The Budget 2011

[Renton 21685]

Has it been a bad budget for anyone?

 

I'd say it was neutral for most people.

 

The new growth predictions are very bad for everyone though.

[McFaul 35]

What a fucking grade A bellend this bloke is:

Linky

 

 

He's a tory stereotype from a shit sit com.

 

Was listening to 5 Live today and they were struggling to get anyone on the phone to say this had been a good budget for them.

I used that Sun calculator and apparently I'll be £310 better off.

[Phil 6]

Has it been a bad budget for anyone?

 

I'd say it was neutral for most people.

 

The new growth predictions are very bad for everyone though.

 

 

Given the circumstances and the Tories history it could have been a lot worse.

 

I do think the Lib-dem have had a good influence. 10% to Charity, improving gift aid, 10k tax allowance on track.

 

They said pre-election that the supply2.gov.uk contracts would favour local and startup companies. It would have been nice to see something set aside in the budget specifically for that - as cost cutting will make it impractical.

 

As for the 1% corporation tax, it would have been better to collect it and setup low cost business loans in areas that have high government employment. Or maybe even let companies opt into a scheme where they can spend 1% on outsourced employee training.

[Rob W 0]

See the oil field mumties at UK oil & Gas are warning about "ten thousand job losses"

 

idiots

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/ma...lown-off-course

 

The IFS's number crunching revealed that the overall impact of Wednesday's budget - in which a headline-grabbing petrol duty cut was paid for by a windfall tax on North Sea oil companies - would be minimal. But Johnson said that together with the worsening inflation outlook, the downgrades to growth forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility would make deficit targets harder to meet. "In terms of the fiscal plans, it's steady as she goes. But risks to the plans are already beginning to crystallise in lower predicted growth and higher predicted inflation," he said.

[AgentAxeman 184]

As others have said, a fairly neutral budget. Dont reckon theres much to crow about either way, so, a nice gentle budget with no great surprises which hopefully will bring a little stability to the overall economy.

 

Still a bit nervous about the growth forecasts mind you so Im not gonna ape CT with blind optimism yet.

[Christmas Tree 4734]

As others have said, a fairly neutral budget. Dont reckon theres much to crow about either way, so, a nice gentle budget with no great surprises which hopefully will bring a little stability to the overall economy.

 

Still a bit nervous about the growth forecasts mind you so Im not gonna ape CT with blind optimism yet.

 

 

Growth figures are for the markets and accountants. The bottom line is we have a government taking the tough decisions and gradually putting right the wrongs of the last 10 years.

 

As I type, Ed Balls is on the telly actually apologising for their fuck up.

 

Whether growth is 1% or 3% is immaterial to me, we are heading in the right direction and repairing the country while also putting right some major things such as pensions linked to retail prices, sorting out welfare and making us fit for business investment again.

 

I shudder at the thought of special Ed and balls running the show.

[ewerk 30714]

Whether growth is 1% or 3% is immaterial to me, we are heading in the right direction and repairing the country

 

Seriously? Economic growth is immaterial to you? You realise that strong economic growth is central to the government's hopes to cut the deficit and 'repair' the country?

[ChezGiven 0]

Whether growth is 1% or 3% is immaterial to me, we are heading in the right direction and repairing the country

 

Seriously? Economic growth is immaterial to you? You realise that strong economic growth is central to the government's hopes to cut the deficit and 'repair' the country?

The economy shrank by over 6% in 2008 and 2009 ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613201 ) and the smallish growth since then still represent an overall shrink. The population of Britain didnt shrink during that time so demand on public services didnt shrink, the recession also gifted the government something like 700,000 new unemployed or something.

 

Economic growth needs to sort all that out but it was actually -0.6% for the last 3 months of 2010. Thats why Osbourne is downgrading the growth forecast. The main issue is that the 1.5% growth from 2009 to 2010 was from a massively reduced GDP level. That looks like its now stagnating, little or no GDP growth wont help us in increasingly expensive oil markets.

 

Then in addition, as you say, there is the more pressing problem of the deficit reduction plan relying on economic growth. This is in the midst of an austerity plan predicted by many to be have the opposite effect. Was never clear where Osbourne's original optimistic 2.1% came from.

 

Fucking Tory wankers.

[Christmas Tree 4734]

Whether growth is 1% or 3% is immaterial to me, we are heading in the right direction and repairing the country

 

Seriously? Economic growth is immaterial to you? You realise that strong economic growth is central to the government's hopes to cut the deficit and 'repair' the country?

 

 

I do, but I'm realistic to know that the road to recovery is going to be a bump one, unlike past recoveries, for lots of reasons. But I would rather have this lot making painful decision than Ed balls trying to half heartedly tackle the problem.

 

We wouldn't be seeing any of these historic reforms taking place under special Ed. Labour are a spent force with most of the talent gone. They need a good spell in the wilderness to come up with modern policies fit for purpose.

[ChezGiven 0]

Whether growth is 1% or 3% is immaterial to me, we are heading in the right direction and repairing the country

 

Seriously? Economic growth is immaterial to you? You realise that strong economic growth is central to the government's hopes to cut the deficit and 'repair' the country?

 

 

I do, but I'm realistic to know that the road to recovery is going to be a bump one, unlike past recoveries, for lots of reasons. But I would rather have this lot making painful decision than Ed balls trying to half heartedly tackle the problem.

 

We wouldn't be seeing any of these historic reforms taking place under special Ed. Labour are a spent force with most of the talent gone. They need a good spell in the wilderness to come up with modern policies fit for purpose.

Labour are apparently the only party who understand why we are in this situation. A recession caused by a financial crisis. The Tories incorrectly think its because of Labour's expenditure policies. The fact that this exact same debate is going on in many other countries, not least the US, demonstrates that the global economic conundrum has little or nothing to do with the UK Labour party.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...prss=ezra-klein

 

Christina Romer served as the chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. She’s been back in the news recently arguing for a proposition that many find confusing: Washington, she says, needs to get serious about both stimulus and deficit reduction.

 

"You care about the deficit because it allows you to do things you need to do to help people who are suffering.That’s the whole reason why I wish everybody would embrace the fiscal commission. If people do think we’re out of control of our budget, that surely can’t be good for investment. But how do we show we’re in control? House Republicans say it’s by cutting $61 billion out of this year’s budget. A more sensible view is that $61 billion won’t do anything, so why would anyone be reassured by that? The more sensible thing is we should have a package for short-term stimulus that also includes concrete policies that deal with the deficit, which means entitlements and taxes and defense spending and everything else.

 

There’s a joke in economics about the drunk who loses his keys in the street but only looks for them under the lightposts. When asked why, he says, ‘because that’s where the light is.’ That’s the problem with the deficit. Republicans want to bite off this little piece that they know how to deal with, not the broader problem, the one began long before this recession, that is much harder to deal with. The other thing with the Republicans is that their framework seems to be that you can’t increase spending on anything if you’re trying to move toward cuts in general. That’s odd. The idea we’ve got it just right and can’t rearrange spending doesn’t make any sense. We should be rearranging spending at the same time we’re dialing it down."

[Phil 6]

Labour are apparently the only party who understand why we are in this situation. A recession caused by a financial crisis. The Tories incorrectly think its because of Labour's expenditure policies.

 

Does the £500 billion bailout not count expenditure?

 

 

But hey, £200 billion can just be printed. Quantitative easing

[ChezGiven 0]

Tory rhetoric has fuck all to do with bailouts or QE, they can't otherwise they would have acknowledge that global debt and deficits have little or nothing to do with Britain's 'bloated public sector'.

 

As for the stimulus spending, that's what got us moving again at the end of 2009. Now they've stopped the stimulus, look what happened in Q4 2010.

 

Mugs.

[Matt 0]

Now now Chez, it snowed. Let's hope the summer is not so hot we can't face a trek to the shops.

[Christmas Tree 4734]

Whether growth is 1% or 3% is immaterial to me, we are heading in the right direction and repairing the country

 

Seriously? Economic growth is immaterial to you? You realise that strong economic growth is central to the government's hopes to cut the deficit and 'repair' the country?

 

 

I do, but I'm realistic to know that the road to recovery is going to be a bump one, unlike past recoveries, for lots of reasons. But I would rather have this lot making painful decision than Ed balls trying to half heartedly tackle the problem.

 

We wouldn't be seeing any of these historic reforms taking place under special Ed. Labour are a spent force with most of the talent gone. They need a good spell in the wilderness to come up with modern policies fit for purpose.

Labour are apparently the only party who understand why we are in this situation. A recession caused by a financial crisis. The Tories incorrectly think its because of Labour's expenditure policies. The fact that this exact same debate is going on in many other countries, not least the US, demonstrates that the global economic conundrum has little or nothing to do with the UK Labour party.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...prss=ezra-klein

 

Christina Romer served as the chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. She’s been back in the news recently arguing for a proposition that many find confusing: Washington, she says, needs to get serious about both stimulus and deficit reduction.

 

"You care about the deficit because it allows you to do things you need to do to help people who are suffering.That’s the whole reason why I wish everybody would embrace the fiscal commission. If people do think we’re out of control of our budget, that surely can’t be good for investment. But how do we show we’re in control? House Republicans say it’s by cutting $61 billion out of this year’s budget. A more sensible view is that $61 billion won’t do anything, so why would anyone be reassured by that? The more sensible thing is we should have a package for short-term stimulus that also includes concrete policies that deal with the deficit, which means entitlements and taxes and defense spending and everything else.

 

There’s a joke in economics about the drunk who loses his keys in the street but only looks for them under the lightposts. When asked why, he says, ‘because that’s where the light is.’ That’s the problem with the deficit. Republicans want to bite off this little piece that they know how to deal with, not the broader problem, the one began long before this recession, that is much harder to deal with. The other thing with the Republicans is that their framework seems to be that you can’t increase spending on anything if you’re trying to move toward cuts in general. That’s odd. The idea we’ve got it just right and can’t rearrange spending doesn’t make any sense. We should be rearranging spending at the same time we’re dialing it down."

 

 

Nobody thinks it was purely down to Labours policies, BUT, their binge spending during their 10 years makes recovering from the recession harder. Had they taken the big decisions on welfare, pensions, taxation etc we would already be financially much more stable and better placed to produce growth.

 

They reaped the benefits of a world wide boom during their term but wasted the opportunity to reform and instead sold our gold reserves at a record low and dragged us into an illegal war.

 

(all the while kissing Gadaffis arse and freeing the biggest mass murderer in British history).

 

Wanksrs and wanabee Tories, the lot of them.

[Holden McGroin 6635]

Whether growth is 1% or 3% is immaterial to me, we are heading in the right direction and repairing the country

 

Seriously? Economic growth is immaterial to you? You realise that strong economic growth is central to the government's hopes to cut the deficit and 'repair' the country?

 

 

I do, but I'm realistic to know that the road to recovery is going to be a bump one, unlike past recoveries, for lots of reasons. But I would rather have this lot making painful decision than Ed balls trying to half heartedly tackle the problem.

 

We wouldn't be seeing any of these historic reforms taking place under special Ed. Labour are a spent force with most of the talent gone. They need a good spell in the wilderness to come up with modern policies fit for purpose.

Labour are apparently the only party who understand why we are in this situation. A recession caused by a financial crisis. The Tories incorrectly think its because of Labour's expenditure policies. The fact that this exact same debate is going on in many other countries, not least the US, demonstrates that the global economic conundrum has little or nothing to do with the UK Labour party.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...prss=ezra-klein

 

Christina Romer served as the chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. She’s been back in the news recently arguing for a proposition that many find confusing: Washington, she says, needs to get serious about both stimulus and deficit reduction.

 

"You care about the deficit because it allows you to do things you need to do to help people who are suffering.That’s the whole reason why I wish everybody would embrace the fiscal commission. If people do think we’re out of control of our budget, that surely can’t be good for investment. But how do we show we’re in control? House Republicans say it’s by cutting $61 billion out of this year’s budget. A more sensible view is that $61 billion won’t do anything, so why would anyone be reassured by that? The more sensible thing is we should have a package for short-term stimulus that also includes concrete policies that deal with the deficit, which means entitlements and taxes and defense spending and everything else.

 

There’s a joke in economics about the drunk who loses his keys in the street but only looks for them under the lightposts. When asked why, he says, ‘because that’s where the light is.’ That’s the problem with the deficit. Republicans want to bite off this little piece that they know how to deal with, not the broader problem, the one began long before this recession, that is much harder to deal with. The other thing with the Republicans is that their framework seems to be that you can’t increase spending on anything if you’re trying to move toward cuts in general. That’s odd. The idea we’ve got it just right and can’t rearrange spending doesn’t make any sense. We should be rearranging spending at the same time we’re dialing it down."

 

 

Nobody thinks it was purely down to Labours policies, BUT, their binge spending during their 10 years makes recovering from the recession harder. Had they taken the big decisions on welfare, pensions, taxation etc we would already be financially much more stable and better placed to produce growth.

 

They reaped the benefits of a world wide boom during their term but wasted the opportunity to reform and instead sold our gold reserves at a record low and dragged us into an illegal war.

 

(all the while kissing Gadaffis arse and freeing the biggest mass murderer in British history).

 

Wanksrs and wanabee Tories, the lot of them.

 

 

You make me laugh.

[Guest alex]

What reforms should they have implemented?

[NJS 4391]

Nobody thinks it was purely down to Labours policies, BUT, their binge spending during their 10 years makes recovering from the recession harder. Had they taken the big decisions on welfare, pensions, taxation etc we would already be financially much more stable and better placed to produce growth.

 

The Tories would have cut taxes and the housing bubble would have exploded quicker - they also spend 12 years saying they'd match Labour's spending penny for penny.

 

They reaped the benefits of a world wide boom during their term but wasted the opportunity to reform and instead sold our gold reserves at a record low and dragged us into an illegal war.

 

Reform what? If you mean benefit culture how would you have encouraged people to work when there was effectively full emplyment?

 

Gold was peanuts in the scheme of things - it's just a Tory point scoring exercise which means nothing - what difference woul it have made before, during or after the liquidity crisis?

 

 

(all the while kissing Gadaffis arse and freeing the biggest mass murderer in British history).

 

 

I didn't know Thatcher was in jail.

[ChezGiven 0]

Now now Chez, it snowed. Let's hope the summer is not so hot we can't face a trek to the shops.

Macro models predicted a slowdown from the austerity drive but lets blame the snow, aye.

 

Orders for goods are driven by aggregate demand, not the ability to supply them so the clogged roads just delayed goods getting to their recipients. That might translate to reduced retail spending but that was only off 0.4% over the year. GDP is about more than the High street. If it is bad weather, we should see the 0.6% we lost back, plus whatever growth there was meant to be in Q4 (0.5%) plus the growth predicted from Q1. So lets say that adds up to 2% kick up in Q1 satisying the demand that was not sated because of the weather.

 

The warning signs are there, the predictions are in. We'll see when the Q1 results come in.

[Matt 0]

Now now Chez, it snowed. Let's hope the summer is not so hot we can't face a trek to the shops.

Macro models predicted a slowdown from the austerity drive but lets blame the snow, aye.

 

It was an excuse of which any train company CEO would have been proud.

[Rob W 0]

or BAA