Donate SIGN UP

The Budget

Avatar Image
dave50 | 17:54 Wed 18th Mar 2015 | News
22 Answers
Seems ok to me. At least he didnt go on about 'investing' in schools 'n' hospitals like Brown used to always do.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would have preferred some money for the nhs. Never mind though all the alcoholics are looked after!
It was always going to be something and nothing.

He can't give anything away or there will be howls of election bribery and if he gives nothing labour will lambast him for not building a great big economy (for them to trash)
what has been given to alcoholics ?
//I would have preferred some money for the nhs//

It does not need money, Brown tried that.

it needs serious reorganization to make it fit for the next 50 years and a drastic reduction in overpaid non medcal management and administration.
Hopefully it will be his last one .....
Alcohol duties cut.

Won't bother alcoholics though, they will buy at any price. Rather shows a lack of understanding of alcoholism.
//Hopefully it will be his last one .....//

Are you honestly looking forward to a budget from Balls?
Well I am surprised they didn't cut the price of cigarettes to win over the smokers as well as the boozers!
they didn't cut the price of fags.................... disgraceful !!!!!
I always thought that investing schools and hospitals was rather a good idea.

Isn't that one of the main reasons why Labour won the landslide victory in 1997 ?


Seems rather contradictory to me.
2 months before an election what else was to be expected. Just a PR stunt. Money off booze because alcohol is totally acceptable. No money off cigs because smoking is apparently the crime of the century.
//No changes to tobacco and gambling taxes, with tobacco duties set to rise by 2% above inflation, equivalent to 16p on a packet of 20 cigarettes.//

This should have preceded my post above. Don't know what happened there.
Jesus... The nhs DOES need money! X
"I always thought that investing schools and hospitals was rather a good idea."

Certainly is, Mikey.

What is not a good idea is hiring armies of consultants (non-medical, that is), bean counters and scribes who contribute nothing to the well being of patients, and to take on scores of "teaching assistants" (and I've seen up to seven in one class) whose sole function seems to be to provide interpretation services for non-English speaking children.

That's the sort of thing youngmaf is referring to when he suggests that it is not money which the NHS is short of.
This is the type of thing to expect from a Labour Chancellor.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118319/Budget-2012-How-lost-9BILLION-Gordon-Brown-selling-gold-cheap.html

/// George Osborne said at the time: 'Gordon Brown's decision to sell off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds. It was one of the worst economic judgements ever made by a chancellor. ///

Question Author
Why would anyone who works and pays taxes vote Labour. Why is increasing public spending always a good thing?
The NHS needs to cut out swathes of middle managers and get its IT systems working, if Treliske down here is anything to go by. There's massive scope for cuts in the NHS administration and use that to beef up the front-line medical and social services - and close the deficit gap. The sooner the better.
And it's all about efficiency of their spends, not the total amount.....

1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The Budget

Answer Question >>