Up the creek without a paddle.

I suppose receiving a punch on the nose for your own good has its place. If a person were threatening to throw themselves over a bridge then a punch might be in order but to expect immediate thanks is optimistic.
The Chancellor has taken his seat after the much heralded, first true Tory Budget since the John Majors government which finished in 1997. It was said by the Liberal Party, who were in coalition with the Tories that they had softened the effect of Tory hegemony and today we saw the true colours of unfettered Conservatism.
Things politically sometimes come together to give a particular party an advantage.
I believe Scottish Nationalism dealt the death blow to the Labour Party in the very strong assault by the bulk of the media, (which just happens to be owned by Tory grandees),on the potential of the extremely strong showing of the SNP to pack the Opposition Benches in parliament alongside Labour with a mandate to push through pro Scottish Legislation. The English were appalled to think that the unruly nation at the top of this island, Scotland. A country which had had more say and sway in the British Parliament through Scottish born and educated individuals who often won the plum jobs both in Government and in Opposition but who now, through their collective national voice would be a collective danger as to how the cosy way of doing business would be broken up.
That's old history and today we saw and heard a Canceller set about in some detail how he intended to balance the budget, 'income v expenditure'.
There are not many who would deny that a household budget, like a national budget has to be in balance. Unless you have a rich Uncle you have to learn to live within your means.
Part of living within your means, you have to distinguish what is "your means" and for years this earning conundrum has been skewed by the Benefit System.
Benefit payments which were envisaged to be short term to pay for exceptional circumstances such as loosing ones job to tie one over whilst you found another has grown into a mammoth
1. The nature of the job market changed and security of long term employment was no longer available.
2. The nature of the family changed with single parenthood becoming more the norm and the single parent finding it hard if not impossible to find enough time in the day to earn enough and provide their child with sufficient time to cover their needs.
3. The remuneration and the skill level declined as the jobs which were available were of the Berger type trade, long hours, low pay.
4. And finally and crucially the housing stock which had been sold off by Mrs Thatcher was not replaced and the rental accommodation was now in the hands of private landlords who because of the housing stock shortage could charge high rents.
Low wages and high rents have driven up the Benefit Bill as the tax payer has supported both the Landlord and the Business Establishment by topping up the wages of the poor so they could have a roof over their heads and put food on the table.
This phenomenon is part of the new world order in which Global Capitalism has skewed the equity between people to the extent that, 1% of the worlds population has 50% of the total wealth/income, whilst the other 50% is split between the 99% left.
The Tories see this situation not as iniquitous, or morally wrong but as the cause of a "National dilemma" a weakness in not being able to balance its books. Their solution is, to withdraw part of the Benefit from the needy. Needy not because they are profligate but because "the system" is against them.
a.) Nowhere in the Budget Statement did he address house building and a replenishment of publicly owned affordable houses.
b.) Nowhere did he suggest anyway of offsetting the poor wages offered by business other than to announce that by 2020 the minimum wage will become compulsory at £9 an hour. In no way will this offset the withdrawal of the Benefits these "working people" need to balance their budget !!
Hand in hand, whilst punishing the children of the poor they reward the children of the rich by raising the threshold of when you reach Inheritance Tax, from £380.000 to £1.000.000 so that these rich kids will remain in the clover to which they are accustomed.
They held out the olive branch to the "ordinary Joe" by shifting up the level where tax becomes payable but to the majority of the people effected by the draconian Benefit cuts their earnings fall well below the existing threshold and so raising the threshold has no meaning.
I could go on but those of you who have got this far are falling asleep anyway so I will stop. I only want you to consider what a charade of a budget this is when the Chancellor, in closing his speech said " This is a budget for the whole nation since, we are all in this together".
I would have liked to add," yes but the majority don't have a paddle"!!!