I'm sure you can find someone who will buy it off you, but they won't be giving you more than it's worth.
Although on reflection, I can well imagine they aren't allowed to effectively make a bet on your longevity.
1. Yes you cancel your annuity but only if it's done in the cooling off period (30 days) after the annuity starts. After that's expired, it's done for life and no changes.
2. There is no secondary market - it's paid to the annuitant for as long as they live and then it continues to the spouse (if that option was selected at outset) and/or for the guaranteed period selected.
Petrol is a lot more than it was. The Tories can claim it would have been higher still, but that's as effective as Labour saying we could have come out of the downturn sooner if other policies had been followed. Both well may be true, but no-one really cares: we are where we are.
The price of petrol is at the same level it was at three years ago, perhaps a pence or two cheaper.
I think it was three years ago that Osborne first started cutting fuel duty and cancelling fuel duty increases. While a lot of the change in the fuel price is due to the price of oil, and has bounced around over the last three years, Osborne can reasonably claim that fuel prices rose up until 2011 while he was following the fuel duty plans of the previous Labour government, and since then the fuel price has stabilised following his change of policy.
While it's not a policy I support - I'd rather have taken the fuel duty to cut the deficit - it is one of the better stories that the government has to tell.
I wonder when Dan wrote the meat of that. Last week, I reckon.
Miliband's speech was no worse that countless other LOTO responses to budgets there have been over the years. It will be forgotten by this time tomorrow. Except on here, of course.
The only coverage of his response I've seen was to point out how he didn't even engage and just used his usual stump speech.
It isn't par for the course for the BBC to say 'responding is one of the most difficult jobs in politics, but...'
This isn't going to set any long term narratives, but it's disingenuous to pretend this wasn't a particularly poor effort.
I cannot recall any previous LOTO responses, except the one in which Dave missed Brown's 10 pence tax mess-up, so I can't say whether Ed's effort was particularly poor or not - I have nothing much to compare it against. All I can say is that it was better than Dave's was that year (though I have forgotten the year); and because all I can say is that, it tells me it was probably pretty much the same as countless others that have gone before.
The pension reforms look like the most significant part of this budget although I am a little concerned that many people with small pensions will get lump sums and then look for state support. There is a little of the spend now and worry later mentality in it.
I'm not sure I see the problem - there isn't a means tested pension anymore, so if people splurge then they will just have to cope with the basic state pension the same as someone who had saved nothing.
They will be able to claim housing and other benefits so the net effect will be to reduce the incentive to plan for the future and splurge today .
I'm sure you can find someone who will buy it off you, but they won't be giving you more than it's worth.
Although on reflection, I can well imagine they aren't allowed to effectively make a bet on your longevity.
Sure you can - there's a second hand market for them, (you can also trade life insurance policies, which has been a very profitable for me over the years and I'm glad the Directors did it, even though I personally find it a little creepy). It tends to be illiquid and not great value - but far better than the surrender value you might get from you annuity provider.
Let me make sure I've got this straight though, you can take out 30 grand as a lump sum tax free and you don't have to buy an annuity with the remainder, you could just keep it in the Stockmarket and live off Vodafone/Glaxxo Dividends ?
I think that's correct, except that the tax-free lump sum is (as now) limited to 25% of the total pot, so in practice can be a lot more than £30K.
The £30K figure relates to 'trivial commutation' - if your total pension pot is less than £30K, you'll be able to take 100% of it out as a tax-free lump sum (compared with the current limit of £18K).
[For completeness, it's worth pointing out that you already might have had the option of remaining invested rather than buying an annuity (i.e. 'income drawdown'), but the rules for this are complex and most people wouldn't qualify.]
Wrong.
25% of the trival commutation amount is tax free, the balance is treated as taxable income in the year you receive it. So it all your combined pensions are worth £29k, you can receive £7,250 tax free, the rest would be added to your income in the tax year you receive it.
It's not a matter of qualifying for capped drawdown but it was for flex drawdown. That is all changing though. It is complicated and/or more risky however.
The pension reforms look like the most significant part of this budget although I am a little concerned that many people with small pensions will get lump sums and then look for state support. There is a little of the spend now and worry later mentality in it. But much of the easy money for pension providers that made small pensions such poor investments will now dry up and that is a good thing.
Economically, the steps taken to encourage investment, particulary P2P investment, along with the better focussed and more generous support for export credit might prove more important. It does make you wonder how a country which has not run a trade surplus since 1997 had the least generous and most expensive export credit facilities in the EU. What on earth have our political classes been doing?
As I predicted this morning the response and the lack of quality in it has got some attention and media notice. Some of this is because the election is getting closer and some of it is because it is a repeat of the Balls performance at the Autumn statement. I expect the gap in perceptions of economic competence and preferred Chancellor to grow and it is already worrying for an opposition 14 months away from an election.
I just wish we were not still borrowing so much.
As is widely known on PB I'm hardly the greatest cheer leader of poor Ed Miliband but in all my many years watching the LotO budget response, today has to be one of the most dire it's been my displeasure to endure.
Fortunately Ed Miliband will never enjoy the privilege of a regular audience with Her Majesty which was some succour to reflect upon when he sat down after a desperately awful display of ineptitude.
THe fact that you go on repeating this doesn't make it any more the case.
The 2010 LDs in the marginals make the Tory task daunting.
Forgive me Mike but you're on rocky ground criticizing me for repeating matters.
You've sung this song many times before in thinking "2010 LDs" are the magic bullet for Ed. However they are but one small part of a patchwork of political factors that will determine the occupant of 10 Downing Street.
So here's the big problem I see with the current government plans. It's all well and good for Osborne to talk about surpluses in far off years, but the DEL/AME split is shocking. Truly. In the far off years AME (annually managed expenditure, mandatory spending) makes up 21.6% of GDP down just 0.6% from last year. This is money that is basically benefits and the state pension. On the other side the DEL (departmental expenditure limit) is set to go down from 22.5% to 16.3% of GDP. The productive part of government expenditure is going to decrease drastically over the next few years, I don't see how UK trend growth can be maintained at 2.5% per year if so much money is going to be taken out of the DEL. The AME by the end of the estimated period will be £18.8bn higher and the DEL will be £23.5bn lower. That is with a background of lower unemployment and a significantly lower claimant count. It means the government's triple lock is absolutely bollocksing up the finances and pensions are going to gobble up a huge amount of resources, and the proportion of GDP dedicated to state pensions is going to continue to rise until the next almighty bang and the only area that can be cut will be state pensions and bungs to old people have to stop so we can keep the lights on.
Ros Altmann - not an easy lady to please! - is pleased by the budget:
There are so many good news aspects for pension savings in this Budget that it is hard to know what to pick out. The overall message is, pension savings are going to be more flexible at the point of retirement. You will be able to save more into pensions knowing that there will be less restriction on what you can do with the money.
Yup, this is good news. A really positive set of measures. Pension companies will have to work a bit harder for their money, which is presumably why their shares are crashing currently. The trick now is to live long enough to take advantage!
Was that grudging praise from SO for our George?
Not grudging. I think they are really good moves. We need saving to be as attractive a proposition as possible.
Ros Altmann - not an easy lady to please! - is pleased by the budget:
There are so many good news aspects for pension savings in this Budget that it is hard to know what to pick out. The overall message is, pension savings are going to be more flexible at the point of retirement. You will be able to save more into pensions knowing that there will be less restriction on what you can do with the money.
Yup, this is good news. A really positive set of measures. Pension companies will have to work a bit harder for their money, which is presumably why their shares are crashing currently. The trick now is to live long enough to take advantage!
Was that grudging praise from SO for our George?
Not grudging. I think they are really good moves. We need saving to be as attractive a proposition as possible.
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
This is not financial advice, do your own research, etc etc.
I'm trying to work this out. Basically, if you put 10 grand in and you get relief at 40%, that then becomes 14 grand in your pension.
You would then incur a tax rate of, say 20% on the 14 grand (plus interest, dividends etc), if you took it out in 15 years and told the annuity boys to poke it.
Which means your 10 grand turns into 11,200 net of any appreciation....
As you say, not financial advice, but...
If you put in £10k as a personal contribution, this becomes £12,500 thanks to the basic rate relief given immediately. If you are a 40% taxpayer, you then are due a tax refund (ceteris paribus) of £2,500 in your s/a tax return - meaning you have £12,500 in the pension pot and it's cost you net £7,500.
Taking it out assuming no growth at all, you'd get 25% tax free cash back - £3,125 leaving £9,375 in the pension and which cost you net £4,375.
Somewhere else someone says how the insurers have got crushed today especially Partnership and Just Retirement - but I'm a little puzzled at that as they specialise in enhanced or impaired life annuities and give you a better return for your pension pot than 'bog standard' annuities - I still see them having a role therefore in this new world as they are already giving better rates and the 'income for life' guaranteed benefit will still be right for a lot of people as you are passing your longevity risk to an insurer and not risking running out of money if you live longer than expected.
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
Interesting you mention the cost of fuel...... where would Labour have that costing now?
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
So are you in favour of a massive increase in benefits or the minimum wage to be vastly increased?
I'm sure you can find someone who will buy it off you, but they won't be giving you more than it's worth.
Although on reflection, I can well imagine they aren't allowed to effectively make a bet on your longevity.
Sure you can - there's a second hand market for them, (you can also trade life insurance policies, which has been a very profitable for me over the years and I'm glad the Directors did it, even though I personally find it a little creepy). It tends to be illiquid and not great value - but far better than the surrender value you might get from you annuity provider.
Erm - care to point to the second hand market for retail investors trading their annuities? I've missed it if it exists?
Residential property cannot be held in pensions/SIPPs, Gordon Brown famously 'u' turned on this just before BTL property was to be allowed in.
Defined Benefit schemes in the public sector are not going to let their members transfer out their valued benefits in to the new world opened for Def Con owning pensions and to be honest, rarely would it be suitable to anyway in my humble opinion....
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
Some on here do look outside their own financial circle. Others just wonder why the rest of the UK don't appreciate the fact they are getting richer. Why do you think people have been predicting a polling crossover on here for over twelve months? They can see the financial benefits to them of the coalition, however, thanks to targeted coalition policy,it seems to have passed the majority of the public by.
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
Some on here do look outside their own financial circle. Others just wonder why the rest of the UK don't appreciate the fact they are getting richer. Why do you think people have been predicting a polling crossover on here for over twelve months? They can see the financial benefits to them of the coalition, however, thanks to targeted coalition policy,it seems to have passed the majority of the public by.
Or perhaps some on here are also looking at the quality and credibility, or lack thereof, in the opposition front bench as a supposed Govt in waiting?
The Euro election poll also gives figures for 10/10 certainty to vote: Lab 34 (2 up compared with overall sample), UKIP 26 (3 up), Con 24 (2 down). I'm quoting Anthony Wells, who also has a good analysis of how Budgets affect voting. The answer appears to be "occasionally, and usually negatively", the exception being 2003, when the Government's share jumped, though AW attributes this to the popularity of the Iraq war at that particular point (ironically in view of subsequent events).
Assuming reasonably favourable press coverage, though, I'd expect a modest Con jump that settles in a week or two. This Budget doesn't affect enough people to have a wider impact - nobody aged 18-55 or 70+ is going to spend time studying the annuity changes etc. It's a bit surprising in the last full pre-election Budget that there wasn't anything aimed at a broader range.
I wonder when Dan wrote the meat of that. Last week, I reckon.
Miliband's speech was no worse that countless other LOTO responses to budgets there have been over the years. It will be forgotten by this time tomorrow. Except on here, of course.
The only coverage of his response I've seen was to point out how he didn't even engage and just used his usual stump speech.
It isn't par for the course for the BBC to say 'responding is one of the most difficult jobs in politics, but...'
This isn't going to set any long term narratives, but it's disingenuous to pretend this wasn't a particularly poor effort.
I cannot recall any previous LOTO responses, except the one in which Dave missed Brown's 10 pence tax mess-up, so I can't say whether Ed's effort was particularly poor or not - I have nothing much to compare it against. All I can say is that it was better than Dave's was that year (though I have forgotten the year); and because all I can say is that, it tells me it was probably pretty much the same as countless others that have gone before.
Really?
Here's the 2007 budget response from ten minutes in.It's quite interesting to see this pre-crash response, especially in respect to the growing debt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqVeu1ARH_M
Looks like he actually responds to the points raised in the budget. Today Miliband did not, and instead played hideous class warfare.
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
There are millions of families out there who can and do save.
Normal, ordinary working people who deserve to earn a bit more on their savings; hopefully they will now.
Labour has fled the field of battle on the economy. It has no alternative proposition to offer the voters. So it doesn't even bother. It's leader responds to the Budget with the Bullingdon Club. Pitiful.
It is going to fight an election without telling us of a central pillar of governance. Good luck with that. After Labour's Budget response, I am now inclined to think there is a 20-25% chance of Labour's election campaign exploding spectacularly on the issue of the economy. That is up from 15-20% before today.
The Euro election poll also gives figures for 10/10 certainty to vote: Lab 34 (2 up compared with overall sample), UKIP 26 (3 up), Con 24 (2 down). I'm quoting Anthony Wells, who also has a good analysis of how Budgets affect voting. The answer appears to be "occasionally, and usually negatively", the exception being 2003, when the Government's share jumped, though AW attributes this to the popularity of the Iraq war at that particular point (ironically in view of subsequent events).
Assuming reasonably favourable press coverage, though, I'd expect a modest Con jump that settles in a week or two. This Budget doesn't affect enough people to have a wider impact - nobody aged 18-55 or 70+ is going to spend time studying the annuity changes etc. It's a bit surprising in the last full pre-election Budget that there wasn't anything aimed at a broader range.
ISAs??????????????????????????? The mainstay of normal people starting to make any savings at all...
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
Some on here do look outside their own financial circle. Others just wonder why the rest of the UK don't appreciate the fact they are getting richer. Why do you think people have been predicting a polling crossover on here for over twelve months? They can see the financial benefits to them of the coalition, however, thanks to targeted coalition policy,it seems to have passed the majority of the public by.
You two are bloody idiotic. Some of the poorest people in society depend on savings income and pensions. Such people have been crucified by the lowest interest rates in history, and the tinkering with pensions of the last government. This government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is actually taking action to clean up the mess your lot made, so that people who have worked hard and saved, a modest amount in most cases, aren't ruined to pay for the spendthrifts that Labour encourage.
In a way I feel sorry for Osborne, in that while it is pretty easy to make a complete mess of a budget and see your party take a massive hit, as happened 2 years ago, even if things do very well it probably won't have a massive positive impact, which is the only thing that will save the Tories at this point. After all, politicians understandably promise that their plans will be successful, so when they are, that is good, but you don't get much extra credit for doing a good job, as that's what you told people you would do.
I feel Nick Palmer is probably right to suggest a modest upswing is about all they will get, if that.
This Budget doesn't affect enough people to have a wider impact - nobody aged 18-55 or 70+ is going to spend time studying the annuity changes etc. It's a bit surprising in the last full pre-election Budget that there wasn't anything aimed at a broader range.
That's probably wrong on two counts. Firstly, I'd expect the Mail and other papers widely read by (say) 40 to 55 year olds will be running huge headlines about how positive this budget is for savers and for those trying to build up pensions. The details may be arcane, but the overall message is going to be positive, addressing a real area of concern for lots of people, and giving an immediate boost to those who rely on interest from modest savings to boost their income.
Secondly, it's simply not the case that it's not aimed at a broad range of people. In particular, there is a significant tax-cut for the low-paid, there's the freeze or reduction in duties, there are the childcare breaks, and, perhaps most importantly of all, there's the overall message that the economy is mending.
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
The simple fact is that people in that category are always going to exist, it may be an overtly political calculation but the chancellor is betting that they will always vote Labour and is concentrating government firepower at people who are more likely to vote Tory. Also, the increased personal allowance saves working at least 31 hours per week on the minimum wage £800 per year as compared to 2010. It is people who have no income and people who are on benefits who have been hit by the current government, and my sympathy for people who can work and choose not to is very limited. Please don't bring up lower incapacity benefit spending because that is actually increasing by £1bn per year by the end of the forecast period. People who are unable to work are getting more support and people who are on the minimum wage are getting a 3% hourly rate increase.
While I believe more can be done and the low pay commission should have recommended a larger minimum wage increase, the working poor do not do badly out of this budget. It is the non-working poor who choose not to work who have done badly so far and since they all vote Labour the Chancellor is absolutely right not to focus government firepower on increasing benefits.
Mr Dancer, in case you did not see it the other day, I had a very pleasant dinner with the Squire of the Morris Ring, Robin Springett. A top fellow! He lives here in Dartmouth.
I seem to recall analysis a month or two ago which said 6 times more people have savings as have a mortgage - hence why rises in interest rates might actually be popular.
Of course many people will only have modest savings but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that quite a substantial number of people might like to be able to put more than £5,760 (the current limit) into a cash ISA.
What I liked about that piece was that he took the time and space to qualify that, yes, he is always criticising Ed M and so might be expected to automatically say he did poorly, but that this time he really really means it. Stating that Ed M can perform well in the Commons means he was complimentary and thus the rest is completely unbiased you guys.
The budget a step forward in Osborne's campaign to be next Tory leader.He has bunged rich elderly pensioners,who just happen to be the majority of Tory party members,who make up the voters in the leadership election,in the hope they will look upon him favourably.The other candidates will need to respond to lay out their manifestos. The tax rise on FOBTs' profits from 20-25% hit the bookies' share price today but long-term they can easily manage a 5% hit and it won't stop the harm these machines can do.
I'm unsurprised to hear that a morris dancer is a top fellow. Did you admire his wiffle stick from afar, or did he actually allow you to get your hands on it?
Interesting you mention the cost of fuel...... where would Labour have that costing now?
Same as the government. Are you seriously suggesting a Labour government having miraculously won in 2010 would have stuck to every element of one budget regardless of changing circumstances?
Wow, a budget that actually rewards the virtuous behaviour of saving and having saved. I'm in shock and need to lie down.
You're not alone in that. I hope it does prove very positive, as I'm sick of reading how there is no point to saving, while I put away as much as I can every month, it makes me feel like I'm being an idiot.
Mr. Jessop, didn't see much at all of either Budget or Response. What did Miliband say, exactly?
Basically, as far as I could tell he totally ignored what had just been announced in the budget and instead went out with a pre-prepared and rather pathetic speech about the working people of Britain.
It was not a budget reply: it was pre-programmed rubbish.
You two are bloody idiotic. Some of the poorest people in society depend on savings income and pensions. Such people have been crucified by the lowest interest rates in history, and the tinkering with pensions of the last government. This government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is actually taking action to clean up the mess your lot made, so that people who have worked hard and saved, a modest amount in most cases, aren't ruined to pay for the spendthrifts that Labour encourage.
Yes indeed. You see those people sending their kids to school hungry? The ones on that celebs living on benefits show where the mum goes hungry to let the daughter have the scant bit of food they can afford? The 300% increase in people reliant of food banks (many sent there by Job centre despite Tory denials - ok lies - that such instructions exist). Those people, the so poor they cant feed themselves poor - actually they depend on their savings income as you so selflessly point out.
Or, perhaps, your definition of "poorest" and the poorest's definition of "poorest" are two very different things. Classic PB Tory clueless about the real world and the real life and death struggles that Catholic nominee for the next Pope IDS and his "christian" policies have hit people with.
Wow, a budget that actually rewards the virtuous behaviour of saving and having saved. I'm in shock and need to lie down.
You're not alone in that. I hope it does prove very positive, as I'm sick of reading how there is no point to saving, while I put away as much as I can every month, it makes me feel like I'm being an idiot.
Absolutely. I'm still bitter seventeen years on at Brown's bloody pension dividend tax which screwed me over royally both personally and corporately for er .. Trying to do the right thing by saving for old age. Even from the point of view of the State that makes sense so as not to have cohorts of dependent oldies in future. But that logic was clearly well beyond Brown's grasp.
I nearly crashed the car when Danny Alexander was interviewed and said - I paraphrase - those who've saved should be trusted with what is their own money. Whatever next?
Interesting you mention the cost of fuel...... where would Labour have that costing now?
Same as the government. Are you seriously suggesting a Labour government having miraculously won in 2010 would have stuck to every element of one budget regardless of changing circumstances?
but but but we're always being told on here by the red team how much less borrowing would have been under Darling's plans....
1) the joke about Ed Miliband was 24 carat Gold, I nearly fell off my perch 2) the changes to pensions pots/annuities not required are a vote winner and AFAIAC YIPPEE !!!!!! I think its a stroke of genius 3) Ed's response was ..oh dear.. and that's about as generous as I can call it
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
Everyone has a spare 15 grand a year to stick in a savings account.
All those people in food bank queues or choosing between heating and eating will be dancing in the streets.
ISA reform, cost of living crisis over.
That it doesn't help everyone doesn't mean it is a bad idea to do it, or that anyone who thinks it is helpful must be a Tory who doesn't give a crap about the very poorest. Having even a tiny amount in the bank means the low interests rates have hurt people, where an extra tenner here and there will have a real impact. Feel free to beat up the government if you think the very poorest have not been helped enough, but that doesn't mean thinking this move is a good idea makes someone heartless or ignorant.
The PB Conservatives declare the Budget a super soaraway success.
And someone actually posted Dan Hodges' response to Ed's response. That was @TGOHF, who I'll let off because he posted a nice football betting tip earlier :-)
Another thing worth noting about the budget is how confident George Osborne looks and acts these days. The turning of the economy must've been a massive, personal relief for him and he does act as if a weight is lifted off his shoulders.
People like confidence. And over the past four years he appears to have been as comfortable working with Lib Dem colleagues as anybody; a sign of maturity.
Perhaps it is time to back him as a future Tory leader.
This Budget doesn't affect enough people to have a wider impact - nobody aged 18-55 or 70+ is going to spend time studying the annuity changes etc. It's a bit surprising in the last full pre-election Budget that there wasn't anything aimed at a broader range.
That's probably wrong on two counts. Firstly, I'd expect the Mail and other papers widely read by (say) 40 to 55 year olds will be running huge headlines about how positive this budget is for savers and for those trying to build up pensions. The details may be arcane, but the overall message is going to be positive, addressing a real area of concern for lots of people, and giving an immediate boost to those who rely on interest from modest savings to boost their income.
Secondly, it's simply not the case that it's not aimed at a broad range of people. In particular, there is a significant tax-cut for the low-paid, there's the freeze or reduction in duties, there are the childcare breaks, and, perhaps most importantly of all, there's the overall message that the economy is mending.
It is clear from that post that like his ex-colleagues in Parliament today, Nick has no idea about these pension reforms and what it means for those still building pensions ... when they do work it out, the fact the earliest you can take personal pensions is set to rise from 55 to 57 in 2028 will be where they may gain some traction I'd suggest but not that much...
Seems like the budget was a bit of a fail if people would rather talk about EdM.
That would only be true if the budget were a disaster, when apparently its middling at worst as far as these things can be judged. The two actions are complimentary, so people highlighting Ed M's response does not make the budget a fail (From the reporting it seemed he dug deep from the Labour cliche bucket for the opening at the least, but I don't feel qualified to judge if that makes it bad), as I feel people can tell the difference between a focus on one's opponent in a ludicrous manner and when its from a position of strength (or at least, not from a position of weakness). That's why labour are not going around saying George Osborne was terrible and omnishambly and the like, because it would not be credible, instead they have to actually just say 'He's wrong about x, or too late y' etc. Conversely, if the budget was a genuine fail, Tories would be a lot more defensive rather than wasting energy making cheap attacks on Ed M's performance, because in a genuine fail, they would need to focus more on rebuilding the damage. There would be some attacks on Ed M of course, but in a failure, merely attacking the opponent would not undo the damage. Just a feeling.
Labour has fled the field of battle on the economy. It has no alternative proposition to offer the voters. So it doesn't even bother. It's leader responds to the Budget with the Bullingdon Club. Pitiful.
It is going to fight an election without telling us of a central pillar of governance. Good luck with that. After Labour's Budget response, I am now inclined to think there is a 20-25% chance of Labour's election campaign exploding spectacularly on the issue of the economy. That is up from 15-20% before today.
It's hard to see where Miliband goes from here, he is so dire it begs credibility
The PB Conservatives declare the Budget a super soaraway success.
And someone actually posted Dan Hodges' response to Ed's response. That was @TGOHF, who I'll let off because he posted a nice football betting tip earlier :-)
In all fairness, Dan Hodges pieces are often funniest when Ed M genuinely has or may have had a bad day, as since his standard tone is highly anti-Ed M, he has to get more creative and put effort in to try and make it seem like something really bad this time, not like the usual bad stuff. That this time he basically prefaced his opinion acknowledging he always criticises the man but that essentially that doesn't mean we should ignore him this time made it very amusing.
'. It's a bit surprising in the last full pre-election Budget that there wasn't anything aimed at a broader range.'
Yes,only 24 million people with ISA's ,so very much a minor sport
Guess the same also applies to the fuel duty & council tax freeze,not to mention the small group that will benefit from the increase in personal allowance.
The PB Conservatives declare the Budget a super soaraway success.
And someone actually posted Dan Hodges' response to Ed's response. That was @TGOHF, who I'll let off because he posted a nice football betting tip earlier :-)
We could all look at the Lab Maj & Tory Maj price moves on Betfair too for some fun as well? A quick thread perhaps - the initial reaction of the market/punters?
Seems like the budget was a bit of a fail if people would rather talk about EdM.
It's more a case of the same people who always say that Ed is crap saying that Ed is crap again. It's a subject they enjoy raising and they will do it at every opportunity. In the real world, of course, almost no-one watched the speech and almost everyone who did will forget what Ed said by tomorrow, just as every other LOTO's response to a budget speech has been forgotten within 24 hours since time immemorial
It says something of the pitiful understanding that Labour has of economics that they are surprised that if you offer people free food at food banks they are liable to use it.
It says something of the pitiful understanding that Labour has of economics that they are surprised that if you offer people free food at food banks they are liable to use it.
Tsk ....
That's right, people can just turn up to food banks and get food. You are clearly at the cutting edge of life on the poverty line Mr W!
Labour has fled the field of battle on the economy. It has no alternative proposition to offer the voters. So it doesn't even bother. It's leader responds to the Budget with the Bullingdon Club. Pitiful.
It is going to fight an election without telling us of a central pillar of governance. Good luck with that. After Labour's Budget response, I am now inclined to think there is a 20-25% chance of Labour's election campaign exploding spectacularly on the issue of the economy. That is up from 15-20% before today.
It's hard to see where Miliband goes from here, he is so dire it begs credibility
He need do little to limp over the finish line. Can Osborne really get so lucky that the economy picks up enough that people really feel it, but not enough that the public don't forget how fragile the recovery is and so risk letting Labour back in, on top of all the other factors which help lead to a Labour win?
I suspect the Tories will be unlucky, in that people really starting to feel the recovery might lead to a small bump for the Tories, but that it will also make people think any risk they may feel Ed M becoming PM would have on the economy is lessened, as he isn't likely to be that bad anyway, given how much these things are dependent on global factors. Ed M has somehow managed to avoid being tainted with anything from the last government, a remarkable achievement, so any such argument would also be less effective that maube it could be.
Reading some of the responses to things like the ISA limits, PB Tories just don't get it. There are millions of families out there struggling to feed themselves, put fuel in their cars, keep a roof over their head. The collapse of interest rates hasn't hut their saving plan because they can't save.
Everyone has a spare 15 grand a year to stick in a savings account.
All those people in food bank queues or choosing between heating and eating will be dancing in the streets.
ISA reform, cost of living crisis over.
You appear to be assuming that everyone is either a starving food banker or a Tory toff lighting cigars with burning £50s, and ignore the millions of hard working savers somewhere in between. Many of them will be reading tonight's headlines and thinking 'at last, there's something for us'.
The PB Conservatives declare the Budget a super soaraway success.
And someone actually posted Dan Hodges' response to Ed's response. That was @TGOHF, who I'll let off because he posted a nice football betting tip earlier :-)
Labour has fled the field of battle on the economy. It has no alternative proposition to offer the voters. So it doesn't even bother. It's leader responds to the Budget with the Bullingdon Club. Pitiful.
It is going to fight an election without telling us of a central pillar of governance. Good luck with that. After Labour's Budget response, I am now inclined to think there is a 20-25% chance of Labour's election campaign exploding spectacularly on the issue of the economy. That is up from 15-20% before today.
It's hard to see where Miliband goes from here, he is so dire it begs credibility
Labour are very poor regicides and will stick with Miliband until after he loses the general election.
Let us not forget this is the party that stuck with Michael Foot in the great march to electoral catastrophe with the singular flourish at the denouement of the longest suicide note in political history.
The PB Conservatives declare the Budget a super soaraway success.
And someone actually posted Dan Hodges' response to Ed's response. That was @TGOHF, who I'll let off because he posted a nice football betting tip earlier :-)
And your response is ........
I believe the Labour line on the Budget is whether Eric Pickles was asleep or not.
You appear to be assuming that everyone is either a starving food banker or a Tory toff lighting cigars with burning £50s, and ignore the millions of hard working savers somewhere in between. Many of them will be reading tonight's headlines and thinking 'at last, there's something for us'.
Quite right, and Labour's response is IMHO a major blunder. What Labour are basically saying is that 'anyone who benefits from this budget is very rich'. Lots of people who don't consider themselves anything like rich benefit from it - and they are going to think 'Hang on, that means Labour want to target ordinary people like me'.
As repeating that same joke ad infinitum is acceptable on here (cf Arse, Basil), allow me:
Dan Hodges tempering his earlier posts about Ed being crap in order to magnify just how crap Ed was today is... [drum roll]... a disaster for Ed Miliband!
Yes indeed. You see those people sending their kids to school hungry? The ones on that celebs living on benefits show where the mum goes hungry to let the daughter have the scant bit of food they can afford? The 300% increase in people reliant of food banks (many sent there by Job centre despite Tory denials - ok lies - that such instructions exist). Those people, the so poor they cant feed themselves poor - actually they depend on their savings income as you so selflessly point out.
Or, perhaps, your definition of "poorest" and the poorest's definition of "poorest" are two very different things. Classic PB Tory clueless about the real world and the real life and death struggles that Catholic nominee for the next Pope IDS and his "christian" policies have hit people with.
I can't believe that a Labour supporter of all people does not recognise that pensioners have some of the lowest incomes, and that they have been completely stuffed by Brown's actions and the financial crash. Particularly because I've heard many Labour politicians going on about pensioner poverty over the last few years.
We're not talking about the rich people, just ordinary people who saved all their lives expecting to get a modest return when they retired. Interest rates have been stuck for years at the lowest level they have ever been in this country. Many pensioners have lost a lot of income due to that, and had to cut back on spending, and they are affected by the "cost of living crisis" as much as anybody, more so if they are the sole occupier of a home.
So even modest changes to allow a bit more flexibility, a bit more tax relief, and to save a bit more in the first places are all to be welcomed, as they will be by people who as I said and repeat are "some of the poorest people in society".
As repeating that same joke ad infinitum is acceptable on here (cf Arse, Basil), allow me:
Dan Hodges tempering his earlier posts about Ed being crap in order to magnify just how crap Ed was today is... [drum roll]... a disaster for Ed Miliband!
It says something of the pitiful understanding that Labour has of economics that they are surprised that if you offer people free food at food banks they are liable to use it.
Tsk ....
That's right, people can just turn up to food banks and get food. You are clearly at the cutting edge of life on the poverty line Mr W!
I never said that.
However the economics of the issue are very straightforward whatever hoops may or may not be in place.
Nice to hear that Labour put out their strongest economic spokesperson on the R4 news at 7pm... Yvette Cooper. She got the only soundbite of the bulletin - and didn't sound as if she believed what she was saying. Where is Ed Balls?
'Same as the government. Are you seriously suggesting a Labour government having miraculously won in 2010 would have stuck to every element of one budget regardless of changing circumstances? '
So in which case the growth in the economy in 2010 would have also taken a hit if Labour had won,as this growth was purely based on Brown's pre-election spending splurge with zero cuts.
Seems like the budget was a bit of a fail if people would rather talk about EdM.
It's more a case of the same people who always say that Ed is crap saying that Ed is crap again. It's a subject they enjoy raising and they will do it at every opportunity. In the real world, of course, almost no-one watched the speech and almost everyone who did will forget what Ed said by tomorrow, just as every other LOTO's response to a budget speech has been forgotten within 24 hours since time immemorial
I agree with that. The public at large will be none the wiser at Miliband's half-soaked response. But as I said earlier, it will be worrying the shrewder Labour MPs that their top-team appears to have no economic strategy yet. In fact, their strategy is incoherent (see the babble about 24 Tory taxes, as if there is a possible future with no tax rises and no cuts).
At some point Ed Miliband will need to offer a hope-filled, realistic economic alternative. Without one he will be eviscerated by the media in the run-up to the GE. Now is around the time when he should be laying out the broad pillars of that alternative agenda, indicating what they will do differently (cut less? tax more? build more? if so where? it can't just be bank bonuses, surely?). He isn't showing a willingness to do that yet, and it will affect morale within his party. He is either a) making a tactical judgement, unwilling to give anything away (dangerous, because the coalition can dominate the most salient issue out there), b) unsure of what to do (I can't really believe that), or c) most likely, too worried that the realities of what he will have to do in office are completely unpalatable to his supporters and backers.
I've said for a long time that as GE2015 approaches Ed Miliband is going to be interrogated over his economic plans just as Osborne and Cameron were. It's gonna hurt if he isn't 100% prepared.
It says something of the pitiful understanding that Labour has of economics that they are surprised that if you offer people free food at food banks they are liable to use it.
Tsk ....
Quite. I do wonder though how I managed to spend 2 and a half years unemployed yet didn't end up needing the use of a foodbank. I suppose not smoking certainly helped budgetwise. Though JSA didn't adequately burnish my booze and strippers fund. Damn those evil tories!
But on topic, they may be onto a winner. My mother's coming up to 60 soon, her options as far as her pension pot are concerned have become a lot more interesting. I think she was secretly tory anyway but they've certainly targeted the grey vote well today. And if turnout becomes a factor in 2015 then Osborne might possibly have hit on a winning formula.
The PB Conservatives declare the Budget a super soaraway success.
And someone actually posted Dan Hodges' response to Ed's response. That was @TGOHF, who I'll let off because he posted a nice football betting tip earlier :-)
And your response is ........
Pretty middling Budget. But I thought the omnishambles was actually a fairly good budget so I wouldn't rely on my opinion! Still think there may be a kicker in there somewhere but we shall see in the morning if anyone finds one.
Seems like the budget was a bit of a fail if people would rather talk about EdM.
It's more a case of the same people who always say that Ed is crap saying that Ed is crap again. It's a subject they enjoy raising and they will do it at every opportunity. In the real world, of course, almost no-one watched the speech and almost everyone who did will forget what Ed said by tomorrow, just as every other LOTO's response to a budget speech has been forgotten within 24 hours since time immemorial
That is mostly true, although there are a few of the not normal suspects saying Ed did not do well, but it is also true that 'no-one watched it/cares about it' is the stock response to the stock attack, and since all sides engage in that game, they cannot very well complain about people doing it. It's like football players generally not showing too much irritation when some opposition player milks a foul and lies prone for ages when they are clearly fine - since they all do it, they have to pay the other the courtesy of treating the theatre as though it were genuine. So one cannot pretend that 'Ed is crap' would not have been trotted out regardless, but neither can we pretend that the 'It doesn't matter' would not have been trotted out regardless whenever he has been crap.
Again, both points are true - about hardly anyone seeing it and most forgetting it - but if we follow the logic that that means any criticism of what he did say by the usual crowd is meaningless, every single speech and comment in the Commons or otherwise would mean nothing at all, because almost no-one sees or remembers them. I do pay attention to politics more than most people - I'm writing this comment for example - and I cannot remember the last speech by either Cameron or Miliband, or even when they occurred.
It all adds to the narrative though, and so while not significant on its own unless a truly remarkable failure - like the Omnishambles - events of today and whether Ed was crap or not are still worthy of note. It took several years for the Tories to gain a perceptable aura of incompetence that led to people who did not vote Labour to take note of it, and it took many a small event to contribute to that.
Quite right, and Labour's response is IMHO a major blunder. What Labour are basically saying is that 'anyone who benefits from this budget is very rich'. Lots of people who don't consider themselves anything like rich benefit from it - and they are going to think 'Hang on, that means Labour want to target ordinary people like me'.
The Labour line seems to be anybody whose net worth is greater than zero is rich. There a lot of people who have money in the bank, not vast riches but enough to make a difference to their incomes (or at least it used to), who would not even consider themselves well-off never mind rich, in fact a lot of them would say they were just scraping by.
The PB Conservatives declare the Budget a super soaraway success.
And someone actually posted Dan Hodges' response to Ed's response. That was @TGOHF, who I'll let off because he posted a nice football betting tip earlier :-)
And your response is ........
Pretty middling Budget. But I thought the omnishambles was actually a fairly good budget so I wouldn't rely on my opinion!.
I honestly don't recall thinking the budget itself was bad, but the government's handling of attacks on petty little crap like the 'pasty tax' or whatever that was, meant that even if the delivery of the speech was good or the content good, it made the Tories look like a bunch of incompetents afterwards, which was highly damaging.
As repeating that same joke ad infinitum is acceptable on here (cf Arse, Basil), allow me:
Dan Hodges tempering his earlier posts about Ed being crap in order to magnify just how crap Ed was today is... [drum roll]... a disaster for Ed Miliband!
Quite right, and Labour's response is IMHO a major blunder. What Labour are basically saying is that 'anyone who benefits from this budget is very rich'. Lots of people who don't consider themselves anything like rich benefit from it - and they are going to think 'Hang on, that means Labour want to target ordinary people like me'.
The Labour line seems to be anybody whose net worth is greater than zero is rich. There a lot of people who have money in the bank, not vast riches but enough to make a difference to their incomes (or at least it used to), who would not even consider themselves well-off never mind rich, in fact a lot of them would say they were just scraping by.
Ah, but if you cannot solve all poverty, or think you are dealing with it in another way (truth or not on that time will tell) then clearly any other idea is terrible. I've found an example of someone/something this move does not help/actively hurts, therefore anyone who supports the idea is evil.
It says something of the pitiful understanding that Labour has of economics that they are surprised that if you offer people free food at food banks they are liable to use it.
Tsk ....
Quite. I do wonder though how I managed to spend 2 and a half years unemployed yet didn't end up needing the use of a foodbank. I suppose not smoking certainly helped budgetwise. Though JSA didn't adequately burnish my booze and strippers fund. Damn those evil tories!
But on topic, they may be onto a winner. My mother's coming up to 60 soon, her options as far as her pension pot are concerned have become a lot more interesting. I think she was secretly tory anyway but they've certainly targeted the grey vote well today. And if turnout becomes a factor in 2015 then Osborne might possibly have hit on a winning formula.
So, either the people that do use food banks are (1) scrounging freeloaders who are not as good as you; or (2) people that unlike you when you were on the dole are unable to make ends meet with the income that they have. Given the hoops people have to jump through to get referred to food banks, I tend towards (2), but I am sure it gives many people comfort to veer towards (1).
You appear to be assuming that everyone is either a starving food banker or a Tory toff lighting cigars with burning £50s, and ignore the millions of hard working savers somewhere in between. Many of them will be reading tonight's headlines and thinking 'at last, there's something for us'.
Quite right, and Labour's response is IMHO a major blunder. What Labour are basically saying is that 'anyone who benefits from this budget is very rich'. Lots of people who don't consider themselves anything like rich benefit from it - and they are going to think 'Hang on, that means Labour want to target ordinary people like me'.
Not sure thats the message, but i am sure that many PB Tories such as your good self don't get that because you and those in your contact circle and doing OK that most people are the same. And all that is needed politically is for the t ch to be seen to get significantly more benefits than the majority to continue the established Tories out of touch the few not the many narrative which began with the omnishambles budget 2 years ago. Politics is rarely about hard facts and figures - Brown announced the same cash repeatedly (Osborne too), the government keep being told off for statistics which have more basis in IDS's beliefs than fact. What sticks are perceptions.
And like it or not there is this out of touch perception the Tories can't shake off. A budget that mainly benefits the well off as starving children get paraded on sport relief isn't going to change this much.
Seems like the budget was a bit of a fail if people would rather talk about EdM.
It's more a case of the same people who always say that Ed is crap saying that Ed is crap again. It's a subject they enjoy raising and they will do it at every opportunity. In the real world, of course, almost no-one watched the speech and almost everyone who did will forget what Ed said by tomorrow, just as every other LOTO's response to a budget speech has been forgotten within 24 hours since time immemorial
That is mostly true, although there are a few of the not normal suspects saying Ed did not do well, but it is also true that 'no-one watched it/cares about it' is the stock response to the stock attack, and since all sides engage in that game, they cannot very well complain about people doing it. It's like football players generally not showing too much irritation when some opposition player milks a foul and lies prone for ages when they are clearly fine - since they all do it, they have to pay the other the courtesy of treating the theatre as though it were genuine. So one cannot pretend that 'Ed is crap' would not have been trotted out regardless, but neither can we pretend that the 'It doesn't matter' would not have been trotted out regardless whenever he has been crap.
Again, both points are true - about hardly anyone seeing it and most forgetting it - but if we follow the logic that that means any criticism of what he did say by the usual crowd is meaningless, every single speech and comment in the Commons or otherwise would mean nothing at all, because almost no-one sees or remembers them. I do pay attention to politics more than most people - I'm writing this comment for example - and I cannot remember the last speech by either Cameron or Miliband, or even when they occurred.
It all adds to the narrative though, and so while not significant on its own unless a truly remarkable failure - like the Omnishambles - events of today and whether Ed was crap or not are still worthy of note. It took several years for the Tories to gain a perceptable aura of incompetence that led to people who did not vote Labour to take note of it, and it took many a small event to contribute to that.
Reading that post was like riding a logic rollercoaster @kle4
Mr. kle4, my favourite criticism of the £2,000 childcare costs was that it was unfair to stay-at-home mums.
What about people without kids?! They're already funding healthcare and schools. And if you can't afford to raise your kids what makes you think other taxpayers can?
As repeating that same joke ad infinitum is acceptable on here (cf Arse, Basil), allow me:
Dan Hodges tempering his earlier posts about Ed being crap in order to magnify just how crap Ed was today is... [drum roll]... a disaster for Ed Miliband!
How very dare you Madam.
I'm especially fond of Basil whose regular and usually nocturnal activities bring joy to the wider PB fellowship.
As for my ARSE (capitals please) it's an old favourite on PB and whose emissions have brought a little mirth and more importantly great profit to its admirers. You'd be wise to become an admirer like many before you.
Mr. kle4, my favourite criticism of the £2,000 childcare costs was that it was unfair to stay-at-home mums.
What about people without kids?! They're already funding healthcare and schools. And if you can't afford to raise your kids what makes you think other taxpayers can?
They are also failing to breed the people who will pay for you when you are old. Not sure where this idea that parents are takers not givers came from - it's dangerously wrong.
You appear to be assuming that everyone is either a starving food banker or a Tory toff lighting cigars with burning £50s, and ignore the millions of hard working savers somewhere in between. Many of them will be reading tonight's headlines and thinking 'at last, there's something for us'.
Quite right, and Labour's response is IMHO a major blunder. What Labour are basically saying is that 'anyone who benefits from this budget is very rich'. Lots of people who don't consider themselves anything like rich benefit from it - and they are going to think 'Hang on, that means Labour want to target ordinary people like me'.
Not sure thats the message, but i am sure that many PB Tories such as your good self don't get that because you and those in your contact circle and doing OK that most people are the same. And all that is needed politically is for the t ch to be seen to get significantly more benefits than the majority to continue the established Tories out of touch the few not the many narrative which began with the omnishambles budget 2 years ago. Politics is rarely about hard facts and figures - Brown announced the same cash repeatedly (Osborne too), the government keep being told off for statistics which have more basis in IDS's beliefs than fact. What sticks are perceptions.
And like it or not there is this out of touch perception the Tories can't shake off. A budget that mainly benefits the well off as starving children get paraded on sport relief isn't going to change this much.
I object to the idea that if some disagrees with that interpretation they must be a 'PB Tory' or doing fine and most people they know are doing fine so everyone must be. Would it help if I trotted out a personal experience of and current knowledge of people 'in my circle' who are not doing fine, and that I have never voted Tory, but that I still thought the budget had some good news for people like me and people I know? It shouldn't be necessary to do so just to combat such an assumption.
I happen to agree the perception is the most important thing, and that Labour should win as a result (among other factors), but I would say that while the overall perception is that the Tories cannot or will not help with the very poor (fairly or otherwise they have that label firmly attached), the perception of this budget does not at this stage appear to be as negatively anti-Tory as you appear to think it will be, and not everyone who thinks that is a heartless Tory rolling in their bags of savings money.
It says something of the pitiful understanding that Labour has of economics that they are surprised that if you offer people free food at food banks they are liable to use it.
Tsk ....
Quite. I do wonder though how I managed to spend 2 and a half years unemployed yet didn't end up needing the use of a foodbank. I suppose not smoking certainly helped budgetwise. Though JSA didn't adequately burnish my booze and strippers fund. Damn those evil tories!
But on topic, they may be onto a winner. My mother's coming up to 60 soon, her options as far as her pension pot are concerned have become a lot more interesting. I think she was secretly tory anyway but they've certainly targeted the grey vote well today. And if turnout becomes a factor in 2015 then Osborne might possibly have hit on a winning formula.
Apologies if you have noted previously but hopefully you are in employment now.
As for you mother the pensions/ISA changes give your mother back control over her own money. It's politically smart but also an excellent liberalization of the market.
Seems like the budget was a bit of a fail if people would rather talk about EdM.
It's more a case of the same people who always say that Ed is crap saying that Ed is crap again. It's a subject they enjoy raising and they will do it at every opportunity. In the real world, of course, almost no-one watched the speech and almost everyone who did will forget what Ed said by tomorrow, just as every other LOTO's response to a budget speech has been forgotten within 24 hours since time immemorial
That is mostly true, although there are a few of the not normal suspects saying Ed did not do well, but it is also true that 'no-one watched it/cares about it' is the stock response to the stock attack, and since all sides engage in that game, they cannot very well complain about people doing it. It's like football players generally not showing too much irritation when some opposition player milks a foul and lies prone for ages when they are clearly fine - since they all do it, they have to pay the other the courtesy of treating the theatre as though it were genuine. So one cannot pretend that 'Ed is crap' would not have been trotted out regardless, but neither can we pretend that the 'It doesn't matter' would not have been trotted out regardless whenever he has been crap.
Again, both points are true - about hardly anyone seeing it and most forgetting it - but if we follow the logic that that means any criticism of what he did say by the usual crowd is meaningless, every single speech and comment in the Commons or otherwise would mean nothing at all, because almost no-one sees or remembers them. I do pay attention to politics more than most people - I'm writing this comment for example - and I cannot remember the last speech by either Cameron or Miliband, or even when they occurred.
It all adds to the narrative though, and so while not significant on its own unless a truly remarkable failure - like the Omnishambles - events of today and whether Ed was crap or not are still worthy of note. It took several years for the Tories to gain a perceptable aura of incompetence that led to people who did not vote Labour to take note of it, and it took many a small event to contribute to that.
Reading that post was like riding a logic rollercoaster @kle4
Thanks?
I like to let a point flow as it occurs to me. It doesn't always lead to tonal or logical consistency I will admit.
You appear to be assuming that everyone is either a starving food banker or a Tory toff lighting cigars with burning £50s, and ignore the millions of hard working savers somewhere in between. Many of them will be reading tonight's headlines and thinking 'at last, there's something for us'.
Quite right, and Labour's response is IMHO a major blunder. What Labour are basically saying is that 'anyone who benefits from this budget is very rich'. Lots of people who don't consider themselves anything like rich benefit from it - and they are going to think 'Hang on, that means Labour want to target ordinary people like me'.
Not sure thats the message, but i am sure that many PB Tories such as your good self don't get that because you and those in your contact circle and doing OK that most people are the same. And all that is needed politically is for the t ch to be seen to get significantly more benefits than the majority to continue the established Tories out of touch the few not the many narrative which began with the omnishambles budget 2 years ago. Politics is rarely about hard facts and figures - Brown announced the same cash repeatedly (Osborne too), the government keep being told off for statistics which have more basis in IDS's beliefs than fact. What sticks are perceptions.
And like it or not there is this out of touch perception the Tories can't shake off. A budget that mainly benefits the well off as starving children get paraded on sport relief isn't going to change this much.
I agree with Richard, there will be loads of middle ground people, floating voters if you like, who will now be of the opinion that Labour class them as rich when they are far from it.
Out of interest, as you keep mentioning the rich what exactly is your definition of rich, because it's coming across as someone who has a fiver left over at the end if the month.
Comments
2. There is no secondary market - it's paid to the annuitant for as long as they live and then it continues to the spouse (if that option was selected at outset) and/or for the guaranteed period selected.
Con +1
Lab nc
LD +1
UKIP -3
I think it was three years ago that Osborne first started cutting fuel duty and cancelling fuel duty increases. While a lot of the change in the fuel price is due to the price of oil, and has bounced around over the last three years, Osborne can reasonably claim that fuel prices rose up until 2011 while he was following the fuel duty plans of the previous Labour government, and since then the fuel price has stabilised following his change of policy.
While it's not a policy I support - I'd rather have taken the fuel duty to cut the deficit - it is one of the better stories that the government has to tell.
Anthony Wells has done a piece on it as well
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8670
25% of the trival commutation amount is tax free, the balance is treated as taxable income in the year you receive it. So it all your combined pensions are worth £29k, you can receive £7,250 tax free, the rest would be added to your income in the tax year you receive it.
It's not a matter of qualifying for capped drawdown but it was for flex drawdown. That is all changing though. It is complicated and/or more risky however.
You've sung this song many times before in thinking "2010 LDs" are the magic bullet for Ed. However they are but one small part of a patchwork of political factors that will determine the occupant of 10 Downing Street.
Taking it out assuming no growth at all, you'd get 25% tax free cash back - £3,125 leaving £9,375 in the pension and which cost you net £4,375.
Somewhere else someone says how the insurers have got crushed today especially Partnership and Just Retirement - but I'm a little puzzled at that as they specialise in enhanced or impaired life annuities and give you a better return for your pension pot than 'bog standard' annuities - I still see them having a role therefore in this new world as they are already giving better rates and the 'income for life' guaranteed benefit will still be right for a lot of people as you are passing your longevity risk to an insurer and not risking running out of money if you live longer than expected.
Defined Benefit schemes in the public sector are not going to let their members transfer out their valued benefits in to the new world opened for Def Con owning pensions and to be honest, rarely would it be suitable to anyway in my humble opinion....
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/australia-post-race-analysis.html
Assuming reasonably favourable press coverage, though, I'd expect a modest Con jump that settles in a week or two. This Budget doesn't affect enough people to have a wider impact - nobody aged 18-55 or 70+ is going to spend time studying the annuity changes etc. It's a bit surprising in the last full pre-election Budget that there wasn't anything aimed at a broader range.
Here's the 2007 budget response from ten minutes in.It's quite interesting to see this pre-crash response, especially in respect to the growing debt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqVeu1ARH_M
Looks like he actually responds to the points raised in the budget. Today Miliband did not, and instead played hideous class warfare.
You make a fair point, but what would labour do to ease the 'cost of living crisis'?
The coalition are freezing petrol duty and hiking tax free allowances. Plus keeping inflation under two per cent. And increasing the minimum wage.
What's labour's solution? taking money from bankers and throwing it at the young unemployed??
How's that going to ease the cost of living crisis??
Normal, ordinary working people who deserve to earn a bit more on their savings; hopefully they will now.
It is going to fight an election without telling us of a central pillar of governance. Good luck with that. After Labour's Budget response, I am now inclined to think there is a 20-25% chance of Labour's election campaign exploding spectacularly on the issue of the economy. That is up from 15-20% before today.
Lab 27 (+14)
Con 17 (-9)
UKIP 17 (+4)
LibDem 5 (-6)
SNP 2 (nc)
Green 1 (-1)
Plaid 1 (nc)
Dunno where AW gets his seats from...
Btw, does anyone seriously think Labour are going to double their 2009 vote?
I feel Nick Palmer is probably right to suggest a modest upswing is about all they will get, if that.
Secondly, it's simply not the case that it's not aimed at a broad range of people. In particular, there is a significant tax-cut for the low-paid, there's the freeze or reduction in duties, there are the childcare breaks, and, perhaps most importantly of all, there's the overall message that the economy is mending.
While I believe more can be done and the low pay commission should have recommended a larger minimum wage increase, the working poor do not do badly out of this budget. It is the non-working poor who choose not to work who have done badly so far and since they all vote Labour the Chancellor is absolutely right not to focus government firepower on increasing benefits.
I seem to recall analysis a month or two ago which said 6 times more people have savings as have a mortgage - hence why rises in interest rates might actually be popular.
Of course many people will only have modest savings but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that quite a substantial number of people might like to be able to put more than £5,760 (the current limit) into a cash ISA.
The tax rise on FOBTs' profits from 20-25% hit the bookies' share price today but long-term they can easily manage a 5% hit and it won't stop the harm these machines can do.
I'm unsurprised to hear that a morris dancer is a top fellow. Did you admire his wiffle stick from afar, or did he actually allow you to get your hands on it?
It was not a budget reply: it was pre-programmed rubbish.
This is the BBC's short excerpt:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26649153
Lab maj 2.76
Hung 2.54
Con maj 4.1
Or, perhaps, your definition of "poorest" and the poorest's definition of "poorest" are two very different things. Classic PB Tory clueless about the real world and the real life and death struggles that Catholic nominee for the next Pope IDS and his "christian" policies have hit people with.
I nearly crashed the car when Danny Alexander was interviewed and said - I paraphrase - those who've saved should be trusted with what is their own money. Whatever next?
Off to lie down again.
1) the joke about Ed Miliband was 24 carat Gold, I nearly fell off my perch
2) the changes to pensions pots/annuities not required are a vote winner and AFAIAC YIPPEE !!!!!! I think its a stroke of genius
3) Ed's response was ..oh dear.. and that's about as generous as I can call it
The PB Conservatives declare the Budget a super soaraway success.
And someone actually posted Dan Hodges' response to Ed's response. That was @TGOHF, who I'll let off because he posted a nice football betting tip earlier :-)
People like confidence. And over the past four years he appears to have been as comfortable working with Lib Dem colleagues as anybody; a sign of maturity.
Perhaps it is time to back him as a future Tory leader.
'. It's a bit surprising in the last full pre-election Budget that there wasn't anything aimed at a broader range.'
Yes,only 24 million people with ISA's ,so very much a minor sport
Guess the same also applies to the fuel duty & council tax freeze,not to mention the small group that will benefit from the increase in personal allowance.
Tsk ....
I suspect the Tories will be unlucky, in that people really starting to feel the recovery might lead to a small bump for the Tories, but that it will also make people think any risk they may feel Ed M becoming PM would have on the economy is lessened, as he isn't likely to be that bad anyway, given how much these things are dependent on global factors. Ed M has somehow managed to avoid being tainted with anything from the last government, a remarkable achievement, so any such argument would also be less effective that maube it could be.
The last time a political event provoked this sort of reaction was THAT speech about IHT...
How did that pan out for the reds?
Let us not forget this is the party that stuck with Michael Foot in the great march to electoral catastrophe with the singular flourish at the denouement of the longest suicide note in political history.
As repeating that same joke ad infinitum is acceptable on here (cf Arse, Basil), allow me:
Dan Hodges tempering his earlier posts about Ed being crap in order to magnify just how crap Ed was today is... [drum roll]... a disaster for Ed Miliband!
We're not talking about the rich people, just ordinary people who saved all their lives expecting to get a modest return when they retired. Interest rates have been stuck for years at the lowest level they have ever been in this country. Many pensioners have lost a lot of income due to that, and had to cut back on spending, and they are affected by the "cost of living crisis" as much as anybody, more so if they are the sole occupier of a home.
So even modest changes to allow a bit more flexibility, a bit more tax relief, and to save a bit more in the first places are all to be welcomed, as they will be by people who as I said and repeat are "some of the poorest people in society".
However the economics of the issue are very straightforward whatever hoops may or may not be in place.
A free worthwhile service will be taken up.
'Same as the government. Are you seriously suggesting a Labour government having miraculously won in 2010 would have stuck to every element of one budget regardless of changing circumstances? '
So in which case the growth in the economy in 2010 would have also taken a hit if Labour had won,as this growth was purely based on Brown's pre-election spending splurge with zero cuts.
At some point Ed Miliband will need to offer a hope-filled, realistic economic alternative. Without one he will be eviscerated by the media in the run-up to the GE. Now is around the time when he should be laying out the broad pillars of that alternative agenda, indicating what they will do differently (cut less? tax more? build more? if so where? it can't just be bank bonuses, surely?). He isn't showing a willingness to do that yet, and it will affect morale within his party. He is either a) making a tactical judgement, unwilling to give anything away (dangerous, because the coalition can dominate the most salient issue out there), b) unsure of what to do (I can't really believe that), or c) most likely, too worried that the realities of what he will have to do in office are completely unpalatable to his supporters and backers.
I've said for a long time that as GE2015 approaches Ed Miliband is going to be interrogated over his economic plans just as Osborne and Cameron were. It's gonna hurt if he isn't 100% prepared.
But on topic, they may be onto a winner. My mother's coming up to 60 soon, her options as far as her pension pot are concerned have become a lot more interesting. I think she was secretly tory anyway but they've certainly targeted the grey vote well today. And if turnout becomes a factor in 2015 then Osborne might possibly have hit on a winning formula.
Prescriptions up to £8+ might resonate...
Again, both points are true - about hardly anyone seeing it and most forgetting it - but if we follow the logic that that means any criticism of what he did say by the usual crowd is meaningless, every single speech and comment in the Commons or otherwise would mean nothing at all, because almost no-one sees or remembers them. I do pay attention to politics more than most people - I'm writing this comment for example - and I cannot remember the last speech by either Cameron or Miliband, or even when they occurred.
It all adds to the narrative though, and so while not significant on its own unless a truly remarkable failure - like the Omnishambles - events of today and whether Ed was crap or not are still worthy of note. It took several years for the Tories to gain a perceptable aura of incompetence that led to people who did not vote Labour to take note of it, and it took many a small event to contribute to that.
And like it or not there is this out of touch perception the Tories can't shake off. A budget that mainly benefits the well off as starving children get paraded on sport relief isn't going to change this much.
What about people without kids?! They're already funding healthcare and schools. And if you can't afford to raise your kids what makes you think other taxpayers can?
I'm especially fond of Basil whose regular and usually nocturnal activities bring joy to the wider PB fellowship.
As for my ARSE (capitals please) it's an old favourite on PB and whose emissions have brought a little mirth and more importantly great profit to its admirers. You'd be wise to become an admirer like many before you.
Dougie Alexander got stung on this on QT. When someone asked him about stagnant private sector wages he said 'well bankers are getting pay rises.'
And there it was for all to see. For labour, private sector = hugely wealthy bankers.
I happen to agree the perception is the most important thing, and that Labour should win as a result (among other factors), but I would say that while the overall perception is that the Tories cannot or will not help with the very poor (fairly or otherwise they have that label firmly attached), the perception of this budget does not at this stage appear to be as negatively anti-Tory as you appear to think it will be, and not everyone who thinks that is a heartless Tory rolling in their bags of savings money.
As for you mother the pensions/ISA changes give your mother back control over her own money. It's politically smart but also an excellent liberalization of the market.
I like to let a point flow as it occurs to me. It doesn't always lead to tonal or logical consistency I will admit.
Out of interest, as you keep mentioning the rich what exactly is your definition of rich, because it's coming across as someone who has a fiver left over at the end if the month.