the UK's Debt and Liabilities is £2500,000,000,000,000

Democracy.

We have a chance to make history.

All we need is to grasp the true meaning of Democracy.

Consign labour to the political knackers yard.

Vote strategically in every constituencey to ensure that Labour lose as many seats as possible.

Democracy is Brown's nemesis.

Let's ensure that he goes down in history as the most disasterous Prime Minister of all time.

Let's ensure that Democracy is Brown's downfall.

16. At 9:04pm on 11 Mar 2010, davidisherwood wrote:
There are two problems:
"The government is somewhere over the rainbow regarding growth."

Mr.Brown has said repeatedly the recovery is fragile,that`s why there is a debate about the timing and extent of cuts.

There is a world economic crisis,"A once in a hundred years tsunami" In which "The banking system was hours from collapse". I know its hard to get your head around that,and there is a primitive instinct to blame evil forces for problems beyond our control.

Capitalism is subject to sudden convulsions which are the unintended consequences of millions of individual decisions about saving,investment and consumption.Unlike the 30s we have avoided catastrophe by prudent management.Don`t believe the noise coming from the ignorant and prejudice.Think!

NICK,

It is the BBC's duty to identify where the electorate can make best use of strategic votes.

This is an opportunity for real democratic change.

Lead the way.

Give the people the strategic information that they require to make the best possible use of their vote.

"Liam Byrne, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury" - That's an oxymoron, isn't it?

Nick

if you were knocked down with a feather tonight?

Did you not understand Liam Byrne at lunch?

Or have you fallen into a worm hole through time?

Democracy

The word that Labour Fears

Democracy

Nemesis of Politicians and Peers,

Democracy

Rids us of labour's debt arears,

Democracy

Ruins their Political careers.

Three cheers for Democracy .....

10. At 8:21pm on 11 Mar 2010, Tigerjayj wrote:
So, they've laid out their stall now.........at long last some speculation will silenced.
I have but two questions:
1. How can they be so sure that strong growth will be achieved?
2. What 'difficult decisions about National Insurance contributions' have been made? Are they going to increase them, and thereby increase costs to employers and reduce disposable income for employees?

They can`t,Brown has said the economy is fragile,international trade is depressed and we are the start of a world economic crisis.

Rises of NI contributions are a tax increase and contrary to orthodox keynesian thinking which is to reduce taxes in a recession so as to increase consumption and ultimately investment as demand rises.

Apart from signalling to the money market that the government is serious about cutting the deficit, I don`t see the economic logic behind it and await Mr.Darling`s explanation on the 24th with interest.

#6 fairlyopenmind

Your point about education is spot on,sometimes the old ways are the best
ways.Evidenced by what I saw in Sri Lanka with their young people,wanting
to learn,to better themselves and bring prosperity to their country.

#9 IR35_SURVIVOR

Yep,the TV licence does need cutting if not culling!Its a tax,an unfair
tax,irrespective of ability to pay.

All these cuts and supposed efficiencies.....hows that going to pan out
with Labour and Unite joined at the hip? Er.....anybody?

I don't believe this efficiency savings stuff, not in the year 1010/1011. True efficiency savings take an amount of study, rationalisation, reorganisation and the final report(s) will need negotiation, pay-offs etc. If all goes well, any savings will take 2-4 years to percolate through and will cost a lot. Politicians always overlook the cost of change - making changes, that is - and this cost must be deducted from the projected savings. In the scale we're talking of here I doubt there'd be any tangeable savings in 4 or 5 years.

This is something that Brown and his mate Balls just don't understand. Consider the costs of the many changes incurred in experimenting with education. Have they achieved any financial benefits directly or indirectly (like increasing the value per pupil, since we measure everything in terms of money these days)? Could they even report on the costs of the changes? I bet not.

As for "strong growth"... purleeeeze!. Look at Darling's forecasts to date.

Mind, I don't trust Osborne any more. Here he is, almost new out of university with his economics textbook, clearing up a mess like the UK is in? Uh....I don't think so...

Oh how we would laugh.

Witnessing Labour whine and wimper.

Imagine, a whole country motivated and mobilised to vote strategically.

Everyone exercising their democratic rights; but not randomly, instead in a coordinated and strategic way.

Everyone who is incensed by the failure of the last 13 years deserves this chance to make a real difference.

BBC - as a broadcaster for the People ... hear our cry and lead the way.

Provide the strategic facts and let the people decide.

MOBILISE THE MASSES.......

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

29. At 9:54pm on 11 Mar 2010, doctor bob

At least Georgie Boy has an economic text book.

Gordon Brown was a Political Historian - OMG - a Historian - yes its true - A HISTORIAN.

I think that fact explains the mess we are in.

If your car has broken down you don't take it to a historian to get it repaired, you take it to a mechanic.
To a skilled tradesman.

Unfortunately we have too many of these artsy fartsy types in positions that should be occupied by Scientists, Engineers, Mathematicians or experts from other real world disciplines.

Engineers, Scientists, and Mathematicians have built the world around us.
It's a Political historian and his Postman that brought it crashing down around our ears.

Ask yourself, how many politicians does it take to change a light bulb?
Well that depends if they can claim it on expenses or not.

Nuff Said.

Its a good thing that the United Kingdom Budget Deficit is a Global problem.

57 billion GBP is needed with 31 billion GBP to be recovered by National Insurance income and non-frontline service cuts ......no doubt the Globe will find the other 26 billion GBP as it caused the problem!

I think we'll have to keep our fingers crossed that the United Kingdom growth is as good as the Labour Party expect or the country will be in deep ack.

Oh, I forgot, the United Kingdom is already up-to-its-neck in the deep end of the slime pit ..... perhaps Labour are hoping the swing-voter won't notice the stench of hypocrisy!

27. At 9:48pm on 11 Mar 2010, bryhers


Apart from signalling to the money market that the government is serious about cutting the deficit, I don`t see the economic logic behind it and await Mr.Darling`s explanation on the 24th with interest.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I don't think is about economics.

This is all about trying to put the Tories on a spot that Labour think they can portray as moving position again.

There is no policy based on economic theory aimed at balancing the book.

Labour only want to half the deficit the means we will still be borrowing £90,000,000,000 more than we earn after they have finished their hard hitting 4 year policy.

So the rate of decent into Terra ferma will only be halved we will still be heading into the ground at mach 1 instead of mach 2.

Keynes must be spinning in his grave to be linked with this nonsense.

Let's look at James Gordon Brown's early education.
Was he a normal student, taught in a class of 30 other children?

Brown was educated first at Kirkcaldy West Primary School where he was selected for an experimental fast stream education programme which took him two years early to Kirkcaldy High School for an academic hothouse education taught in separate classes.

Oh how good old Gordy understands the plight of the common man.

It puts into perspective the ranting and raving of this "HOT HOUSE FLOWER" when he refers to old etonians.

Imagine, that the world descended into chaos tomorrow.

The engineer would build our shelter and provide ways for us to defend ourselves.
The scientist would develop ways to provide us with clean water and energy.
The mathematician would work out our statistical odds of survival and help the engineer and scientist rebuild civilisation.

What would happen to the Political Historian and his postman?

They would try their best to tell us what to do and in doing so be outcasts.

The Political Historian has nothing to offer.
He has no skills, no way of contributing other than in the most menial way.

It puts things into perspective.

No big give-away"?

Could it be that Labour now sees there is a possibility that they will somehow be able to cling to office after the election, and might actually have to clean up their own mess?

If the Tories were heading for certain victory, you can be sure Labour would have gone for a give-away budget as part of their previous 'scorched earth' policy. But now they see they might still be in power after the next election, they cannot afford to be so reckless.

Labours deliberate wrecking policies under Brown amount to treason.

This will be an election manifesto for the economy, not a 'budget' in any sense of the word.

Therefore any view of a political party should be seen as an electioneering message. Due balance should be given to the other main parties to set out their stall.

The question that needs to be asked is why was left so it late to announce the 'budget' date with such a short time between announcement and 'budget day'?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-did-brown-leave-budget-so-late.html

In industry we perform "Business Process Analysis".
We examine our processes and methods to eliminate waste.

The term "Non value added" is often used where we find a task that is either wasteful or that does not contribute to the process under investigation.

We constantly refine our processes to eliminate waste and "Non Value added" tasks.

If we now compare Industry to Government: -

Refurbishment of a Minister's office would be considered "Non Value added".
A subsidised tax free bar in the commons would be considered "Non Value added" (personally i would prefer my MP to be Sober).
The pointless ceremony associated with parliament again would be considered "Non value added".

Give me access to Parliament, the Lords, the Ministries, all other Government Departments and any number of Public services and I would save the nation an absolute fortune purely by eliminating waste and "Non Value added" processes.

Final example -

When I correspond with my local MP or, on occasion the Treasury, - the response is on very expensive embossed, watermarked and headed paper.
What is wrong with using standard A4 paper?
A perfect example of tax payer funded waste.

The government debt position is quite interesting. It's the backdrop against which the election will be fought; but is it an election issue? I'm not so sure it is.

I assume "knock me down with a feather" is an attempt at irony. Not a very good one, but still an attempt.

And Saga, stop being deliberately provocative!

I am so fed up with TV News Reporters attempting to be the news, make the news, give opinions on the news (that we dont realy want). Come on Nick report, tell it as it is, as it happened, not as you think it happened! When will we have BBC NEWS back as a NEWS progame and not an attempt at being an entertainment progame. We have X factor and dancing on ice for that...dont we! Nick dear chap you work in media and so do I so do your job as a BBC reporter and stand there and tell us what happened, not what you or your imaginary sources think or would like to happen....Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

#38 that was part of my point in #11, The budget is going to become one giant one-side election message from Labour NOT HMG, the others will not have the same time to responsed or even get the same amount of coverage.

Announcements here there and everywhere, never seen GB out and about so much, he has started the election campaign geting the coverage but not actually called it, putting all the other at a disadvantage as the BBC is not bound by the same rules when not in election mode.

So we have a budget announced 2 week before it happens
like election call 2 weeks later
election run-in of the very minimum

All at the very last moment at the end of a 5 year term.

You can see why they spent so much time on LA it was just electionering and the BBC was the mouth piece

New labour and GB fear the will of the people.

#40 yeah the main issue is going to be there (dissastorous) record in the last 13 years 5 wars etc

I wrote:

"Apart from signalling to the money market that the government is serious about cutting the deficit, I don`t see the economic logic behind it and await Mr.Darling`s explanation on the 24th with interest."

PCG explained:34
I don't think is about economics.

"This is all about trying to put the Tories on a spot that Labour think they can portray as moving position again."

It is of course about economics.There is anxiety about inflation so a rise in NI contributions reduces consumer demand.Keynes himself saw this as a possible consequence of a growing economy 70 years ago.He never envisaged it as a consequence of price rises attendant on currency movements because of a weak economy being unable to service its debt.

I think many of us are expecting more of a "takeaway" budget which takes away more of our income and savings rather than one that gives anything.

The budget is probably New Labour's last chance to persuade us to vote for them, but it will be interesting to see how they use it.

Will they finally get round to fleshing out the details as to how we will not only address the financial deficit but also do so without damaging the economy? I doubt it because that leave them open to criticism prior to the elction which might reduce the number of Labour voters.After all, their strategy has been to dramatically discredit the strategies of the other parties.

Will they make generous promises hoping to bribe the public for their vote,in the full knowledge that they can claw eveything back once they are in power again? It's possible but the public are a lot wiser now and
have learned how manipulative New Labour can be to get what it wants.The man offering a sweetie and a ride in his car does not always have your interests at heart.

Will they create a poisoned chalice situation whereby they present the Conservatives or incoming party with a near impossible task of addressing the deficit & managing the economy without the need for draconian measures which will be deeply unpopular? This is possible but it would demonstrate that New Labour has put party before country, sacrificing the nation to prove that, as they predicted, the incoming party was not up to the task.It's the "if only you had voted for us the nation would not have this problem" strategy.

It's possible that they may use all or none of these strategies or indeed that they may come up with something completely different.It will be interesting to see what they come up with and if it has been logically thought through because generally New Labour's lack of strategic planning often results in New Labour shooting itself in the foot.

#44 please use your brain at bit more , I know you are quite educated from your english prose, but if this ship goes down you will go down with it too.

it all about playing with election timing and taking a huge number of labour supoorters for granted many I fear will vote BNP in disgust
by the way they have been marginalised by "their" governement.

if these were the REAL changes that were requried why did they not start 2/3 years ago NOT at the last minute for political advantage.

You cannot the Tories are saying cut cut cut for political advantage as that level of honesty might cause them trouble with the electorate that have been dumb down over the last 13 years

Not to expect a giveaway budget...

Well shiver my timbers and knock me down with a stick of rhubarb.

Thanks for that clarification chancellor, I was rather counting on a free satellite dish, all the lager I can drink and a doubling of child benefit for young waynetta monkey.

May I ask why you felt compelled to tell us this? Do you think we don't know the current situation or is it you think your supporters are expecting giveaways?

I was always taught I had to work and save to get what I wanted and if I couldn't afford it then I went without. Silly me, I should have waited for one of those giveaways, after all it's only fair, Lord Ashcroft has probably got ten.

And while we are on the subject of reducing the deficit (let alone balancing the budget) could you care to explain when the value of the pound has plummented why is it we have an ever worsening balance of payments? We should be exporting our way to economic prosperity yet the opposite is happening. Is it that the industrial capacity of this once great manufacturing country is so damaged that it simply cannot make the products we want so now we still have to import but it costs us so much more? Can't see how that's going to help this deficit reduction...

What's needed is a lot more public servants on even more generous pension payments, plus the 'importing' of yet more folk to help justify building over greenfield sites for affordable housing (though there is absolutely no truth that an expanding population is having an environmental impact) and railway lines to get pols between constituencies and press-release readers between studios more quickly.

And I am pretty sure campaigning on this basis will appeal to a voting bloc which, in the fractured farce that is our democratic process, will result in a small % of a small turnout that can be spun as a massive mandate for 13 more great years.... of...?

Re what Liam Byrne said.
The thing is I don't really care what Liam Byrne says. The thing is I don't really care what any of our politicians have got to say because, the thing is, they say what they feel is politic today and they do what they feel is best for themselves tomorrow. Liam Byrne is nothing more than a consultant (He worked for Accenture) and, worse, a merchant banker (He worked for Rothschild) and we all know the wonderful contribution those 2 groups have made to life in general. I wonder if he's had his cappucino yet? I know that he'll have his soup around midday and his espresso at 3. That's as far as my interest in him gets and it falls away pretty rapidly once I know it.

Is it only me or are our politicans still not getting it. It was only bad luck they said, what they mean was they would have got away with it if they had not been caught. The sad thing is if you or I were to have done this from the our employer or the benefits agency we would have had the book thrown at us. But it is only "Bad Luck". Perhaps it is the way they said it but I for one do not think so. This was not a simple error unless they had amnesia for more than 11 months. What I also find troubling is that they only lived in Brentford, not actually a long commute so why did they need a second home? A close friend of mine who actually sat in the house said that a lot of members saw a second home as a retirement pot.

Married MPs Alan and Ann Keen broke expenses rules by claiming for a second home when their other house was boarded up, a committee of MPs has ruled. The couple did not live in their "main" home in Brentford, west London, for 11 months while it was being refurbished. But MPs on the standards committee said they were victims of "bad luck" and had got approval from the Fees Office.

Just goes to show that GB only cared about his job and does not love this country like Churchill Did.

Some observations regarding your post Nick:

1. The massive borrowing started TEN YEARS ago, not at the start of the current recession.

2. So much for Brown's taunts of Labour Investment vs Tory cuts. Was Brown lying then? We were in recession when he uttered those taunts. Or is he plain incompetent, and couldn't see we were in recession when everyone else could?

3. Tory cuts risk damaging the recovery? Like saying to a patient we will only give you half your medicine in case you don't like the taste. If we are bankrupt, then cuts need to be made, however much they may hurt in the short term.

As for the comment from the Chancellor about there being too much 'econmic uncertainty' to spell out other savings - this is rubbish! What do we pay these losers - sorry, politicians - for? Of course there is uncertainty, twas always thus. But you still plan for the long haul. If events (dear boy) happen, then you may change your plans accordingly, but you just don't simply sit on your hands doing nothing. If that is labour's modus operandi, then why do we even need a government in the first place? (Come to think of, maybe that's not such a bad idea!)

hat recovery? Brown and Co will grasp at any thing to stop drowning in their own incompetance. £25Mill from an anticipated recovery? I dont think so. Efficiency savings-Labour cant even spell that let alone do it!
Liam Byrne? Another Brown syncophant whispering in the leaders ear. Darling-a dupe-he will do as Gordon says.Balls and Cooper-cynical jokers who will soon be looking for a job. The rest of the Cabinet-has beens that never were. What an utter farce Brown leads.

Hold on guys, there's a bit of absolutely classic New Labour Spin going on here, and I wouldn't want any of us to fall for it.

Time and again, they lower expectations by leaking stories about how everything is going to be dreadful. Then when the reality is merely bad, and not dreadful, everyone is very pleased because events have exceeded their expectations.

Remember this happened a couple of weeks ago: we were fed all the stories about Gordon being a bully and throwing Nokias about, and then when he appeared before the Chilcot enquiry without actually shouting or throwing anything, we were all supposed to believe he'd behaved in a "statesmanlike" way.

So it will be with the budget. Sure, we all know it's not going to be a massive give-away. But stories like this are designed to ensure that our expectations are right off the end of the pessimism scale. I confidently predict that the budget will include one or two small give-away items. They won't be big ones, because they are unaffordable. But give-aways nonetheless.

Then, because we are all expecting no give-aways at all, we are all supposed to be extremely grateful and vote for another 5 years of New Labour.

Don't fall for it.

Call me a cynic, but my guess is that Labour are currently down playing expectations in the budget so when they do their Santa trick and pull a few (minor) gifts out of their sack the media and the public will lap it up!

Maybe they will reduce the base rate of tax by a penny (paid for by lowering the tax free allowance)

If the public go into the budget expecting hardships these cheap gifts might look like top of the range toys rather than cheap tat from the market.

However, if Labour do manage to become the biggest party after the election my guess is that all promises are out of the window and the tax rises (or brand new taxes to avoid actually increasing old taxes) will be announced.

One other rant - when I raised the question of manifestos being legally binding there appeared to little appetite for it. Promise the world and deliver the Isle of Dogs. (I must say there is nothing wrong with the Isle of Dogs). But now we see and hear Brown say the reducing the deficit is legally binding contract. You see they can do it if they want or they have been forced into a corner.
Rant over.......

The government had built up a structural deficit well before the financial storm, in fact going back to 2002.

The incompetence began with ramping up salaries in the public sector at a time we could not afford it combined with Gordon Brown's miraculous restatement of the beginning of the economic cycle to justify his sleight of hand.

We are now all paying the price for this incompetence yet sagamix and his newlabour apologist chums think, as usual, that charity beigns in someone else's home not theirs.

T'was ever thus with labour; I'll spend the money someone else can pick up the tab.

This is the dividing line between the tories and newlabour; newlabour think everyone else but them should pay for their incompetence.

And my, how we are paying.

This is why it is the election issue - because newlabour want you not them to pick up the bills for their incompetence.

It is precisely the attitude of sagamix and his chums that has got us into this mess 'I'm not paying my little bit because it won't make any difference' .. Well let's all take the same view shall we and just not pay any tax at all. I'll put on my tax return that newlabour apologists won't pay for the deficit so why should I.

So the elction issues are: debt, hypocrisy and the lies that got us into this mess.

Call an election.

The government had built up a structural deficit well before the financial storm, in fact going back to 2002.

The incompetence began with ramping up salaries in the public sector at a time we could not afford it combined with Gordon Brown's miraculous restatement of the beginning of the economic cycle to justify his sleight of hand.

We are now all paying the price for this incompetence yet sagamix and his newlabour apologist chums think, as usual, that charity beigns in someone else's home not theirs.

T'was ever thus with labour; I'll spend the money someone else can pick up the tab.

This is the dividing line between the tories and newlabour; newlabour think everyone else but them should pay for their incompetence.

And my, how we are paying.

This is why it is the election issue - because newlabour want you not them to pick up the bills for their incompetence.

It is precisely the attitude of sagamix and his chums that has got us into this mess 'I'm not paying my little bit because it won't make any difference' .. Well let's all take the same view shall we and just not pay any tax at all. I'll put on my tax return that newlabour apologists won't pay for the deficit so why should I.

So the election issues are: debt, hypocrisy and the lies that got us into this mess.

Call an election.

#57, Chris London:

Excellent point about legally binding manifestos. I would be thoroughly in favour of that. It's a serious limitation of democracy that we don't actually know what we're voting for.

However, when you say that they have made reducing the deficit a legally binding contract, I'm afraid you have fallen for the spin. They say it's legally binding, but it is not legally binding in any meaningful sense, for 2 reasons.

First, if the deficit isn't halved, what happens? If it were really legally binding, then government ministers should be held personally accountable and either fined or imprisoned or something like that. Nothing like that was included in the legislation. AFAIK, there are no sanctions whatsoever if the deficit isn't halved.

Second, any future government could repeal the legislation anyway.

It's clear that the electorate by and large do not blame Labour for the recession. If they did, the gap in the polls would be far larger than it is. The modest lead that the Tories currently have is entirely down to the British public's general reluctance to have one party in power for too long.

The fact that Robin and his Tory apologist chums blame Labour for the recession is entirely predictable, entirely partisan, and therefore entirely irrelevant. Blaming the Labour government for everything has been their main source of catharsis for thirteen years. They blame the government when they get stuck in traffic, or when they get done for speeding, or when they trip on a paving stone. They would probably blame the government for global warming too, if they didn't have some other cookie conspiracy theory to cover that one.

For the majority, the main election issue is clear: which party has the best policies for economic recovery? If the Conservatives can't win the argument on that one key issue, they won't form the next government. They've time to get their act together, but at the moment, they're still floundering.

43

I totally agree about the campaigning already taking place, I heard a representative from the BBC being interviewed on 5 Live the other day state that they had turned down a request by Gordon Brown and team to appear on Match of the Day...

They felt that so close to an election, whilst one had not been called would be an unfair advantage and media coverage...

Also found it interesting listening to Martin Sorrell last night, he was asked about WPP making the decision to move HQ to India and China as though he was turning his back on the UK. His answer was clear that it was a fair call seeing as they have more staff in these countries, but you felt he should have turned round and said "I make no apologies for taking the decisions that will enable my company to continue to achieve and succeed in the future following the tax increases this government is imposing, I just wish my Prime Minister and friends had done the same thing with the country"...

Married MPs Alan and Ann Keen broke expenses rules by claiming for a second home when their other house was boarded up, a committee of MPs has ruled. The couple did not live in their "main" home in Brentford, west London, for 11 months while it was being refurbished. But MPs on the standards committee said they were victims of "bad luck" and had got approval from the Fees Office.

Is it only me or are our politicans still not getting it. It was only bad luck they said, what they mean was they would have got away with it if they had not been caught. The sad thing is if you or I were to have done this from the our employer or the benefits agency we would have had the book thrown at us. But it is only "Bad Luck". Perhaps it is the way they said it but I for one do not think so. This was not a simple error unless they had amnesia for more than 11 months. What I also find troubling is that they only lived in Brentford, not actually a long commute so why did they need a second home? A close friend of mine who actually sat in the house said that a lot of members saw a second home as a retirement pot.

pdavies

You'll be telling us next newlabour and their apologists are not to balem for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

'What? We've invaded Iraq? How did that happen?

Call an election

#65 rR7
'You'll be telling us next newlabour and their apologists are not to balem for the illegal invasion of Iraq.'

Er, didn't the Conservative's back that illegal war as well?

Robin @ 64

I don't really see the relevance of that jibe. Bear in mind that Labour have already won an election post-Iraq.

But at least the "two Robins" phenomenon has been explained. The "Robin A" comments are written, revised, spell-checked, honed, in Word or something similar, and then pasted into the comment box. This is the only way you can post the same comment twice (58/59). Only the "Robin B" comments (like 64) are typed straight into the comment box.

I didn't realize you took your blogging - or your prose - so seriously!

I'd guess that the only way to recover this kind of money is to raid bank profits. Seems like a good idea.... we saved them, now they can save us.
As if!

#61, pdavies65:

"It's clear that the electorate by and large do not blame Labour for the recession. If they did, the gap in the polls would be far larger than it is."

It's not at all clear to me that the electorate don't blame Labour for the recession. I would have thought that most sensible voters certainly do blame Labour.

The question of why the gap in the polls isn't far larger is a tricky one. It think that it's more a comment on the Tories than on how much Labour are blamed for the recession.

First, the Tories haven't come up with any convincing plans for how they're going to get us out of the recession. To be fair, it's hard to see what those plans could be given the mess we're in, but voters aren't necessarily fair, so I suspect that still counts against them.

And then there is Plastic Dave, who seems to embody all the very worst characteristics of Tony Blair: all spin and no substance. If the Tories had a leader with some credibility, then no doubt they'd be doing far better in the polls.

Finally, the general contempt in which politicians of both main parties are held at the moment (largely due to the expenses scandal) means that many of the people who voted Labour last time won't vote Tory, but will rather vote for one of the smaller parties or (incredibly stupidly, IMHO) not vote at all.

Lab just covering themselves in case the highly unlikely happens and they win the election.

What will happen is that they will have made it easier for the Conservatives perhaps and perhaps for a coalition gov. to continue knocking it all into shape.

Conservatives won't give anything away because they have not yet got in and seen the books and the real state Labour have left us in.

Body language of brown on TV suggests he knows he won't win. It was a conspiracy between him and Blair that he put himself in as Prime Minister. The most unpopular PM ever.

Disgusted @ 68

I agree with most of your comment. I stand by the part of mine that you quoted. It's hard to offer evidence either way, of course, it's just an impression. Bear in mind, though, how Conservative support slumped when Labour successfully pinned Black Wednesday on Norman Lamont. A similar collapse in Labour support has not taken place, although they aren't exactly riding high. This is my main reason for believing that the accusation of economic mismanagement does not appear to have had as much traction as the Tories would hope.

And another one bites the dust......

Police have begun an investigation into the expenses claims of Labour MP Harry Cohen, who was paid more than £70,000 in a second home allowance for a house he rarely visited, it was reported on Thursday morning.

51. Spot on. You have it in a sentence there. Well said.

Married MPs Alan and Ann Keen broke expenses rules by claiming for a second home when their other house was boarded up, a committee of MPs has ruled. The couple did not live in their "main" home in Brentford, west London, for 11 months while it was being refurbished. But MPs on the standards committee said they were victims of "bad luck" and had got approval from the Fees Office.

Is it only me or are our politicans still not getting it. It was only bad luck they said, what they mean was they would have got away with it if they had not been caught. The sad thing is if you or I were to have done this from the our employer or the benefits agency we would have had the book thrown at us. But it is only "Bad Luck". Perhaps it is the way they said it but I for one do not think so. This was not a simple error unless they had amnesia for more than 11 months. What I also find troubling is that they only lived in Brentford, not actually a long commute so why did they need a second home? A close friend of mine who actually sat in the house said that a lot of members saw a second home as a retirement pot.

Pdavies...

I seem to remember newlabour won an election after the invasion on Iraq because people fell for the line that anyone that questioned their open borders agenda was a racist.

Perhaps it's those same people who are now choosing to vote BNP....

And the tories managed to win an election in the middle of a recession; but shortly after blew up the exchnage rate mechansim.

Your analogies are, as ever, utterly meaningless.

The key question is why, if newlabour economic management has been so successful, Gordon Brown is incapable of rallying his support higher than Michael Foot levels. This is where they currently reside.

Po-faced camera stares; open book pleas, what you see is what you get pledges and a host of electoral giveaways from free internet connections to cash for your old bangers have failed to get him above the same levels polled by Michael Foot in the worst labour performance in history.

Daily reiterances of the dreaded 'Ashcroft' word at the end of almost every sentence have still failed to move the polls. Indeed they only serve to make him appear ever more Tourettes like every day.

What is your plan to reduce the deficit? Ashcroft!

What is your plan to cut the national debt? Ashcroft!

Will you maintain the NHS? Ashcroft!

And finally, what is your favourite buscuit? Ashcroft!

Newlabour are finished. You know it.

Call an election

#68 DoM2
'...many of the people who voted Labour last time won't vote Tory, but will rather vote for one of the smaller parties or (incredibly stupidly, IMHO) not vote at all.'

Don't you think that because the game is rigged in favour of the main parties, as far as the voting system is concerned, that a vote for one of the smaller parties is, in effect, no vote at all? So, if I don't want to 'waste' a vote I have to vote for parties and politicians I wouldn't cross the road to, ahem, put out if they were on fire. Personally, I don't 'spoil' my paper if there are no worthy candidates on it. I fold it up, put it in my pocket and walk out. I've got quite a collection!

Much as I'd love the manifestos to be legally binding (it would have prevented Labour's Lisbon Treason for a start) I recognise that it's problematic at best.

However, I like the idea instead of something like a mid-term review of some kind, where the opposition can force a snap-election halfway through the 5 years if they can demonstrate that manifesto promises of the government have been neglected, ignored completely, or are the exact opposite of what actually transpires.

A strong opposition (regardless of political party) is the most important part of the political process as they are the ones who represent the people in holding the ruling government to account. We need to ensure that they are able to do so to avoid having governments stick two fingers up at the electorate whenever they decide to renege on their promises.

#65 yeah but based on a very doggy sexed uop dossier according to Andrew Gilligan, shame that Dr Kelly is Dead , he could have help with this issue.

Labour pledges and projected figures.

As much credibility as garden fairies, unicorns and Jack and the Beanstalk.

What is your plan to reduce the deficit? Ashcroft or Lady T !

What is your plan to cut the national debt? Ashcroft or Lady T !

Will you maintain the NHS? Ashcroft or Lady T !

And finally, what is your favourite buscuit? Ashcroft or Lady T !

Robin @ 74 wrote
I seem to remember newlabour won an election after the invasion on Iraq because people fell for the line that anyone that questioned their open borders agenda was a racist.

>>

You really believe that was the main reason for Labour's 2005 election victory? How very strange. I mean, it's one thing to believe that Labour used the accusation of racism to close down legitimate debate on immigration policy. But to think that was the overriding factor in their victory is, I'm afraid, a massive leap into fairyland.

For the record, I do actually think the Conservatives will win the next election but it's unlikely Labour will do anything like as badly as they did under Michael Foot in 1983 - or as the Tories did in 1997.

#75, Poprishchin:

"Don't you think that because the game is rigged in favour of the main parties, as far as the voting system is concerned, that a vote for one of the smaller parties is, in effect, no vote at all?"

No, absolutely not. It is unfortunate that the system is rigged in favour of the 2 main parties, and in practice that means that voting for a smaller party is highly unlikely to be picking the next government. But I shall still vote with my conscience. I strongly believe that the 2 main parties are not fit to run the country, so I shall vote against them.

If enough people thought the same as I do, the days of the cosy Labour/Tory duopoly would be numbered.

Sadly (at least in my opinion), most voters support either Tory or Labour, so we are probably stuck with them for a while yet. But that's democracy. I accept that, in believing that I don't want either Labour or the Tories to run the country, I am in a minority, and my views will therefore not (and should not) determine who forms the next government. But I still intend to make use of my democratic right to express those views.

70, pdavies65:

"It's hard to offer evidence either way, of course, it's just an impression."

Agreed. My impression is not the same as yours, but I doubt that either of us could back up our impressions with evidence, so unless and until such evidence appears, we will have to agree to differ.

Even after the election, we probably still won't know all that much about why people voted the way they did.

Various:

There is so much self serving mythology about Labour`s economic incompetence it is worth while looking at some numbers and analysis from the respected Institute of Fiscal Studies published as Britain entered the recession.It concluded that in 2007 there was a similar budget deficit to the one inherited from the conservatives in 1997, but lower debt. Both debt and deficit was paid down 1997-2002 and has since risen,but debt was still lower in 2007 than that the one it inherited despite the surge in spending on public services.

I am not concerned with how people vote,the political orientation of most people here is fairly obvious.But I feel you owe it to yourself to make choices on the basis of accurate information.While what we see is the phenomenon of group polarisation where the weight of opinion in one direction makes people increasingly extreme.


"Labour is entering this recession with a similar structural budget deficit to the one that it inherited from the Conservatives, but with a smaller underlying debt.
It remains to be seen whether the structural budget deficit will deteriorate as far under Labour as it did under the Conservatives, but debt is very likely to rise above the peak it recorded under the Conservatives (even without the impact of recession"

"Labour’s move from structural budget deficit to surplus and back again
is mirrored by a fall in public sector net debt – from the 42.5% of
national income that it inherited in 1996–97 to a low of 29.7% in its 5th
year (2001–02), since when debt has risen again to 36.3% of national
income in year 11 (2007–08). On current trends, net debt will reach
39.7% of national income this year.(2007)

IFS Chote,Tetlow Emerson 2008

#77 IR35_S
'#65 yeah but based on a very doggy sexed uop dossier according to Andrew Gilligan, shame that Dr Kelly is Dead , he could have help with this issue.'

I didn't believe that 45 minute malarky.
Millions didn't believe that 45 minute malarky.
Politicians didn't believe that 45 minute malarky.
We went to war because the US of A did.
The Tories lined up to vote, hand in hand, and with their eyes wide open, alongside Labour.

What happened to Brown's statement "labour investment versus tory 10% cuts".
Have you Nick or anyone else from the media asked him that question, no, then why not.
Brown is a liar so it follows that those that support him agree with his lies.
What kind of country have we become, when we have an unelected PM that can blatantly lie and get away with it year after year.
The people of the uk have been taken for fools.

61. At 10:13am on 12 Mar 2010, pdavies65 wrote:

"It's clear that the electorate by and large do not blame Labour for the recession. If they did, the gap in the polls would be far larger than it is."

Supposition.

"The fact that Robin and his Tory apologist chums blame Labour for the recession is entirely predictable, entirely partisan, and therefore entirely irrelevant."

Hmmm.

"It's clear that the electorate by and large do not blame Labour for the recession."

And that comment isnt either predictable or partisan and therefore irrelevant?

Hmmm. QFS.

#83 bryhers
What about PFI?

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

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

dom@81
"I accept that, in believing that I don't want either Labour or the Tories to run the country,

I don't think it is as simple as that. I suspect that many people would like to vote Lib Dem but have a strong dislike for either CON or LAB. So vote tactically for their second preference. Makes a mockery of the word 'Democracy' in my view. We shouldn't have to play Total war:Westminster just to register our vote.

I don't believe we should vote for independents because of expenses sleeze as some suggest. Why would independents MPs be less likely to fiddle the system? I think some of the 'CON/LAB/LIB are all the same spoil ballot paper/vote for an independent could be a subtle Conservative campaigning technique. If the Cons can persuade voters for the other parties that it isn't worth voting, they'll win as the cons voters have the most motivation to vote. Its a pretty low tactic if it is happening, but the Cons are a pretty low party in my view.

I'm guessing This blog will close over the weekend as their is a BNP 'Have you Say' running at 2 comments a minute. I'd suggest that pdavies65 stays away to avoid an overdose.

Q: Why does Treasury only have 10 minutes for morning tea ?
A: If they had any longer, they would need to re-train all the economists.

MP’s Expenses Jokes

Repairs to a designated second home: £2,850
(Peter Mandelson, AFTER announcing he was leaving Parliament to become an EU Commissioner and who later made £136,000 profit on the sale of the house)
Monthly rent for two Sinn Fein MPs' shared central London flat: £3,600
(Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, even though both refuse to take up their seat in Westminster)
Food allowance for attending Scottish Parliament : £1,751.50
(Alex Salmond - even though he was only present for six votes in the year)
Getting the British taxpayer to spring for all this: Priceless.
There are some things that money can't buy, for everything else, there's MPs' expenses.

Nick

You are going to have to stop using irony in your blog, it's obviously way above people's heads!

Bill @ 86

You're getting into one of your muddles again.

If I'd said that I personally don't blame Labour, then that would be the equivalent of those on the right saying they do blame Labour.

Instead, I was saying that the Tories haven't so far been very successful at making the accusation of economic mismanagement stick. You say that is just a supposition. You're right. Do you share it, or do you take the opposite view - that the Tories are hammering Labour on the topic of the economy? Perhaps you are somewhere in between. Or perhaps you have given it no thought.

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

''National Insurance'' these days seems to me to be a bit of a misnomer.
National Tax more like it.

[Of course BBC moderators may have remembered their calculators but forgotten their dictionaries, and will have considered removing this posting.]

Although it may be too subtle for some, this posting does not break any BBC Have Your Say house rules.

Wink.

What concerns me is the affect on business that the future holds.

I think it's likely that despite a budget proposal of no change BEFORE the election and which will be designed to steady elector's nervousness after the election things will be found to be "much worse than anticipated" and "resulting from new information" and further tax rises, cuts in expenditure and shelved projects which will mean further stagnation.

It is likely that the UK will suffer the same fate as Japan experienced previously...that's ten years of stagnation

Excellent analogies Chris in #88 and 89. I'm sure though that Saga, with his Clear Progressive Thinking, will find a way to prove you wrong somehow!

Aye, but what colour was the feather NR ???

A similar such posting was deemed to have broken BBC moderation house rules. Too subtle I suppose, but someone's got to learn them.

The problem I have with statements like that by Mr Byrne: "There will be no need for more tax rises after the election", which any thinking person who appreciates the scale of the financial disaster facing this country knows to be absurd, is that we have heard Labour promises before.

The 2005 manifesto promise on a referendum before signing up to Lisbon was exactly that, a promise. There were no qualifications, caveats or get-out clauses. Yet once elected they simply refused to honour the promise. Why should any thinking person, whatever their political views, assume that it will be any different this time? My mother told me that a person who tells you a lie once should never be trusted again. Seems like a good policy to follow when Labour publish their manifesto for this election. I don't trust Brown on the economy, defence, the NHS, public spending, foreign policy, Europe, fair devolution, welfare for the elderly or anything else. He, and all his government, lied to me once. I don't trust him now. Time to give someone else a chance.