Budget: So now we know

Surprised VAT was not extended as well as increased - but perhaps that comes next year - along with a further rise in the tax threshold to £12k asap, so that minimum waged workers pay no tax.

Nick. Benefit cuts for the disabled? More like a proper check to ensure that they are actually disabled.

This was a very mild budget for an austerity one. Much more could have been done. We have to stop spending more than we earn. It is a fair start but there has to be more than this!

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

Nick

Who is going to batter the coalition? Harriet Harman? On her "performance" today as a rebuttal to Osbourne's speech was it more resonant of:

(a) an Erich Honeker speech days before the Berlin wall fell

or

(b) a vuvuzela sounding off only the vuvuzela knows more about economics.

Why would the Lib Dems be battered? Everyone knew this budget would be tough. The Lib Dems secured a tax cut for the poorly paid in the middle of an economic crisis. I think that's rather impressive.

An Age of Austerity and an Age of Disrimination!

George Osborne has announced that businesses starting up outside the South East will get a break on National Insurance Contributions. Yet East Kent (which is about furthest South East you can get!) has higher than average levels of unemployment and areas of poverty and deprivation higher than many places in the country.

Yet these areas are to be condemned to suffer further as the Government discourages new businesses to start up in East Kent.

Shame on this Government for not looking after those who live in these areas and who helped ensure this current Government was able to get in Power.

Don't say we weren't all warned.

Your main picture says it all, Nick, Mr Smug and Mr. Patronising in the centre, with Mr. Oh-what-have-I-been party-to on the right of shot and Mr. Hanger-On, on the left.
How long before we get cartoons showing Nick Clegg as a puppet or vent dummy?

Nick - I'm yet to see a single comment on your part which is even remotely balanced, since this coalition government took power. At least make a little effort to hide your political allegiances, rather than slanting every post as a veiled criticism of each constructive move this government makes. At least Robert, Stephanie et. al provide insight and enlightenment when they post, as opposed to your inflamatory regurgitating of facts, as seen through your own politically tinted spectacles.

was that one of the shorter budget speeches ? I lasted to the end without nodding off.

The Lib Dems just need to remind all their MPs and followers which bunch of financial lunatics created this mess and they are the reason the budget is as it is.

A good start but more needs to be done.

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

...All groups will be worse off...

What - even those benefiting from the increased basic rate threshold and the extra child tax credit?

Only time will tell whether or not this will prevent or assist a recovery. However, I wasn't aware that the banks were being penalised in any real way. The budget may have been labelled 'fair' but the taxpayers (and the next generation/s)are still bearing the brunt of irresponsible behaviour from those who are pocketing vast bonuses and receiving salaries excessive enough to cushion them from the effects additional taxation.
As for Harman's 'battering' of the Lib Dems I don't know how she had the nerve to criticise after the mess the last government left - not to mention the lengths they went to to hold on to power so they could keep their noses in the trough.

Encouraged by banks being targeted economically (although CameraOn now need sto do more to target them politically).

Feel bad for the poor folk who have housing benefits tightened, and for public sector workers facing a pay freeze (prepare for a brain drain to what's left of the private sector)

Can't help but feel this is yet another nail in the Lib Dem coffin (how many more nails is it going to take before the party splits?)

"Will the public accept the chancellor's insistence that this package was "unavoidable" and "fair"?

Can the coalition survive the battering which it - and, in particular, the Liberal Democrats - are sure now to suffer?"

Nick. You seem to be answering your own question here. Why are you 'sure' that the coalition will receive a 'battering'?

I thought it was as mild a budget as could be expected in the circumstances.

On the whole, a good first performance for the new team. We knew cuts were coming and they appear to be balanced. Previous posts on other BBC blog articles have had a lot of "We need to cut, but as long as it does not affect me" so I am a 50+ unemployed male who's wife is a social worker. I am out of work for the first time since leaving school and get nothing in benefits due to our financial conservatism. We will be impacted by the freeze in my wife's pay but feel it is a reasonable contribution to help get the country out of the hole we are in. At least he is trying to rein in spending and addressing some of the apparrent issues in welfare spending and barriers to working at the lower end of the pay scale. Some people will scream foul but let's give it time and see the detail and impact down the line. Only then will we be able to judge.

Did anybody else notice how orange coloured DC has become?

Harriet Harman really tore into the Lib-Dems didn't she, NC looked very sheepish.

Can the coalition survive the battering which it - and, in particular, the Liberal Democrats - are sure now to suffer?

I'm sure they'll live. Harriet Harperson has proven herself as a a rather tepid Opposition Leader, and Labour will not elect it's new leader until October (I think? Several months away anyway) by which time, I believe things will be looking more optimistic economically, giving them less ammunition to work with.
Labour have however, identified the correct method to wedge open a divide in the Coalition, by attacking the Lib Dems, the majority of whom's hearts beat to the left; but i beleive the bulk of the Coaltion will shrug it off as an elephant does flies.

Furthermore, I am dreading the countless "we would have done this better" routine from Labour. If they would have done better, why didn't they correct mistakes in the books before they happened? George Osborne was right to attack their appalling and deceitful way of running the country.

I love the way that anything the BBC does is either pro-Alliance (if they do not attack them) or pro-Labour (if they even seem to attack them).

Is it a sin suddenly to remember who suffered the last time the Tories and the Liberals made an alliance? Is it sudden wrong to tell Liberal's that the last such deal destroyed their party for generations and turned them from being the dominant political force in this land to the minor third party?
Is it somehow biased to remind liberal voters that they did NOT vote for these policies and we only have them because the Lib-Dem's leaders made this deal, supposedly to save Britain from becoming doomed or other such nonsense.
If that is so, then I guess the BBC had better shut it's mouth then eh? Heaven forbid they point out no matter how much of a fake grin you wear and no matter how much folks may believe Britain needs these cuts- the plain fact is, we the British people ARE allowed to be two faced and accept the need for these cuts and hate the people doing it. We the British people retain the right to nod and grit our teeth and kinda go along with all of this and then, first chance we have vote out of office the offenders. Chances are it will be the Lib-Dems who suffer. Which suits the Tories fine. Oh, and Labour.

Harsh? Unfair? Fickle? But of course it is... welcome to Democracy.

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

Everybody worse of nick I'm not sure that is true looking at the figures!
Increasing the tax threshold gives low paid £20 a week more and they won't be spending £20 more on VAT as they don't earn enough, unlike you. £150 increase in child tax credit I bet that is welcomed in many households. If you earn over £40K no tax credits well why should you get benefits over £40K the idea of benefits is to help the poor not the middle classes. Clamp down on welfare cheats about time I say as an unemployed male on no benefits because I don't qualify! Looking across the road at someone who hasn't worked in the 10 years I have lived here but does very nicely on the dole.
No Nick the wealthy have been hit i.e. you and the rest of the overpaid BBC reporters the vast majority haven't.

I am a UK citizen, born in Hackney in 1947 but currently living in Texas, USA. since 2003. I realise this budget is not great and especially the VAT rise. I supported the Labour party as did my family before me who were union people. Living in the USA is more of a strain financially than living in the UK. If I could come back to the UK tomorrow, I would. Here in the USA before you can even consider buying necessities you have to purchase health insurance. Currently for our family of 4 it is $1900 per month, but increasing in August to $2800 per month, what a rip off, how on earth can we find that. Please UK treasure what you have, I didn't and regret it.

From the Conservative Manifesto:

Exempt all new businesses starting in the first two years of a Conservative Government from Employers' National Insurance on the first ten employees they hire in the first year;

Result:

People setting up new businesses outside London, the South East and the east of England will be exempt from £5,000 of National Insurance payments for the first 10 workers.

Massive difference, I live in the SE and have been putting off a new venture only to find yet another Manifesto item to be changed.


Also how many others felt that workers would not be paying the 1% rise in NI contributions? They still are and have been given a small rise in income tax allowance instead of cancelling the increase.

The fact of the matter is that we owe money, lots of it. Something has to be done to drag us out of the mire we find ourselves in. To be honest, this budget doesn't sound as bad as I'd expected and , I believe, is reasonably fair. The cost to the public over the next few years isn't necessarily going to be from measures _directly_ taken by the government, but by increases in the cost of living brought about by the substantial amount of duty paid on fuel.

...and I still want to know why Gordon Brown sold off the UK gold reserve at a ridiculously low price!

All good stuff - Lib Dems party to a 25% cut in education after all their rhetoric over the years about a rise in income tax to fund better schools.
What must David Steel and Paddy Ashdown be thinking? I can't believe Charles Kennedy is going to go along with this without seriously thinking of breaking away.
This budget must be stretching the tolerance levels of many Lib Dems both in parliament and in local gov. Surely at some point some principles might need to be upheld? Then again...

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.

Oh well.

Goodbye to all the Smoking Equality Policy Diversity Managers!!!

I know it's a cheap shot, but that's a horribly smug expression on Osbourne's face isn't it... The expression 'face you'd never tire of slapping' comes to mind.

As for the budget, on the face of it, the whole thing seemed pretty mild compared with how it had been trailed, but when you read the 25% cut in all departmental spending, you start to see that the devil really is in the detail.

I know a lot of Lib Dems who will be feeling pretty sick at the moment. They can certainly start waving goodbye to any council seats they won off of Labour in the past ten years or so.

What Nick seems to have little grasp of is the simple fact that this is actually quite a popular government. There will be very little reward for anyone "battering" them at present.

I can't believe they look so smug! How much are they worth? Oh I see now!

Too right the Lib Dems will suffer and so they should. At least now we know what the new politics means - it means VAT increases. In effect they conned the electorate that voted for them. However, so did Cameron with his 'no plans to raise VAT' although VAT is a tory tax so no one really believed him. Not the same with Nick Clegg and his Tory VAT bombshell poster - people who voted Lib Dem will feel conned this evening. Tell me Nick Clegg is this what you meant when you said things can be different in the leaders debate you will promise one thing and vote for another?
My concern is where is the growth to create jobs going to come from -corporation tax reductions etc are good if business is going to make a profit. With less money in the economy who is going to buy the goods and services that industry produces. Certainly we won't be exporting to Europe for a while. Without increased trade there will be no job creation. Certainly in my own business orders are still not that strong. If the Government's gamble fails then things will get worse. Worse than the additional 100 000 unemployed (extra to those caused by Labour policies) for the next 3 years they are forecasting in the red book as a direct consequence of today's announcements.
I think welfare cuts are needed but support will be needed to get people back into work -to give them the skills etc. Hopefully the detail on this will be in the red book.
25% cuts in services will really affect everybody these are huge cuts and I don't actually think the coalition will be able to do this-once the support for the Lib dems drops off the cliff watch them start to rebel.
George has to now keep his fingers crossed that interest rates stay low for the next 3 years -if they go up and sterling falls its all over for this budget strategy.

31. At 3:53pm on 22 Jun 2010, MarkSOSH wrote:
I know it's a cheap shot, but that's a horribly smug expression on Osbourne's face isn't it... The expression 'face you'd never tire of slapping' comes to mind.


Not whilst Gordon Brown lives and breathes....

How clever they are. Spin for days and weeks before the budget to tell us how awful it will be and then, when it's not quite so bad as anticipated we breathe a sigh of relied. Nick, the budget is not about taking benefits away from the disabled, but rather about making sure that those claiming it truly have a disability. I agree with the cut in housing benefit as so many people are getting ridiculously large amounts of money. I'm slightly concerned as I'm a labour supporter! It was fun to see Nick Clegg squirm when Harman attacked him - tee hee!

The temporary VAT cut of 2.5% by the previous Chancellor was practically laughed at by the IMF - it offered no real economic benefit.

Therefore the focus on the 2.5% should be treated with the same disdain, only this time, there is a definite economic advantage.

The "poor" will be less impacted - a cheap £400 LCD TV will now cost £10 more - a 3D HDTV at £2500 will cost an extra £62.50. The "rich" are still paying propotionally more.

Also expect a number of retailers to keep prices reasonably flat by offsetting price rises with reduced corporation tax, limiting the impact on price rises.

Unlike the previous Chancellor's change to VAT, business this time has plenty of time to plan, calculate, and make changes intelligently - rather than throwing a sudden change on us just before the busiest shopping season of the year.

Well what can you say? Apart from they missed a big chance to overturn preconceptions about tories - namely that they (a) always put up VAT, and (b) always LIE about it just before elections. They passed up a golden opportunity to show they have changed. What they've done instead is add credence to the oldest (and it would appear truest) chestnut of all ... same old tories.

As for Clegg, well he called it right pre GE with his "tory VAT bombshell". That was spot on. For him to sit there now, as the bomb duly goes off, with a faux grave expression etched across his duplicitous face, marks him down as a nodding dog; and not any old dog either - not a cocker spaniel, not a terrier (yorkshire or otherwise) nor a faithful old labrador ... but a POODLE.

How the millions of people in this country who expressed their anti tory sentiment on May 6th via a Lib Dem vote feel about all this, heaven only knows. Just glad I'm not one of them. That I so nearly was is enough to make me shudder. I am in fact shuddering as I sit here typing this - might need a short break (at least 5 or 10 minutes) before I post again on this topic.

moderators,
# 29, what rule did I break?

It takes young and daring men to do courageous things; David and George went for it and more power to them; now we must bite the bullet and not lose our nerve.this huge debt has to be paid and neither must we forget the greed and incompetence that created it. Greed and incompetence inside the House of Commons is being dealt with; now its the bankers turn.

34 wrote

George has to now keep his fingers crossed that interest rates stay low for the next 3 years -if they go up and sterling falls its all over for this budget strategy.

The whole point of tis budget, is to get back into surplus, and to ensure that interest rates remain low, and as a consequence that Sterling strengthens

The reaction of the currency markets today is strong, and in full support of George

The picture you chose to head your story is about the only time we saw Cameron during the statement as he choose to remain hidden behind Osbourne for the entire performance. Even Harry Corbett showed his face whilst he had his hand up Sooty! Poor Clegg and Alexander left to be the face of the Osbourne support. The highlight of the insincerity was when Osbourne duly announced that the link between pensions and earnings would be restored, wouldn't one believe this is because he sees the chance of earnings inflation (other than perhaps in banking)as nil whilst the cost of living inflation will be greater.

People realise by now, unless they are irredeemably dogmatic, that this budget is in reaction to a Labour-created crisis.

It is not a rational argument to blame the government for these measures as they are a rational response to the problem Labour left behind.

Labour cannot criticise unless they can tell us how they would reduce the deficit and also take some responsibility for the bust, especially after Brown's boast that he had abolished 'boom and bust'.

For over a decade we were told by the media, including the BBC, how Brown was the best Chancellor in history. Since he was no better than anyone else at dealing with the crisis or indeed preventing it from taking place, he falls to average. The collapse of the banking sector here makes him fall to below average. Who ever heard of applying 'divide and conquer' to banking regulation?

He was the worst Chancellor, the worst Prime Minister in living memory and the worst-ever Labour PM. He ties with Foot as the worst-ever Labour leader.

So Labour really should have nothing to complain about, not that this has stopped them in the past.

sagamix...

do you really think that expressing a sentiment in bold gives it any more force?

Are you really arguing that newlabour would not have put up VAT? They didn't promise not to raise it before the election and they lied about not raising personal taxation both with the 10p hike, the 50% rate and national insurance.

So far you have failed to make a single relevant point except that all politicians of all colours lie and you are very cross about it.

The budget can only be seen with the benefit of hindsight as a success or failure; time will be the ultimate judge. A time during which the governemnt will be of a more reassuring hue.

It's a great time to be a tory...

VAT up to 20% while the £7.6bn (net!) we're lavishing on the wasteful and leaky EU this year alone isn't even mentioned? And this figure will only increase every year before the EU's own budget is reviewed in 2013.

I trust, Nick, you'll ask Mr Osborne on our behalves why such large amounts for the EU deserve to be ring-fenced, when to many they will appear completely unjustifiable? Especially given the EU's own poor record in achieving auditors' approval of its spending.

To be sending out the message that, in these perilous economic times, funding French farmers and remote glass palaces in Brussels deserves higher priority than limiting measures such as a big hike in VAT or freezing child benefit seems to me a very dangerous one for George Osborne's credibility as a responsible Chancellor, truly capable of tackling Britain's financial problems.

sagamix 38

'What they've done instead is add credence to the oldest (and it would appear truest) chestnut of all ... same old tories'

'same old tories' indeed, sorting out the mess created by a Labour government.

Nick, in answer to your questions:

Will the economic benefit of reassuring the markets and lower interest rates be offset by a slowdown in economic growth or, worse still, a double-dip recession ?

My money was always on a prolonged recession for the reasons I have banged on about for well over a year, so I actually don't think this budget has made much difference - lets face it 77% of the cuts are yet to be detailed in the Autumn Spending Review at that date in October he gave. When we re-enter recession the opposition will be able to say told you so - but in reality we were always going to, even under their policies. What we desperately need is an upturn in the markets of our main customers - Europe. By the way, lower interest rates are a fraud on prudence and reward only bankers and some of the profligate! At some time money must be properly priced - the budget assumptions over interest payments indicate a rate of 5% is to be expected soonish. Lower interest rates always create bubbles and the inevitable crashes and were, and are, the problem in the financial structure of the economy. We have to re-establish sound money to regain a sound economy!

Will the public accept the chancellor's insistence that this package was "unavoidable" and "fair"?

No. But will they do anything about it?, again No.

Can the coalition survive the battering which it - and, in particular, the Liberal Democrats - are sure now to suffer?

I think it will survive until the next election when both coalition parties will be thrown out on their ears (just like Mervyn King's prediction - I may despise his financial ineptitude but that does not mean he is wrong about the political outcome - just the economic outcome!)

41 Kev!

C'mon Kev, the hole point of this budget is an 80% attack on the public services.

Nothing new in that from the conservatives, christ, the tories had the same kinda ideology way back in the 80's and in the 2005 election.

'A VAT rise'- thanks to Labour
'benefits cuts for all' - thanks to Labour
'a public-sector pay freeze' - thanks to Labour
'and cuts in most government department's budgets of about a quarter' - thanks to Labour

'All groups will, however, be worse off' - thanks to Labour

Don't say I never give Labour credit where it's due.

One of the interesting side issues that the drop in VAT produced was that the vast majority of companies absorbed the extra profit when it went down and absorbed the loss when it went back up again.

Bottles of wine don't go from £4.99 to £5.12 neither does underwear in M&S. High street shops sell goods for what they can get away with not what it costs them. If it became common practice for shops to display the cost before VAT the situation would change, as it is the VAT is just part of the overall cost.

What we are left with is the awful cost of too many people voting Labour for too long. It would have been nice if AD had stood up an apologised.

sagamix wrote:
How the millions of people in this country who expressed their anti tory sentiment on May 6th via a Lib Dem vote feel about all this, heaven only knows.


I voted Lib Dem, I did so because I wanted the Lib Dem's representative to be my MP.

I didn't vote anti-Tory, in fact no-one voted anti-Tory unless their constituency only had two candidates including one Conservative candidate.

I honestly couldn't care less that the Lib Dems have formed a coalition with the Conservatives because I knew that the only way the party would get into government would be within a coalition (thanks mainly to the current voting system), every single member of our local party knew that this would be the case too and most of us had accepted that a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition would be the most likely option for a functioning government as propping up the failed labour party would be seen as an insult to every single person in this country who was sick and tired of their continuing failure.

Do us a favour and grow up will you, the Labour party had 13 years in office and all they left us with was almost a £trillion of debt thanks to their PFI deals, increased public sector waste and pointless wars.
If this coalition can go some way to reducing the debt and deficit left from the previous government then I will thank them for it.

There are obviously lots of things I'd have liked the coalition to do differently, unfortunately the previous government managed to spend all of our money, and our children’s, and our grandchildren’s and until this debt and deficit are brought under control there will be some very difficult decisions and unpopular actions that will need to be taken in order to get the economy back on track.

In all honesty, I'm still far too upset with the previous government to start getting upset about this one and every time I hear a Labour supporter talking about Lib Dems selling out or being upset about the coalition it only reinforces my belief that the party has made the right decision.

Five years of coalition with the Conservatives is infinitely better than another day of New Labour !

I had 20 odd letters from Jeremy Browne (Taunton) telling me to vote for him to keep the Tories out!! So I did! Along with those Libdem 'liars' who were calling the Tories terrible names BEFORE GETTING IN BED WITH THEM, I also blame those Labour traitors who continued to 'stab' Gordon Brown in the back for the last 12 months. The state of the finances was caused worldwide and Gordon was NOT to blame. If he had been supported we would have recovered in due course.
As it is the money cost involved by job losses caused by the coalition action is more or equals the amount apparently saved by their policies - hence effect on debt zero or double dip recession.
I will in future ALWAYS do what my judgement says - that is never again vote Libdem or if I really want to vote for the Tories I will vote their candidate and not imposters. On reflection it will Labour or nothing.
OLDBOYBA!

Nick, on a semantic point: it is considered polite to refer to "disabled people" rather than "the disabled".

Come on now! we all knew that it had to be done. Even the labour party would have rolled out a second cost-cutting budget if they had been re-elected. Darling is possibly even grateful that it's not him who has to wield the knife. It's bit of a fudge of tory/lib-dem preferences, but then thats what we voted for. If it succeeds in making everyone a little bit unhappy so be it, just let it succeed in getting the economy back on a sound footing.

I thought it was a very good budget, explanatory and concise.

Housing benefit needed to be dealt with, and what's wrong with having disabled people prove that they are indeed disabled in order to receive benefits? The pensioners didn't suffer and nor did those who really deserve to receive help.

The VAT rise is a sting, but one that everyone was expecting.

Child tax credits needed to be revised and also the child trust fund which was a waste of tax payers' money. How many 18 year old's would do anything useful with such a small amount of money? It may have encouraged saving amongst the wealthy, but for the average family it could have been spent far more wisely.

I dozed off during Harriet 'who I like very much' Harman's riposte, but I did notice Darling looking very sheepish.

robin @ 44

"Are you really arguing that newlabour would not have put up VAT?"

Correct - they wouldn't. Has a party ever been shown up as LIARS quite so quickly after gaining power? Don't think so.

(see how I've used CAPS instead of bold?)

This was a creative budget and it is hard to find too much to complain about.

Such a fuss about VAT increases but that only affects those who spend on stuff other than essentials.

It is a good beginning to restructuring the way the country works which is long overdue so I hope they will hold their nerve when the real hard work begins in sorting out public spending.

The run up to this budget was the most painful because no-one knew what they were in for so it comes as a relief that we know now where the axe will fall and no surprises that it will be on the bloated public sector.

The sooner they get rid of this overdraft the better for if another crisis occurs on top of that it really would be curtains for the UK.

The coalition has come up with the goods and settled the markets for the time being. They should hold their nerve and put Labour back in its box.

jobs,

"'same old tories' indeed, sorting out the mess created by a Labour government."

That is indeed the spin. The fig leaf. Whip it away and you see something ugly.

Don't know about you, Jobs, but I wasn't too keen on the glibness on show either. The casual ruling out of joining the euro, for example. What was the point of saying that? Absolutely none. And the throwaway statement of Osborne's that the deficit has arisen because "we've overspent not undertaxed" ... pure opinion, nothing more, and had no place in a budget speech. There are many people - and I count myself in their number - who consider it WAS undertaxing (rather than overspending) which was the problem.

No, I wasn't a big fan of this government before today; I'm even less so now.

Why do people still think the financial crisis was Gordon Brown's fault?
Did he cause the crisis in Greece as well? Spain? America? Japan?
I never realised he was that powerful.

Let's not forget the man's positive action did help to prevent this crisis from spiralling totally out of control.

Oh - and if we'd followed DC & Osbournes advice at the time we'd be in a far worse place than we are now.

It's not a competition to see how much and how quickly you can cut public services.

This is simply ideology masked as neccessity.

38

saga wrote

I am in fact shuddering as I sit here typing this - might need a short break (at least 5 or 10 minutes) before I post again on this topic.

Take as long as you need.....no, really

It seems that the natural order has been restored - The Labour Government spends until the country is nearly bankrupt - the Tory (sorry coalition) Government cut and slash to re-balance the books.

It would be nice to step off this partular merry-go-round by getting all parties to adherr to some universal principles of good Government for eg only spend (some of) what you earn, support economic growth (because this is what pays for the things we want/need) instead of borrowing etc. Indeed enshrining some of this into law might make sense.

52. At 5:06pm on 22 Jun 2010, oldboyba wrote:
I had 20 odd letters from Jeremy Browne (Taunton) telling me to vote for him to keep the Tories out!! So I did! Along with those Libdem 'liars' who were calling the Tories terrible names BEFORE GETTING IN BED WITH THEM, I also blame those Labour traitors who continued to 'stab' Gordon Brown in the back for the last 12 months. The state of the finances was caused worldwide and Gordon was NOT to blame. If he had been supported we would have recovered in due course.
As it is the money cost involved by job losses caused by the coalition action is more or equals the amount apparently saved by their policies - hence effect on debt zero or double dip recession.
I will in future ALWAYS do what my judgement says - that is never again vote Libdem or if I really want to vote for the Tories I will vote their candidate and not imposters. On reflection it will Labour or nothing.
OLDBOYBA!

Can you explain to me, if Gordon Brown was not to blame, how the current account was in deficit between 2002 and 2007, PRIOR to anything remotely global?

47

Interest rates need to be 5%...yawn..they are not going to be any time soon, so just give it a rest

47 wrote

I think it will survive until the next election when both coalition parties will be thrown out on their ears (just like Mervyn King's prediction - I may despise his financial ineptitude but that does not mean he is wrong about the political outcome - just the economic outcome!)


Oops...you are going to be wrong on that too

Once the current account is back in surplus, the majority of people will realise what a good job Cameron has done

Unfortunately for you, the narrow view you have is only held by a few

What most Labour supporters on here fail to understand is that their beloved Gordon left us with a total of £850 billion of Government debt and that is costing us, as a country, over £40 BILLION a year in interest alone.
Gordon's promise was that he would halve the deficit, the amount we borrow each year, from around £160 Billion to £80 Billion. He had no plan or idea how he was going to tackle the actual DEBT, which would keep on growing each year and costing more in interest every year.

That's why these cuts and tax increase have had to be made and Labour supporters should admit that and stop trying to score cheap points with no real basis.

48. At 4:58pm on 22 Jun 2010, kered wrote:
41 Kev!

C'mon Kev, the hole point of this budget is an 80% attack on the public services.

Nothing new in that from the conservatives, christ, the tories had the same kinda ideology way back in the 80's and in the 2005 election.

My name is Kevin

Please can you expand on your point regarding the ideology from the 80s and 2005 that you refer to IN DETAIL

We appear to be in a collective masochistic mood wanting cuts to hurt and claiming that they are necessary. President Obama has urged Chancellors not to cut and he appears to have learnt the lessons of the 1930s beggar neighbour policies that led to disaster.

The Chancellor has just taken a huge sum out of the economy when we are struggling to get out of a recession. He, therefore, depends on an export led recovery. But, all the other Chancellors in Europe are similarly panicked and intent on recreating the stupidity of by gone eras.

The Government has gambled with our lives and the only comforting thing is that economic developments will show they were wrong and that will signal the destruction of the Liberal Democratic party and a public reaction which is more typical - we dont like cuts when they cut us!.

50

wrote

What we are left with is the awful cost of too many people voting Labour for too long. It would have been nice if AD had stood up an apologised.


Would have been nice if Gordon Brown had TURNED UP!!!

55 wrote

I dozed off during Harriet 'who I like very much' Harman's riposte, but I did notice Darling looking very sheepish.


More like a Badger, surely

9. At 5:30pm on 22 Jun 2010, Mikeymacca wrote:
Why do people still think the financial crisis was Gordon Brown's fault?
Did he cause the crisis in Greece as well? Spain? America? Japan?
I never realised he was that powerful.

Let's not forget the man's positive action did help to prevent this crisis from spiralling totally out of control.

Oh - and if we'd followed DC & Osbournes advice at the time we'd be in a far worse place than we are now.

It's not a competition to see how much and how quickly you can cut public services.

This is simply ideology masked as neccessity.

Can you explain the deficit on the current account Brown was running between 2002 and 2007?

52. At 5:06pm on 22 Jun 2010, oldboyba wrote:

I also blame those Labour traitors who continued to 'stab' Gordon Brown in the back for the last 12 months.

=================

So Gordon has a lot in common with Rasputin, I seem to remember he was impervious to poison, bullets, and knives. He was mad too.

58. At 5:29pm on 22 Jun 2010, sagamix wrote:
jobs,

"'same old tories' indeed, sorting out the mess created by a Labour government."

That is indeed the spin. The fig leaf. Whip it away and you see something ugly.

Don't know about you, Jobs, but I wasn't too keen on the glibness on show either. The casual ruling out of joining the euro, for example. What was the point of saying that? Absolutely none. And the throwaway statement of Osborne's that the deficit has arisen because "we've overspent not undertaxed" ... pure opinion, nothing more, and had no place in a budget speech. There are many people - and I count myself in their number - who consider it WAS undertaxing (rather than overspending) which was the problem.

No, I wasn't a big fan of this government before today; I'm even less so now.

Your last sentence renders the first paragraph meaningless

Whatever this government do, you will not give them any credit, whatever the previous government did, you would not criticise them

You have become a pale shadow of your former self, and that seemed impossible until today

I am a bit puzzled by the medicals to prove disability as these already exist .

56#

"Correct - they wouldn't. Has a party ever been shown up as LIARS quite so quickly after gaining power? Don't think so."

I've got two words for you mate, if you try and pull a stunt like that.

Bernie

and

Ecclestone.

A reply to 41 -I realise that the point is to get the STRUCTURAL deficit back into surplus so that George can do a Lawson and cut taxes before the next election. However, Like Nick R I maintain that this is a huge risk as the budget strategy is directed mainly at obtaining the markets confidence over the lifetime of this parliament.
The markets are fickle and if the government does not manage to cut spending by 25% as they say they will then the markets will lose confidence. Sterling will then rise and interest rates will rise so that we can still finance our borrowing. I hope he manages to do it or we are all in a lot of difficulties. However, this is his main risk and we won't know how successful he has been until the 20th October with the results from the CSR.
I still think his predictitions for private sector growth are optimistic when so much money is being removed from the economy so fast. What matters for business growth is increased sales and where in the world are we going to sell to if the domestic market is depressed? The increase in unemployment forcast in his predictions may cause UK consumers to save (like they did 2 years ago) and not spend thus tipping us back into negative growth. It's a risk and if it works he will have laid the foundations for a tory victory at the next election. A lot can happen over a parliament though-in 2005 no one would have predicted the credit agencies AAA rated financial products were worthless. Forgive me if I am cynical about all this I saw a similar budget in 79 with the same promises -it didn't work out well then and a big reversal in policy was needed to get Britian moving again.
Time will tell who is right I guess.

How is this budget fair to all?

It is still clear that the general cuts to benefits hit the public and private sector fairly equally, but on top of that the public sector have to suffer pay freezes and then we know more is to come with pensions.

Also the cuts in public services will affect the quality of those services. The rich can afford to go private leaving the rest of us to suffer a lower standard of health, education etc...

Thanks Cameron and Osbourne for your broken promises. Did Cameron not say in the leadership debates it was only £1 in every 100 that had to be found from the public sector, now it is around 25%.

Clegg, where are your principles? Have done with and defect to the Tory party.

Housing benefit being reduced, seems to me to be a very good idea. The people who own all these houses are making huge profits out of the poor who cannot afford to buy their own homes. Perhaps without the scramble of these greedy people buying homes to let, thereby forcing house prices even higher in the time of the previous Government, who welcomed it. Then more people would be housed in homes they could actually afford to pay for wether buying or renting. Labour has one huge position to account for. Very few houses built in 13 years. How many Council Houses were built?

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

And not only butchering the public sector and our social fabric, but our glorious English language too. A whole new definition of the word “progressive”, which this budget - budget? - was risibly called (by Osborne). It appears that progressive now means picking up our end of the tab for a global recession caused by feckless greed in the banking sector, and paying for big business tax breaks, by cutting child benefit and abolishing the pregnancy grant. Progressive means penalising actual mothers and soon to be mothers, and all in the name of ... well what? Beats me. Progressive my elbow.

All I hope now is that the Coalition is serious about helping the unemployed back into work, as I am one of them, and Government help through third party private companies is not fit for purpose as far as I have seen, it is just a money making system for the private companies involved, with no oversight and management that makes me angry as I could do their job better than them - and I am the one unemployed!

A good start but I am sure there will be more to come. Unlike some I am not a "Big" government fan, I much prefer the state to only do what it has too and not get involved in areas which do not concern it. I am also against the PC state which enforces ridiculous legislation costing millions if not billions.

I have for the last ten years been working along side the public sector and have seen so much waste but those in power just turned a blind eye.

The last government had no control on spending and even less control of the civil servants spending it. There is now a battle royal brewing and the politicians will have a struggle with the mandarins a la Yes Minister....

Nu Labour are now on a road to no where and are struggling, which way next - to the left or to the right, they have little credibility and this decision could be crucial to their survival.

Aside from the party-political debates, I think this Budget exhibits some very poor decision-making by George Osborne.

I read on another BBC online report that the cuts of 25% envisaged in all those areas of spending not ring-fenced (health, international aid, EU) will amount to £17bn by 2014-15.

That means areas like education, welfare and public sector pay are being squeezed hard so we can still afford our £7.6bn EU bills. Much of which is spent keeping the multitude of lavishly paid inhabitants of the EU's glass palaces in Brussels in the luxuriously perked manner to which they have become accustomed.

Why is the government not proposing cuts for Brussels too?

Where is their pay freeze? Where is their 25% budget cut?

Why is no journalist asking politicians to explain why these people in Brussels - who enjoy little public support - get to continue to live the high life off the backs of, amongst others, cuts for teachers, doctors and other public sector workers?

So much for being 'all in this together'?

Given the amounts involved, relative to amounts cited in this Budget for cuts elsewhere, this situation ought to be a scandal. But the politicians aren't taking action because the journos aren't asking awkward questions.

Just what would you expect your Dad to do if he found out that all his future had been stolen by people promising empty dreams?

Shrug and say - wait a while and maybe things will get better?
Or
Time to tighten our belts for a while and we'll make our own life better in different ways?

And - Oh, by the way, I can't afford to pay for your boozy nights out. So if you want to be in a gutter, you'll need to work for the money to pay for it.
And don't get pregnant because bringing you up was pretty expensive for us and I expect you to understand that if you have babies I'll be a happy grandad but nobody else will pay for your child...
And it really doesn't matter whether you watch the World Cup at all, but buying a 60 inch plasma screen instead of investing in your child's future is a choice I don't plan to pay for...
Oh - and not having as much as somebody else doesn't mean that you can't be happy...
Been there and I've met some really miserable and rather odd rich people as well as badly educated poor folk who respond really well when they understand that life isn't something that "owes" them... it's just something everybody goes through.
You richer than me? Good for you.
You poorer? Sorry about that.
Actually I'm not sorry because is ISN'T MY FAULT, so "sorry" is not the right word.
Maybe Sad is better. But I know lots of people with less than me who seem to have a happier life. How and why does that work?
I just hope that you find the way to claw back if cash is the most important measure of life.
And, of course I'll be happy to pay taxes to encourage and support anybody able to achieve things that they could. And definitely pay taxes to support people with no realistic chances of helping themselves.

But I'm not interested in paying for "Street play co-ordinators" or some of the other rediculous "jobs" that form part of the publicly supported workforce.

Children know how to play. And they know how to learn. Just give them the proper facilties and opportunity and they'll do it all by themselves.

66 Kev

"Please can you expand on your point regarding the ideology from the 80s and 2005 that you refer to IN DETAIL"

You cann't be serious Kev!

Kev only a sad hack like yourself would rejoice in the news the unemployment will rise to 8.1% plus and stay there for four years.



Fubar! have those Champagne bottles dried up! Hey Ho what do you know, where there is discord may they bring more discord. Kinda harmonic Fubar.

75

We will have to agree to disagree

@#6 - interesting that everybody attributes the positive things announced in the budget to the lib dems and the negatives to the Tories. Completely unfair. If labour hadn't left the cupboard bare and an economic disaster we wouldn't have neded this.

It's the first time for many years that the chancellor has said what he means and the detail's not hidden in the small print. Not sure if it's a good thing though!
The major change will come from the general UK population reducing their average level of debt. It's no use trying to sustain an unsustainable rally with borrowing based on "circulating" money which has no underlying value - that's what got us in to this mess when the banks involved went belly up.

76. At 6:04pm on 22 Jun 2010, Matt wrote:
How is this budget fair to all?

It is still clear that the general cuts to benefits hit the public and private sector fairly equally, but on top of that the public sector have to suffer pay freezes and then we know more is to come with pensions.

Also the cuts in public services will affect the quality of those services. The rich can afford to go private leaving the rest of us to suffer a lower standard of health, education etc...

Thanks Cameron and Osbourne for your broken promises. Did Cameron not say in the leadership debates it was only £1 in every 100 that had to be found from the public sector, now it is around 25%.

Clegg, where are your principles? Have done with and defect to the Tory party.


1.The £1 in £100 referred to the in year cuts of £6.2bn
2.The NHS is not only ring-fenced, it will be receiving REAL rises in spending, so not sure why you say..The rich can afford to go private leaving the rest of us to suffer a lower standard of health,
3.Please can you tell me what you mean by broken promises?

ripper @ 51

Fair enough, that was you, but large numbers of Lib Dem voters are anti tory (are centre left, if you like) - as I say, I was very nearly one of them. Plus, the party itself campaigned on economic policies far closer to Labour than Clown. They are now - the Lib Dems - instrumental in inflicting the very economic policies they opposed (vilified in fact) on the country. This, I submit, will be making a lot of people uncomfortable and rightly so. It's true - sadly - that the election threw up only two realistic possibilities (tory minority or this coalition), but still.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

75

By the way, the forecast for growth is now the OBR forecast, not the Chancellor's forecast

sagamix 79

'Progressive means penalising actual mothers and soon to be mothers, and all in the name of ... well what?

Sorting out the mess created by Labour. I thought I told you that earlier.

Matt 76

'How is this budget fair to all?

It is still clear that the general cuts to benefits hit the public and private sector fairly equally, but on top of that the public sector have to suffer pay freezes and then we know more is to come with pensions.'

Public sector pensions are twice as generous as those in the private sector so there's your answer. And here's a chance for those on the left to prove they genuinely believe in fairness by supporting cuts to public sector pensions to bring them into line with the private sector.

79. At 6:10pm on 22 Jun 2010, sagamix wrote:
And not only butchering the public sector and our social fabric, but our glorious English language too. A whole new definition of the word “progressive”, which this budget - budget? - was risibly called (by Osborne). It appears that progressive now means picking up our end of the tab for a global recession caused by feckless greed in the banking sector, and paying for big business tax breaks, by cutting child benefit and abolishing the pregnancy grant. Progressive means penalising actual mothers and soon to be mothers, and all in the name of ... well what? Beats me. Progressive my elbow.

You seem to be talking out of something sometimes confused with an elbow

Nick, you sound like a Labour press release, nothing new there. What precisely are the cuts for the disabled that you trumpet. Disability benefit is one of the benefits most abused by cheats, the cheats who are fit to referee football matches and play golf but seemingly unfit to do a days work. The government are introducing more checks to weed out these cheats and the genuinly disabled should not fear, and you to your shame, should not be frightening them with untruths.

84. At 6:16pm on 22 Jun 2010, kered wrote:
66 Kev

"Please can you expand on your point regarding the ideology from the 80s and 2005 that you refer to IN DETAIL"

You cann't be serious Kev!

Kev only a sad hack like yourself would rejoice in the news the unemployment will rise to 8.1% plus and stay there for four years.



Fubar! have those Champagne bottles dried up! Hey Ho what do you know, where there is discord may they bring more discord. Kinda harmonic Fubar.


You make a point, which you can't substantiate

You then make an accusation against me, which you can't substantiate

Bit of a theme developing.....

77. At 6:06pm on 22 Jun 2010, Nick Hoskinson wrote:
Housing benefit being reduced, seems to me to be a very good idea. The people who own all these houses are making huge profits out of the poor who cannot afford to buy their own homes. Perhaps without the scramble of these greedy people buying homes to let, thereby forcing house prices even higher in the time of the previous Government, who welcomed it. Then more people would be housed in homes they could actually afford to pay for wether buying or renting. Labour has one huge position to account for. Very few houses built in 13 years. How many Council Houses were built?

The huge profits are actually made out of the taxpayer, not the poor

That's US!!!!

Not a bad budget, but disappointed that more cust were not made:

1. Cut back the salaries of the far too many civil servants who earn extraordinary amounts (although that may be part of the 25% departmental cut backs).
2. Notwithstanding that the NHS is protected, I think there is a huge opportunity missed here to make it far more efficient, without affecting the front line. How about all those hospital inspectors we once heard about (more inspectors than there were patients if I remember). The NHS is a bloated behemoth, and needs to be trimmed.
3. Again notwithstanding election pledges, I think we donate far too much (more, on a pro rata basis than any other nation?) to third world countries, half of which use it to buy a few more Mercedes and the odd palace or two, rather than aid their citizens.

But overall, not half as bad as I was expecting. A very imaginitive budget

Kevinb
"Can you explain the deficit on the current account Brown was running between 2002 and 2007?"

Probably because we were running quite a surplus on the capital account. I would like to see the current account deficit dropped as the last few years have shown what happens when you rely the city services to keep the economy rich, however having a deficit can hardly be seen as irresponsable with our current economic structure.

I would fully expect the current account to stay in deficit for a long time, a complete restructure of the economy would need for it to change and i cannot see the present government being able to do this. This isnt the terrible situation you are trying to present.

"All groups will, however, be worse off."

will they really? well, by my calculation I'm actually going to be a lot better off (unless I go out and buy a 60inch 3d telly or a yacht)

Nick; your overview isn't quite right.

Who on earth is going to notice a 2.5% rise in vat (especially when it doesn't even apply to food) ?

This is where labour had got things so horribly wrong; they reduced vat temporarily thinking it would spur the economy on. In fact the only effect was to increase the deficit massively without having any real effect on people's pockets/outlook; a very difficult thing to achieve; you have to be a spectacularly stupid person to achieve such a thing (either that or intelligent and on an earth-scorching mission).

Increase vat by the same proportion that labour had previous temporarily reduced it, and you end up decreasing the deficit massively while not having any real effect on people's pockets/outlook. And you help to protect people on low incomes by letting them keep more of their own earnings in the first place.

I know which version I prefer, and it's not the weird bbc/labour version, which is clearly on a totally different planet to the real world.

I was very pleased with this budget; they did things which actually made sense, and that's a welcome relief from what labour had been doing the last 13 years.