Budget is a gamble with the nation’s finances
WHEN George Osborne, the austerity chancellor of the Exchequer, found that a forecast of one-million new migrants between 2015 and 2020 enabled him to continue paying tax credits when his intention was to axe them, he was gambling with the economy.
And in the same vein Philip Hammond, the current holder, is gambling when he uses a revised Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) upward growth forecast in order to spend an extra £20.5bn on National Health.
So two lucky, gambling chancellors!
And now the further delay in introducing restrictions on the gambling industry and the resignation of the Culture Secretary are laid at the door of this chancellor.
The Health Service has enjoyed generous support in this Budget but not local government services that will inevitably become more dependent on local taxes.
The Conservative government’s strategy is obvious: reduce funding from central government in order to reduce the budget deficit, and so demonstrate a healthier financial position when the next election is announced.
Localism is very much the government’s mantra, even if it shirks its responsibility for grant funding. Off-loading services and forcing local government to fund services is a convenient expedient.
The Budget specifically referred to two services in England: education (£400m for little extras), and business rate relief for small retailers for two years.
If this was a United Kingdom Budget why does England get a special mention?
Other nations of the UK will, of course, be recompensed without any fanfare through the application of the Barnet formula and its consequential provisions.
England still receives much less per head government spending than other nations of the UK.
More significantly, England is the only nation in the UK and EU with no form of national government.
With our services is such turmoil, it is time for a radical change in our political structure. Tom Jackson, Stockport EVERYONE knew this was a Budget with one eye trained on Brexit negotiations.
It was never going to be a case of early Christmas presents.
All in all I thought it was quite reasonable, for a change, definitely spending a lot more money.
The best bit of the whole speech was when Mr Hammond said “we’re spending more on updating our Trident Submarine Fleet so we can sleep safely in our beds at night”, even though the Right Honourable gentleman sitting opposite would love to scrap them. Unbelievable.
Mr Corbyn’s budget response was so predictable and tiresome, reading his prepared speech.
He may as well have just turned up at 4.45pm, when Mr Hammond sat down. R Davies, Stockport