The Budget

[Onelife]

If what we are hearing is true most of us are going to be less well off come Wednesday, so in preparation I’ve already instructed the estate manager to cull five of the estate deer in order that the workers don’t go hungry over the coming months…how nice is that?

Well, I have two minds of thought about how the cuts are going to affect us…On the one hand the £50bn fiscal claw back might not be a bad idea as it is clear that we have no other means of kick starting our economy…schools need building/repairing, more prison building, railways/transport are failing to deliver, investment in infrastructure, technology, science’s and education are being under funded, so the harsh reality is that if you want it, we are going to have to find the money to pay for it.
The positives are that it will create more jobs, which in turn means more taxes to the exchequer, a more positive outlook for inward/outward investment and I hope a change in attitudes from that of a country that has lost its way to a more progressive thinking country.

The negatives are that you don’t basically borrow up to £50bn without having to pay way more of it back, the other negative is that the labour party don’t have a good record of investing money into well thought out programs (I’m sure Foxy can find many more)

Perhaps I am one of the fortunate ones in that I won’t be going without irrespective of what the budget brings, however, I do think a radical approach in direction has been a long way coming and the only way we have in putting the great back into Great Briton… Bite the bullet and give her fiscal plan a go is my take on things.

What’s yours?

[david63]

The negatives are that you don’t basically borrow up to £50bn without having to pay way more of it back

That always assumes that you are able to borrow that much, or any at all. This country is mortgaged up to the hilt and there is very little room to borrow any more - unless you move the goalposts and redefine what is borrowed.

I notice that they are already playing the sympathy card by saying that the increase in employer's national insurance in going to be ring fenced for the NHS. It would make more sense to get the NHS sorted out and cut the vast waste before pouring more money into the pit!

This Labour government is no different to any previous Labour Government - borrow, spend, borrow, give public sector pay rises, borrow, take money away from pensioners, borrow, give away reserves, borrow - and so it goes on. A prudent fiscal policy would be to reduce the national debt thereby freeing up more money from paying less interest and reducing the need to borrow.

[Stephen]

They’re all the same. Give you a pound in one hand…..if your lucky, then take ten+ with the other.

I’ll be sending the hat round after the budget. As per usual, cash no cheques please.

[Onelife]

The negatives are that you don’t basically borrow up to £50bn without having to pay way more of it back

That always assumes that you are able to borrow that much, or any at all. This country is mortgaged up to the hilt and there is very little room to borrow any more - unless you move the goalposts and redefine what is borrowed.

I notice that they are already playing the sympathy card by saying that the increase in employer's national insurance in going to be ring fenced for the NHS. It would make more sense to get the NHS sorted out and cut the vast waste before pouring more money into the pit!

This Labour government is no different to any previous Labour Government - borrow, spend, borrow, give public sector pay rises, borrow, take money away from pensioners, borrow, give away reserves, borrow - and so it goes on. A prudent fiscal policy would be to reduce the national debt thereby freeing up more money from paying less interest and reducing the need to borrow.

That’s what I was alluding to…to create economic stability you have to invest in it. The time for just juggling figures to make minimal gains has been tried and failed…it’s time to face the reality of living within the countries means and not keep closing our eyes to it.

I don’t know if this is the way forward but what I do know is that we couldn’t carry on the way it was going.

[towny44]

The only way to provide more money to the NHS and all the other public services, is to grow the economy, but hitting employers with more NI costs will have exactly the opposite effect. So I cannot see that this will have the desired growth that Sir Kier is hoping for.
It will be interesting to see how the city and the B of E react to this budget, hopefully they have leaked enough bad news already to avoid a run on the pound that Liz Truss's budget produced.

[CaroleF]

Throwing more money at the NHS has never worked and will never work. Until a complete rethink about what we expect of the NHS is undertaken it will never change. When the NHS was first introduced it was never thought that it would be expected to do all that it does today. All the amazing new drugs, operations etc. have meant that it can't cope. There will have to be, I believe, some sort of insurance introduced where payments will have to be considered, according to means maybe, like the systems in other countries. No longer can people expect that everything will be free paid for just by the payments people make at the moment. I think that until the different political parties get together and work out a new system together nothing will change. No political party is going to introduce change on their own and risk being accused of breaking up the NHS.

On the subject of the budget I've never known a budget that has been so talked about and that so many people, especially older people are really worried about. I'm sure this is not what many Labour voters expected.

[Stephen]

It’s all very well throwing money at the hospital side of the NHS, it’s the sharp GP end that needs sorting out first.

[Ray Scully]

Well I hope all those seniors who have yet to recognised that they represent a sizeable part of the cost to the NHS,
Based on their income have to make a realistic contribution to the cost via N.I.
YES I know "we have been paying into it all our lives"
But not at a rate to support the levels of care expected today.

[towny44]

Well I hope all those seniors who have yet to recognised that they represent a sizeable part of the cost to the NHS,
Based on their income have to make a realistic contribution to the cost via N.I.
YES I know "we have been paying into it all our lives"
But not at a rate to support the levels of care expected today.

For socialists your suggestions would appear to be eminently sensible, but when those who have made fiscally responsible choices throughout their lives are being asked to pay when those who have been less responsible get the same treatment for nothing, that is when it appears to be rather unfair.

[Ray Scully]

Well I hope all those seniors who have yet to recognised that they represent a sizeable part of the cost to the NHS,
Based on their income have to make a realistic contribution to the cost via N.I.
YES I know "we have been paying into it all our lives"
But not at a rate to support the levels of care expected today.

For socialists your suggestions would appear to be eminently sensible, but when those who have made fiscally responsible choices throughout their lives are being asked to pay when those who have been less responsible get the same treatment for nothing, that is when it appears to be rather unfair.

Many of my generation (IMHO the golden generation) found a house purchase an easy first step, and then onto capitalising on the increases in its value
Many have enjoyed secure employment with defined benefits pensions. Their children enjoyed free University education.
Now whilst this is not all of my generation. Some have not been so fortunate, not necessarily being less responsible, but possibly not as fortunate.

[towny44]

Well I hope all those seniors who have yet to recognised that they represent a sizeable part of the cost to the NHS,
Based on their income have to make a realistic contribution to the cost via N.I.
YES I know "we have been paying into it all our lives"
But not at a rate to support the levels of care expected today.

For socialists your suggestions would appear to be eminently sensible, but when those who have made fiscally responsible choices throughout their lives are being asked to pay when those who have been less responsible get the same treatment for nothing, that is when it appears to be rather unfair.

Many of my generation (IMHO the golden generation) found a house purchase an easy first step, and then onto capitalising on the increases in its value
Many have enjoyed secure employment with defined benefits pensions. Their children enjoyed free University education.
Now whilst this is not all of my generation. Some have not been so fortunate, not necessarily being less responsible, but possibly not as fortunate.

I am socialist enough to accept that those on lower incomes should pay less income tax than those earning more. Unfortunately many low earners take very little responsibility for their old age, because they know the state will provide for them.
Which is why Carole's proposal of a funded contributory system to help finance the NHS is appealing. But whilst contributions should be subject to means testing it should never result in someone not paying something into the scheme.
It will be interesting to see whether this "soak the rich budget", does in fact plug the £22bn black hole, and more importantly whether it does produce growth in the economy. I fear it will do neither.

[Onelife]

That’s the way I see things Ray, I think fiscal responsibility for a large percentage of those on low/living wage don’t have the luxury of putting a bit away for the rainy days, they are however the backbone/workforce which allows others to have better choices.

[Onelife]

It’s all very well throwing money at the hospital side of the NHS, it’s the sharp GP end that needs sorting out first.

I was reading an article (can’t remember title or where I read it) which was saying that GP surgeries with Pharmacies within are raking in the money as they get paid on the number of prescriptions they prescribe. The article also said that doctors were more likely to under prescribe amounts of medication in order to boost the prescribing ratio.

I also think the GP service needs looking at as many are now run along the lines of GP partnerships, most of which are businesses run by GP’s. The the NHS as I understand things buys into these services which in turn affords GP’s a very lucrative private practice income.

[david63]

The main problem with GPs is that the basis of their pay is on the number of patients on their books and it should, in my opinion, be bases on the number of patients seen.

[Onelife]

The main problem with GPs is that the basis of their pay is on the number of patients on their books and it should, in my opinion, be bases on the number of patients seen.

It would certainly cut down on the waiting times to see a doctor…. that being said, I had cause to make an appointment today and having discussed my symptoms with the receptionist she offered me an appointment with a doctor tomorrow…I have declined as I prefer to see the Doctor who knows my condition…unfurtunatly that means waiting two weeks. Coming back to your suggestion it could be a case that one or two doctors within the practice take the bigger slice of the cake especially if patients like me are prepared to wait for the doctor they trust.

It could however work if the practice as a whole were paid on how many patients are seen.

[Onelife]

The main problem with GPs is that the basis of their pay is on the number of patients on their books and it should, in my opinion, be bases on the number of patients seen.

It would certainly cut down on the waiting times to see a doctor…. that being said, I had cause to make an appointment today and having discussed my symptoms with the receptionist she offered me an appointment with a doctor tomorrow…I have declined as I prefer to see the Doctor who knows my condition…unfurtunatly that means waiting two weeks. Coming back to your suggestion it could be a case that one or two doctors within the practice take the bigger slice of the cake especially if patients like me are prepared to wait for the doctor they trust.

It could however work if the practice as a whole were paid on how many patients are seen.

Apologies David, I've just reread your post and my reply is what you are actually suggesting.

[oldbluefox]

It would help if surgeries employed doctors instead of the cheaper physician associates. There are young doctors coming out of training who want to be GPs but cannot get a job. It seems a terrible waste. Should there not be a ratio of doctors to the number of patients in the practice?

[Mervyn and Trish]

Maybe GPs should offer memory loss clinics. Then, as we discuss how the Labour government should sort out their problems, we'd remember that it was the disastrous renegotiation of the GP contract by the last Labour government that caused those problems in the first place!

[towny44]

Maybe GPs should offer memory loss clinics. Then, as we discuss how the Labour government should sort out their problems, we'd remember that it was the disastrous renegotiation of the GP contract by the last Labour government that caused those problems in the first place!

Didn't Patricia Hewitt later admit she had made a b****r of the negotiations?

[david63]

Another budget leak which is old news anyway. Money for 40,000 new appointments a week - great news as that will get the waiting lists down. Just hold on a minute - where are the staff going to come from to do all these appointments? Let me guess - they are going to contract them out to the private hospitals at twice the cost of doing them in house!

[Stephen]

It would help if surgeries employed doctors instead of the cheaper physician associates. There are young doctors coming out of training who want to be GPs but cannot get a job. It seems a terrible waste. Should there not be a ratio of doctors to the number of patients in the practice?

Agree Foxy. Half of them don’t know they’re ar*e from their elbow. And if they prescribe you then have to wait sometimes hours before an actual doctor gets round to signing it off, which isn’t much help when you need to get started on your medication asap.

[Stephen]

I’m glad we’re not supposed to be sexist. Perhaps someone should mention that to Rachel Reeves since she was banging on about her being the first woman chancellor …..etc etc

[oldbluefox]

Says that every time she stands up. It's clearly very important to her but personally I'm more concerned by what they do than whether they are man, woman or whatever sexual variation they may be. It's not what you are which is important but what you do.

[barney]

I’m pretty impressed with the Budget.
Billions for growth.
Bring it on.

[Onelife]

That was a lesson in how to slaughter 121 conservative MPs in one sitting. I thought Racheal Reeves delivered an epic Budget which was both convincing and believable…the hardest part though is the delivery. Whilst I will no doubt standalone I for the first time in many years believe we have a chancellor who knows what she is doing.