Surprise, surprise, a Budget U-Turn

[Xlucine]

If they want a different manifesto they should change the law so they can run another election. The conservative party made those promises, not cameron, they can't throw their toys out the pram and ignore their promises because the public didn't vote the way they wanted them to in the referendum.

[Saracen]

I'm not sure many Conservatives consider the 2015 manifesto applies to them as it was written by Cameron and Osborne, not saying i agree with that view but on TV i heard a presenter saying most Conservative MP's don't like the idea of being bound to a manifesto that was written with the expectation of a coalition and Cameron still being PM after he won the referendum.

What seems ludicrous to me is that people are saying how not increasing NICS payments was in the manifesto but no one seems to have picked up on it also saying they'd "safeguard British interests in the Single Market" and that "We say: yes to the Single Market" but apparently Mrs May has already thrown out that pledge.

I think the single market issue is negated by the Referendum result to leave the EU. Then, you have the pretty much unanimous chorus from the EU that the "four freedoms" are invisible, and "no cherry picking".

Personally, I have no problem with single market membership, provided a deal could be done over arbitration, which it can be as it was in the CITA agreement. But, accepting all four freedoms is tantamount to not leaving the EU at all.

So, we (by a modest, but sufficient) majority voted to keave the EU in a referendum that both took place after the General Election, and which was itself part of those manifesto commitments.

Unless the EU27 change policy during negotiations (and I'd say there's zero chance of it) leaving the EU and retaining membership of the Single Market is not an option on offer. So, it's loose single market membership, or don't leave, and the referendum settled the question of leaving.


But I 100% agree on at least whether Hammond regards the 2015 Manifesto as "his". I think that's how he screwed up, and May went along with.

My message to them both would be as Xlucine said ... they were ELECTED on thag manifesto. They want a different manifesto, have an election and get elected on it.

I remember getting VERY angry with Gordon Brown when he ousted Blair, and about his first pronouncement was "Right, now for a complete change in direction". No, you <rude word>, you DO NOT have a mandate for a changed direction. If you want tgat, get elected on it. Call an election. Which, of course, he bottled, fearing he'd lose it.

So to the PM and Chancellor, YES, the 2015 does bind you. Break it at your peril. You want a mandate for something else, hold an election and seek it.

[Corky34]

Without going over the whole referendum thing again and focusing on the manifesto, if like you say the referendum result negated the single market issue then it shouldn't have been put in the manifesto as there was either no way to know if they could keep that pledge, or they were so confident of winning the referendum they didn't consider it to be an issue.

Basically they made a pledge when they didn't know if it could be kept because of another pledge they made.

[Top_gun]

I'm not surprised about the u-turn. The new NI rate was due to come into force in April 2018. Plenty of time to reconsider for Hammond to change his mind after hearing public opinion.

We have a Tory party lacking in ideas to deal with today's problems.

Not quite sure what the fuss is all about. The Tories have always broken their election promises.

[scaryjim]

.... Basically they made a pledge when they didn't know if it could be kept because of another pledge they made.

That's play number 2 from the politician's rule book - if you're going to have to break an election manifesto pledge, make sure you can pass the blame. Bonus points if you can shunt the blame back onto the electorate (We wanted to do that, but the people said "no"....).

Play number 1 is to pledge to "fight for ...", "strive against ..." ot "seek to ..." something, since those pledges don't have any actual deliverables riding on them (and when your fighting, striving and seeking fail, see play number 2 )...

[spacein_vader]

So does this mean the self-employed will stop offering a discount for cash and put all of their earnings through the books?

[Saracen]

Without going over the whole referendum thing again and focusing on the manifesto, if like you say the referendum result negated the single market issue then it shouldn't have been put in the manifesto as there was either no way to know if they could keep that pledge, or they were so confident of winning the referendum they didn't consider it to be an issue.

Basically they made a pledge when they didn't know if it could be kept because of another pledge they made.

Can you reference the location of the pledge you say was made, in the context you say it was made? Because I'm not aware of it.

What was pledged was to :-

1) Renegotiate our deal with the EU,
2) With that done, hold an In/Out referendum, and
3) Honour the result, and the wishes of the british people as expressed by that result.

The next section then goes on to talk about how we "benefit from" the single market, but does so in the context of threats to our benefiting from continuing eurozone integration. It points out that while the UK supports the eurozone, and on-going eurozone integration both they and we feel necessary to help the eurozone address it's problems, that must NOT be wt the expense of non-eurozone member countries, like us.

So, had the referendum result been "Remain", the promise was to protect our Single Market benefit, while working to help, not block, the eurozone. Remember that the eurozone is not the EU, just a very strong majority within, and that it was quite plausible that steps the eurozone wanted to take in it's interest would be at the expense of non-eurozone members and THAT is what they promised to protect.

However, given Brexit, we will not be in the EU, so not have any voice in, or benefit/disadvantage from the balance between eurozone and non-eurozone members, as we will be neither.

Thus, the Referendum, and Brexit decision negate the single market pledges because as a non-member, even if we somehow retained single market membership, we would not have any say in the rules, or in eurozone integration. We can neither support nor resist eurozone integration, because you have to be an EU member to have a say.

The EU, in the form of comments ftom both Commission and Council, and several member heads of state, have made clear that single market membership, on it's own, is not on offer anyway. Either we accept all four freedoms, and by the way, continue with budget contributions, or we lose single market membership. The former is totally inconsistent with Brexit, and the commitment to "honour the referendum result" makes what we would do IF we were EU members redundant, since we won't be.

The Manifesto can take a position on what Referendum result it prefers (Remain) and it's policy in that event, but it cannot be held to implement policies about eurozone integration and the single market that require a Renain Vote if we, the people, vote to Leave. and we did.

[Saracen]

So does this mean the self-employed will stop offering a discount for cash and put all of their earnings through the books?

"The self-employed" don't. Law-breakers do, whether self-employed or not.

I'm self-employed, and have never, even once, worked for cash. Similarly, every penny of my earned income goes through my books, and VAT returns, and every penny of all income goes on my annual tax return. VAT audits have shown me not claiming for things I could have, but not claiming for things I should not.

There are people that fiddle their taxes. Not all are self-employed. It might be more accessible to fiddling if you're self-employed, but so is getting audited, and getting clobbered with fines, penalties and cumulative interest if you get caught, because if you so do, you are breaking the law. It's not a chance I am willing to take.