Stuff on "northern powerhouse" and such like

The warning by the think-tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that George Osborne is unlikely to meet his target of running a "budget surplus by the end of the decade" must signal the failure of the Tories` "long term economic plan" (IFS: Osborne may have to impose more austerity,09/02/16). This, of course, will never be admitted, and no doubt Tory backbenchers will be still playing their private, self-congratulatory game of "word bingo" with the term at future PMQs, but it does not require an economic genius to predict that their policies of shrinking the state and freezing pay in the public sector, cutting jobs at HMRC when it is calculated that each tax inspector brings in to the Treasury approximately ten times their salary, and refusing to impose fair taxes on the rich, will run into problems.

     What we all can predict, however, is that, as James Moore says, Osborne will use as one of his many excuses the suggestion that the UK is no longer "in normal times" (Outlook,09/02/16). Some blame will also, no doubt, be placed on the last Labour government, as will an excuse used recently by the DfE to explain low numbers being recruited to School Direct, that the target figures were "purposely over-inflated ...to signal their ambitions for the policy".

      There is a real dilemma here, but as it is for the Tory party, it gets little publicity. Before the general election, which they did not expect to win, they promised £8bn of income tax cuts, plus of course a new "northern powerhouse", which they never intended to fund. They also have a chancellor, intent on becoming the next leader, who has to show leadership qualities with his budgets, whilst the outgoing leader wants to prove his "compassion" with policies like prison reform, which will cost billions, and which the chancellor will deem unaffordable! PMQs could be interesting in the next few weeks, as long as Mr Corbyn plays his cards right!

Can we now put the idea of the Tories wanting to create a "northern powerhouse" to bed? It was clearly an election wheeze which appealed to a Tory party thinking itself, at best, to be a partner in a coalition government post-May 2015, when the idea could finally be shelved. The news that 83% of the government`s "£300m relief fund will  go to Tory-run councils", mostly in the south, is not simply deplorable, but indicative of the ridiculous bias this administration shows for southern England (Council cuts: PM accused of buying off MPs,10/02/16).

    With none of this extra money designated to help the "five most deprived councils in the country", all of which unsurprisingly are in the northern half of England, and with none of the proposed improvements in transport even off the ground, this ludicrous sham must stop.

Christopher Smallwood`s argument is seriously weakened by two significant omissions (The NHS needs more cash. To find it we have to ditch the prejudice,08/02/16). Firstly, his opening sentence, that there is "no extra money available", ignores the facts that not only is there, by the government`s own admission, a tax gap of £34bn, but also that the income tax structure is far too heavily weighted in favour of the wealthy. Is it not ridiculous that someone earning just over £40,000 a year pays income tax at the same rate as someone earning £100,000 more? New tax bands at 45% for those earning over £100K, 50% over £150K, 55% over £200K, and 60% over £250K would provide much needed funds for the NHS, and prove popular, simply on the grounds of fairness. People earning less than £40K pay enough tax already; they should not have to pay extra in health insurance!

    Smallwood also stated that the "fall in defence spending has come to an end", but this disregards the point that, almost certainly, the majority of people in this country prefer the NHS to Trident renewal. The refusal by the government to raise the necessary funds to support the NHS properly looks remarkably like it is waiting for the situation to worsen, before announcing yet more privatisation; Smallwood`s article acts as one of the many harbingers of such events we can expect in the future.

"Morally indefensible sweetheart tax deal", indeed, Ms Christie, and even then Osborne tried to mislead us about the amount of corporate tax Google paid (Why does George Osborne make me so angry? Let me count the ways,06/02/16). A quarter of the "paltry" £130m related to its share option scheme! Perhaps economy with the truth is part of the so-called "long-term plan"?

Christopher Smallwood`s argument is seriously weakened by two significant omissions (The NHS needs more cash. To find it we have to ditch the prejudice,08/02/16). Firstly, his opening sentence, that there is "no extra money available", ignores the facts that not only is there, by the government`s own admission, a tax gap of £34bn, but also that the income tax structure is far too heavily weighted in favour of the wealthy. Is it not ridiculous that someone earning just over £40,000 a year pays income tax at the same rate as someone earning £100,000 more? New tax bands at 45% for those earning over £100K, 50% over £150K, 55% over £200K, and 60% over £250K would provide much needed funds for the NHS, and prove popular, simply on the grounds of fairness. People earning less than £40K pay enough tax already; they should not have to pay extra in health insurance!

    Smallwood also stated that the "fall in defence spending has come to an end", but this disregards the point that, almost certainly, the majority of people in this country prefer the NHS to Trident renewal. The refusal by the government to raise the necessary funds to support the NHS properly looks remarkably like it is waiting for the situation to worsen, before announcing yet more privatisation; Smallwood`s article acts as one of the many harbingers of such events we can expect in the future.