no plans to increase VAT - isn't that what Cameron said?

and the Lib dems promised no rise in VAT Did you vote Lib Dem or Tory? 2 1/2% increase in Vat that will bump everything up including Petrol/diesel. savage 25% cuts in public sector budgets (which by the way will be dissproportionately worse for Wales) - well there goes a few jobs and if your lucky enough to keep your public sector job your pay will be frozen for 2 years, higher benefits bill less spending by families which will inevitabely have an impact on the private sector. Cuts in family credit hmm another hammering for young families freezing child Benefit- hammering families again and cuts in regional budgets have not been announced yet and Wales will be hardest hit
Oh and if you have a pension under any of the following Pension schemes be very worried because they are under review and will be slashed :-
Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme
Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (Northern Ireland)
Armed Forces Pension Scheme
NHS Pension Scheme
NHS Superannuation Scheme (Scotland)
Health and Personal Social Services Northern Ireland Superannuation Scheme
Teachers' Pension Scheme (England and Wales)
Scottish Teachers' Superannuation Scheme
Northern Ireland Teachers' Superannuation Scheme
Local Government Pension Scheme (England and Wales)
Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland)
Northern Ireland Local Government Pension Scheme
Police Pension Scheme (administered locally)
Firefighters' Pension Scheme (administered locally)
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Pension Schemes
Judicial Pensions Scheme
Department for international Development - Overseas Superannuation Scheme
Research Councils' Pension Schemes

I wouldn't like to be in the retail trade because a 2 1/2% increase in VAT is bound to affect sales and will inevitabely lead to more job cuts.

I'm sorry but overall this budget will create higher unemployment, higher benefits, higher borrowing, higher taxes and massive cuts in public services. You cant cut investment in the economy and create the growth necerssary to pay off the national debt and we are heading for a double dip recession- thank you Mr Cameron and Mr. Osborne didn't you do well

Or maybe, just maybe, the books were worse than were expected, hence giving little scope other than to make the swinging cuts - which let's be honest, Labour would have had to do.

Still, I guess people prefer the Labour spend, spend, spend what we haven't got mantra. I eagrly await the "Bring Ridsdale back" march as a result

Never believed a word Cameron said anyway so would have been more surprised if he didnt raise VAT.

If a widescreen tv costs £500 and vat goes up by 2 and half per cent its still only £512.50. hardly going to make ya change ya mind about buying one is it?

Does anyone believe its right for say a policeman to put in 25 years and get a full pension, you could be reiterd at 43.

Work for 50 years like everyone else!

Or maybe, just maybe, the books were worse than were expected, hence giving little scope other than to make the swinging cuts - which let's be honest, Labour would have had to do.

Still, I guess people prefer the Labour spend, spend, spend what we haven't got mantra. I eagrly await the "Bring Ridsdale back" march as a result

Nerd, the Country is in a total mess and I was stunned by the rises today, but this is because of what Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have cost us

Yet once again the conservatives are crippling the poor even more (e.g. family credit, child benefit).

Same old conservatives. They're f*cking snakes.

Yet once again the conservatives are crippling the poor even more (e.g. family credit, child benefit).

Same old conservatives. They're f*cking snakes.

Didn't they increase family credit?

Yet once again the conservatives are crippling the poor even more (e.g. family credit, child benefit).

Same old conservatives. They're f*cking snakes.

Didn't they increase family credit?

Yes they have

Could someone remind me how much Debt Our Country is in ?

Or maybe, just maybe, the books were worse than were expected, hence giving little scope other than to make the swinging cuts - which let's be honest, Labour would have had to do.

Still, I guess people prefer the Labour spend, spend, spend what we haven't got mantra. I eagrly await the "Bring Ridsdale back" march as a result

Nerd, the Country is in a total mess and I was stunned by the rises today, but this is because of what Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have cost us

I can't stand any politicians they're all just pigs digging their snouts as deep into the trough as they can.
That said we've had a worldwide economic crash and we'd be f*cked whatever pigs were in power.

How can they say the figures were worse than they thought?We ended up borrowing less than predicted and growth was higher than said So hoew can things be worse

Yet once again the conservatives are crippling the poor even more (e.g. family credit, child benefit).

Same old conservatives. They're f*cking snakes.

I dont understand how you can say they hit the porr. Increased child tax credits and a rise in personal alowances!!!

I feel sorry for the Lib Dem voters who jumped on the Nick Clegg bandwagon only to be shafted by the man himself. He has killed that party for many years.

Child tax credits are made up of various different elements paid at different rates. These include the family element, the baby element, the child element, the young person element, and the disability element.

From April 2011 families with a household income of more than £40,000 will see their eligibility for child tax credits reduced.

the baby element of child tax credit will be abolished from the beginning of the next tax year. The baby element is paid up until the youngest child's first birthday.

However, the chancellor also announced he will increase the child element of the tax credit by £150 above inflation (as measured by the CPI) from next April. Clever trick using CPI instead of RPI

Child Benefit frozen for the next three years

The health in pregnancy grant, a £190 payment to all pregnant women beyond their 25th week of pregnancy, will be abolished next April.

The government will also restrict eligibility to the Sure Start Maternity Grant to the first child only. The grant is a one-off £500 payment for those on a low income to help towards the costs of a new baby

What did the Tories say? they are the party of the family - don't make me laugh

I feel sorry for the Lib Dem voters who jumped on the Nick Clegg bandwagon only to be shafted by the man himself. He has killed that party for many years.

Oh yeah he sold his soul to the devil the Lib Dems are fucked as a political party

How can they say the figures were worse than they thought?We ended up borrowing less than predicted and growth was higher than said So hoew can things be worse

For one thing, PFI deals weren't registered on private / public borrowing. That makes the debt far worse - I believe that was being changed, not sure if it's already in place.

An alternative would have been to sold things like gold reserves.

Except Brown already did that, at a time gold prices were much lower, having been advised NOT to have sold at the time... oops.

Could someone remind me how much Debt Our Country is in ?

The new government has promised to take immediate action to reduce the budget deficit within the term of this parliament so maybe your question should be "How much debt will our country be in at the end of this parliament".

At it's last budget the labour goverment put in place proposals to reduce the country's budget deficit from £170m to £70m at the end of this parliamentary term. However it did say at the time these were worst case figures and that economic growth would hopefully be better than predicted and bring with it increased tax revenues which would see those figures revised down.

This has proved to be the case with the economic statistics published earlier this week showing the deficit already reduced to £155m.

The labour policy was to maintain public spending to keep people in job, thus maintaining tax revenues, and create economic cinditions where the country i.e. the public, would continue or increase spending driving the recovery. In short a budget for jobs.

This goverment has taken a route at the opposite end of the economic spectrum where they plan to reduce the deficit by reducing public spending and increasing indirect taxation i.e. increase in VAT as an example. The budget aims to achieve the deficit reduction reduction by an 80% cut in spending and 20% increase in indirect taxation.

This policy will reduce the amount of disposable income each and every family will have and is therefore unlikely to see a spending driven recovery which would create demand for products and services and therefore jobs. In short a budget against job creation.

So coming back to the original question how much debt is our country in well at the moment we are £930b in debt and at the end of this parliament labour were forecasting we would be £1.36t in debt. After yesterdays budget the goverment, or rather this new office of budget responsibility is forecasting we will be £1.32t in debt.

So for all of yesterdays austerity measures the level of debt will increase whichever policy is followed, however is it socially more acceptable to maintain public spending keeping people in work, maintaining their dignity and allowing demand for products and services to drive recovery.

Or is it more socially acceptable to reduce public spending, increase indirect taxation, put hundreds of thousands of people to the dole, reduce disposable family incomes thereby reducing consumer driven demand.

In either scenario in 5 years time our national debt will have increased by approx £400b but our national debt will be only £4b less following this governments policies.

I am not a political beast and have not voted in any election since the mid 1980 because I believe whoever gets elected would stiff me but good, I have never been disappointed.

Having said that I would align myself closer to the labour policy of maintaining spending as it is socially more acceptable to keep people in work then force them out of work as a direct result of government policy.

Just my opinion.

Could someone remind me how much Debt Our Country is in ?

The new government has promised to take immediate action to reduce the budget deficit within the term of this parliament so maybe your question should be "How much debt will our country be in at the end of this parliament".

At it's last budget the labour goverment put in place proposals to reduce the country's budget deficit from £170m to £70m at the end of this parliamentary term. However it did say at the time these were worst case figures and that economic growth would hopefully be better than predicted and bring with it increased tax revenues which would see those figures revised down.

This has proved to be the case with the economic statistics published earlier this week showing the deficit already reduced to £155m.

The labour policy was to maintain public spending to keep people in job, thus maintaining tax revenues, and create economic cinditions where the country i.e. the public, would continue or increase spending driving the recovery. In short a budget for jobs.

This goverment has taken a route at the opposite end of the economic spectrum where they plan to reduce the deficit by reducing public spending and increasing indirect taxation i.e. increase in VAT as an example. The budget aims to achieve the deficit reduction reduction by an 80% cut in spending and 20% increase in indirect taxation.

This policy will reduce the amount of disposable income each and every family will have and is therefore unlikely to see a spending driven recovery which would create demand for products and services and therefore jobs. In short a budget against job creation.

So coming back to the original question how much debt is our country in well at the moment we are £930b in debt and at the end of this parliament labour were forecasting we would be £1.36t in debt. After yesterdays budget the goverment, or rather this new office of budget responsibility is forecasting we will be £1.32t in debt.

So for all of yesterdays austerity measures the level of debt will increase whichever policy is followed, however is it socially more acceptable to maintain public spending keeping people in work, maintaining their dignity and allowing demand for products and services to drive recovery.

Or is it more socially acceptable to reduce public spending, increase indirect taxation, put hundreds of thousands of people to the dole, reduce disposable family incomes thereby reducing consumer driven demand.

In either scenario in 5 years time our national debt will have increased by approx £400b but our national debt will be only £4b less following this governments policies.

I am not a political beast and have not voted in any election since the mid 1980 because I believe whoever gets elected would stiff me but good, I have never been disappointed.

Having said that I would align myself closer to the labour policy of maintaining spending as it is socially more acceptable to keep people in work then force them out of work as a direct result of government policy.

Just my opinion.

In short then the middle and lower classes have been tucked up like kippers serves them right they voted Tory and Liberal now they must face the consequences. In medieval times we had Robin Hood now in modern times we have Robin bastards

It's more acceptable to give people "noddy" jobs just to keep them employed? granted, you get tax back, but that's a false claim when those jobs are public sector - ie funded by the errm taxpayer. Amount of tax gained back is obviously a lot less than the money spent by the taxpayer on those jobs...

The private sector has had these problems for years. Labour have, as always, increased the number of public sector jobs, which are generally considered "jobs for life", nice benefits et al. Why should public sector employees magically be immune to the issues facing everyone else?

the torys are bullshitters and liars

cameron said they would deffo NOT increase VAT

already the fucker has done it

strike one

a few days before the budget osbourne said that they would not cut benefits to those in need furtehr than they stated in the manifesto ( that load of bullshit that some of you voted them in on )

and guess what ??

osbourne today on radio 4 said that " further " cuts to benefits " on top of those announced pre budget " would be made to benefits

strike two

f*cking bare faced back tracking and lies , just a few days after both of them said otherwise

well said , cameron did indeed say they wouldnt increase VAT and the fucker is a lying snake

Yet once again the conservatives are crippling the poor even more (e.g. family credit, child benefit).

Same old conservatives. They're f*cking snakes.

I dont understand how you can say they hit the porr. Increased child tax credits and a rise in personal alowances!!!

For each child the increase in Child Tax Credit works out at £3 p/w and the taxation personal allowance increase adds about £3 p/w if you benefit from the full £1,000 increase. The gains from both CCT & Taxation PA would be offset by anyone claiming housing or council tax benefit who would immeadately lose 65% of any gain.

Also families lose any inflation increase against Child Benefit for the next 3 years and it is estimated that the 2.5% increase in VAT will cost poorer families at least £500 p/a.

The poor have been hit for six by the backdoor as they always are under Tory Governments. This is just the start and I only hope the Lib Dems find a backbone before the lying evil twats start dismantleing the NHS which has to be the ultimate goal for the Nasty Party which is exactly what the Conservatives are.

It's more acceptable to give people "noddy" jobs just to keep them employed? granted, you get tax back, but that's a false claim when those jobs are public sector - ie funded by the errm taxpayer. Amount of tax gained back is obviously a lot less than the money spent by the taxpayer on those jobs...

The private sector has had these problems for years. Labour have, as always, increased the number of public sector jobs, which are generally considered "jobs for life", nice benefits et al. Why should public sector employees magically be immune to the issues facing everyone else?

I agree that no one should be entitled to a job for life, except the Queen and MP's of course. But it is not just public sector jobs that will drive recovery in this country we will need the suppliers to the public sector. There are currently hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country reliant on supplying products or services to the public sector.

IMO the country needs as many people in work as possible this will maintain demand for products and help what is left of our manufacturing industries to recover thereby creating more jobs with higher tax revenues, both direct and indirect.

As I said I am not a political beast and it makes little difference to me who is in power but during this period of "New Politics" why can our leaders not understand that most people want to be able to provide for their families. In that case government policy should not be forcing people into the benefits trap.

As I said just my opinion.

It's more acceptable to give people "noddy" jobs just to keep them employed? granted, you get tax back, but that's a false claim when those jobs are public sector - ie funded by the errm taxpayer. Amount of tax gained back is obviously a lot less than the money spent by the taxpayer on those jobs...

The private sector has had these problems for years. Labour have, as always, increased the number of public sector jobs, which are generally considered "jobs for life", nice benefits et al. Why should public sector employees magically be immune to the issues facing everyone else?

Depends what your definition of a 'noddy job' is? Personally I love Labour for employing more Doctors, Nurses and Teachers who do a tremendous job.

and when the tories cut the nurses and doctors jobs ..which they have said they wont ..but they will.... as within three days of this budget they have already lied twice !!!

you can bet it will be the tory boys who say " I went to the hospital the other day ..it was rubbish ..had to wait three hours ...no doctors on duty "

too late then lads, YOU voted for the feckers !!

dont say you aint been warned

It's more acceptable to give people "noddy" jobs just to keep them employed? granted, you get tax back, but that's a false claim when those jobs are public sector - ie funded by the errm taxpayer. Amount of tax gained back is obviously a lot less than the money spent by the taxpayer on those jobs...

The private sector has had these problems for years. Labour have, as always, increased the number of public sector jobs, which are generally considered "jobs for life", nice benefits et al. Why should public sector employees magically be immune to the issues facing everyone else?

So one of my daughters who is a Physiotherapist and another who is a nurse and my son who is a microbiologist all work in the NHS have all got "Noddy" jobs? you need to learn to shut your f*cking big mouth. I don't think anybody whose health may have been directly or indirectly positively affected by my children, who work damn f*cking hard in their jobs, would thank you for such a f*cking juvenile comment. f*cking grow up. I hope your bnever ill and need a nurse mate.

It's more acceptable to give people "noddy" jobs just to keep them employed? granted, you get tax back, but that's a false claim when those jobs are public sector - ie funded by the errm taxpayer. Amount of tax gained back is obviously a lot less than the money spent by the taxpayer on those jobs...

The private sector has had these problems for years. Labour have, as always, increased the number of public sector jobs, which are generally considered "jobs for life", nice benefits et al. Why should public sector employees magically be immune to the issues facing everyone else?

I agree that no one should be entitled to a job for life, except the Queen and MP's of course. But it is not just public sector jobs that will drive recovery in this country we will need the suppliers to the public sector. There are currently hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country reliant on supplying products or services to the public sector.

IMO the country needs as many people in work as possible this will maintain demand for products and help what is left of our manufacturing industries to recover thereby creating more jobs with higher tax revenues, both direct and indirect.

As I said I am not a political beast and it makes little difference to me who is in power but during this period of "New Politics" why can our leaders not understand that most people want to be able to provide for their families. In that case government policy should not be forcing people into the benefits trap.

As I said just my opinion.

Well said and I totally agree with you.

Jobs cannot be created for the sake of it but if for example a new hospital is built then the private sector construction industry will gain from the contract with the Government, which in turn creates wealth and a vital service for everyone.

The new employees at the Hospital from the cleaners and porters upwards will be an addition to the local and national economy because apart from paying tax and NI they will also have buying power in the High Street (creating jobs) and not forgetting the valuable VAT receipts and Corporation Tax’s which follow.

It is obvious that the economy cannot rely alone on the Public Sector, but a vibrant and well managed Public Sector benefits everyone in more ways than the obvious.

and when the tories cut the nurses and doctors jobs ..which they have said they wont ..but they will....

It is in their blood, the Tories can't help but hate the NHS because it goes against everything they believe in. To them the ill and dying are an untapped 'market' where millions of pounds could be made if only the NHS stopped providing health care for free.

The last Tory Government nearly brought the NHS down to its knees so they won't waste time now they have another oppotunity.

It's more acceptable to give people "noddy" jobs just to keep them employed? granted, you get tax back, but that's a false claim when those jobs are public sector - ie funded by the errm taxpayer. Amount of tax gained back is obviously a lot less than the money spent by the taxpayer on those jobs...

The private sector has had these problems for years. Labour have, as always, increased the number of public sector jobs, which are generally considered "jobs for life", nice benefits et al. Why should public sector employees magically be immune to the issues facing everyone else?

Depends what your definition of a 'noddy job' is? Personally I love Labour for employing more Doctors, Nurses and Teachers who do a tremendous job.

Here Here