Where is the money coming from?
That, quite fairly, is the question ministers ask whenever the Opposition parties so much hint at tax cuts. Today's postponement of the rise in fuel duty is just that - a tax cut. It's cost the Treasury more than £1billion. This follows hot on the heels of the £2.7 billion tax cut designed to buy off the 10p tax revolt.
Now, you might say, isn't the government getting a lot more cash in the form of oil tax revenues? The answer's yes but much of what they gain in oil tax they lose in VAT and corporation tax. They're also due to lose billions in stamp duty and corporation tax.
Someone will have to pay unless the government extends borrowing again. One of the big stories of the next 12 months will be the battle about who should ay and how much.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
As usual, we the taxpayer will end up paying in some form or other. More stealth taxes to come? Without a doubt.
Complain about this comment
Here's my prediction: Labour will take out a massive loan at our expense and pretend everything's OK. Then, after they've been annihilated at the next General Election, they'll blame the Tories for increasing taxes and cutting public spending because most if not all of the future revenue will go towards paying off the massive debt Labour got us into in the first place. And, lest we forget, we've still got the 2.7 billion to pay off for Brown's disgraceful mistake and subsequent (failed) attempt to buy votes at a byelection.
Complain about this comment
The money comes from the increased petrol prices. 17.5% of the price goes to the Government, so as the price goes up, so does the tax we pay on it. So the government has ALREADY got more than the extra 2p would have given it if the price had not gone up.
Complain about this comment
Give it a year or so and we'll be forced to have meters implanted into our lungs so we can pay air tax. Which will be followed by another stealth tax to pay for the scheme's implementation, which (I need not add) will be over-budget and late.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I am glad that you have asked this question - all we need now is a member of Cabinet to step up and answer it.
The problem is they won't.
Complain about this comment
#3:
Thats how I see it as well. 4pMost people will agree that the price of unleaded/diesel has increased by 30p over the past couple of months. Well the VAT included in that £0.30p rise is 4 pence, straight to Clown and Co.
Complain about this comment
The Government has not got a clue. Even the spin is now obvious. I can see the headless chickens running around number 10 and 11.
I suppose now that the myth of prudence has been blown, the only remaining strategy for Brown pants is to spend everything so the Tories have a real problem in 2010. A sort of scorched UK policy?
Complain about this comment
andyjenk: You are failing to notice that although the VAT per litre has gone up, the higher prices means less litres sold. This could, in fact, reduce the total VAT on petrol.
Complain about this comment
"isn't the government getting a lot more cash in the form of oil tax revenues? The answer's yes but much of what they gain in oil tax they lose in VAT and corporation tax. They're also due to lose billions in stamp duty and corporation tax."
Try reading your blog entries before publication - you are repeating yourself.
More fundamentally, higher oil prices result in gains in VAT receipts, because VAT is ad valorem. When charged on a higher level of fuel price, it will deliver greater revenues, because fuel is price inelastic.
By the way, how exactly does the government deciding not to increase tax constitute a "tax cut"?!
Complain about this comment
2p fuel tax rise cancelled. Well excuse me for not being in the least bit grateful! A darned sight more will be clawed back in revenue before I see any benefits to this particular move. Cynical? You bet!
Complain about this comment
When is someone going to talk about the real tax haul.
1995 39.4p TAX - 54p fuel cost
1996 42.9p TAX - 55.8p fuel cost
2000 58.6p TAX - 76.2p fuel cost
2005 60.6p TAX - 91p fuel cost
2007 63.7p TAX - 95.1p fuel cost
What has 2p got to do with it?
Complain about this comment
No problem to Gordon and Co they know they will not have to pick up the pieces after the election.
As usual when Labour both Old and New leave power the economy is in a mess.
Complain about this comment
Well done number 9 for explaining the very simple mechanics of an ad valorem tax on the rising price of a product subject to inelastic demand. More prosaically, that is a definition of profiteering.
Meanwhile, this is postponed not lost revenue and £1bn is just a rounding error in the context of an annual budget of over £600bn. The money can be found elsewhere easily from the monumental amount of waste generated by this profligate government.
How much longer must we wait for this bunch of mountebacks to go?
Complain about this comment
Money not taken by the Government is not lost to the economy. It remains in the possession of the individuals and companies that earned it - to spend as they please, rather then spent as the government sees fit.
I have banged on before about the insidious effect of overhead on profitability. No instituion can afford to allow the non profitmaking part of the business to grow out of proportion to revenue.
Government revenue is down and falling. So what. Get out the knife and slash the overheads. The more that they government can save, the less they will need to take as tax leaving more to be retained in the wealth creating part of the economy. So many companies are on a knife edge, and the smallest thing can make the difference between going under or surviving.
We don't need walk to school co-ordinators and other non jobs right now.
(sorry about the gratuitous use of knife references)
Complain about this comment
I agree with some of the previous commentators. The monumental risk to the British people now is that The Brown Terror opts for a scorched earth economic policy in the fag end of yet another ultimately disastrous period of Labour in government (it's a hallmark). Labour knows it has little or no hope of winning the next election and so has nothing to lose by increasing economic recklessness. If they get turfed out at the next election, the Tories (as usual) will be faced with turning around a decade or so of unreconstructed socialism (when we will ever learn that socialism is fine in theory and useless in practice?). If the scorched earth policy results in a miraculous general election win for Brown then, hey presto, another 5 years on the John Lewis' List expenses bonanza! I think I'm in the wrong job ... that's if I'm in a job at all for much longer.
Complain about this comment
The grubbyment have already taken more in tax in the first 6 months of this year, due to the massive increase in energy (oil, gas, electricity, petrol, diesel etc) prices and the VAT charged on it, than they are losing in "delaying" the 2p per litre rise on petrol/diesel.
Delaying a planned rise, before it happens because the government has alreasy taken more revenue from taxpayers than the rise was calculated to take, is NOT a tax CUT!!!
Really Nick. Why are you trying to blatantly defend every pathetic move this awful failure of a government makes? Even to the extent where you have to make yourself look utterly foolish by being factually, completely incorrect?
Announcing that a delay (Brown's ACTUAL word) is a tax cut is as party political and facetious as one can get. Stop writing for the BBC and at least honestly declare your blatant pro labour bias.
Complain about this comment
@14, Totally spot on!
the government should be looking to make the state a lot smaller and get it's nose out of our private lives. At a time of impending recession, the last thing the government should be doing is continuing to increase in size and expense.
But what do we hear today? The Government planning to spy on EVERY phone call, email and private communication in this country!!!
This is FASCISM!
Complain about this comment
Briantist: Yes, but everything which goes up in price and carries VAT means extra money to the Government. That's the difference between their win-win and our lose-lose situation.
Complain about this comment
Britain could start saving money by getting rid of useless quangos. I remember a discussion on here when someone brought up the British Potato Council(?) that apparently employs 49 staff and has a 6 million quid a year budget. Erm what's wrong with this picture?
Complain about this comment
re: 17
It's terrifying isn't it? If that becomes law I'm emigrating as soon as I possibly can. Maybe Scotland and Wales will be independent by then and we can all escape there. It seems Labour can always find money for ridiculous, bloated, illegal and unethical projects but there's never enough to (for example) pay the police a proper wage.
Complain about this comment
I Like that, thats very funny or have you been drinking?
Not adding 2p to the price of fuel is actualy a tax cut. what are you talking about.
Its not a tax increase, thats whats it is. Quite different.
I wonder if Brown has any more tax cuts in mind.
Perhaps he wont increase income tax by 10% then we really will be better off.
ROFL.
Complain about this comment
Oh yes..
If you vote for me as PM I wont triple VAT.
Now you really are better off.
All is well
Complain about this comment
Nick
What's your take on the overall message you get when reading comments on your blog? Are we all self-selecting, anti-Labour commentators, or are we just a random selection of the population, the majority of whom are vehemently anti-Labour? When I read comments on political blogs anywhere these days, the majority of people seem to be spitting blood and teeth at the mere mention of Brown and his shambles of a government. Can Labour really limp on like this for another 2 years, or is there some mechanism for the British people to cut their losses and turf out one of the most disastrous administrations for a long time? It's almost embarrassing to watch this lot make cock-up after cock-up which ultimately has to be paid for by us taxpaying mugs!
Complain about this comment
This government has finally killed the golden goose. They will leave, tails firmly behind them, with Britain sinking in debt and Useless Tories being blamed for the drastic spending cuts (If they can/dare!) they need to introduce to stabilise the economy.
Prudence is lying in the gutter, face down, with Nu (Improved) Labour jack boots all over her body.
The Red Flag is finally flying here, Soviet style economics as well!
Complain about this comment
Re 23
P.s.
I am not anti- Labour/Conservative/Liberal but just plain old anti-incompetence. With a little bit of contempt for money gabbing MP's.
Complain about this comment
I think the problem for most people is that we pay our taxes more and more on every little thing in life and in death - but the services we seem to get do not seem toimprove they get worse and worse. I think most peoplebelieve that there is a huge abount of waste of our money. A good example this week is the John Lewis account. But every week there is something.
Complain about this comment
A good parasite does not kill its host. Maybe every single one of us should simply refuse to pay tax of any kind to these criminals; without the lifeblood of cold hard cash they'll shrivel up and die.
Complain about this comment
Nick - would you have a go at explaining to the opposition that, as you point out, just because the government gets more money from tax as oil prices rise it does not mean that they get more money overall?
I've just watched the debate on Osborne's latest cunning plan (swiped from the SNP apparently) which uses the non-existent 'extra' tax to pay for a reduction of 5p, to be clawed back when prices fall.
Quite apart from the impracticality of the whole idea (because it de-stabilises fiscal policy, as Cable so eloquently explained), can you imagine the response of the lorry drivers (and most on this board) when the government asks them to meet their side of the 'bargain' and pay more for their petrol and diesel than they need to? Now that is what I call being out of touch with reality!
Complain about this comment
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the RAC study that shows that taking everything into account us motorists are now paying 18% less to drive than we were in 1988.
Well, I'm not really surprised because the finding flies in the face of all our entrenched prejudices. After all, we all KNOW that the motorist is being hammered by this government.
Complain about this comment
re: 29
Well I'm paying more than I was in 1988, regardless of what the RAC study (no doubt with highly flawed methodology) says. Everything you say is in defense of the indefensible. You are not a reliable commentator I'm afraid jimbo, you are a Labour puppet!
Complain about this comment
# 29
Well, I am not too surprised because politicians are finally waking up to the often unintended consequences of their policies.
It is called human nuture, although just recently, it has been delineated into 'behavioural economics'.
Using the RAC example, motorists simply ignore that reality (18% 'less to drive') because of other factors, such as being clocked by Gatso cameras and fanatical policemen e.g. North Wales, plus more crowded roads and so on.
None of these things being directly related to the cost of driving, unless of course, you are unfortunate enough to be caught by one of those speed cameras, but all playing a part in sub-conciously pressurising the motorist.
Who is almost certainly being pressured tax-wise elsewhere, hence the volatility of reaction to petrol prices.
Complain about this comment
#30 power_to_the_ppl:
Thank you for that reasoned evidence-based response. I had not realised that the RAC was an arm of the Labour Party, but you learn something every day.
I can only stand in awe of your independence of mind, typified by your intellectually rigorous proposal that " ... every single one of us should simply refuse to pay tax of any kind to these criminals; without the lifeblood of cold hard cash they'll shrivel up and die." How very sensible.
Complain about this comment
I was trying to get some sleep and all the noise from this blog woke me up. Well, here's my bit. I think Gordon's got one last weapon to use to raise money: a big car boot sale. What he could do, is try to sell all of those failed policies one last time. Nope, maybe not, even if he could sell them they wouldn't be worth much. I'm going back to sleep.
Complain about this comment
re: 32
*Yawn* I stand by that. They are parasites and always will be as long as we give them our sanction. Can you honestly say you're happy with our current government? Let me guess, you'll say 'Yes, they're great'. BTW I can see your strings ;)
re: 33
Brown could put his cabinet in the stocks and auction off the chance to throw rotten tomatoes at them. I'd pay a fortune for that, even if my money got sucked into the Labour black hole.
Complain about this comment
#21
No, it really IS a tax cut, honest! It's a tax cut in exactly the same way that Gordon always talks about Conservative spending plans being "cuts to NHS services" and the like.
It works like this. Lets say GB says in the first year after the election, Labour would increase spending on the NHS by 2% above inflation, and DC says the Tories would spend 1% above inflation (and reduce waste). This means DC would spend less than GB in headline figures. So, even though both parties would increase spending by above inflation amounts, GB claims Tory cuts due to the slightly smaller increase.
So, because they are delaying a measure that would increase revenue, that means they are getting less than they had planned to get, which makes it a tax cut.
In much the same way it's always sunny in Manchester and it always snows at Christmas!
Complain about this comment
Interesting that the report on Equitable Life should be published just after the Honourable Members go on their summer jollies.
I have a question which needs answering. When did the MPs Pension Scheme transfer some of their assets from Equitable Life?
Surely there ought to be an investigation into all the funds which were transferred out of EL in the six months period leading up to the decision by the High Court that said that EL ought to meet all the guarantees.
I sincerely hope that taxpayers will not have to pick-up the bill.
A final point. I hope that all BBC commentators will declare that they did or did not have an interest in Equitable Life. What interest did any BBC staff, officers or reporters have in Equitable Life. All interests of BBC staff should be declared, surely there can be a conflict of interest.
Complain about this comment
Never mind about the 2p, where will the money come from if we all stop using petrol?
Using the "have to cut spending on blah, blah" is a lame excuse that political pundits should be hammering ALL parties on.
Non-drivers enjoy a massive subsidy courtesy of the motorist, but I have not yet heard any party pointing out that ALL taxes will have to rise to cover the inevitable revenue loss. You cannot tax motorists under the guise of "pollution" and then tax becuase there is no "pollution".
Complain about this comment
Jimbrant, I keep accurate records of my travelling expenses and despite downgrading from a rover 800 to a diesel renault clio in 2003, I am paying about £300.00 MORE this year to travel than I did in 2002! Stick your RAC "survey" where the sun doesn't shine!!! The government HAS made more money from the VAT on combined increases in energy (gas electric, oil, petrol, diesel) than they are losing in any delay on introducing this 2p tax. Domestic motorists may have reduced their usage, but not by enough to offset the haulage industry's increase in costs. After all, if a lorry has to deliver from Dover to Carlisle, they cannot think, Hmmmm fuel costs are going up, I think I'll drop this load off in Crewe!
There is only one thing worse than a parasite, and that is a host that makes a welcoming home for one!
I think a tax strike is an excellent idea as this Government have descended way past the point of the merely incompetent into the criminally abusive.
You may enjoy living in a socialist police state, where you have no privacy whatsoever and the state listen in on ALL you (once) private communication. Where the state can lock up whoever they wish without charge or trial or evidence, where the police have the means to commit extra judicial executions with a policy of shoot to kill with impunity and where taxes always go up and services go down. Where the government can behave in ways that we used to think only happened in backwards banana republics, but I would like to return to living in a democratic and independent nation run by a government of the people who respect and are subject to the law.
Any way you slice this "2p" delay, it is NOT a tax cut.
By using Nick's seriously flawed logic, Labour could announce one trillion pounds of tax rises one day, then on the next announce that they will not introduce that measure after all and spend the next election as the party that cut taxes by one trillion pounds!
Seriously Jim, you and Nick are providing excuses and therfore a welcoming host for the parasitic labour party. I liken you to the lazy and irresponsible parents of the two or three children that went to school with my daughter. We would spend entire weekends picking nits out of our daughter's hair, get her all clear only for her to come home from school with more headlice, because some lazy and irresponsible parents would not do what was necessary to rid their children of parasites. Those poor kids would then infest the rest of the school.
Labour are parasites and should be exterminated.
Complain about this comment
Quote - Now, you might say, isn't the government getting a lot more cash in the form of oil tax revenues? The answer's yes but much of what they gain in oil tax they lose in VAT and corporation tax. They're also due to lose billions in stamp duty and corporation tax, - unquote.
Thanks for explaining the situation Nick, because when I said the same thing, some came out denying it and that I did not know what was happening.
Now that it’s coming from you Nick, how is it that David Houdini Cameron can manage to reduce even 5 pence and say that the money is not lost?
NO GOVERNMENT IS REDUCING TAX ON FUEL and if anything some are actually increasing duty or reducing subsidies to fill the gaps in their coffers, including China and India.
To say that one reduces duty while fuel price is on the rise, is a very cheap PR exercise.
Complain about this comment
#30, power_to_the_ppl, are you that bloke who used to do a turn a speakers' corner about 20 years ago?
It's uncanny!
Complain about this comment
Where's the money coming from to fund the delayed duty rise is the wrong question.
The question should be: 'Where is all of the money we pay in fuel duty and vat going to - and why is is it being wasted ? The answer is the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are draining the coffers at an alarming rate. It is a rather bitter pill to swallow especially if you recall that Tony Blair said he had seen compelling evidence of WMD's and that was the reason he took us to war - and try as they might the Labour Government cannot give us that proof - This is why our costs are so high. This is why our fuel is about the dearest in the world. This is why our taxes are driving up inflation. We are still paying for the criminal stupidity of Blair and the continued blind arrogance of Brown
Complain about this comment
Well said garyone. I have for some time thought and said the same as yourself. When will the public wake up. I regard Bush and Blair as war criminals and as for Brown, he should have no I am not going to be responsible for paying for this.
Furthermore, the senior officers in the services were complicit because they accepted the orders. They should have had the courage to say no! Would they have been charged with disobeying orders, taking into account the Nuremburg war trials, following orders is no defence against the charges of committing war crimes.
A judge will always say that ignorance of the law is no defence.
There are a lot of people out there who will hold their heads with shame when the truth starts to come out. Bush, Blair and Brown, all guilty as far as I am concerned. As for Mugabe I remind you that at least he stood for election, not like our own Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment
Re; "The scorched earth policy." I'm convinced the Tories planned something similar efore the 1992 election. The calculation being that the GE would produce either a small majority Labour government or a rocky Lib/Lab coalition.They would have been faced with a hole in the accounts and Black Wednesday would have happened within days of the government coming into power. As the highly pro-Euro John Smith would have been Chancellor, he would have probably regarded bailing out of the ERM anathema so the crisis would have been worse. The Tories calculated that in such a scenario, the government would fall and they'd get back in. Sadly for them, they made the mistake of winning the GE and had to deal with the mess they had created, resulting in them putting VAT on fuel! Be careful what you wish for!
Complain about this comment
There is no hole in the finances and it is disingenious to even suggest there is a shortfall because there has been a huge increase in treasury revenue from the rises in fuel prices. In fact he should be cutting the price significantly because he has had more money, to bring it in line with where the revenue should have been had the fuel prices remained the same plus the 2p, plus this would stimulate the economy. However yet again the politicisation of this issue is being played out so that Joe Public thinks there is a hole in the finances, and therefore when the budget comes round and UK PLC has to borrow again it can be blamed on the 2p. Shame on the politicians, and shame on the journalists for reporting it like this!
Complain about this comment
I'm worried about the way some people in this blog are replying, seemingly more intent on attacking the government than the truth, then dismissing anyone who says otherwise as a Labour supporter.
I am not a Labour supporter in the slightest, for the record, and i do think the decision was wrong to delay this increase. If anything the government should tax fuel more (but while they are at it, get rid of the stupid new vehicle tax system), because of the environmental damage it causes. Yes, i know there are many different views on this, and what causes global warming, what effect it has, etc, but bottling out of the increase is not the way to go about doing our bit to stop damaging the environment. Its also irresponsible, when they are taking less and less money through taxation, to make the deficit even larger with this decision.
However, right now i still trust the Labour government more than i would the Conservatives. Simply because the Conservative party do not have any solutions, or even any ideas, on how to deal with this situation. Vague statements, and attacks on the government, with no alternatives, are not the way that a party who wants to be elected should behave.
Stop telling us what the government are doing wrong, and tell us what the alternative is. That goes to David Cameron, the Conservative party as a whole, and to a lot of people replying to this blog.
Complain about this comment
Where is the money coming from?
The money is coming from jimbrant, or it should be if there was any justice in this sceptered isle.
As he seems to believe that we live in the best of all possible worlds and are jolly lucky to have Gordon Brown as our nation's trusted caretaker, then I suggest jimbrant sticks his had in his pocket and subs the 2p for all of us.
While I'm at it, I must thank the government for all it's investment spending over the last eleven years while it carried out the plans of the prior tory administration to build Terminal 5, the high speed rail link, the M6 toll road and so on. It's a shame they decided not to propose anything of their own.
There will be now NewLabour 'Legacy' Just a mountain of debt.
Complain about this comment
garyone # 41
Agreed, but add in Trident.
If anyone can explain to me how the post-imperial UK benefits from this massive defence expenditure (and consequent massive taxation), I would be grateful. The obvious reason seems to be that being in the nuclear club, allows our leaders (of either party) to posture on the world stage, and keep membership of a permasnent seat on the Security Council.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad to see censorship is alive and well with the mods. My original comment was that the tax is not needed owing to the increases in fuel prices and therefore VAT and duty and I questioned the ethics of reporting this as a black hole in the finances as the revenues are already coming in which far exceed the expected 2p rise. Nevermind eh!
Complain about this comment
22. At 8:09pm on 16 Jul 2008, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
"Oh yes..
If you vote for me as PM I wont triple VAT.
Now you really are better off.
All is well"
Vote for me and I'll not only not triple VAT, but I'll also reduce crime by not stabbing you!
Complain about this comment
I think you ask a fair question Nick. However at this point people are hurting so badly they don't really care as long as they
dont have to pay any more tax.
Complain about this comment
Well, the government could stop wasting money, I suppose, including waste within the BBC. See those little flying pigs?
Complain about this comment
45 Ilpalazzo, there is a lot of truth in what you say and about everything you say,there is so much unfounded criticism of the labour party on these blogs as the majority of bloggers on here are Tories or members of the [I'm not a tory brigade] ,
They of course are entitled to think and say what they like but most of them go over the top which of course results in those that support Labour retaliating. I am prepared to criticise GB and the government if I think they've done wrong and I have but I am prepared to defend them if I think their right.
Some of the absurd posts on here are beyond the pale, which is sad because like it or not this government is going to run this country for another two years and it doesn't look good on the world stage.They probably think we are going to the soup kitchens for our meals if they believe the Tory rheteric, instead we are the fourth richest country in the G8, so why alll this unnecessary hate and insulting remarks to be used to describe our stting government.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#41 and #42, personally I am also deeply troubled that we are involved in two military operations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I believe that our government recognises them as simply part of the investment in the 'special relationship' with the US once you strip away the supposed 'humanitarian' reasons for acting.
Personally, I don't know how much in terms of revenue the 'special relationship' is worth although it must be considerable. Therefore, I think you are quite deluded if you believe a change of administration would change that.
#42, I think you need to read about the Nuremburg War trials and the purpose they served. One, they were essentialy there to serve only the victors. Plus, if it wasn't for the Americans they would have never have happened:
- Stalin was in favour of a quick trial in a Kangaroo court followed by swift execution (as this was the Soviet system of the time).
- Churchill wanted summary execution of all SS officers above a certain rank (I think Sturmbannfuhrer).
I'm pretty sure that Nuremburg have provided nothing in terms of precedent. Anyway, I think you'll find Bush and Blair ensured that they acted within the law - by interpretation, of course.
Complain about this comment
29 - The RAC study was fairly flawed because it included the cost of purchase of a new car. Relatively speaking, cars are cheaper.
If you disregard this kind of one-off cost, and focus on the day to day experience of motorists at the lower end of the food chain, i.e. people who buy a £1,000 car for cash, it is proportionately more expensive.
Petrol - (Above inflation increases due to escalator fuel duty. Nuff said.)
Servicing and repairs – Servicing is needed less often because cars are more reliable, however, many cars now have increasingly complex systems which require sophisticated diagnostic equipment, replacing the man with a good set of ears and a screwdriver. The prices they charge reflect this.
I used to do quite a lot of my own servicing. There is very little I could do on my Focus, due to complex builds and specialist tools / equipment required. It is the garage or nothing.
Tyres - I get more punctures now, because there is more junk on the roads. In the last two years I have bought five tyres, in the ten years before that, I bought seven.
Also, the spec has changed in many cases. On average tyres are wider and deeper these days than cars were 20 years ago. My old MK Escort used to run on tyres that looked almost fit for a Motorcycle. My Focus came with huge LP tyres that retail at £145 each. They are more expensive.
Insurance – Prices now include elements to cover legal expenses, uninsured drivers, vandalism cover and so on. These are new developments and are reflected in the price.
Other - Include in here damage from speed humps, GATSO fees, and so on.
When I was a lad you could park for free almost everywhere. Now you pay virtually everywhere except outside your own house. Some people even then.
Overall, apart from buying the car, running one is more expensive.
Complain about this comment
#45, Ilpalazzo, yes, I agree with you, I think the government is wrong to lose their nerve and start to scrap green taxes.
I also agree that it would be more effective, fairer and simpler to tax driving rather than the vehicle itslef.
No, the Conservatives haven't, in my mind, come up with any real alternatives (plenty of ideas though) and whilst they're the party (of the two main) who appear to be big on social conscience I'm not sure how long this will last if they do assume power.
You can often judge a political party by those who fund them for obvious reasons - both here and in the US.
As a result of New Labour being so business friendly, the Conservatives still rely on a large amount of their funding from the, let's say, old fashioned side of the party - and I have little, if anything, to agree on with these people.
Now, I shall probably be accused of being a 'New Labour apologist' as I was the other day. Oh well, ironic considering I will be voting for Vince Cable (my local MP) at the next general election (haven't voted Labour since Tony Blair took over).
Complain about this comment
I don't think comparing the government to parasites is really correct. A parasite will kill it's host it just doesn't always happen. More look at it like mutual symbiosis (which is actually quite aggressive). At the moment we're in a position where one of the party is going to be expelled as the conditions aren't right! I don't know about the real cost of motoring as Private Eye pointed out that rail fares have increased extortionately above the rate of inflation. The current hike in diesel will affect all diesel trains (which are many of the longer distance trains) and will affect all public transport. Also I don't really see much socialism in Labour any more. Most of the policies are close to the Tory policies so blaming socialism doesn't work. Just look at the policy of PFIs and PPPs, not a socialist ideology. I can see why the 2p hold is seen as a tax cut because of inflation (what ever level) which would mean the price should rise but doesn't but at the same time if it costs more to fill up then more revenue is always going to be generated as in a way more 2p in the pound are reached. I don't really know if the Tories would be any better. According to an economics source, two recessions can be attributed to them 1980-1981 and 1991-1992. I think the main problem seems to have been allowing growth (the good times) to get out of hand and it's collapsed the supports. But if we all have to tighten belts then so should government spending. I have to say there are a lot of libertarians out on these boards!
Complain about this comment
#55 Clarence_Threepwood:
"Overall, apart from buying the car, running one is more expensive"
Oh I see! What wonderful logic!
So overall, apart from buying the food, the grocery bill has gone down? Apart from buying the house, the cost of housing isn't going up very much?
Complain about this comment
I get the feeling on many blogs and comments and also political commentary that Vince Cable is like a political superhero. To be honest having listened to what he has said many a time on TV and radio he has a far better head than most and is a shame he isn't leading the lib dems. Problem with Labour and the Conservatives (don't forget the mini manifesto from 2006!) is their solution is mainly just money, business and targets. Fuel duty will go up at some point it is inevitable unless you change the whole system (which would probably be a good idea as oil and gas become rarer commodities).
Complain about this comment
With regard to the 2p fuel tax and the conservative proposals can I have some thoughts on this.
Let's say that people are paying over 110p for their fuel. It is even more but this is an example. So, that is the price when petrol is about $150 per barrel. So, when the price of a barrel falls to, let's say $100 per barrel and the price at the pump should be for arguments sake, 75p per barrel.
So, surely the government should put on taxes so that the price at the pump will be 110p per barrel. We seem to be 'willing' to pay 110p so in order to maintain the efforts to reduce petrol consumption we should pay this price, it will raise taxes but that is surely better than contributing to the profits of the petrol companies.
Oh, and please don't call me stupid for this idea because I think you will find it will be government policy before the blink of an eye, and you read it here first.
Complain about this comment
#57, Dunky_R, exactly....
X - Y = 0
X = New Labour
Y = Conservatives
Complain about this comment
#59, Dunky_R, no, not a superhero, he's just my local MP (and a great support to the community), parliamentarian of the year and the most suitable candidate for the role of Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It's frustrating that most people only think in terms of two party politics although there's little to divide them - it's the old fashioned rich versus poor conflict.
The Scots have been very sensible and said no to both New Labour and the Conservatives. I wish we could do the same and actually enjoy a change - for the better.
Complain about this comment
46 robin jd
Jimbrant doesnt stand alone.
Why should he or any one else give you anything if they did you would still be on here bellyaching about how hard done by you are. you dont realise how lucky you are chum if the Tories get back you will regret the your rather absurd protestations about the labour government unless of course as I suspect you are among the rather well off.
then of course you will welcome the Tax cuts that will be gained by making the rest of us suffer.
Complain about this comment
45. Ilpalazzo
You said.. Stop telling us what the government are doing wrong, and tell us what the alternative is
Well we know that Labour have and are wasting and squandering billions of tax payers money.
The alternative is to stop doing this.
Complain about this comment
Interesting
My post 53 refered to a moderator.
All I recall saying was that only nick could state that not introducing a tax was a tax cut.
Oh perhaps i accused him of labour bias too
Complain about this comment
@63
So GA you dont want a conservative government because its tax cuts will hurt you.
Well I have news for you "chum" the rest of the country dont like the tax hikes that labour have introduced so buckle up my friend you are in for a benefit reduction
Complain about this comment
And whilst we're on the subject of transport and costs, can we PLEASE have a government (or major political party - you know who I'm talking about "Dave") that will have the nous to come up with a proper integrated transport policy AND deliver it - you know what I mean here:
Fast, REASONABLY priced rail links (both existing and new high-speed lines)
Double-decker trains on the aforementioned new lines (there's no excuse then to say that we can't use double-deckers because of the existing bridges, tunnels etc)
Good bus services which aren't costing the earth for the average person (to cover up the fact that the powers that be are panicking about how they can now afford all those free bus rides for senior citizens)
I know that the powers that be will say "where's the money going to come from?" and "we can't have more borrowing..." but it's funny how we can afford to pay for our army to be involved in two foreign adventures, can pay goodness knows what for aerospace deals with the Saudis and then spend about half a billion on helicopters that can't fly in a light breeze.....
There, I feel better for that now! :-)
Complain about this comment
58#
Thankyou for your sarcasm.
The point I was making is that the survey includes (a) the cost of buying the car, (and assumes that it is a new one,) and (b) the cost of servicing (and that the servicing needs to happen less often,) hence the main reason for the saving.
(i) Whilst you buy a car only once, you have to run it every day.
Not everyone buys new cars. Many cant afford them, some choose not to. My retired father has had one brand new car in his life. He buys them at 18 months - 3 years old. Until recently I usually chose to run bangers, which is a very cheap form of motoring. I have therefore had one brand new car also, (and probably won't bother again.)
It also occurs to me that the survey did not include the cost of car finance for new cars either, which is much more common than it used to be.
(ii) Yes, new cars need less servicing per miles traveled, but in my experience that servicing is proportionately more expensive, due to the complexity of the car and home servicing is less likely to happen for the same reason. i.e. Engine management systems instead of points.
Complain about this comment
It is easy to raise revenue without raising taxes, simply put up the national insurance contributions. This would redoubtably help with the ongoing pension crisis too.
As we all know national insurance is not a tax....really.
Complain about this comment
ah beautiful sensorship
where is my mailnote for post 53 and 65
Complain about this comment
Although the thesis of the RAC research has become more finely balanced recently, because of the very rapid increase in petrol prices in the last year, it was certainly true a year or so ago when I did the figures to settle an argument in the pub that (despite petrol then at 90p a litre) the cost of car ownership in real terms was lower than it had been 20 years previously, when petrol was 38p a litre. This is because the cost of the fuel is only part of the picture.
The RPI now (June 2008) is almost exactly double the 1988 figure (216.8 /106.6) so petrol has indeed gone up faster than RPI.
However, while petrol has increased as a share of the total cost of ownership, other elements have become cheaper.
In real terms cars are cheaper to buy, maintain and insure and more reliable than they were in the 1980s. They are also more fuel efficient. And these lower costs outweigh the headline petrol price figure.
Compared to incomes the case is incontrovertible, because mean earnings have gone up much more than RPI since 1988 (about 580 / 218, or almost as much as petrol). So more people can afford to run a car as these costs are a smaller part of their total disposable income. The total number of vehicles on our roads grew by 46% in the last 20 years, from 23.3 to 34.0 million, and nearly 80% of households now have at least one car.
Also, just because many people no longer trust any official or semi-official statistics that don't support their preconceptions, this doesn't make it less true. Facts are independent of belief.
BTW
I always thought that a parisite is someone who lives in Paris!
Complain about this comment
I really dont get it Nick
How can not introducing a tax ever be seen as cutting tax.
If the tax didnt exist in the first place how could it be reduced.
The 2.7 billion is a cut but only to compensate people for the already introduced tax hike caused by removing the 10% rate. The 4 million people that will still be worse off due to this will find it funny that you think this is a tax cut. I think Grandantidote may well be one of these that are worse off as a result. I am pretty sure Jimbrant will be in this bracket as well.
Complain about this comment
What annoys me is that Brown claims that what he is doing by postponing the increase is helping us whilst we struggle with food and fuel costs.
However, in reality, not increasing a tax is no help at all. Nothing is getting cheaper or easier and belts must continued to be tightened.
When he says he is helping what he means is that he is not going to conspire on this issue to make things harder!
Complain about this comment
#67
I'm one of the many over 60s who is also overweight and has a "free" bus pass. What a brilliant incentive to exercise more! I'm now wondering if I'll live long enough to be offered the new one-on-one free councilling sessions which will be introduced to help me cut down on bus travel.
It should not be beyond the abilities of our government to use a bit of joined up thinking and either target the elderly who NEED help with paying for travel or make sure that the elderly have enough money to decide for themselves how to spend it.
Complain about this comment
63. At 12:59pm on 17 Jul 2008, grandantidote wrote:
46 robin jd
Jimbrant doesnt stand alone.
Why should he or any one else give you anything if they did you would still be on here bellyaching about how hard done by you are. you dont realise how lucky you are chum if the Tories get back you will regret the your rather absurd protestations about the labour government unless of course as I suspect you are among the rather well off.
then of course you will welcome the Tax cuts that will be gained by making the rest of us suffer.
-------------------------------
A good old school 'us' and 'them' debate, that's what the Labour Party needs after doing it with such success in Crewe!
Complain about this comment
72 potkettle, That would suggest that even as you think that this government is doing so badly you are doing quite well .
Complain about this comment
Any extra revenue gained from high energy prices is already built into the budget.
When 'Morning' Darling was planning how much he'll have to spend, he (or rather, his team) will have factored in the impact of oil market trends on tax revenues.
They'll also have been expecting to gain from the 2% tax increase on fuel and planned to spend accordingly.
Hence it's a fair question; either spending needs to be cut or another tax raised.
I think attacking Nick for calling it a 'tax cut' is misguided - to be pedantic, you could replace it with 'this will have to be funded, like a tax cut'.
Complain about this comment
66 pot kettle ,Youve got me wrong my friend I dont like conservative policies full stop.
The difference between tory tax cuts and as you call it Labour tax hikes is that Tory tax cuts invariably means that the more well off are the ones that benefit by having more money in their banks whereas the so called labour hikes go to pay for better schools better hospitals etc.
Complain about this comment
In #71 badgercourage said "Facts are independent of belief".
While true, he quotes statistics, and statistics are in the "Lies and damned lies" category.
A quick search of the internet reveals that "The CPI levels have also been rebased to 2005=100 from 14 February 2006. The rebased series replaced the previous series, based on 1996=100".
Take something out of context and it is no longer necessarily a fact.
Complain about this comment
75 laugh on, Yes your absolutely right people do need to be reminded of their roots and what the Tories have done to the working classes for the last sixty years.
If you think you know, then let me know what the Tories have done for the working man and tell me how many Labour policies that have advanced the lot of the lower paid, the Tories have voted against.
Forget Crewe one swallow doesn't make a summer.
Complain about this comment
73 laughon, Unlike the Tories who had the fuel escalator which fortunately Labour got rid of with out hesitation.
If labour hadn't taken action over the 2p then that would be something for you to moan about, so they have postponed it indefinately and now you have that to moan about . Thats real joined up Tory double speak of the kind that we have come to expect on these Blogs.
Complain about this comment
#80
"Forget one Swallow doesnt Make a summer"
Unfortunatly one wrong swallow can make you choke and die!
Although i would be interested in the list from both parties, because i generally find with both the political parties, one in power they give with one hand and take with the other. Im just of the opinion now that Labour have been in power far too long, and they could benefit from a stint in opposition. Often taking a break from the situations means you come back with fresh ideas, and solve things better.
Tories may not be any better, but the current bench is untested, and before anyone starts harping on about the past, people learn from mistakes, and unless given the benefit of doubt when they say they have, we may as well scrap and rehab system that exists. Also for that matter labour should not have won in 1997 on the same logic because you could quite easily drag enough mistakes up on the current lots past, but they were rightly given the benefit of doubt by the majority. It worked for a while, but like with all things a step back and rest freshens your abilities.
Ta
Complain about this comment
#68 Clarence_Threepwood:
"Thankyou for your sarcasm"
You're welcome. I don't use it often, but sometimes the temptation is irresistable.
You seem to be claiming that the RAC study is faulty because it includes all the costs of owning and running a car. You will forgive me if I think that's a sensible basis on which to make this sort of assessment. And of course they are looking at an average situation, not one that applies to every individual
Complain about this comment
@76
Yes thanks the 10% tax change made me better off and they also are giving me the compensation payment.
Complain about this comment
@78
See my previous post.
Labours hike missed the target with their last debacle.
They cant even get tax the rich policy right now
Complain about this comment
81. At 2:32pm on 17 Jul 2008, grandantidote
------------
You have me all wrong. I'm not moaning about Labour not increasing taxes at this time. I do, however, take affront to the claim by Brown that he is helping.
Not kicking me when i'm down is not that same as giving me a helping hand!
And when you say "people do need to be reminded of their roots and what the Tories have done to the working classes for the last sixty years" you seem to forget that Labour were in charge for around 30 of the last 60 and, more importantly, have been running things for the last 11 years!
Complain about this comment
#71 badgercourage: "Also, just because many people no longer trust any official or semi-official statistics that don't support their preconceptions, this doesn't make it less true. Facts are independent of belief."
Careful, you will be labelled a parasite yourself if you continue to harbour such revolutionary ideas.
Crime is down almost 50%, and yet people are convinced that it's going up. Perhaps today's Daily Mail headline 'welcoming' the very good statistics is one reason for this:
"Shock figures reveal no part of Britain is safe as knife violence spreads EVERYWHERE".
Blair and Campbell wre undoubtedly right - our media are a large part of the problem, and not part of the solution, of public misconceptions. This is strange in view of the fact that by their own admission they are the best in the world.
Complain about this comment
One more question for you antidote.
Why do you equate less spending with cuts in service?
There is no direct causality link between the two
There is plenty of waste built into the system. Its time Lean methology and Sigma quality levels were introduced to the public sector. Those ways of working have turned many a company around since Motorola first employed them in the late eighties.
What is more the beneficiary is the customer/user of the service and the company providing the service.
Complain about this comment
Great news that NewLabour have been outed on the ridiculous charge of 'where's the money going to come from?'
In saying this they are admitting they have bled the beast dry and there is no more money.
So all this about tory tax cuts is faintly irrelevant. The country needs managing and this government couldn't manage its way out of a paper bag.
I've finally worked out something NewLabour have done with the money; they blew up asset prices with easy credit, overinflated the housing market so no-one could afford to buy and now they're buying back unsold property from developers with our money, then this is resold at a discount for social housing. This sounds like something from a comedy sketch but it's the sad reality of the NewLabour dystopia.
More money, more waste and more taxes. Constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul. No idea what they are doing or where they are going. (except out of office at the first opportunity)
Complain about this comment
#79 andyjenk:
"The CPI levels have also been rebased to 2005=100 from 14 February 2006. The rebased series replaced the previous series, based on 1996=100".
And what sinister conclusion do you draw from that? Statistical series are often re-based to make them easier to handle. It doesn't stop anyone comparing across such discontinuities by using a simple arithmetic adjustment to one or the other series. The RPI has been re-based a number of times since the war.
Complain about this comment
#88
The reason they relate the two (well in political parties) is because to suggest they could save money by removing waste in governement run sectors, would give out headlines of imcopetent running of departments and be political suicide. The only time you can really do it politically free is at the beginning of the adminstration where its all the previous administrations fault. If Brown were to admit it now it would all look like his fault because labour has been in power for 11 years.
It may not even be his fault in some areas, but hes scared of the press, just like all politicians.
The sooner the press gets reformed, and made to reports facts as facts without spinning them to suit their editors political agenda the sooner people will see what truely is a cock up or just hype. Then at a complete longshot maybe they will make policy decisions based on sense not what will catch headlines.
Theres those pigs again
Complain about this comment
# 79
a) "A quick search of the internet reveals that "The CPI levels have also been rebased to 2005=100 from 14 February 2006. The rebased series replaced the previous series, based on 1996=100".
I deliberately used the RPI which is more reliable, less political that CPI has a continuous series going back well before 1988. In any case, although rebasing series is often done to obscure this is not always the case. And so long as you have the raw data the accuracy can always be checked.
It is the (mis)use that statistics are put to by politicians and others that is the problem, not the statistics - which don't care either way, in the same way that money is never happy or unhappy.
Darrell Huff, a famous American statistician, put it aptly: "He uses statistics as a drunk uses a lamp-post: for support, not illumination".
b) "Take something out of context and it is no longer necessarily a fact. "
Illogical, Captain. It's still a fact; it's only the implications, interpretation and understanding that change.
Ands none of this challenges my point. The RAC are right and the posters who challenge these facts are wrong, or to be charitable are extrapolating in an unscientific way from individual circumstances and anecdotal examples.
Complain about this comment
83
As a general principle I find that people who resort to sarcasm do so because they know they are on a sticky wicket.
What I am saying is that the survey is faulty, because it is predicated around the purchase of a New car, not a second hand one.
I conceed that new cars are proportionately cheaper, hence the reduction in the headline figure.
A more accurate cost comparason would be one that examines running costs only as a proportion of average income.
Complain about this comment
#87
The Daily Mail wouldn't know a fact if it slapped them with a kipper. the are only insterested in scaring people to sell newspapers.
They are only part of the problem because our cowardly politicians (including and maybe especially Blair and Campbell) have pandered to their prejudices and those of other similar "newspapers" in order to win their support.
Complain about this comment
I heard that GB et al have decided not to announce anything further about the proposed VED until the autumn, which, as a BBC reporter said, would give the public time to sell their cars and give the government more "wiggle room".
Want to buy a five year old Citroen Picasso with nearly 80,000 miles on the clock then, Gordon? No, I didn't think so.
Complain about this comment
# 93
"What I am saying is that the survey is faulty, because it is predicated around the purchase of a New car, not a second hand one."
Unfortunately, this is wrong: it's based on a survey of the money paid by car owners of all types to run their vehicles, not the price of new cars.
http://www.rac.co.uk/web/report-on-motoring/report-one/
"A more accurate cost comparason would be one that examines running costs only as a proportion of average income."
As I pointed out in my first post (#71) comparing running costs to average (mean) income makes the case even more strongly, as average income has gone up faster that the RPI or other measures of economic activity since we have had growth under all governments since 1988, and total tax take as a % of income has remained broadly constant.
So even if the cost of motoring had stayed static in real terms, the proportion of income needed to run a car would have declined - which is part of the reason car ownership has increased to almost 80% of households now compared to 62% in 1986. "The fruits of economic growth".
Complain about this comment
#90:
Not reading anything sinister into it. Just illustrating how wrong impressions can be generated.
On the subject of statistics, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how Average Annual Earnings are calculated, though.
Using simple averaging, if 90% earn £14,000 pa. and 10% earn £230,000 then the average Annual Income is £35,600 whereas if 99% earn £14,000 and 1% earn £230,000 then the average Annual Income is £16,160.
Is this the system used? If not, what is? Surely it is how much the average person earns that is important (in the above example, the same amount).
Complain about this comment
# 90
RPI, CPI, whatever ... the problem is that these are indexes that the Government has a vested interest in.
So, the index components are carefully chosen.
Back in the real world of most folks, the excellent financial team lead by Ian Cowie at the Torygraph have pulled off a great coup by creating their own index, the Real Cost of Living Index (RCLI).
Which actually includes things that the Government would rather were left out e.g. mortgage interest payments, Council Tax bills and so on.
Their Real Cost of Living Index is currently about 10.6%.
Now there is a number you can believe.
Complain about this comment
#86 laugh-on, you claim that Labour have been in charge for the last 11 years and are technically correct.
You do, however, forget something.... the word 'New' and the man Tony Blair who was more like Thatcher than Margaret Thatcher herself. I'm not surprised she's getting a state send-off, the government love her so much that they decided to carry on her legacy.
Complain about this comment
#87, jimbrant, yes, although I bet they made it quite clear to Rupert Murdoch that they weren't referring to any of his interests when they said that. I think their assertion stinks of hypocrisy but then we're talking about politicians.
I think we do have some very fine media institutions in this country, however, they unfortunately attract relatively little interest..... and I'm not referring to the Daily Mail and General Trust plc when I say that!
Are our media institutions the best in the World? I think that's certainly open to interpretation.
Complain about this comment
Nick, why does anybody have to pay? Why not budget more carefully even for just a year? If oil still goes up in price and so do the pumps then surely more revenue will be made. I'm not sure I understand why it is lost in VAT (sorry I just don't so anybody please explain). Surely more borrowing puts us at greater risk? If Labour concede (which they won't) that they won't win the next general election (which more than likely they won't) then raising some taxes for a year (maybe next financial year raising the fuel duty anyway) and making a stricter budget, though political suicide may then set up for a reduction the following year and may leave the incoming government (may be a hung one?) with a stronger stepping stone. If people are going to have to budget anyway, it's going to be the high street/out of town retail parks, that will suffer most.
On comments that governments and people learn from their mistakes, I would argue that throughout history there are many examples that people don't. We just repeat them. For example the potential for recession (the second in 7 years for the US) is built around a housing type bubble and trying to keep economic growth at any cost (like prior to the 1991-1992 recession).
Complain about this comment
#98
"Their Real Cost of Living Index is currently about 10.6%. Now there is a number you can believe."
Why, because you want to?
The difficulty people have understanding Cost of Living Indexes (CLIs) and other economic statistics is that they are based on the sum of the activities a very large number of people, whereas everyone's individual experience is different and "anecdotal".
Individual experience is clearly "true" for that person but is by definition almost always atypical for the population as a whole. Journalists are particularly bad at explaining these complexities, politicians not much better.
So yes, if you are a homeowner on a fixed income and with a large mortgage, who drives an older larger car, etc, etc. and don't buy many Indian- or Chinese-made consumer goods like fashion clothes, TVs and computers, then your personal rate of inflation is higher than average at the moment, and for Telegraph readers may well be be around 10%. [I'd be interested in their methodology and will follow that up.]
At other times eg in the 1990s your personal CLI will have been lower than average.
There are of course (since we are talking about a distribution about a mean) a large number of people at the moment whose CLI is going down, especially under-18s and young single wage earners on above-agerage incomes with no housing costs and buying clothes, laptops and PS2s. But they don't figure on the radar of political discourse very much.
No consolation for those losing out, but capitalism is brutal like that...
Complain about this comment
#87 jimbrant, tell me, why when crime figures are falling (which is obviously true) are our government locking more people away?
Do you think that these type of criminal justice policies might just be feeding the Daily Mail et al?
This government have been trapped into rolling out 'conservative' penal policies thus upping the ante like Regan did in the States.
Consequently, after Regan doubled the US prison population, it now stands at 2.7 million - more than China and Russia (the next largest) put together. Is this where we really want to be going?
It's one way of dealing with unemployment I suppose.
Complain about this comment
#97
You raise an important issue: the difference between the artithmetic mean (what most people think of as the "average") and the median, commonly used by statisticians and civil servants where this is more suited to the data.
The "mean" earnings level is the sum of all the earnings of everyone divided by the total number of people.
The "median" is the middle value, ie where half the people earn less and half more.
Depending on how the distribution is "skewed" (ie whether those on one side or the other are more evenly spread out), there can be quite a difference. For incomes, the mean is higher than the median because of the skewing effect of the very high earners.
This can produce some odd or at least counter-intuitive results like the example you choose.
For example, in the UK and EU the "poverty line" is officially 60% of "national median equivalised household income". (We should really avoid the term poverty in the UK as there is no real poverty here, and should talk about inequality and fairness, but politicians are scared of this...). As median earnings are going up by around 4-4.5% at the moment, the poverty line goes up by the same amount each year. So if earnings including benefits of the low paid only increase by RPI or even worse CPI every year, more of them will be officially"poor" even though their income has increased.
There are lots of similar anomalies, but you need to be even more sad than me to get into all the details...
Complain about this comment
94 Badgercourage, I agree with your first sentence unequivocally.
Your second I am afraid not, I can never remember the Daily Mail ever doing Labour any favours or the Daily Torygraph which rather belies the fact that Tony Blair
or Alastair Cambell pandered to these two newspapers and if they did they pandered in vain.
Complain about this comment
Anyone else thinking of contributing today, don't bother.
Just read #38 purpleDozzz and that should do nicely.
Jimbrant, are you not all out of justification for our criminally negligent Prime Minister and his disingenuous cohorts yet?
Complain about this comment
#97 well put it is something that does need pointing out. And actually there are people who are more sad as there are different types of mean and different ways of measuring the distribution. One final point on statistics and the data they are taken from. If you statistically hammer data enough you can generally get the answer you want. But please could somebody explain why holding the fuel duty rise impacts on the VAT? If oil still goes up eventually more revenue is generated? I agree this isn't a tax cut really (again depending on which angle you look at it) more an attempt to stave off the pain we seem to be about to sink into. Also I don't think we have quite reached a socialist police state mainly because Labour aren't socialists any more. An authoritarian state may be about right (see Taking Liberties for an overview). At the same time if the current voting system allows party safe seats to exist then what hope have we? Democracy isn't about "I'll vote X because I've always voted X". Still if we on this board get rounded up then at least we won't struggle for discussion.
Complain about this comment
#104 Thanks, badgercourage.
So how should I interpret a League Table of Net Annual Income which has the Net Annual Income for Spain is £16,789 while for the UK it is £35,730 - given that it appeared in the Daily Mail?
How does one tell if they have used a "mean" or a "median" (or even something else)?
Complain about this comment
#107
My understanding is that VAT is applied to the total - so in this case VAT is a tax on a tax (Duty). I am open to being proved wrong - in fact I hope I am, but it seems very likely that politicians would consider Duty to be "Added Value".
Complain about this comment
Rich western economies (and increasingly in Asia too) depend massively on cheap energy. Now fossil fuels are remorsely escalating everything will become devalued compared with the prices of fuel, raw materials, land and food. I cannot see how this will happen except by money itself losing its current meaning. Who will pay? Nobody and everybody, because I reckon we are in for hyper-inflation out of which a new economic direction will emerge at a right angle to all current directions.
Complain about this comment
#103 extremesense: "#87 jimbrant, tell me, why when crime figures are falling (which is obviously true) are our government locking more people away?"
Looks as if the government can't win! If they do what I think most people would want (ie catch more criminals and hand out tougher sentences) they get accused of over the top penal policies; and if they don't they are 'not listening'.
The simple (and therefore suspect) answer to your question is that there are more police, and perhaps in consequence more criminals are caught and they get tougher sentences. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, the connection between high numbers in prison and falling crime is causal (either deterrance or the bad guys are all locked up). I don't claim it is, and indeed it would go against my own views, but it might be the case.
Complain about this comment
103. extremesense
Yes please
Complain about this comment
just a thought but perhaps crime is down cos they is all in the nick
Complain about this comment
#99 extremesense:
"Tony Blair who was more like Thatcher than Margaret Thatcher herself"
I don't think I remember that Thatcher introduced a minimum wage. Or tripled expenditure on the NHS. Or doubled it on overseas aid and education. Or achieved the highest ever levels of employment. Or achieved the highest ever number of students in universities. Or established SureStart and provided free nursery education. Or introduced free bus travel for over 60's. Or restored free entry to museums. Or more than doubled the number of apprenticeships. Or scrapped section 28. Or introduced a right to 24 days paid holiday, and to Paternity Leave. Or massively increased investment on the railways.
Perhaps my memory is faulty?
I do declare an interest. I happen to think that for all the reasons above, and many more, Blair achieved more real socialist goals than any previous Labour PM, even including Attlee. Indeed, I think that he was the best PM this country has had for over a century. And before you raise the issue, I thought at the time that he was right about Iraq (and Afghanistan), and still do.
The contrast with Blair is one of the reasons for Brown often looking so bad. IMO.
But I know that you disagree
Complain about this comment
Hardly tough though
Watch the video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7307488.stm
Complain about this comment
#9
There is some evidence that fuel is not as price inelastic as formerly thought. Like all economic activity, beyond certain boundaty conditions irrational and inconsistent human thinking will result in outcomes that are much less susceptible to accurate prediction.
Fuel has appeared to have been price inelastic; but generally it has risen at around RPI for the last 10 years. My guess is that the recent very high rate of change has focussed minds in a way that a gradual increase (that was also masked by being close to other price change-rates) did not.
And we hear tonight (from the IMF) that some of the BRICS (whose rapidly increasing demand may be a factor in the rapid price rise) have only just started letting the cold winds of $140-a-barrel blow over their citizens.
It's not over 'til it's over...
Complain about this comment
#109
You're right - VAT *is* applied to the total - so in this case half the VAT *is* a tax on a tax (Duty).
Fuel duty of 50 - 56p a litre (it's more for diesel here, unlike most other Eu countries) is added to the retail price of the petrol / diesel (about 46-52p) and 17.5% VAT added to the combined total to get the current 120p a litre.
The Government also gets a huge amount of tax on north sea oil *production* - Petroleum Revenue Tax and Corporation Tax. So there's tax on the tax on the other half of the price, too.
While it's true (as the Treasury was quick to point out) that the duty has been held for a while now and is lower in real terms than 10 years ago, that is no consolation to the the motorist who only looks at the pump price...
Complain about this comment
#111 jimbrant, yes, they're caught between a rock and hard place on this - I'm one of those people who doesn't think that simply locking people up is the way to deal with crime. As a result, I am supportive of they government thinking through their policy on knife crime.
I understand the possible reasons that you state although I have a feeling that it may be more closely associated with some of our 'great' media institutions (Daily Mail et al).
#114, yes, I'm certain that you're right on every point and I also commend the Tony Blair. My comment was said somewhat tongue in cheek and associated more with foreign policy (relationship with the US) and the apparent moves toward privatisation.
Whilst I am delighted that Saddam Hussein (or the Taliban) is no longer in power, I have never understood selective interventionalism. Oh plus, trusting Rumsfeld, etc... very dodgy.
Complain about this comment
#114
"But I know that you disagree"
Not with most of your list, but yes over Iraq and Afghanistan. And I think he could / should have done more with his massive majorities, especially renationalised the railways. Moreover his sucking up to the city and ignoring their greed and short-termism was a proximate cause of the need to bail out N Rock.
And as the saying goes, I would defend your right to say it...
Complain about this comment
#118 extremesense #119 badgercourage:
Lest I be thought to be an unquestioning disciple of Blair, I should have said that I disagree with him (and Brown) fundamentally on one issue (and less fundamentally on a number of others that I won't bother you with), and that is their being wedded to the continued indoctrination of our children by state support for so-called 'faith' schools.
I feel as strongly about this as others do about Iraq, and I can only console myself with the thught that nobody is perfect - even Blair.
Complain about this comment
#114 jimbrant, sorry, I should have been clearer about my thoughts on the conflicts that Tony Blair took us into.
I did and still do disagree with both. In my mind, the Iraq War was illegal, however, the American, and in turn our, legal advice was pressured into finding legal justification for the conflict.
The cost in human, regardless of what the Hawks in the US felt, was always going to be enormous.
The fact that I felt oil and business opportunity as well as revenge on several levels were among the reasons for the War. The apparent disregard that the US had for the UN (although this was something they had pedigree for). They said they'd attack anyway.
I could go on but instead cut to what we now know. To start, the evidence linking al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi as a result of being subjected to extreme forms of torture for a concerted period of time (he was under the supervision of the CIA in Egypt at this point in time).
The humanitarian cost has been enormous (I include the deaths of brave soldiers in this), and as for the legal justification, whilst it looks spurious. Those Congressional committees that have been trying examine all the dubious legal justifications has been denied access to testimony because Bush incites 'Executive Privelege' over those he doesn't want testifying so it's off to the conservative weighted US Supreme Court. Sure this is in the US but it's the very advice that we accepted.
Finally, of course, Haliburton and others as well as Blackwater and other hired guns.
It's frankly a disgrace and one that we could very very easily have avoided
Afghanistan as a conflict, on the other hand, although noble I'm sure on our part, was again badly thought out, not understood and we were unclear of the reasons for attacking - was it revenge for 9/11, to oust the Taliban thus creating a great country for those living there, killing bin Laden, destroying heroin, all or some of those reasons?
Probably all.... and as a result the Taliban are still there, warlords and gangsters rule the law, heroin still grows in abundance, those who speak freely are under sentence of death, the Afghan government is getting weaker, militancy is in the ascendency.
I know I've missed significant points but I hope you'll appreciate that these are enormous subjects and very difficult to summarise.
Complain about this comment
#120 jimbrant, yes I also agree with you on this.
I'm a secularist (not to be confused with atheist/devil worshipper/witch/god hating biggott/serial sinner, etc) too.
Complain about this comment
#122 extremesense: I wouldn't mind being three of the five you don't want to be confused with!
Complain about this comment
cut spending? people feel over taxed and the government is effectively skint, so we burden the national debt even more (which we've been warned by the EU over) - let's start with public service ads, i'm sure the various red tape and consultancy actually makes them quite substantial, im pretty sure 'talk to frank' offers no return financially
Complain about this comment
#121 extremesense:
Just to go briefly through your points, to give my view:
- I have always found it difficult to understand this 'illegal' business. As I understand it, if those pillars of democracy and freedom China, Russia, Senegal, Angola, and whatever others had voted in favour of the invasion, then it would have been legal? It's like asking the criminals to vote on what is criminal and what's not. In any event, even with the system as it is, there is a perfectly rational legal argument to support the action - just as there's a perfectly rational case to be made against.
- I know Bush made the al Quaeda connection, but Blair never did sfaik
- the humanitarian cost would have been enormous if there had been no action. Indeed, if Saddam's apparent strategy had worked he would have been free to reconstitute his wmd teams within months, and threaten the whole region again.
- the aftermath was badly handled, I agree. It seems that the Brits were concerned about it at the time, but didn't have the leverage to detach Bus from Cheney/Rumsfeld. Maybe Blair didn't do enough - I don't thnk we yet know.
- I am reasonably sure that getting Iraq's oil had nothing to do with it. If that had been the motivation, the simple thing would have beent to remove sanctions and fund Saddam to refurbish his infrastructure. That seems to have been the French and Russian policy.
-I have always found David Kelly's view very persuasive, that invasion was the only way to be sure, and was necessary because Saddam could not be trusted.
- on Afghanistan I am sure we have to try to keep the taliban from getting back into power. It will certainly be a very long job, and if Pakistan goes fundamentalist probably too difficult. I just wish it wasn't just the Yanks, Brits, Canadians, and Dutch doing almost all the work. I see that Sarkozy is going to send a whole batallion of extra troops from the shiny lot who paraded last week - I wonder where they will be based, and whether they will have live ammo (sorry for the sarcasm to those who object to it).
Complain about this comment
# 102
I certainly do not believe the Torygraph's Real Cost of Living Index 'because I want to'.
I was attempting to point out that this index is a general index as the CPI and RPI indexes are also, but it is likely to be more meaningful for more people because of the items chosen to represent that index.
If I want a personal rate of inflation then I would visit the excellent ONS website and use their handy personal inflation calculator (for me it is about 8.8%).
PS. I do not buy the Telegraph, a relative does and saves the Saturday Financial section for me to read.
Complain about this comment
#125 jimbrant, there are now so many strands, and in my case, I am easily distracted by elements that may not even by directly linked - namely the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Bolton connections.
Pakistan is always going to be very worrying. I agree that now that we're in Afghanistan, we need more troop support from other interested parties.
Complain about this comment
I see that some bloggers are chewing the fat over Iraq, so here are my five eggs worth.
From the UK legal prespective, the war was probably illegal - a very senior assistant to the Attorney General who was an expert in international law, resgined over this.
That is all the proof I need.
Saddam Hussein was a great admirer of Stalin and Russian military techniques - hence the 'deception' of WMD - which worked all too well.
Donald Rumsfeld's only military experience was as a Naval Reserve pilot- but he over-rode the US High Command and insisted on 'invasion lite' and then the same number of military to hold the country - which was a huge mistake - the 'surge' should have happened immediately after the successful invasion - but politician Rumsfeld thought he knew better.
I do hope that President Obama does not make the same errors.
Politicians can set overall political objectives but then they need to butt out and let the military do the job.
Thank goodness politician Winston Churchill ultimately always backed down from confrontation with CIGS Allenbrooke, whose master strategic plan literally saved us in WWII.
Complain about this comment
Interestingly Churchill chose Allen Brooke (as he was then) because he knew that Brooke was a highly professional (as in competent) solider, and most importantly would not be bullied into agreeing with Churchill.
A classic example of constructive dissent.
I read this in a magazine some time ago, and noted it down:
"Autocratic, dismissive or offhand behaviour to name but a few examples are certain ways to undermine the willingness of subordinates to give their support to the critical relationships. Furthermore, the refusal of senior staff to listen to constructive dissent leads in time to a culture of destructive consent, when critical information is withheld, or compliance is assured through an unwillingness to provide information or an opinion that is at odds with the perceived views of a senior."
I didn't note down the author, so aploogies if it was you.
Complain about this comment
#128 JohnConstable
You are right to add your views on Iraq to this thread.
"Defence" (ie making war) consumes huge amounts of our money. Intervention in Iraq (and the fear of further intervention in Iran) have fuelled fears about oil price rises that the speculators are betting on, and increasing our costs.
If we had refused to follow the US neo-con agenda, America might have gone ahead anyway, but the strong support of Blair (despite strong public resistance, but with the support of the imperialist Labour and Tory parties) undoubtedly strengthened Bush's resolve.
Those who did, and continue to, support both parties that continue the ludicrous posturing of UK Governments as world players carry the responsibility that all of us are paying for.
Complain about this comment
PS. Dr. David Kelly always crops up in these blogs when Iraq is mentioned.
Of course, I have no idea if he was actually murdered instead of committing suicide.
However, it seems that Thames Valley police were so keen to get started on the investigation that they initiated it some thirty minutes before he died.
It would appear that there has never been an explanation for this but maybe it is all to do with those 'dark forces' that the Queen mentioned to Paul Burrell.
Complain about this comment
Shame on you Nick.
I just watched the most blatant piece of dishonest reporting on the news at ten.
In discussing the rumours that the government is short of cash and trying to change the rules about borrowing you quite clearly said it had only two choices:
1) increase taxes
2) increase borrowing
It has a third:
3) CUT SPENDING
No mention of this in the report though!
Complain about this comment
#132 Vulpus_rex
Good point, but what spending do you want to cut?
Trident?
Iraq?
Supporting the poor?
Complain about this comment
Just seen you on Newsnight and your report that The Treasury are re writing the Golden Rule that Gordon held so dear.
Without doubt this proves the first time it has come to be challenged, New Labour becomes Old Labour and borrows to spend, coupled with the 130 demands from the unions their paymasters we are into familiar territory, we only have to have reds under the beds and Harold's back .
Complain about this comment
If people such as yourself had been paying more attention to the "big stories" of the past 10 years, and explained in `simple` easy-to-understand language what was going on; we might have been better prepared for the situation you speak off.
The Banking system - aided by the politicians - exists only to make profit and in doing so is hostile to the public interest.
"I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at the rear is my greatest foe" - Abraham Lincoln.
"It is easier to rob by setting up a bank than by holding up (one)." - Bertolt Brecht.
Complain about this comment
Re 132.
Nu (Improved) Labour will NEVER EVER cut spending EVER.
Clunking (Chicken/ham?) Fist can only tax/borrow and spend with our money.
Prudence is dead!
Ps. 133, how about QUANGO's, overseas aid, MP's expenses, Trident (Well who can we fight nowadays? There are not many third world countries out there left to pick a fight with. Even Zimbabwe is too much to take on. Britannia is dead!)
Complain about this comment
"Someone will have to pay unless the government extends borrowing again. "
Nick - doh. Over £100 BILLION per annum spent on Quangos.
I know where I'd get the money.
Complain about this comment
What most people miss on the VAT on fuel is that, yes the government gets more VAT as oil prices go up, but people spend less on other stuff as a result so they get less VAT from that.
Complain about this comment
Isn't the next debate about where major spending cuts will come from. This debate is surely overdue. Isn't the Government runnign away from the inevitable - perhaps because it wants to label the other parties as the parties of spending cuts?
There is a lot of comment about 2 choices - increase taxes or increase borrowing. But please, there is a third option of reducing spending. Nick - if you're reading - please concentrate on this in your reports!
Having just read the Autumn 2007 spending review it has to be re-written. The entire document relies on strong growth which for a period of time will not happen.
The question the prime minster has no answer to is how his planning has led after 15 consecutive years of economic growth to a record budget deficit in GPD percentage terms. At this stage in the economic cycle there should be a large surplus. The is the natural cushion to even out economic cycles. He has relied on his own rhetoric of having abolished the economic cycle. It is the opposite of prudence and deep spending cuts are now inevitable.
The public cannot pay more tax. We are taxed more than ever before and the current circumstances are reducing household disposable incomes. A combination of extra borrowing and reduced spending are totally unavoidable. The Government needs to address this now.
Complain about this comment
Tell you what - how about we relax our fiscal rules?
Complain about this comment
So now we finally see where the money is coming from:
More borrowing. The Golden rule turns into a golden duck for Gordon Brown - not a single byelection or the London Mayoralty won since he assumed the throne in another election he didn't win; that of Grand High Leader of the NewLabour party of all Unions and Margaret Thatcher supporters.
Doubtless we'll soon hear from all his mates out there in the internet ether who don't believe the golden rule had any significance anyway. To which I say - a bit like all the rest of his policies then; totally pointless.
Complain about this comment
@127 - Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Bolton connections. I agree, you cant trust those woolybacks from Horwich, they're extreamly dodgy.
I'm intreagued to find out how the Gordon Brown Cheerleaders are going to explain him ripping up his "Golden Rules" over borrowing.
It means that:
a) they were wrong in the first place; or
b) that they are right but he hasnt got the political balls to carry out what is needed against some short term political aims to try and make him look better.
Either way it's making him look more incompetant.
Complain about this comment
This article started with Labour asking "where's the money coming from?"
A question the should have been asking themselves, how were they going to pay for their spending.
Well now we know. Borrowing. Instead of saving for a rainy day they spent spent spent and now we need money they are going to borrow it. and not at a low rate either. The interest rates are at their highest for some time.
As the adverts on TV point out there is a little known peice of legislation that allows nearly bankrupt people get out of debt after 5 years leaving their creditors high and dry, its called IVA. I think Gordon thinks he can go to the IMF and get the country an IVA if he borrows enough.
Its all so 1979 its depressing. The IMF will come knocking again unfortunately the Government still has a large enough majority that a vote of confidence still wont get them out.
Nick you should have spent the last 11 years asking GB "where the money was coming from?"
Complain about this comment
#133
Typical nu labour response.
There are many more areas in which to cut spending but you make it sound as though the very suggestion is to snatch food from baby's mouths.
Complain about this comment
Yes, lots of talk of 1979. As I waked through Leeds city centre last night I had a sudden flashback to April 1979. I was on a school coach trip going through London and was stunned by the uncollected rubbish bags strewn everywhere.
Last night the centre of Leeds reminded me of this. Then on the news we hear of unions flexing their demands. Then we hear of re-writing of fiscal rules.
If you put on some 1979 music and shut your eyes, the sense is tangible.
Seriously, the problems at the moment are very severe and the claim that "Gordon is the right man to see us through" is without justification. That's like saying the manager in charge when a team is relegated is the right man to manage next year to win promotion. Perhaps in some circumstances but usually not the case.
Complain about this comment
Back to the seventies. Inflation, collapsing property market, high oil prices, govenrment borrowing out of control and ooh, err, a Labour government.
Complain about this comment
Well it's obvious just how "prudent" our dear leader has now shown himself to be. It's easy to be the golden chancellor when you have easy credit, cheap foreign imports and a housing bubble to rely on for your tax revenue. First sign of trouble and the house of cards seems to be tumbling down. Bailing out banks with taxpayers money, shunting his PFI debts onto another chancellor years into the future and now ripping up his rules. Oh, and no doubt more stealth taxes to come, of course; his name is practically synonymous with them.
His position isn't that much different than anyone elses at the moment as he tries to juggle his finances - it's just on a much larger scale. The average family is seeing their costs rise faster than their income so what are they doing? Putting off buying that new car, shopping at Lidl rather than Waitrose, cancelling their gym memberships, cutting back on holidays, etc. As disposable income diminishes they are reducing their overheads. What they don't do is continue a now unaffordable standard of living by going to loan sharks, which is what Gordon seems to be doing. Shouldn't he be cutting all the non-essential drains on public finances, such as scrapping ID cards, disengaging from overseas military commitments, getting millions of benefit claimants to do the jobs that immigrants find so easy to fill, cutting back on all those quango non-jobs?
I feel sorry for George Osborne in a couple of years time. What a mess he'll have to clear up. Meanwhile, Blair timed his abdication perfectly.
Complain about this comment
Contribution to the discussion of historic matters....
My grandfathers house cost him 5 shillings a week in rent when he moved in just before the first world war - The same house, not much altered is now on sale for 240,000 pounds. (about 100 years later) - A modest Victorian end of terrace cottage in a village in Hampshire. (I have not made these figure up.)
That is 13 pounds in 1908 = 16,800 pounds (at 7%) today. - Very nearly 10% per annum inflation! One pound in 1908 = 1,300 pounds today. etc.
Complain about this comment
Not sure where the money will actually come from, apart from the pockets of exploited UK citizens. But, read today that the government is going to fund a foundation or whatever, for Moslem thinkers. How many of these profound philophers are there around, I wonder. It must be a brilliant idea, because that great intellectual Hazel Blears is proclaiming it in terms that make it the best thing since sliced bread!
Complain about this comment
#144 Vulpus_rex
How terribly stereotypical of you to make the wrong assumption that I support Labour.
Of course there are many areas to cut spending, but you need to specify which - and suggest the savings.
My starting point would be from the annual 37 billion in defence spending, and cancelling the 76 billion estimated cost of Trident.
Where would you start, and how much would it save?
Complain about this comment
#138 duncan_harris
Very important point. The profits made from the former are essentially cancelled out by the latter.
Im glad to see so many in favour of scrapping the Trident system - I mean, for God's sakes, the Americans have our Trident launch codes - we can never even launch them without their permission!
76 billion of taxpayers money, is essentially being poured into an American proxy missile system in our waters.
Complain about this comment
Defence is the last thing we should cut. We almost lost World War II because of it.
Complain about this comment
It's not just a case of saving money, but also one of not spending it when there is no need to. The amount of fraud and error in administering the tax credits scheme (a brainchild of this Government) is in excess of 5.2 billion pounds in the period from April 2003 to April 2007 (taking the mid-point between the lowest and highest estimates). And still the problems continue. Of £7.3 billion to be recovered due to overpayments, £4.6 biliion either remains to be collected or has been written off (1 billion already). A bit more competence in the administration of our affairs wouldn't go amiss, I would have thought. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#145. For the nostalgic. 1979
http://www.chartmagic.co.uk/lyrics/1979_hits.html
Complain about this comment
#153. Can I just mention that the link in this post was to the National Audit Office website, linking directly to their report on the accounts of HMRC for the year ended 31 March 2008. Thankyou.
Complain about this comment
Tax cut? That may be how Gordon Brown and his puppet chancellor would like the Glasgow by-election voters to see it, but he is likely to be disappointed.
To suggest that the increased VAT take from the increased price of oil is more than offset bu the reductions from reduced spending only shows his lack of credibility. And do not forget the massive increases in electricity and gas prices to the consumer also result in a surge in VAT payments to the Treasury. Regardless of the 'global influences', after inheriting a strong economy from the Tories and after 11 years of Global prosperity, this country should have been better placed to weather the downturn. The fact that we are in a poor position and going into recession is down to Brown. His only solution? Borrow more and place more debt at the feet of the British taxpayer. The man is an incompetent fool. No-one believes him, or believes in him. The sooner he is gone, the better for us all.
Sadly, he will go with a golden pension - something that the ordinary taxpayer has been denied - largely because of his policies.
Complain about this comment
#150 Oldnat
Apologies for stereotype but your question to me seemed loaded that way.
The honest answer to your next question is I do not know.
I am not a politician and therefore don't feel expected to generate that kind of information.
I would rely on those seeking election to identify cost cutting opportunities and respond to their proposals.
Or in this case expect the government to have at least an attempt to do the same rather than look for more opportunities to borrow and spend.
Complain about this comment
I don't see what the problem is?
A little earlier today on BBC News 24 an "expert" said that government borrowing was fine as we still had some way to go before we reached the same levels of borrowing as just after the second world war. This remarkable comment caused much black humour in this household. But it makes clear what Nu Labours thinking is then? Perhaps that's even become the new fiscal policy - as long as we haven't borrowed as much as we did after years of war and the destruction of large areas of our major cities everything is ok?
With this in mind postponing a 2p tax rise seems like a trivial matter. Just like a teenager with their first credit card - they can easily borrow some more cash from somewhere else.
Complain about this comment
Nick quite a lot could come from withdrawing family allowance from the high income families that dont need it.
Complain about this comment
Im sure this announcement has nothing to do with the three month recess occurring so the Government cant even be brought to task over it at PMQ's.
Not bury bad news, oh no
Complain about this comment
IT looks like Gordon Brown is another PM feathering his nest for an after-life,trawling the world promising money WE DON,T HAVE to solve other countries problems.Why can,t he look after our problems which he is paid to do
Complain about this comment
161 wildrangler, Of course thats what he's doing what else would you have to moan about if he wasn't.
Qh! sorry I forgot your obviously a Tory, in which case the answer would be everything.
Just for the record Maggie was still up to it up until last year,she probably needs the money to try to keep her idiot son out of jail.
Complain about this comment
#99 - extremesense
"I'm not surprised she's getting a state send-off, the government love her so much that they decided to carry on her legacy."
I am. I always thought that to qualify for a "state send-off",you first had to be dead.
Or have the government torn up that rule too?
Complain about this comment
114 jimbrant, sorry I missed this post earlier, just looking through and spotted it,
I absolutely agree with everything in that post its a mirror of my own thoughts.
Complain about this comment
163 threnodio
Like you I always assumed one had to be dead before having a funeral. Of course, and I certainly don't mean the lady, there are present government members who are dead from the feet up. It would be ironic if all those busy planning and announcing that the lady will have a state funeral shuffled off this mortal coil ahead of her. Remember, the lady is not for turning!
Complain about this comment
Shock horror. 164 agrees with Jim Brant that Tony Blair makes Gordon Brown look poor!
Complain about this comment
Given that Gordon Brown has all but bankrupted Britain I cannot understand how, or why, in recent months he has given tax payers money to China, India and now £30million to Palestine and, I suspect in the near future, Zimbabwe as well. One has to question if this man has any grasp on reality. As taxpayers we are struggling with domestic bills and if all this money is floating around in the system why is it not being directed to cure the misery he has caused to the majority of hard working families in this country.
Complain about this comment
167 angryalan, perhaps stories of the poor financial state of the country have been greatly exagerated,
Complain about this comment
Why is no one considering REDUCING government spending, in line with normal house keeping practices that all of us have to do? Could it be because the politicians are not spending their own money?
Would a process of making everyone understand the word Defence in the biggest spender in our country. If defence is the operative word, perhaps bringing every soldier back on to our land and start defending the very people who paying for their foreign adventures. If there was a soldier on every street corner, helping the police to keep law and order..... now that would be Defence in its true sense.
Complain about this comment
168:
Substitute the word 'poor' for 'dire' and you might be closer to the truth.
Complain about this comment
I think its time for a paradigm shift in politics and taxation. eg to increase public interest in politics more power should be given to local councils (they currently are powerless without central government support)..some suggestions to increase local influence...
1
Complain about this comment
Reduce taxes and increase interest in politics by....
scrap rates.....pay councils per capita...increase corp tax and paye to compensate....major saving in collection costs and more equitable
scrap house of lords and replace with 2 representatives from each council
remove mp's expenses..use 2012 Olympics accomodation to provide bedroom and office for every MP
Link MPs salary to a multiple of the average wage - no more pointless debates about mps salaries
stop taxes going into a central pot so the people can see what they are paying for
Complain about this comment
remember when the blue flags flow over number 10 and magic magie couldn't be bothered to set the prices for gas /electricity/ water /rents -ect her answer was sell it off - privatize it the money now worry about it later-- well you guest it - now the flags are red over number 10 question how do you get revenue from the populus
when everything has been sold off why increase taxes ? - well one way would be to let local governments introduce congestion charges populus pays for repayments of loans and at same time pays for the renewal of the trains /buses/ trams owned by greedy private investors ect -- new labour thrown a life line by the green parties of the world now who would of thought of that
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS