Short on significant economic announcements

Nick your headline sums up this government rather well. Congragulations.

you were spot on there nick giving mr byrne such a grilling on the 3pm publication - just as you go off air! i expect to see you on the news channel this pm to expose all this - v.sneaky.

What kind of economic incompetents argues that £2.5bn is a 'force for good' at the same time running £167bn 'force for bad' deficit?

This is the economics of the madhouse.

Never has a government sat in such complete denial about its own failings. Even Callaghan managed to realise the game was up; not this lot.

This election will be fought about the deficit whether or not sagamix and his newlabour aplogist chums like it or not.

The only thing newlabour have done 'for the many' is put every man jack of us in the poor house. Congratulations.

As usual it's all eye catching headlines and absolutely not a sniff about delivery...a point the BBC singularly fails to pick up on. Even when you do get half near to asking the question, you back off when told 'it's the right thing to do'

The only 'right thing to do' now is to call an election and clear off.

Nick,

"There is no need for a budget".

That is a relief after watching the Chancellor's pre-election promises.

I believe he spent about an hour on his feet, making promises that at least he wont have to make.

I think he could have saved us all the time and effort. He could have just said:

"There is no need for a budget. The country is broke. I'm out of a job in a few weeks. I'll probably get a nice executive position with my mates in the City of London. The rest of you can go to hell".

Watching the late chancellor delivering his Budget speech,I could'nt help but notice the scruffy lot behind him. Five more years of Brown?,please make it NOT so

So we have a splendid round of "Guess which party will screw you less" to play. If Darling thinks we will believe it will not be all change after the election then he is just fooling himself.

There is no need for a Budget or election would be more precise, according to Mr Brown as he along is going to save the world

As with all the Nu_labour budgets you have to wait for the IR press releases before you find out what is about to happen.

a fall of £13b on the £178b is not really significant, thats about 7-8%

if it had fallen to £50 that would be a different matter

Nick

The growth figures are coming under close scrutiny as being wildly optimistic, if they are all the other figures don't stand up.

It might also be worth asking what interest rates the deficit forecast is being calculated on. At the autumn PBR the Treasury spokesmen were very reluctant to say. If those interest assumptions are wrong the whole forecast goes out the window.

what about a cut in the TV licence that would help , say to £50

What a load of guff!

Brown's giggle reminded me of the picture after the Chilcott enquiry and his look of 'I've fooled them again'

It won't be in the red book but probably something major they just forgot to put in this years figures that will inconveniently turn up after the election.

This was typically Brown and the grin on his face said it all. Why should Darling care it will certainly be the last time we'll see him as Chancellor anyway.

Hi Nick,
Alistair Darling stated in the budget report that all pensioners will receive £132.60p per week, is he being a bit generous with the truth?
The Pension Service forcast states that from the 12 April I (67 years old)will receive £130.16p and my wife (63 years young)will get £62.16p, do we both expect to get an increase in the near future to £132.60p per week.

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

So, what was the point of putting the stamp duty threshold back down to £125k (from £175k) at the end of 2009, only to increase it again 12 weeks later?
https://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/dec/09/stamp-duty-holiday-pre-budget-report
Will any Labour spokesman admit they made a mistake, I wonder?

Nick

Short on significant economic announcements
There is no need for a Budget

as your post suggests this is a stupid argument.

The electorate are being kept in the dark about the real cost and impact of dealing with Labours debt burden.

Being given the mushroom treatment by Labour.

So what we do need is a clear understanding of the current economic position before we are asked to vote.

Labour are stupid if they think that a strategy of not telling us the truth and expecting us to vote for them after they have withheld the truth is some sort of master plan.

People will just look at them and say you are treating us like fools so I'm not voting for you.


After all you created this mess.

While you were watching the extra 10p on Cider?

Step 1. Compulsory bank accounts for all (Darling)
Step 2. PAYE abolished, HMRC given access to private bank accounts to extract deductions from salary payments at source (Osbourne, proposal)
Step 3. HMRC/other government agencies given full access to private bank accounts "so that we can identify tax evasion/criminal activity"

Now where have I read about that before?

Would have been nice had they adopted that motto with the banks about 8 years ago.

Nick, you say ....."today was very short of significant economic announcements and very long on political positioning."

Yes!

This wasn't a budget, but a pre-election Party Political Broadcast.

BUT because Darling pretended it was a budget, it bypasses all the usual rules about giving equivalent airtime to the opposition in the run up to the election.

On Radio 4, Cameron's response was cut short and Clegg's response almost non existent.

The BBC should be impartial, and given that Labour is unlikely to be in office after May 6th, the opposition's response is at least as important as whatever Darling had to say.

The rules need to be looked at.

Non budget by a non chancellor attempting to prop up a failing and grossly incompetent government which is in denial about the fact that it's incompetence has led Britain to the brink of disaster. Brown can surely not expect the British people to re-elect him and his useless ministers . Indeed hopefully this election will be the death knell of the Labour party which since the end of the second world war has threatened to destroy Britain and it's institutions in the name of socialism.

Somebody colour co-ordinated team Labour.Purple is the colour of kings and also in the ecclesiastical world it is the colour of confession.

Which do THEY think it is then? HA!

Purple is the colour of mourning too. I think that is why they chose it actually.

Blue is for loyalty, true blue, and of summer skies - just around the corner.

Forecast by Alistair Darling in the Budget Speech: Public sector net debt to reach 54% of gross domestic product this year, increasing to 75% in 2014/15.

Is that supposed to be good economic management?

And in the real world, which neither Brown nor Darling seem to inhabit, the deficit for this financial year will still be around £160bn whilst the total amount by which this country is in hock is heading towards £1.5 trillion.

So Labour have managed our finances well have they?

Just a question a force for whose good? With the fuel duty fiasco of increasing refining tax, not removing the uplift because of the VAT decrese he has quite sneakily cost everyone in the country a lot of money, increase inflation and made it more difficult for those on low pay/benefits to make ends meet.

So it looks as though it was a force for the good of Brown, Darling and Unite.

What really had an impact on me today was not the farce in parliament but the figures the BBC provided on screen showing the state of the country and its finances in 1997 when New Labour came into power and the state of the country today.

This is powerful stuff for those who are not feint-hearted.

The illusion we have lived under for the last 13 yers will indeed be shattered when we have to return to the reality of the late nineties.

Not surprising then that none of them dare tell us the truth.

Decent budget. Not keen on the tax breaks for "entrepreneurs" (waste of money) or on the stamp duty holiday (stale Tory policy) but other than that nothing to write home about, which is exactly what the situation demands right now. As for Cameron: "we've gone from the premier league to league whatever and it's time to sack the manager" ... piercing political oratory! Haven't heard something as good as that since last night down the local, where "Ronald" was holding forth. Until he had to be escorted out.

Can anyone help, I have searched for the release by each department re their efficiency savings that were supposed to be released at 3 pm. I Can't find any reference to them let alone a copy of one.

Sorry I have found one ;

"24 Mar 2010

Today the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) announced that it will deliver £300m of savings, as its departmental contribution towards £11bn savings that are being made across Government.

The Budget has today reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to making £11bn of savings a year by 2012/13 from efficiency and streamlining the centre of Government.

The £11bn of savings will contribute to halving net borrowing and protecting key public services. The savings will come following the work of the Operational Efficiency Programme and Putting the Frontline First: Smarter Government.

BIS will meet this target through a range of activities, including:

Saving £120m from working with Arms Length Bodies and other Government Departments to seek opportunities to deliver better value for money and produce savings, including through rationalisation and reform as appropriate. This includes savings expected through streamlining and better aligning central government functions at the regional level - including co-locating Regional Development Agencies, Homes and Communities Agency and Government Offices to reduce duplication of functions.
Saving £180m from a combination of realising greater efficiencies in our back office budgets including consultancy and marketing and improving procurement processes.
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said:

“BIS will play a key role in the Government’s plans for growth as announced today – we will deliver a strong package of support for enterprise and innovation, which are essential to the economic recovery, and expand opportunities in higher education to help to provide skills for the new industries and new jobs of the future.

“But this Budget isn’t just about investing for growth - it is also about doing things better for less. This is a challenge every Government department faces and BIS is no different.

“This means prioritising and targeting Government activity that will deliver and sustain long term economic growth. This is essential to reducing public borrowing and protecting frontline services, creating jobs and raising standards of living.”

Although I still do not understand how these are going to deliver when £270 million is being given to Higher Education. Where is that extra money comming from. Also a little more detail would be good as it could be misconstrued that there is going to be head count reduction.

What tosh - no need for a budget - why the hell not? It clearly highlights the differences between Labour & the others.

Cameron keeps saying he is not able to give any details of financial policies, but is happy to talk about a banker's tax which he knows will be agreed by all significant nations. That's not leadership, it's getting on the bandwagon.

The vision is clear from one party. How about the other side come to the party!

4. At 3:35pm on 24 Mar 2010, EuroSider wrote:
He could have just said:

"There is no need for a budget. The country is broke. I'm out of a job in a few weeks. I'll probably get a nice executive position with my mates in the City of London. The rest of you can go to hell".

He could have said that, yes, and I think it's good that you've said so. The fact that he didn't say it or indeed, anything remotely like it, should not and I'm sure, will not, deter you from suggesting that he did.

#18 this gerymadering of the rules has been going on since christmas, when GB started the election without calling it thus bypassing all the normal rules of coverage

There is something distasteful at being required to watch drowning men clutching at straws. Yet, like the average citizen of Ancient Rome at the Circus, filling in time between The Lays, one cannot resist but to turn ones thumb down and shout for an end to be made.

This is a sad little budget, a whimper from a class more used to bribing the electorate with their own money. This government has truly reached the end of its time and it is best that it packs its little red boxes up and leaves for the train from Kings Cross immediately.

It has taken these self-styled socialists some thirteen years to start requiring the rich to pay for the manifest privileges the system endows upon them. What sort of socialism is that?

Now that the champagne has run out they rediscover the lower orders, seeking now to use them to endow themselves with radical, red republican fervour in the vain hope that the working classes are too stupid to notice what has been done to them in their own name these last thirteen years. Are they really so contemptuous of the people they so patronisingly and so often refer to as `their people'.

Time has run out for this sordid little government and it must go. Any government would be better than this one. It is not a case of blue, red ornage or whatever. It is a time for integrity, honesty and truth.

Do people buy the old class war thing still? Labour politicians have been toadying to the 'elite' (rich, celebs etc) for years.
Is it class... or money? What's the score?

Don't forget the changes from the last years budget are set to be introduced on 6 April as well.

The basic personal allowance shall remain unchanged at £6475, which was always a past favourite approach of Gordon Brown.

Apart from, of course, that the basic personal allowance will be reduced for taxpayers who earn more than £100,000 per annum.

Where an individual’s income is above £100,000 the basic personal allowance will be reduced by £1 for every £2 their income exceeds £100,000.

So anyone earning more than £112,950 per annum will have their basic personal allowance reduced to £0, and they will pay quite a bit more in tax.

The rate of tax above £150,000 per annum will also increase from 40% to 50%.

I expect sagamix is very excited by the prospect of these being introduced !!!!

29 manuinlondon

"The vision is clear from one party. How about the other side come to the party!"
==============================================================

I agree, but Gordn had PMQs today, and Alistair Darling had the budget speech, but alas, neither of them decided to take the opportunity to join the party and make things clear.

The problem with all of this is that the people who will decide who wins the next election don't understand the implication of a budget deficit. They think that by taking little or no action as in the budget today it is the other rich man round the corner who will have to pay. They think that GB is better the man you know than Cameron & Co. Take for example the 1997 tax raid on pensions. A lot of ordinary people (and politicians)for that matter had no idea of the damage this would cause. A lot of people thought that the dividends on shares were something that only the rich enjoyed. They had no conception that there retiremany plans were about to be scuppered because no one told them.

Cameron needs to start getting the message across to the ordinary man in the street - something which at the moment he and is henchman Osborne are failing miserably at doing. God help us if we have to put up with anonther 5 years of this idiot.

various

It`s a civilized budget which means it antagonizes all the fools.

turkish 1990

"Cameron needs to start getting the message across to the ordinary man in the street - something which at the moment he and is henchman Osborne are failing miserably at doing. God help us if we have to put up with anonther 5 years of this idiot."

Difficult isn`t it,getting your head round complex and difficult circumstances and communicating your wisdom to "The man in the Street."
Is it possible the message is specious,not quite believed, and at bottom rather confused,

An economic crisis is like wartime and as the general said,when trhe battle starts there are no plans.The government used the instruments available,catastrophe was avoided,the decline in production is less than France and Germany,unemployment rates are lower,home repossession is half what it was in the 90s,recovery has begun earlier.

As for Cameron`s "Henchman" Osborne,you realize he`s considered a joke in the City of London,for economic debates bluff populist Ken is rolled out while asinine George stays under cover.Has it occured to you that these manoeuvres reflect the quality of the Cameron economic leadership,better the "Idiot" you know...

pickled,

"I expect sagamix is very excited by the prospect of these being introduced !!!!"

I do like a good tax rise (or even better a new tax) I must confess. Wouldn't say I relish the prospect however (doesn't compare to Robin and his spending cuts, for example ... that's excitement!), just that I see the need. The point here is it's high time for the public to embrace adulthood when it comes to tax.

Was'nt it classic when our incoming Prime Minister told GB to sit down, we almost saw the bullying spew forth from GB, I am sure if GB had mobile phone on him he would thrown it accross the commons.

Hope Darling does not take too much notice of Cameron's ideas of how to get us out of recession. My memories of the last two tory recessions was one of unprecedented unemployment, sky high mortgage rates and house repossesions and the decimation of british engineering and manufacture. All of that whilst they still had the real bonus of north sea oil revenue which they squandered on unemployment. Words are cheap for Cameron but surely he still remebers the failure of black wednesday he was involved with. Wonder if he will buy George a cigar when he drops him as chancellor.

Firstly, the "good news" of borrowing being slightly less worse than predicted is not really good news at all, it's just slightly less worse news than we'd thought a few weeks ago. Calling it good news would be like saying to your neighbour "I was going to cut your legs off, but now I've decided just to knobble your kneecaps with a sledghammer, so you should be very thankful that I'm such a nice guy." They're still borrowing over £160billion MORE THAN THEY RECEIVE afforIN ONE YEAR, and the overall deficit is still heading for £2trillion, or, to put it another way, the structural deficit is reaching the point where we won't even be able to pay the interest, let alone the capital off the debt.

Secondly, I wish labour would stop saying the the budget makes people "better off" (ie when using the "calculators" you "make" an extra, say, £200 per year. This is a completely bogus argument. The point is that with the economy broken, nobody gets a pay rise, companies don't make any profits, and there's virtually no domestic customers around to buy anything. If we had an economy that wasn't severely busted then you would have a much bigger "increase" than the bogus calculator shows you.

According to the budget calculations, I'm about £200/year "better off". In reality, I don't have any uk customers because the uk economy's busted, so I'm actually about £10,000/year worse off compared to how I'd be if our economy wasn't busted. Don't let the "calculators" fool you; you're all a lot worse off than you think. If the economy wasn't bankrupt then your actual pre-tax income would be a whole load higher.

I note you haven't repeated your incredulous comments made on Radio 4 regarding the proposed saving of £4 billion in Health - I wonder why - could it be that your comments were a tad biased, after all, economics isn't your strong point is it Mr Robinson.

37

Can hardly get more vacuous than that. A "civilsed budget"? Is that supposed to mean anything?

At least whoever it was who posted as Bryhers before you did had a few arguments, albeit eroneous ones. Now it's just platitudes.

How about "I would think of it as the most floccinaucnihilipilificatious budget I have ever heard"?

That suit the idea of moving away from the reality so we can dance around amongst the fairies while the country collapses?

Scanman - GB did not respond to this comment, your memory fails you, watch it again

Nick says - The cut in stamp duty is only temporary - for two years - whereas the rise of stamp duty for more expensive homes appears to be permanent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite right Nick, but the reduction only seems to be for first time buyers.
The housing market relies on a free(ish) movement of buyers & sellers from all corners of the market, so this reduction will achieve very little.

What’s the point of helping people onto the bottom of the housing ladder if those above them have their hands tied to the ladder runs?

Another case of “close, but no cigar” for the Badger I’m afraid.

Turkish 1990 #36, remember when you blame Brown for the demise of the pensions they had already been damaged severely by the Thatcher tory government which threatened to tax companies on their pension fund surpluses if they didn't get rid of them (Jeff Randall wrote a very good article, telegraph Jan.2006 on the subject). Consequently companies took years of pension holidays, financed early retirement as an alternative to redundancy and in then in some cases like gamblers went on to buy risky stocks to try to recover the position.

Bryhers no 38
"unemployment rates are lower,home repossession is half what it was in the 90s,recovery has begun earlier."

I was interested in this sentence as there have been other interpretations to the points you raised by other commentators, do you concur with those.

Unemployment rates lower - possible explanations put forward are workers taking hours and wage cuts, Companies hanging on longer to workers, more part-time etc, some people not signing on or being removed from count as other indicators such as economic inactivity show increases.

Repossessions lower - there is some evidence that support measures are reducing reposessions and that is commendable but it has started to emerge that some of the banks are holding properties in armslength companies (ALMO) who bought the properties from the owners (with bank money lent to ALMO), the banks then getting their money back from the owner therefore not being counted as reposessions, then being rented out while awaiting upturn in market.

As for recovery started earlier, I thought we were in a record (length)recession therefore recovery could not have started earlier than any other recession.

I see the usual crop of Tory Central Office apologists were on line this afternoon (while most of us were at work).

Nick suggests we did not need today's budget, possibly true because despite the economic trauma that we have been through in the past year or so we are now on a steady course of recovery and all that is required is to implement the strategy that arose from the world crisis which they are doing. The strategy requires spending cuts but not now and certainly not based on some dogmatic policy of decimating public services that Osborne and his Bullingdon friends do not use.

This is a time for experience not amateurs. As Cameron demonstrated today at PMQT he has no policies for the economy, no ideas and no solutions, just the ability to carp and criticise. His response to the budget was predictable, undecisive waffle.

If the efficiency savings are so certain why can't they be delivered now? Better still why are they there in the first place. The clear inference is that Labour have been gung ho with the finances over the last 12 years.

39 - you like tax rises in the same way that Pavlov's dogs slavered at the sound of the bell. Unthinking, unknowing, uncaring of the consequences. Just hoping for a few dollops of other people's money to drop into your bowl.

Ain't going to happen. I have clients whose 'taxable' income for 2010/11 has already shrunk from +250k in 2009/10 to around 60k. I say 'taxable' because they will still have access to the money they have earned, they just won't be subsidising the failure of Labour/Unite.

Given your childish description, don't you realise that you guys are the "clowns", don't you see that?

I agree that this was a non-budget but that should have come as no surprise since the significant annoucments(such as 50% top rate tax etc) have already been announced. Nevertheless, it was a relief to see that the Chancellor didn't risk any pre-election bribes.
However, what was more interesting was David Cameron's response (or should we more fairly call it a "rant")--"all wind and fury signifying nothing". David Cameron is increasingly reminding me of Neil Kinnock during the 1992 election-no coherent policy alternative but a lot of wind.

32. stanilic wrote:
It has taken these self-styled socialists some thirteen years to start requiring the rich to pay for the manifest privileges the system endows upon them. What sort of socialism is that?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer – champagne Socialism.

Labour liars have become spiteful and childish.
Darling and Brown are pathetic, Mandleson even more hypocritical.

The statement by Darling that all pensioners will be entitled to £132.60 per week from next month is wildly misleading and has been made for purely political purposes. I feel for the personnel at the various tax offices who will tomorrow have to deal with the deluge of enquiries. Furthermore, I'm surprised that the media, including the BBC, are putting out this story without comment.

Labour's "we've identified savings" promises seem as worthwhile as Tiger Woods "I'll be a good boy from now on" promises. Even if you believe them, how much pride are you being expected to swallow for the damage already done?

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

Regagrding the Darling budget, the Americans have a cute expression for this sort of thing ... "it does'nt amount to a hill of beans".

I saw a graph recently that showed the overall Government income over the last decade from various taxes, it was notable that for taxes such as Stamp Duty, IHT and Corporation tax, the take over the decade was pretty flat.

Where the graph really curved up for the overall tax take was with just three taxes, VAT, Income Tax and the so-called NI and no prizes for guessing who bore the brunt of that.

I'm not surprised the current crop of politicians generally dump all over us English - they take us for fools and sadly we usually meet the expectation.

At the risk of repeating myself, the English truly need a political revolution in the head.

40. At 8:24pm on 24 Mar 2010, Scanman wrote:
Was'nt it classic when our incoming Prime Minister told GB to sit down, we almost saw the bullying spew forth from GB, I am sure if GB had mobile phone on him he would thrown it accross the commons.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Aside from the level of intellectual contribution involved in telling someone to "sit down", Cameron was talking to someone else.

It was far more worrying that Cameron was just raking over old ground nothing relevant,nothing new.

When he accused Brown of dithering, I thought of the lamentable recent performance from Cameron to the Gay Rights magazine in which he dithered so much he was incoherent. Not much about that on the news!

getrid @ 42

"the overall deficit is still heading for £2trillion"

Not really. The debt might be heading for that territory but not the deficit. Things would be quite serious if the deficit was anything like £2 trillion. It's actually less than a tenth of that and is unlikely to go much higher before it starts to fall.

"the structural deficit is reaching the point where we won't even be able to pay the interest, let alone the capital off the debt."

Not really. The structural deficit is the element of the annual deficit (excess of government expenditure over income) which is not attributable to the recession. It's worryingly high but it's not of the scale at which we would struggle to service the interest cost.

I'll tell you one thing, over the last few years, I have not seen an election from the four parties: Labour, Tory, (US Dem or Republican) fought as hateful and full of such negativity as Cameron's. God help us if he wins!!!

nilesh,

"David Cameron is increasingly reminding me of Neil Kinnock during the 1992 election - no coherent policy alternative but a lot of wind."

Hadn't thought of that. It's quite a good comparison. In a sense anyway - Kinnock had rather more to offer. Still, I like it. Perhaps we'll get an overhyped and hubristic "Sheffield" moment on the night before polling day. A big rally of the faithful at Glyndebourne, something like that.

sagamix

Word count survey on this blog from the 58 posts so far :

Hypocritical 1 (I'll let you have that one)
Champagne socialists 1

Champagne does appear again but in the context of a drink.

Better than 3 out of 358, but still not much evidence of your claims on here either. But at least none of them were from you.

no 49, labour increased taxes and wasted money in the boom years, if they didnt we wouldnt be in half the problem now. All labour do is increase taxes and spending and acheive nothing. Are we better off than in 1997? I doubt it. I would much rather have had lower taxes and spending which would reduce the hardship in the bad times (its almost impossible to prevent such times).

andyfree64 #45 - Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer - GB may not have responded verbally, you are correct, but he most certainly lunged forward from his seated position.

Strictly P @ 63

That's because people are deliberately not writing it now they know we're watching. You can't observe something without affecting the thing being observed - Heisenberg and others. We'll have to wait a while and then check again.

The only significant announcement today was the Stamp Duty reduction - and this is all about creating and reinforcing an even bigger debt bubble!!!

The Government and the Treasury must have surly lost all of its economic senses. The housing bubble destroyed HBOS, NR, B&B etc. and the Government now wants us (the poor long suffering public) to create another one to dig it out of a hole in its finances by digging ourselves into an even bigger hole. Absolutely ridiculous and laughable...

37 Andy Cs555

"Can hardly get more vacuous than that. A "civilsed budget"? Is that supposed to mean anything?
At least whoever it was who posted as Bryhers before you did had a few arguments, albeit eroneous ones. Now it's just platitudes.
How about "I would think of it as the most floccinaucnihilipilificatious budget I have ever heard"?
That suit the idea of moving away from the reality so we can dance around amongst the fairies while the country collapses?"

You really are a silly little man,I don`t need to argue with you,to quote you is sufficient.

The Budget was a farce and I don't think anyone should take it too seriously. As to the policy positioning every sane economist knows that the public sector share of GDP in the UK is now far too high. No one disagrees that government intervention is needed - but the Labour Party has taken big government to extremes.

Nick Clegg's point (correct) about the unfairness of the tax system on those on lowest incomes blows the lid on any Labour claim to be for the many.

I am surprised that Nick didn't mention the reciprocal taxation treaty with Belize.

I still think that the desire to see off Gordon Brown will come through in the general election. Oddly the fear of a hung parliament with Lord Mandleson pulling GB's strings after 6 May ought to be enough to persuade people how to vote. I suspect that we may see some tactical voting in the marginals.

#62 Saga

Regarding Kinnock, "Perhaps we'll get an overhyped and hubristic "Sheffield" moment on the night before polling day."

By special request, here it is!

And here is the other classic moment!

Nick Robinson wrote,"There is no need for a Budget."

I agree. It hardly seems necessary when we are so close to an election. Whichever party wins, they'll implement a different strategy when they start their first year. Labour could be re-elected, but Darling might not be.

Indy 2010

Two of your queries on recovery starting earlier and unemployment rates are linked.

In the recessions of 1979-84 and 1990-93,unemployment was higher and took longer to recover than in the current recession.The unemployment rate in November-December 1982 was 10.8&,in 1993 it was 10.3%,the current rate is 7.8%.

As far as recovery is concerned,employment is a "lagging indicator",it begins to improve after GDP has risen,so the recent modest falls in unemployment on past evidence is a signal that production has begun to increase.

re 60 sagamix:

ok, well, call me old fashioned, but when I think of a deficit, I see it the same as a debt. It's money that you owe. I differentiate between an "annual" deficit/debt and "full/outstanding" deficit/debt, with the "annual" deficit/debt being how much your total debt increases by each year, and your "full/outstanding" deficit/debt being the total amount that you owe.

At the moment the annual overspend is over £160billion, but the actual full amount that we owe is heading for £2trillion (if you counted all the things like pfi that should be counted but aren't then we're probably already in the £2trillion ballpark)

We're actually spending over £160billion more than we earn every year, ie our total debt is increasing by over £160billion every year.

Just think of it like a credit card and you'd understand what I (and most other people) are getting at.

It's like having a credit card debt of £10,000, paying £1,000/month in interest, having a salary of £1,200/month, and then saying "hey, I've got £200/month spare, I'll buy a plasma telly and put it on the card" - that £200/month is NOT spare, it's needed for vital day to day living and to try and put towards getting rid of your debt. And then there's the spectre of losing your job so that you can't even pay the interest anymore and you have to declare yourself bankrupt. That's pretty much what labour are doing to the country.

You can argue until you're blue in the face about the technicalities of how you define "structural", but the basic facts are that we've run out of money and we're heading towards massive national bankruptcy.

What's the interest on £2trillion pounds of debt? Do you think we can afford to pay that and still have enough left over to run public services and bring down the debt? (I guess the answer to that is the labour answer of "yes, because we reckon we'll get 5% growth every year for the next 200 years, so we'd have paid off all the debt by about the year 2203)

#18 DistantTraveller

Here we go again!

The Tory Bloggers are out.

Another balanced article again from a respected BBC correspondent, accompanied by excellent TV and radio coverage, gets an accusation of bias from a Tory supporter.

If you read these blogs regularly you'll know this is a tactic being employed by Tory Central office to try and discredit BBC reporting and try and instigate a false sense of outrage and disgust amongst voters.

Unfortunately I have news for all you Tory HQ bloggers - the latest opinion poll shows only a 2% gap. Voters aren't falling for your stealth tactics of trying to influence the media.

On the budget today I thought it was very solid and workmanlike, explaining how we can reduce the debt without causing a double dip recession.

The Tories would slash public spending further, making more people unemployed, hurt the poorest and most vulnerable people in society and the growth prospects for the country.

Can anyone remember the 90's, the negative equity and repossessions caused by the Tories' laissez-faire policies?

The reason why unemployment and homeowners have not been as adversely affected by this recession as the TWO Tory recessions from their stint in power has a lot to do with the help provided by this government.

Not to mention that Labour saved the banks when the Tories would have let them go to the wall and whole economy collapse.

We need to not risk our recovery on a Conservative government who only have the interests of rich Etonians at heart.

Bring on the general election.

# 70 me

Just to show balance, here is Boris doing a Kinnock.

Great stuff! Good recovery I think!

#64 So you think we could have spent the past ten years reducing tax and cutting spending from the levels of 1997?

I think we are better off in general for what Labour has done. Alright, the recent period of world recession has changed things but we would have been in that situation whoever had been in power.

Had we spent the past 10 years making tax cuts and reducing spending we would have had more crumbling schools, the larger school classes Major delivered, less university places, lower wages in unskilled employment without a minimum wage, less modern hospitals, less nurses and doctors, longer waiting lists (all of which were happening in 1997) more inflation, more poorer pensioners (those who do not have second pensions), more pensioners dying of hyperthermia (without fuel subsidies), less well protected borders, less capable armed forces (real time increases!), less modern roads, and so on.

Granted a large minority of the population would have had many more foreign holidays, more expensive homes, more modern cars, bigger pension funds, more second and third homes, more children in private education, less need for the NHS and more savings etc. But our public infrastructure and services would be in a hell of state, and thats what most of us use.

I get £18,813 less my 10% pension contribution and that filthy londoner darling has just helped himself to even more of it.

Freezing the personal allowance and stuffing another 13.5p a gallon onto fuel.

Well done. I might have to vote Conservative again to get rid of him. I could do it in the Scottish elections without compromising myself due to the list vote.

And how many first time buyers have £250,000 to spend? Bilge the lot of it.

Nick, maybe you could ask Lord Ashcroft what Tory Policy will be on signing the Beleze taxation agreement? Will it be cancelled by a Tory government? Will they allow the HMRC to use the the agreement?

65. At 10:09pm on 24 Mar 2010, Scanman wrote:
andyfree64 #45 - Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer - GB may not have responded verbally, you are correct, but he most certainly lunged forward from his seated position.

The only reaction I saw from GB was when Cameron made a cheap quip about Brown and Darling discussing their post election daily rates in a fit of pique because they appeared not to be listening to his wise words.

getrid @ 73

Yes, terminology now agreed. Worth doing in my opinion. I'd say 25 years is a reasonable target for returning to fiscal health; defining FH as zero deficit (annual) and aggregate debt back to 40% of GDP. If we can do this (and bearing in mind we've been hit by a once in a lifetime rupture of the global financial system) then that's a result.

New YouGov poll (for the currant bun) has the Tory lead down at 2%.

73 £160 billion is truely shocking, but if we went back to the 1950's and looked at wages and the national debt then, how much does this really compare with what we owe today per head?

bryhers @ 72
"...As far as recovery is concerned,employment is a "lagging indicator",it begins to improve after GDP has risen,so the recent modest falls in unemployment on past evidence is a signal that production has begun to increase"

the recent modest falls in unemployment figures:
unemployment fell by roughly 33000

also in those figures but not widely reported:
of those 33000 new jobs, 20000 of them are taxpayer funded ones in the NHS.
long term unemployed numbers increased by more than 60000

what are those 20,000 new NHS workers going to produce?

Labour's Mantra "For the Many, not the Few" seems sincere. Their actions in freezing income tax allowances and in increasing National Insurance contributions and taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco will increase the tax bill for very Many.

David Cameron was brilliant to watch this afternoon-exciting to watch him in full rant! I look forward to hearing what he will now produce as a 'shadow budget' -after all he promised he would set their plans out after today.

Alistair Darling was quite the measured, calm gentleman-If this had been the first time I had seen him speak I would have taken him to be totally honest and a safe pair of hands.

Nick Clegg-he spoke well and substantiated his comments with his own counter proposals.

Some odd things I noticed while these gentlemen were speaking:

Gordon's laughing was childish, but he really shook his head and looked cross when Alistair was talking about wanting to continue some tax or other over the next couple of years-our PM really wasn't keen on that.

Harriet Harman mouthing 'wait' several times to someone on the opposition bench.

George Osbourne and David Cameron studiously working together with the big book which had 'only just been delivered' and while Alistair was speaking.

George hastily writing something on one of David's cast aside speech pages-love to know what that was-his expression seemed to convey a matter of some importance or significance.

The body language between Gordon and Alistair-arctic!

The appalling bad manners of labour front benchers playing with their blackberries while David Cameron was speaking, but even worse was how Nick Clegg had a virtually empty house to speak to. What awful displays of lack of respect.

On the content of this budget-I think it's what wasn't said which is the important stuff. If AD's calmness comes from the same stable as GB's at the Chilcot enquiry, I can only assume he is as adept as hiding the truth as GB.

Should be a slam dunk for the Conservatives, but until DC can connect with ordinary people and make them understand what his party can and will do, I don't think it will happen, entertaining though he is.

Call an election, then the Conservatives can set out their stall and stop the Labour dirty tricks which prevent them from doing so.

@ 74 voice of reason

"...Unfortunately I have news for all you Tory HQ bloggers - the latest opinion poll shows only a 2% gap. Voters aren't falling for your stealth tactics of trying to influence the media."

unfortunately for you sir, some of us would rather trust the british public to decide, we dont need to lie about what we think the opposition will do and state it as fact.
should the public choose another 5 years of gordon brown, then so be it, the difference between labour and non labour supporters is that gordon brown and labour do not trust the people in anyway shape or form.

when was the last time you saw gordon brown mingle with the general public, where he could be asked an unscripted question?
no i cant remember either!

"...On the budget today I thought it was very solid and workmanlike, explaining how we can reduce the debt without causing a double dip recession"

shame you didnt watch newsnight, where the labour's treasury minister conceded that there was another £11 billion pounds to still be accounted for - he then conceded that the £4.5 billion of "savings" announced after the budget statement this afternoon, would be "recycled back into the NHS" and these too could not be counted as a saving of any amount.
just scratching the surface, already identified and admitted to is a hole the size of £15.5 BILLION POUNDS!

labour's own admissions have made your statement, "explaining how we can reduce the debt without causing a double dip recession," completely wrong.

"...Not to mention that Labour saved the banks when the Tories would have let them go to the wall and whole economy collapse"
- a couple of things you might want to consider:

lloyds took on a bank bail out of huge proportions, but they looked to be through the worst of it.
just weeks ago they announced losses of a staggering amount - which equates to a loss of £749 PER SECOND in the last 12 months - they physically couldnt burn money as fast as they are losing it!

how impressed you must be to see that a government who claimed to have eliminated boom and bust, and informed us from its first day in office in 1997, that our banking system was safe in the hands of the new FSA, which then failed and permitted banks overstretching on their borrowing.

because of your beloved gordon brown, i and my son have to work an extra 3 years before retirement, my wife has to work an extra 8 years before her retirement.
both our company pensions have more than halved in value thanks to the economic negligance of this labour government.
my son will be paying for most of his life for the mistakes that have been made by this government.

i trust the majority of the british people will, along with myself, reject the spin and purile waffle of this labour government and put any other party into office.
a carrot could run this country better than labour!

#74 Voice_of_Reason

You say "here we go again"

I say, ditto!

You say: "If you read these blogs regularly you'll know this is a tactic being employed by Tory Central office"

Well, I do read these blogs regularly, and if you did too, you would know how laughable your claim is!

From time to time, the blog is inundated with 'first timers' all paying homage to the Great Leader that isn't. I wonder where they spring from? Hmm?

You shouldn't assume that anyone who wants Brown to go is a Tory. Plenty of Labour supporters think that too. The debate is what makes the blog interesting! There are regularly lots of different points of view here.

But this recurring accusation that Tory Central Office is somehow manipulating the blog frankly sounds a bit paranoid - just another conspiracy theory. As has been pointed out before, the Brownites can certainly dish it, but apparently they can't take it. That's just too bad!

You say: "We need to not risk our recovery on a Conservative government who only have the interests of rich Etonians at heart."

I think you reveal your true colours here! If I might suggest, perhaps you should change your Nom de Plume. It seems like a breach of the Trades Description Act to me!

Well I have not had a bad this recession I have had money in my pocket
not lost money this time unlike the Tory recessions were I was working for 50 pence an hour and having to work 100 hours a week

David Cameron & co well they say they want to cut the deficit faster and this time they do not have water electric gas and telecom's to sell off

The only thing in the cupboard is the banks and can we trust them to sell the banks off at a profit for the tax payer or will they sell the banks off to there friends at a knock down price like they did with water electric gas and telecom's.
Which all according to them were unprofitable and now post some of the best profits around

Labour have spent the last 13 years repairing the damage done by the Tories to Schools and NHS

I thought the most interesting part of the day was PM's questions when Brown was made to look like a fool by Cameron's questions as to why the PM was resisiting the release of information on the infamous gold sale and the raid on the pension funds. Brown clearly rattled and made to look like the bully he is, oh roll on the election after which all will be revealed and Labour will be in self destruct mode! Although on reflection they are doing pretty good job of that now.

As for York1900 I suppose you could like the rest of Labour continue to ignore the inevitable that whether it be a Labour or Tory Governemnt in power, the next 5 years are going to be very painful. All that this governemnt has done is to buy time, and at what a huge cost, deffering the inevitable? A complete generation is now condemned to debt repayment when the cost of financing the debt will be more than we can actually spend on some key services. That is someting to be really proud of as a legacy. That is also reassuringly a Labour trademark, as they have successfully left the Country on the brink of economic collapse after every term they have spent in office. Well at least they are consistent!

81. sagamix

New YouGov poll (for the currant bun) has the Tory lead down at 2%.
=============================================================

Heisenberg's theory - as you say in post 66 - the voters knew they were being observed which affected their behaviour ....

Just more of Labour spin and the usual soak everyone to pay for their favourite qyangos and issues. This government is moving toward the Soviet style taxation where it is give us all your money and we will decide on howmuch pocket money you can have.

Time for an election before they have completely ruined the country as the present bunch have no idea on fiscal restraint.

We also need to be out of the EU as the constant drain on our finances is the main exterior cause of the present problems.

Not so much a budget, more a way of putting off reality.

Looking at the whole thing, it does seem to be an exercise in hiding your nudity with a single pine needle.

It strains credulity that this mob can actually deliver "efficiency savings". They promised to save GBP24BIL over three years to the end of 2010. The National Audit Office seems to think they STILL have to achieve GBP18BIL against the old promises... So what chance of future management?

It simply makes no sense to keep growing the number of people employed in the central government public sector, when we can't afford to pay for them. Yet the numbers keep rising.
(Although councils are warning that at a local level, hiring will be reversed in the coming years.)

The rediculous fact is that Brown and Co have continually increased spending without ensuring value for money (otherwise known as decent productivity).

And I still can't work out just how much Brown's creation - the FSA - knew about the precarious financial state of Northern Rock, HBoS et al before they imploded.

There is virtually nothing in the budget about how costs will be pared back. (Virtually nothing of note at all, on reflection.)

The stamp duty break is very odd. Imagine:
First time buyer comes for a property worth 240K, which is being sold by a family because the parents have lost their jobs in the depression and they need to down-size.
So the first-timer gets a tax break, but the jobless down-sizers have to pay the stamp duty.
Doesn't make sense, does it?

I only hope that the electorate understands that a lot of the mess we are in resulted from the deliberate Labour government policy to tax and spend with little control. Worse still - to borrow to spend with no thought for potential future financial problems.

Question 1: I wonder if anyone could work out what the amount of tax/NI would have been in 1997 on a salary of say 10000. Now what would the current tax/NI be on a salary of 12000 (would be nice to use the inflaction rates apllied to the inital figure to calcuate the "same" salary). Apply inflation rises to the the first and compare to the second.

If it is bigger then Labour have helped the low paid. If its higher then they have not.

Question 2: If growth is better than expected, and the money starts rolling in much faster and quicker than could be hoped (over the next 5 years)- do you think that a Labour government would continue to squeeze the borrowing, or would "cry havoc" and start ramping up their programs again?

Question 3: When sagamix wrote "I do like a good tax rise (or even better a new tax) I must confess." Based upon sagamixs previous postings - is he Harret Harmans husband?

'92. At 07:55am on 25 Mar 2010, fairlyopenmind wrote:

The stamp duty break is very odd. Imagine:
First time buyer comes for a property worth 240K, which is being sold by a family because the parents have lost their jobs in the depression and they need to down-size.
So the first-timer gets a tax break, but the jobless down-sizers have to pay the stamp duty.
Doesn't make sense, does it?'

The scenario you depicate is one from the 80's or 90's, the Tory wasted years. This is not what happens under a decent Government.

Overall, it was a good budget with much needed help particularly for the elderly, small business and first time property buyers. Now let the dust settle and let the battle commence. Labour is going to win this election.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

It will be interesting to see how government departments that have had, up until now. spotty records on IT systems, procurement and delivery on targets, now become models of ruthless efficiency saving £11 billion for the Treasury.
Hopefully this new found enthusiasm for efficiency will sort the wheat from the chaff, and create more accountability throughout... can't blame the person next to you if that person is no longer there.

"There is no need for a Budget."

No there wasn't.

But there was a need for a ton of free airtime to attack the opposition and fan the flames of class envy a little more. After all they don't want to go spending all that union money yet do they?

Its funny how it's too close to the 'election' (whenever gordon finally calls it) to release child crime figures, but not too close to hold a fake budget. But thats the kind of manipulation and deceit you get from this unethical bunch.

It should be against the rules to hold a budget in this way.

Voice Of Garbage @ 74#

"Bring on the general election."

The only reasoned comment in the entire post.

The rest was just a total partisan waste of bandwidth.

So the Chancellor feels those that did well in the good times should now pay their fair share of tax.

Bit hard on our MP's isn't it? Some are down to their last cab fare or two...

...and does that include second home flippers Chancellor?

"93. At 07:58am on 25 Mar 2010, SOSDD wrote:
Question 3: When sagamix wrote "I do like a good tax rise (or even better a new tax) I must confess." Based upon sagamixs previous postings - is he Harret Harmans husband? "

He's really Mr Bean - a comical figure from another planet who has no idea how the human race functions on planet Earth. Come to think of it, that describes Harman as well - maybe they ARE married!