A negiotiated settlement is agreed (although the funding remains opaque. Other disputes rumble on and some are just starting. Clueless.

Tax allowances remain frozen so we will all pay more tax and living standards will continue to fall. And the Chancellor gives the top 1% a pensions boost with the excuse that it will keep doctors in the NHS – so why is ot open to. all. He did a seperate one for Judges? Someone with a £2 million pension pot gets a £250000 tax cut. Just what they need!

First of all – why bother. Just about everything was leaked in advance anyway! We love in the 21st century where the markets and business operate 24/7/365 – yet it is seen as appropriate for the British Government to issue a budget every spring (apart from the Autumn one which they really fucked up!)

A strange one. Why give people with a £2 million pension pot a £250000 tax cut? Will people really go back to work/ stay on for a few extra quid in this bracket? It obviously does not affect the working person 11p a pint less for beer will not encourage people to return to the pub – that ship has sailed and pubs will continue to shut. The cut in petrol tax is extended – but who will notice that it has not gone up? 30 hours of free childcare for those who can find anywhere able to take their children and pay the extra cost that most charge (and certainly will for 1-3 year olds??!!??. Defence spending up is expected and possibly necessary but procuremnent procedures need to be sorted. The investment zone stuff still needs clarification (talk of 12 new “Canary Wharfs” is obviously bullshite).

So he has pleased the top 1% and will rely on the Mail and Sun and Express and Telegraph to con as many people as possible that he has helped them.

What was more interesting was what he did not say! Nothing about the green economy apart from nuclear; nothing about public services. No outlining of why basic tax payers will have to pay £500 more a year. Nothing about infrastructure.

Anyway I suppose it is unsurprising that the budget was dull. Living standards for most continue to fall faster than ever since records began and given the paucity of talent in their ranks what could we expect.

However I am perturbed by the fact that there seems to be a consensus that raising living standards for the poorest is seen to be counter growth in the economy? Surely the poorest spend money at home and raise the economy more than those who squirrel it away in off shore tax havens. I suppose it is an us and them scenario?

For once I have to applaud the ingenuity of the government. They come up with a policy that is illegal knowing it will not work due to international law. They know labour will oppose it. But thrust of the policy is populist – when it is opposed in Parliament they can spend weeks claoming that Labour believe the opposite of their policy as they opposed it in Parliament. The Mail and Telegraph, Express, etc. echo this view. The people are conned into thinking the problem is therefore created by labour. Genius! The Illegal Refugees Bill is a perfect example. It will never get past the courts – but the political gain will have been made.

The trashing of EU laws we often created and supported could lead to trade bans by the EU – who will then blamed (I am thinking agricultural and food products here). Perhaps something like some American products being banned by the courts – blame leftie lawyers rather than the attempt to subvert food standards and undermine farmers. State that Labour wants to increase food prices rather than the greedy supermarkets who have massively increased profits this year.

The Trade Union Bill to undermine and inhibit strikes is probably against Human Rights Legislation – make it more onerous so it will definitely fail in the courts and then blame Labour for supporting Union Barons and strikes that disrupt peoples lives, thus totally diverting attention fromnm their poor wages and restrictive policies.

Is he really the only Tory MP who will refuse to vote for the illegal migration bill on the grounds that it breaks international law and human rights conventions we helped establish.

The British Public in general want the refugee situation sorted to stop the deaths to migrants and the cost of hotels, etc. BUT not at the cost of breaaking laws and treaties or failing to meet our international obligations. Can someone also point out to Braverman that we have a labour shortage and a demographic situation which will make it worse. Most of the refugees are young fit and healthy.

Reinstates Lineker and says it will produce new guidelines. I wonder who they chose for the committee to decide new guidelines? I understand a need for impartiality, but surely only in news and current affairs departments. It certainly should not apply to free lancers. Will all paid members of the BBC have to state their political allegiances? If the list was biased towards labour (likely given the lack of talent revealed by Tories), would they encourage positive discrimination?

Basically the Government seems to have pushed/manipulated the BBC into supporting its Culture Wars. This one seems to have misfired – very few are suggesting that Lineker shouldbe muzzled – freedom of speech. I have not heard a sensible argument in sipport of the BBC. If he was a bit out of order (in some peoples opinions) with his wording – would he still be in trouble for stating that “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people …….?” .

Meanwhile Lee 30[ Anderson shows no remorse at the photo od a DEAD YOUNG CHILD on a beach – stating that he should not have been here anyway!

I think the governments culture wars may have scored an own goal. Knowing there is very little good news about their actions (economy, NHS, education, police, water, fuel bills, environment, inflation, food banks, to name a few), did the ERG persuade the government to attack Lineker? He certainly seems to have been selected when Lord Sugar was allowed to post against Mick Lynch. Easy target? Left’ish wing football pundit, there would be a short outbirst and everyone would agree with Braverman and Sunal that refugees need to be deported fast.

This is not how it panned out. Firstly Lineker is obviously a much respectec figure amongst his collegues as the come out in sympathy – ruining the schedules for the weekend. Secondly there has been an outcry about the policy proposed by the government which has been stronger than expected. Thirdly the whole concept of freedom of speech – many people are disgusted at the gagging order put forward by the BBC. Fouthly the impariality concept is being questioned, why has Farage been on BBCQT so often, why has the chairman of the BBC funded the CParty? And perhaps more importantly the role of a public service broadcaster and its interaction with the government is being questioned. Surely and respectable journalist should be holding the governmet of the day to account. If the tories have been in power for most of the time recently there may seem to be a perceived bias -they should welcome it. Where are the satirists now days? Would Spitting Image be censored?

Any form of management needs to be questioned and interogated, what ever the level. Governments with a whopping majority need it more than most. Yes the opposition needs interogation too. Avoiding criticism is leading to poor decision making and poor appointmts and policy.

I am not sure Gary Lineker was correct in his use of the analogy of 1930’s Germany, but subsequent events have supported his assertion. The BBC is in disarray, mired in controvercy over appointments and a lack of objectivity by some reporters. Personnally I would rather watch Channel 4 or 5 News – even Sky News seems to be more impartial.

Where does this leave me in the discussions with a friend who thought Lineker was playing into the hands of the government?ERG. Attention would be diverted from energy bills, inflation, and a myriad of other incompetencies. To some extent he is correct, but to all our surprise this has quickly become not just about Lineker, not just about refugees, not even just about the BBC, but about our fundamental freedom of speech. Martin Lewis is bound to be even more outspoken about energy bills soon – he has a regular Radio 5 slot – will they ban him – his comments are certainly not what the government wants to here.

At the end of the day, when the fat lkady sings, it will be about the voters. The rabid anti-refugee cohort will be unaffected or even more strident – who cares! I suspect that the majority of the red wall voters will be also unaffected, although discussions in the pub or club may increase. Somehow Lineker manages to come across as a local lad who made good. He is not ostentacious or claiming privilege – he was in the stands at Leicester on Saturday, not the directors box. Lineker has created a situation where his concern for migrants can be aired. Whilst I am sure that the tories would like this discussion to go for ages, and deflect from other issues, they seem to be staking everything on this one issue and whilst surveys show that maybe 50% or more have sympathy with them, Linekers impact may reduce the importance of the issue (i.e. many will stop and think does he have a point here).

Whilst on refugees – Braverman said, correctly that there were 100 million refugees in the world at present – correct! That they all want to come here is less provable! (75% are still in their own countries). The billions she quotes suggests she knows something about climate change – or she is just bullshitting. However back to 100 million, or even 25 million – surely we have a responsibility to help these people. I will open myself to criticism by saying that many of our actions of the past have made is more responsible for the fate of these people.

Even current climate refugees are partially due to our past excesses. It matters not that we were ignorant about climate change until 1896 – no this is not a typo!

On misdeeds of the past – should we be accountable? My latest thought is that yes – if the current generation has benefitted from past misdemeanours? If someone nurdered your granny and stole a very valuable ring – should the perpertators descendants benefit from the crime – or should they just say sorry (or not) and pocket the cash.