2010 budget

[TF S4DK]

Andrew Neil grilling Diane Abbott right now. She getting hotted still.

[TF S4DK]

tf why u quotin harriet harman

shes been mince meat in every pmqs since the election

how people can continue to support labour baffles me

im astounded

they have f*cked thsi country

and you poor cunts jus stick to them like glue

well the gravy train is over

for you and your single mums

no more benefits

how about u get of the dole and go to work like the rest of us mugs

Lol at the only sensible thing in this post being you calling yourself a mug.

[Queen Bee]

2bh the amount they are allowing for housing benefit is signifigantly more than i already get, none of this actually affects me that much, so what they are cutting my child benefits, just means i will have to re adjust my weekly budget and economise more, thats life, i still have enough money to survive so im not complaining at all, i feel sorry for the people who are working their ass off and being punished because they earn 'too much' not the people on benefits as its not going to change their lives dramatically, and 2bh reassessing benefits isn't a bad thing, there are far too many people claiming who don't need to. I wouldn't expect a person with a mind as warped as yours to understand this, nor do i care if you do. And if you don't know why you are even addressing someone as beneath you as i am, then don't, nothing you say means anything to me anyway.

[Guest Yilmaz]

lol at 

what an absolute f mug

[Queen Bee]

f*ck off

[Queen Bee]

thanks for the reminder

[Frank.]

Same old hating on the opposite sex, cos he dont get none. ignore the silly dancing opium smoking mongrel queen bee.

[Queen Bee]

lol he doesnt even wind me up its just funny

[ChickenCottage]

These cuts are very necessary. Boiled down to it's simplest terms, the governments been spending way more money than it's been raising.

These cuts will get blamed for a double dip recession even though it's likely to be on the cards anyway.

A smaller government can only be a good thing.

When 60 leading economists say differently, I don't really see how the cuts are necessary. Government don't want to listen to anyone.

/

What annoys me most about people who some how blame Labour for the GLOBAL recession, is that when the economy was booming, everyone was quick to enjoy the the fruits of it, and now its oh, its Labours fault etc etc.

i agree but labour put all our eggs in one basket with focusing on making the city of london one of the financial centres of the world.

But do you know whats dangerous?

A government that got into power by basically exaggerating a story

Now they're in power they are forced to act as if the exaggeration true

It's simple economics the Tories will f*ck up the development of the country.

Getting control of the governments spending and debts right now is integral to future growth.

If you take the example of Japan, you'll see a country that has had deflation for 20 odd years, a government which has gross debt of more than 200% of it's GDP. They have a lost generation of people who are over qualified for their low skill jobs or unemployed.

The economic future of the country was going to be bleak regardless of this budget. It's a world wide slow down.

I'd regard myself as a left wing and a former Lib Dem supporter but people need to be realistic about these cuts.

RE: That http://www.noshockdoctrine.org.uk website.

My beef with that site is the lack of citations and evidence for their arguments.

[Captain Planet]

These cuts are very necessary. Boiled down to it's simplest terms, the governments been spending way more money than it's been raising.

These cuts will get blamed for a double dip recession even though it's likely to be on the cards anyway.

A smaller government can only be a good thing.

When 60 leading economists say differently, I don't really see how the cuts are necessary. Government don't want to listen to anyone.

/

What annoys me most about people who some how blame Labour for the GLOBAL recession, is that when the economy was booming, everyone was quick to enjoy the the fruits of it, and now its oh, its Labours fault etc etc.

i agree but labour put all our eggs in one basket with focusing on making the city of london one of the financial centres of the world.

But do you know whats dangerous?

A government that got into power by basically exaggerating a story

Now they're in power they are forced to act as if the exaggeration true

It's simple economics the Tories will f*ck up the development of the country.

Getting control of the governments spending and debts right now is integral to future growth.

If you take the example of Japan, you'll see a country that has had deflation for 20 odd years, a government which has gross debt of more than 200% of it's GDP. They have a lost generation of people who are over qualified for their low skill jobs or unemployed.

The economic future of the country was going to be bleak regardless of this budget. It's a world wide slow down.

I'd regard myself as a left wing and a former Lib Dem supporter but people need to be realistic about these cuts.

RE: That http://www.noshockdoctrine.org.uk website.

My beef with that site is the lack of citations and evidence for their arguments.

Yh but Japan don't have a labour pool to chose from like UK, we're in the EU and as more poorer member states join we will keep getting that Polish style job migration, the cycle ends when the whole of the EU develops to a large scale, which would take decades/never happen. Then after that it will be non EU jobseekers. I'm not saying the debt should not be reduced but the time scale is too short and will have a much more profoud impact than a long term plan. We have just left a reccession, a global one and they think its already time to cut spending. All they will do is make the economy suffer and set us back like 10-15 yrs.

[Drift]

budget to cost about 1.3 million jobs.

George Osborne's austerity budget will result in the loss of up to 1.3m jobs across the economy over the next five years according to a private Treasury assessment of the planned spending cuts, the Guardian has learned.

Unpublished estimates of the impact of the biggest squeeze on public spending since the second world war show that the government is expecting between 500,000 and 600,000 jobs to go in the public sector and between 600,000 and 700,000 to disappear in the private sector by 2015.

The chancellor gave no hint last week about the likely effect of his emergency measures on the labour market, although he would have had access to the forecasts traditionally prepared for ministers and senior civil servants in the days leading up to a budget or pre-budget report.

A slide from the final version of a presentation for last week's budget – seen by the Guardian – says: "100-120,000 public sector jobs and 120-140,000 private sector jobs assumed to be lost per annum for five years through cuts".

The job losses in the public sector will result from the 25% inflation-adjusted reduction in Whitehall spending over the next five years, while the private sector will be affected both through the loss of government contracts and from the knock-on impact of lower public spending.

The Treasury is assuming that growth in the private sector will create 2.5m jobs in the next five years to compensate for the spending squeeze. Osborne said in last week's speech that tackling Britain's record peacetime budget deficit would help keep interest rates low and boost job creation. "Some have suggested that there is a choice between dealing with our debts and going for growth. That is a false choice." However, investors are increasingly nervous about the lack of growth in the world economy. The FTSE 100 fell more than 3% today as fresh jitters hit confidence.

The opposition and trade unions said the unpublished Treasury forecasts backed up their argument that the unprecedented scale of the cuts in public spending would hamper Britain's recovery from the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression.

Alistair Darling, the shadow chancellor, said: "Far from being open and honest, as George Osborne put it, he failed to tell the country there would be very substantial job losses as a result of his budget.

"The Tories did not have to take these measures. They chose to take them. They are not only a real risk to the recovery but hundreds of thousands of people will pay the price for the poor judgment of the Conservatives, fully supported by the Liberal Democrats. It shows the risks they are prepared to take. If they get it wrong, those people losing their jobs will not get back to work."

Osborne said last week that his newly appointed panel of outside experts – the Office for Budget Responsibility – believed the jobless rate would soon start to improve.

"The unemployment rate is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to peak this year at 8.1% and then fall for each of the next four years, to reach 6.1% in 2015."

This forecast was fleshed out in the Treasury's Red Book, which says: "The decline in employment appears to be coming to an end and we expect a modest recovery in employment in the second half of 2010."

From next year, officials believe stronger growth and a rising working population will lead to an acceleration in jobs growth. Over the five-year period from 2010 to 2015, the Treasury assumes that employment will rise from 28.8m this year to 30.1m in 2015, despite the loss of jobs caused by spending cuts.

The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "With Treasury figures revealing that spending cuts will hit private sector jobs harder than those in the public sector, it is absurd to think that the private sector will create 2.5m new jobs over the next five years.

"This is not so much wishful thinking as a complete refusal to engage with reality. Much more likely are dole queues comparable to the 1980s, a new deep north-south divide and widespread poverty as the budget's benefit cuts start to bite. Many will find that a frightening prospect."

John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development, said: "There is not a hope in hell's chance of this happening [the creation of 2.5m new jobs]. There would have to be extraordinarily strong private sector employment growth in a … much less conducive economic environment than it was during the boom."

The CIPD has estimated that there will be 725,000 jobs lost in the public sector alone by 2015, although Philpott said the number could be lower if the government succeeded in pushing through pay cuts.

He added that Osborne was expecting a similar rise in employment over the next five years to that seen during 13 years of the last Labour government, when around a third of the employment growth came from the public sector. "This is a slower growth environment and there will be no contribution from the public sector."

lol @ them hoping 2.5 million jobs will just appear out of thin air. clowns.

[Mr Q]

Improving our economy by ensuring even more jobs are lost, good old conservatives.

[Flojo]

Hundreds of school building projects are being scrapped as England's national school redevelopment scheme is axed by the government.

Education Secretary Michael Gove said 719 school revamps already signed up to the scheme would not now go ahead.

A further 123 academy schemes are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

His department has been reviewing Labour's Building Schools for the Future scheme since the election.

It concluded that all local authority schemes that have not reached financial close would not go ahead, saving "billions" of pounds.

This means 706 schools in the existing BSF programme which have reached financial close will continue, but officials will see how savings can be made within them.

Another 14 projects in local authorities further down the BSF priority list would be considered to see if a small number of revamps could be brought forward.

Mr Gove said: "The Building Schools for the Future scheme has been responsible for about one third of all this department's capital spending.

"But throughout its life it has been characterised by massive overspends, tragic delays, botched construction projects and needless bureaucracy."

'Dysfunctional'

He called the scheme "dysfunctional" and "unnecessarily bureaucratic", with nine "meta stages".

He added: "It is perhaps no surprise that it can take almost three years to negotiate the bureaucratic process of BSF before a single builder is engaged or brick is laid."

Some 180 schools have been rebuilt or revamped since the programme was introduced by Labour in 2004. And building is about to start in 231 schools.

But 1,100 schools have already signed up to the scheme, investing time, energy and money into drawing up plans for redevelopment, but have not reached financial close.

Originally all of England's 3,500 schools were to be revamped by 2023. The plan was to replace out-dated buildings with facilities that suit modern education.

'Tragedy'

But Mr Gove said the national building scheme had been beset by red-tape and delays.

He BSF had "failed to meet any of its targets", and that while 200 secondary schools were meant to have been rebuilt by the end of 2008, only 35 had been completed, with a further 13 refurbished.

He said the whole way schools are built needed radical reform to ensure more money is not wasted on pointless bureaucracy, to ensure buildings are built on budget and on time.

A review is being set up to see how capital funds can be used to rebuild schools more effectively.

This is being led by the operations director of the Dixons Store Group Sebastian James and includes Professor John Hood, former vice-chancellor of Oxford University.

'Woefully run down'

Shadow education secretary Ed Balls said the decision was a "tragedy" for teachers and parents who would have benefited from new facilities.

He said: "Today is a black day for our country's schools."

He added that he and his Labour colleagues would fight to "save our new schools".

Christine Blower, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said there was "no excuse for leaving schools which were promised new buildings swinging in the wind".

"Poor learning environments have a negative impact on the education of children and young people.

"School buildings were woefully run down prior to Labour coming to power in 1997 and while much has been done to improve them there is still a lot more to do."

Ty Goddard, head of the British Council for School Environments, said waste and bureaucracy had been a real drag on BSF, but said it was important to remember how important it was to invest in school buildings.

Chris Keates, Nasuwt general secretary, said the announcement would devastate parents and schools, and condemn thousands of children and young people to a future of d*ckensian education.

What did this d*ckhead say, there will be no cuts to frontline services?

He hasn't even been in power half a year yet and he's already shown how full of sh*t he is.

[Drift]

tbh you wouldnt expect anything less from the tories.

its the lib dems sitting by idly while this happens which is what gets me.

they could bring down the govt. if they wanted to.

[Mr Q]

George Osborne's budget has increased the likelihood of a double-dip recession, the government's tax and spending watchdog told a powerful group of MPs today.

Cuts in public spending and higher taxes will have cut the forecast for growth and "logically increased the possibility of a double dip", said Geoffrey d*cks, one of three officials at the Office for Budget Responsibility, at the first meeting of the Treasury select committee in the new parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/13/double-dip-recession-budget-obr-warning

[Bardissimo]

cannot believe this

surely a basic understanding and apllication would have prevented this

[Drift]

its actually funny now.

[Guest Triple XXX]

i voted lib dem

someone slap me

[TF S4DK]

[TF S4DK]

EX-CHANCELLOR Alistair Darling wanted to put up VAT twice while in power, Lord Mandelson has revealed.

Mr Darling - who as Shadow Chancellor is now opposing the new government's tax rise - was blocked by Gordon Brown.

Lord Mandelson said the plan - for a VAT increase to 18 per cent last November then a rise to 19 per cent in March - was "vetoed point blank" by the former Prime Minister.

Instead, Labour opted to increase National Insurance.

The shock revelation is in the former Business Secretary's memoirs The Third Man.

And it immediately blew a hole in Labour's argument against the government's 20 per cent VAT hike next year.

Mr Darling yesterday refused to deny he planned to hike VAT, but insisted he would have helped the low-paid as well. He said: "As long as you do something to help people on low fixed incomes, like pensioners, then I don't have a philosophical problem with that."

Meanwhile, Mr Darling yesterday hinted he will write a memoir on the financial crisis. He said "a proper review of what we did" would come after he steps down as Shadow Chancellor.

But it could put him on a collision course Mr Brown, who was often at odds with him and is also writing his memoirs.

He got shutdown and he wanted to go to 19%, meanwhile next year we going to 20%

[Skola]

that drop in vat was rediculous

most people never saw much benefit from it

but the government missed out on so much money

good move that was gordon

[Flojo]

Business Secretary Vince Cable is to suggest a graduate tax could be brought in to make England's student funding system fairer and more sustainable.

It would mean students repaying the costs of their tuition through taxation once they begin working, with higher earners paying more.

Mr Cable, in a speech on higher education funding later, is expected to suggest introducing two-year degrees.

The University and College Union said a graduate tax would be unfair.

A review of tuition fees and university funding is under way.

In his speech, at London's South Bank University, Mr Cable will call for a "radical re-think" of how universities in England are funded and say the government wants to work with the sector "to turn the current funding crisis into an opportunity".

Full story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10643198

Don't fully understand where they're going with this but it doesn't sound good, university fees are already expected to rise significantly so we're probably heading towards university being exclusive again.

*Salutes Labour for all they did to make it possible for man like me to go*

[Guest Yilmaz]

*Salutes Labour for all they did to make it possible for man like me to go*

It could, and possibly should be argued that widening participation was not necessarily a good thing.

[Flojo]

*Salutes Labour for all they did to make it possible for man like me to go*

It could, and possibly should be argued that widening participation was not necessarily a good thing.

It could be because there are apparently 70 graduates for every job advertised in their relevant field but everybody should have the opportunity to be the successful 1 out of that 70 regardless of their background.

[Mr Q]

*Salutes Labour for all they did to make it possible for man like me to go*

It could, and possibly should be argued that widening participation was not necessarily a good thing.

Of course everyone should have the chance to go, competition for the top jobs is and always will be strong, I don't necessarily believe the media hype.

And without meaning to be too cliche, uni gives a lot of people a lot more than just a degree.

/

I don't get how the graduate tax system would be any better than we have now.

As for our uni fees, I am unsure if we are given an unfair ride you know. I mean American fees are out of this world (although they offer A LOT of scholarships and such), don't really know the fees of other nations.