Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Case study: The middle-income family

'Increased spending will not stop terror'

Thursday 18 March 2004 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.

Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.

Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election

Head shot of Andrew Feinberg

Andrew Feinberg

White House Correspondent

Phil and Barbara Cullimore. Son, James

Mrs Cullimore: Senior benefits liaison officer for Wokingham district council, Mr Cullimore: credit controller for INS

Home: Wokingham, Berkshire, with £220,000 four-bedroom house

Age: Mr Cullimore, 51; Mrs Cullimore, 50; James, 15

Income: £42,000; £25,000 Mrs Cullimore, £17,000 Mr Cullimore

Savings: £10,000

Company benefits: Contributory pension scheme

Outgoings (per month): £100 pension, £70 season ticket, £520 mortgage

Politics: Usually a Conservative voter, but unsure about election

Budget hopes: Hopes motorists are not hit again; the road fund licence is scrapped but fuel costs increased. Would like to see inventive solutions to fill the deficit from the Iraq war, rather than a hike in National Insurance.

Actual effect of Budget: Mr and Mrs Cullimore are £124 richer in 2004-05. Their NI and tax will decrease, by £29 and £72 respectively. Their child benefit will increase by £23.

"We are happy about that. The Budget was neutral this year; there was nothing immediately, wildly alarming. I am not convinced by the increased spending to protect us against terrorism. We can spend all we like protecting ourselves, but if a terrorist wants to attack, they will. The Madrid bombs only prove that.

"I think the Civil Service is over-manned; whether sacking and relocating staff will be effective, I am really not sure. I am pleased to notice the provisions for pensioners. My mother and mother-in-law will benefit, because they are over 70. Brown has obviously done a lot of work on his figures, because he has differentiated between those who are 65 and the 70-year-olds. He must have worked out that we couldn't afford to help out all pensioners. But it is confusing; why is an 80-year-old more deserving than someone of 70, or of 65?

"The money for schools is much needed. I am glad most of the money is going to primary and secondary schools, because that benefits everyone. The last thing I want to see is more money going into further education. Not everyone goes to university, yet everyone deserves a good basic education, which I am not convinced is available throughout the country."

Genevieve Roberts

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in