Since it's the budget tomorrow....

[zulander]

2nd'd for someone who doesnt know much about politics (or care much 'cause politicains dont seem to be able to tell the truth) it was a very imformative read

[Brucelles]

One thing to remember about recovery is that the party in power always try to produce good news before announcing an election, so even if it were possible to pull us out of the merde in a few weeks they wouldn't necessarily do it.

Of course, the sensible thing would be to try to manage another bubble before the election, so that the losses are mitigated and the Tories left with an even bigger poisoned chalice. I know people who believe that the reason McCain and Sarah Palin were the Republican nominees for the US Presidency is because the neocons knew that Bush had crapped on the country so badly that the only cure was harsh medicine of the kind that makes the incumbent very unpopular. Losing an election now will probably save Republicans from all of the nastiness which will make Obama so unpopular that he will be kicked out next election.

To be honest, though, I believe our own elected servants are so greedy and self-serving that they couldn't take a long view, and they are not generally the paid representatives of big business like American politicos, so they will try to snout out whatever remains in the trough before they get sent back to the reserves.

Just felt I should add that my MP works for me about as well as a chocolate condom. His name is Andrew Pelling and he is a big fan of secretive government and doesn't like gays. Though to be fair he wants an investigation in to the Iraq war and has among the lowest expenses.

Why don't you look up your MP on http://www.theyworkforyou.com/?

[yamangman]

^A cracking post.

2nd'd for someone who doesnt know much about politics (or care much 'cause politicains dont seem to be able to tell the truth) it was a very imformative read

Does that mean you will all go and vote Tory? :s

I'd rather a socialist or nationalist party than Tory. The system needs a shake up, not more morbid realism. Voting Tory isn't a shake up, it's the status quo, just like labour remaining in power.

[TheAnimus]

Does that mean you will all go and vote Tory? :s

I'd rather a socialist or nationalist party than Tory. The system needs a shake up, not more morbid realism. Voting Tory isn't a shake up, it's the status quo, just like labour remaining in power.

What is it you fear will happen?

[pollaxe]

Does that mean you will all go and vote Tory? :s

I'd rather a socialist or nationalist party than Tory. The system needs a shake up, not more morbid realism. Voting Tory isn't a shake up, it's the status quo, just like labour remaining in power.

I might well vote Tory at the next election, that's down to me. It could be Lib Dem.

I'm old enough to remember the Tories in power so I'm mindful of that - the nice mess they've left us following the privatisation crazes with telcommunications in particular is one that sticks in the craw. However, I'm also mindful that I'm sick to the gills with the current lot for their Nanny-knows-best-surveillance-crazed attitudes to name but a few failings.

I really don't expect things to get a lot better under the next government but this current bunch of clowns needs to be out as soon as possible, IMVHO..

[nichomach]

I think the boot's on the other foot; a vote for the Tories might be seen as a vote based on fear of what might happen - it is a bit (to borrow Pratchett's pseudo-Latin) "Ave bossa nova, similis bossa seneca..." - as opposed to say voting SWP or UKIP or MLP or whatever?

[Mossy]

I dont pretend to know much but i would say say since the Cons were in power any government would still be feeling the pressure from the mess they made. As discussed Dominoe effect springs to mind.

[Saracen]

I dont pretend to know much but i would say say since the Cons were in power any government would still be feeling the pressure from the mess they made. As discussed Dominoe effect springs to mind.

Unfortunately. the boot is on the other foot, and you have what I would maintain is a very distorted impression of what happened. Let me explain.

The Tories were in power, and did a lot of things that were very unpopular. Some of them were badly managed, but had a core element that were good ideas. For instance, the poll tax. The core principle, that we ALL contribute to the services we use, subject of course to the provision of relief for categories of people that deserve it (like unemployed, sick, students, etc) is a good one. How can it be wrong for each and every one of us, subject to that safety net, to be making a contribution if we are earning an income?

Is it fair, for instance, for an elderly couple on a limited income to be paying the same level of local taxation as the family next door, where not only are Mum and Dad both working, but so are four grown children? Their consumption of services will be higher than the elderly couple and, in all probability, so will their combined income.

So surely, the principle is that if you consume services, you contribute in accordance with your ability to contribute?

The problem is the implementation was badly cocked up, so badly cocked up that it killed any chance of getting a fair system based on that sort of principle for a generation or two, and instead, we're lumbered with the Council Tax system which, with an entirely artificial basis in historical average property levels, is loaded as hell, and has been milked, especially by Brown's Labour, for a decade.

So while the poll tax might have a PR disaster, I'm not convinced the Council Tax that replaced it, and that you note 12 years of Labour has not seen removed, was any better.

Then there's the industrial unrest, culminating in the miner's strike. Well, that's a complex issue too. Not only were not all miners in favour, but if they had been, it would very likely have succeeded. But what was it about? Scargill's Marxist determination to bring down the government for political reasons, versus Thatcher's determination to ruin him if he tried, because she felt that elected governments were supposed to run the country, not union bosses. She had a point.

And she out-managed him, and out-manoeuvred him. After previous incidents, Thatcher ensured that reserves were high, and the timing was right before taking him on. And even so, it was very, very close.

The result? A radical reform of labour laws, heavy curtailing of strike powers, etc, and a wholesale revision of the relationship between workers and bosses. And that set the framework for the successes in the decades that followed, because, by and large, management and unions needed up working together to get the best for both, instead of fighting a ruinous internecine warfare the whole time.

I don’t know how old you are Paul. but maybe not old enough to remember the way industrial relations were in the 60s and 70s, where unions walked out at the drop of a hat, where vast amounts of industrial practices were out of the stone age. The attitude of unions was never, ever allow any job losses, whatever the reason. If "modernisation" meant mechanisation, then it meant job losses and therefore oppose it. What they didn't realise (or admit, anyway) was that that only worked for a short while. You keep all the boys in jobs for a while, but it would result in dire efficiency levels, and companies being unable to compete with foreign competitors. So, the companies couldn't get orders, industry went abroad and even MORE jobs were lost as a result. Why do you think that period saw so much heavy industry (ship-building, the car industry, even most of our steel industry) destroyed, probably never to recover. Is it that we can't build ships or cars, but the Japanese are Germans can? NO, it isn't. We're very bit as good at engineering as the Germans and, certainly in those days, far better than the Japanese. Or just that we spend about 20 years with such dire industrial relations and industrial efficiency that we drove ourselves so far into being uncompetitive that we killed those industries ourselves?

During the 60s and 70, our economy was an international laughing stock. Literally. And it culminated with the Winter of Discontent, with power strikes, with rubbish oiling up in streets because of strikes, and so on.

Well, Thatcher's Tories dealt with that, and they dragged the nation, kicking and screaming, into a state where we could compete internationally.

Ask yourself .... if those Labour laws were so bad, why after 12 years in power has Labour not reversed them? Because even Labour aren't quite that stupid, that's why.

There's an economic/political cycle. Labour have a reputation for tax and spend. They have had for ...well, for ever. And, to a point, that's good. If we tax in the good times, build reserves and use money to provide public services for all, then great, we get a caring society. Where you get a problem is when the government spends money it doesn't have., where it builds up debt it can't service. Just like you or me, it can borrow money, but only so long as someone will lend it. Well, go back to the pre-Labour governments and you'll see where they gpt that "tax and spend" label, though it really ought to be "tax, borrow and spend". And we got ourselves into a mess before where it looked like we were going to have to get the IMF to bail us out. Don't take my word for it .... Google the UK and IMF.

And that's what leads to the cycle I was talking about. Labour spend themselves stupid, usually like a kid in a sweetshop (with his Dad's credit card), and the Tories have to try to reign it back. That nearly always means spending cuts, and often as not, tax rises too.

During the time of the last Tory government, spending was cut a fair bit and taxes increased. But hold on, the Tories believe in low taxes. That's what Labour are always accusing them of ... wanting to cut taxes and implying service cuts will result. So why would a party whose entire ethos is to keep taxes low actually raise them, several times. Well, to pay off the debt levels that Labour had stuck us with .... and that, incidentally, would be required by the IMF before any help was to have been forthcoming anyway.

So what do we have? Labour tax and spend, and build up huge debt. The Tories then have to go directly against the grain and raise taxes to sort it out. When do people, therefore, notice the pain? When Labour create the problems, or when Tories administer the painful medication to sort the problem. That is what is responsible for so much of the Last Tories reputation for painful times - sorting out Labour's disasters.

Now roll forward to current times. Remember the accusations about Brown and "hidden" taxes. Again, look it up. He's been a master at making a budget appear to say one thing, and clobbering you another way. For instance, most people are aware of income tax rates. But actually, national insurance is a more onerous way of taking tax on income and most people don’t notice it. It's not as obvious as the headline income tax rate.

The obvious example of Brown's hypocrisy in this is to pound on about cutting income tax from 22p to 20p, while barely mentioning that by abolishing the 10p rate, the lowest earners are actually worse off. The result, anyone earning under about £18k pays [I]more, while those above that save more from the reduced rate than they pay by abolish the 10p band. Tax the poor to give to the better off. In other words, a regressive change marketed (spun) as a progressive one.

That's just the most well known example, but there's about 70 other examples. And much the same philosophy applies to borrowing. Because the government has debt figures, and Brown had his infamous absolutely unbreakable "sustainable investment" rule in his so-called "prudent" Golden Rules that limited that to 40% of GDP (a figure he's blown way past recently, by the way, to what, 68% and climbing). He hasn't just broken his own rules, he's torn up the rulebook, burnt it and danced on the ashes.

BUt even after his burning and dancing, that doesn't include off-balanced sheet projects like PFI. Instead of borrowing the money to build a hospital, you get the private sector to build in using a PFI contract. They stump up the capital to build it, and you, as a government, don't incur debt. But what you do do is commit to a lucrative (for the private firm) contract to run the hospital, or at least, services at it.

Suppose you had £100k of credit card debt and were having trouble paying it. Does it make sense to "buy" a new car, where the finance company "give" you the car, but you sign a water-tight, totally enforceable contract that they can service the car every year (£2000 a year), check your tyre pressure every week (£50 a time) and supply all the petrol (£1 a litre above market rates) ..... for the next 30 years.

Is that a good deal? Because it's effectively what PFI is. Or rather, PFI is like me signing that kind of contract, but YOU get to pay the fees, because Brown et al will be out of power long before those contracts are worked off. But he advantage is because they're future contractual commitments against expenditure, they're "off balance sheet". They're a "profit and loss" item, not a debt, so they don't show in the debt figure in the balance sheet. But balance sheet ort not, whether you call it a debt repayment or a contractual commitment, we still have to pay it. So ask yourself, what would today's shocking debt figures look like if they DID include things like PFI?

And if you're committed to paying vast sums out of your income every month for a car, does it really matter that much whether you call it a loan repayment or a hire purchase payment?


Remember what I said about the cycle where Labour incur debt, and the Tories get blamed for the pain of paying it down?

Cameron used a statistic this afternoon that was perhaps a bit forced, but puts it in context. The level of government debt Darling predicted this afternoon for the next two years (£175bn and £173 bn respectively), when combined, is more than the total of ALL previous government debt going from when the Bank of England was founded some 300 years ago, up to the current year COMBINED.

Even taking the effect of inflation and real terms into account, that's a staggering indictment of the level of debt this country has. And it also suggests that the medication the government are going to have to force down our throats over he next few years is going to taste really awful, whoever that government is. But in all likelihood, it'll be the Tories, and in 20 years, they'll be getting the blame again for having to clear out the mess Labour left in the stables.



Ask yourself this. If Labour are so good, if the Tories are so bad, if Brown is so "prudent", and if we've been having the really good time in the economy that Brown has spent a decade crowing about, where did all that staggering, stunning debt come from? It certainly wasn't inherited in 1997.

[Rave]

Just felt I should add that my MP works for me about as well as a chocolate condom. His name is Andrew Pelling and he is a big fan of secretive government and doesn't like gays.

Allegedly he doesn't like women much either:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-assault.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ult-claim.html

[dangel]

Ask yourself this. If Labour are so good, if the Tories are so bad, if Brown is so "prudent", and if we've been having the really good time in the economy that Brown has spent a decade crowing about, where did all that staggering, stunning debt come from?

Brown was an idiot chancellor and he's now and idiot primeminister. Labour have dug us all a nice deep hole for many years to come, I have no doubt of that. They know they're gone next election - Brown has all the charisma of telegraph pole after all - and it's figureheads wot the Sun voting public like innit?
That's ignoring the sheer lunacy of their spending in the face of one of the most critical monetary disasters to hit the World in the last century. Prudent my arse.


Incidentally, Saracen - the sheer size of your posts make's me skip them a fair bit (not that the content isn't on the ball more often than not) which I can only apologise for - but if they get much longer i'm going to need a summary section

[Zak33]

So, what does today's "Budget" do for YOU, our dear HEXITES?

Here are just two of the things that will occur:
It increases fuel tax, not just once, but copnsistently for 4 years.
It taxes a few people who earn over £150k more than they were expecting and sooner.

Which of those do you think will effect YOU?

So, your BOSS will be worse off, and ... so will you getting to work everyday.

Result.

Knobbers, the lot of them.

Saracen's post +1

[Mossy]

Saracen

I was born just in the 70's and if I was honest no matter what Government was/ is in power i really do not think it would make a difference and I think the majority of people would agree.

i did state I did not know much about politics just observed what the majority think and at the time when Labour got into power the majority obviously thought Labour should be in power. Maybe that is not the case now but the fact of the matter is we can discuss all day who is and who isnt the best but the FACT of the matter is no one no matter how much they write can assume any party will be better that the other.

Only time can prove this and IF Conservative do get in which is more than likely maybe in time they can show us what a waste of time they are.

PS : I agree with Dangel I do destest the size of your ** Posts i got 3rd though and gave up.

[TheAnimus]

Saracen

I was born just in the 70's and if I was honest no matter what Government was/ is in power i really do not think it would make a difference and I think the majority of people would agree.

i did state I did not know much about politics just observed what the majority think and at the time when Labour got into power the majority obviously thought Labour should be in power. Maybe that is not the case now but the fact of the matter is we can discuss all day who is and who isnt the best but the FACT of the matter is no one no matter how much they write can assume any party will be better that the other.

Only time can prove this and IF Conservative do get in which is more than likely maybe in time they can show us what a waste of time they are.

PS : I agree with Dangel I do destest the size of your ** Posts i got 3rd though and gave up.

Your honestly saying we would see the same levels of debt, if the same lot of vvankers who where in the tory party at 1997 had got in?

There would be hudge differences, there would be no city acadomies, hospitals wouldn't of had the deludge of cash..............

They are, it would seam all a bunch of self serving muppets, but there is a big difference between some of their central ideologies.

[Cozwin]

Damn saracan you have very long posts haha, as much as i see the points you are making, torries have done enough in the past to screw over the working class that they cannot be trusted, i would like to see lib dems get in but it wont happen, we will get torries again they will mess up and vise versa.

[Gazza]

I remember well Thatchers destruction of British industry, which we are still paying for.

I'm not happy with the state of the Labour Party or Mr Brown's government but I simply cannot bring myself to vote Conservative.

I'll vote for what is now the only "real" left of centre party, The Lib Dems . They are a great party at a local level. It's a shame they can never take the next step.

[Saracen]

So, what does today's "Budget" do for YOU, our dear HEXITES?

Here are just two of the things that will occur:

.....

It taxes a few people who earn over £150k more than they were expecting and sooner.

.....

Ah, but does it tax them more? Or does it just appear to?

The type of people that earn that kind of money are, by and large, the kind of people that Fred stacking shelves at supermarkets doesn't, namely, often some discretion as to whether to take "remuneration" as income or capital. Any tax lawyer will tell you that you can affect your effective tax rate by shifting it from one form of tax liability to another .... and find different rates apply. Do it right and you'll drop that 50% to 18%, and the incentive to do so just increased. And, of course, taxes on capital investment are exactly the tings government don't want to tax if they provide a disincentive to invest in the process, because they're relying on that to stimulate the economic recovery. That's why the rates are attractive in the first place, that and the risk some forms of investment imply.

None of us should make the mistake of thinking that just because a Chancellor wants to raise tax, and makes an announcement on tax rats, that tax revenue will necessarily go up, or at least, not by anything like the amount they think it will.

Don't forget the last time a Labour government decided on a punitive redistributive tax policy .... with what people refer (wrongly) to as a 98% tax rate. It was actually, IIRC, an 83% top rate of Income Tax, with an "unearned income" surcharge, the object of which was to collect from investment income, but it did raise the effective rate of tax to 98% on some people.

And what happens if you tax high earners to that extent? Well, they're exactly the category that have the discretionary income to decide to go live abroad, and if you're not careful, increasing tax rates results in tax revenue going down. There's certainly an effect like that, and a point at which it happens.

This tax rate change may not have entirely the effect Darling expects, or at least, says he expects. It'll give tax accountants a boost in income, though, working out all the avoidance schemes this will engender.