Budget 2016 - watch it live here, 12.30pm!

[KateMumsnet]

Chancellor George Osborne will introduce his eighth budget at lunchtime today - he's expected to announce fresh spending cuts of £4bn, as well as a radical shakeup for schools in England, with every school becoming an academy by 2020, effectively ending local authority control. He'll also announce new funds to finance a longer day for secondary schools, with heads able to bid for funds for additional school activities and overtime pay.

Join us here to watch live at 12.30pm - and do let us know what you think of his announcements here on the thread.

Only anti Tory people could then more activities for kids to a bad thing. If corbyn said it posters on here would be jumping for job.

stat, agree he hates pensions, mainly because they lock money up. His pension freedoms was all about stimulating the economy by getting boomers to get unlock their pensions. This ISA is more flexible, I reckon what the Govt gives away will be clawed back by the benefits that can't be claimed due to these savings. Much harder to hide the savings as well as recorded on HMRC systems that are linked to DWP.

I couldnt jump for joy brewsters, or capita might declare me as fit for work!

Longer school days for older children might be a good idea if they are combined with extra support for weaker students and less homework.

The problem arises when you throw in academisation, and selection policies which may result in some children having long journeys.

My 14 year old is in a French lycée where the hours are 8am to 6pm 4 days a week, plus Wednesday mornings. She has over an hour travel each way on top (leaves the house at 6.35am, gets in at 7.15pm). It's no life and if they didn't have much longer holidays than you do in the UK plus Wednesday afternoon off, it would actually be impossible for her to keep up this pace.

iwant

I hate tories and I think it's quite a good idea for families with both parents working.
It must be hard for those who can't rely on 11-13 year olds being on their own at home after school.

I am quite happy about the longer school hours, as a working single mum I worry about childcare when my daughter starts school.

The ISA thing is only for those under 40 though. So anyone over 40 is not being encouraged to save.

They are increasing the general ISA allowance to 20k, they are available regardless of age. He did say he was looking at the next generation and in the past all of the goodies have been to the pensioners, e.g pensioner bonds.
The cynic in me says that this is about helping to prop up the housing market, kill off pensions for the under 40's, and make sure that unlike with pensions you won't be eligible for means tested benefits if you have over 6k in savings.

Only anti Tory people could then more activities for kids to a bad thing.

I think it's the compulsory nature of it and the government interference that are annoying.

There may be "more activities" but in some schools this may be a choice of two activities, in other schools twenty-five . Children will, as with the rest of the day, be stuck with what their school offers instead of being able to spend the time on activities in their community (such as scouts, youth club, ice skating), or specialist activities further afield (such as a talented sportsperson, musician or actor attending a group in the next town).

Working parents won't have to find a childminder or after school club, but that only has to be done occassionally anyway, and if it's difficult why don't the government work on making that easier instead? Clearly they want to boost the economy by people working longer hours. This decision is about money, not what is necessarily best for children.

40 will in years to come be told by the spawn of DC and GO, they won't get a state pension and should have saved with the new isa. The fact they lost a job, got ill or had to pay for a relatives care from it won't be an excuse.

Agree Lok. It's a hideously short termist approach though - you might get some extra money circulating now but in the long run...I totally understand that at the moment many people can't afford to pay in to a pension (I've been there although I can afford it now) and there's been some rotten press recently about the tax benefits for higher earners. But at the same time the more people are able to cover their own costs in retirement the better.

Cleaty you have to be under 40 to open it, but they'll keep paying in the 25% until 50 and you can save until later. But for someone who expects to work until late 60s at least that's a lot of years of no tax break...I've not seen anything which lays out what the investment options are going to be either.

The longer school hours are difficult - I can see the attraction for working parents in that awkward first year or two of high school where they're maybe not quite mature enough to be left on their own, but there probably isn't any childcare either. But I'm unconvinced. And I really hope they don't try it in primary schools!

I know there have been goodies to pensioners in the past. But there are a lot of people aged over 40 who are no where near pension age. Increasing the limit does not help me at all. I would have preferred something that encouraged saving for retirement, which those over 40 do not have.

I am going to have to work many more years until I retire than I had expected to. Help to deal with that would have been welcome. So annoyed it only helps under 40s.

I think it's a bit if a dangerous damp squib really. It's probably going to do more to prop up the property market and reduce benefit payouts than to assist with retirement.

It's probably going to do more to prop up the property market and reduce benefit payouts than to assist with retirement.

Well, naturally. You've summarised a good 50% of Tory ideological keystones there.

Gideon needs to prop up the housing market, as his "policies" depend almost entirely on continued domestic property price inflation and the ballooning consumer debt that goes with it.

The sugar tax is a bad idea, people will turn to artificial sweeteners which is far more evil for health.

I'm not completely against schools being extended by an hour as it will help working parents. My child has coped with 6 hours of school plus 2.5 hours of nursery plus 1.5 hours of travelling every day since she started primary 5 years ago and she's not tired. I understand it's not going to be good for every child though.

The sugar tax is a bad idea, people will turn to artificial sweeteners which is far more evil for health

I can't believe people are trying to frame this as a bad idea, before this policy was introduced there was a general consensus, especially on here that a sugar tax would be a good thing.

Sometimes just going for the anti Tory rethoric is a little tired.

I agree though that the lifetime ISA is another prop on the housing market, but those props where required under labour so that's nothing new.

The corporate tax and closing a few tax loopholes is a good thing though.

I wonder if the extra hour has anything to do with the compulsory Army training that kids are going to have.
Otherwise wouldn't the extra curricular activities be optional?

Do you not remember the who butter v margarine thing?

I desperately don't want extended school hours. I am a sahm to raise my dcs. I don't want them in school for an extra 5 hours a week. I want them being kids. I agree it's good for working families but would much rather see efforts coming in to mean that most families can afford for at least 1 parent to work part time or not at all.

The extra hour a day doing school work means 1 hour less doing sports. And more time pressure on sporting venues to fit everything in in 1 hour less time.

That will help the obesity crisis won't it?

Justanotherlurker - I think it's a bad idea. Sugar isn't the best food in the world, but at least it's natural and a small amount every day isn't harmful. Artificial sweeteners however are a whole different ball game. People will substitute sugar with sweeteners and cause far more harm to their health than they ever could with sugar in the long run.

There might have been some agreement on Mumsnet that sugar is the work of the devil, but I didn't agree with the consensus.

It's very easy to be anti-Tory, they make it easy for us.

Extended school hours would have been even more if Michael Gove had any say. Nothing much in the budget to build more houses and keep price rises down.

If they change to longer hours in primary schools I will be highly considering home education.

All school to become academies? so basically they will be a business, sen children will not be supported, its going to be horrendous.

The problem is that small amounts aren't being taken, there is a recognised obesity epidemic and various bodies have been calling for a sugar tax for a few years now.

I admit that as long as companies don't start using palm sugar or other alternatives then I can't really see a problem with taxing them, complaining about this to me, seems more about just being anti Tory than anything else.