New cash ISA allowance

3,600 gives an extra allowance of 600 which at the current top rate of about 6% yields 36, and tax relief at 20% gives an extra 7:20 per ISA per annum. Or are there other ISA changes which didn't feature in the headline announcements? If so , they can hardly be significant. It is but a few months since we were told that we had to work longer and save more for our old age. So are pension schemes and 'tax-free' equity PEPs and ISAs still to be taxed? And since penalising savings with tax on interest ensures savings lose value against the real rates of inflation, an extra 7:20 isn't going to make much difference, or significantly encourage long-term savings. It is, however, typical of Labour spin that a Budget speech ending on a titanic note should, on analysis, amount to no more than shifting a few deckchairs a couple of centimetres, whilst the deck orchestra plays the same tune with a few minor flourishes: piddling fiddling, or should it be called Brownian motion.

Toom

The cynicism with which Brown treats the electorate should ensure that his wretched government does not get in again. His 2p tax cut was purely a policical move. He had no interest in its benefist or otherwise to the British people or the economy. And he wants to be prime minister!!

What's actually happening is that England is governed by the Scots who, as a fifth column, are hell bent on destroying their rivals. And they are making a heck of a good job of it. And we are letting them!!

Rob Graham

NO! True of Gordon Brown, possibly. However many Scots, including myself, are committed to the ithe idea of Britishness, and have always been so. I am British and Scottish. I am proud of the latter. When I contemplate that idiot Brown, I feel sick - as do many Scots. The idiot Blair is, at least, intelligent, if a liar and fantasist, hrough and through. Mark you, his body language is risible.

Because Gordy is a good old Keynesian, in his world savings and deferred consumption are bad for the economy and need to be penalised. He only cares about consumption and stimulating the demand side as much as possible, screw investment for the longterm.

OK, I'll let you off. But I won't let the Scots in the "government" off. Nobody could be doing a better job of ruining this country than them.

Rob

I'm Scottish too and, like Gordon Brown, have no problem with being both British and Scottish. Where we part company is that the only thing that might make me vote for Scottish independence would be having Brown as Prime Minister of the UK. There is, of course, a need to have provision for a successor if the Prime Minister HAS to leave office. That, to me, is totally different from the sheer contempt shown to the electorate by the presumption that there can be a cosy handover between two individuals without it being immediatley subject to a General Election. No doubt, like party loans, it can be claimed to be 'within the rules'; and they'll confuse an excuse with ethical justification. The Scots are so fond of Brown that a few months ago, in a bye- election in his own backyard, he led his party to a glorious defeat in a safe Labour seat. Appointing him as leader conjures welcome visions of turkeys and Christmas.

Toom

Think yourself lucky - you've got the best of them - you should see what's running the Scottish Parliament.

Toom

Nonsense. At a general election you vote for a party not a leader.

In message , Toom Tabard writes

That is a complete misunderstanding of the special democratic system we have here in this country. We happen to be a monarchy and we have a prime minister. It would be a very sad day indeed if a change of PM meant we had to have a general election.

I have no misunderstanding of the system, just an opinion that that it should be a basic right to select the leader of the country; not have one imposed by cosy private agreement - that indeed is a very special system, but it ain't democracy. It will be a very sad day indeed if someone like Brown becomes leader of this country by default, given the damage already occasioned by his dictation of domestic and economic policy, and the fact that there are few in his party who either realise his total unsuitability or have the guts or ability themselves to be credible leaders. The one hope is that his leadership will ensure they are trounced at the next election. And I say that as a person committed to social justice and support for those in genuine need and who might normally hope to vote for a credible Labour government.

Toom

"percy" wrote

Nonsense. That is only *one* possible motive for voting a particular way.

Every voter decides on their *own* reasons for voting the way that they do; they *might* base it on the party, or they *might* base it on the leader, or indeed they *might* base it solely on the individuals standing in their local constituency (eg they think that all parties are as bad as each other, but know that a particular candidate is more likely to work hard for the constituents than the others).

Don't put your own motives for voting, onto the entire electorate!

In message , Toom Tabard writes

Thats fair enough.

I think that part of the reason you have this view (which is a reasonable one but one I dont agree with) is that the current premiership has been very Presidential in style, focusing almost every issue on the PM himself (or his wife according to who really made the decision). In some respects this is natural because of the poor quality cabinet he has had forced upon him.

We all know people have umpteen reasons for voting the way they do but the idea is to vote a party into power and the electorate, for better or worse, do not have a say in who leads that party.

*Whose* idea? Yours? :-(

"percy" wrote

Isn't the "idea" really to vote for the particular

*candidate* standing in your own constituency which you think will best represent their constituents (ie "you")?

You don't vote for a *party*; you vote for a *person*. [Check your voting slip next time you get to vote!]

"percy" wrote

True. A failing of the system, perhaps?

The idea is to vote for the candidate of the party which will best represent you. That's why you are told which party each candidate belongs to. (Check your voting slip next time you get to vote!)

"percy" wrote

No, the ("winning") party represents the *country*, not *you*. It is your local **MP** that represents *you*...

The party is just how the candidates choose to describe themselves. Technically it's the individual candidate you are voting for, not the party, and not the leader of the party. In the same way as a party can change it's leader without an election, your MP can switch parties, or decide to vote against party policy, without a by-election.

In reality, most people vote for a party and vote for a PM via that vote. They have a right to feel pissed off if either the PM changes, or the party allegiance of their MP changes, without an election - as both were probably issues in selecting who to vote for.

In message , Tim writes

No, the winning party does not represent the country. Parliament represents the country.

There is the small matter of the announcement by Blair, in October

2004 that, if elected, he would serve a full third term, but not stand for a fourth term.

And the established leader of the party at the time of the election will presumably also have played a leading part in the manifesto and image of the party, and that is a major influence on voters. Blair, whatever you think of him, made his party electable (remember Kinnock and Foot?), and led them to victory in three elections. Brown was unable to lead Labour to victory in a recent bye-election in a safe labour seat in his own backyard (i.e. in the Scottish constiuency where he has his own house). We, of course, need some provision if a leader HAS to resign for health or other reasons. However, the present intentions and procedures show total contempt for the electorate.

Toom