For the Lib Dems it's going to be harder take because of the increase in the VAT rate. I understand that in a coalition you don't get everything you want or campaign for like the VAT rise. Yes the Lib Dems have many of their policies in this budget, such as a link to earnings for the pension and a move towards the 10k tax allowance, a bank Levy and spending on capital projects etc. The big issue for me was the VAT rise. It's not so much the rise itself (yes I know its regressive), it's what we campaigned on.
It's fact that we campaigned with this stupid VAT bombshell poster. Why did we do it, why did we have to bring back the VAT bombshell. There was no need. Everyone in politics knew that whoever got in (yes Labour that includes you) would of raised VAT rate. the Lib Dems knew that there was almost certainly going to be a coalition. For me I thought the VAT bomb poster was our worst move of the general election campaign. It has now come back to bite us in the bottom.
Update: Looks like the Tories did it too:
Todays link is to Oranjepan Not Yet Out of The Woods who has been a bit quite of late but appears to be back up and running. Welcome back Oranjepan,
We haven't won on the bank levy. The Tories wanted a £1bn bank levy; we wanted a £5bn bank levy. So it is closer to a Tory policy than a Lib Dem policy.
ReplyDeleteDamn your right £2m I guess its not won its negotiated
ReplyDeleteI mean £2Bn
ReplyDeleteActually, the manifesto says £2 bn, rising to £2.9 bn later on. Meanwhile, Osborne said "over £2 bn", but I'm not sure on the exact figure not having looked at the budget proper. So the figure is pretty close to the manifesto figure.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the tax itself is different. Manifesto wanted tax to be on profits (what the IMF calls a FAT tax). The tax announced yesterday is on balance sheets instead (which I think was in the Conservative manifesto). However, Osborne did say "We are exploring the costs and benefits of a Financial Activities Tax, on profits and remuneration, and we will work with international partners to secure agreement."
So it's possible we could get both, which I think is right, and the IMF supports both too.