Whilst the UK newspapers are full of the usual tables showing who wins and loses and, depending on the politics of the particular paper are either saying evil Tories (Guardian, BBC et al) or jolly good show (Telegraph), I though I would post a few of the comments I have found elsewhere for balance.

Bloomberg has an interesting slant on the budget that I have only seen mentioned in passing :

U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne’s plans to cut spending by the most since the 1980s in an emergency budget today may test the durability of the six-week old coalition and the strength of union opposition.

The prospect of an increase in value-added tax may lead some Liberal Democrat lawmakers to rebel against the Conservative led-coalition, as unions oppose steps to cut jobs, public workers’ pay and welfare. The spending reductions and tax increases also risk tipping the economy back into recession.

“He’s facing three big challenges,” said Danny Gabay, a former Bank of England economist and director of Fathom Financial Consulting in London. “He’s got to deliver a plan that will hold the coalition together, have the support of the electorate and satisfy the markets.”

Osborne, 39, the youngest chancellor since 1886, is staking the government’s reputation on keeping Britain’s top-grade investment rating with measures that the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates will slice 85 billion pounds ($126 billion) off the budget, equivalent to 5.7 percent of gross domestic product, to eliminate the shortfall by 2015. Unions called for an emergency meeting to develop a strategy to fight.

The part there about the risks to the coalition seem to have only been hinted at here apart from a passing reference to Simon Hughes being unlikely to vote for any of it given his left leaning underhand methods.

Some commentary from a ZeroHedge piece also caught my eye and will probably not be too far off the truth if the unions and public sector parasites workers have their way :

I think we worked out the debt to be something like £31k per person per year. How do you get yourself out of that mess.

Calculation is that the UK debt is £890bn. (I think the 1.1 trillion referred to is US$). So £890bn between 23 million productive workers equals £38k person.

The annual UK budget is £671bn. This works out at £29k a person. This is every year.

If you say the UK is going to take 20 years to repay the debt, then this is £1.9k a year per person.

Add £29k + £1.9k and you have say £31k per person per year.

…

Until there is a major dismantling of welfare dependancy in the UK this is all tinkering around the edges,the UK is now a shell of an economy with a vast proportion of its population dependant on the state either directly in the form of benefits or indirectly in that they actually work for the state in some form or other(Brown added a million non jobs in this sector alone in his tenure).This reliance on the state is growing as more and more real jobs are lost and people either end up on the dole or working for the state, real measures to tackle the above would produce civil unrest, so will obviously be avoided.

The UK government will then resort to the same tactics employed since WW1 and devalue the pound and print money to appease the masses.There never has been any real political will to tackle the difficult issues the UK faces,this time the decision has to be made against the backdrop of the looming world depression,there isn’t a hope in hell the Tory/Lib Dem fudge will have the backbone to do the right thing.

…

A. “We’re going to balance our budget by slashing spending and creating a deep recession.  It shouldn’t impact our tax revenues.”

B. “Due to the unexpected decline in tax revenues, the budget deficit will be larger than originally forecast before the austerity measures.  So those were half-measures, and now we are really going to cut to balance the budget, putting ourselves in a depression.  It shouldn’t impact our tax revenues.”

C. “Due to the unexpected decline in tax revenues, the budget deficit will be larger than we forecast before the second cut in spending.  Indeed, it will be larger than before the first cut in spending.  So there is no choice but to undergo a third set of cuts that will reduce previously untouchable parts of the budget, like the Queen’s allowance.”

D. “My government has decided to resign due to the rioting in the streets.  However, as my last official act I am permanently suspending Parliment, and turning the reins of government over to the Queen.  We expect the restoration of the monarchy to also restore Great Britian to its rightful place in the world.  Democracy didn’t work, because your elected officials were always under pressure to spend money to benefit private interests and voters, while refraining from taxing those same private interests and voters to pay the bill.  God save Great Britian, and God save the Queen.”

A, B and C in that last one will probably turn out to be the course the UK follows given the sense of entitlement that Labour has engendered in large swathes of the population over the last 13 years.

Two things that really puzzle me with the budget and the coalition pronouncements are why on earth the NHS and International Aid have been spared.

With International Aid paying out money to either corrupt governments, lining the pockets of large charity CEOs or paying the likes of China and India which have their own space programs ffs whilst in this country we have old people dying in their homes in winter unable to afford the heating bills.

The NHS will most likely become the scandal of this government. Now that MP’s expenses have been done to death and even the BBC have had to trim their profligacy, the NHS will undoubtedly provide reams of newsprint when a few journalists get stuck in. The alternative, of course, is that the NHS is seen as the way to keep the UK in employment as it currently employs around 1 in 40 people of working age and costs almost as much as is raised in income taxes in the whoel country.

Somehow, that just doesn’t seem right when everything else is being squeezed to buggery.