What have the Libdems got out of this Budget?

[Cyclone]

1. No idea. Ask Nick Clegg perhaps?

 

2. You mean these:

 

 

 

You can check them for yourself, they aren't a secret.

 

That's a completely different list to the previous one. Almost like someone deliberately drew erroneous negative conclusions from the published facts and then tried to represent their opinion as if it had been published by the government. My hat is safe.

[Wildcat]

That's a completely different list to the previous one. Almost like someone deliberately drew erroneous negative conclusions from the published facts and then tried to represent their opinion as if it had been published by the government. My hat is safe.

 

?? Of course it is a different list, it is however from the same article and substantiates the claims made in the first list.

 

Not included in the response but something that will also be causing the cost of housing to go up is the scrapping of national affordable housing programme which combined with reductions in the HCA's budgets means nearly a £billion this year removed from house building programmes.

 

200,000 construction jobs are likely to be lost as a result, as well as increasing homelessness.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/23/government-housing-planning-strategy

[Wildcat]

superficially true but you misrepresent the position completely. £15bn a month in interest instead of £17bn is still something to be deeply ashamed of so please don't crow about it and build or argument around it.

 

What it shows is how quickly the debt is wiped out through modest growth, growth that was exceeding expectations.

[Cyclone]

?? Of course it is a different list, it is however from the same article and substantiates the claims made in the first list.

 

Not included in the response but something that will also be causing the cost of housing to go up is the scrapping of national affordable housing programme which combined with reductions in the HCA's budgets means nearly a £billion this year removed from house building programmes.

 

200,000 construction jobs are likely to be lost as a result, as well as increasing homelessness.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/23/government-housing-planning-strategy

 

It doesn't appear to substantiate it to me.

[Tony]

Not included in the response but something that will also be causing the cost of housing to go up is the scrapping of national affordable housing programme which combined with reductions in the HCA's budgets means nearly a £billion this year removed from house building programmes.

If only you knew the truth of the gross inefficiencies of 'affordable' housing.

[Bozo]

A few points immediately jump out.

 

VAT is regressive so raising that and not income tax disproportionately affects the poor.

 

The 80\20 split of cuts to tax rises hits the poor hardest.

 

No where does the article factor in the 25% cuts in public sector budgets. Budgets again relied upon by the most vulnerable in society.

 

There is also no need to be making this level of cuts, in fact making a million or so people redundant that rely on the Govt.s expenditure whilst we are tiptoeing out of a recession is madness.

 

Describing the bank levy as some sort of insurance scheme is bizarre. I am not aware of any insurance schemes you simply buy with a one off payment, nor do I see the sense in it when at the heart of the countries problem is the lack of funds for banks lending. This is precisely the sort of measure that will prolong the recession, and it penalises all banks equally regardless of their contribution to the crisis. A much more sensible option and something more like an insurance scheme would be a transaction tax like other countries have been implementing. That would be a much more sensible way to deal with any structural problems.

 

Clegg was sufficiently wounded by the IFS allegation of this being overall a regressive budget to go to the absurdity of saying they had failed to take into account the possibility of progressive maeasures which future budgets might introduce. Clearly unfair, then, of the IFS to assess this budget without going to the trouble of consulting their crystal balls.

 

IFS summary:

 

"• Treasury said that reforms to be implemented between now and

2012–13 progressive, but

– This is mainly because of reforms announced by the previous

government

– They only look at reforms to 2012–13 – benefit cuts announced

yesterday for subsequent years hit the poorest hardest

– They (and we) do not account for cuts to housing benefit, DLA and

reforms to in-year changes to tax credit awards. These are all likely to

hit the poorest half more than the richest half. CGT reform will hit

higher-rate taxpayers, but small

• So likely that overall impact of yesterday’s measures was regressive"

[Bozo]

Simon Hughes now being reported as prepared to put forward amendments to the budget "to improve fairness and make for a fairer Britain":

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100044784/simon-hughes-plans-to-challenge-the-budget/

[Wildcat]

Simon Hughes now being reported as prepared to put forward amendments to the budget "to improve fairness and make for a fairer Britain":

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100044784/simon-hughes-plans-to-challenge-the-budget/

 

Interesting report here:

 

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/06/progressives-should-unite-for-a-fairer-slower-reduction-plan/

 

The article is right on its second point that the argument needs to be communicated more strongly that the additional £32billion in cuts that the Tories have introduced are unnecessary and ideological.