Two cheers only for Osborne....
21 March 2013
George Osborne never fails to disappoint. I suppose this comes down to the fact that he is Chancellor of a coalition and has to make compromises all the time rather than just do what is right. Also of course he has left it too late anyway to really get to grips with what needs to be done. He should have been a lot bolder in 2010 when he had the political time to do it. But, to be fair, he has always been held back from that by the LimpDems so we have been getting a watered down cherry brandy when we should have been getting a full blown single malt!
George Osborne never fails to disappoint. I suppose this comes down to the fact that he is Chancellor of a coalition and has to make compromises all the time rather than just do what is right. Also of course he has left it too late anyway to really get to grips with what needs to be done. He should have been a lot bolder in 2010 when he had the political time to do it. But, to be fair, he has always been held back from that by the LimpDems so we have been getting a watered down cherry brandy when we should have been getting a full blown single malt!
He gets two cheers because he is at least still taking us in the right direction even though we are travelling far too slowly.
Lets look at the good points....
His crackdown on the bloated welfare budget is well overdue even though it does not go far enough.
His help to homebuyers is good news but full of risks - let us hope it does not backfire like Fanny!!!
Some modest supply-side measures are welcome, particularly the help to small businesses, specially the NI savings - but still not radical enough.
Corporate Tax reform, good - a 'flat tax' for business
Fuel duty escalator scrapped, about time too.
Public sector pay restraint to be extended, good but more efforts must be made to reduce its size too.
Yes there are a few other sensible measures as well but he is still not addressing some of the key factors that make our tax system unfair. We are heading for 5m people to be subject to the higher rate of tax. Nothing has been done about that penal 62p effective income tax rate at £100,000 and the 47p highest rate of tax on income over £150,000 is still far too high. Our over-complex and high taxes encourage tax avoidance and, what is more, encourages and facilitates it. The new anti-extreme tax avoidance measures announced will not change that. Tax is not a solution to our problems but a simpler, flat tax system would be fairer, harder to avoid and would result in a lot more tax being collected while encouraging economic growth. What is deemed to be good for businesses should now be good for us as individuals as well.
In short - two cheers because still not enough done for growth on the supply and tax side of the equation.
- After hours of detailed blletins I have just been catching up with the political commentary. Conservative MPs have been generous to Osborne, far too generous in how they greeted the budget.
Interestingly Tim Montgomerie though is saying almost exactly what I have been saying for a long time now - his (and my views) are the voices of proper Conservatives who want the UK to get back to financial health. We are placing the economy before politics. Here is what Montgomerie says:
""""The fact is that we aren't cutting fast enough. We are certainly not cutting as fast as many other indebted developed countries. The result is that British business will be weighed down by a large ball and chain for many years to come. A radical Tory government would have adopted the Wisconsin model. It would have kept taxes down and cut public sector pay and welfare entitlements back to sustainable levels. There are many good political reasons why these cuts haven't been made and it's also true that the Chancellor may have gone a bit further if, for example, Lib Dems hadn't opposed a tighter welfare squeeze and the Prime Minister hadn't used the TV debates to guarantee better-off pensioners' incomes."""" - no cheers from me,he has stitched up pensioners,carers and the disabled.
- Hardly...
- i see the yellows get the blame again barry, the tail should not wag the dog. i think the truth is that the chancellor is worried about public opinion if he comes up with something controversial.
- Howard
I agree the tail should not wag the dog but you just do not recognise the problems associated with a coalition in which the small party has power way out of proportion to its numbers.
The whole process and even survival of the government could be at risk if only a few of the LimpDems vote against. That means compromise after compromise is needed to get through business.
We have a weak coalition at a time when we need the kind of bold radicalism that only a strong Conservative government can provide under a leader of the calibre of Mrs T. I do not know if Cameron, unconstrained by coalition and under pressure from the Conservative backbenches, would have been such a leader but at least in that case he would have been clearly accountable.
Coalition does not make good decisive government. - "the small party has power way out of proportion to its numbers."
This is much the same situation as with marginal seats, it is much this same situation with the Monday Club. All Government in Democracies is compromise. The Lib-Dems are thought to be so terrible, not because they are essential to the Conservatives being in Government at all, but because they outweigh the rabid right wing back benchers.
Such is loyalty across the board, from insurance companies, broadband providers and the rest, it is the possible convert that gets all the schmoozing. - Always preferred the more economically literate Selsdon Group myself Tom. The Monday Club no longer holds much sway and were once called the conscience of the Conservative Party by either Wilson or Callaghan, I forget which.
Nothing rabid about them though. You, as a left winger, would take that view. Where it all falls down though is part of the dreadful mess we get with coalitions.
The main political parties are coalitions across a wide range of views, left to centre with Labour and centre to right with the Conservatives to put it rather crudely. In each party there is discussion around a manifesto before an election to which all wings of that party unite for the election and to implement after the election if they win. In this the electorate know what they are voting for and the manifesto have the strength of a programme that attracted support in an election.
A coalition between different parties means that the government programme that emerges was negotiated after the election, has no real credibility because it is a mish-mash and no-one really voted for it.
In this way we get the worse of both worlds.
The LibDems, of course - lack the same breadth of opinion as the larger parties. OK the are the slightly more sensible (or perhaps less stupid) Orange Bookers but their better instincts are countered by the idiot sandal wearers on the left. Overall the LibDems have been more insanely left wing on social and economic matters than Labour.
Right now they are holding back what needs to be done to give our economy a boost back to health. - barry,4 budgets,done jack tit for the 3 i mentiond.
could have cut the fuel bills.
cut duty on petrol,and i mean a desent cut,about 25 p a liter and not just 3p as he has done.
incresed pensions by 20%
tripled the carers alowence
and finaly doubled the dla. - And what would you have cut to pay for that, Brian? Defence? Education? Roads? Health?
- what ever you want peter.
- to rephrase that peter,overseas aid,westminster subsidys would be a good start.
- to rephrase that peter,overseas aid,westminster subsidys would be a good start.
- Brian - I agree overseas aid should be cut but Westminster subsidies would not make a dent at all in the scale of the deficit we have or help cut any taxes.
The taxes that need cutting though are those that would have the biggest effect in boosting economic growth - starting with the higher rate tax thresholds as these would be self-funding and, in fact, would increase HMRC revenues cutting the deficit than all the Westminster subsidies a dozen times over. - barry,vat being cut to 15% would be nice,along with a real cut in fuel duty.
- Not realistic Brian - better to focus any money for tax cuts to taxes on income where they will do more f=good for the economy.
11, Downing Street
(fashionable) London.
Dear Santa,
You do try, I know you do. It is all down to this terrible timing thing. You visit once every December, and I would prefer to see you right now, and again around June.
Alas, if truth be told, I have been a very naughty boy (again), but you do know that I do what I do for the very best of reasons; when I make promise after promise on your behalf, but please do not concern yourself about people losing faith in you: About this time in 2015 I will declare that you are very much alive and kicking, and dolling-out for all you/we(they) are worth.
It's not simply that old habits are hard to shift, and it's not that I am actually unaware of the part played by house-price-inflation in Gordon's misdeeds, but my own assets are what I hold most dear, and let's face it, house prices are not going to stay on the up without some work from me. In any case the idea of spreading as much indebtedness around as is humanly (superhumanly, even) possible will at least allow everybody to feel good about themselves, and by the time that penny drops again the General Election will be over and victory will be ours (alone!!!).
Ever your obedient servant,
Gideon. XXXXXX
P.S.
Not to worry about the Train Set, I have that sorted. Just as with The Olympics, and the promise of regular visits from your good self and the laughable persistence in the general belief that Lady Luck is bound to point to each in turn, the 'madding crowd' will cough-up for it themselves, tee-hee.