PeteBrant

I think it was more of a case of ****ting themselves over a rebellion

jasey

Isn't it the case that half of the folk Gogsie screwed with the 10p tax abolished are still going to be worse off - Darling's just bribed 19 million others to ignore the plight of the poorest earners.

What's in the average basket - 2nd hand Range Rovers, Porsche cayennes & Scoobies - these are all falling in price as the cost of filling them up approaches the re-sale values

The Zohan

Being a bear of very little brain please explain is simple terms for me.

Boih Jen and i benefit from the 20p rate and are at the higher end of the beneficial scale if you see what i mean, neither of us needed the increase, certianly not in the way someone earning £ 6-7.00 per hour will - seems stupid beyond belief.

OK then, Questions;
Will all the poor sods who lost out benefit from the nu-turn?
Is the nu-turn a one off and just for this year or ongoing?
why did the govt fee the lowest paid would be better of paying more tax whislt this on a better wage had thies cut - is it economics or for effect/popularity?
Is it the right fix for this situation?
Should we go back to the way it was tax wise?
Finally, does anyone think this is the final straw for Brown?

PeteBrant

Getoutofit



yes
The new plan will be in place until the next Budget, when the plans will be revised. I suspect the new plan won't be too much different though. Otherwise they will just find themselves in the same hole.
I think it was aimed at the low to middle earners who were feelign the pinch. However, by some mad bit of thinking they forgot about 3 million low paid people that would be worse off.

Probably yes - I dont see what else they could have done .
Well, tricky this. Lots of people are now definitely better off, so I would be happy for it to stay as it is.
No. It has saved him from revolt in his opwn party, and come the GE in 2 years, this will have been long forgotten (and doubtless replaced with some new **** up )

The Zohan

Thanks Peter!

PeteBrant

No.

You need to remember, Brown didn't do this as a vote winner. Any election is 2 years away. He doesnt need to win votes at the moment.

He did this to stop a revolt in his own party.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Excuse me for doubting, but this increased borrowing of 2.7Bn that is now needed to balance the books has nothing to do with the Crewe and Nantwich by-election on the 22nd May then?

Labour trying to buy back votes again.

PeteBrant

Course not - Crewe is one seat. It make no difference whatsoever to the palimentary status quo. It certainly isn't worth the flak they have gotten from having to do the U-turn and borrowing more money.

No, the move was to stop a back bench rebellion blocking the budget

David Lock

The economy gets in a mess because too much money has been borrowed, sub-prime as well as consumers on mortgages they can't afford and credit cards etc. Naughty peeps, tut tut.

So Darling comes along and - great news- "I'm giving everyone £120. But we don't actually have the cash so we'll borrow it!!"

Great example for everyone.

And Pete - it is about Crewe because of the psychological damage that would be do done if they lose. Do I mean "if" or "when"?

PeteBrant

I think they are completely resigned to losing crewe. I don't think this is at all aimed at voters. Like I said, they have 2 years to go, and that is an absolute age in politics.
If this were the 2010 Budget, and the election were in May I would say it was a typical pre-election budget. But since we are only mid-term, it is purely designed to head off a commons revolt.

What would have happened is this:
Frank Field would have called for a vote on the Budget

The Tories, lib dems etc would have supported it.

Vote would get called and enough Labour Back benchers would revolt to defeat the government.

In order to avoid this, Brown would turn it into a vote of no confidence (like Major did on a couple of key votes in the 90's)

Labour would win the vote, but at massive damage to the party.


No way was he going to go down that road. This is all about placating rebels. Crewe is insignificant ion the scheme of things.

jasey

Pete's right.

Brown and his cronies couldn't give a flying **** about anyone but themselves.

Just like the Tories toward the end of their reign.

David Lock

I know Field had a go at Brown recently but I thought he had called off the dogs a couple of weeks back? Maybe I am a bit out of date.

I don't agree that they have given up on Crewe just yet. Wasn't it a 7000 majority although much of that will be the Gwyneth factor (who I had a lot of time for btw)?

Slightly off topic but what I really dislike about Brown is that for years he furthered his own selfish ambitions to be leader in a dishonourable way and put himself before the party. A disgraceful man with no honesty or moral fibre in his soul. dl

PeteBrant

He did - But then last week he threatened to let lose unless the Government put some concrete plans in action rather than just words.

Possibly not - I don't think that was the driving factor behind yesterdays announcment though


I don't we will ever know exactly what went on between Blair and Brown. It is quite obvious that there was a great deal of tension there in the latter years. However, Blair did promise Brown a handover before Blair got elected as Labour Party leader in return for his support.

David Lock

Which he didn't get??

dsmith

So the top rate band has lowered to even out the net gains.

Thats put 150000 more people into top rate tax - I bet they feel lucky they're now officially amongst "the most well off"

But given they'd only just aligned the 40% Tax and NI UEL - does that mean they're out of sync again ...or has the NI banding changed aswell - I cant find any info.

"Long term strategy" my fat ****. Borrowing your way out of a self-made f*ck up. once again the government demonstrates how not to manage your finances.

PeteBrant

He did - eventually. It is pretty well known that Blair was not supposed to go into third term under thier agreement. Blairs hand was almost forced in the end when seven government aides and a Junior Minister resigned after he refused to step down.

It was a case of Brown almost wrenching the top job from Blair, rather than Blair passing on the baton which was what was "supposed" to happen.

David Lock

What I meant was that Brown didn't support Blair with his plans so Blair stayed on. Anyway water under the proverbial now. Eton rules soon. Should be UKIP dl