Lib Dems sell out

chucky

RabbitMad wrote: »

Only if you spend £8k a year on VAT able items. Food doesn't generally attract vat so I don't see it completely canceling it out

it wasn't me that was claiming it - it was the Lib Dems

michaels

Surely the lib dems are the big winners

The key difference going in to the election was that the Tories were suggesting that to balance the budget the ratio of speding cuts to tax increases should be an eye-watering 4:1

The budget suggests the ratio will be close to 3:1 or precisely what the lib dems (and labour) were proposing

So on the most substantive issue the lib dems have got their way.

Spartacus_Mills

chucky wrote: »

it wasn't me that was claiming it - it was the Lib Dems

Chaz looks like he is already on the sauce in that picture - Hic !!!

tomterm8

michaels wrote: »

Surely the lib dems are the big winners

The key difference going in to the election was that the Tories were suggesting that to balance the budget the ratio of speding cuts to tax increases should be an eye-watering 4:1

The budget suggests the ratio will be close to 3:1 or precisely what the lib dems (and labour) were proposing

So on the most substantive issue the lib dems have got their way.

Actually, 23% of the money will be raised by tax increases, at least according to osbourne. So, in fact, more of the reduction of the deficit will be achieved by cuts than the Torys said prior to the election.

markharding557

The cuts would no doubt be worse with the tories on their own because that is what they do

michaels

By my (admittedly rusty) maths the Tories were proposing that 20% of the fiscal adjustment should come from tax increases whereas actually this figure will be 23% - thus closer to the 25% proposed by labour and the lib dems than the tories plan.

I personally find it hard to see more than nominal freezes in departmental budgets actually sticking but may be all the historical precedent will be over-turned and nominal reductions will be achieved. But such carnage would make the early 80s look like a walk in the park. Yes the economy needs to be rebalanced but it is not flexible enough to have it happen in 3 or 4 years without major dislocation (read unemployment).

tomterm8 wrote: »

Actually, 23% of the money will be raised by tax increases, at least according to osbourne. So, in fact, more of the reduction of the deficit will be achieved by cuts than the Torys said prior to the election.

tomterm8

As I understand it, they want 25% of spending cuts in real term over the course of the parliament per department. If inflation (RPI) stays at slightly over 5%, you could do these savings "merely" by keeping nominal freezes.

I think the reality is, reductions in the deficit they want is only possible if you put a nominal freeze on the NHS, and international aid, and you cut benefits harder than they have been cut. I don't really think the budget sums work out. I think, however, that the reality is we need to cut the deficit to 6% of nominal GDP as soon as possible, and with inflation where it is, the proportion of debt to GDP would then start declining.

Personally, I always thought the arguments over where 5% of where to find the reduction of deficit were misplaced... as were the arguments over £6 billion here or there.

Alan_Cross

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

On VAT & £10k Tax Threshold.

Nick looks like a bit of a !!!!!! to me.

Too bloody true.

I thought he did a great bit of cringing when under well-directed fire from Harman yesterday, as well he might.

'Sell out' doesn't even come close.

I do hope his functionally useless job title makes up for the now very clear betrayal of principle he engaged in to get it.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Charles Kennedy were not being approached by one or two disgruntled activists with a view to his mounting a comeback in order to save the party.

Degenerate

michaels wrote: »

Yes the economy needs to be rebalanced but it is not flexible enough to have it happen in 3 or 4 years without major dislocation (read unemployment).

That's a "price well worth paying" as Norman Lamont would put it.

chihuahuabear

Couldn't agree more with the original post. I can't beileve how diluted and weak he has become following the performance in the election campaign.

He looks like a different man.