The Budget - It Didn't Take Them Long, Did It?

[number11]

It seems like I'm stalking your every post, but trust me, on this, it's just a coincidence!

You make a very good point yourself. One of my real bugbears about politics in general, and political discussion especially, is that many people involved are toitally unwilling to acknowledge there are sound ideas and principles on all sides, as well as bad.

Whilst I would say I'm definitely left of centre, I genuinely hope the coalition works out, as it would mean that the UK will prosper. On one hand, I'm against the VAT increase as, by definition of it being across the board, it will hit the lowest paid the most. It's especially galling that Nick Clegg stood in front of a poster which talked about the Conservatives VAT bombshell prior to the election.

There are other facets of the budget, however, that I'm sure a Labour led government would also have put into place, such as help for entrepeneur, closing a loophole on buy-to-let scams, increased personal allowances, etc.

I wish people would stop defining themselves as being to the left, or to the right, treating it almost the same as being supporters at a match, and instead define their political outlook by what they actually think. If that happened, parliament, not just government, would be a much better institution.

Ha, no problem.....I do worry slightly when it is you reply to my posts as you tend to be the voice of reason!

Couldn't agree more with your point though and it is one I tried to make in my first post in this thread. If the county is in dire straits I wish politicians could just get on with sorting things out in the best interests of the country. Clearly having an opposition voice an opinion is desirable for checks and balances and all that, but I cant stand the constant need to argue against EVERY thing the opposition does. That is why I was so disappointed Harriet Harman thought it necessary to go on the offensive as soon as the budget was issued, and the copy and paste from the Labour Counsellor of Southcote provided by TFS shows it as well.

Wouldnt it be refreshing if the oppositon occassionally said either a) we agree and think thats a good idea ; and b) we got it wrong.

 

[osymandus]

Just found this interesting read,



So any of the boards prominent Socialists care to comment on the above?

2 Things that worry me about that article . One the asking of an Ex Nat west director and him giving the example of rationalising the NHS system (so wait a man who's qualified to rationalist and create systems that don;t involve people or tehir needs but pure numbers ) and secondly the hypocrisy to claim that the goverment and Public sector needed reforming and restraint compared to the banking industry (which they do ) and not mention the banking industry .

Ladies and Gents we are simplifing the argument again. This is not the simple Private good / Public bad or vis versa . We all know teh private sector must have room to go , but at the end of the bad a business is not created (or rarely ) for teh betterment then those who wel founded it . The whole ideology is founded to make profit for that part of society , transferring those concepts to essential services of a country makes a mockery of why they essntial services in the first place.

You are not the best because you make the most of an object/service requirement but how it is used and in what quality and context .
I also a gree with Southchurch and also hope the coalition works. The polarization we have and the blind defense most people will give to what ever shade of the political spectrum they see is what causes these issues . The method needs to be looked at what ever teh source (be it centre, left or Right) and implemented if it will aid and help everyone .

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Just found this interesting read,



So any of the boards prominent Socialists care to comment on the above?

Source?:unsure:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Coming home late last night after a Bob Dylan concert here,(sorry to reinforce the stereotype but it happens to be true),I caught the tail end of the This Week (in Politics) programme.I was struck by Will Hutton's assertion(and Andrew Neil's confirmation)that double dip recessions are in fact extremely rare.
Perhaps there's (some) hope for the Tory/Lib-Dem. economic stategy after all.:unsure:

 

[Hotman]

Only if the "poorest" are spending their money on non-essentials like cigarettes, alcohol and playstation games.

If they are buying nutritious food for their family, paying their rent, and reading some educational books, they will not notice the increase in VAT as much as someone who can afford the above luxuries.

BarnaBlue, thanks for commenting on the above as "vile political views". Frankly, it's honesty. If the poor didn't buy what they can't afford, there'd be far less consumer credit, bankruptcies etc and guess what... Vat wouldn't be a regressive tax!

Because simply, it is only a regressive tax if you spend more than you earn.

And don't think I'm slating the poor - my family were hardly well off, and I lived in ****** council estates until I was 13, then had the benefit of my family receiving the council "right to buy". But I've seen both sides of the so-called rich/poor divide, and I know which side voluntarily gives more to charity, which side care about their and their families health and well being, and which side has a work ethic. I fear that you, as usual, have the blinkers on.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

2 Things that worry me about that article . One the asking of an Ex Nat west director and him giving the example of rationalising the NHS system (so wait a man who's qualified to rationalist and create systems that don;t involve people or tehir needs but pure numbers ) and secondly the hypocrisy to claim that the goverment and Public sector needed reforming and restraint compared to the banking industry (which they do ) and not mention the banking industry .

Firstly this was during the what we considered a boom time when the report was created 2002 and secondly maybe that is why he is the former NatWest Chief Executive ;)

Also I think you miss the point he was making, that it is not the amount of money you throw at soemthing to make it successful, there needs to be some groundwork done that ensures that money is being used to the best it can.

Of course anything with the word 'banker' nowadays means a chance to have a dig at that industry. IMHO it is very narrowminded to think that every person in the banking industry is a complete self absorbed individual.

Source?:unsure:

The article I found interesting was from the Liberal Democrat Voice.

 

[osymandus]

Firstly this was during the what we considered a boom time when the report was created 2002 and secondly maybe that is why he is the former NatWest Chief Executive ;)

Also I think you miss the point he was making, that it is not the amount of money you throw at soemthing to make it successful, there needs to be some groundwork done that ensures that money is being used to the best it can.



Of course anything with the word 'banker' nowadays means a chance to have a dig at that industry. IMHO it is very narrowminded to think that every person in the banking industry is a complete self absorbed individual.



The article I found interesting was from the Liberal Democrat Voice.

Oh i agree on both points however it shows teh Banking industry didnt keep to tehir own standards of regulation and they are far far worse for throwing money at things to get it done then the NHS ever are (having worked in IT and for a few Blue chips ive seen it ). The issue with the NHS is there are people already there who understand what needs to be done .

An example of this teh lovely lady who's helping me at Seetec . Setup the internal Nursing agency at Southend hospital , she choice to do it part time earned around £14000 a year and by the end of the first year had saved the hospital £100,000's of punds . What happened next . They pulled in two managers above this lady (she used to report directly to the senior figure of teh hospital directly). both HR people from teh private sector , the middle one who lasted less then 6 months and need to be paid off . The lady who had set this up resigned in utter bewilderment .

I said it before who arnt focusing on the main issue here which is peoples perceptions (using those tag lines of professional ), of what they think is right not what is right for teh situation . Using the NHS again it needs a computer system that is run efficently cheaper and dosnt need bells and whistles of teh corporate world . That already exists but its not a cash cow to be milked, there are other revenue streams .

 

[Mad Cyril]

The IT industry won;t like that ;)

Perhaps it will flush some of the chancers and ****wits out of the industry.

 

[Mad Cyril]

I think it is disgusting that tax credits have been cut. Why not leave them unchanged but pay them in scratchcards?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

BarnaBlue, thanks for commenting on the above as "vile political views". Frankly, it's honesty. If the poor didn't buy what they can't afford, there'd be far less consumer credit, bankruptcies etc and guess what... 1)Vat wouldn't be a regressive tax!

1 )Because simply, it is only a regressive tax if you spend more than you earn.



2)[And don't think I'm slating the poor - my family were hardly well off, and I lived in ****** council estates until I was 13, then had the benefit of my family receiving the council "right to buy". [/U]

3) But I've seen both sides of the so-called rich/poor divide, and I know which side voluntarily gives more to charity, which side care about their and their families health and well being, and which side has a work ethic.

4)I fear that you, as usual, have the blinkers on.

,



First of all,I'd like to commend you on your mixture of the personal and the political in your comments above.Some might feel that this takes us a little :offtopic: but personally I've always believed that there are strong, if not profound, psychological and sociological reasons behind our political beliefs.


1)I've already quoted Robert Chote,(unlike you I don't normally quote myself) the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who described the budget as "somewhat regressive" in yesterday's Guardian.

Frankly, if the Head of the IFS says the budget is "regressive" and you (and your fellow right wingers) don't,I know who I believe and (just to make it quite clear)it isn't you.

2) As did one of my cousins, whose parents either weren't able to afford to buy or chose not to.I wouldn't say I came from a working class background but my parents most certainly did.

3) And which side is that exactly? There are hundreds of thousands(if not millions)of respectable working class families who have a strong work ethic and care about their own and their families health and well being.
As for giving money to charity: my wife, who comes from what you might call a lower middle class background,(in that both of her parents were teachers, although both sets of her grandparents worked on the land)regularly gives to charity.I seldom do.Make of that what you will.

4)I am under no illusions ,whatsoever, about the so called "feckless" working class(es),who Marx incidentally, first described as the "lumpen proletariat",(more fashionably known now,of course,as the "underclass").There are plenty of them about, as a cursory tour of any estate in Southend, or elsewhere in Britain, will demonstrate.The key question for me, is why benefit culture has led to two or three successive generations, who either prefer this lifestyle, or who are unable to rise above their circumstances.
Education was key for me in doing that.But then again, my parents were from the respectable working class.

 

[osymandus]

Sadly no middle management always survive ;)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Half of Liberal Democrat voters ready to defect after VAT rise

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/27/lib-dems-vat-rise-anger-poll

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

David Miliband: this budget's legacy will be a lost generation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/27/budget-risks-lost-generation

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Budget: Mr Osborne risks creating a lost generation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/27/editorial-budget-hawkish-thatcherism

 

[Reg Martin]

as a public sector employee I should in theory be opposed to this budget but in reality I think a lot of the fault lies with the previous govt. they were spending well beyond what the country could afford for too long and put off doing something about it before the election.
regarding strikes some interesting stats that shows that everything is not either as the left or right would like to think:
last local govt strike in 2008 only about 20% voted in strike ballot with a small majority in favour, strike collapsed after two days and at the authority where I work (in northern labour heartland) most people went into work and many union members left the union afterwards.

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Can any of you clever types tell me how much we spend on forgien aid,damn thats bad spelling but you know what i mean.

 

[Moridin]

Can any of you clever types tell me how much we spend on forgien aid,damn thats bad spelling but you know what i mean.

I believe it is due to increase to £13 billion by our current regime. Don't mistake my remembering that fact with intelligence though....

 

[Moridin]

As much as it pains me to agree with Martin Carruthers, the regressive side of that argument is hampered by VAT not being increased on Utility bills, which obviously comprise a larger percentage of the Working classes incomes. I do not feel VAT is totally regressive, especially is you live within your means. I suppose the Right can speak sense on some occasions. ;)

The issue I have with the Budget being regressive is the withdrawal of Free School dinners for half a million of the countries poorest children, the cancellation of over £600 million pounds worth of Social Housing building contracts (lowering rents and providing security of tenure is a constructive start to moving out of the poverty trap) and the removal of the Surestart grant of a means tested 500 quid to allow new mums to by formula and clothes (non VAT rated of course) for their offspring.

That is not progressive, it is ingrained Tory prejudice against single parents and those who have fallen through the cracks in society under the cover of fiscal responsibility. I do not see ministers and MP's pay taking a 25% cut, in line with their spending budgets. Another rule for them.....

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

the removal of the Surestart grant of a means tested 500 quid to allow new mums to by formula and clothes (non VAT rated of course) for their offspring.

I presume by this you mean Milk formula, surely if they were breastfeeding which is free then this should not be such an issue. *runs and hides as another explosive discussion can take place*

 

[Hotman]

As much as it pains me to agree with Martin Carruthers, the regressive side of that argument is hampered by VAT not being increased on Utility bills, which obviously comprise a larger percentage of the Working classes incomes. I do not feel VAT is totally regressive, especially is you live within your means. I suppose the Right can speak sense on some occasions. ;)

The issue I have with the Budget being regressive is the withdrawal of Free School dinners for half a million of the countries poorest children, the cancellation of over £600 million pounds worth of Social Housing building contracts (lowering rents and providing security of tenure is a constructive start to moving out of the poverty trap) and the removal of the Surestart grant of a means tested 500 quid to allow new mums to by formula and clothes (non VAT rated of course) for their offspring.

That is not progressive, it is ingrained Tory prejudice against single parents and those who have fallen through the cracks in society under the cover of fiscal responsibility. I do not see ministers and MP's pay taking a 25% cut, in line with their spending budgets. Another rule for them.....

Exactly, the only time that VAT is truly regressive (given the reduced-rate, zero-rate and exempt items) is when the poor spend more than they earn on luxury goods, by buying them on credit.