The non-event budget

It is clear that Brown and Darling knew they couldn’t get away without having a budget and it was clear that they didn’t really want a budget before the election either. So they had a non-event budget.

The budget that I just sat through was so lacking in any real content that I almost fell asleep and while I hate to admit it, the best bits were the shamelessly party political attacks. I have to hand it to Darling, the line about tax detail sharing with Belize was one of the high points.
But what did we actually find out? How are we going to address the deficit? What will need to be cut? What taxes will need to rise? We got a few little titbits, a bit of stamp duty here, a few moved civil servants there but nothing of any real substance.
All the headline stuff was lifted from either the Conservatives (stamp duty and tax on extra strong cider) or from budgets of the past. The whole thing was a waste of time, Gordon should have called the election so we can get on with it and hear a new government announce a budget which might actually be implemented.

8 responses to “The non-event budget

  1. 15,000 job losses for Londoners is not a good budget for London. Imagine if he had announced the loss of 15,000 jobs in the West Midlands – there would be an outcry. GM only employs 5,000 people in Britain and it was front page news when the government would not stand up for these jobs.

    I think somebody should work the figures and see if moving jobs out of London actually benefits the treasury over a 5 year period, when the cost of relocation, redundancy, and retraining is taken into account.

    But the best our GLA member can come up with is joining Iain Dale's slumber party. Wake up and fight for London jobs please rather than allowing Darling to sack more than 1000 of your constituents!

  2. 15,000 job losses for Londoners is not a good budget for London. Imagine if he had announced the loss of 15,000 jobs in the West Midlands – there would be an outcry. GM only employs 5,000 people in Britain and it was front page news when the government would not stand up for these jobs.

    I think somebody should work the figures and see if moving jobs out of London actually benefits the treasury over a 5 year period, when the cost of relocation, redundancy, and retraining is taken into account.

    But the best our GLA member can come up with is joining Iain Dale's slumber party. Wake up and fight for London jobs please rather than allowing Darling to sack more than 1000 of your constituents!

  3. Jimmy

    Nice try but these are not job losses they are relocations.

    Also as they are public sector jobs which do not directly serve London they are not net economic contributers to the London economy.

    London and Londoners will not lose out by these jobs being moved.

  4. Jimmy

    Nice try but these are not job losses they are relocations.

    Also as they are public sector jobs which do not directly serve London they are not net economic contributers to the London economy.

    London and Londoners will not lose out by these jobs being moved.

  5. 15,000 people in London will be out of a job. Every one of these jobs brings money into London, reduces unemployment in some of the areas of highest unemployment in the country, and those civil servants then spend their money in local shops.

    I agree that they are not frontline services and therefore do not serve Londoners any more than other parts of the country, but they contribute more to London's economy in terms of employment by being here rather than by being in the North East of England.

    London and Londoners will lose out by their jobs being moved to other regions, and the quality of their work will suffer as the civil service will no longer have access to the most competitive jobs market in Britain, not to mention to loss of talents built up over many years.

    I'm surprised you care so little for the 15,000 Londoners who will lose their jobs.

  6. 15,000 people in London will be out of a job. Every one of these jobs brings money into London, reduces unemployment in some of the areas of highest unemployment in the country, and those civil servants then spend their money in local shops.

    I agree that they are not frontline services and therefore do not serve Londoners any more than other parts of the country, but they contribute more to London's economy in terms of employment by being here rather than by being in the North East of England.

    London and Londoners will lose out by their jobs being moved to other regions, and the quality of their work will suffer as the civil service will no longer have access to the most competitive jobs market in Britain, not to mention to loss of talents built up over many years.

    I'm surprised you care so little for the 15,000 Londoners who will lose their jobs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s