NationStates Jolt Archive


British Budget

Pure Metal
23-03-2006, 11:30
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/news_web/video/41472000/bb/41472300_bb_16x9.asx

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/bud06_completereport_2320.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news_web/video/9012da68003d168/bb/09012da68003d321_16x9_bb.asx


anybody got any thoughts?

my personal thoughts that Brown has done a brilliant job as chancellor, ensuring stability and steady (uninterupted for 10 years) economic growth for the country despite world economic downturns, war, oil price crises, and the like.
i will support the man to move forward to number 10.
unlike that toad cameron, who's main rebuttal against the budget was little more than a soundbite collection of cliches, political rhetoric and snidey remarks. don't forget that cameron was also a chief advisor to norman lamont, the tory chancellor who brought you the politically engineered recession of '92 (in a time of world economic boom), millions unemployed and inflation rising well into double figures.

in this budget Brown has enacted measures to cut inefficiency in government bureaucracy, increased welfare for the poorest via the working families' tax credit, will invest an extra £8 billion in the state education system in an effort to bring parity to private and state per-pupil expenditure, encouraged 'green' measures such as cutting road tax for the most fuel-efficient cars while raising it for the gas-guzzlers, and other stuff of course... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4832848.stm

he and his policies may not be perfect (nobody - especially no politician - is), but a damn sight better than the tories.

thoughts?
Timmikistan
23-03-2006, 11:47
the problem now with the labour government is its continued long term reign at the top of british politics. brown has delivered a viable long term budget, which at least attempts to offer social welfare, the tories i believe wouldn't. though this is not the issue. people want blair gone, they want change ... brown should become PM by christmas give him a couple of years at the healm to stop cameron coming in.
though who do think then would become chancellor, want would t blair do?
Pure Metal
23-03-2006, 11:53
the problem now with the labour government is its continued long term reign at the top of british politics. brown has delivered a viable long term budget, which at least attempts to offer social welfare, the tories i believe wouldn't. though this is not the issue. people want blair gone, they want change ... brown should become PM by christmas give him a couple of years at the healm to stop cameron coming in.
though who do think then would become chancellor, want would t blair do?
yeah, the tories aren't really the issue... apologies for my rant. it seems i can't discuss any aspect of british politics without spitting bile about them these days :p

i did think delivering a 10 year plan was a little ambitious. not because i specifically fear or believe that labour will lose power, but it could happen.
as for mr blair... it's a shame that the country seems to have turned on him as they have, but i guess you can't fight public opinion. brown should move into #10 ASAP, and blair should... retire? become a back-bencher? become the next chancellor? who knows...
Heavenly Sex
23-03-2006, 11:54
He may not be perfect, but at least he's trying.
Surely much better than anything those asinine Torys would do!
Pure Metal
23-03-2006, 11:55
He may not be perfect, but at least he's trying.
Surely much better than anything those asinine Torys would do!
best of a bad bunch if you ask me.

the lib dems would be the best if it were worth voting for them (i do anyway but that's not the point.. :p)


i think labour should move back toward their socialist roots, and was quite pleased that this budget was a step in the right direction in at least some respects :)
Digsy
23-03-2006, 11:57
Hmm, on a side note. Do the Torys still want to give absolute power to the monarch or something like that?

I know nothing about Crazy British politics, except for that house of lords thing that sounds cool. :D
I V Stalin
23-03-2006, 11:58
Y'know, instead of reading your post, PM, I looked at all the links in your sig.
Timmikistan
23-03-2006, 12:02
should... retire? become a back-bencher? become the next chancellor? who knows...

well if he gets out soon i know that the post of secretary general of the UN is about to become avaliable ....

... also the coverage of the budget showed the unimportance of the lib dems. menzies cambells response to the budget wasnt shown live. bbc had a panel discussion of the brown v cameron battle and itv went to cartoons!!
I V Stalin
23-03-2006, 12:04
yeah, the tories aren't really the issue... apologies for my rant. it seems i can't discuss any aspect of british politics without spitting bile about them these days :p

i did think delivering a 10 year plan was a little ambitious. not because i specifically fear or believe that labour will lose power, but it could happen.
as for mr blair... it's a shame that the country seems to have turned on him as they have, but i guess you can't fight public opinion. brown should move into #10 ASAP, and blair should... retire? become a back-bencher? become the next chancellor? who knows...
10 year plans are twice as bad as 5 year plans, and look what happened in the USSR...
Labour won't lose power in the next two elections. Brown will take over from Blair once Blair has been PM (not you, PM :D ) for 10 years, and will beat Cameron (probably only marginally, but he'll have a double figure majority) in 2010. Cameron will then quit as Tory leader, as he won't have any excuse a to why he didn't win the election - 4 years should be plenty to win an election. Blair will probably become a back-bencher, along with his mate Blunkett.

As to the Budget, it doesn't look a particularly memorable one. It's a solid budget from a solid chancellor, and that's probably one of the highest praises you could give Brown.
Zolworld
23-03-2006, 12:15
This budget seems good. Gordon will be incharge soon and should beat cameron easily. No matter what Blair does now the people will be against him. He could turn this into the best country in the world and still everyone would just go "what a wanker he invaded Iraq." I for one dont give a shit about the war, Tony has done a good job running THIS country and deserves more credit than he gets.

My only worry with Brown incharge is who the hell will be chancellor? Blair will probly go on a lecture tour in america or something, hes got a big mortgage to pay!
Gruenberg
23-03-2006, 12:17
£26 billion for PFI announced the same morning...
Unified Home
23-03-2006, 12:26
Did any of you lot here him mention the NHS?

Because I didn't, I mean on Newsnight they said that over 5000 NHS jobs would be cut around the country and most of them from Lincolnshire.
Safalra
23-03-2006, 12:31
The best I can say is that it would have been worse if the Tories were in power. Too much money is still wasted on services that shouldn't be provided by the government - I prefer the LibDem policy of abolishing several entire departments (including the Department Of Trade And Industry) and using the money to fund health, education, and environment programmes.
Pure Metal
23-03-2006, 12:36
well if he gets out soon i know that the post of secretary general of the UN is about to become avaliable ....

oh no, no that spot's being filled already by a Thai chap. when he was introduced to G.W. Bush by the Thai prime minister, he was described as "loyal and obedient".... :-S

Y'know, instead of reading your post, PM, I looked at all the links in your sig.
ok... that's random :p

Did any of you lot here him mention the NHS?

Because I didn't, I mean on Newsnight they said that over 5000 NHS jobs would be cut around the country and most of them from Lincolnshire.
he promised an extra £6 billion to go to the NHS last year. i understand he's already released a statement saying something along the lines of "i don't repeat stuff"

10 year plans are twice as bad as 5 year plans, and look what happened in the USSR...
Labour won't lose power in the next two elections. Brown will take over from Blair once Blair has been PM (not you, PM :D ) for 10 years, and will beat Cameron (probably only marginally, but he'll have a double figure majority) in 2010. Cameron will then quit as Tory leader, as he won't have any excuse a to why he didn't win the election - 4 years should be plenty to win an election. Blair will probably become a back-bencher, along with his mate Blunkett.

hehe yes... that's a continual problem with discussing british politics... stupid name!! :p
i hope your predictions are right. cameron does worry me slightly as he does seem to have far more charisma than any of the previous tory hopefuls. then again, a lot of it is gimmicks, soundbytes and rhetoric... the tories still blow.


As to the Budget, it doesn't look a particularly memorable one. It's a solid budget from a solid chancellor, and that's probably one of the highest praises you could give Brown.

amen. stability doesn't need memorable budgets. managing the economy is like doing hollywood special effects: if people don't notice it you're doing a good job!
Unified Home
23-03-2006, 12:36
So when do we think that Blairs going? because this was Browns first face to face bench insults with David Cameron
Philosopy
23-03-2006, 12:44
my personal thoughts that Brown has done a brilliant job as chancellor, ensuring stability and steady (uninterupted for 10 years) economic growth for the country despite world economic downturns, war, oil price crises, and the like.
Brown has been a terrible Chancellor. He has taken the legacy of a strong economy and done nothing with it. We have not had boom and bust; but we have not had any boom, and a half decent Chancellor would have seen a strong economy, not a half hearted one. Add this to the literally dozens of stealth taxes and an income disparity that is actually worse than under the Tories and you'll see that his time in Office leaves much to be desired.

i will support the man to move forward to number 10.
I think we should have an election rather than have the PM appointed by a select elite. It's undemocratic that Brown's budget did more to nod towards his Union backers than to the people of the country he is meant to represent.

unlike that toad cameron, who's main rebuttal against the budget was little more than a soundbite collection of cliches, political rhetoric and snidey remarks. don't forget that cameron was also a chief advisor to norman lamont, the tory chancellor who brought you the politically engineered recession of '92 (in a time of world economic boom), millions unemployed and inflation rising well into double figures.
This is a bizarre attack that Labour tried on Michael Howard as well regarding the Poll Tax. "You were a minor advisor/minister during the recession/Poll Tax - it's obviously all your fault!"

With regard to the 'politically engineered recession of 1992,' whatever that somewhat loaded statement is meant to mean, I must also point out to the Labourites and Lib Dems who prefer to have a bout of amnesia about it that their parties supported the entry into the ERM, and Labour actually mocked the Tories for not going into it. If Labour had won the election of 1992, the recession would still have happened, but instead of having the strong economy we had 5 years later, the Labour Party would have self destructed under the internal pressures.

in this budget Brown has enacted measures to cut inefficiency in government bureaucracy, increased welfare for the poorest via the working families' tax credit, will invest an extra £8 billion in the state education system in an effort to bring parity to private and state per-pupil expenditure, encouraged 'green' measures such as cutting road tax for the most fuel-efficient cars while raising it for the gas-guzzlers, and other stuff of course...
After 10 years...you've not yet worked out that what Brown says doesn't actually translate into anything in reality? He gives with one hand while taking with the other. His flagship policy of state funding contains no strategy, no promises, no ideas; it's just a new buzz phrase to nod to the Union voters.

he and his policies may not be perfect (nobody - especially no politician - is), but a damn sight better than the tories.
The policies are terrible - but then I agree the Tories would do no better. And, despite what I say, I would rather have Mr "Steady as she Goes" Brown than Mr "The Unemployment Disappears if I snort this Coke" Osbourne and friends.

Now guess which party I'm a member of. :D
Philosopy
23-03-2006, 12:47
Hmm, on a side note. Do the Torys still want to give absolute power to the monarch or something like that?
lol, no, British Politics has moved on ever so slightly since the American Revolution. :D
Rrse
23-03-2006, 12:48
Tony is a smarmy tosser and the budget was basically nothing. What about the NHS? Why are hopsitals having to get rid of staff? The NHS needs reform, not money thrown at it randomly. Education needs reform, there are too many fingers in the pie. Free bus travel for old people? wtf? they already get that in Scotland and London. Inheritance tax? it should be raised up way more, average house prices are so high that many ordinary people will have to pay it, it was not meant for that, its the government getting money for nothing. And why the hell should the government give babies £500 just for being born? Then £500 more for getting to 7 years old...spend it better Gordon, stop trying to apease people and make a real difference to the country.
Peisandros
23-03-2006, 12:55
The only thing I heard about the British Budget is the tax on big cars. Apparently there was some thought we might follow suit but our Minister of Finance quickly said, "it will not be in the budget this year".
Pure Metal
23-03-2006, 13:04
Brown has been a terrible Chancellor. He has taken the legacy of a strong economy and done nothing with it. We have not had boom and bust; but we have not had any boom, and a half decent Chancellor would have seen a strong economy, not a half hearted one. :p do you know anything about economics? boom is unsustainable. slow, steady growth is (better, at least... we're still not on sustainable growth yet but that's a whole different plate of cookies...)
hahaha....

Add this to the literally dozens of stealth taxes and an income disparity that is actually worse than under the Tories and you'll see that his time in Office leaves much to be desired.
i'll agree with you that the latter is certainly poor... if true.
i'm not sure it is (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=332&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=832)

I think we should have an election rather than have the PM appointed by a select elite.
and where did Major come from after the fall of Thatcher in 1990? the election was in 1992 i believe.
pot. kettle. black.

besides, i frankly do not mind. it's lawful and i see Brown as a competent PM.

It's undemocratic that Brown's budget did more to nod towards his Union backers than to the people of the country he is meant to represent.

unsubstantiated.

This is a bizarre attack that Labour tried on Michael Howard as well regarding the Poll Tax. "You were a minor advisor/minister during the recession/Poll Tax - it's obviously all your fault!"

*shrugs* cameron's slate is hardly clean, that's all. he was in consultancy and advisory sessions with lamont on black wednesday itself, don't forget.

With regard to the 'politically engineered recession of 1992,' whatever that somewhat loaded statement is meant to mean, I must also point out to the Labourites and Lib Dems who prefer to have a bout of amnesia about it that their parties supported the entry into the ERM, and Labour actually mocked the Tories for not going into it. If Labour had won the election of 1992, the recession would still have happened, but instead of having the strong economy we had 5 years later, the Labour Party would have self destructed under the internal pressures.

quite possibly.

After 10 years...you've not yet worked out that what Brown says doesn't actually translate into anything in reality? He gives with one hand while taking with the other. His flagship policy of state funding contains no strategy, no promises, no ideas; it's just a new buzz phrase to nod to the Union voters.
i disagree. public funding is taking time to filter through years of tory neglect. turning round a declining public sector into a functioning, efficient effective sector will take time and a lot of money after so many years of tory starvation. i believe we'll really start to see results - we are already - in the next 5 years of his 10 year plan.

he's not perfect; he makes mistakes. the savings ratio is half of what it was in 1997, and that's pretty terrible... consumer debt is highest for years in real terms... but then we have just overtaken Germany in terms of national productivity and we still have almost full employment. the economy is a balance, and while one can never get the balance right to suit all people, i believe Brown's balance is pretty damn good - a better record than any chancellor in the last half century at least - and far better than the tories would deliver.


Now guess which party I'm a member of. :D
UKIP? tories? BNP? ;)


edit: i'd love to stay and chat but i got to get going to a gig! woo!! *dances*
Philosopy
23-03-2006, 13:16
:p do you know anything about economics? boom is unsustainable. slow, steady growth is (better, at least... we're still not on sustainable growth yet but that's a whole different plate of cookies...)
hahaha....
I know my bit about economics... I was making the point that slow, steady growth isn't what a good Chancellor would have done - a good Chancellor would have had rapid, steady growth. The conditions were all there for it.

and where did Major come from after the fall of Thatcher in 1990? the election was in 1992 i believe.
pot. kettle. black.
You cannot say it's the pot calling the kettle black when I made no comment about supporting Major's election.

unsubstantiated.
Of course there is no way to prove this - all you can do is look at the circumstancial evidence. This shows nods to 'traditional' Labour voters rather than the pre-election bribes we saw last time.

i disagree. public funding is taking time to filter through years of tory neglect. turning round a declining public sector into a functioning, efficient effective sector will take time and a lot of money after so many years of tory starvation. i believe we'll really start to see results - we are already - in the next 5 years of his 10 year plan.
This is another one of the astonishing Labour claims that we're constantly hearing. It's been nearly ten years now! If they're still failing to show an improvement, how long do they need? They can't keep saying 'it was the Tories fault' when a) it wasn't in that bad a state in 1997 b) they've had more than long enough to make a difference now. If I tried telling someone that I hadn't done my work because someone left it in a bad state 10 years ago, I'd get the sack.

he's not perfect; he makes mistakes. the savings ratio is half of what it was in 1997, and that's pretty terrible... consumer debt is highest for years in real terms... but then we have just overtaken Germany in terms of national productivity and we still have almost full employment. the economy is a balance, and while one can never get the balance right to suit all people, i believe Brown's balance is pretty damn good - a better record than any chancellor in the last half century at least - and far better than the tories would deliver.
Unemployment is terrible at the moment. It's rising by thousands each month. The economy is massively in debt and taxes are going up across the board. It's never going to bust, I give you that, but, as I said before, it's not booming either.

UKIP? tories? BNP? ;)
UKIP? The BNP?!! :eek:

Crickey, I only criticised Brown...
Rrse
23-03-2006, 13:17
[QUOTE=Pure Metal]:





i disagree. public funding is taking time to filter through years of tory neglect. turning round a declining public sector into a functioning, efficient effective sector will take time and a lot of money after so many years of tory starvation. i believe we'll really start to see results - we are already - in the next 5 years of his 10 year plan.

[QUOTE]


How long can they blame the Tory government for their muck ups? If the stuff that is not working is their fault then how come all the good stuff isn't down to them too? you can't have it both ways.
Praetonia
23-03-2006, 13:55
A completely pointless budget that changes absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Currently Britain is heading for a massive fall, with energy prices soring and a desperate need for new powerstations and a secure and cheap source of natural gas. So what does Mr Brown do? Sell off our uranium enrichment company to the Dutch and sell off a massive stake in British Nuclear Energy. That and do nothing to reverse the massive new taxation and regulation he has brought it which has led to our economy growing way behind the other anglo-saxon economies of the world, and which are leading to business moving abroad or being bought up.

Thankyou, Mr Brown, for your wonderous inactivity as Britain heads towards very troubled economic waters.
Unified Home
23-03-2006, 14:03
A completely pointless budget that changes absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Sell off our uranium enrichment company to the Dutch and sell off a massive stake in British Nuclear Energy.

Thankyou, Mr Brown, for your wonderous inactivity as Britain heads towards very troubled economic waters.

He did what? Here's Tony saying we should build more Nuclear power stations and Brown is selling a massive stake to the Dutch, Why can't we nationalise such things that are vital to Britains Inferstructure, that would at least protect us from large energy prices.
The Infinite Dunes
23-03-2006, 14:43
brown should move into #10 ASAP, and blair should... retire? become a back-bencher? become the next chancellor? who knows...Brown already has been in number 10, but he moved out... Sorry for being pedantic

I think Blair has already stated that he intends to stand down from British politics, period, when he steps down as PM. Whether that means he'll attempt to get on the gravy train at Brussels, I don't know. But then wasn't Blair supposed to step down after his first term? I just don't see Blair staying in politics. He seems exhausted by politics and wants to do something different, more low key.
Praetonia
23-03-2006, 16:27
He did what? Here's Tony saying we should build more Nuclear power stations and Brown is selling a massive stake to the Dutch, Why can't we nationalise such things that are vital to Britains Inferstructure, that would at least protect us from large energy prices.
And watch them follow all the other British national industries? It would be far better if they were privatised and then just allowed to get on with everything themselves, rather than being sold wholesale to protectionist foreigners in under-the-table deals. As we saw with the sale of QinetiQ, that is what New Labour apparently thinks their vision of a free market is about. Also, high energy prices are coming about because the government (the Major government, although everyone blames Thatcher anyway for some reason) decided to burn all of our natural gas in power stations rather than using it to fuel industry.
UKIP? The BNP?!! :eek:

Crickey, I only criticised Brown...
That's thought-crime I'm afraid, comrade - it means your obviously a mean, evil, nasty Fascist ;)
British persons
23-03-2006, 17:24
*Drinks cup of tea*
Philosopy
23-03-2006, 17:27
*Drinks cup of tea*
Ooh, has the kettle boiled? Make us a cuppa, old boy!
Valdania
23-03-2006, 17:32
I think Blair has already stated that he intends to stand down from British politics, period, when he steps down as PM. Whether that means he'll attempt to get on the gravy train at Brussels, I don't know. But then wasn't Blair supposed to step down after his first term? I just don't see Blair staying in politics. He seems exhausted by politics and wants to do something different, more low key.


He'll be off to the US for a lucrative two-year lecture tour, he has to pay the mortgage somehow.

After that, I'm sure he'd love to be President of The European Commision or perhaps UN Secretary General.
Valdania
23-03-2006, 17:34
I know my bit about economics... I was making the point that slow, steady growth isn't what a good Chancellor would have done - a good Chancellor would have had rapid, steady growth.

'rapid' and 'steady' - a contradiction in terms no?
Philosopy
23-03-2006, 17:40
'rapid' and 'steady' - a contradiction in terms no?
Why?

Why can't something be quick and stable?
Valdania
23-03-2006, 17:55
Why can't something be quick and stable?

No reason really, it just tends not to work like that in reality

'Slow and steady' is a cliche derived from experience, whereas speed tends to go hand-in-hand with instability, whether you're talking about an economy or indeed something else.
New Burmesia
23-03-2006, 18:11
he and his policies may not be perfect (nobody - especially no politician - is), but a damn sight better than the tories.

thoughts?

Wow - even with my glasses I can't see any difference between Labour and the Tories. just a horrible approximation of each other.
Canada6
23-03-2006, 18:16
Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have been spectacular in terms of domestic policy. There are however always problems when the same party stays in power for too long. My British Party are the Liberal Democrats.
Omicron Alpha
23-03-2006, 18:34
Wow - even with my glasses I can't see any difference between Labour and the Tories. just a horrible approximation of each other.

Same here. I feel guilty for criticising the Yanks so much now. Horrah for partisan politics!