Ten points about the Spending Review

JR

Fraser - on number 5. The reforms are being paid for by £2bn saving made by time-limiting contributory Employment and Support Allowance (for most claimant) to 1 year from no time limit. Given IB to ESA migration will take place at the same time this is essentially the end of universal disability employment benefits.

Or put another the end of disability employment benefits for the middle classes (until they've used up their savings).

Pettros

FN is so pro-coalition it is untrue!
Am new to this site so I suspect everybody already knows this.

Paddy Briggs

"Alan Johnson really was lacking in any ideas. There now seems to be a vacuum where Labour’s economic policy used to be."

Did you really expect that (a) Johnson (personally) would have had "new ideas". That's asking rather a lot. And (b) that Labour would peak in the immediate aftermath of the review announcements?

AJ is a pragmatic and competent man. But the economic heavyweights - Balls, Cooper, and Ed M himself aren't going to leave him floundering. Collective leadership should challenge Dave and George alright!

ollie

Labour have made the Coaltion's job far, far easier by having Miliband and Johnson at the helm - two of the most inadequate politicians I've ever seen.

Cameron crushed the Lisping One today, and the absurd Alan Johnson was shown up for what he is - a village idiot.

Nick

A painless 8-9 billion per annum is available by say goodbye to the EU and remaining the Free trade area.

Private Schultz

Good piece!

Last para - couched?

John B Sheffield

Some of the parts of the Spending Review hurt and especially those on lower money than the rest, but I just Hope that if we do turn around this is remembered!

Alan Johnson is so weak and never a shadow chancellor, also like yesterday in PMQ Ed Milliband is so weak, he stumbles through questions and tends to repeat himself three times on any statement or question, completely boring and packs no Punch!

Fox in a box

Paddy Briggs -

"AJ is a pragmatic and competent man. But the economic heavyweights - Balls, Cooper, and Ed M himself aren't going to leave him floundering. Collective leadership should challenge Dave and George alright!"

Please tell me you are in fact being ironic, and that I'm being foolish to think that you actually mean what you say here.

Neil Wilson

If there's a vacuum where Labour's economic policy used to be, then give me the vacuum. The previous incarnation was a disaster.

However because they are all refugees from the last government they cannot radically change direction. And that is what they need to do. Labour needs to get back to its economic roots

rumpo

Nasty little trust-fund toffs sniggering as they heap misery on those worse off.
Bring back the guillotine!

Matthew

These cuts may 'only' be 3%, but the trouble is they will heavily impact the type of people who typically would vote Tory.
People have short memories and come 2015, the effect of these cuts will be in full flow.
Osborne may be a clever political operator, but that does not make him smart. Unless there's an economic miracle that means he can repel some of the planned measures, I don't see the Tories getting back in. The electorate will have forgotten who was blame for all this and the Tories will spend another decade out of power after proving they are, indeed, the 'nasty party'.

London Calling

In the end…this is just the beginning, and how it will all pan out only time will tell. In between Osborne’s throaty commentary and regular glasses of water, it was a bit like the conveyer belt of prizes rolled out on the Generation Game, the cuddly toy for Child Benefit…the electric toaster for the elderly…a first aid box for the NHS…an Airfix Model for defence…and finally dusty bin for those on benefits. The grand prize however and fittingly went to overseas aid, although the grumbles over this will rumble with many, especially with the Charity starts at home brigade…

All in all…I’m waiting for the small print to be released in the format of 20 x Times New Roman… I already know the outcome of over projected welfare cuts compared to the reality on the streets, as well as housing cuts and rising unemployment and my guess is Cinderella’s shoe simply wont fit Osborne’s size ten when reality returns that blank cheque…

Fraser…the sums don’t add up because the Coalition are having to make a tent out of a pigs ear, and even with all these cuts, the reduction in debt is miniscule compared to unforeseen events and a future debt increases…its more than a mess it’s a political nightmare and I congratulate the coalition for sincerely attempting to make at least some amends, however mistakes will have consequences and I am in no doubt in time they will be exposed, with the homeless and the unemployed bearing the greatest weight of this recession.

Nonkey1

Off the point, perhaps, but someone in Nelson's position must surely get to grips with how to use reflexive pronouns.

"[M]easures that strike the likes of myself as economically unwise."...is awful.

Try "people like me".

Frank P

Nobody knows how this will unfold but we will find out as time passes. Osborne's analysis was confident and authoritative; his balls dropped today, let's hope his voice drops an octave accordingly, tomorrow.
Boy George can now be promoted to Young George. Pity his side kick is that weird lofty liberal bespectacled Scot whose stare and heavy breathing is a bit unnerving, but if he keeps his mouth shut and sticks to the calculator he'll do for now.

Postman Prat, on the other hand, waffled and tried to play the class-war trumpet to the tune of his erstwhile Union oppos. That much quoted 'twinkle' in his eye looked as brittle as snide tomfoolery: failed to hide his lack of knowledge and confidence about his new brief. A washout!

The Lisping Lefty Labour Leader looked positively panic stricken at one stage as PP rambled on. The face of Mrs Bollocks to his left on the Opposition Front Bench was a picture; complete misery in the knowledge that she or her thughubby should have been responding to the Chancellors dissertation, rather than PP. Stand by for the infighting ere long. In the meantime try to hold on to your wallets.

Perhaps the Conalition will survive after all. All-in-all it's a definite improvement on the last lot and it will have to do until we can restore conservatism proper.

lescam

Watching Ed Miliband's abysmal performance today, I remembered reading that when Gordon Brown was PM, he had Lord Mandelson coaching him in advance of PMQs. Maybe Ed Mili should ask Mandelson what he charges per hour for this service! Although as Mandelson backed David Mili for leader, maybe not. Ed Mil could certainly do with some lessons on how to get the better of Cameron, who performed faultlessly today.

Dimoto

It is more instructive to show expenditure aggregates, less debt interest.
Then the squeeze becomes much clearer.

TGF UKIP

Fraser, eighteen months ago when you and other teenage scribblers as well as many CHers were gleefully dancing on Gordon's anticipated grave and forecasting unemployment rising to 3m and probably 3.5m, a few of us, Susan Hill, as I recall, was certainly another, told you that was all London bollocks. Indeed, I repeatedly posted that unemployment would barely reach 2m if at all.

Our views were based on what was happening in the real world at that time where builders were busy, the car trade was short of used stock and estate agents were selling houses and complaining of having so few to sell. Those situations are now well and truly reversed. Builders are desperately looking for work, the used car trade is as dead as dodo and estate agents are being overwhelmed by selling instructions with prices dropping fast and buyers either offering only daft prices or holding off because they are unsure of where the bottom is going to be.

The danger for the UK economy and for the Tory Party is now massive as your mates polish their "progressive" credentials by spurning tax cuts to offset the impact of spending reductions. Cutting spending and reducing taxes is the conservative way but clearly the last thing you and your mates wish to be considered is that deeply unfashionable thing in your world, conservative.

As for the notion that monetary measures are going to offset the fiscal depredation, forget it. These are not normal times for banks and there is not the slightest sign credit for SMEs is going to get any easier. Indeed, in the present government fostered climate, there is every prospect that business lending managers will become even more risk averse.

There is now a very real danger over the next few months, especially if the forecast severe Winter materialises, of a significant spurt in unemployment which will feed on itself and rapidly overtake the 2009 levels. 2011 growth of 2%+ will then be nowt more than a dream.

The Budget and today's measures may have enabled you and his other mates to Big Up Boy George, but their recklessness may well have sowed the seeds of his and Dave's destruction.

David Ossitt

Fraser Nelson writes.

“but the result is a cuts package that has surprisingly broad popular support.”

Yes; despite the fact that the BBC has for months, pushed every argument against at every opportunity, just think, if the BBC were on side, the support would be huge and not at all surprising.

David Ossitt

Matthew.

“Tories will spend another decade out of power after proving they are, indeed, the 'nasty party.”

Twaddle, baloney, socialist drivel.

Mike Thomas

A good afternoon to be a Conservative, Cameron mugged Milliband with a masterclass of debate, the slogans and the reminder of where Ed has come from politically silenced their frontbench.

Then Osborne shows why he could be a truly great Chancellor.

The cuts are radical, it shows they have listened, it also shot Labour's fox stone cold dead. Postman Pat delivered nothing of any note.

Ian Walker

On point (3), BBC Radio 4's news at six had managed to calculate this as 19% cuts over 4 years.

From the website, it looks like they've taken a mean average of the various departmental cuts. Mathematical nonsense of course, but luckily all the kids have citizenship lessons instead of maths, so they won't notice.

Tariq

I wonder if Osborne has read Ronald Reagan's diaries? Here's the entry from February 26, 1981:

Margaret Thatcher arrived. We had a private meeting in Oval office. She is as firm as ever re—the Soviets and for reduction of govt. Expressed regret that she tried to reduce govt. spending a step at a time & was defeated in each attempt. Said she should have done it our way—an entire package—all or nothing.

Matthew

David Ossitt: nice touch on the insults, what a valuable contribution you've made!

For your information, I'm talking about public perception. Which you'd appreciate if you read what I wrote. And I'm quite right: people do forget and they will forget who is to blame for this.

Kindly take your petty insults elsewhere. Oh, and by the way, I've never voted Labour in my life.

Barbara

I'm sorry but many comments here are flawed. The poor have taken the flack, those who cannot fight back themselves but who will be left on the sidelines, and that's where the danger will remain. Allowed to fester on unemployment with no hope or job, trouble will eventually ensue, as it did in the 80's. Work yes if its available, but in most areas its not. Osbourne is creating a new lower class who will vent their feelings in any way they can. Its immoral the way they've cut but they will regret it if they start rioting on the streets with less policing to police areas. We are not in it together, but the poor are in it together they've no choice. Those who shout with joy may regret their rejoicing. Yet we allow foreign aid at some 13 billion to continue while our own suffer. This is madness. We are no longer a benevolant country to feed others, when we cannot or won't fund our own. Greed is the winner today, riots and unemployment is the prize for tomorrow. Cuts yes, but sensible cuts that is beared by all not just the few.

AndyinBrum

Ahhh the old cut stuff but not my stuff.

Foreign aid is to help trade and prevent conflict, coz it's cheaper than having to invade or lob bombs

David Ossitt

Matthew

“David Ossitt: nice touch on the insults, what a valuable contribution you've made”

Did your PHD in sarcasm did you?

I agreed with all of your post, until I read the ‘nasty’ bit.

lescam

Barbara; "Yet we allow foreign aid at some 13 billion to continue while our own suffer. This is madness."

Couldn't agree more. Whoever thought this one up, of ringfencing, and then INCREASING the foreign aid budget, need their heads banging together. At a time like this, Britain needs literally every penny, we cannot afford to chuck money away on foreign dictators' wives shopping bills.

daniel maris

Well this is a very, very stupid approach to our economic problems. It amounts to a huge, huge gamble. Does Little Lord Fontelroy know what he's doing? I don't think so.

There's no way our inefficient class-bound bonus-guzzling private sector could rise to the challenge of creating a million jobs to replace the million that are about to disappear.

We end up with the absurdity of NHS expenditure being protected while local government is singled out for savage cuts. There will be anarchy in local government over the next four years as strikes become endemic and as people protest over library closures, swimming pool closures, reduced waste collection services, closure of old people's homes etc etc.

It might appear clever in Westminster but it will prove deadly out in the country.

Nick

JR,

Why should the Middle class pay any tax if they get nothing in return?

Why indeed, should the middle class be collectively punished for something that isn't their fault?

I don't see politicians being punished. Perhaps that's why Ken Clarke isn't going to jail people.

I don't see any move on the investment front. Labour invested hundreds of billions. What about all the people who received that investment money? When are they paying it back and what rate of interest?

Nick

[PS I know the answer on the investment question]

Jabba the Cat

Surely the meeting of the words Labour and economic policy in one sentence constitutes the definitive oxymoron, with additional emphasis on the moron part?

Minnie Ovens

Not being economically sophisticated I am becoming confused at all the rhetoric on this budget.I
It seemed to me that the prime consideration was to lower debt levels yet I see that these will rise by £63 billion (+35%) by 2015.
I've no understanding why we seem to have Overseas aid increasing by 37% to £9.4 billion when we have decided to wipe out all our Harrier jets and not have aircraft on board our two costly Aircraft Carriers.
In fact much of the muscle in the Defence budget, which has been emasculated over the past years in spite of fighting two inconsequential wars, could be saved if we were not to pay benefits to all the (important to our economy! New Labour)) immigrants who have languished upon support since arriving here (£8.5 billion).
I note that Commerce and Industry still have to wear the shackles of bloated tax and regulation. In fact it has increased with this Government added an energy stealth tax of £1.0 billion.
Do Government hope that the economy will pick up with a 20 VAT shackle hanging around everyone's neck?
Lastly why a 51% cut in Housing?
The two major areas of concern to the Lower Middle before the election were Housing and Immigration. This government has ignored them.
Meanwhile our friends in Brussels are preparing a monster increase in fees from the UK approaching £1.0 trillion per annum.
I get the impression that this is a budget by someone who wishes to appear tough but isn't and has little understanding of how society works.
Welfare and the NHS (£280 billion) the two most bloated and incompetent sectors of our Welfare State have had cuts of well under 2.0%.
Again if someone can reassure me that this is the ideal budget for recovery, I will listen avidly but it seems all the priorities are wrong.It seems the cuts which were really necessary have not been deep enough and tax incentives, both consumer and commercial, ignored.
What will we feel about this budget in one years time?

TrevorsDen

Funny old world - Matthew says the cuts will affect Tory voters; but others say that they will affect the 'poor' - presumably meaning non-tory voters.

Once again we see prejudice taking over. Perhaps these cuts are just affecting everybody, young old rich poor married single able disabled homeowners renters travelling sedentary car-owning train-travelling working unemployed .

People in the middle and both ends are being squeezed because there is no money. We had a massive deficit last year and the year before and this year and next year ...

Wake up everybody ... there is no one with a magic wand coming along to help you; none of this can be wished away.

Down to basics.
Why? Why are we facing them? On TV last night someone said these were the biggest cuts since the 1970s - when the IMF came in.
Sounds familiar? Once again these is a big painful mess to be cleaned up after a labour disaster. Stop moaning about the details and remember the fundamentals. - Don't Vote Labour - 'you know it makes sense'.

Oh UKIP do grow up. Danger to the economy? Why then do we have reports of Poles flocking back into Britain? Given your moniker I would have thought that was the base of your rant - but it would contradict your other prejudice.

David

The whole of this Spending Review discussion and argumnet is cloud cuckoo. It is based on a premise based on the belief in a falsehood. Throughout the political classes and activists this false premise is accept and then endless time is spent discussing it.Remedies are sought for a problem which need not exist if the falsehood was not believed by all.The falsehood is that the State should be doing so much; half of what it does is completely unnecessary interference in the normal conduct of human lives. To perform all this unnecessary interference requires the State to raise large sums by either taxation or borrowing (eventually taxation). The hot air generated and the bureaucracy involved then put the need for money up to an even higher number. Once you assume that you must put angels on a pinhead an argument will ensue about how many and is the number involved fair . What a waste of human endeavour. fair is concept useful in sport but inapplicable to the complex nature of the human condition. Most arguments in the world arise because both sides accept as true a falsehood and then try to solve it by conflicting methods. The conflict reflects a wish to establish ones power by being proved right over how best to solve an untruth, while still believing the untruth.