Intrigued to know what people think of it..Simple Yes (good thing/necessary/required etc)or no (disaster/gone too far etc) will suffice.
I'll start...
YES
yes
yes
YES
Bit unfair to judge them so early in this term but what option did they have but to cut spending, the previous lot left them with an empty bank account and a load of excuses.
[i]"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce"[/i]
[center]Karl Marx[/center]
So thats a yes then ernie?
I assume you refer to labour stuffing the economy in the late 70's which needed a strong decicive government in the 80's to fix?
but what option did they have but to cut spending, the previous lot left them with an empty bank account and a load of excuses
YES, but it weasnt like "the last lot" inherited a perfect situation!. **** tories, thats all we are going to hear for the next few years... well "the last lot" did this or that.. They are all as bad as each other.. FACT!
It's an interesting one; you might almost call it balanced in that it does hit almost everyone except for the very lowest paid and it does seem to hit the higher paid slightly harder.
The thing I found interesting was that housing benefit is going to be limited to £400 a week saving £1.8bn a year! So even after the limit, people ccould still be claiming £1733 a month for housing. Is that right?
So just how much were people able to claim before?
Yes, but I genuinely think the state of the economy at this stage would have been almost identical no matter which party had been in power prior to this point. It's a bit rich the Tory members of the government bleating on about what they have been left when they gave no indication of wanting things done in any significantly different way from 2005-8. Apportioning blame at this stage when only one grouping could have been in power and the consequences of another doing it differently (or not) is only theoretical are futile.
There will be the usual self centred moaning from the public that all want to see spending cuts, just as long as it's not on their patch.
No.
I think it'll push unemployment too high and will have enough "feel bad" factor to push us back into recession, just as we were slowly recovering.
There was an interesting 'fact' quoted in the wake of the budget. Over the last five years, for every private sector job created in the north east, there were 10 public sector jobs created. I think that I heard that correct.
There's no doubt that the public sector will get hit hard and there will be a lot of job losses. Osborne is banking on the private sector being able to take advantage of the increase in lower cost labour that will be available in order to stimulate growth.
I'm gonna say yes but I think its hanging in the balance, could go either way...only time will tell!
Yes. They've hit everyone except the very lowest incomes, seems very reasonable to me.
But let's be honest, this is a great time to be in opposition isn't it?!
yes
No Surprises really. I do think that some on the Tory right are are tad too enthusiastic about getting stuck into public services and benefits though. As you would be if you have private healthcare, kids in private education etc
Same old, same old
No, the devil is in the cuts to come not what they've done to individuals which wasnt too bad IMO
a_a, so you're actually saying yes in the basisof this budget alone?
people ccould still be claiming £1733 a month for housing. Is that right?
I don't think you're entitled to claim that much. I think it's a maximum which might have to be paid based on what housing is available for the family in question. Which in London could be very expensive.
As for the budget, I think possibly yes but it's a BIG gamble. A fair few economists it seems (from reading the paper) are very worried that it'll push us back in to recession, which will be a disaster.
The Guardian seem to think that a financial transaction tax would have been better to apply than a VAT rise, and I have some sympathy towards that position, since only banking bigwigs would suffer with a transaction tax, whereas Mr and Mrs Working Class on £20kpa will suffer with a VAT rise. More, proportionally I would say since a higher proportion of their income goes on essentials.
No the maain part of the budget was 25% cuts to public spending wasnt it? The rest that everyone is worrying about is the fluff round the edges. (I could be wrong on this mind)
Oh and the VAT thing is plain wrong too
No
Taking money out of the economy at this time is wrong. History tells us this, the vast majority of economists tells us this.
Reducing demand tips us back into recession. Unemployment rises, tax revenues decrease, benefit payment rise, budget deficit gets worse.
It will destroy whats left of the economy and cause untold harm
Yes.
Its about time the public sector realised they were not more special than the private sector.
I see loads of private sector companys cutting pay/bonus/etc, about time the public sector did.
+1 TJ
No.
Those who think they are "hitting" the higher paid need a reality check.
The rich (eg. those who spend £5000 per night on hotels) will not notice a bloody thing whereas the below average wage earners will.
they are going to hit the public sector ! thats us working people with a 'freeze' on wages they say ! so all of you dont want a pay rise ? hmmmmm...
Taking money out of the economy at this time is wrong. History tells us this, the vast majority of economists tells us this.
How about very recent Greek history?
How happy would you be right now if your pension fund was invested in Greek government bonds? Knowing that there's a pretty good chance they won't keep up the repayments on their enormous debts and will be forced to default or devalue?
Trimix
Why should the public sector suffer because of 1) bankers mistakes
2) because private sector bosses are swines taking all the money?
Luke - read up on the great depression of the 30s. Look to what the vast majority of the worlds economists say
because of sensible decisions by Darling we are not in the position of Greece - who won't default or devalue anyway
Why should the public sector suffer because of 1) [s]bankers[/s] Gordon's mistakes
There. Fixed that one for you 🙂
And the actual answer? Because Gordon spent more money than he actually had, and messed up bank regulation while he was at it. We couldn't really afford what was being spent at the time, and now that the financial services sector - which pays a huge proportion of our wages in this country - is shrinking, we can afford it still less.
EDIT: I think I know a bit about the depression of the '30s! That was finally sorted out by a world war though.
EDIT: And whether Greece gives up the struggle or not, having been downgraded to junk status means that Greek taxpayers will all be paying even more of their hard earned salaries in interest repayments.
Luke - problem is none of that is true. It was not Browns mistakes that caused the recession no matter how much you wish it. It was global and Brown and Darlings decisions meant we avoided the very worst of it - but Osbourne will make sure we do get the worst of it.
its basic ignorance and incompetence on a massive scale from Osbourne
still - be happy when we go back into recession with no way out because of this stupid budget.
As unemployment rises benefit payments rise, tax revenues drop and the deficit gets worse. I predict at least another million unemployed
TJ - I'm sorry but I have to strongly object to what you've just written.
It's not
.Browns mistakes
It's
.Brown's mistakes
Sorry, but no matter how bad things are/will be, it's always worth getting the apostrophes right, otherwise we are little better than savages.
As the lesser of two evils, yes.
This budget temporarily puts away the prospect of a sovereign debt crisis. If that were to occur, you and I would lose around two thirds of our wealth.
But the hoped for growth in the private sector will be very difficult to achieve because of overcapacity in world manufacturing (a problem begun in the 70s which is the driving force behind the debt bubble).
The long term hope is that the BRICs and other emerging markets will develop into consumer nations, finally rectifying the problem of overcapacity, but that is still a good decade away.
I have never understood apostrophes so my English teacher told me if in doubt leave them out
As unemployment rises benefit payments rise, tax revenues drop and the deficit gets worse. I predict at least another million unemployed
As credit ratings fall, interest rates rise, more of our tax revenues are spent on debt repayments rather than useful services and the deficit gets worse (£74Bn in 2014/15 apparently). We would have had at least another million unemployed under Labour.
NoTaking money out of the economy at this time is wrong. History tells us this, the vast majority of economists tells us this.
While I appreciate that worry, I'd be more worried that continuing the rate of spending in the vague hope that a) the meagre benefits at home outstrip it and b) the wider world economy doesn't still force it back the other way would be foolish and digging a deeper hole from which you can't climb out.
I have never understood apostrophes so my English teacher told me if in doubt leave them out
It's pretty easy!
1. If you're missing a letter out. For example "you're" is short for "you are". I missed a letter (and a space) out so I put in an apostrophe. Similarly "it's" is short for "it is". I missed some stuff out, so I put in an apostrophe.
2. Just like the above, but for possession. Before apostrophes were invented I would have to write something like "the post of TJ was thought-provoking". No-one has said anything like that for 300 years - instead we say "TJ's post...".
Just like (1), I missed something out, so I put in an apostrophe.
3. Don't be confused by "The dog has eaten its food". There's no apostrophe here because "its" is just the same as "his" or "hers", only for things. You wouldn't write "He has eaten hi's food".
4. There's some confusing stuff about apostrophes with plurals. The apostrophe usually goes on the end, but if in doubt just use the collective noun instead! "The flock's needs were met by the shepherd."
No, we're all going to hell in a bucket, a cheap plastic one made in china.
Thatcher set the foundation, Tony and Gordon built on that, clegeron will finish it off, we're ****ed
yes
Interesting distinction to consider...
How many of the people on here saying "No" work in the private sector, or are all the ones screaming out about how the tories are going to destroy the universe actually public sector employees...
I know the key protagonist above who's telling us how taking money "out of the economy" is so evil, works for the public purse - tell you what TJ, consider this, Every single solitary public employee is a drain on the resource, every single one is "taking money out of the economy "through their very existence - some of these people are very necessary, vital constituents of society, many, oh so very many, are not!
You appear to think its better to employ people stacking paper in government departments at £30k per year rather than pay them £10k per year in benefits - its you and your ****less lazy parasitic ilk who's destroyed the economy in the first place. One million more unemployed is better than one million people employed on taxpayers money for three times the wage in government departments doing nothing whatsoever productive for society!
I predict at least another million unemployed
I love people pulling figures out of their arses to support an argument. How wonderfully unscientific! 🙂
CK - It's not a vague hope that spending might help.. spending DOES stimulate the economy, that's been proven. I think that the Labour govt were thinking of the 30s - it seems fairly well accepted that the govt then didn't spend enough quickly enough, leading to the Great Depression.
CK - It's not a vague hope that spending might help.. spending DOES stimulate the economy, that's been proven. I think that the Labour govt were thinking of the 30s - it seems fairly well accepted that the govt then didn't spend enough quickly enough, leading to the Great Depression.
From my point of view the spending before the change of leaders didn't seem to produce very much growth?
its you and your ****less lazy parasitic ilk
Whoah, that's way harsh. There are SOME useless civil servants, but there are a lot of useful ones. They apply for an advertised job and they do it - hardly fair to call them lazy and parasitic, is it? You're just trotting out rabid tory propaganda there, I'm sorry.
TJ is a nurse though, isn't he?
From my point of view the spending before the change of leaders didn't seem to produce very much growth?
How do you know what growth (or shrinkage) would have been if they hadn't spent?
Why should public sector workers get special treatment? Private sector hasn't really given any wage increases the last few years either (in my experience, OMV).
Yes, probably.
spending DOES stimulate the economy, that's been proven
I guess you're referring to government spending. This is possibly true, but you need to have the money to spend. Keynsian economics as I understand it says governments should save during the boom times to spend in the recession (or pay down debt in the boom to borrow during recession). If you borrow during the boom then you are FUBAR, although if you think you've abolished boom and bust you may well make this mistake.
How many of the people on here saying "No" work in the private sector
Indeed but how many in the private sector are paid more, in real terms, than they were a few years ago? I'm not and so the public sector can get a bit of reality too - why should they be protected?
Anyway, as a higher earner soon to have a baby I suspect I'll be worse off but I still say yes to the budget being the right sort of thing.
How do you know what growth (or shrinkage) would have been if they hadn't spent?
Very true, but if you're going down that route you basically can't claim anything, especially not predictions of future growth based on something that's not happened yet, so we might as well all just shut up now.
The previous government apparently spent like it was water during the good times, sold off reserves, threw money at things to effect slight improvements and positive feeling. When the harder times hit they realised that they had to maintain that level to maintain votes and the good feel and sure it might help the economy to spend during down times, but if you're digging furthe and further into debt because you have no reserves then you're just like a gambler borrowing from his childs "college fund" in the desperate hopes he wins big and can pay it all back.
Rio - governments in the UK these days are squeezed so incredibly hard by electoral politics that the idea of them saving tons of money seems utterly improbable. Imagine how people would whinge if they thought the government was sitting on a fat pile of cash instead of giving it to them personally (in some form or another).
FWIW I work in the private sector, but for the last 5 years taht's been on projects funded by the govt. So I could well be in the craphole this time next year. However I'm not blaming the govt, I made the choices I made..
Imagine how people would whinge if they thought the government was sitting on a fat pile of cash instead of giving it to them personally (in some form or another).
Governments have always (until recently!) done that. I'd think it prudent, I'd hope others would see the sense in it rather than basing national financial security on passing trends. If others think there's no need for reserves then I hope they realise now that there is.
molgrips - that's why I included paying down debt, not just saving. What they could have done is balance the budget over the economic cycle as they said they would. But running a deficit in a boom is just not sensible ( and definitely not "prudent").
but if you're digging furthe and further into debt because you have no reserves then you're just like a gambler borrowing from his childs "college fund" in the desperate hopes he wins big and can pay it all back
Mostly agreed, except that growth is more or less guaranteed, eventually (barring some catastrophe). You are betting on a horse that you know is going to come in, but it's a question of IF it will come in before your college fund runs out...
And that's the issue here really - it's a question of timing. I can see both sides here have a valid argument (ie cut now or cut later) but no-one really knows which is best because we don't know when and how well significant growth will return. So we don't know a) if we can keep borrowing, or b) if our economy can sustain cuts.
I reckon both sides are just as likely to succeed or cause massive problems.
I don't particularly have a problem with the freeze on public sector pay, especially since those earning less than £21k are protected. (And I say that as a public sector worker who earns more than £21k.)
The raising of the Income Tax threshold is great.
The VAT rise isn't ideal but it gets a lot of money in quickly and is offset for lower earners by the raising of the Income Tax threshold. It is a regressive tax though, and I'd have preferred to have seen the top rate of income tax go up instead.
What is going to be a real shock, however, is the looming cuts. That's when things are going to really go tits up, especially here in the North East.
What really bugs me are the rants against public sector workers. Guess what, I spend all of my pay. On things made by the private sector...
Undecided atm.
To join in the Public / Private sector argument, the office where Mrs J works has admin staff paid at least £20k pa, they'll not be receiving a pay freeze - even though they do chuff all because the management in her office are weak, they've even said that they can't dismiss staff because anyone who goes isn't going to be replaced, so they're stuck with them. Whereas myself in the private sector on considerably less than £21k hasn't had a pay rise for the last two years and see no signs of one am well and truly f***ed!!
Guess what, I spend all of my pay. On things made by the private sector...
Great, thanks for that - so, my taxes pay for you to buy stuff - tell you what, why don't we just cut you out the equation and let me use my money buy stuff for myself?
I remain convinced that the rants against the public sector is bourne out of two things - the moral panic created by lies from the neocons and their organs of propaganda and simple jealousy
The politics of fear and envy are not nice
It does make me laugh when the same people complain about too much money in the public sector and poor services. Services cost and contray to popular belief we have a low tax,small public sector economy still compared to most similar countries.
Yes - (lesser of two evils) but I fail to see why international aid was "ringfenced". I would have though that would have been first thing to go based on the fact that any loosers would not be within your own electorate [/cynicism].
Image, obligations, etc I guess.
A public sector that bigger than the private sector is too big IMO. Especially since all the public sector does is redistribute money from the private sector.
Where do you think government gets is money from?
The politics of fear and envy are not nice
Hahahahahaha - good one there TJ "the end of the world is nigh, Tories will eat your babies and rape your grandmother"
It does make me laugh when the same people complain about too much money in the public sector and poor services.
The two are not exclusive - what people [b]don't[/b] see from public services is value for money and quality of service, in the private sector if you don't deliver that the customer goes elsewhere and your company goes bust, in the public sector your job is safe - the private sector taxpayers see and are repeatedly exposed to inefficiencies and attitudes that would quite simply not be tolerated in their own organisations and, unsurprisingly enough, they cry foul!
edit - maybe its simply because you live and work in the public sector, buffered from the realities of actually having to make a profit to justify your job, that you cannot see why on earth those who earn a living in the real world have become so frustrated at the sheer inability of the public sector to deliver value for money!
Great, thanks for that - so, my taxes pay for you to buy stuff - tell you what, why don't we just cut you out the equation and let me use my money buy stuff for myself?
Because no-one'd be doing his job. You don't even know what that is, and you are accusing him of being useless... Nice.
Image, obligations, etc I guess.
Compassion, generosity, altruism..?
what people don't see from public services is value for money and quality of service
People have no idea what constitutes value for money in public service. They just moan about what's not being done for them, and they moan about taxation. They've absolutely no idea how or even if it's possible to get more for less from the public sector.
Zulu - you rally are laughable.
I have worked in identical jobs in both private and public sectors. Guess which gave the best value for money - the public sector. Can anyone else say that they have done identical jobs in both sectors?
Your problem is Zulu you believe all the stupid propaganda put around by your neocon pals.
The moral panic about the public sector is based on lies repeated by the right wing press that plays to the prejudices of people like you .
It is the politics of fear and envy and you have been conned - showing how stupid you are
Great, thanks for that - so, my taxes pay for you to buy stuff - tell you what, why don't we just cut you out the equation and let me use my money buy stuff for myself?
Because, as the money passes through my bank account, it enables me to do my job.
bollocks molgrips - we're all exposed to the public services on a daily basis, whether it be trying to get an appointment at the local doctors surgery through to sorting out council tax payments, and every single person from a public sector background screams with frustration at the inability to deliver customer service, let alone a simple answer.
anyone here on tax credits has seen the amount of paperwork they had through the post and thought "WTF is going on!"
bollocks molgrips - we're all exposed to the public services on a daily basis, whether it be trying to get an appointment at the local doctors surgery through to sorting out council tax payments, and every single person from a public sector background screams with frustration at the inability to deliver customer service, let alone a simple answer.
Whenever I try to deal with a private sector company, I find their customer services to be delightful.
Miketually - and if they're not, what do you do? yep, choose whether you're happy with the poor service versus price balance, and if not you take your business elsewhere! Simple 'aint it - just like buying cheap bike bits off the internet!
you cant do that with a public sector monopoly
TJ has a point but is also guilty of sweeping generalisations. My wife works in the public sector (health) having previously been private sector and despite expecting it to some extent is still suprised on a daily basis by the lack of grip on reality a lot of colleagues have and their willingness to not even consider value for money.
Yes to the op btw
buffered from the realities of actually having to make a profit to justify your job, that you cannot see why on earth those who earn a living in the real world have become so frustrated at the sheer inability of the public sector to deliver value for money
yes because making profit is the main goal of life. I feel so bad about trying to educate people when really what I should have been doing is educating them whilst profitting from them I fell silly now. Why did you not just say Greed is good?
Great, thanks for that - so, my taxes pay for you to buy stuff - tell you what, why don't we just cut you out the equation and let me use my money buy stuff for myself?
At a guess you still want the police, fire , army , education, health service, the roads, your bin emptied etc. This is wher eyour taxes go and amazingly you need to pay people to do this stuff whether poublic service or private sector.
As for your claim that the public sector makes no money it is true sort of . Imagine we sold off the NHS or education and then formed a private company and then we all had to pay the same % of tax to these organisation as a result of this change to the private sector are they suddenly making money?
Clubber - I bet she would be amazed at the waste in the private sector in healthcare. I was.
Private healthcare cost more than public . Simple fact shown over and over. NHS spending control is now actually good. ( it wasn't in the past)
people i am forced to deal with in public sector are by and large helpless arses who are incapable of thinking for themselves and considering what action would lead to the best outcome
i'll allow certain healthcare professionals off the hook, but throughout local govt etc it's a shambles. I have friends in education 'provision' who admit their jobs are a sham.
iDave - and this doesn't happen in the private sector?
bollocks molgrips - we're all exposed to the public services on a daily basis, whether it be trying to get an appointment at the local doctors surgery through to sorting out council tax payments, and every single person from a public sector background screams with frustration at the inability to deliver customer service, let alone a simple answer.
Ah yes. Of course, this never happens in the private sector, does it? Have you ever encountered brainless bureaucracy or inefficiency in the private sector? I know I have.
The thing is, no-one I have ever spoken to has any ideas on how to increase public sector efficiency apart from saying 'well just reduce the waste!'
Then the next thing you know the public are up in arms about consultants swilling about.
You can't win....
I heard an interesting item opinion on whether or not we should actually decrease the deficit yesterday. They claimed that although we were in **** loads of debt that 90% of that **** load of debt was owned by people/organisations within the UK, and the profits would primarily go toward boosting UK pension funds. Will reducing the deficit too quickly screw the pension funds up even more than they already are.
Anyone go salary figures for healthcare practitioners, teachers and any other job where a public sector role has a directly comparable private sector role?
Budget calculator says that me and my family will be approx £500/yr better off, but i'll be screwed to for getting a job in the public sector when I finish up at uni.
It would be a shame to bring a sense of balance into the discussion though wouldn't it? 🙂 I think we can all agree that there are people in private sector jobs who are lazy, workshy, oiks and that there are people in the public sector who are workshy, lazy oiks. The privare sector ones do not always get the heave-ho but many do. It seems harder to remove public sector people from their jobs when they are incompetent or not providing any value. Sweeping generalisation suggests that we employ more public sector staff than we really need and that a combination of those people and the workplace policies makes it difficult for them to actually deliver a decent / the right service. I work for a public sector company. My job takes me into a good number of other companies - both public sector and private sector. On the whole, it is the public sector offices that I have worked in that display the higher percentage of useless and incompetent staff.
Ah yes. Of course, this never happens in the private sector, does it? Have you ever encountered brainless bureaucracy or inefficiency in the private sector? I know I have.
Yes, of course I have- [b]and I have taken my custom somewhere else[/b] - no customers, no money, company either improves or goes to the wall.
Thats how the private sector works!
TJ, in the private sector it happens for a while, then people are fired if they're impacting the bottom line. in the public sector the bosses are often as bad...
I think the argument concerning private and public sector workers is that, very often, private sector workers are not 'required', they are the icing on the cake whereas public service workers are 'necessary' for society to function. I suppose you could argue that privatized public transport etc are necessary but then we see what an almighty cok and balls the private sector makes of them.
Private sector - in it for the money?
Public sector - in it for the...erm...public?
Oh, and if you cut my pay we'll all strike and society will collapse and you'll have to look after your own kids and perform your own surgery.
And another thing! I don't think here is a private enterprise on the same scale as public services so getting a doctor's appointment in a 'private' kind of way is never going to happen.
I for one am teaching 5% less effectively if my pay is frozen/ cut etc which would be a pretty scary thought as I reckon I'm only functioning on about 20-25% as it is...
TJ - sorry, no not really in comparison... Which kind of makes
my point again that you're just a blinkered as the people you
lazily brand as believing eveything they read/hear from the neocon side.
Yes, of course I have- and I have taken my custom somewhere else
So? I was pointing out that using the lazy useless argument against the public sector is not necessarily useful, since it's a problem for all organisations private or public.
It is probably true that the public sector is somewhat less efficient, but that's just how it is I think.
A better way to reduce public spending would be to try and simplify procedures, systems and remove unnecessary services. That's not the same as just screwing them all because you think they're lazy.
company either improves or goes to the wall.
Ever shopped for electronics at Dixons? Bought bikes at Halfords?
i thought about 60% of public sector (local govt) jobs were to provide jobs for the unemployable? they wouldn't be missed. clearly we need teachers and nurses, but less convinced on diversity awareness directors.... etc
so, yeah TJ, you're safe, but the hard working essential person who decides you should have transgender awareness training may not be.....
in the private sector if you don't deliver that the customer goes elsewhere and your company goes bust
😆
Plenty of companies provide a shocking service but still make money because they are exploiting some situation (often fairly unethically) to their advantage. You should hear some of the outrageous tales about the companies that now maintain our railways from a friend who works on them. eg Getting paid £12 an hour to set up safety equipment 'for people to do repairs' on a train line that doesn't exist any more. And there are several layers of subcontractors all taking their slice.
The budget gets a no from me. There are good elements but the VAT rise and the freeze on child benefits for everyone rather than just the rich are a backwards step - they will hit poor families harder. The new welfare rules smack of Daily Mail vindictiveness.
Also, the tories are using the current financial situation with glee as an excuse to impose their dogma of privatisation and cutting. They are talking down the economy to justify it. Public sector workers and people on benefits are paying the price for a crisis created by the banks while the banks go back to business and bonuses as usual.
Also, people suggesting Gordon Brown created the world financial crisis need to get a grip on reality.