UKC

Looking pretty good so far.

In reply to Indy:

Reduced growth forecast year on year from 2016- 2020. Osborne won't even begin paying down the national debt until 2018. Yet from paying £40b in 2018, he will have created a surplus of £10b by 2020.

Can I have a go on your crack pipe ?

Surprised by the bit about maths being compulsory until 18 for all pupils. Does anyone have any more information on the rationale behind that?

In reply to Indy:

What's pleasing you, corporation tax cut, capital gains tax cut?

In reply to Indy:

In what way do you think it looks good?

The only people who will really benefit are the overseas or non-domiciled tax payers with share holdings in UK companies.

How on earth is £21 billion going to be raised by 2020 from closing tax loopholes etc.

In reply to Tall Clare:

It was a Labour proposal, along with English. I agree, it's too easy for pupils to drop core subjects too early in this country.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/01/school-maths-english-18-lab...

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Alas, there doesn't seem to be any mention of English...

In reply to Indy:


Yeah, £3.5Billion cuts in public spending!

In reply to Indy:
The approach to anything environmentally beneficial or climate change related by this government is rather depressing.

In reply to Indy:


You're obviously referring to Theresa May's cleavage! Urgh I can't un-see it now!


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2016/mar/16/budget-2016-live-george...

In reply to Indy:

Yes on balance it looks alright, raise in the tax free allowance to 11.5k, and also this new life ISA thing looks good assuming there is no catch. They'll let you save up to £4k a year and give you 25% interest tax free. (if you're under 40).

Also the person asking why compulsory maths, I'd refer you to the recent thread stating 22% of people can't understand a bank statement and 30%+ can't work out basic interest on an account. I didn't believe it at first but funnily enough just an hour ago in my office I had to go over and educate two grown women struggling to work out 40% of a number despite having a calculator. The standard of basic maths in this country is shocking.

In reply to galpinos:


Yes.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

The standard of basic English in this country is also shocking - and I'd argue that Maths to 18 is a waste of time if someone has a decent GCSE grade but no further interest in the subject.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Probably true. How about no driving licence for anyone without at least a C at GCSE maths and English?

In reply to MG:

Can you explain your reasoning?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Whilst it looks good for me or anyone else who is fairly well paid or has rich parents I am not so convinced about it being a good idea in general. Seems mostly a give away to the better off who can afford to save.


Ok but how does teaching people for another two years help? if they havent got the basic maths by 16 I would suggest two more years is unlikely to help.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Having basic ability at maths and English is a good thing but as you say forcing people to study them to 18 and a higher level possibly not a good thing. Linking something most people desire, for example a driving licence, to having passed maths and English at GCSE level, would be a route to encouraging passing the subjects at GCSE level.

In reply to Indy:

What possible benefit is there to a further reduction in corporation tax? And I say that as a business owner. How on Earth are we supposed to generate sufficient tax income to do all the great things that a great country should be doing if all we ever do is cut taxes. God, it's so depressing.

In reply to KevinD:

In maths I got a GCSE 'E' grade at 16, and then at 19 I got a 'B' when I took an evening class for a year ( or 9 to 10 months). If people slip through the net as it were, like I did, another couple of years coud be just what they need to improve. 16 is too soon to write somebody off. I think it could be a good idea, but English is important too.

In reply to Timmd:


So if you had kept on with the same tuition as you did till you were 16 rather than a break for several years and then evening classes do you think the e would have become a b?

In reply to tony:

Certainly that plus the cuts to capital gains tax and the increase in the higher rate threshold makes it pretty hard to argue that they're cutting public spending because "it's the only way to balance the books."

In reply to KevinD:

I find impossible to tell, and didn't you post that if somebody doesn't have the basics by 16, then 2 more years won't make any difference - or something like that?

In reply to Tall Clare:


The answer is right but can you show your working-out? You must be a maths teacher!

In reply to Indy:

I think we need Anarchy.

In reply to Timmd:

Similar story with me only for English, I'm mildly dyslexic and although my comprehension is very good my spelling is terrible, got a D at GSCE but quickly managed top it up to a C in the evenings while studying at college. So yes I agree, don't write people off at 16, often with the right motivation and setting you can improve.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
The business rates thing is great news for me. Possibly worth £7k a year to you?

In reply to Timmd:


sorry I could have written it better. Complete different teaching methods etc might result in different outcomes but that isnt what is the headline item. It is simply making it mandatory. There is lots which could be done, on lots of different subjects, to increase interest but simply making people study for two more years isnt one of them.

In reply to tony:


The vast majority of businesses (90+%) listed at Companies House are small limited company firms with modest turnovers employing fewer then 10 people. They do not have an armada of tax consultants at their disposal or a framework of foreign registered businesses or shell companies to channel their profits through away from the HMRC. They are by and large the local builder, the corner shop owner, the small plumbing practice, the restaurant down the high street, the local garage, the freelance personal trainer or architect. A drop in corporation tax could well be the difference between taking on a new employee, investing in new equipment/training or at least consolidating and making more secure their existing set up...i.e. a good thing. Not everyone who has the initiative and motivation to set up a company is some evil Amazon/Vodafone/Facebook global PLC with only shareholders to pacify out to screw over the average person in the street. They are people like you and me wanting to provide enough income to pay the mortgage and bills, put food on the table and maybe have enough left over for the occasional treat.

In reply to KevinD:

That makes sense, one hopes that looking at different methods of teaching where children are lagging behind might be considered.

In reply to Lenin:

Not worth a penny to me as we don't qualify for the relief (I think!). Plus surely it just takes money away from the council which means more cuts.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

We already have some of the lowest corporation tax rates in the EU. If we want decent public services, which I do, I understand that that they have to be paid for. Continuing to cut taxes of any kind simply perpetuates the myth that we can get something for nothing. As I said, thoroughly depressing.

In reply to Tall Clare:


Yeah that's rubbish, it's the older Labour proposal I'd agree with.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

They have moved the threshold to 15K and it comes in on a Taper. Have you ever tried to appeal your rates down, its could be worthwhile. Of course a true socailist you may enjoy paying taxes, comrad. Seriously this could have a big impact on you.

In reply to Indy:

Osbourne is a b*****d. I've had to spend all afternoon shopping in supermarkets for cigarettes when I really should have been discussing closing my business down with my accountant.

In reply to Indy:

As a complete sidenote, I thought the Deputy Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was the real star of the day. I wish he were the Speaker.

In reply to Cú Chullain:


Without having looked through the details, is this corporation tax cut actually targeted at companies of a certain size or turnover/income?

In reply to Indy:

On the plus side for Bristol climbers, the Severn toll will be halved!

In reply to Tall Clare:


Not to me!

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


I think the main problem in this country is too much reliance on anecdotal evidence.

In reply to Indy:

Very useful item by this sharp-eyed BBC reporter. His second point is very worrying: is that figure just a Tory fantasy or is it a straightforward (or unstraightforward) lie, I wonder?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35824890

In reply to Tall Clare:


Compulsory maths for those doing PPE with a desire to become Chancellor would be a start.

Why tax cuts for those in work. This is the time for necessary but unpopular decisions, so 2% on income tax would at least target those with an income source.

In reply to Philip:

Agreed. There's nothing rational about George O's budget except as a political gambit. He knows that bribing the potentially Tory-voting segment of the electorate works, and keeps them in power.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


The elderly you mean?

In reply to Tall Clare:


Apparently it's because half the population are below average at maths.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Generations of people have managed just fine with the current system though. I'd say that what you describe is more down to a poor attitude and lack of interest, neither of which can be fixed with an extra 2 years spent studying maths. As someone else said; if you haven't grasped the basics by age 16 then you're either never going to grasp them or, more likely, you're just not willing to learn.
The fact that a very large number of people regard a lack of intelligence and class as sources of admiration (thus why the likes of Joey Essex and the feral cast of Geordie Shore are wealthy 'celebrities') is slightly concerning, and if from an early age you're fixated on becoming rich and famous as so many younger people are thanks to media grooming, you're probably not going to be as bothered about temporary inconveniences like learning at school.
I also wonder if we're starting to see the longer-term effects of the prolific chav breeding that went on for donkey's years thanks to our ludicrous welfare system. That must have dumbed-down the UK population quite a bit.

In reply to Fredt:


Is the distribution bimodal with zero count at the mean value? The half-below-average joke only works for normal distributions, and in fact doesn't apply if any of the data are at the mean.

Just to explain, imagine we look at 10 climbers at a crag. 2 climb E2, 8 climb E8. Let's assume the E grades are treated like a linear measurement. The average is just below E7 but only 20% are below average. Even if not linear it's clear the average skill level is below E8 and 80% are above that.

In reply to Foxache:


Incorrect. 1 maybe 2 generations.

My Dad left school and went into an apprenticeship. Although he stopped being taught maths he started using it professionally.
Now you stop at 16, go to university for some waste of time course, get a no brain job and don't need to use any everyday maths for 5+ years since you last picked up a calculator.

My A-level maths for the first year only went as far as my mum's O-level maths.

In reply to MG:


Or be hugely discriminatory to those who have specific learning difficulties....social engineering is always a slippery slope!

In reply to Trevers:


No. The rate of corporation tax a company pays is not determined by its size or turnover. It is determined by its profits (chargeable to corporation tax). So if a company which turns over £700m makes profits of £250k, it will pay the same rate of CT as a small company which turns over £1m and makes profits of £250k.

From 1st April 2015, the rate of CT for all profits (regardless of size) became 20%. This is a much simpler system than before, where marginal relief rates and the 'main rate' gave a tiered system.

I suppose you could argue that the recent rate fall benefits larger companies because larger companies are more likely to make profits of £1.5m and above (the point at which in the past, a higher rate was chargeable - as high as 30% less than ten years ago).

In reply to abr1966:


but can you calculate the rate of slippage?

In reply to Philip:

No, not just the elderly, but the successful middle-class workers on quite high incomes ... the very people we don't have to worry about, because they're perfectly capable of re-investing any savings in stocks and shares or property, or whatever. Mindboggling that he should be helping the very people who need the least help. And all his talk of rewarding 'hard workers' sickens me. Almost everyone working in the service industries and being paid peanuts is working about three times harder each day than the people he's talking about.

In reply to KevinD:


No I haven't a clue!! Don't want to know and have never needed to! I do like to go out for a nice drive though... !

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I agree to an extent but the tax allowance is rising rapidly, which will help (and will have helped) low earners a lot, particularly couples.

In reply to tony:



Does the government need to take 50 p of every pound produced to do "the great things"?
What "great things" do you think?
Most of those transfers are like blood transfusion from right hand to left hand - with considerable loss of blood on the floor.
People know the best what to do with their money, not the government

In reply to pavelk:

Who's going to build and maintain the roads, educate the population, provide healthcare etc?

In reply to pavelk:

yes, at the very least.

NHS that delivers what people want from it. Better free education. A road and rail infrastructure that can cope. A communications network ie 4/5g that is fit for the 21st century... should I go on?

If you walk the streets of the UK, I think most people seem to drink, smoke or eat it?

In reply to pavelk:

https://t.co/LcfJzNdaOJ

"The Scandinavian nation of 5.6 million has held the happy title twice before since the world body started measuring happiness around the world in 2012. The accolade is based on a variety of factors: People's health and access to medical care, family relations, job security and social factors, including political freedom and degree of government corruption.

Egalitarian Denmark, where women hold 43% of the top jobs in the public sector, is known for its extensive and generous cradle-to-grave welfare.

Few complain about the high taxes as in return they benefit from a health care system where everybody has free access to a general practitioner and hospitals. Taxes also pay for schools and universities, and students are given monthly grants for up to seven years.

Many feel confident that if they lose their jobs or fall ill, the state will support them."

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I just.. what?

No.

In reply to neuromancer:

I don't recall talking to you about anything. I suggest you answer me coherently in the next few minutes, or I'll take the matter further.

In reply to lummox:


Looking at it in totality rather than cherry picking DOES make it seem pretty good especially under current circumstances. I say that despite a quick go on the BBC 'how does the budget affect you' which shows I'm going to be about £165/month worse off.

In reply to Shani:

At the second position is Switzerland with low taxes, private railways and without NHS....
And there is , besides, Brazil before UK, Uruguay before France, Venezuela before Slovakia and Russia before Poland. It had to be really accurate measurement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I find this a very abstract opinion. Who is he talking about? What evidence do you have that 'almost everyone in the service industries' is working 'three times harder' than this unidentified 'people he's talking about'?

In reply to Indy:

I'm a little bit confused why the chancellor felt at this early stage of the administration that he had to provide such a big tax giveaway. And across the board. Low earners see the point at which they start to pay tax rise again. And corporations see CT fall again. In the middle, strivers see the higher rate of tax come in later on the curve and savers see a big drop in CGT as well as a new tax free savings mechanism to rival pensions.

It doesn't chime with the apparent need for cuts everywhere to balance the books. Either the cuts are going to be milder than the rhetoric, which would not be for the first time, since the rhetoric is so politically popular that even Labour is embracing it, or he hopes to generate demand side growth. Or a bit of both.

I can see some logic but I may be giving Osborne too much credit. The rise in the tax free allowance is genuinely progressive. It benefits low earners disproportionately. The rise in the higher rate band threshold likewise. It benefits strivers (hard working families) disproportionately over big earners. The drop in CT is more nuanced. It may be that Osborne is hoping to achieve a combination of the following:

Recognition to SMEs that they have been paying proportionately more than some corporations;

Removal of the incentive to divert profits away from the UK. At 17%, why bother? Doing away with tax avoidance is a populist challenge and he has backed this up by restricting interest relief on profits.

A low headline rate is likely to encourage inward investment for the good of the economy and job creation.

The pensions auto-enrolment legislation has been very expensive for businesses to introduce. It's been a little bit like raising employers' NI by 3-4%. A drop in CT is some compensation.

Will the net result be higher corporate tax receipts? Quite possibly yes in isolation. And most definitely when you factor in the 25% increase in the tax on profit distributions also coming in on 6th April, for which the drop in CT may be a belated recognition.

As for CGT, is he trying to encourage asset prices in the run-up to the referendum or in order to inflate the value of Lloyds and RBScot? The rate of 28% may have been a tad high for earnings that could only be generated at risk to the capital employed, but there was no apparent clamour for so large a change. Perhaps in the end it is all about encouraging saving to remove the burden of pension provision.

I did not think the changes would be so bold. He surprised with the last budget and has done so again.

In reply to Indy:

Cherrypicking ??? They are the figures that matter. National debt has increased under the Conservatives. AT BEST, national debt won't start to decrease until 2018 - assuming the global economy doesn't deteriorate.

Productivity hasn't increased. He has missed two of his own targets : cutting debt as a proportion of GDP this year and capping welfare spending.

He is paying for a £650m tax break for higher earners by taking £550m in PIP from quadraplegics.

He's a genius. I'm sure the IFS will agree.

In reply to BnB:

I'm not sure if he is trying to please many different people, to gain personal support towards the 'in' campaign. I think there are not so well hidden motives other than the normal financial ones. Obviously by pleasing folk with the budget, he also helps head off Boris too in the future leadership race, as it's almost a win/win, or lose/lose scenario in terms of the EU election and party leadership.

I don't understand why he didn't put a little bit on petrol etc.. while the price is so low. Or how they expect to fund the likes of schools and NHS in the future with so many giveaways.

In reply to lummox:


it was bound to increase, until the point you start making an annual surplus. Unless you made killer cuts, then it was always going to rise for several years.

In reply to pavelk:


No it doesn't need to. And it doesn't do that.


Great working infrastructure - integrated rail and road networks, sensible power generation - health and social care, good education opportunities for all, and overall, a sense of decency that the Government cares about the people and does the right things to help and support those who most need help and support.


'People' aren't going to build all the things a 21st century country needs to operate at its fullest potential.

In reply to BnB:

The cost of sick pay was also a burden that small businesses also took on...... he has been taking a hammering from small businesses lately due to the extra cost burdens he has placed on them.I was looking at the admin time/costs of the pensions legislation on small businesses- quite frightening.small businesses just do not have the infrastructure in place to take these type of things on.So its some recompense.

I had heard a rumour that he was going to put the cost of maternity pay back onto businesses.( put around by UKIP)

Its also interesting that the FSB ( not that I am a member) have been cosying upto UKIP. So maybe its a dig at that.

In reply to neilh:

We're just introducing auto enrolment this year. It is a considerable extra cost, whether you measure that in admin, increased wage costs, or destabilisation of the workforce. Despite the obvious economic arguments and most people's support in principle (mine included), employees wants to to be "told" to save and forced to make personal contributions about as much as corporations want to be compelled to administer and contribute themselves.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Do you think that threatening someone over the internet helps to reinforce your case that (sic) "Almost everyone working in the service industries (...) working about three times harder each day", or do you think it reinforces your apparent bankruptcy?

Answers on the back of a postcard?

Moving swiftly on from the bile.

An interesting subtlety brought out by the guy over at moneysavingexpert was that the Lifetime ISA is a clever and persuasive way to try and take tax from the pension pot - as whilst gov gives you £1 on every £4 up to £4k the money, unlike pension contributions, goes in post income tax.

A clever way to get around the outrage at the reduction in tax free pension withdrawls, no?

In reply to Lenin:


Are you comfortable with what's being cut to give you that windfall?
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Maybe it's to encourage him to take on one extra employee? While it's important to balance the economy, the means of doing so is far more complex than a nil sum game in which every giveaway must be balanced by a cut. Changing economies depends on changing behaviour. Confidence is everything when it comes to growth.

In reply to pavelk:


But not everyone has enough money to pay for the things they need. A decent compassionate society (and one that can afford it in this case) might be expected to ensure everyone has access to education, healthcare, social services, adequate housing... These things need to be paid for and I don't want to live in a society where they're not. If you do that's ok, you'll still find plenty of examples around the world.
jk

In reply to BnB:


There'l be a lot of poor and disabled folk out there today with very little confidence they'll still have a roof over their heads and food on the table by the time Osborne gets to crow about his surplus blip. If you think that's a price worth paying for a couple of tenths on your annual growth forecast then fair enough. I beg to differ.
jk

In reply to jkarran:
I didn't say I approved of his cuts, nor that Osborne's is the only way.

I pointed out that the spending cuts are not necessarily paying for the tax cuts. If you can't see that it is more complicated than a simple set of economic scales let me simplify it for you:

confidence = growth = more jobs (for poor folk too) + higher tax receipts = return to surplus which then pays for everything

Whether the formula will work depends on many external factors beyond Osborne's control. I feel that those macro-economic levers are more powerful than those at his disposal, which must be a concern, but his budget looks to me like a bold effort to raise demand side forces (like consumer spending) to pull us through some tricky times.

Were I chancellor, heaven forfend, would I have cut taxes to the extent he has? No, I probably wouldn't have. But I'm seeking to understand his policies, not to excuse them.

In reply to BnB:

Don't presume I'm daft, I'm not.


And the short to medium term cost of cutting welfare and social care to pump up that low-tax confidence bubble, acceptable collateral damage?


Because what we need right now is yet more credit fueled consumerism. Ok, but to what end, who benefits?

edit: it's not me disliking your posts by the way, I respect your right to express a different opinion from a different position especially since you do so clearly and politely.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Thank you. Since I've questioned the sanity of his approach and stated I would have cut taxes less boldly in his position one could assume the dislikes come from the right.

But we both know they come from those who choose not to distinguish between approving of a policy and an effort at understanding it. Does every discussion here have to be partisan?

PS I liked your comments btw. It doesn't add up to me either, even as I strive to understand

In reply to BnB:

I am dreading it I terms of admin.

In reply to Indy:
The IFS don't seem to agree:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget/512

Stealing jam from tomorrow and making the future face the nasty medicine more seems to be a theme of this chancellor... from the report:

"The problem for the Chancellor though is perhaps ..... he is running out of wriggle room. His chances of him having a surplus in 2019/20 are only just the right side of 50:50. But it is also important to remember that the rule gets suspended if, at any point, growth drops below 1%. With lower expected growth in the economy the chances of this happening is now greater. (The OBR puts the chances of the growth dropping below 1% in 2020 at as much as 35%). These risks are exacerbated by the fact that there are in fact £8 billion of tax cuts in the Budget. These are pretty definite long term cuts, some of which will become more expensive over time. There are £5 billion of tax rises (5 is less than 8). But even of this £5 billion a good £2 billion is uncertain, much of it coming from anti-avoidance measures."

"Mr Osborne also continued to transform the taxation of savings. The limit on ISA contributions is now set to have doubled since 2010. The chancellor clearly has a preference for this sort of (TEE) saving - save out of taxed income, keep the returns tax free - over the (EET) pension treatment - save out of pre-tax income, pay tax later. He has continually increased the ISA limits while cutting pension limits. Of course if people respond by saving less in pensions and more in ISAs Mr Osborne will get more tax revenues today, his successors will get less tomorrow."

"The biggest help to the 2019-20 figures comes from delaying new rules to ensure that groups pay their corporate tax earlier. This flatters the public finances temporarily as revenues are brought forward. The temporary flattering is now due to happen not in 2017-18, as originally planned, but in 2019-20. Very handy."

"Current (non-investment) departmental spending facing real cuts of 3.7% (£12bn) between 2015-16 and 2019-20
- NHS, aid, schools, defence protected (assume remain so)
- RDEL outside of Dept of Health, Dept of International Development, Ministry of Defence and schools: -12.8% (£17bn)
- Takes the real RDEL cut between 2010-11 and 2019-20 to 10.9%
- RDEL outside of DH, DfID, MoD and schools: -31.5% (£52bn)"

In reply to Indy:

How on earth is he going to reach a surplus by 2020 though? We all like a few giveaways here and there but he doesn't seem to be following his own economic plan.

It is a progressive budget which rewards saving, healthy eating and helps low earners (and middle and high) but his maths don't make sense. Perhaps this is why he wants maths to be compulsory to the age of 18.

The only way he can do it is by massive growth which looks unlikely with the storm he keeps on saying is brewing. Perhaps he is just preparing an excuse. What am I missing?

In reply to jasonpather:



I used to really enjoy Budget Day - listen to the whole speech, be curious at the fiscal strategy and how it would all pan out, enjoy discussing it whether I agreed with it or not.

Now I'm increasingly jaded and apathetic as we are no longer told the truth, the smoke and mirrors get ever larger and the public is treated with disdain. As if we shall just react by media snippets and presentation rather than be intelligent enough to be told the whole story.

Since this has proved a successful political strategy for the last dozen years or so, sadly its going to carry on by all parties.

In reply to jkarran:



Very, its a long story, but in our particular situation the Business rates have been particularly inequtous (?) but I would think that, wouldn`t I.

In reply to Indy: I think Sir Walter Scott would have had the best reply to this budget:

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we start to deceive."

In reply to Babika:

I understand that completely. I am just starting to get into it and am already completely jaded.

I have a different view though. Everything is demand and supply. I see most of the users who have replied to this thread as the minority. The public want short snippets and drama and the media and politicians react to that.

Articles that go into depth just aren't read nearly as often as the articles churned out by the Mail/Sun (sorry for stereotyping with these papers).

In reply to Trevers:


in 2018, it should have been sorted years back but the gov sided with the French owners who pleaded that because of the change in the financial situation they hadn't made enough money so they wanted a few more years tolls.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/ll-paying-Severn-Bridge-toll-longer/story-1583...

Just shows how the gov stand up for the public.

In reply to Offwidth:

The ifs have also said its 50/50 whether it will work. Possibly no different to any other budget then!

Still do not understand what is being said On disability payments.

In reply to tony:



And are you sure your government really does it instead of overpriced projects with doubtful sense? If yes, the British government is very rare exception (neither the Czech government is not the German, Slovakian, Polish, Austrian and many others)


Why do you think so? Have you got any evidence? They can't because of government monopoly and because their money is (mis)used by someone else often

In reply to neilh:
Sure.. but the government is running the country and I think should have a better safety margin than that, especially after, what will be by then, over a decade of austerity. The extra cuts to unprotected government departments on top of current cuts and planned future cuts look highly serious (unless one has a libertarian outlook). Gordon's BBC link rightly questions where the £32 billion magic money comes from in that last year and we better not have another world recession on the way. No change in the fuel levy is a missed easy revenue opportunity and something wanted by those concerned with effects on climate change (albeit probably neutral in the short term as it might have hit growth)

The disabilty changes will either be OK in detail (seems very unlikely) or get changed (remember the money they found in the sofa last year when facing a revolt) or get blocked by genuine concerns from tory backbenchers.

In reply to Offwidth:

I had always thought of the ifs as a right leaning think tank. They seem to have ingrained themselves in the public mind as the arbiter of sensible economics. But that ha for another discussion.

In reply to neilh:

Again I'd agree but it is safe evidence ground to not be accused of a leftist attack.