Welcome to our Budget 2016 live blog.
In the last few minutes, I’ve come over all feverish and sicky. There’s every possibility that that is not related to the imminence of a Tory budget, but we can’t be entirely sure.
I’m on the sofa with my Official Hiding Behind Pillow and a cup of tea, survival essentials for any Osborne speech.
During the coalition years, it was more of a rollercoaster. One minute I’d be punching the air at every Liberal Democrat policy clearly enacted. Then despair as we wondered why the hell we’d agreed to THAT. Now it’s just a straightforward hurtle to the bottom. We know that Tories will protect the rich at the expense of the poor. Raising the tax threshold, our Lib Dem policy, won’t help those stuck with cuts to Universal Credit and a four year benefit freeze.
The thing is, after Labour’s failures on tax credit and Universal Credit cuts, can we trust the to speak up for the poorest?
Let’s wait and see.
Apparently we are on course to achieve a budget surplus. Why would we do that when we don’t have enough houses for the poorest people to live in?
Osborne bragging about lower taxes on businesses. I presume he means Starbucks, Facebook, Google and Amazon who basically get to pay what they like.
Osborne’s choice to run unnecessary surplus is why he has to make more & more cuts Universal credit takes money away from people #Budget2016
— Lib Dem Press Office (@LibDemPress) March 16, 2016
Osborne says £3.5bn of efficiency savings, which basically means £3.5bn of cuts but he won't say where they're coming from #Budget2016
— Lib Dem Press Office (@LibDemPress) March 16, 2016
Irony just ate itself:
Osborne talks about how uncertainty about Britain's future in Europe can damage economy… his Gov has created that uncertainty #Budget2016
— Lib Dem Press Office (@LibDemPress) March 16, 2016
There is no need for Osborne to keep cutting once the deficit is cleared; it is a bad choice that will cut services. #Budget2016
— Lib Dem Press Office (@LibDemPress) March 16, 2016
It’s not all bad.
Increasing threshold on Business Rates is something @LibDems have been calling for – it is so important that small businesses get support
— Lib Dem Press Office (@LibDemPress) March 16, 2016
But guess who was responsible…
It was @DannyAlexander and @LibDems who set up the review of business rates in Gov – vital small businesses get support #Budget2016
— Lib Dem Press Office (@LibDemPress) March 16, 2016
So, sadly, rather than do something to help the poorest, money is to be thrown at making all schools academies, removing accountability as all schools are obliged to become academies whether parents like it or not.
Primary schools locally rejected the Tory attempt to make them academies. They didn't want to convert. Now Osborne will force them #Localism
— Gareth Roberts (@Gareth_Roberts_) March 16, 2016
Not so sweet..
Controversially, Osborne introduces a sugar levy in two years’ time for sugary drinks. There will be calls of “nanny-statism” but we accepted the principle of taxing to incentivise particular behaviours a long time ago. Will there be future extensions to fast foods and the like? The money will be used to fund greater sport at school.
Capital Gains Tax cut by 8% for basic rate payers. Thing is, you have to have quite a bit of money to make capital gains, so this benefits the rich.
Osborne halved the Severn Tolls, but that won’t satisfy the Welsh Lib Dems who have been calling for complete abolition:
Halving Severn tolls not good enough, George. We want them scrapped altogether https://t.co/WpJe3rpDOJ #Budget2016 pic.twitter.com/hJ6mBsPxAn
— Welsh Lib Dems (@WelshLibDems) March 16, 2016
George made a cheap gag about abolishing the Lib Dems before announcing a further extension of our policy. That got a vigorous response:
Osborne puts the personal tax threshold up again. So much for abolishing the Liberal Democrats #Budget2016
— Jack Blanchard (@Jack_Blanchard_) March 16, 2016
Osborne abolishing the Liberal Democrats? Given he's missing all his other targets we are not that worried. #Budget2016
— Lib Dem Press Office (@LibDemPress) March 16, 2016
Chancellor wants to abolish @LibDems. 20,000 more party members since the general election- we have no intention of going away. #Budget2016
— Greg Mulholland (@GregMulholland1) March 16, 2016
And now Osborne comes to the raising of the tax threshold. Of course he doesn’t mention that this was a Lib Dem policy that David Cameron considered unaffordable. It is now being raised to £11,500. Higher rate threshold is being moved to £45,000. Again, benefitting those on higher incomes. Let’s not forget that the Tories cut benefits for sick people by £30 a week recently. Social justice?
Corbyn is responding in a reasonably predictable way, but I have to say that I’m slightly dismayed that someone who has been so independent of spirit for so long seems to have been compelled into conformity. He’s wearing a very smart suit and red tie.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Peter Martin
Simon
Ben Austin
Matt Wardman
Neil Hickman
23 Comments
At PMQ on 16/3/16 David Cameron disagreed with Tim Farron’s question about Afghan interpreters (identifiable) and translators (maybe not identifiable) and regretted what he said is a change in Liberal Democrat policy from a claimed agreement during the coalition period. What Tim Farron has said is consistent with the line taken by former leaders over Hong Kong and disapproval of the line initially taken by USA governments over Vietnam.
Don’t worry about the budget surplus. There isn’t one. There won’t be one. These are Osborne predictions. Not a single one has ever come true.
The Chancellor’s principal principles are inconsistent. For instance he wants to reduce sugar in drinks for health reasons and will increase taxation accordingly. At the same time he wants to fund flood protection by £500 and will increase tax on insurance.
Overall a good budget for taxpayers, but if I’m a middle class person then do I trust the Lib Dems to deliver a better one for “me and my family”. Probably not, unless you work in the public sector.
Clever, very political Budget.
Exactly what you would expect it to be and a continuation of his dismal failings over the last 6 years. I don’t know about clever or political, the blunt truth on that is he and Cameron whatever happens in EU referendum. He’ll be gone by next year.
So, whiskey duty to be frozen again. Full marks for effort to Scotch Whiskey Association lobbyist Graeme Littlejohn (Lib Dem candidate, Danny’s Head of Office and ex-Communication Director of the Scottish Liberal Democrats).
Good news for the SWA…………….but bad news for the Scottish Liver Transplant Unit at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and the NHS.
The main cause of Chronic Liver Disease mortality is alcoholic liver disease. Since 1993, the mortality rate for alcoholic liver disease has increased overall, from 7 per 100,000 population to 13 per 100,000 population, with a peak in 2003 of 21 per 100,000.
(Source Public Health Scotland).
Fatal cases of liver disease are rising. In under a decade there has been a 25% increase in deaths from the condition, with alcohol causing more than a third of total cases. In contrast, other major causes of death, such as heart disease and cancer, have been in decline in recent years. (Source, NHS Choices, England & Wales).
Although (David Raw), alcohol consumption per head is currently no higher now than it was then and has fallen for each of the last ten years.
http://www.portmangroup.org.uk/images/default-source/default-album/alcohol-consumption-per-adult-(15-).png?sfvrsn=0
Is the rate we are seeing now an effect of the rise in consumption 1993-2005 and, if so, presumably we can look forward to a fall-back in years to come in line with the more recent fall in consumption – without any need to raise tax.
Very worrying that business taxes are increasing by £940m for 2016/17 – just what’s not needed.
An excellent budget that all Lib Dems should support apart from the idea of abolishing the Lib Dems ?
No much to complain about. The lifetime ISA’s are a great idea and raising tax thresholds will be popular. The Tories are cruising at the moment – except for the SNP there is just no serious opposition.
– numbers showing wage growth, productivity etc. all lower than forecast just 4 months ago.
– massive cuts to disability benefits to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy
– big additional cuts to public sector spending down the road (but he won’t say where the axe will fall)
– an £18billion black hole in the country’s finances
The budget is unravelling at speed!
@ David I note your quote comes from the Portman Group – a pro-alcohol industry lobby group. Mine comes from the NHS.
There is a certain inconsistency in introducing a sugar tax for health reasons and reducing the level of tax on alcohol. But, hey, what can you expect from a Government in the pockets of the alcohol industry lobby groups.
“Tax what we want to reduce not the things we want to encourage” – George Osborne Budget Statement 16th March 2016
£30 a week reduction in ESA : 40% TaxRate threshold raised to £45k.
You decide what he wants to encourage.
a sugar levy
What?! Why should I, who am not obese, pay more for my Coca-Cola because some people don’t have the self-control to stop drinking it? This is unacceptable.
Hopefully the jokes about abolishing the Lib Dems will finally sink in and those who think the Conservatives are allies will take stock.
Did I question your statistic, David Raw? No. But because I point out a hole in your argument, you question mine. All right, here’s exactly the same data from Bath Council. Happy now? So, what’s your answer now that you can’t pooh-pooh the data?
No wonder people hate politicians.
Sorry, here’s the link
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/your-council-and-democracy/local-research-and-statistics/wiki/alcohol
@ David. I’m glad you don’t question my statistics. You might like to consider the following facts from the charity ‘Alcohol Concern’ :
1. 10.8 million adults drink at levels that pose a risk to their health
2. In England, in 2012 there were 6,490 alcohol-related deaths, a 19% increase compared to 2001
3. Alcohol is 10% of the UK burden of disease and death, making alcohol one of the three biggest lifestyle risk factors for disease and death in the UK, after smoking and obesity.
4. An estimated 7.5 million people are unaware of the damage their drinking could be causing.
5. Alcohol misuse costs England around £21billion per year in healthcare, crime and lost productivity costs
6. The most effective strategies to reduce alcohol-related harm from a public health perspective include, in rank order, price increases, restrictions on the physical availability of alcohol, drink-driving counter measures, brief interventions with at-risk drinkers, and treatment of drinkers with alcohol dependence
7. Alcohol is 61% more affordable than it was in 1980
We’ll have to disagree on the need to increase the minimum price of alcohol – but if there is a downward trend in consumption it needs to accelerate . I suggest you read the evidence of the University of Sheffield on the effectiveness of that.
On a personal note, I underwent a non-alcohol related liver transplant five years ago – but I saw the unsought pain, agony and death of alcohol related liver disease on the ward with the sheet covered trolleys removing deceased patients in the night – and the wails and grief of their relatives. I hope it never happens to you.
I know what the police and the medical profession think about alcohol. A grown up political party ought to think the same and do everything in its power to reduce the problem. Laissez-faire is not the answer. It’s simple – the folk inflicting the cost on society should pay the tax on it.
Well, according to the CMO recently, anyone who drinks does so at a level that poses a danger to their health! (Whether that advice helps anyone is a moot point.) Clearly some people drink to excess But if alcohol is 61% more affordable than in 1980 yet consumption (litres of pure alcohol per head per annum) is unchanged over that time – which is a fact – why would we think that a general rise in excise and so price specifically targetted at those, relatively few serious problem drinkers, would be proportionate, reasonable or even effective?
@ David you say, “relatively few serious problem drinkers”. I’m afraid not so – although you seem determined to believe it. I suggest you cut and paste the following and have a serious think :
PDF]Model-based appraisal of alcohol minimum pricing
https://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.156503!/file/scotlandjan.pdf
24 hours after the Budget and everything else that was sneaked out alongside it or under its cover, and the activity on this site suggests that Lib Dems are still preoccupied with inward-looking conversations about the party’s problems with diversity in general and its treatment of women in particular.
The real world evidence says 61% more affordable but no rise in consumption. Why would I read a lot of guff from the guns for hire at Sheffield?