The Budget

[????]

...anyone?........anything to say?

I'm doing my best here

[david_carnell]

I think Osborne has pulled off the most spectacular trick.

He seems to have managed to produce a budget that has pleased almost no one for completely different reasons. Cunning, George. Very cunning.

[????]

It did just make me realise just how sh1t the next two years will be - although, in contrast to you DC I guess, I don't thinks there's much different he can do nor do I think much of it is his fault. The west is getting a reality check on living beyond its means and the world's wealth is actually getting distributed more equitably than in the past thanks to globalisation, the left should welcome this if they're truly into equality rather than just protecting their own self interests. As a generalisation we are all going to be a bit poorer until we get some proper firmly based growth from diverse enterprise driven economy...we certainly can't stick it on the credit card anymore.

[katie1997]

The bill has arrived for sure.

I think the budget is particularly bad for pensioners and savers.

Also bad for small companies looking to invest in the North Sea. The larger companies already there won't be affected and will be unlikely to offer anything for sale. Lots of job losses. Not sure who benefits.

P.S. Personally, I won't be buying Chick a pint at the Clockhouse anymore ( you heard it here first).

[david_carnell]

If I genuinely thought that the world's wealth was being more equally distributed I'd be quite content but I doubt that's happening.

I guess you have burgeoning middle-classes in India and China but vast swathes still remain brutally poor.

As to what Gideon could have done differently? Not sure....do you meanwhat I would have liked to have done or what he could do that would be politically viable for a Tory-led government?

I suspect you already know the answer to the former and I've not got the energy on a Friday after Budget Week (it's not fun in a central govt press office I can tell you) to have the same argument with you again.

[Jeremy]

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also bad for small companies looking to invest in

> the North Sea. The larger companies already there

> won't be affected and will be unlikely to offer

> anything for sale. Lots of job losses. Not sure

> who benefits.

Don't believe it, there's still loads of money to be made in oil.

[James Barber]

Hi Katie1997,

Why do you think the budget is bad for pensioners?

[katie1997]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> katie1997 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Also bad for small companies looking to invest

> in

> > the North Sea. The larger companies already

> there

> > won't be affected and will be unlikely to offer

> > anything for sale. Lots of job losses. Not

> sure

> > who benefits.

>

> Don't believe it, there's still loads of money to

> be made in oil.

I agree with you Jeremy, just think that there's far less opportunity for smaller companies and new investments (and resulting jobs) . Shell and BP will be fine.

[katie1997]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Katie1997,

> Why do you think the budget is bad for pensioners?

Hi James Barber,

Winter. Fuel. Prices.

And a whole lot of other things but that's what dear George glossed over the most.

[aspidistra]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It did just make me realise just how sh1t the next

> two years will be - although, in contrast to you

> DC I guess, I don't thinks there's much different

> he can do nor do I think much of it is his fault.

> The west is getting a reality check on living

> beyond its means and the world's wealth is

> actually getting distributed more equitably than

> in the past thanks to globalisation, the left

> should welcome this if they're truly into equality

> rather than just protecting their own self

> interests.

The only winners from globalisation are the major corps. Local people do not win: they suffer appalling assaults to their environment and health (food supplies, drinking water supplies etc.).

As a generalisation we are all going to

> be a bit poorer until we get some proper firmly

> based growth from diverse enterprise driven

> economy...

Growth? From what? Just what is going to be making that growth happen? Middle Eastern oil?

We're not going to be 'a bit poorer'. We're going to be a lot, lot poorer, for a very long time.

Even the IEA is wising up, finally, to the finite nature of everything (though its predicted energy prices, from the last report, were already looking hilarious when they were published, and more so now).

We're going to have a job on our hands to cope with:

Energy prices. Up.

Commodity prices. Up.

Rare minerals (for electronics) prices. Up.

Food prices. Up.

The rate of increase is often extremely scary.

And most developed economies are looking like a dog's dinner; and it's ordinary folks that have been asked to foot the bill.

The only winners over the last 50 years (since the mid-50s) have been the top 1% (by income; and by wealth) in first-world countries. Take a look at the data. That is the trend, and it keeps on going in that direction.

[Loz]

aspidistra Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only winners over the last 50 years (since the

> mid-50s) have been the top 1% (by income; and by

> wealth) in first-world countries. Take a look at

> the data. That is the trend, and it keeps on going

> in that direction.

Are you really saying that in the last 50 years the standard of living for people in the UK has declined? Or, would you rather be an average wage earning in the UK in the 1960's or today? I know what I'd rather.

[????]

Globalisation has pulled millions and millions of Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Thai, Brazilian, etc out of poverty and is even beginiing to do so in Africa. I know it's a filthy word among the usual suspects ie any brainless lefties with their paint by numbers politics and they just won't have it but it is a fact.

[Jeremy]

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree with you Jeremy, just think that there's

> far less opportunity for smaller companies and new

> investments (and resulting jobs) . Shell and BP

> will be fine.

I openly admit that this is something I know nothing about, but I wouldn't have thought you get small start-up companies drilling for oil anyway. The costs must be enormous.

[katie1997]

Jeremy, you're right costs are huge but now it is very much smaller companies that are operating in the NS - for every amount of oil they produce, they have to find that again. Its easier for smaller companies who will produce less to do that and less economical for bigger players (although they still exist too).

Not all are small start-ups although onshore drilling is full of 'one man and his dog' type outfits, sometimes known as 'desperation drilling'.

Edit: meant to say, I'm no expert either!

[James Barber]

Hi Katie1997,

But a guaranteed minimum pension of ?140 rather than current ?97 + plus mean testing is fantastic news for pensioners on top of re establsihing the link between pensions and earnings.

Winter fuel payments. The Green Deal starts by providing insulation for all pensioners. Much better way to help is to reduce the need for fuel rather than paying for some of it.

[TopTree]

When does the ?140 pension start?

[James Barber]

It starts 2014/15 and by then ?140 with inflation is predicted to be around ?155pw.