The Budget.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:24 am

This budget looks like political suicide on paper. Not that I am a fan of politics, however it does seem rather an odd thing when you stab a lot of your own political support in the back.

I can understand this approach in America. They corporate world can count on the idiots in the tea party to provide them support. Americans do like to pretend they are self-sufficient. However in the UK, you may have sheer hypocritical nastiness from people who read the mail, however that is not to the extremes that you see from the tea party.

My guess is the bastards are jumping in the lifeboats before the ship sinks....

Big Rob · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:44 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

I think the idea of being (in their minds) the ones who "sorted out" this deficit is likely to mean a lot.

In order to sort the deficit the government needs to:

1) Address the issue of unemployment.
2) Increase taxes on corporations and the ultra rich (at least in the short term).

Cuts will only lead to an increase in 1), (less money in the economy).

The rich do not increase consumer spending enough to significantly reduce 1), in fact they reduce it, because their aim is to take and hold on to wealth, they do not generate it for others, especially when you have an economy with depressed demand.

As long as no one has the balls to take on taxing the rich, and therefore directly the Tory media, then you will run into this problem. Of course, we may all become corporate slaves first.... so...

smod · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:47 am

The headlines are all about the granny tax and the 50p rate. It won't make great reading for the Tories.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:53 am

Nope because they clearly don't care. As it is, government is only a worry for me because of their corporate puppet masters.

Corporations, at least the anglo-saxon ones, are the real problem and as long as they have the power to move huge amounts of cash all around the world then they will be. They have a vested interest in seeing government social spending fail due to excess borrowing.

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4311

The legacy they want isn't to have the deficit gone - privatising everything, with the massive subsidies that means is certainly not the way to do that - it's to be the ones that destroyed the NHS and the welfare system and sent this country on the road to becoming one in which the rich pay nothing and never have to see the poor. The end of society. Then they'll be the toast of The City.

Gourami · **Joined:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:51 pm **Posts:** 2005

Depressingly plausible.

satnav · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:02 am

I do like the first line of 'The Sun's' editorial on the Budget.

Quote:

HE called it a "Budget for working families". It amounted to a 58-minute kicking for Sun readers.

As Harry Hill might say 'Now I don't like George Osbourne and I don't like Sun readers but who do I dislike the most? There's only one way to find out, Fight!'

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7339

new puritan wrote:

And, of course, pensioners are on the whole more likely to get out and vote than their younger counterparts. Osborne pisses them off at his peril.

I've had a quick chat with the surviving family members from my parent's generation.
The budget's been received about as well as a 1 way ticket to Switzerland.

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7339

satnav wrote:

I do like the first line of 'The Sun's' editorial on the Budget.

Quote:

HE called it a "Budget for working families". It amounted to a 58-minute kicking for Sun readers.

As Harry Hill might say 'Now I don't like George Osbourne and I don't like Sun readers but who do I dislike the most? There's only one way to find out, Fight!'

Is it over optimistic to hope that the penny drops.
Sun readers, remember who instructed them to vote this government in.
The put 2 and 2 together.

Dead white girl's phone gets hacked.
We receive our voting instructions.
Rupert's corporation tax slashed.
And we pay...

Messianic Trees · **Joined:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:50 pm **Posts:** 2843

smod wrote:

The headlines are all about the granny tax and the 50p rate. It won't make great reading for the Tories.

Indeed:

Interesting too that Osborne has denied he's a higher rate taxpayer.

new puritan · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:55 am

I'm not at all keen on the idea of taking money out of pensioners' pockets to fund a tax cut for rich Tory sympathisers, but I found this comment pretty remarkable:

Quote:

"Because in this economy many younger people borrowed far too much and the banks got into trouble, the government seems to believe it is right and fair to take money away from those who did do something to look after themselves, and use it bail out younger borrowers and banks," said Ros Altmann, director general of Saga.

Younger people had little choice but to leverage themselves to the hilt because a) wages for the majority have been going nowhere for decades and b) they needed the money if they were ever going to buy ludicrously overpriced property from, er, baby boomers. It's pretty irresponsible for Saga to be pushing intergenerational aggro.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:14 am

Looks like a sensible comment to me...

new puritan · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:43 am

I thought it was a cheap shot, to be honest. It's one thing to say younger people borrowed too much (and the current mountain of private debt would certainly suggest there's an element of truth to that) but it seems to me she's just trying to pass the buck without making any effort to explain why younger people ended up so dependent on loans in the first place. When you have people using payday loans to pay their rent and mortgages it's clear there's a serious problem that goes way beyond mere fecklessness, which is what Ros Altmann appears to think is the problem.

Tom_UK · **Joined:** Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:14 pm **Posts:** 3168

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Well, doesn't the inherited wealth mean it's not likely to be all about the money. Cameron and Osborne are clearly smart and connected enough to have been partners/senior managers in any City firm for years. Their careers so far suggest a full-hearted commitment to politics. It's only with this budget, and its insouciance about the core vote that I've started to think there's something else going on. I think the idea of being (in their minds) the ones who "sorted out" this deficit is likely to mean a lot. And of course the money and adulation they'll get talking about it for years to come.

My feeling is that they are desperate to have made a big enough dent in the budget deficit by the next election for that success to be the major selling point that will outweigh the evil things they have done (NHS), and keep them in power. Either that or they already know they won't win the next election and are getting in as much privatising, poor-fucking, and general evil as they can while the going's good.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:50 am

That report from Saga is a red herring (unless it is specifically targeting sub-prime US borrowers who walked away from their responsibility).

The whole borrowing/saving conversation has become a joke, as well as a platform for the sanctimonious.

Anyway, that relates to private debt and not public debt.

The Budget.

Who is online