91Èȱ¬

This seems to be a case of the Brown stuff potentially hitting the fan.

IF, only if, the amendment to the Finance Act was voted down, and tax had to be refunded to people, just where would that leave the UK politically and administratively?

Yeah - for sure, in even greater deepest doo-doos!

Great! Lets hope the budget doesn't get passed. The saving in income tax will pay off my debts nicely! Then I could buy a new car, and help kick-start the automotive industry...

Why does it even need a parliamentry vote to okay the budget?

If it wasn't for Brown's precarious grip on power, this whole episode would just be a storm in a tea cup. As it is, it is another nail in the coffin.

There's no need to reconsider their position.

All the chancellor has to do is back down and make sure all those who've lost out are reimbersed immediately.

Sure is easier than the alternative.

Who'd have thought that such an acorn could turn into such a big oak tree.

Nick, who claims that this amendment would make it illegal for the Government to collect income tax? This does not sound plausible to me. More likely it's another cynical ploy to whip rebellious MPs into line.

If, on the other hand, tax revenues plunge even further, it's only a matter of time before this debt time bomb explodes:

It's a sad day when even the MPs who are trying to stand up for the country are neutered by a single-minded party machine.

Another cynical trick by a discredited government. I hope that the rebels hold firm, and get adequate compensation for low earners.

But hang on a moment, Nick - doesn't failure to pass finance legislation bring about a general election? I'd always thought that was the case.

Watching Frank Field (live) talking to a very sparse gathering in the House. Presume the mob will be bussed in when the vote is due. Shameful attendence, is there something else on? Timms representing the Chancellor, is there another debate after this, or is this it??

Even more reason for the rebels to stick to their guns and force the Government to do yet another U-Turn.

Sounds like scaremongering. If the amendment is passed and the legal position is as described then this should mean an immediate resignation from the Chancellor and the PM. A good result.

Frank and Greg,

Do NOT trust a single word from this Government!...they are proven liars.

So Darling and Brown are partly bribing and also partly threatening the rebels to try to buy them off.

I always thought the parliamentary convention (which Labour tend not to give a damn about) was that if the budget was defeated, the government could not raise revenue, therefore effectively could not govern, and the PM would offer his resignation and ask for a General Election. Some hope.

Old tax history. The first income tax was introduced on a promise that it would only be for that particular year (to fund the Napoleonic wars if I remember right). Every Government since has had its little joke that Income Tax would only be for 'that year'.

In practice I'm sure it's nonsense. A Government capapble of introducing over 2,000 new laws since 1997 and trebling the size of tax legislation could, I am sure, come up with something.

Here we go again.

Darling evidently couldn't convince the Labour rebels and come up with a workable solution to resolve the 10p tax issue.

Brown reportedly hog-barrel politicking to pick off his own backbenchers (which is even more disgraceful when Labour stand for helping the poorest members of society...).

For goodness sake, we're talking hundreds of BILLIONS of borrowing, and nobody in the packed ranks of government ministers, advisers, civil service can come up with a simple way to cover and additional 60-100 Million per annum for the poorest?

As if every single penny or even million of the BILLIONS is so tightly buttoned down already that a minor hiccup would bring the whole lot tumbling down. For goodness sake, the Treasury can't even anticipate with confidence what tax take we'll have next month... The economy's in such a mess that EVERBODY'S guessing.

It's a nonsense to say they'd have to start paying back taxes, if the Government can't force this bill through Parliament. They would still have time to come back and try to get it right next time. There's no Act that says MPs have to take a long summer vacation!

I feel sorry for Darling. It was Brown who came up with the foolish decision to withdraw the 10p band...

Meanwhile, a review of Defence Spending is announced, while the troop transport aircraft fleet is so delapidated that movement "schedules" are more like "ambitions"... A lot like other areas of policy!

As the ever-eloquent Brian Taylor might say, "What a load of tosh. Piffle." Anyone who cares to consult PCTA will see that the government is talking nonsense. Yes, if the finance bill is not passed within four months of the budget, the taxes collected under it for 2009-10 are not legally collectible. It is not the end of the matter, though. There is nothing to stop the government introducing a bill to renew income tax for the current year and getting it passed, thus protecting the public revenue.

I seem to recall that there was a very truncated Finance Bill in 1992. the HoC passed a bill necessary to protect the public revenue until after the general election. I also recall that it was done within a matter of days.

If MPs do not take HMG to task, I have to ask what their purpose is. Similarly, journalists (like your goodself, Mr Robinson) have a duty to investigate and inform the public. If the 91Èȱ¬ cannot carry out that duty, it does not deserve its charter and the licence fee that goes with it. So get cracking on it now, there's a good chap.

And I thought the budget "negotiations" here in North Carolina were bad...

The truth is they might have to shorten their holidays because the budget was late as the staff were working on the G20 shindig .Which you will remember is about to be replayed in slow motion at the G8 with a reprise later in the year in Pittsburgh where they can rack up more air miles whilst saving the planet.

well the government needs to increase taxation to cover their pay rise and help towards the amount of debt they placed upon this country.
we all know income tax will have to be increased but to hit the poorest sector first is a slap in the faces of the traditional labour voters.

I, as an employer of one person on NMW, know that NMW has nearly doubled since its introduction about 8 years ago. Has your pay doubled in the last eight years?

I also know that my employee gets working tax credit that exceeds her tax and NIC payments. Can we really afford to allow 3-4m workers to be exempt from contributing anything into the system? And, when they get a net credit via working tax credit they are effectively on benefits?

Such massive redistribution of wealth is a factor in binge drinking.

dlilley I really don't buy it; binge drinking is a very complex phenomenon; I'm not sure anyone is actually certain about its causes and I don't think your assertion that its all down to redistribution holds water. The fact is the NMW is one of the most positive contributions this labour government has made; sure its increased dramatically but this is more a reflection of the fact that it was (and arguably still is much too low) and of the remarkably low base - i.e doubling pay is not a very dramatic move when it only entails a rise of £2.50 per hour. Any compassionate human ought to sympathise with the vast downtrodden population of this country, rather than stereotyping them as binge drinkers. Its scandalous that we made do so long without a minimum wage at all. What really ought to cause a scandal is the gross pay of city fat cats, its high time we started really stripping them of their ill gotten gains by means of heavy redistributive taxation.

Why are the chancellor and the government so tough, quick and determined to sacrifice the poor and the needy to subsidise the BAB?

Minimum wage of £4.50/hr X 40hr week = £9360 pa
Tax threshold for tax = £6475 pa
The whole exercise is a cynical act to increase tax revenue at the lower end of the pay scale.
Why not just increase the threshold to minimum wage annual salary i.e £9360.
It may lose the Treasury a couple of hundred million in tax receipts but in the whole scheme of things,like £175 billion debt,it's peanuts.

Alister Darling tough .... on yer bike Nick remember the other departments he's had when was the last time he had any 'clout'.

Next time at PMQs turn the sound down and just watch, the entire front bench says it all - they look drawn withered and wilted and I get the impression they are all sat there wondering what poor ol Gordons gonna say next.

As for over ruling the budget there would have been more to the laughing stock if they had.

Trouble is there ain't any big guns there anymore and poor Mandy well, it's a bit like wetting an old lettuce and calling it fresh!