Wednesday 18th March 2015

[pk1]

Osborne 22nd June 2010:

I now turn to the OBR's fiscal forecasts. As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, £89 billion in 2012-13 and £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15, borrowing reaches £37 billion-exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget-and in 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion. As a share of the economy, borrowing will fall from 10.1% of GDP this year to just 1.1% in 2015-16.

We now know, thanks to the OBR forecast, that the structural current deficit is significantly larger than we were told-0.8% of GDP or £12 billion higher next year. Thanks to my action today, the structural current balance will be minus 4.8% of GDP this year. That deficit will then be eliminated to plus 0.3% in 2014-15 and plus 0.8% in 2015-16. In other words, it will be in surplus.

Public sector net debt, as a share of GDP, will be 62% this year, before peaking at 70% in 2013-14. Because of our action today, it then begins to fall, to 69% in 2014-15 and then 67% in 2015-16, whereas under the plans we inherited, debt would have increased in every full year of this Parliament. The House will want to know that, as a result of our measures, debt interest payments will be £3 billion a year lower by the end of this Parliament than they would have been.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2-0005.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

@ RobertSnozers

The Israeli election result was a bit of a downer, wasn't it? (Apologies for the delayed reaction.)

[citizenJA]

National debt to be lower at the end of this parliament than at the start, Osborne says.

Can someone please tell me how this egregious liar can say that after his near five year spending madness. Please.

[PorFavor]

Not sure there's a Conservative leader of a southern "city" apart from Johnson, is there?

I'm afraid we (Portsmouth) have one to call our very own.

[citizenJA]

Everyone, I thank you for your posts I'm reading them, I thank you for them.

[StephenDolan]

@ RobertSnozers

The Israeli election result was a bit of a downer, wasn't it? (Apologies for the delayed reaction.)

Absolutely.

When the Labour government pushes forward with acknowledging the right to a Palestinian state that could be interesting.

[LadyCentauria]

Ed Balls now on BBC Two Budget Special: OBR say Chancellors plans mean public spending squeeze for next two/three years harsher than anything seen in the 5 years of current government.

So is he dropping sticking to Osborne's plan for 2015/6?

I can see why he said he would- it's good with markets to show straight off you're "tough". But even so.

I don't know. I think, though, that you can 'stick to overall spending plans' without sticking to specific spending plans. I think we have to expect an emergency budget with a change of government. In fact, I'd be surprised if there weren't one. My memory (which needs upgrading!) is that Balls has always said/added 'but we would make different choices.' After all, 'instant' abolition of the Under-Occupancy Penalty does not form part of Osborne's spending calculations but it has an impact on both DWP 'savings' and Local Authority spending – cutting both but not, necessarily, by equal amounts.

Edit Just spotted TGS' post, above!

[citizenJA]

Chancellor Osborne - 22 Jun 2010

In order to place our fiscal credibility beyond doubt, this mandate will be supplemented by a fixed target for debt, which in this Parliament is to ensure that debt is falling as a percentage share of GDP by 2015-16. I can confirm that, on the basis of the measures to be announced in this Budget, the judgment of the OBR, which we published today, is that we are on track to meet those goals. Indeed, I can tell the House that, because we have taken a cautious approach, we are set to meet them one year earlier, in 2014-15. To put it another way, we are on track to have debt falling and a balanced structural current budget by the end of this Parliament.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2-0005.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's sold the Queen.

[citizenJA]

@ RobertSnozers

The Israeli election result was a bit of a downer, wasn't it? (Apologies for the delayed reaction.)

Absolutely.

When the Labour government pushes forward with acknowledging the right to a Palestinian state that could be interesting.

That's near & dear to Ed Miliband's heart. Powerful peace negotiations.

[pk1]

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/03/18/twi ... -day-2015/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ephemerid]

Well, the number-crunchers have taken to Twitter.

Faisal Islam - Osborne's net debt as (part of GDP) falling for 2015/16 will only be hit if he gets what he predicted for Lloyds shares and Northern Rock mortgages. He hopes....

OBR says that debt will continue to rise in cash terms in the next Parliament. So Gidiot's new way of measuring all this obscures the fact that the debt won't fall in cash terms.

So - here we are with 1.5 Trillion in cash debt and it won't be reduced in the next Parliament.

PCS has said this - £25 Billion cut in public services, £12 Billion off benefits, and a massive saving from tax avoidance of........£5BN.

God help us. 'Cos Gidiot won't. He has the nerve to talk about Greece!

[citizenJA]

Well, the number-crunchers have taken to Twitter.

Faisal Islam - Osborne's net debt as (part of GDP) falling for 2015/16 will only be hit if he gets what he predicted for Lloyds shares and Northern Rock mortgages. He hopes....

OBR says that debt will continue to rise in cash terms in the next Parliament. So Gidiot's new way of measuring all this obscures the fact that the debt won't fall in cash terms.

So - here we are with 1.5 Trillion in cash debt and it won't be reduced in the next Parliament.

PCS has said this - £25 Billion cut in public services, £12 Billion off benefits, and a massive saving from tax avoidance of........£5BN.

God help us. 'Cos Gidiot won't. He has the nerve to talk about Greece!

(my bold)
Osborne's a liar. An outright liar. This government will be held accountable for their deeds.

[citizenJA]

@ RobertSnozers

The Israeli election result was a bit of a downer, wasn't it? (Apologies for the delayed reaction.)

Yes, it was. If there is an up side, and it is a pretty bloody tiny one for all the Palestinians who will die during the next term as a result of Isareli aggression, it was that Netanyahu was forced to show his true colours.

I would have hoped that his appalling conduct might have alienated civilised countries, and it might have done, but the speed with which Cameron leapt on the opportunity to offer his warm and unconditional congratulations was sickening, even by OGRFPG's standards.

Cameron declared that Britain was one of the strongest friends of Israel. Well, this Briton is no friend of a state with a vicious, racist warmonger at its head.

(my bold)
I'm sorry, RobertSnozers. I'm sorry for this person to have been in the position of Prime Minister of the UK at this time.

[WelshIan]

We have also created a fairer tax system—further proof that we are all in this together. The share of income tax paid by the top 1% of taxpayers is projected to rise from 25% in 2010 to over 27% this year. That is higher than in any one of the 13 years of the last Labour Government. We are getting more money from the people paying the top rate of tax because we understand that if you back enterprise, you raise more revenue. The House will also want to know that the lower paid 50% of taxpayers now pay a smaller proportion of income tax than at any time under the previous Government.

If the lower paid half of taxpayers are paying less tax, then surely the share paid by the top is going to increase?
It's not a good thing that so much is being raised from that top 1% - we need more people in good jobs earning good money so that more people can contribute to the overall economy.
Osborne is innumerate, which is not a good thing in a chancellor.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Hosie repeating the standard SNP line, that Labour voted for Tory austerity, I've had enough of this populist bollocks to last a lifetime.

[StephenDolan]

So Kate is due towards the end of April. That'll distract nicely. Not.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Hurrah!!


Victory for the Lib Dems with the worlds first tidal lagoon!

It waz Ed Davey that did it!

[StephenDolan]

Hosie repeating the standard SNP line, that Labour voted for Tory austerity, I've had enough of this populist bollocks to last a lifetime.

How did he vote on the repeal of the bedroom tax?

[letsskiptotheleft]

Hosie repeating the standard SNP line, that Labour voted for Tory austerity, I've had enough of this populist bollocks to last a lifetime.

How did he vote on the repeal of the bedroom tax?

Erm, did he not turn up, or was that another of the mysocialismismorepurerthanyours brigade?

[letsskiptotheleft]

So Kate is due towards the end of April. That'll distract nicely. Not.

I can barely wait, remind me closer to the event to order my special edition of the Daily Mail.

[ohsocynical]

The Headline

Youngsters come out on top in latest unemployment figures for Bracknell and Wokingham

Then it goes on to say:

“We have been focusing on schemes which give people the chance to get some experience in a work place and at an interview, and not only young people. It’s also good for people with health problems who are trying to get back into the job market.

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/news/bra ... WgEwG.dpuf

My MP Philip Lee didn't like it when I pointed out just what the high employment actually meant. B*****d!

[ohsocynical]

If the lower paid half of taxpayers are paying less tax, then surely the share paid by the top is going to increase?
It's not a good thing that so much is being raised from that top 1% - we need more people in good jobs earning good money so that more people can contribute to the overall economy.
Osborne is innumerate, which is not a good thing in a chancellor.

It's self defeating because the less the rest of us can contribute the more those at the top either boast or moan that they're taking the brunt of it and use it as an excuse to back even more cuts.

[ephemerid]

I've had a look at the Red Book, and although a lot of it is gobbledegook to me, this was drawn to my attention by refuted.org.

Item 1.236 -
"Budget 2015 also announces a package of measures to improve employment outcomes for people with mental health conditions. Starting from early 2016, the government will provide online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to 40,000 Employment and Support Allowance and Jobseekers Allowance claimants and individuals being supported by Fit for Work. From summer 2015, the government will also begin to co-locate Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in over 350 Jobcentres, to provide integrated employment and mental health support to claimants with common mental health conditions"

This is not good news. It is not clear how much is being spent on this - but if any person with a mental health problem actually needs therapy they should have it prescribed by a qualified clinician; many people do, in fact, but have to wait for up to a year for a specialist appointment.
If there is cash to spare, it should be given to the NHS to support MH services where doctors want them - not in Jobcentres.

CBT can be very helpful in some cases, but it is contraindicated in some mental illnesses. It is based on altering perception and/or attitude, which is only useful as an adjunct to clinical care and cannot in itself heal.
It is utterly pointless attempting to persuade a person with an organic mental disorder like schizophrenia to alter behaviour, as any aberration from the perceived norm is entirely due to incurable if treatable disease.

CBT needs to be delivered by very skilled and well-trained practitioners - AFTER a diagnosis and medical recommendation. Imposing it on people could actually be very dangerous - someone with long-term depressive illness doesn't need to change their attitude or their behaviour, what they need is a proper diagnosis and a package of suitable treatment.

It will be interesting to see who is going to be delivering this. The existing pilot project has been in progress for some time. There are sanctions involved, and this latest development is a very dangerous thing in my opinion.
Correction - in my QUALIFIED opinion. (SRN, MHCert, DipN, DipHE)

[ephemerid]

So Kate is due towards the end of April. That'll distract nicely. Not.

I can barely wait, remind me closer to the event to order my special edition of the Daily Mail.

Remind me to have a General Anaesthetic.

Thanks.

[Hobiejoe]

Hurrah!!


Victory for the Lib Dems with the worlds first tidal lagoon!

It waz Ed Davey that did it!

Ermm, not quite such a ground-breaking Libdem innovation - there was a tidal lagoon powering a mill in our town from the mid-thirteenth century...cutting edge medievalist thinking from the LDs then.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Hosie repeating the standard SNP line, that Labour voted for Tory austerity, I've had enough of this populist bollocks to last a lifetime.

How did he vote on the repeal of the bedroom tax?

Erm, did he not turn up, or was that another of the mysocialismismorepurerthanyours brigade?

As I recall none of the SMP contingent could be bothered to turn up for the vote.

[LadyCentauria]

I've had a look at the Red Book, and although a lot of it is gobbledegook to me, this was drawn to my attention by refuted.org.

Item 1.236 -
"Budget 2015 also announces a package of measures to improve employment outcomes for people with mental health conditions. Starting from early 2016, the government will provide online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to 40,000 Employment and Support Allowance and Jobseekers Allowance claimants and individuals being supported by Fit for Work. From summer 2015, the government will also begin to co-locate Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in over 350 Jobcentres, to provide integrated employment and mental health support to claimants with common mental health conditions"

This is not good news. It is not clear how much is being spent on this - but if any person with a mental health problem actually needs therapy they should have it prescribed by a qualified clinician; many people do, in fact, but have to wait for up to a year for a specialist appointment.
If there is cash to spare, it should be given to the NHS to support MH services where doctors want them - not in Jobcentres.

CBT can be very helpful in some cases, but it is contraindicated in some mental illnesses. It is based on altering perception and/or attitude, which is only useful as an adjunct to clinical care and cannot in itself heal.
It is utterly pointless attempting to persuade a person with an organic mental disorder like schizophrenia to alter behaviour, as any aberration from the perceived norm is entirely due to incurable if treatable disease.

CBT needs to be delivered by very skilled and well-trained practitioners - AFTER a diagnosis and medical recommendation. Imposing it on people could actually be very dangerous - someone with long-term depressive illness doesn't need to change their attitude or their behaviour, what they need is a proper diagnosis and a package of suitable treatment.

It will be interesting to see who is going to be delivering this. The existing pilot project has been in progress for some time. There are sanctions involved, and this latest development is a very dangerous thing in my opinion.
Correction - in my QUALIFIED opinion. (SRN, MHCert, DipN, DipHE)

Ephe: does it give a clue as to whether or not the funding for this fucking stupid idea is to come from the much vaunted headline figure for investment in 'mental health services'?

[Willow904]

Osborne 22nd June 2010:

Public sector net debt, as a share of GDP, will be 62% this year, before peaking at 70% in 2013-14. Because of our action today, it then begins to fall, to 69% in 2014-15 and then 67% in 2015-16, whereas under the plans we inherited, debt would have increased in every full year of this Parliament. The House will want to know that, as a result of our measures, debt interest payments will be £3 billion a year lower by the end of this Parliament than they would have been.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2-0005.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought Osborne was being a bit cheeky saying he'd met his target of debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of the parliament, given it was 2 years too late and peaking at 80% rather than 70%, but I was completely and utterly gobsmacked when it turned out what he actually meant by "the end of this parliament" was "forecast to happen by the end of 2015/16"! He's boasting about it even though he still hasn't actually done it yet and who knows if he will?! Hopefully we'll never get the chance to find out.

[LadyCentauria]

Another question. Did I really hear that Danny Alexander is presenting the Liberal Democrat's Budget in the House, tomorrow? If so, does that mean that Ed Balls gets to present the Labour Party's Budget on the next full working-day there? Or did I mishear and he's doing that at some other place? Because I thought we'd just had the Coalition Budget!

[Spacedone]

Evening all.

Something I don't think has been mentioned on here today are the proposed changes to tax thresholds.

We've the usual small increase in the lower threshold to £10,800 and then £11,000 that won't mean anything to those earning under that and where the vast majority of the benefit goes to people who are already earning a decent wage...

...and then we have the "increase the 40% tax threshold to £50000 by 2017/18" which means a tax cut for higher earners of £1300 on top of the £1000 they get at the lower rate. Double bubble!

So those at the bottom get a small tax cut that will be wiped out by other measures whilst those who are pretty damn comfortably well off get a nice little earner.

[Spacedone]

If the lower paid half of taxpayers are paying less tax, then surely the share paid by the top is going to increase?
It's not a good thing that so much is being raised from that top 1% - we need more people in good jobs earning good money so that more people can contribute to the overall economy.
Osborne is innumerate, which is not a good thing in a chancellor.

It's self defeating because the less the rest of us can contribute the more those at the top either boast or moan that they're taking the brunt of it and use it as an excuse to back even more cuts.

Not so much self-defeating as the intended consequence I think.

[ohsocynical]

Evening all.

Something I don't think has been mentioned on here today are the proposed changes to tax thresholds.

We've the usual small increase in the lower threshold to £10,800 and then £11,000 that won't mean anything to those earning under that and where the vast majority of the benefit goes to people who are already earning a decent wage...

...and then we have the "increase the 40% tax threshold to £50000 by 2017/18" which means a tax cut for higher earners of £1300 on top of the £1000 they get at the lower rate. Double bubble!

So those at the bottom get a small tax cut that will be wiped out by other measures whilst those who are pretty damn comfortably well off get a nice little earner.

It was ever thus.

[ephemerid]

I've had a look at the Red Book, and although a lot of it is gobbledegook to me, this was drawn to my attention by refuted.org.

Item 1.236 -
"Budget 2015 also announces a package of measures to improve employment outcomes for people with mental health conditions. Starting from early 2016, the government will provide online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to 40,000 Employment and Support Allowance and Jobseekers Allowance claimants and individuals being supported by Fit for Work. From summer 2015, the government will also begin to co-locate Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in over 350 Jobcentres, to provide integrated employment and mental health support to claimants with common mental health conditions"

This is not good news. It is not clear how much is being spent on this - but if any person with a mental health problem actually needs therapy they should have it prescribed by a qualified clinician; many people do, in fact, but have to wait for up to a year for a specialist appointment.
If there is cash to spare, it should be given to the NHS to support MH services where doctors want them - not in Jobcentres.

CBT can be very helpful in some cases, but it is contraindicated in some mental illnesses. It is based on altering perception and/or attitude, which is only useful as an adjunct to clinical care and cannot in itself heal.
It is utterly pointless attempting to persuade a person with an organic mental disorder like schizophrenia to alter behaviour, as any aberration from the perceived norm is entirely due to incurable if treatable disease.

CBT needs to be delivered by very skilled and well-trained practitioners - AFTER a diagnosis and medical recommendation. Imposing it on people could actually be very dangerous - someone with long-term depressive illness doesn't need to change their attitude or their behaviour, what they need is a proper diagnosis and a package of suitable treatment.

It will be interesting to see who is going to be delivering this. The existing pilot project has been in progress for some time. There are sanctions involved, and this latest development is a very dangerous thing in my opinion.
Correction - in my QUALIFIED opinion. (SRN, MHCert, DipN, DipHE)

Ephe: does it give a clue as to whether or not the funding for this fucking stupid idea is to come from the much vaunted headline figure for investment in 'mental health services'?

No.

I don't know if it comes from the NHS budget or - as I suspect - the DWP budget. I think the pilot project is using DWP money.
If it's NHS money, there is a real risk of duplication - people who already have GP care, specialist care, CPN care, and some existing psychotherapeutic intervention, might be expected to do this if they are claiming benefit; aside from the clinical implications (which are serious enough) there could be a cost involved too if NHS IAPT/MH cash is diverted to bloody Jobcentres.

What I also want to know is who selects the 40,000 people who will be required to do online CBT. Maximus, most likely - or some unqualified jobcentre clerk who sees "depression" on a claim record and thinks they know better than the claimant's own doctors.

I also want to know how DWP will know you have engaged with it - and what they'll do if you do and it doesn't help you. The idea seems to be to remove the "barrier to employment" that DWP calls mental illness.

if this is a real online therapy programme and you actually have a therapist at the other end, will they breach your confidentiality and speak to your "work coach" about you?
If it isn't, how will DWP know you have done this unless they are snooping on your therapeutic (hah!) activity? How else can they impose a sanction (which they will) for non-compliance?

It's dreadful. I've known about the pilot for a while, but I wasn't expecting it to be rolled out so soon - I assumed there would be some sort of report and consultation once the pilot was over. Seems not. I am actually very worried about this.

[yahyah]

Oh, and did anyone else catch the announcement about scrapping annual tax returns? I'd welcome not having to fill the thing in, but I'm at a loss to think how the information could be automatically transferred to HMRC. For a start, only I know what my expenses are, I get paid by a number of 'customers', some of whom deduct tax at source and some of whom don't. It strikes me as a recipe for confusion and, to put it bluntly, getting robbed blind.

It got a mention on last nights Press Preview & apparently there is some concern that for this plan to work, the HMRC would require detailed information of the income & expenditure from one's personal bank account !!

If the annual statement of affairs (which essentially all the tax return amounts to) is abolished, how else would HMRC know how much tax to collect ?

Of course, government computers systems are mega-safe & it's unheard of for data to be saved on pen drives then left behind on buses and so on.....

Seems a daft idea to me. Most income - bank interest, share dividends, salaries, pensions (other than the state pension) are taxed at source and would only be relevant if they cumulatively pushed you into a higher tax bracket. Any untaxed income/expenses from a business would only be available at the end of the tax year anyway. - unless every individual transaction is logged with HMRC as it happens.

Just heard on Radio 4 that savings interest will no longer be taxed at source by the bank/building society it will be up to the individual to pay the tax themselves.

Maybe I'm just knee jerking, but that puts more onus on people to work it out themselves and also people can 'forget' to declare the tax they owe on their savings.

What's the Tory ulterior motive, that's always the question to ask.

[Spacedone]

It got a mention on last nights Press Preview & apparently there is some concern that for this plan to work, the HMRC would require detailed information of the income & expenditure from one's personal bank account !!

If the annual statement of affairs (which essentially all the tax return amounts to) is abolished, how else would HMRC know how much tax to collect ?

Of course, government computers systems are mega-safe & it's unheard of for data to be saved on pen drives then left behind on buses and so on.....

Seems a daft idea to me. Most income - bank interest, share dividends, salaries, pensions (other than the state pension) are taxed at source and would only be relevant if they cumulatively pushed you into a higher tax bracket. Any untaxed income/expenses from a business would only be available at the end of the tax year anyway. - unless every individual transaction is logged with HMRC as it happens.

Just heard on Radio 4 that savings interest will no longer be taxed at source by the bank/building society it will be up to the individual to pay the tax themselves.

Maybe I'm just knee jerking, but that puts more onus on people to work it out themselves and also people can 'forget' to declare the tax they owe on their savings.

What's the Tory ulterior motive, that's always the question to ask.

Big job losses coming the way of HMRC I think.

[RogerOThornhill]

Just heard on Radio 4 that savings interest will no longer be taxed at source by the bank/building society it will be up to the individual to pay the tax themselves.

Maybe I'm just knee jerking, but that puts more onus on people to work it out themselves and also people can 'forget' to declare the tax they owe on their savings.

What's the Tory ulterior motive, that's always the question to ask.

Yeah but haven't they just "abolished" the annual tax return?

Unless that was just a meaningless soundbite...it wouldn't have been would it?

[yahyah]

Tax on bank accounts ?

[Spacedone]

Fraser Nelson's take on that spending cuts graph posted earlier.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Wouldn't it be epic if nobody bothered to turn up to Danny Alexander's time wasting non budget. Just a handful of Lib Dems and Tumbleweed.

Miliband should enforce a minus 3 line whip.

[yahyah]

What's Welsh for 'Lib Dem b******s' ?
Mooting a Lib Dem/Tory/Plaid Welsh government coalition in 2016.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-wels ... 45061.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LadyCentauria]

I've had a look at the Red Book, and although a lot of it is gobbledegook to me, this was drawn to my attention by refuted.org.

Item 1.236 -
"Budget 2015 also announces a package of measures to improve employment outcomes for people with mental health conditions. Starting from early 2016, the government will provide online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to 40,000 Employment and Support Allowance and Jobseekers Allowance claimants and individuals being supported by Fit for Work. From summer 2015, the government will also begin to co-locate Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in over 350 Jobcentres, to provide integrated employment and mental health support to claimants with common mental health conditions"

This is not good news. It is not clear how much is being spent on this - but if any person with a mental health problem actually needs therapy they should have it prescribed by a qualified clinician; many people do, in fact, but have to wait for up to a year for a specialist appointment.
If there is cash to spare, it should be given to the NHS to support MH services where doctors want them - not in Jobcentres.

CBT can be very helpful in some cases, but it is contraindicated in some mental illnesses. It is based on altering perception and/or attitude, which is only useful as an adjunct to clinical care and cannot in itself heal.
It is utterly pointless attempting to persuade a person with an organic mental disorder like schizophrenia to alter behaviour, as any aberration from the perceived norm is entirely due to incurable if treatable disease.

CBT needs to be delivered by very skilled and well-trained practitioners - AFTER a diagnosis and medical recommendation. Imposing it on people could actually be very dangerous - someone with long-term depressive illness doesn't need to change their attitude or their behaviour, what they need is a proper diagnosis and a package of suitable treatment.

It will be interesting to see who is going to be delivering this. The existing pilot project has been in progress for some time. There are sanctions involved, and this latest development is a very dangerous thing in my opinion.
Correction - in my QUALIFIED opinion. (SRN, MHCert, DipN, DipHE)

Ephe: does it give a clue as to whether or not the funding for this fucking stupid idea is to come from the much vaunted headline figure for investment in 'mental health services'?

No.

I don't know if it comes from the NHS budget or - as I suspect - the DWP budget. I think the pilot project is using DWP money.
If it's NHS money, there is a real risk of duplication - people who already have GP care, specialist care, CPN care, and some existing psychotherapeutic intervention, might be expected to do this if they are claiming benefit; aside from the clinical implications (which are serious enough) there could be a cost involved too if NHS IAPT/MH cash is diverted to bloody Jobcentres.

What I also want to know is who selects the 40,000 people who will be required to do online CBT. Maximus, most likely - or some unqualified jobcentre clerk who sees "depression" on a claim record and thinks they know better than the claimant's own doctors.

I also want to know how DWP will know you have engaged with it - and what they'll do if you do and it doesn't help you. The idea seems to be to remove the "barrier to employment" that DWP calls mental illness.

if this is a real online therapy programme and you actually have a therapist at the other end, will they breach your confidentiality and speak to your "work coach" about you?
If it isn't, how will DWP know you have done this unless they are snooping on your therapeutic (hah!) activity? How else can they impose a sanction (which they will) for non-compliance?

It's dreadful. I've known about the pilot for a while, but I wasn't expecting it to be rolled out so soon - I assumed there would be some sort of report and consultation once the pilot was over. Seems not. I am actually very worried about this.

So am I. Very worried indeed. Also, if (which I doubt) there is a real live therapist (preferably Level II Accredited. Hah!) at the other end sessions will be time-limited so what on earth happens if people:
Don't have internet access at home
Do have internet access at home but incompatible equipment (eg., unsupported (too old) OS no microphone or camera)
Do but are v e r y s l o w t y p i s t s (if it's a sort of text-relay)
Do but are dyslexic, or deaf or blind
Only have internet access at libraries or internet cafés which offer no privacy and which are time-limited in themselves

If there isn't an actual live qualified therapist at the other end, then it's just a glorified self-help workbook. [insert visions of a multi-millionaire-web-marketeer's forthcoming book How To Get Stinking Rich By Cognitively Behaviourally Therapising Yourself]

Ephe: I don't expect an answer to this, it's just my train-of-thought.

[Spacedone]

Have the IFS responded to the Budget yet?

[RogerOThornhill]

Fraser Nelson's take on that spending cuts graph posted earlier.

yeas, that really didn't make any sense.

I pointed out that the OBR being forced to put it in just to save Osborne from the "back to the 1930s" jibe meant that they aren't independent. Why otherwise would spending go up when it's been cut for years?

[citizenJA]

Osborne 22nd June 2010:

Public sector net debt, as a share of GDP, will be 62% this year, before peaking at 70% in 2013-14. Because of our action today, it then begins to fall, to 69% in 2014-15 and then 67% in 2015-16, whereas under the plans we inherited, debt would have increased in every full year of this Parliament. The House will want to know that, as a result of our measures, debt interest payments will be £3 billion a year lower by the end of this Parliament than they would have been.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2-0005.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought Osborne was being a bit cheeky saying he'd met his target of debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of the parliament, given it was 2 years too late and peaking at 80% rather than 70%, but I was completely and utterly gobsmacked when it turned out what he actually meant by "the end of this parliament" was "forecast to happen by the end of 2015/16"! He's boasting about it even though he still hasn't actually done it yet and who knows if he will?! Hopefully we'll never get the chance to find out.

Thank you very much for confirming what this piece of work is doing.
He can't just lie like that.

[Spacedone]

Tom Clark ‏@guardian_clark 17 mins17 minutes ago

Those "tax cuts for low earners" in full – earn <£10.5K: worth £0; earn <£43k worth £120; earn >£43k worth £220

[letsskiptotheleft]

Well it took even less time for the gloss to come off Osborne's budget than normal today.

Master strategist my arse.

[Willow904]

Well it took even less time for the gloss to come off Osborne's budget than normal today.

Master strategist my arse.

Gloss? There was gloss?

I must have missed it whilst still reeling from the so-mingy-he-needn't-have-bothered penny off a pint.

[ohsocynical]

BBC South presenter had a slightly more sympathetic approach to the less well off.

Had an economist from Brighton? Bournmouth? University. He sort of shrugged.
He said productivity wasn't mentioned once. Wasn't at all enthusiastic about Osborne's effort.

[ephemerid]

Well it took even less time for the gloss to come off Osborne's budget than normal today.

Master strategist my arse.

Gloss? There was gloss?

I must have missed it whilst still reeling from the so-mingy-he-needn't-have-bothered penny off a pint.

I've just been over at the Heil (don't panic chaps! I had a nose-ful of Vick and wore full armour)

The main budget article is all very pro-Osborne, but the comments are fascinating.

3,026 of them when I looked - and the highest-rated (at 3,016 little green arrows) was scathing.

I wonder if the Great British Tabloid-reading public have finally had enough?

[AngryAsWell]

Andrew Spooner ‏@andrewspoooner · 3 mins3 minutes ago
Lynton Crosby and Guido are now so aimless they've created a troll account for a Labour MP who it not even an MP https://twitter.com/GeorgeAylettMP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How low will they go? This Labour PPC is only 19 - Ba$tards
How can you stop this kind of thing?