Pre-Budget report 2009: What the papers say
Alistair Darling's pre-Budget report has been debated extensively by newspapers
Also In The News
|
By Adam Leveridge. |  |
Thursday, 10, Dec 2009 02:54
By Anisa Kadri.
Alistair Darling yesterday delivered his final pre-Budget report before the next general election. Today, inthenews.co.uk rounds up the papers' views.
Beginning on a positive note, the Mirror nodded its approval. The paper declared that the government's spending plans "make sense when the private sector is weak", whereas the Tories' ideas would have caused another Great Depression.
While praising Labour for "being open about a tax increase", the Mirror also conceded the rise in national insurance would not "be greeted by dancing in the streets".
The Times was less impressed with the report. Full of ridicule for Darling's spending plans, the paper called them "the latest instalment of a long-running British comedy - Carry on Spending" while emphasising that the need to reduce the deficit is "severe".
Contrasting Tony Blair's approach to that of the present government, Darling was said to have missed "the big picture" by policies such as free school meals and reducing bingo duty.
The Times concluded that the government had "decided to give up governing".
The Guardian was not so scathing but thinks Darling could have been "bolder" by reforming the tax system to a greater extent, and getting extra revenue out of capital gains and green taxes.
Despite beliefs that the report had gone for "small manoeuvres" such as the boiler scrappage scheme, the paper commended the government for introducing free school meals and increasing child and disability benefits.
Similarly, the Independent said that the report dealt with menial issues, or using their vegetable metaphor, "small potatoes", in the scheme of things.
The paper deemed Darling's plans on how he would reduce the structural deficit to be unclear, and therefore this was the "glaring hole" in his pre-Budget report, words which dominated the headline.
The paper added its belief that Darling's report was "shaped more by politics than economics".
The Financial Times also thought "little information" was given about public spending plans and reducing the deficit.
Although the paper described the report as "dissatisfaction delayed", it said the tax on bonuses was "justified" and "welcome". It warned the government not to embark on a "wider assault on the City", but to ensure banks do not "escape" the tax.
The paper is eager to know how the Tories plan to raise revenue if they reverse the increase in national insurance.
The Sun fumed its disappointment in the pre-Budget report, agreeing with George Osborne that it was a "pre-election report", tiptoeing, or "skating" around the £800 billion Britain owes.
According to the paper, "Sun readers" will have to "pay for fat cats and wasteful government" due to the increases in national insurance contributions and VAT called for by Darling.
Extremely unhappy with the government's plans for dealing with youth unemployment, the Sun did however admit its support for £2.5 billion more to be sent to troops in Afghanistan.
As far as the Sun is concerned, we are all "staring into the abyss" and Darling wasted his chance to show he wanted to pay off Britain's debts and reduce the deficit.