The Budget..I'm Gasping !!!

[Oswyntail]

Unless Lib Dem policy is to agree with everything the Tories say. Events bear this out

Which events? If you actually knew the intense negotiations and discussions that took place within the coalition about the Health Bill - that resulted in Lib Dem and Conservative ideas being included and refined - you might realise that this is a very active coalition. The trouble is that it is working in a new way, and there are many who cannot stomach that. You only have to look at the pathetic showing from Labour, particularly Andy Burnham (check out the body language of the lady sitting next to him in the debate), to realise that their only contribution was to try to wind up Liberals. This suggests that even they realise their flush is busted, as far as Health is concerned at least. The suggestion that the LibDems are going to be annihilated at the next election does depend on Labour regenerating itself, and that is just not on the horizon at present, and will not occur until they focus on something other than jeering at the coalition.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not sure there is much evidence to support that - although high taxes dissuading people from starting may have more effect.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i62.full

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-27-tobacco-tax_N.htm

Interesting stuff there Tony, thanks for the links

That was pretty much how I saw it at the time. Alas the LibDems have received no credit for doing the best thing for the Country at the time. The tuition fees farce robbed them of their core support too, but looking at things pragmatically, would the NHS bill not have been worse without Lib Dem involvement, and would the income tax threshold have been raised towards £10k with a majority Tory government? Probably not.

The one issue I have with the Lib Dems is their refusal to talk sensibly about Europe despite a large swathe of public opinion wanting changes. While I'd not be at all happy (for that read furious!) if the extreme right-wing had their way and pulled us out, our Parliament should have far more control over our affairs. I honestly think that Europe could be a deciding factor at the next election...

The timing of the Tuition Fees and the AV Referendum will cost the LibDems badly.

Neither had to happen when it did, but the fact that they were seen to be selling out on what people thought was their biggest "pledge" so early into a coalition meant that a lot of people have given up listening to the LibDems when they do make a positive change (like the increase in personal allowances on Income Tax - a genuine benefit, but we have a "once bitten, twice shy" attitude to politicians and it'll be very hard for the LibDems to get back the goodwill they lost over tuition fees.

Similarly, having played the Proportional Referendum card very early into the coalition (rather than waiting until they were confident of winning a referendum before holding it - look at how Alex Salmond has carefully waited and waited to ensure that he has a better chance of Independance). If Clegg had waited until the third or fourth year of the five year coalition before having his referendum then (as well as having a better chance of winning it) he'd have been able to keep the party onside with the "jam tomorrow" incentive of PR to keep them "loyal".

Grabbing the first chance of a referendum meant that there's no real incentive for party members to "keep the faith", again making things hard for him.

I really cant see why the media keep banging on about a granny tax. They have not taxed grannies, just not raised the their tax free allowance which is almost double the amount of the state pension anyway, so it is not affecting a majority of pensioners.

Why should old folk have a higher tax threshold than working people?

They already get free prescriptions, free eye tests, free off peak bus travel in most areas, cheap train travel if the buy a railcard, reduced entry fees to most events or historic properties and extra money to pay for winter fuel bills.

:roll:

I agree with you there Madge.

The tax changes for pensioners are very sensible, the kind of tough decision that needs taking but no politician has the guts to tackle (like merging Income Tax and National Insurance, or the IDS plan for a "single" welfare benefit).

There are poor pensioners who need help, of course, in the way that there are poor people of all generations. But the blanket treatment of them means we are spending a lot of money on tax relief/ free television licences etc regardless of need.

I'm no Tory, but I'm impressed that young Gideon has taken this decision (at a time when the Government are having to make cuts in many directions there's no reason for one section of society to be "sacred cows")

 

[Butts]

The tuition fees issue is a red herring - they did not make a pledge on the basis of being in a coalition, but in the unlikely event of a Lib Dem Administration.(I will leave others to speculate as to whether this was a likely prospect )

What has had virtually no publicity are the measures implemented to help students from poorer backgrounds.

For example Edinburgh University offers Bursaries (non-repayable) of up to £7000 per year to non Scottish domiciled undergraduates embarking on a degree course from other parts of the UK.

This is only one measure, there are loads of others but they don't interest the Media as they run counter to it's agenda

 

[Ivo]

For example Edinburgh University offers Bursaries (non-repayable) of up to £7000 per year to non Scottish domiciled undergraduates embarking on a degree course from other parts of the UK.

Seven THOUSAND? I only get £1,200 :cry:

 

[Schnellzug]

Which events? If you actually knew the intense negotiations and discussions that took place within the coalition about the Health Bill - that resulted in Lib Dem and Conservative ideas being included and refined - you might realise that this is a very active coalition. The trouble is that it is working in a new way, and there are many who cannot stomach that. .

David says "bark", Nick goes "Yip?"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The main problem is that people in the UK (as a whole) have little experience of a Coalition Government.

The last one being when the very future of the country, and Civilisation, was at stake. The only reason there is one now (in name at least) is because David Cameroon could still not capitalise on the unpopularity of New Labour enough to win outright. How was this legally permitted? Should there not be a clause that the only time a Coalition Govt. is permissible is if the very future of Civilisation is at stake?

 

[table38]

Should there not be a clause that the only time a Coalition Govt. is permissible is if the very future of Civilisation is at stake?

As the alternative was five more years of Gordon Brown, maybe it was

 

[Butts]

Seven THOUSAND? I only get £1,200 :cry:

But I guess your fees are not £9,000

Seriously the £7k would wipe most of that - I think it is deducted from the Fees rather than in the students hand (I wonder why )

So £2,000 a year fees is less than you pay in England at the moment.

There are also other bursaries and scholarships available on top of the normal student loan and grant.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... Should there not be a clause that the only time a Coalition Govt. is permissible is if the very future of Civilisation is at stake?

What is so unpalatable about parties working together? Most sensible countries have it all the time.

 

[ainsworth74]

How was this legally permitted?

Because any grouping of MPs can form a government there is no reason why they have to be from the same party as long as they have a majority they're first in line to form the government, it's just in this country it's tended to be two main parties that swap around rather than many smaller parties forming coalitions. Our system of being effectively a two party state in parliamentary systems is fairly unusual I'd say. Besides what was the alternative? Go back to the people? Force David Cameron to attempt to govern as a minority government? I'd much rather the outcome we had than those...

 

[Butts]

What is so unpalatable about parties working together? Most sensible countries have it all the time.

Perhaps if it was a tri party coalition they would waste less time slagging each other off and more time running the country.

Right Wing Labour Orange Book LD's and Left Wing Tories

 

[Schnellzug]

Because any grouping of MPs can form a government there is no reason why they have to be from the same party as long as they have a majority they're first in line to form the government, it's just in this country it's tended to be two main parties that swap around rather than many smaller parties forming coalitions. Our system of being effectively a two party state in parliamentary systems is fairly unusual I'd say. Besides what was the alternative? Go back to the people? Force David Cameron to attempt to govern as a minority government? I'd much rather the outcome we had than those...

Say that no one can be in Power unless they have a majority of the votes cast, i.e. over 50%. That would mean that no one would ever get into power, then? Yes, exactly. The whole darn system from top to bottom needs completely rethinking.

 

[ainsworth74]

Say that no one can be in Power unless they have a majority of the votes cast, i.e. over 50%. That would mean that no one would ever get into power, then?

Or form coalitions perhaps? It works fine in most other democracies so why shouldn't it here? What on earth do you have against the idea of a coalition government?

 

[Schnellzug]

Nothing at all against the concept of coaltion govts, it's the fact that a "Coalition" was just an excuse for David Cameroon to get into power when he wasn't able to get voted in directly.

 

[ainsworth74]

Nothing at all against the concept of coaltion govts, it's the fact that a "Coalition" was just an excuse for David Cameroon to get into power when he wasn't able to get voted in directly.

But if that's your view point then surly you'd take that view if the Lib Dems and Labour had formed a coalition with Gordon Brown as PM (not that this would really have been possible)? In which case what scenarios would you envisage it being possible for their to be a coalition without an accusation of grabbing power because they couldn't win the election directly? The whole point of a coalition is that independently no one party has enough seats to govern so they have to band together!

 

[Ferret]

Nothing at all against the concept of coaltion govts, it's the fact that a "Coalition" was just an excuse for David Cameroon to get into power when he wasn't able to get voted in directly.

What a strange line of argument. Would you have said the same had it been Gordon Brown who didn't get enough votes when he first went to the country and so had to rely on Nick Clegg?

As a few others have said, many other countries - Germany for instance - manage just fine with a coalition. Despite all the scaremongering at election time from the Mail/Sun/Express, this coalition is far from the disaster we were assured it would be.
d

 

[Butts]

What a strange line of argument. Would you have said the same had it been Gordon Brown who didn't get enough votes when he first went to the country and so had to rely on Nick Clegg?

As a few others have said, many other countries - Germany for instance - manage just fine with a coalition. Despite all the scaremongering at election time from the Mail/Sun/Express, this coalition is far from the disaster we were assured it would be.
d

Until the last election the Scottish Parliament has had coalition partners and governments of various political persuasions without the earth falling in

Lib Dem / Labour

SNP with Tory Help

Now SNP Only !!

 

[Zoe]

SNP with Tory Help

That wasn't a coalition though, it was an SNP minority government. The other parties voted to force through the Edinburgh trams against the wishes of the SNP.

I think some people would have preferred a Tory minority government in Westminster where the LibDems could have voted as they wanted to on each policy rather than enter a formal coalition. The danger is though that as soon as the LibDems didn't agree with something the Tories were proposing Cameron would have just called an election and may well have won a majority. In Canada last year the Liberals forced a vote of no confidence in the Tory minority government and an election was called. The result was a Tory majority and the NDP replacing the Liberals as the official opposition.

 

[Schnellzug]

What a strange line of argument. Would you have said the same had it been Gordon Brown who didn't get enough votes when he first went to the country and so had to rely on Nick Clegg? d

yes. I am completely impartial regarding Parties. He didn't get enough votes. Simple as.

 

[table38]

yes. I am completely impartial regarding Parties. He didn't get enough votes. Simple as.

Although he did get more votes than Blair did in 2005

 

[tbtc]

Interesting stuff there Tony, thanks for the links



The timing of the Tuition Fees and the AV Referendum will cost the LibDems badly.

Neither had to happen when it did, but the fact that they were seen to be selling out on what people thought was their biggest "pledge" so early into a coalition meant that a lot of people have given up listening to the LibDems when they do make a positive change (like the increase in personal allowances on Income Tax - a genuine benefit, but we have a "once bitten, twice shy" attitude to politicians and it'll be very hard for the LibDems to get back the goodwill they lost over tuition fees

The tuition fees issue is a red herring - they did not make a pledge on the basis of being in a coalition, but in the unlikely event of a Lib Dem Administration

I appreciate the semantics, hence my wording.

However (as someone who lives in Sheffield Hallam and voted for Clegg in 2010) the majority of people who voted "yellow" at the election seemed to think it was a priority.

So, whilst I appreciate where you are coming from with your "red herring" comment, the argument that "they never made any promises about what they'd accept in a coalition" is also a bit of a red herring as *no* party made manifesto commitments that gave guarantees about what the price they'd want from a coalition was - I think its fair to judge the LibDems on which policies they were prioritising.

 

[Schnellzug]

Although he did get more votes than Blair did in 2005

Indeed. That's why i say that the whole way it's organised needs completely thinking again. How can it be Democratic if someone can get into power on just 20% or so of the total electorate?

 

[LE Greys]

Indeed. That's why i say that the whole way it's organised needs completely thinking again. How can it be Democratic if someone can get into power on just 20% or so of the total electorate?

On the other hand, if we don't have a link between MPs and their constituency, will we end up with a load of political drones who troop through the lobby on command. Who would we raise local issues with then?

 

[WelshBluebird]

The tuition fees issue is a red herring - they did not make a pledge on the basis of being in a coalition, but in the unlikely event of a Lib Dem Administration.(I will leave others to speculate as to whether this was a likely prospect ):

But that wasn't the whole story was it.

The lib dem policy of scrapping tuition fees was on the basis of having a lib dem majority. Yes, you are correct there.

However, many many lib dem MP's (or those running to be MP's) signed pledges to vote against tuition fees and oppose any increase in the next parliament. Nothing about the lib dems getting voted in. They were personal pledges about that particular issue.

 

[Schnellzug]

On the other hand, if we don't have a link between MPs and their constituency, will we end up with a load of political drones who troop through the lobby on command. Who would we raise local issues with then?

Which is what most MPs are already, I very much regret. That's what happens when you have ambtious MPs anxious to move up the ladder, they don't want to make waves or rock the boat when they're a mere junior MP, so they follow orders obediently and hope that by being a good Party apparatchik and always, of course, voting with the Party, they'll be noticed when some junior Ministerial post comes up. The people I have respect for are the ones who've represented their consitutuency for years, through election after election, and know their constituency and the people inside out. It doesn't matter which party they represent, since on a local level that's usually fairly academic anyway.

 

[SS4]

On the other hand, if we don't have a link between MPs and their constituency, will we end up with a load of political drones who troop through the lobby on command. Who would we raise local issues with then?

Parachuting makes a mockery of that.

 

[Butts]

But that wasn't the whole story was it.

The lib dem policy of scrapping tuition fees was on the basis of having a lib dem majority. Yes, you are correct there.

However, many many lib dem MP's (or those running to be MP's) signed pledges to vote against tuition fees and oppose any increase in the next parliament. Nothing about the lib dems getting voted in. They were personal pledges about that particular issue.

It may have been a personal pledge but sometimes you have to be pragmatic.

As I understand it they only voted after securing a generous package of measures to help poorer students which receives very little if any publicity.

 

[Schnellzug]

While we're on, has anyone yet, or does anyone wish to, actually defend the Government policy of endlessly putting up prices & taxes, particularly on Fuel, as a "tough decision but one that has to be made" or any of the other statesmanlike phrases that Politicians like to use? Does anyone actually want to defend it?

 

[LE Greys]

While we're on, has anyone yet, or does anyone wish to, actually defend the Government policy of endlessly putting up prices & taxes, particularly on Fuel, as a "tough decision but one that has to be made" or any of the other statesmanlike phrases that Politicians like to use? Does anyone actually want to defend it?

Well, on fuel, we need to drive less because of climate change, road congestion and the fact that it will mean more passengers on trains. Still, that's like me seeing Lancashire CCC suddenly having to cut its training budget. Roads are the enemy. As for spending, this is the current size of the UK deficit:

£900,000,000,000.

That's why we need to reduce it! I said all the way through Gordon Brown's time as Chancellor that we were spending too much, and the "Golden Rule" of borrowing only to invest was nonsense. Did anyone agree? No! Was I right? I'll leave that for you to decide.

 

[SS4]

Well, on fuel, we need to drive less because of climate change, road congestion and the fact that it will mean more passengers on trains. Still, that's like me seeing Lancashire CCC suddenly having to cut its training budget. Roads are the enemy. As for spending, this is the current size of the UK deficit:

£900,000,000,000.

That's why we need to reduce it! I said all the way through Gordon Brown's time as Chancellor that we were spending too much, and the "Golden Rule" of borrowing only to invest was nonsense. Did anyone agree? No! Was I right? I'll leave that for you to decide.

So why cut the top rate of tax? Why are they cutting jobs at HMRC instead of focussing on tax evasion and tax avoidance, typically by the super rich?
I understand the 50p tax rate was only ever temporary but it gives plenty of ammunition to suggest that these cuts are as much ideology as necessity.

Money is available for certain projects though, Universal Credit and HS2 to name two, the latter being a perfect example of borrowing to invest. The former on the other hand is an unworkable farce but then what do we expect when policymakers have never struggled to make ends meet.

What the Conservatives either don't understand or actually approve of is that the private sector does nothing for free. Look where privatisation of energy and transport got us :roll:. I suspect there was a good budget in 1997 because Major and Thatcher sold Britain to the highest bidder :roll:

 

[Schnellzug]

Well, on fuel, we need to drive less because of climate change, road congestion and the fact that it will mean more passengers on trains. Still, that's like me seeing Lancashire CCC suddenly having to cut its training budget. Roads are the enemy. As for spending, this is the current size of the UK deficit:

£900,000,000,000.

That's why we need to reduce it! I said all the way through Gordon Brown's time as Chancellor that we were spending too much, and the "Golden Rule" of borrowing only to invest was nonsense. Did anyone agree? No! Was I right? I'll leave that for you to decide.

How long will it take by Slashing everything in sight and trying to squeeze as much out of everyone in taxes to conceivably make the slightest dent in £900,000,000,000? And what is the actual ambition, if & when they should ever succeed in paying off that £900,000,000,000? Isn't it just so that the Uk's credit Rating isn't downgraded; i.e. so that they could borrow and get back into debt all over again?
I'm afraid it's easy to say things like "Roads are the enemy", but exactly the same increases in Fuel prices have to be paid by bus operators too, and the situaiton where everyone could use rail for all their transport needs is never likely to arise; not to mention that all the stuff that people want from shops has to get their by road transport (even if it uses Rail for part of the way), so costs & hence prices will inevitably rise there too.