Skip to main content

Expect the unexpected

Today is budget day - expect the unexpected! Much of what will be in the budget has already been trailed in the media, but there will most likely be a rabbit of some sort that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pull out of the hat. There is an election next year - indeed there are elections this year too. There will be the waving of order papers and cheering from the coalition back benches.

I will not and cannot speculate on what the rabbit will be. It will be some kind of give-away that will please the bulk of middle Britain and appease disgruntled Tory backbenchers.

There will be lots of talking about how solid the recovery is and what kind of recovery. Unemployment is tumbling and growth is strong - and there are more clear skies. Spring is bursting out all over. People will begin to feel better, and the Scots are more likely than not to vote to stay as part of the United Kingdom. That will make people feel better - won't it?

The coalition - or at least Cameron, Clegg and Osborne - are making plans for life after the election. The Guardian newspaper will no doubt once again find some reason to urge its readers to vote Liberal Democrat - oh yes, I think it will. They will put it together in some neatly considered editorial all about how 'on balance' - nice phrase, neat phrase, useful phrase - the coalition has been a success.  There has been no change of substance in the way we elect our representatives - hardly mentioned now by the Liberal Democrats, neatly forgotten - and no reform of the House of Lords. So we meander on as we did before.

Postscript

So what was the unexpected? It was the fundamental changes in the rules governing what you can and can't do with pension pots.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As