Another messy night

LABOUR overturned a majority of more than 20,000 in the Selby and Ainsty by-election on Thursday to gain its second biggest swing from the Tories since 1945.

Keir Mather, aged 25, will become the youngest MP in the House of Commons - the Baby of the House - after he secured 16,456 votes (46%) compared to Conservative candidate Clare Holmes's 12,295 (34.3%) on a swing of 23.7%.

Additionally, on a night when three seats were up for grabs, the Tories also lost heavily in Somerton and Frome to the Liberal Democrats who produced a quite remarkable 29% swing.

But, in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the Conservatives defied dreadful national polls by claiming victory in the seat vacated in July by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Mr Johnson had resigned as an MP following the publishing of a highly-critical report by the Parliamentary Privileges Committee into Partygate which recommended his suspension from Parliament.

But, despite avoiding the indignity of becoming the first PM to lose three by-elections on the same night since Harold Wilson in 1968, the storm clouds are still gathering for the current incumbent Rishi Sunak.

After all, the held seat in outer London was attributed almost entirely to local factors with triumphant Conservative candidate Steve Tuckwell pointedly directing his victory speech to Labour mayor Sadiq Khan for his proposed imposition of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) on the area.

Under the scheme, drivers must pay £12.50 per day if they drive a vehicle which does not meet modern emission standards.

Generally, these are diesel vehicles that are more than seven years old, or petrol vehicles that are more than 17 years old.

Mr Khan defended the policy even after the result in the early hours of Friday morning, saying: "It was a difficult decision to take. But just like nobody will accept drinking dirty water, why accept dirty air?"

Additionally, the complaints of the Conservatives ring rather hollow if the reality of the situation is considered as ULEZ was actually initiated by Mr Johnson while he was London mayor.

The extension of the scheme to outer London under Mr Khan was also a condition set by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps in exchange for financial support for Transport for London during COVID-19.

Nonetheless, Mr Tuckwell's message had a decisive effect on the seat - and, after being decidedly non-committal during campaign, Labour leader Sir Keir Starter called upon Mr Khan to "reflect" on his decision to expand ULEZ, all of a sudden rather hanging him out to dry.

That much-quoted adage of Benjamin Franklin of never interrupting an opponent while they are making a mistake appears to explain the previously cautious strategy of the Labour leader.

But, despite failing in Uxbridge, this somewhat questionable tactic might still work overall as, another political cliché - which suggests governments lose elections instead of oppositions winning them - also appears to be ringing true.

The defeat in Selby and Ainsty, a long-time Tory-held rural seat in North Yorkshire, can only be considered to be a response to a government which has dragged the public, in political terms, to hell and back.

It started with austerity brought in by David Cameron in 2010 in the wake of the global financial crisis - then, following his resignation immediately after a losing the Brexit referendum in 2016, his successor Theresa May called a self-defeating General Election in which she lost her majority and caused complete stalemate in the Commons.

Mrs May's eventual replacement Mr Johnson - following a difficult start in which he almost seemed like his own worst enemy even among his own party - appeared to steady matters by routing a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour at the 2019 General Election.

But, three months later, COVID-19 arrived and threw the government into chaos again.

Mr Johnson applied inconsistent lockdown restrictions while Downing Street staff members unashamedly held alcohol-fuelled parties, including one on the night before Queen Elizabeth II buried her husband Prince Philip.

Eventually, after months of pressure, Mr Johnson was forced to resign as PM in July 2022, prompting a messy leadership election from which Liz Truss somehow emerged the winner.

Ms Truss arrived attempting to increase spending and cut taxes, an audacious move at a time of rising prices worldwide and one which spooked the markets so badly that, with a tenure of only 49 days, she became the shortest reigning Prime Minister in history.

Enter Mr Sunak but, as something of a charisma vacuum, he is also someone who - it has been perhaps less easily forgotten - stood alongside and was fined for a coronavirus indiscretion alongside Mr Johnson while Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Back to the by-elections on Thursday - and the south west of England is an area in which Labour has never been particularly competitive and their voters also appear willing to vote tactically.

In fact, in Somerton and Frome, the Labour candidate polled a miserable 1,009 votes (2.6%) to lose his deposit - but Labour voters there surely knew it was the Lib Dems who are the main threat to the Tories anyway.

By-election victories in Tiverton and Honiton in June 2022 and now in Somerton and Frome strongly suggest Sir Ed Davey's party will indeed cause a lot of trouble for the Tories in this region at the next General Election.

In 1997, the Lib Dems won 14 seats in the south west - and they won the same number in 2010 in an overall total of 57 to prevent Mr Cameron from gaining a majority at the first attempt.

Instead, a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition was formed - though, following a near-wipeout in 2015, the Lib Dems certainly will not go down that particularly cul-de-sac again in the course of another hung parliament.

Of course, Labour continues to boast significant poll leads so will be looking towards a first outright majority since Tony Blair was victorious in 2005.

But results like the one in Uxbridge cast doubt on that ambition.

Indeed, only a fool would assess the next General Election on the basis of a uniform national swing in which all of the seats across the whole country are predicted to behave in the same way.

The political landscape has been messy for almost two decades now with the global financial crisis, austerity policies, Brexit and COVID-19 causing various levels of chaos.

It is difficult to imagine then that the next General Election - expected in spring or autumn next year - will be anything other than messy too. 

BY ELECTION RESULTS

Thursday 20 July 2023

UXBRIDGE AND SOUTH RUISLIP
Steve Tuckwell	CON	13,965	45.2%	(-7.4%)
Danny Beales	LAB	13,470	43.6%	(+6.0%)
Sarah Green	GRN	893	2.9%	(+0.7%)
Laurence Fox	RCM	714	2.3%	(-)
Blaise Baquiche	LD	526	1.7%	(-4.6%)
Others		1,357	4.4%

CON hold • Turnout 46.2% (17.3%)

SELBY AND AINSTY
Keir Mather	LAB	16,456	46.0%	(+21.4%)
Claire Holmes	CON	12,295	34.3%	(-26.0%)
Arnold Warneken	GRN	1,838	5.1%	(+1.9%)
Mike Jordan	YP	1,503	4.2%	(+0.8%)
Dave Kent	RFM	1,332	3.7%	(-)
Matt Walker	LD	1,188	3.3%	(-5.3%)
Others		1,195	3.5%

LAB GAIN FROM CON • Turnout 44.8% (-27.2%)

SOMERTON AND FROME
Sarah Dyke	LD	21,187	54.6%	(+28.4%)
Faye Purbrick	CON	10,179	26.2%	(-29.6%)
Martin Dimery	GRN	3,944	10.2%	(+5.1%)
Bruce Evans	RFM	1,303	3.4%	(-)
Neil Guild	LAB	1,009	2.6%	(-10.3%)
Others		1,166	3.0%

LD GAIN FROM CON • Turnout 44.2% (-31.4%)

KEY ▪️ CON Conservatives • LAB Labour • LD Liberal Democrats • GRN Green • RCM Reclaim • YP Yorkshire Party • RFM Reform UK

Thatcher dies but her politics live on

Baroness Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013), Prime Minister 1979-1990

MARGARET THATCHER, Britain's longest-serving and first - and so far only - female Prime Minister, has died at the age of 87, following a stroke.

Mrs Thatcher was PM from 1979 to 1990, and utterly transformed the country with her radical Right-wing policies during a controversial 11-year rule.

However, as shown by Meryl Streep's Oscar-winning portrayal of Mrs Thatcher in the film The Iron Lady, her recent years had been blighted by ill-health.

And, at Monday lunchtime, her friend and spokesman Lord Bell confirmed: "It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this morning."

The flags over Downing Street were lowered to half-mast, and Mrs Thatcher's latest successor, David Cameron said: "Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds. The real thing is she didn't just lead our country; she saved our country.

"I believe she will go down as the greatest British peacetime Prime Minister."

Tributes followed from across the political spectrum. Labour leader Ed Miliband said: "She will be remembered as a unique figure. She reshaped the politics of a whole generation.

"She was Britain's first woman prime minister. She moved the centre ground of British politics and was a huge figure on the world stage.

And deputy Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg added: "Margaret Thatcher was one of the defining figures in modern British politics.

"Whatever side of the political debate you stand on, no one can deny that as prime minister she left a unique and lasting imprint on the country she served."

Meanwhile, a Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "The Queen was sad to hear the news of the death of Baroness Thatcher. Her Majesty will be sending a private message of sympathy to the family."

But Mrs Thatcher was also truly a divisive figure, and has indeed become a hate-figure for many on the Left, having privatised several state-run industries and been involved in long run-ins with trade unions.

The most famous of these was the miners' strike of 1984-85 when pit-workers and police officers held brutal, running battles, notably in Orgreave, South Yorkshire.

Ultimately, though, Mrs Thatcher won. Unemployment in these communities soared, and the communities themselves broke down and lost any sense of purpose.

For this, Mrs Thatcher will never be forgiven in the pit towns and mining villages. As far as they are concerned, they were considered collateral damage in her reforms and their wounds remain to this very day.

At the time, there were many unashamedly spiteful protest songs - notably Elvis Costello's Tramp The Dirt Down and Hefner's The Day That Thatcher Dies, which foretold her demise with children singing "Ding Dong, the witch is dead" in its closing section.

Of course, it mattered not. The political result was the same - victory for Mrs Thatcher.

Indeed, it was clear by the time New Labour were swept into power in 1997, replacing John Major's tired Tory administration, that the post-war consensus was over and free-market economics had become the order of the day.

Tony Blair, who was elected in 1997, paid tribute to Mrs Thatcher, describing her as a "towering political figure" who changed "not only the political landscape of their country but of the world".

Of course, just like Mrs Thatcher, Mr Blair won three general elections and did not lose one, before being forced out instead by an internal party rift.

But, unlike Mrs Thatcher, Mr Blair did not significantly change the political landscape of Britain, as he has admitted himself.

"I always thought my job was to build on some of the things she had done rather than reverse them," he said, and in doing so he has effectively rendered Labour and the Conservatives as two sides of the same coin.

Mr Blair's successor Gordon Brown even invited a frail Mrs Thatcher to Downing Street in a seemingly fruitless attempt to broaden his appeal.

Now, at this point, I should point out that my parents actually benefited from Mrs Thatcher's period in power. The Right to Buy scheme took them out of council accommodation and put them on the property ladder.

But, in many ways, they were fortunate. My dad had a steady job as an electrician with a sign firm and the company he worked for did not go bust - but many did, especially in the early 1990s recession.

This meant that a lot of people who bought their homes could not afford to repayments, and a lack of social housing, which the government felt was not much required, left no safety net to those who became insolvent.

Famously, as Chancellor, Mr Brown foolishly promised an end to Tory "boom and bust". But then, in 2008, coincidentally shortly after he had become PM himself, came the biggest crash since the Great Depression in 1930s.

Just like in Mrs Thatcher's day, growth in the economy under New Labour had been utterly reliant on the financial services sector and an unsustainable housing boom.

Nothing had changed, and still nothing has. Mrs Thatcher is dead but her politics live on.

Conservative conference: Cameron struggles in the calm before the storm

DAVID CAMERON made his first speech at a Conservative party conference as Prime Minister yesterday but it came at the end of his toughest few days since he took the job in May.

Mr Cameron has come in for some serious flak from his most loyal media allies after his chancellor George Osborne announced that child benefit would no longer be paid to higher-rate taxpayers, as of 2013.

The Daily Telegraph called the policy "crass and out of touch" while the Mail referred to a "growing backlash" over the cut.

In its leading article, the Mail also stated: "What we are emphatically not prepared to accept without protest is that the political class should yet again discriminate against one-earner families".

That discrimination refers to the fact that a single parent, or a family in which only one parent works, earning £44,000-a-year will lose their child benefit but a couple both earning £43,000 - ie. £86,000 combined - will not.

Unsurprisingly, this has called the practicalities of the cut into question. While polls show that the policy is overwhelmingly supported, only 41% of people agreed the above circumstance is fair against 46% who think the policy should be based on a proper means-test.

But the worst aspect of the Tories' handling of the situation was that the general furore seemed to cause outright panic and policy on the hoof.

On the night following Mr Osborne's speech, Tory children's minister Tim Loughton told Channel 4 news: "If there are ways we can look at compensating measures for those genuinely in need that will be looked at in future budgets.

"If the thresholds need to be adjusted there's plenty of time to look at that."

His interview brought a welcoming response from backbench MP Margot James who wrote on her Twitter: "Very good to hear Tim Loughton confirm child benefit proposal needs to be revised."

But Mr Loughton then used his Twitter account to suggest people were "overexcited over child benefit comments", adding: "Of course, I'm not calling for a review."

In the end, Mr Cameron himself had to step in and explain that the introduction of a tax-break for married couples from 2015 would compensate families affected by the cut.

However, that move would not help high-earning single parents or unmarried couples and the whole episode smacks of panicked backtracking last seen by the Labour government after the 10p tax rate debacle.

In his hour-long keynote speech, Mr Cameron listed that and several other failings by the previous administration but he devoted most of his time to his preoccupation with creating a so-called Big Society.

This is despite the fact that the whole policy is still too vague and, indeed, blamed by many Tories for their failure to gain a majority at the last election.

One of the critics is outgoing deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft whose 133-page-book Minority Verdict examines the Conservatives' failure to do better against such an unpopular incumbent government.

"There was a tentative hope that the attractive new leader really did represent the prospect of a better government offering real change," Lord Ashcroft wrote.

"This, though, was tempered by suspicions about lack of substance, concerns that the party was for the better-off rather than ordinary people and a residual fear that the change had been merely cosmetic".

Of course, the majority of Conservative supporters are hardly depressed about the current situation.

As the senior partner in the coalition, the Tories have been able to make much more of an impression than the Liberal Democrats. The fact that a poll of party members shows 84% support the coalition comes as no surprise.

The Conservatives are also doing well in the polls as an individual party, seeing off Ed Miliband's Labour bounce with their own increase to 43%, up from the 36% scored at the election in May.

With the party conference season now over, that could all change especially when the coalition announces a whole raft of cuts in the spending review on 20th October.

The Tories must hope they handle any backlash better than they did over the past few days.

For Mr Cameron will be well aware that this was very much a case of the calm before the storm.

The quiet Budget

CHANCELLOR Alistair Darling offered few sweeteners for voters in the Budget, which he announced to the House of Commons today, just weeks before a general election.

This was not a classic pre-election Budget but, then again, it was not expected to be.

In fairness, Mr Darling promised little in the run-up and it was clear that the crippling deficit made it impossible for him to lure the electorate with some vote-winning policies.

The Chancellor admitted that the level of government borrowing is forecast to be £167billion this year and that public sector net debt will be 54% of GDP, rising to a frankly unsustainable 75% in 2014.

Although borrowing is actually £11billion down on the figure predicted in December's pre-Budget report, it is still a massive amount, and it has left Mr Darling's hands tied.

The Chancellor made few startling announcements with no changes to rates of VAT or income tax and a four-year freeze on the inheritance tax threshold.

But, as ever, duties increased on those little pleasures in life - alcohol, cigarettes and fuel.

The biggest rise was attributed to cider which will go up by 10% above inflation from midnight on Sunday.

Beers, wines and spirits will rise by 2% above inflation and tobacco duty is up 1% above inflation, both from midnight on Sunday.

Most distressingly of all, Mr Darling retained the increase in fuel duty, a terrible decision with an election expected in just 43 days from now.

Motorists can take a small morsel of consolation in that the rise will be staggered, with increases in April and October 2010, and January 2011, rather than being effective all in one go.

But surely the Chancellor has noticed that prices at the pump are already sky-high at the moment.

The average price for a litre of unleaded fuel at 117.3p - and more than two-thirds of that is tax. Add on road tax, insurance and breakdown cover and the car will soon be on its way to becoming a luxury item once again.

While Mr Darling said there would be "no giveaways" in this Budget, he has characterised it as "a Budget for recovery" but evidence of this was thin indeed.

The big announcement to scrap stamp duty for first-time buyers on properties valued below £250,000 is presumably meant to energise the property market.

But this only works if the potential buyers are in a position to afford a first home.

And, with interest rates low and credit hard to come by, it seems unlikely to benefit many people, especially as the duty will return in two years.

Meanwhile, the one-year business rate cut for companies will be wiped out by the failure to reverse the decision to increase the rate of employers' National Insurance contributions.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg accurately described the Budget as "insubstantial waffle... built on growth figures that are unlikely to materialise".

It did all seems nothing more than hot air while, after weeks of the polls narrowing, Prime Minister Gordon Brown must fear a backlash over the fuel duty rise, one of today's few defining points.

The Budget has certainly meant danger for Labour in the last two years, as shown by the UK Polling Report blog.

The website explains, "In both cases Alistair Darling was forced to deliver news about just how bad the economic situation was. Both turned a Labour deficit of around about 6 points into a Conservative lead in the mid teens."

Of course, a swing in the polls may not happen this time with core support for both of the main parties hardening in the run-up to the election.

Undecided voters may also be put off the David Cameron's questionable Conservative commitment to cut certain services immediately in an emergency budget after the election.

What should also help Labour is that the economy is on slightly surer footing now than it was in 2008 and 2009.

But that is not saying much and neither was the Chancellor today in one of the dullest pre-election Budgets ever.

*For an at-a-glance guide at the Budget, see this listing on the BBC website.

Darling sets the dividing line

CHANCELLOR Alistair Darling gave a prelude to the election battleground in his Pre-Budget report to the Commons today.

Mr Darling backed up Prime Minister Gordon Brown's attacks on the Tories' inheritance tax plans by freezing the threshold at £325,000. He stated that raising it was simply not a priority at present.

In one of the more surprising moves of the day, Mr Darling announced an increase to National Insurance Contributions by 0.5% but this will not apply to those on salaries of £20,000 or less.

The policy does not come into effect for anyone until April 2011, however.

A much more regressive tax increase was the restoration of VAT to 17.5% from January 1 though at least it was not put up to 20% as feared in some quarters.

In an undoubtedly popular move with the electorate, Mr Darling announced the widely expected windfall tax of 50% on bankers' bonuses of more than £25,000.

To prevent the government from having to chase up hundreds of individuals, the tax will be charged to the company but it currently only lasts until April.

Nevertheless, this is still a further hit to high earners after last April's announcement that an income tax band of 50% will be applied from 2010-11 on salaries over £100,000.

Other attempts at winning over the electorate include a postponement of the 1p increase in corporation tax to help small businesses and a 2.5% increase in the state pension.

Liberal Democrats treasury spokesman Vince Cable said the budget was "good for bingo and boilers" after a seemingly random cut in bingo duty from 22% to 20% and the introduction of a boiler scrappage scheme.

But Mr Cable also joked that Mr Darling must have forgotten to print several pages of his report as no specific spending figures were given for any department.

Mr Darling vowed to maintain spending on frontline public services such as schools, hospitals and the police but seems to be hiding the true scale of the pain until after a general election.

The chancellor was unable to cover up Britain's black hole, however. He admitted that the economy had shrunk by 4.75% in the last year, a worse result than expected.

He was also forced to concede that government borrowing in the past year was an eye-watering £178bn, £3bn more than expected.

It was announced that borrowing in the next year will also be £3bn more than forecast in April's budget, further increasing Britain's massive deficit.

Unsurprisingly, the deficit will form the basis for the Tories' attacks in the run-up to the election.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne described the state of the economy as "a catastrophe", arguing that spending needs to be cut immediately. Mr Darling defended Labour's spending plans.

Welcome to the great debate that will form the centrepiece of the coming election coverage.

Gone postal

IT'S OFFICIAL ! The posties have gone postal - or their union has, at least.

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) has confirmed today that a 24-hour nationwide strike will go ahead from 4am on Thursday.

But their decision to take industrial action is a baffling one to me and holds little support from the public or politicians of all colours.

Even among the Royal Mail workers, the strike holds little sway.

The vote may have been carried by a clear margin of three to one but that was only among those who voted.

There were over 19,000 who voted 'No', over 20,000 who did not vote and another 20,000 not part of the union.

Perhaps they remember the lack of success in the last strike - held not long ago, in 2007 - when a small pay increase was described as a victory.

But it was a hollow success. The workers lost nearly as much as their rise by going on strike in the first place and this was a major reason why my relatives who work for Royal Mail abstained.

It is not difficult to fathom why external support for the CWU action is so low, given the horrendous timing of it.

People are right to be concerned that, if the action continues right up until Christmas, it will become infinitely more difficult for gifts to be sent between family members.

Even though some companies have already transferred their allegiance to private couriers, that same move is easier said than done for individuals who need to send off presents to far-flung relatives.

To follow the companies' lead, they would have to abandon probably the best thing remaining about using the Royal Mail - its low pricing.

Self-employed traders and others who must fill out an HMRC tax return may also be frustrated with the paper returns deadline of October 31 now fast approaching.

Striking in a recession does not reflect well, anyway. The latest employment statistics show there are now nearly three million people out of work.

It is little wonder Royal Mail bosses have had little trouble to find the required 30,000 casual staff to fill the gap.

I do not deny that the staff have valid grievances especially with the threat of machines taking over their jobs.

And my political views far removed from those of a Thatcherite, eager to crush the trade union movement.

But surely the union's best tactic to protect its workers in this case would be to continue to negotiate better terms with the employer.

It is the only way which the conflict can come to an end, anyway.

After all, the CWU should be careful - they could end up doing more harm than good for the hard-working posties.

The increase of internet access has already dealt a blow. Since 2005, the number of letters delivered has decreased from a high of 84 million a day to just 75 million now.

And though that still remains a phenomenal number, surely the priority should be not to lose any more customers.

The last thing a union should be doing is shooting its workers in the foot.

So much for the "summer of rage"

AS THE late September sunshine gives way to the darkening nights and the chilly autumn winds, it seems a good time to reflect.

Back in February, there were dire warnings from the police of mass protests from the general public in a "summer of rage" faced with a deepening recession.

Superintendent David Hartshorn wrote in the Guardian that established activists "would be good at motivating people" who would not normally protest.

Supt Hartshorn added: "Obviously the downturn in the economy, unemployment, repossessions changes that... Suddenly there is the opportunity to for people to mass protest.

"We've got G20 coming and I think that is being advertised on some of the sites as the highlight of what they see as a 'summer of rage'."

But, if nothing else, the aftermath of the G20 meeting in April centred on the tactics of the police, not the protestors.

While there were undoubtedly a few numpties in the crowd, who put out a window and looted the Royal Bank of Scotland, the decision of the police to employ kettling tactics on a 'peace camp' was rightly condemned for being excessive.

Worse followed in the days which followed after footage emerged of an apparently innocent man, Ian Tomlinson, being knocked to the ground by an officer. He died of a heart attack.

There was also video footage of officers failing to display ID numbers on their uniform, despite this being a requirement under Met Police rules.

Just a few weeks after the G20 controversy, the MPs were then involved in a huge scandal regarding their expenses.

The story unfolded in daily instalments, brought to us by the Daily Telegraph.

While the vast majority of us suspected that politicians were bending the rules as much as they could, I am sure I was not alone in being stunned by the extent of their cheek.

Flipping homes, avoiding Capital Gains Tax, and claiming for anything from swimming pools and moats to trouser presses, dog food and - of course - soft-core pornography. It was quite astonishing stuff.

But, again, the public response was markedly restrained.

There were some letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells in the newspapers and a kicking at the ballot box for the major parties in the European elections which caused a chaotic reshuffle in the government.

But nothing more than that - it would seem that the mass unemployed, now at 2.47 million, have largely suffered in silence.

For the rest of the summer, there have been the traditional moans about exams getting easier and MPs having too much time off - nothing out of the ordinary, though.

If anything, the police warnings in February just go to show how easy it is nowadays to put out a scaremongering story in the current society.

The black hole Budget

*Economy will shrink by 3.5%
*Government will borrow £606bn over the next four years
*New top rate of income tax at 50% from April 2010 on earnings above £150,000
*Petrol duty will rise by 2p from September and 1p above inflation for the next four years
*Alcohol and tobacco up by 2%

CHANCELLOR Alistair Darling will borrow a "staggering" sum of money after admitting the UK economy will suffer its worst year since 1945 in today's Budget Speech.

Mr Darling announced borrowing of £606bn over the next four years and repeated that spending the way out of a recession was the best way forward.

He forecasted that the economy will shrink by 3.5% during 2009 but expects it to grow by the end of the year.

The estimated decline of 3.5% is a significant revision from the prediction of 1% announced in the pre-Budget report in November.

And the £606bn figure follows borrowing of £90bn over the last financial year, more than the forecast of £78bn.

That brought the UK's total net debt to £743.6bn, more than half of the UK's GDP.

But he said he expects the economy will grow by 1.25% in 2010, rising to 3.5% in 2011 and will be aided by £15bn of "efficiency savings".

The figures contradict estimates by the International Monetary Fund that the economy will shrink by 4.1% this year and 0.4% in 2010.

And Conservative leader David Cameron referred to "Labour's decade of debt".

He mocked the government's attempts to eradicate child poverty and he criticised the "staggering" government borrowing proposals.

Mr Cameron said: "With debt like that, our children are going to be in poverty for decades... They will never forgive the people who have done this."

Mr Cameron added that borrowing is set to be worse than the 1970s when Labour Chancellor Denis Healey had to go to the IMF.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg referred to the Budget as a "mish-mash of recycled announcements". He also called for an end to the "pointless" VAT cut.

In the most striking announcement of the day, Mr Darling introduced a new top rate of income tax of 50% for those earning more than £150,000 from next April.

The increase from the 45% top rate announced in the pre-Budget report in November breaks a promise in the last Labour manifesto not to raise income tax.

And more bad news followed for motorists, drinkers and smokers. Petrol duty will increase by 2p in September and then by 1p above inflation for the next four years.

Alcohol and tobacco duties will both rise by 2% with immediate effect with the cost of a pint increasing by 1p and a bottle of win by 4p and a bottle of spirits by 13p.


Tax and NI Tables
As a former minion of HMRC, I have drawn up a tax and NI table below showing the amount of income tax and National Insurance due per month based upon annual salaries between £6000 and £100000.
The new personal allowance for this tax year (6 April 2009-5 April 2010) is 6475 with tax @20pc above this. Earnings above £43875 are taxed @40pc.
National Insurance is charged @11pc on earnings above £5720pa, then @1pc on earnings above £43875.
This works out as follows:
Gross salary £ 6k. Tax paid per annum £NIL. NatIns paid per annum £30 = £2.50 tax and NI per month
Gross salary £ 8k. Tax paid per annum £305. NatIns paid per annum £250= £46 per month
Gross salary £10k. Tax paid per annum £705. NatIns paid per annum £470= £97 per month
Gross salary £12k. Tax paid per annum £1105. NatIns paid per annum £690= £150 per month
Gross salary £14k. Tax paid per annum £1505. NatIns paid per annum £910= £201 per month
Gross salary £16k. Tax paid per annum £1905. NatIns paid per annum £1130= £252 per month
Gross salary £18k. Tax paid per annum £2305. NatIns paid per annum £1350= £305 per month
Gross salary £20k. Tax paid per annum £2705. NatIns paid per annum £1570= £357 per month
Gross salary £25k. Tax paid per annum £3705. NatIns paid per annum £2120= £485 per month
Gross salary £30k. Tax paid per annum £4705. NatIns paid per annum £2670= £614 per month
Gross salary £35k. Tax paid per annum £5705. NatIns paid per annum £3220= £743 per month
Gross salary £40k. Tax paid per annum £6705. NatIns paid per annum £3770= £873 per month
Gross salary £45k. Tax paid per annum £7930. NatIns paid per annum £4208= £1011 per month
Gross salary £50k. Tax paid per annum £9930. NatIns paid per annum £4258= £1182 per month
Gross salary £100k. Tax paid per annum £29930. NatIns paid per annum £12250= £3515 per month

Newspapers in catch 22 over online content

A dire warning for newspapers turning to an online-only output to ease their financial worries has been made by an academic study.

But it’s another of the report’s findings which should make newspaper bosses even more wary.

The Media Guardian website today reported the findings of a study by researchers at City University in London, showing revenues actually fell faster than costs after the changes were implemented.

The study was based upon Finnish newspaper Taloussanomat, which went online-only in December 2007 after suffering severe losses on its print version.

Since the change, the newspaper’s costs have fallen by 50%, but revenue dropped by 75% and the move has pushed Taloussanomat even closer to the edge.

Neil Thurman, a senior lecturer in electronic publishing at City, was one of the authors of the study.

He said: “Only if your income is 31% or more lower than your costs, based on this case at least, would you be better off going online-only."

Various reasons are given as to why the move has not had any benefits.

The report suggests that a lack of a print version meant the website was not promoted elsewhere.

And the main reason given by the researchers was that the internet is an altogether different beast to a newspaper as it is normally skimmed over in a couple of minutes.

But, while these are both acceptable arguments – and it is true that the internet has proven to be notoriously difficult for newspapers to monetise – the authors seem to have skimmed over the major point themselves.

The report states clearly that the newspaper cut their newsroom staff and the quality of the content suffered.

Surely this was a bigger factor in explaining the falling readership and revenues.

After all, if in any other walk of life, the quality of a product reduced, most people would have second thoughts over whether to read/use/watch/eat/drink it again.

And while just Maxim and The Ecologist magazines in Britain have gone down the online-only route (so far), redundancies are being announced on an almost daily basis.

It is all well and good that newspaper bosses want to preserve the future of their publication.

And this post is not in denial about the great benefits which newspapers across the country have enjoyed through their websites.

But remind me again of that phrase about paying peanuts...

RIP Press Gazette, the voice of British journalism

Work experience application accepted. Check. Transport booked. Check. Accommodation booked. Check.

Frankly, I couldn't wait to help out for a week at the Press Gazette offices in London in the middle of May.

It would, after all, be the first time that I had been back in a newsroom since the NCTJ course ended, barring any miracles happening before then.

Being unemployed, I knew a week in London would not come cheap and I would have to plan my trip carefully with a view of doing it as cheaply as possible.

That meant travelling on a Megabus to London on the Sunday, returning on the Friday night by leaving London Victoria at 11.15pm and getting into Newcastle at 5.40am.

And it meant staying in a hostel with no-one I knew for five nights.

But it was an opportunity I could not turn down - the perfect fillip for my CV.

So imagine my disappointment when I did just a regular check-up on the Press Gazette website today.

The top story was a statement by Wilmington Group Plc, stating: "Unfortunately Press Gazette, along with much of the profession, has suffered from a declining market during these years and its losses have increased.

"We have therefore been forced to conclude that the market required to sustain a commercially viable Press Gazette magazine no longer exists.

"The last hard copy edition of Press Gazette will therefore be the May edition which will be published in April."

The statement goes on to say that the website will continue but Roy Greenslade in his blog on The Guardian website says: "Don't be fooled by the wording of Wilmington's announcement about online continuation.

"It will not carry any news because its journalists are being required to depart."

Press Gazette had shut down previously - in November 2006 - before the Wilmington Group Plc bought it out of administration.

But it would seem it was only a stay of execution.

I sent an email expressing my condolences to the staff - there are already 23 similarly depressing comments on their own website - and received a swift reply.

Editor Dominic Ponsford confirmed: "I am afraid this means work experience is out the window - unless there is a miracle."

It has been another sad day for British journalism.
R.I.P. Press Gazette (1965-2009)