Since it's the budget tomorrow....
....and Mr Darling will most likely not be particularly forthcoming with the truth, here's what the IMF reckon that the bank bailouts will really cost the UK taxpayer:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...-verdict.thtml
Lovely Jubbly. Thanks for saddling me with that bill, Messrs Brown and Darling, it's kind of you.
I think I might print off 10,000 copies of the article, stash them in a drawer somewhere, and then post them through the letterbox of every house in my consttituency just before the next election. Just in case people have forgotten. Still, I don't suppose there'll be much chance of that, the way things are going.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rave
I think I might print off 10,000 copies of the article,
Nah, there isn't enough ink for that. The treasury have pinched it all....
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Worth noting that in fact the IMF have withdrawn the figure - they've made a "drafting error". They meant to estimate a range between 6-13%, but cocked up, apparently.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
I think we should rename the country Crap Britain.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rave
....and Mr Darling will most likely not be particularly forthcoming with the truth, here's what the IMF reckon that the bank bailouts will really cost the UK taxpayer:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...-verdict.thtml
Lovely Jubbly. Thanks for saddling me with that bill, Messrs Brown and Darling, it's kind of you.
I think I might print off 10,000 copies of the article, stash them in a drawer somewhere, and then post them through the letterbox of every house in my consttituency just before the next election. Just in case people have forgotten. Still, I don't suppose there'll be much chance of that, the way things are going.
Out of interest..... if you dont mind answering that is, who are you wanting to get in instead of Labour.... If you say tories i might actually kill you....
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cozwin
Out of interest..... if you dont mind answering that is, who are you wanting to get in instead of Labour.... If you say tories i might actually kill you....
Well, the spectator has never been very left wing :rolleyes:
I do love how the tories ridicule labour for it, yet if they get in - they're going to be lumbered with sorting it out. It's all very well saying "ooh labour is going to be taking money out of our wallets", but how do THEY propose to get rid of the deficit? Ah, politics!
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Whiternoise
Well, the spectator has never been very left wing :rolleyes:
I do love how the tories ridicule labour for it, yet if they get in - they're going to be lumbered with sorting it out. It's all very well saying "ooh labour is going to be taking money out of our wallets", but how do THEY propose to get rid of the deficit? Ah, politics!
Conservatives will get into power in the next election, not because they are any good but mainly because we all hate labour. We'll probably end up keeping them for 8 years which will result in us hating them and then voting labour, and the whole cycle will start again :D
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
I heard recently that a bank, I think in America repaid the bail out money it was given.
Is there no plan for banks to made to try and return any of the money once this country picks up again?
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CaseyV9
Is there no plan for banks to made to try and return any of the money once this country picks up again?
Yes there is.
The government own a huge percentage of the banks in the UK now. Thats an investment any way you look at it.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Whiternoise
Well, the spectator has never been very left wing :rolleyes:
I do love how the tories ridicule labour for it, yet if they get in - they're going to be lumbered with sorting it out. It's all very well saying "ooh labour is going to be taking money out of our wallets", but how do THEY propose to get rid of the deficit? Ah, politics!
I may be wrong, but I believe the tories have already stated that if they get in taxes will have to go up. At least they've been up front about it.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shadowmaster
Conservatives will get into power in the next election, not because they are any good but mainly because we all hate labour. We'll probably end up keeping them for 8 years which will result in us hating them and then voting labour, and the whole cycle will start again :D
Haha - yes! This is how politics really works. A party doesn't win an election because people like them, they win because people hate them less than the other side.
We're a bit screwed right now though, as it seems people hate both main parties with equal alacrity.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rave
....and Mr Darling will most likely not be particularly forthcoming with the truth .....
Politician? Not forthcoming? Surely not? :D
Personally, I doubt most politicians would know the truth if it bit them, and I doubt most could even spell it. It seems to me that the prime qualifications for being an MP are a hide that would not only make a bull rhino envious but ought to be copied for main battle-tank armour, and a PhD in obfuscation and avoiding EVER giving a straight answer. Some of them (after recent scandals) probably ought to be evasive with their answer if the question was "What's your name?"
Personally, I think almost MPs fall into three categories :-
1) Those in power, whose only real motivation is staying there, i.e. getting re-elected
2) Those that want to be in power and think they might be, i.e. whose only real motivation is getting into power
3) Those who know they don't stand a prayer (in the foreseeable future) of getting into power. They seem to concentrate merely on getting re-elected to permanent opposition.
Category one, i.e. Labour MPs and more specifically, Ministers, are only ever going to say what makes them look good. They're not going to admit mistakes if they can possibly help it, no matter how two-faced constant evasion makes them look, and will do everything they can to divert the subject onto something else. Of course, they have a problem. As an MP and especially a minister, their future career depends in large part on public profile, so periodically subjecting themselves to the torture of the TV interviewers with their lists of awkward questions is, at the same time, both a detestable experience and thoroughly necessary. That they then dodge awkward questions, usually with a variation of "That isn't the issue. The real question is .... <insert whatever statement they pre-prepared here>", regardless of whether it bears an relevance whatsoever to what they were asked.
Such mealy-mouthed hypocrisy is, of course, showing utter contempt for the electorate.
Category two, i.e. Tory MPs, are of course, dead interested in being utterly open and honest with the people. Their integrity is stabled to their suit sleeves, and they're only too happy to raise awkward questions, every chance they get. They're the people's friends, holding the government to account and showing how things could be better, They are the very epitome of integrity. And it'll last right up to the point where they get elected to power, and which point, they turn into category one MPs.
Category three, i.e. LibDems, well, they're only along for the ride and who really gives a hoot what they think, even when they might be making sense. Despite the odd apparently smart one (like Vince Cable), they seem to have a love for making far-out suggestions, largely secure in the knowledge they're unlikely to ever have to out them in place, and are quite capable of having different policies in one part of the country to another, or of changing them faster than most people change their socks. Still, they regularly provide a comedy element, which given the dour, sour-faced muppet currently running things (into the ground, I might add), is a welcome relief.
After the next merry-go-round (General Election), if we get the anticipated result, it'll be 'all-change' time. Category one MPs will miraculously grow some apparent integrity and the the soul of transparency (except in relation to events while they were in power) as the metamorphasise into category twos. Category two's will shed their current chrysalis and emerge into the full beauty of their political power, leaving their memory of the meaning of "truth" with the remains of the chrysalis. Nothing much changes for category threes, except perhaps the name of the incumbent. Other than that, it's business as usual.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything (;) :)), but when MPs (and especially Ministers) treat us with utter contempt by refusing to ever give a straight answer to a serious and relevant question, and then so many of them get caught doing outrageous things with their expenses and the only answer they ever give is that it's "Within the rules" when they WROTE the damn rules, it certainly isn't any surprise that they're going to be a bit economical with the truth in a budget statement.
Given the state of affairs, they will admit only what they absolutely have too, and will try either to put a good spin on that or will try to bury in in the boring bumph three quarters of the way through, and hope (forlornly no doubt) that nobody spots it.
Oh, there'll be lots of hair-shirted, incredibly "sincere" and serious comments about how its such a hard time because of the "world-wide" recession, but they'll be no admitting that despite that world-wide nature, a fair bit of our problems and our inability to respond properly, are home-grown by none other than our beloved Leader, the Chancellor who spent most of the last 10 years crowing about how great a job he was doing of running the economy, and puffing up his chest every time he did it. Of course, now it seems that nothing that's happened in the decade he was running the economy was anything to do with him. It's all the fault of those nasty Americans (except when Obama is in town and Brown thinks TV pictures of him standing beside Obama, grinning like a 10 year old that's just be told he's been given a chocolate factory, are going to make us think he's our own version of Obama. And when it's not the fault of the rest of the world, it's the fault of those greedy bankers. Never mind who was supposed to be regulating the bankers (the Treasury and the FSA, mainly), or who ran the Treasury and who created the FSA. Yup, innocent ol' Gordon, that'll be you, then.
Oh, and Gordon. If you've got a face like the back end of a bus after a particularly serious rear-end traffic accident, don't stand next to a supermodel. It only makes your own deficiencies all the more starkly obvious. What on earth did you think you were doing, smirking and preening beside Obama, every chance you got? Just because he's the current Darling (pun intended) of the media (and public) all over the place doesn't mean it's contagious, and standing there looking like you're going to wet yourself in schoolboy excitement just because you're in the presence of political royalty merely emphasises your own lack of anything remotely resembling charisma. Believe me, Gordon, it's not a flattering comparison.
So, having gone on a bit of a diversion with that rant, yes, Darling will be a bit conservative (pun intended again) with the truth, and for two reasons. The first, given the nature of the truth, and especially given that we've got elections coming in a few weeks, and a General Election within, at most, not much more than a year, he can hardly give it to us straight, can he? I doubt he'd survive (politically) the week if he did. Nor would his boss. Secondly, well, obviously ... because he's a politician. If one, and one in power especially, ever actually tells us the unvarnished, straight truth, the Almighty Omnipotent Creator of the Universe (what his/her name and religious persuasion) is likely to be so shocked that reality might cease to exist.
So what will we get in the budget? Well, we have elections (European, local and for some of us, London) coming up in a few weeks that nobody really gives a hoot about. How many people know who their MEP is, let alone what he/she stand for or does, or even what party they represent? So, the elections are likely to be used by many, and also seen by many, as a sort-of wide-ranging opinion poll on the government. And after all the economic woes, the billions in bank bailouts (which, contrary to what the Gruesome Twosome (Brown and his hand-puppet) told us now looks to involve tens of billions of losses, and the screwup with "shredder" Goodwin's pension, with the G20 policing row, with the Home Secretary claiming for porn films for her husband and McNulty's housing claims, and so on, it'd be a very brave person (or the village idiot) that predicted Labour will do well.
It may well also be seen as an opinion poll on Brown personally. From what I hear, he is NOT out of hot water with his own party. Most emphatically not, despite the absence of public carping. He is certainly not out of it with a substantial number of MPs in marginal seats who, on current ratings and expectations, are going to be looking for new jobs after the next general election. But if there's going to be a palace coup, they can't wait much longer to do it.
What I've been told is that most Labour MPs now accept that unless something happens to seriously damage Cameron (such as a major expenses scandal) they're almost certain to lose the next election. Many Labour MPs no longer think it's winnable. They do think that the Tories might yet lose it, though. But it's a pretty long shot. Nothing's ever certain, but that's a widely-held expectation. The question is, lose it by how much? How extensive will the damage be? There's a feeling that, if they accept that the General Election is probably lost with or without Brown driving, then dumping Brown, even at this stage, might mitigate the damage and leave the party less decimated than if they keep him. His tenure, it seems, is still not quite certain and the rebel movement might have been keeping quiet recently, but they haven't gone away or changed their minds. Instead, they're focussed on the big picture, that being their own jobs as MPs and not just as MPs in the party in power, and how best to keep them. Publicly opposing Brown might yet start to look like the best strategy.
So Darling has a problem. He can't lie/kid/con/spin too much about the situation or he'll be a laughing stock. And he won't be believed. And if the market's dismiss the budget entirely, the adverse reaction could be very nasty and where to pin the blame will be obvious. So whatever he says has to be at least marginally credible. And that means it's going to be a dire outlook.
On the other hand, the picture is sufficiently bad, and everyone is expecting it to be so much worse than his predictions in the pre-budget report just 6 months ago, that the "revised" projections are going to hand Cameron, Osborne et.al. some wonderful ammunition for putting Brown's gonads in a vice and turning the handle.
There's more than an element of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" about this budget. This budget has great potential for resulting in more than an increase in price (due to excessive demand) for red ink. It could also result in more red on the floors of Parliament, that being some political blood.
So, in my opinion, the main objective of this budget will be about damage limitation in relation to the PMs career.
But there's an upside. The oldest political trick in the book is to divert attention from bad news by creating a more recent story. Brown has already done a whopping great volte-face about changing the expenses scheme. Perhaps, he might find a suitable sacrificial goat to offer up, to divert attention, and the Home Secretary has had sufficient problems recently, topped off by the scandalous porn movie farce, that she might make a tasty offering. And McNulty too.
So, how about a reshuffle? Move a few bodies about, and dump the more obvious liabilities? I'm not holding my breath, but we can but hope. One thing I am certain of .... if he thought he could get away with it, and that it might work, then there's at least a couple of ministers that ought to be getting some luggage on their expenses while they still can, because they're likely to need it shortly. And if not very soon, then in a year or so's time.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Oh, and another thing. After the pre-budget report late last year, I said on here that the assumptions about when the recovery would start looked optimistic as hell, and that far from being this summer (Q3 as Darling said) I'd be surprised if there was anything much positive happening this year, and that next summer, or later (depending on how bad things continued to get) were far more likely.
And I was far from the only one.
We could see it, but Darling apparently couldn't ..... or wouldn't, or wasn't allowed to own up to it. That doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence in whatever he changes those predictions to today.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shadowmaster
Conservatives will get into power in the next election, not because they are any good but mainly because we all hate labour. We'll probably end up keeping them for 8 years which will result in us hating them and then voting labour, and the whole cycle will start again :D
Quite so.
And politicians wonder why people are growing ever more politically apathetic, and don't bother voting. It's because we get the same type of people whoever we vote for, and all we succeed in doing is changing some names.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cozwin
Out of interest..... if you dont mind answering that is, who are you wanting to get in instead of Labour.... If you say tories i might actually kill you....
Well, I certainly will.
Why?
For a start, because they can't muck it up any worse than Labour have.
Secondly, because some of the things that HAVE to be done are more likely to be done by the Tories. For a start, we can't continue to pay out for things when we can't afford them. That includes public services. No body, be it a household, company or state, can live beyond its means on borrowing for ever. Sooner or later, that debt has to be dealt with. The sooner people accept that that IS going to be painful, whoever is in power, the better. It's not like it's optional any more, or that it's going to happen as a result of political philosophy. It's going to happen because the nation is skint.
So we need to take a long, hard look at what we spend, cancel some, cut others and make the most of the efficiency of everything, wherever we can. And do it without affecting service delivery any more than we have to.
Thirdly, because of the implications of the cycle shadowmaster referred to. Experience tells us that any party gets too arrogant if in power too long. The Tories did it, and now Labour have done it. We need a change, and I'll vote for whoever stands the best chance of getting Labour out. They can have another go in a few years, but right now, my ONLY objective in voting, regardless of who gets in, will be to get Labour out, and I'd vote for Satan himself if it'd achieve that.
Why? Brown's economic incompetence for a start. But it's MUCH more than that. I'd vote that way on ID cards (and database) alone. The Tories have promised to cancel it. That gets them my vote. Labour's atrocious record on scrapping centuries old civil liberties in the name of "fighting terrorism" for another thing.
Oh, and I haven't forgiven Labour for Blair's dodgy dossier, and taking the country to war on a con job, either.
Then there's Labour's mealy-mouthed refusal to give us a referendum on the Lisbon treaty/constitution, or whatever they're calling it this week, and using what I regard as legalistic loopholes in their clearly and repeatedly expressed manifesto commitment to justify it.
Then there's the Lord Chancellor's (as was) program to remove lay magistrates from Court benches, and replace them with stipendiary (paid) lawyers. The lay magistrates have, for centuries, been drawn from a pool of well-respected local people, not professional lawyers. Again, erosion of civil liberties. The list of those is both nearly endless, and very serious. And the culture feeds into the attitudes in police as expressed by the disgraceful actions of a handful at recent events like the G20.
There is a culture in the Labour party recently, and especially in Brown, of 'them and us'. Of wanting to run our lives, and even micro-manage whatever they can. That culture feeds through in ever more draconian laws and the erosion of those precious liberties, from the use of anti-terror laws in ways that clearly have nothing whatever to do with terrorism, right down to wanting to micro-chip our refuse bags, and fining people for putting rubbish out on the wrong day, or for over-filling their bin. Well, if they still actually collected bins like they used to when we didn't put rubbish out ourselves, or if they didn't half the number of collections and think that means less waste gets generated, these things wouldn't happen.
Labour don't seem to respect that they WORK FOR US. They're supposed to represent us. I think Vince Cable was wrong when he accused Brown of changing from Stalin into Mr Bean. There's still more than a touch of Stalin about him ..... as evidenced by Damian McBride and his disgraceful email smear stunt. Bear in mind, this was not a political activist. It was someone Brown personally recruited, and that was known throughout the political machine as a Bro2wn hatchet-man, an Attack dog, if you believe the media.
So yes, I'll vote Tory if that's the best way to get Brown and Labour out, and getting them out is the ONLY reason I need.
Re: Since it's the budget tomorrow....