I'm not any kind of political animal. But forgive me if I ask a dumb question.
I watched the Budget the other day, as I usually do. The Chancellor made his speech and outlined his measures.
I noticed that the Labour party, whilst doing their duty and opposing of course, weren't apparently surprised by anything he said.
How does it work? Does the Government make all the decisions and then let the Opposition know a few days in advance and they get grumpy then, or do they make decisions on a joint basis in committees, where I assume the Government has a majority and so always win whatever they want to do?
I suppose I'm asking "how secret is the budget"? (I know in the old days we, the public, never knew what was to be in it until the speech, but these days it's in all the papers a week beforehand, so its not as secret at it was, but I'd still like to know the level of involvement of the Opposition.)
|
>> I suppose I'm asking "how secret is the budget"?
Not at all. Westminster is the leakiest leaky thing in leak world. Plus you only have so much wriggle room with national finances, and all the financial data is published and in the public domain.
The opposition is not involved, in the budget process, but will be aware because of the leaks, and briefed with the answers to oppose anything the chancellor says.
Of course chancellors want to pull rabbits from hats. Anything they reveal could be countered with any number of meaningless political rhetoric and sound bites.
|
I'm probably at least as "dumb" politically as you, CC, but here's my take: the Opposition doesn't know what's coming, but has to pretend they have got their act under control. Milliband's response, or what I heard of it, seemed a rehash of the familiar "lowering of living standards" stuff that has been trotted out many times, and also seemed way off connecting with what Osborne had just said, which proves my point.
Or maybe I got that wrong.
|
On the same topic, prime minister questions or whatever its called, do these all need to be submitted in advance?
Instead of all the millions in expenses, can they not just set up a conference call on Skype and let all the MPs stay at home in their own houses???? :)
|
>> On the same topic, prime minister questions or whatever its called, do these all need
>> to be submitted in advance?
>>
>> Instead of all the millions in expenses, can they not just set up a conference
>> call on Skype and let all the MPs stay at home in their own houses????
>> :)
The question itself, at least from back bench Members, is submitted in advance but has to be of a neutral nature such as asking the PM to list his engagements or when he next intends to visit the questioner's constituency. The catch is in the supplementary . A lot of work goes into second guessing what a particular MPs follow up will be and making sure the PM is fully briefed.
Looked at in that way it's a good way for MP's to publicise issues that matter to their constiuents.
IIRC there are different rules for the Leader of the Opposition and in recent years it's become too much of a knockabout between the pair of them.
EDIT - more info here www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/questions/
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 21 Mar 14 at 15:01
|
>>Instead of all the millions in expenses, can they not just set up a conference call on Skype and let all the MPs stay at home in their own houses???? :) <<
There are certainly some in the anti-establishment movement who often ask just that question. Certainly some MPs like Douglas Carswell are moving in that direction and as technology moves forward it will certainly gain ground.
|
We're nearing election time. Some minor/standard increases in tax (VED up £5 in each band for example) but politically Osborne's pitch is for middle classes, particularly those wobbling towards UKIP. The pensions bit was the rabbit from the hat, other stuff like help with childcare had been trailed in advance. Neither was there much for those who cannot afford to save. Quite a bit of concrete commitment to spend but nothing on how he's going to pay for that or his (delayed) promise to clear the deficit.
Note the IFS making alarm calls over budget's fiscal sustainability.
Miliband's call about lowered living standards is going to be his pitch in the election. Its a reasonable one an alternative to the Tories 'hard working families' bit.
MOst people in ordinary PAYE jobs are far worse off in real terms than they were in 2008/9. Prices have risen and wages have not. According to my Civil Service pension statement if my salary in 2006 had kept pace with RPI/CPI it would have been nearly 15% higher at my last day of service. No better in private sector.
The ultra rich meanwhile stay on the gravy train.
|
|
Why do speakers in the Commons have to shout so much? A quietly spoken speech competently analysing the shortcomings in their opponent's policies would be much more effective.
|
>> Why do speakers in the Commons have to shout so much? A quietly spoken speech
>> competently analysing the shortcomings in their opponent's policies would be much more effective.
The shouting tends to be characteristic of PMQ's and other 'show' occasions. These of course are what gets on the box with inevitable effect that public see it as typical
If you actually sit in public gallery during say second reading or committee stage of legislation - even if controversial - then quitly spoken analysis is order of day. A good committee session, for example the Public Administration or Justice Select Committees, making the Civil Service and other witnesses squirm is value for money too. Unfortunately some Committee Chairs, Mrs Hodgee and MR Vaz spring to mind, are a bit too forward for the good of their members and the committee's reputation.
|
>> If you actually sit in public gallery during say second reading or committee stage of
>> legislation - even if controversial - then quitly spoken analysis is order of day.
It's certainly true that I never can be bothered with the rowdy silly schoolboy antics of the big occasions. Reminds me too much of short trousers and bike sheds.
But the occasional BBC Parliament on tv on a wet work free afternoon with some obscure committee about whether we should be subsidising shoes for elephants or something and I'm happy as Larry.
|
Brompton>> middle classes, particularly those wobbling towards UKIP.
Err, *working* classes wobbling towards UKIP. Hence the Sun front page: "This was a budget for Sun readers."
>>Most people in ordinary PAYE jobs are far worse off in real terms than they were in 2008/9
Too true. And that's because in 2008/09 we were well ahead of where we ought to have been, thanks to profligate borrowing and spending. It doesn't make any sense to compare with peak, over-inflated values.
A bit like saying that housing prices are now heading back towards the levels they reached in 2007 and it's a good thing. It ain't.
The house-price boom was caused by Labour, the 'being really well off in real terms' was caused by Labour.
And against those over-inflated values Labour just crow about how much worse off people are than they were. But I don't suppose you'll agree with this.
|
Brompton>>Quite a bit of concrete commitment to spend but nothing on how he's going to pay for that
Rubbish. The red book shows on Table 2.1, on page 56 (link below), that the overall impact of the budget is about nil - half a billion, to be precise, which is barely more than that chappy won on the lottery last week.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293759/37630_Budget_2014_Web_Accessible.pdf
|
>> Brompton>>Quite a bit of concrete commitment to spend but nothing on how he's going to
>> pay for that
>>
>> Rubbish. The red book shows on Table 2.1, on page 56 (link below), that the
>> overall impact of the budget is about nil - half a billion, to be precise,
>> which is barely more than that chappy won on the lottery last week.
>>
May be neutral in current and next FY, not least because the pension changes are forecast to increase tax take in short term. The IFS were looking to future and pointing out that without further drastic cuts or tax rises the UK's position risked being untenable.
www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/budget2014/opening_remarks.pdf
|
>>The IFS were looking to future and pointing out that without further drastic cuts or tax rises the UK's position risked being untenable.
The UK's position is already untenable. I have been scoffed at here for this but it's true. There is no way that the UK can "pay down" or sustainably service current debt levels, government debt is still increasing despite austerity measures and record low interest rates.
It's unlikely that there will be a conventional default. The job of the chancellor is to keep the plates spinning until the required degree of inflation (alongside low interest rates) can be allowed to reduce the (cost of the) debt in real terms.
Of course average incomes have fallen in real terms. That's what was supposed to happen.
|
>>I noticed that the Labour party, whilst doing their duty and opposing of course, weren't apparently surprised by anything he said.
How does it work? Does the Government make all the decisions and then let the Opposition know a few days in advance and they get grumpy then, or do they make decisions on a joint basis in committees, where I assume the Government has a majority and so always win whatever they want to do? <<
1. Osborne has his hands quite tied regarding splashing the cash so he wasnt going to do anything dramatic on spending, so Labour would know roughly what he might do.
2. The budget is as secret as the government wants it to be. The pensions changes were a suprise to many and Ed Balls didnt see it coming which was the whole point of keeping it secret, Osborne is very political in all that he does. I imagine that it was kept secret because Steve Webb was behind it and Osborne wanted to unsettle Balls so they jointly had an interest in suprising Labour.
The leaks are all about controlling the narrative in the media and for once it looks like the Coalition got it just right, the coverage has been on the whole very positive which was the point.
3. Labour make notes as it goes along, the budget is quite long so they have plenty of time to frame their response.
Last edited by: ^ on Fri 21 Mar 14 at 16:24
|
How do you type that mark - I can't see one on my keyboard?
Like a quotation mark, but leaning together slightly.
|
>> How do you type that mark - I can't see one on my keyboard?
>> Like a quotation mark, but leaning together slightly.
>>
^^^^ No?
Figure 6 and shift
Last edited by: Duncan on Fri 21 Mar 14 at 16:47
|
>> ^, previously known as?
Stu Northants.
|
|
Thanks, gets confusing at times.
|
It seems that Labour are crying "Foul" on this occasion. Apparently, the form is to give the opposition an embargoed copy of the budget statement a short time before the Chancellor stands up.
Labour allege that this did not happen - but it still does not excuse Mr Miliband's totally inept response, which was full of nothing but tired old Labour slogans.
Grant Shapps, the Conservative Party Chairman, then posted his notorious Twitter advertisement (qv) patronising " hard-working people".
A dishonourable draw in P.R terms I think.
Last edited by: Illegitimi non carborundum on Fri 21 Mar 14 at 18:27
|
Dumb political question - Zero
