Budget 2007

[kwicky]

With the budget being announced tomorrow do you think you will be worse or better off?

What would you like to see included?

With New Labour lagging 15% behind in the opinion polls do you believe the cause to be:
1. Brown's handling of the economy
2. The Iraq war
3. Unfullfilled promises
4. Your lower standard of living
5. David Cameron's policies.
or what?

[Gromit]

I would guess slightly worse off. As this is a mid term budget, there will be no inducements or sweetners this time.

A simplified system off calculating and paying tax (possiblely the flat rate). I don't think it will happen though.

1. No. The economy is in fine shape, and rightly or wrongly, Brown has taken the credit.
2. No. Definately a big mistake, but it is a long way away, and doesn't really personally affect most people
3. No. They have delivered on most of their (achievable) promises, through thay may not have had the desired results
4. No. For the majority of people, their standard of living will have risen over the last 10 years.
5. No. I don't think Cameron/Tories have any policies yet. They seem to fly an idea, and if it gets the thumbs up, they run with it for a while until.

I think people have just grown tired of New Labour. People forget how much worse it was under the Tories, coupled with Labours arrogance and smugness.

I think Labour will probably scrape a win at the next election, but it would be good to see some effective opposition as Labour have had a free reign this past decade.

[vehelpfulguy]

Gromit, the economy is NOT in fine shape.

Gordon Brown keeps telling us it is in fine shape but he has only manged to make it look good by stealing billions from future pensions, selling half our gold reserves (at a low price) and borrowing billions.

It is like looking at a neighbour who is driving round in a BMW and who goes on holiday to the West Indies and thinking they are rich.

Actually they have a �200,000 mortgage, �20,000 of loans and �10,000 on their credit cards.

He has left a right mess for the next chancellor

Read more here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xm l=/money/2007/03/19/ccom19.xml

[vehelpfulguy]

The article I point to above ends on the following paragraphs:

As our chart shows, six years ago the Treasury forecast for this year's borrowing total was a mere �12bn, compared with �37bn now. Moreover, the fiscal rules boasted about by Gordon Brown, while an improvement on the free-for-all of the Tory years, have been seriously tarnished by arbitrary definition, repeated tinkering and Treasury self-monitoring.

No one in their right mind believes that public debt has been nicely kept below 40pc of GDP. If you add in all the off balance sheet items and public sector pension liabilities you could readily reach a figure as high as 80pc of GDP. As a consequence, along with all the other shortfalls he will have to deal with, the next Chancellor will inherit a substantial credibility deficit.

Moreover, the economic situation is not quite as rosy as it seems. The economy has been fuelled by a rampant housing market and strong government spending. And the feature which has in the past heralded the onset of more difficult times, namely a yawning balance of payments deficit, is with us now.

Meanwhile, the much-vaunted Brown productivity miracle has failed to appear. Recent good economic growth rates have been achieved thanks to a big increase in the number of workers - droves of Polish plumbers and posses of older, indigenous workers, toiling for longer to make up for Gordon's raid on their pension funds. Some miracle that.

[vehelpfulguy]

And this is how Gordon Brown cost this country billions by selling half our gold reserves at a knock down price:

http://www.gold.org/value/news/article/6048/

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_ar ticle_id=37842&in_page_id=34

[vehelpfulguy]

And this is how Gordon Brown stole BILLIONS from pension funds when he first came to power.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/retirement/articl e.html?in_article_id=413695&in_page_id=6

[Gromit]

vehelpfulguy,

You are absolutely right about Brown plundering pensions. That is however, a minor point when assessing the economy. This is how the US government officially rates our economy:

"The UK, a leading trading power and financial center, is one of the quintet of trillion dollar economies of Western Europe. Over the past two decades, the government has greatly reduced public ownership and contained the growth of social welfare programs. Agriculture is intensive, highly mechanized, and efficient by European standards, producing about 60% of food needs with less than 2% of the labor force. The UK has large coal, natural gas, and oil reserves; primary energy production accounts for 10% of GDP, one of the highest shares of any industrial nation. Services, particularly banking, insurance, and business services, account by far for the largest proportion of GDP while industry continues to decline in importance. GDP growth slipped in 2001-03 as the global downturn, the high value of the pound, and the bursting of the "new economy" bubble hurt manufacturing and exports. Output recovered in 2004, to 3.2% growth, then slowed to 1.7% in 2005 and 2.6% in 2006. The economy is one of the strongest in Europe; inflation, interest rates, and unemployment remain low. The relatively good economic performance has complicated the BLAIR government's efforts to make a case for Britain to join the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Critics point out that the economy is doing well outside of EMU, and public opinion polls show a majority of Britons are opposed to the euro. Meantime, the government has been speeding up the improvement of education, transport, and health services, at a cost in higher taxes and a widening public deficit.

Doesn't sound too bad does it?

[anotheoldgit]

Only a fool takes any notice of the US Goverment.

[Gromit]

Don't believe the US Government assessment of our economy doing rather well, then you probably think the IMF are fools as well...

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/ar ticle2332060.ece

Don't bother posting a YES

[kwicky]

The way I see it is that Labours intentions are usually supported by the majority of the country but either they are inept or too casual in carrying them out. Take the extra �19 billion spent on the health service last year; only about �6 billion found its way into improved services, the rest mismanaged. The Tories would not dare put such a huge amount into Health but they would manage it better. The choice between the two must be judged by intention or results, the reason why most chose the Tories in the past for financial prudence. The situation has turned full circle!

[NJOK]

kwicky, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that the Tories would manage it better.

It's simply a different approach to tax and spend.

People look at Tory councils and point to the fact that council tax in those areas is being cut or frozen. Does that mean they're managing their finances better?

No, it means they're cutting recycling pick-ups, street cleaning, community centres, swimming pools, library services.

And with the NHS in a state and MRSA rife, I'd hate to see health spending cut. Because, for all the talk about improving bureaucratic efficiency, it will actually involve cutting corners, almost certainly - as is the Tory way - for the very poorest NHS patients.

[kwicky]

Whatever the cutbacks the Tories would introduce many of us would agree with. Since Michael Heseltine introduced the new Council tax bands under Labour the amount we pay has rocketed way beyond inflation. NJOK those facilities you mention have always been available it is the social engineering by Labour that gets peoples goats.