This is a bad news Budget. Alistair Darling is kicking Britain’s families when they are down.
- Darling has added £110 a year to every family’s tax bill. The tax take will be £2.8bn a year higher by 2010 – and if benefits are excluded, it will be £4bn higher.
- The new taxes announced in the budget will add up to £1.5bn extra on all alcoholic drinks, £1.6bn on drivers, and £1.7bn on businesses over the next three years.
Taxes and borrowing are up because Labour failed to use the good years to prepare for the bad years. After 15 years of global growth, Britain has the worst budget deficit in the developed world.
Even with the new taxes introduced in Darling’s budget, borrowing will be up £20bn over the next four years, including a £7bn rise next year alone.
The Government has no room for manoeuvre, so they are kicking families when they’re down.
Watch my video response to the Budget
- Darling has added £110 a year to every family’s tax bill. The tax take will be £2.8bn a year higher by 2010 – and if benefits are excluded, it will be £4bn higher.
- The new taxes announced in the budget will add up to £1.5bn extra on all alcoholic drinks, £1.6bn on drivers, and £1.7bn on businesses over the next three years.
Taxes and borrowing are up because Labour failed to use the good years to prepare for the bad years. After 15 years of global growth, Britain has the worst budget deficit in the developed world.
Even with the new taxes introduced in Darling’s budget, borrowing will be up £20bn over the next four years, including a £7bn rise next year alone.
The Government has no room for manoeuvre, so they are kicking families when they’re down.
Watch my video response to the Budget
Alistair Darling's introduction to the 2008 Budget
The core purpose of this Budget is stability - now and in the future. And its core values are fairness and opportunity, founded on stability and strength. In every country in 2008, every government has one aim - to maintain stability through the world economic slowdown.Britain with its central role in the world’s financial system is no exception.
With low inflation. Record levels of employment. And unemployment at its lowest level for a generation. And with the action taken last year to curb inflation, Britain is better placed than other economies to withstand the slowdown in the global economy.This year’s Budget is a responsible Budget that will secure stability in these times of global economic uncertainty. And we will do everything in our power to maintain stability – keeping inflation and interest rates low and maintaining our record of growth. While other countries have suffered recessions, the British economy has now been growing continuously for over a decade – the longest period of sustained growth in our history.Because of the changes made by this government to entrench stability and increase the flexibility and resilience of our economy I am able to report that the British economy will continue to grow through this year and beyond.Even in today’s difficult and uncertain times, we are determined that we will not be diverted from our long-term aim – to equip our country for the challenges of the future, confront climate change and to end child poverty in this generation.This Budget is about equipping Britain for the times ahead. Making sure that everyone – no matter what their circumstances - can exploit their potential.It’s about building a fairer society, offering more opportunity, a fair Britain in which everyone can succeed.
Want to comment?
Shame on the BBC
By Joe Street
11 March 2008, 3:00pm
Below we reproduce a letter of complaint from a historian to the BBC about its programme Rivers of Blood - part of the BBC 2 'White season'.
'I write to complain in the strongest terms possible about last night's Rivers of Blood documentary shown on BBC 2. The documentary's position on Enoch Powell was irresponsible, poorly researched and seemed to justify and offer approval for Powell's repugnant views.
The writer of the show seems unaware of the work of Paul Foot, whose biography of Powell was the earliest - and most reliable - source on Powell's political 'philosophy.' Foot offers compelling evidence to demonstrate that Powell was an opportunist, and that his 'Rivers of Blood' speech was not an expression of Powell's patriotism but a calculated ploy to exploit the fears and racial hatred that was welling up in the West Midlands in the wake of Peter Griffiths's short-lived period as MP for Smethwick. The speech was not, as your documentary suggested, a plea from the heart of an English patriot but a cynical attempt to whip up racial hysteria among the White population.
This latter point was twisted by the editing of your programme to suggest that Powell's speech also incited resentment among the British Asian and Black communities. The programme made explicit links between Powell's speech and the Toxteth and Brixton riots over ten years after. The presentation of these events also suggested that they were part of a racial war that was overwhelming British society in the 1970s and 1980s. As any serious historian of the time will confirm, they were nothing of the sort, but were localised responses to White oppression from government authorities. This telescoping of history had the effect of suggesting that Powell's warnings were correct. In fact, they are not. Powell warned of racial warfare in the UK. We have not seen anything of the sort since then, and it is irresponsible to suggest that we have.
The use of music in the programme furthered the producer's aims to exonerate and offer approval for Powell. It was most noticeable that ominous chords appeared at certain points to heighten fears about Black peoples, but that Powell's appearances - and that of the racist crowds who supported him - were met instead with more emollient classical music. A minor point, maybe, but a significant one within the context of the rest of the programme.
The programme's response to Powell's citation of the American civil rights movement was also erroneous and mischievous. The programme was correct to assert that Powell feared the racial tinderbox of the US that he had witnessed in 1967 but the programme's choice of clips gave an entirely false interpretation of his response to the United States. Powell was in the US at a time when race riots were threatening the internal stability of many US cities (including New York City where he was based during his visit - I have no evidence to confirm whether Powell actually visited Detroit and Chicago during this visit, as your programme suggested). These riots were led by African American youths and were normally directed against White law enforcers and businesses that operated in the Black community. The programme, however, offered a different interpretation. By including footage from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's campaigns in Birmingham and Selma, both in Alabama and in 1963 and 1965 respectively, the programme suggested that the moderate civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, was in some way responsible for the rioting. That the programme went further, to link the assassination of King to Powell's views compounded this twisting of the historical evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that Powell was moved in any way by King's death, yet the editing of footage in your programme suggested that this was the case. The indiscriminate use of archive footage rendered this section incoherent and suggested to viewers that moderate opposition to racial segregation led directly to race riots. Again, no serious historian of the time would even suggest that this was the case.
The selection of 'talking heads' also seemed very peculiar. Why was no professional historian of the 1960s included? Why was the work of Robert Shepherd, whose biography of Powell is a much more reliable source than Heffer's, excluded? Perhaps more pertinently, why was Paul Foot's work on Powell ignored? The inclusion of A. Sivanandan and Stuart Hall was obviously designed to suggest that both men approved of the programme and to suggest that the programme was racially inclusive, yet Sivanandan's comments were restricted to the present racial climate and Hall did not have a significant period on camera. Roy Hattersley's comments on Powell were welcome, but offered little challenge to the views of Nicholas Winterton and the other White faces on parade. Hattersley's conclusion - that he hated Powell then and hates him now - was presented as a forlorn gesture by a defeated politician.
Overall, this programme seemed designed to suggest that Powell was right, and that he was speaking up for the working classes who had been excluded from political debate in the 1960s. While the latter contains a kernel of truth (both then and now) it does not excuse the programme's suggestion that multiculturalism led to rioting in UK cities, and its approval of racist politicking by British politicians. Powell did not hope to provoke debate in the UK about race, but wished only to further his career. His speech was not a lost opportunity to re-examine the UK's willingness to accept immigrants but an attempt to whip up racial hysteria among the White population. That there were few violent responses to Powell's speech is an indication that the vast majority of British people firmly and categorically rejected his repugnant views, and the programme did nothing to suggest this was the case. Furthermore, that Nick Griffin said that if the BNP had made a documentary on Powell 'it wouldn't have differed too much from this' says it all. (Quoted in the blog on 9.3.08 of the Deputy Leader of the BNP - Simon Darby - http://www.simondarby.blogspot.com/).
Shame on the BBC for broadcasting such a disgraceful mistreatment of our history.'
By Joe Street
11 March 2008, 3:00pm
Below we reproduce a letter of complaint from a historian to the BBC about its programme Rivers of Blood - part of the BBC 2 'White season'.
'I write to complain in the strongest terms possible about last night's Rivers of Blood documentary shown on BBC 2. The documentary's position on Enoch Powell was irresponsible, poorly researched and seemed to justify and offer approval for Powell's repugnant views.
The writer of the show seems unaware of the work of Paul Foot, whose biography of Powell was the earliest - and most reliable - source on Powell's political 'philosophy.' Foot offers compelling evidence to demonstrate that Powell was an opportunist, and that his 'Rivers of Blood' speech was not an expression of Powell's patriotism but a calculated ploy to exploit the fears and racial hatred that was welling up in the West Midlands in the wake of Peter Griffiths's short-lived period as MP for Smethwick. The speech was not, as your documentary suggested, a plea from the heart of an English patriot but a cynical attempt to whip up racial hysteria among the White population.
This latter point was twisted by the editing of your programme to suggest that Powell's speech also incited resentment among the British Asian and Black communities. The programme made explicit links between Powell's speech and the Toxteth and Brixton riots over ten years after. The presentation of these events also suggested that they were part of a racial war that was overwhelming British society in the 1970s and 1980s. As any serious historian of the time will confirm, they were nothing of the sort, but were localised responses to White oppression from government authorities. This telescoping of history had the effect of suggesting that Powell's warnings were correct. In fact, they are not. Powell warned of racial warfare in the UK. We have not seen anything of the sort since then, and it is irresponsible to suggest that we have.
The use of music in the programme furthered the producer's aims to exonerate and offer approval for Powell. It was most noticeable that ominous chords appeared at certain points to heighten fears about Black peoples, but that Powell's appearances - and that of the racist crowds who supported him - were met instead with more emollient classical music. A minor point, maybe, but a significant one within the context of the rest of the programme.
The programme's response to Powell's citation of the American civil rights movement was also erroneous and mischievous. The programme was correct to assert that Powell feared the racial tinderbox of the US that he had witnessed in 1967 but the programme's choice of clips gave an entirely false interpretation of his response to the United States. Powell was in the US at a time when race riots were threatening the internal stability of many US cities (including New York City where he was based during his visit - I have no evidence to confirm whether Powell actually visited Detroit and Chicago during this visit, as your programme suggested). These riots were led by African American youths and were normally directed against White law enforcers and businesses that operated in the Black community. The programme, however, offered a different interpretation. By including footage from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's campaigns in Birmingham and Selma, both in Alabama and in 1963 and 1965 respectively, the programme suggested that the moderate civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, was in some way responsible for the rioting. That the programme went further, to link the assassination of King to Powell's views compounded this twisting of the historical evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that Powell was moved in any way by King's death, yet the editing of footage in your programme suggested that this was the case. The indiscriminate use of archive footage rendered this section incoherent and suggested to viewers that moderate opposition to racial segregation led directly to race riots. Again, no serious historian of the time would even suggest that this was the case.
The selection of 'talking heads' also seemed very peculiar. Why was no professional historian of the 1960s included? Why was the work of Robert Shepherd, whose biography of Powell is a much more reliable source than Heffer's, excluded? Perhaps more pertinently, why was Paul Foot's work on Powell ignored? The inclusion of A. Sivanandan and Stuart Hall was obviously designed to suggest that both men approved of the programme and to suggest that the programme was racially inclusive, yet Sivanandan's comments were restricted to the present racial climate and Hall did not have a significant period on camera. Roy Hattersley's comments on Powell were welcome, but offered little challenge to the views of Nicholas Winterton and the other White faces on parade. Hattersley's conclusion - that he hated Powell then and hates him now - was presented as a forlorn gesture by a defeated politician.
Overall, this programme seemed designed to suggest that Powell was right, and that he was speaking up for the working classes who had been excluded from political debate in the 1960s. While the latter contains a kernel of truth (both then and now) it does not excuse the programme's suggestion that multiculturalism led to rioting in UK cities, and its approval of racist politicking by British politicians. Powell did not hope to provoke debate in the UK about race, but wished only to further his career. His speech was not a lost opportunity to re-examine the UK's willingness to accept immigrants but an attempt to whip up racial hysteria among the White population. That there were few violent responses to Powell's speech is an indication that the vast majority of British people firmly and categorically rejected his repugnant views, and the programme did nothing to suggest this was the case. Furthermore, that Nick Griffin said that if the BNP had made a documentary on Powell 'it wouldn't have differed too much from this' says it all. (Quoted in the blog on 9.3.08 of the Deputy Leader of the BNP - Simon Darby - http://www.simondarby.blogspot.com/).
Shame on the BBC for broadcasting such a disgraceful mistreatment of our history.'
NCADC Train-the-Trainer London seminar
16 March 2008
The National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC) is holding a workshop on how to set up an anti-deportation campaign.
Sunday 16 March 2008, 10-5pm
Brunei Gallery, School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS), Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG.
Seminars are aimed at:
Anyone who intends to hold anti-deportation campaign workshops or 'talks' on anti-deportation campaigning within their communities;
Asylum seekers and others facing deportation;
Refugee Community Organisation representatives;
Staff / volunteers of organisations that provide support / advice to asylum seekers;
Asylum seeker support groups;
Asylum rights campaigners;
Community activists.
16 March 2008
The National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC) is holding a workshop on how to set up an anti-deportation campaign.
Sunday 16 March 2008, 10-5pm
Brunei Gallery, School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS), Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG.
Seminars are aimed at:
Anyone who intends to hold anti-deportation campaign workshops or 'talks' on anti-deportation campaigning within their communities;
Asylum seekers and others facing deportation;
Refugee Community Organisation representatives;
Staff / volunteers of organisations that provide support / advice to asylum seekers;
Asylum seeker support groups;
Asylum rights campaigners;
Community activists.
