Todays budget

[belton rover]

It was silly, Billy. I was just trying to add a little humour into the discussion.

[tommy toes]

A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.

By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....

In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements

He did have £25 billion ish in today’s money given to him on a plate to invest (British share of Marshall plan)!did he spend it wisely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

Like all your posts when you try to criticise Labour, I'll say.. Is that all you've got?

Look at what the Attlee government did with that money, they laid the foundation of a better and fairer society that all of us have benefitted from.
The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.

[SydneyRover]

The NHS system is the envy of the world and the tory attempts to trash it will provide most of Labours campaign slogans .............

tories we took out ₤350m a week from the NHS

saw it on the side of a bus

[Sprotyrover]

The NHS system is the envy of the world and the tory attempts to trash it will provide most of Labours campaign slogans .............

tories we took out ₤350m a week from the NHS

saw it on the side of a bus

I bet you miss our NHS in your new Homeland Syd how does healthcare downunder compare to that which you shunned!

[Sprotyrover]

A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.

By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....

In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements

He did have £25 billion ish in today’s money given to him on a plate to invest (British share of Marshall plan)!did he spend it wisely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

Like all your posts when you try to criticise Labour, I'll say.. Is that all you've got?

Look at what the Attlee government did with that money, they laid the foundation of a better and fairer society that all of us have benefitted from.
The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.

So you make out that The Tories fiddled away £25 Billion on dodgy PPE deals? Show me the evidence?

[SydneyRover]

The NHS system is the envy of the world and the tory attempts to trash it will provide most of Labours campaign slogans .............

tories we took out ₤350m a week from the NHS

saw it on the side of a bus

I bet you miss our NHS in your new Homeland Syd how does healthcare downunder compare to that which you shunned!

All my healthcare is free, the system is pretty much based on the NHS

[tommy toes]

A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.

By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....

In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements

He did have £25 billion ish in today’s money given to him on a plate to invest (British share of Marshall plan)!did he spend it wisely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

Like all your posts when you try to criticise Labour, I'll say.. Is that all you've got?

Look at what the Attlee government did with that money, they laid the foundation of a better and fairer society that all of us have benefitted from.
The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.

So you make out that The Tories fiddled away £25 Billion on dodgy PPE deals? Show me the evidence?

You're right Sproty.
It was only a measly £10 billion.
Chicken feed eh?

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/25/uk-government-wasted-nearly-10bn-on-unused-covid-ppe-figures-show?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099814710298&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2Fjan%2F25%2Fuk-government-wasted-nearly-10bn-on-unused-covid-ppe-figures-show

[Sprotyrover]

A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.

By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....

In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements

He did have £25 billion ish in today’s money given to him on a plate to invest (British share of Marshall plan)!did he spend it wisely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

Like all your posts when you try to criticise Labour, I'll say.. Is that all you've got?

Look at what the Attlee government did with that money, they laid the foundation of a better and fairer society that all of us have benefitted from.
The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.

So you make out that The Tories fiddled away £25 Billion on dodgy PPE deals? Show me the evidence?

You're right Sproty.
It was only a measly £10 billion.
Chicken feed eh?

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/25/uk-government-wasted-nearly-10bn-on-unused-covid-ppe-figures-show?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099814710298&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2Fjan%2F25%2Fuk-government-wasted-nearly-10bn-on-unused-covid-ppe-figures-show

The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.
You seem to be alleging that the Tories exclusively purchased PPE from companies that were owned by their personal friends is that correct? To the tune of £10 billion?

[tommy toes]

You just keep on defending the indefensible Sprotyrover.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Back to the basics,  just tax the rich, reduce inequality,  improve society. The budget didn't do this.

[River Don]

Back to the basics,  just tax the rich, reduce inequality,  improve society. The budget didn't do this.

The economy is stagnant and the very wealthy are really the only section of society making money. A simple balance sheet says that wealth must be coming from the rest of us. When the economy isn't growing, it becomes like a game of monopoly, where the winner steadily hoovers up all the assets from everyone else.

This isn't just happening in the UK, it's happening right across the west. As such I think there needs to be international agreements on taxing the superwealthy. For goodness sake, Musk, Bezos and Gates together are worth more than the lower 50% of the US population. It's obscene.

[albie]

''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends''

Albie, do you bump into tyke and others from off-topic when you are trawling for conspiracies about labour?

Conspiracies? How can there be a conspiracy against a party that doesn't do anything? What is there to conspire about?

Scawsby Steve,

It is easy enough to check the history of fiscal rules, if Syd really wanted to;
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/fiscal-rules-history

The article explains that:
"The first fiscal rules in the UK were adopted by the New Labour government in 1997".

Pre 1997 this device was not formally a part of government economic thinking, although some measures to achieve the same ends might have been used in an ad hoc way.
The BBC have several times made this clear, on budget day Economics correspondent Andy Verity explained that Gordon Brown introduced the idea....it did not work, and was later revised.

But this falls on deaf ears by those who wish for a different truth.

Like BST, Syd reverts to smears whenever he does not have a viable argument.
This is par for the course these days.
Divert to mention Corbyn, or the Left, to distract from the poor case for the defence.

Pretend to have "refuted" something when no supporting evidence is produced, and fail to check properly unless he has seen it in the Guardian...sad really!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Have you actually read that link you posted Albie?

[SydneyRover]

Albie: ''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends.

These rules are revised on a regular basis, once it becomes clear they will not deliver the stated objectives''

Cannot find anything to support the first sentence Albie, can you expand on what was being covered up? hope it's not another conspiracy theory.

The Brown policies were a progression and refinement of what went before.

1/ ''Gordon Brown’s first and main policy, when nominated Chancellor in 1997, was to reform the monetary framework by enforcing three major changes dedicated to maintaining price stability. He replaced the inflation target margin by a symmetrical inflation target rate that would correspond to a bearable equilibrium rate supporting growth. He created a Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England; he granted it complete independence in deciding and implementing any measure needed to reach the government’s target. He reinforced forward looking, asking the Committee to forecast inflation rates and to take corrective measures now, so that the rates would match the target in the future'' .............

14/ ''Naturally, Gordon Brown’s construction of a new monetary framework did not come out of the blue. It found its origins in progressive theoretical thinking and recent partial implementation''

https://journals.openedition.org/osb/1124

Albie, read this including the link.

[SydneyRover]

Albie: ''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends''

All you have to do is to explain the above Albie, then we'll know if I impugned you.

[Sprotyrover]

Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!

[normal rules]

Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!

they could always flog whats left of the uk's gold reserve

[Sprotyrover]

Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!

they could always flog whats left of the uk's gold reserve

Get Gordon Brown in he’s an expert in Gold trading!

[albie]

Here you go Syd, from the IFS.
This article explains why the use of fiscal rules is a convenient camouflage option for politicians.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/gaming-fiscal-rules-no-way-make-budget-policy

Surprised you missed this when reading your Guardian, Syd;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/04/the-guardian-view-on-treasury-fiscal-rules-no-way-to-run-a-country

A good explainer of the Hunt budget here;
https://leftfootforward.org/2024/03/why-jeremy-hunts-budget-fails-britain/

I hope this helps!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!

They haven't yet actually told us what they are going to do? What do they want us to vote for them for? Not being the Tories?

[Iberian Red]

Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!

They haven't yet actually told us what they are going to do? What do they want us to vote for them for? Not being the Tories?

Not voting for those kitsons is as good a reason as any.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP.

Like I keep saying, Oppositions don't win elections. Governments lose them.

You'll be too young to remember, but Blair came to power in a landslide, saying very little about what he wanted to do, and explicitly sticking to the Tories' spending plans.

Thatcher never campaigned in 79 on the policy of having 15% interest rates to crush inflation, which would put 4 million out of work. She won because Labour had lost control in the Winter of Discontent.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Here you go Syd, from the IFS.
This article explains why the use of fiscal rules is a convenient camouflage option for politicians.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/gaming-fiscal-rules-no-way-make-budget-policy

It really doesn't explain that at all.

Both the last two articles you've posted, implying that they destroy the idea of a Fiscal rule, do nothing of the sort. They both clearly state the need for A fiscal rule, properly adhered to.

[Bentley Bullet]

During the 1997 general election campaign, a Labour pledge card with five specific pledges was issued and detailed in the manifesto too. The pledges were:

Cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme.
Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing.
Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100,000,000 saved from NHS red tape.
Get 250,000 under-25s off benefits and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities.
No rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5% and inflation and interest rates as low as possible.

[Bentley Bullet]

Conservative Manifesto, 1979
FOREWORD by The Rt. Hon. Margaret Thatcher
1. OUR FIVE TASKS
2. RESTORING THE BALANCE

The control of inflation
Better value for money
Trade union reform
1. Picketing
2. The closed shop
3. Wider participation
Too many strikes
Responsible pay bargaining
3. A MORE PROSPEROUS COUNTRY
Cutting income tax
A property-owning democracy
Industry, commerce and jobs
Nationalisation
Fair trade
Small businesses
Energy
Agriculture
Fishing
Animal welfare
4. THE RULE OF LAW
The fight against crime
Deterring the criminal
Immigration and race relations
The supremacy of Parliament
Northern Ireland
5. HELPING THE FAMILY
Homes of our own
The sale of council houses
Reviving the private rented sector
Protecting the environment
Standards in education
Parents' rights and responsibilities
The arts
Health and welfare
Making sense of social security
The elderly and the disabled
6. A STRONG BRITAIN IN A FREE WORLD
Improving our defences
The European Community
Africa and the Middle East
Rhodesia
Trade, aid and the Commonwealth
7. A NEW BEGINNING Foreword
FOR ME, THE HEART OF POLITICS is not political theory, it is people and how they want to live their lives.

No one who has lived in this country during the last five years can fail to be aware of how the balance of our society has been increasingly tilted in favour of the State at the expense of individual freedom.

This election may be the last chance we have to reverse that process, to restore the balance of power in favour of the people. It is therefore the most crucial election since the war.

Together with the threat to freedom there has been a feeling of helplessness, that we are a once great nation that has somehow fallen behind and that it is too late now to turn things round.

I don't accept that. 1 believe we not only can, we must. This manifesto points the way.

It contains no magic formula or lavish promises. It is not a recipe for an easy or a perfect life. But it sets out a broad framework for the recovery of our country, based not on dogma, but On reason, on common sense, above all on the liberty of the people under the law.

The things we have in common as a nation far outnumber those that set us apart. P> It is in that spirit that I commend to you this manifesto.

Margaret Thatcher

1. OUR FIVE TASKS
THIS ELECTION is about the future of Britain - a great country which seems to have lost its way. It is a country rich in natural resources, in coal, oil, gas and fertile farmlands. It is rich, too, in human resources, with professional and managerial skills of the highest calibre, with great industries and firms whose workers can be the equal of any in the world We are the inheritors of a long tradition of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.

Yet today, this country is faced with its most serious problems since the Second World War. What has happened to our country, to the values we used to share, to the success and prosperity we once took for granted?

During the industrial strife of last winter, confidence, self-respect, common sense, and even our sense of common humanity were shaken. At times this society seemed on the brink of disintegration.

Some of the reasons for our difficulties today are complex and go back many years. Others are more simple and more recent. We do not lay all the blame on the Labour Party: but Labour have been in power for most of the last fifteen years and cannot escape the major responsibility.

They have made things worse in three ways. First, by practising the politics of envy and by actively discouraging the creation of wealth, they have set one group against another in an often bitter struggle to gain a larger share of a weak economy.

Second, by enlarging the role of the State and diminishing the role of the individual, they have crippled the enterprise and effort on which a prosperous country with improving social services depends.

Third, by heaping privilege without responsibility on the trade unions, Labour have given a minority of extremists the power to abuse individual liberties and to thwart Britain's chances of success. One result is that the trade union movement, which sprang from a deep and genuine fellow-feeling for the brotherhood of man, is today more distrusted and feared than ever before.

It is not just that Labour have governed Britain badly. They have reached a dead-end. The very nature of their Party now

prevents them from governing successfully in a free society and mixed economy.

Divided against themselves; devoid of any policies except those which have led to and would worsen our present troubles; bound inescapably by ties of history, political dogma and financial dependence to a single powerful interest group, Labour have demonstrated yet again that they cannot speak and dare not act for the nation as a whole.

Our country's relative decline is not inevitable. We in the Conservative Party think we can reverse it, not because we think we have all the answers but because we think we have the one answer that matters most. We want to work with the grain of human nature, helping people to help themselves - and others. This is the way to restore that self-reliance and self-confidence which are the basis of personal responsibility and national success.

Attempting to do too much, politicians have failed to do those things which should be done. This has damaged the country and the authority of government. We must concentrate on what should be the priorities for any government. They are set out in this manifesto.

Those who look in these pages for lavish promises or detailed commitments on every subject will look in vain. We may be able to do more in the next five years than we indicate here. We believe we can. But the Conservative government's first job will be to rebuild our economy and reunite a divided and disillusioned people.

Our five tasks are:

(i) To restore the health of our economic and social life, by controlling inflation and striking a fair balance between the rights and duties of the trade union movement.

(2) To restore incentives so that hard work pays, success is rewarded and genuine new jobs are created in an expanding economy.

(3) To uphold Parliament and the rule of law.

(4) To support family life, by helping people to become home-owners, raising the standards of their children's education, and concentrating welfare services on the effective support of the old, the sick, the disabled and those who are in real need.

(5) To strengthen Britain's defences and work with our allies to protect our interests in an increasingly threatening world.

[albie]

BST,

No, you are wrong again.

Both articles (the IFS and the IFG) point out that the fiscal rules are a political choice, not an economic necessity.
There is no basis in economic theory for a particular formula for reducing debt as a % of GDP over an arbitrary 5 year timescale.

Likewise, why should Public Sector Net Borrowing be less than 3% of GDP in the fifth year?
This has nothing whatsoever to do with economics, and anyone suggesting it does should explain why.

Hunt (and Reeves) could set other restrictions on spending, and proceed on a case by case basis, as governments tended to do before New Labour.
Equally, they could set out policy objectives and look to increase taxes on assets or wealth to meet those investment priorities.

I don't know of anyone in the profession who would, without heavy caveats, support the arguments you are making in this thread.

[belton rover]

BFYP.

Like I keep saying, Oppositions don't win elections. Governments lose them.

You'll be too young to remember, but Blair came to power in a landslide, saying very little about what he wanted to do, and explicitly sticking to the Tories' spending plans.

Thatcher never campaigned in 79 on the policy of having 15% interest rates to crush inflation, which would put 4 million out of work. She won because Labour had lost control in the Winter of Discontent.

I would argue that although the Tories lost it, as you say happens, it wouldn’t have been on such a scale if Blair hadn’t taken over as leader after the untimely death of John Smith. He oozed the C word, didn’t he?
Blair got me excited about our prospects and made me want to vote Labour. Of course, history eventually showed us he made some terrible mistakes, but he had us all in the palm of his hand to begin with.

That’s what we should have now: that kind of optimism. The gap should be even wider now than it was then, given the shit we’ve had in recent years. It may still be in terms of landslides, but where’s the optimism for our country this time?
All we’ve got is that at least the Tories won’t be in power anymore.

[River Don]

Interestingly, the current conservative government have been failing very badly on all five of Thatchers objectives since 2008.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

You are consistently confusing the principle of A fiscal rule with the specific detail of specific variants of a Fiscal rule.

It is simply unarguable that some form of fiscal rule is required by any and every sensible Govt. The specific detail is critically important of course, but just because Hunt picked a bad one doesn't mean the concept is wrong.

[tyke1962]

The country was offered real change by the Labour Party over the last two elections .

The country chose to stay as we are .

That will almost certainly lead to the country shifting further and further to the Right once this brief 5 years interlude of a centrist Labour government ends .

The previous two elections were in my opinion the last chance saloon before the country descends in to the grip of the Right .

The left are out of the game completely , finished possibly for decades , maybe for ever .

The country always gets the government it deserves .