Oh ferfuxsake, what were we discussing this morning?
In his autumn statement, Hunt cut 2p from national insurance contributions (NICs) on the grounds that it was a tax on jobs and would do more to boost growth than a cut in income tax. The OBR has also suggested that an income tax cut could be more inflationary. However, ministers are mindful that pensioners, the one sector of the electorate that reliably votes Tory, get no benefit from a cut to NICs but would benefit from an income tax cut.
Another factor is that national insurance is misunderstood by many voters, who believe it is there specifically to pay for pensions and the NHS, when it is simply another tax. “Some voters hear cuts to NI and think the state pension is being cut,” said one senior Tory.
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
So, here's my forecast for the six:
AZ - Trump gain NV - Trump gain GA - Biden hold MI - Trump gain WI - Biden hold PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
Re Gaza, and it awfulness, and looking ahead. Israel has no plans to make friends with anyone by its policies, and does intend to render Gaza uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
There must be, I think, more than blind rage going on. There is a longer term policy. This, I wonder, may be to ensure that someone (who?) has no choice but to move the population of Gaza elsewhere.
Oh ferfuxsake, what were we discussing this morning?
In his autumn statement, Hunt cut 2p from national insurance contributions (NICs) on the grounds that it was a tax on jobs and would do more to boost growth than a cut in income tax. The OBR has also suggested that an income tax cut could be more inflationary. However, ministers are mindful that pensioners, the one sector of the electorate that reliably votes Tory, get no benefit from a cut to NICs but would benefit from an income tax cut.
Another factor is that national insurance is misunderstood by many voters, who believe it is there specifically to pay for pensions and the NHS, when it is simply another tax. “Some voters hear cuts to NI and think the state pension is being cut,” said one senior Tory.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
So, here's my forecast for the six:
AZ - Trump gain NV - Trump gain GA - Biden hold MI - Trump gain WI - Biden hold PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
I know. I was commenting on the Sienna Poll. I thought some might be very concerned by that Sienna Poll.
But I'm also monitoring the polls in the swing states for the reason you give, and as you say, Trump is ahead - but not by a lot.
Germany has admitted the apparent hack by Russia of a military meeting where officers discussed giving Ukraine long-range missiles - and possible targets.
Audio of the video-conference meeting was posted to social media by the head of Russia's state-run RT channel.
The officers discuss how the missiles could hit the Kerch Bridge, which links Russia to the illegally annexed Crimea. ... According to Der Spiegel magazine, the videoconference was not held on a secret internal army network but on the WebEx platform. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68457087
Webex is end-to-end encrypted so there may be more to this story, whether spies, moles or just incompetent configuration.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
Oh ferfuxsake, what were we discussing this morning?
In his autumn statement, Hunt cut 2p from national insurance contributions (NICs) on the grounds that it was a tax on jobs and would do more to boost growth than a cut in income tax. The OBR has also suggested that an income tax cut could be more inflationary. However, ministers are mindful that pensioners, the one sector of the electorate that reliably votes Tory, get no benefit from a cut to NICs but would benefit from an income tax cut.
Another factor is that national insurance is misunderstood by many voters, who believe it is there specifically to pay for pensions and the NHS, when it is simply another tax. “Some voters hear cuts to NI and think the state pension is being cut,” said one senior Tory.
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
So, here's my forecast for the six:
AZ - Trump gain NV - Trump gain GA - Biden hold MI - Trump gain WI - Biden hold PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
It is worth noting, of course, that the Democrats did pretty well in all those states in the midterms.
In Arizona they captured the Governor's mansion from the Republicans, and won a competitive Senate race in a midterm.
In Pennsylvania they flipped the Senate seat.
In Georgia, they held their Senate seat.
Against that, they only just held onto Nevada, and the Republicans (just) held on in Wisconsin.
Indeed, the most negative thing for the Republicans is that they don't seem to have done as well in real elections as in the polls:
In Nevada, 538 had Laxalt ahead by 1.4%, and he lost by 1%. In Arizona, Kelly was ahead by 1.5%, and he won by 4.9% In Wisconsin, Johnson was polling 3.4% ahead of Barnes, but won by only 1%. In Pennsylvania, hard though it is to believe, Oz was 0.5% ahead on the 538 average... but lost by 4.9%.
It's a really interesting inversion of the previous cycle, where Republicans were handily outperforming their poll scores.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
Still a lot of bitterness over what happened to the Lib-Dems in 2015, not to mention Brexit and political demise of Cameron and Osborne! 😂
Lot of ad homs regarding the header tonight.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Oh ferfuxsake, what were we discussing this morning?
In his autumn statement, Hunt cut 2p from national insurance contributions (NICs) on the grounds that it was a tax on jobs and would do more to boost growth than a cut in income tax. The OBR has also suggested that an income tax cut could be more inflationary. However, ministers are mindful that pensioners, the one sector of the electorate that reliably votes Tory, get no benefit from a cut to NICs but would benefit from an income tax cut.
Another factor is that national insurance is misunderstood by many voters, who believe it is there specifically to pay for pensions and the NHS, when it is simply another tax. “Some voters hear cuts to NI and think the state pension is being cut,” said one senior Tory.
You can't get your state pension without NI contributions or NI credit.
However otherwise there is no direct link, NI was created to fund state pensions, unemployment benefits and healthcare of course and it would be better if we restored some of that link
Oh ferfuxsake, what were we discussing this morning?
In his autumn statement, Hunt cut 2p from national insurance contributions (NICs) on the grounds that it was a tax on jobs and would do more to boost growth than a cut in income tax. The OBR has also suggested that an income tax cut could be more inflationary. However, ministers are mindful that pensioners, the one sector of the electorate that reliably votes Tory, get no benefit from a cut to NICs but would benefit from an income tax cut.
Another factor is that national insurance is misunderstood by many voters, who believe it is there specifically to pay for pensions and the NHS, when it is simply another tax. “Some voters hear cuts to NI and think the state pension is being cut,” said one senior Tory.
Not that it will make any real difference - but concentrating the "tax cut" on voters unlikely to vote for you otherwise seems slightly more sensible that making sure that pensioners who will already vote for you get at least their share?
Really don't think a 2nd May election is happening. It's July or the Autumn. Why (beyond Labour's 20% lead)? Because @RishiSunak's whole campaign is based on the economy turning the corner. The biggest proof point of that (data showing inflation down to 2%) comes... in mid-May
Yes by the Autumn you have: - CPI back down at or below 2% pa - The BoE starting to cut base rates - Growth potentially back in the positives - ... but potentially bad news on small boats.
I'd argue that more votes are won on economic sentiment than data on channel crossings, but we'll see.
I can see you can get 5.2 on Betfair for a May election so there's betting opportunities for those who are convinced as such.
I think Tuesday will be crucial. A May election would need an economic springboard just in case "vote for me to stop extremism and unite the country" doesn't have the traction the Mail thinks it does (imagine their response if Starmer had used the same words).
Tax cuts? More glamorous than NI cuts but I suspect the latter will be on offer. The best Sunak/Hunt can probably offer is no jam now, jam in September then an election. Even with the addition of most of the Reform vote (if you support such a hypothesis), the Conservatives are 32-34% at best and still on the wrong side of a defeat.
I support NI cuts over income tax cuts (with the intention of phasing out NI over time) but as a pre-election giveaway I can see that income tax cuts is much more widely understood by voters as to what it means for them.
I suspect Hunt wants to cut NI and Sunak wands to cut income tax, so it'll be interesting as to who wins out.
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
So, here's my forecast for the six:
AZ - Trump gain NV - Trump gain GA - Biden hold MI - Trump gain WI - Biden hold PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
Oh, it's entirely possible that Biden loses all seven.
It's also entirely possible that Trump loses all seven. (Bloomberg - who did the polling - added North Carolina to the swing states list.)
For what it's worth, that Bloomberg polling has Trump running away with AZ and NV, and only just beating out Biden in WI and MI. So, it takes only a tiny amount of "swing back" for my forecast to be pretty accurate.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
Still a lot of bitterness over what happened to the Lib-Dems in 2015, not to mention Brexit and political demise of Cameron and Osborne! 😂
Lot of ad homs regarding the header tonight.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
- Mrs Thatcher
Our greatest Prime Minister.
Clement Attlee gets my vote.
Mine too. The corpse of Clement Attlee would be a vast improvement on any current option.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
It isn't in the sense about 10% of voters are still undecided and they will decide the election. Probably based in large part on the verdicts in Trump's criminal cases this year. Most of those undecided voters also voted for Biden in 2020 so while unhappy with his administration are still not willing to switch to Trump
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
As usual, I'm late to the thread party but wanted to comment on the debate regarding the older vote.
Most of the pollsters have a 65+ sub sample and the latest numbers are:
YouGov: Conservative 27%, Don't Know 21%, Labour 20%, Reform 18% Techne (excluding DKs and WVs): Conservative 37%, Labour 30%, Reform 12%, LD 11% More In Common (again excluding DKs and WVs) has "Boomers" (56-64): Lab 36%, Con 34%, Ref 12%, LD 10% and Silent Generation (75+) Con 53%, Lab 20%, LD 12% and Reform 10% Deltapoll: (excluding DKs and WVs): Con 38%, Lab 35%, Ref 12%, LD 10% Redfield & Wilton (excluding WVs): Con 24%, Lab 24%, DK 18%, Reform 15%, LD 11%
Two things strike me - the highest proportion of Don't Knows is among older voters and the assumption they will all vote is challenged a bit by YouGov which suggests the 56-64 age group now more likely to vote.
In December 2019, the Conservatives got 64% of the vote of those aged 65 or older with Labour on 17% and the LDs on 11%.
The swing (Con-Lab) would be 20% with Techne and 22% with Deltapoll on current numbers so well above the UNS from the poll headline numbers.
It seems the Conservative core is now those aged 75 or over which while not to be ignored is not enough on its own to build a majority. For those with time and the inclination, a look at the demographics at constituency level might be indicative of where the largest swings might be if current polling numbers were repeated in a General Election.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
Come off it.
The S&GP long pre-dates the OBR. Gordon Brown made it clear that his Five Economic Tests would have precedence in the UK, but we were still committed to producing the convergence report. The responsibility for doing so was handed to the OBR when it was created, because it was an obvious thing for them to do. The fact that one of the Government's subsidiary fiscal mandates, as monitored by the OBR, is the same as one of the S&GP Convergence Criteria is a matter for the Treasury, not the OBR. It's certainly not any sort of smoking gun.
You've got the chain of causality the wrong way round - there's no conspiracy here.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
TSE is a “good Muslim boy” of Indian heritage.
Sunak is Hindu.
Sadly there is a deep engrained prejudice that TSE may not even be aware of himself but it’s been evident since day 1.
I think that's unfair on @TheScreamingEagles . I can't speak to his interiority but I think I can speak to his external behaviour, and it doesn't match somebody with an animus against Hindus.
Oh ferfuxsake, what were we discussing this morning?
In his autumn statement, Hunt cut 2p from national insurance contributions (NICs) on the grounds that it was a tax on jobs and would do more to boost growth than a cut in income tax. The OBR has also suggested that an income tax cut could be more inflationary. However, ministers are mindful that pensioners, the one sector of the electorate that reliably votes Tory, get no benefit from a cut to NICs but would benefit from an income tax cut.
Another factor is that national insurance is misunderstood by many voters, who believe it is there specifically to pay for pensions and the NHS, when it is simply another tax. “Some voters hear cuts to NI and think the state pension is being cut,” said one senior Tory.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
Edit to add: it's even in Nigel Lawson's View From Number 11!
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
Still a lot of bitterness over what happened to the Lib-Dems in 2015, not to mention Brexit and political demise of Cameron and Osborne! 😂
Lot of ad homs regarding the header tonight.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
- Mrs Thatcher
Our greatest Prime Minister.
Clement Attlee gets my vote.
Before my time. I have read widely on Harold '64 to '70 and he gets a hat tip. My dad was a lifelong Labour voter but had a soft spot for SuperMac. He also thought Butler would have made a great PM.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
shock horror that an institution with a mandate to show a budget is reasonable has metrics to show such reasonableness. You really are a Trussian fruitloop.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
Still a lot of bitterness over what happened to the Lib-Dems in 2015, not to mention Brexit and political demise of Cameron and Osborne! 😂
Lot of ad homs regarding the header tonight.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
- Mrs Thatcher
Our greatest Prime Minister.
Clement Attlee gets my vote.
Mine too. The corpse of Clement Attlee would be a vast improvement on any current option.
Harold Macmillan too. His gravestone would likely to a better job of managing the housing crisis than the current govt.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum? And the long run growth rate seems to have fallen.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
Really don't think a 2nd May election is happening. It's July or the Autumn. Why (beyond Labour's 20% lead)? Because @RishiSunak's whole campaign is based on the economy turning the corner. The biggest proof point of that (data showing inflation down to 2%) comes... in mid-May
Yes by the Autumn you have: - CPI back down at or below 2% pa - The BoE starting to cut base rates - Growth potentially back in the positives - ... but potentially bad news on small boats.
I'd argue that more votes are won on economic sentiment than data on channel crossings, but we'll see.
I can see you can get 5.2 on Betfair for a May election so there's betting opportunities for those who are convinced as such.
I think Tuesday will be crucial. A May election would need an economic springboard just in case "vote for me to stop extremism and unite the country" doesn't have the traction the Mail thinks it does (imagine their response if Starmer had used the same words).
Tax cuts? More glamorous than NI cuts but I suspect the latter will be on offer. The best Sunak/Hunt can probably offer is no jam now, jam in September then an election. Even with the addition of most of the Reform vote (if you support such a hypothesis), the Conservatives are 32-34% at best and still on the wrong side of a defeat.
I support NI cuts over income tax cuts (with the intention of phasing out NI over time) but as a pre-election giveaway I can see that income tax cuts is much more widely understood by voters as to what it means for them.
I suspect Hunt wants to cut NI and Sunak wands to cut income tax, so it'll be interesting as to who wins out.
Slight problem is if you actually look at the finances there is no money to cut anything
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
It's nominal GDP, not real GDP, that matters.
So it's fine so long as growth plus inflation is 3%?
Edit: So a lower growth rate demands higher inflation than before?
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
Still a lot of bitterness over what happened to the Lib-Dems in 2015, not to mention Brexit and political demise of Cameron and Osborne! 😂
Lot of ad homs regarding the header tonight.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
- Mrs Thatcher
Our greatest Prime Minister.
Clement Attlee gets my vote.
Mine too. The corpse of Clement Attlee would be a vast improvement on any current option.
Harold Macmillan too. His gravestone would likely to a better job of managing the housing crisis than the current govt.
Really don't think a 2nd May election is happening. It's July or the Autumn. Why (beyond Labour's 20% lead)? Because @RishiSunak's whole campaign is based on the economy turning the corner. The biggest proof point of that (data showing inflation down to 2%) comes... in mid-May
Yes by the Autumn you have: - CPI back down at or below 2% pa - The BoE starting to cut base rates - Growth potentially back in the positives - ... but potentially bad news on small boats.
I'd argue that more votes are won on economic sentiment than data on channel crossings, but we'll see.
I can see you can get 5.2 on Betfair for a May election so there's betting opportunities for those who are convinced as such.
I think Tuesday will be crucial. A May election would need an economic springboard just in case "vote for me to stop extremism and unite the country" doesn't have the traction the Mail thinks it does (imagine their response if Starmer had used the same words).
Tax cuts? More glamorous than NI cuts but I suspect the latter will be on offer. The best Sunak/Hunt can probably offer is no jam now, jam in September then an election. Even with the addition of most of the Reform vote (if you support such a hypothesis), the Conservatives are 32-34% at best and still on the wrong side of a defeat.
I support NI cuts over income tax cuts (with the intention of phasing out NI over time) but as a pre-election giveaway I can see that income tax cuts is much more widely understood by voters as to what it means for them.
I suspect Hunt wants to cut NI and Sunak wands to cut income tax, so it'll be interesting as to who wins out.
Slight problem is if you actually look at the finances there is no money to cut anything
Well, yes, but to solve for that your fiscal plan includes various spending cuts via efficiency savings over years 2-5 of the fiscal forecast such that it meets the relevant fiscal rules... When you won't be in office of course!
In the pursuit of maintaining fiscal discipline while ensuring the agility to respond to economic fluctuations, a stipulated 3% threshold for the appropriate through-the-cycle budget deficit is imperative. This benchmark aligns with our commitment to sustainable economic policies that safeguard against excessive borrowing, thereby reducing the vulnerability to financial crises. In coordination with the Federal Reserve's monetary policy objectives, this fiscal guideline serves to complement efforts to stabilize inflation and foster employment growth, enhancing the overall effectiveness of economic policy. By setting this limit, we encourage prudent fiscal management, ensuring that government spending is both effective and sustainable over the economic cycle. This approach not only preserves the integrity of public finances but also instills confidence among investors and international partners, reinforcing our country's financial stability and creditworthiness. The 3% threshold is a balanced measure that provides sufficient room for maneuver in times of economic downturn, allowing for counter-cyclical fiscal policies without compromising long-term fiscal sustainability, thereby supporting the Federal Reserve in its dual mandate to achieve maximum employment and stable prices.
Edit to add: That's from 1994 , but isn't in the current version. Still, I think it shows that 3% is a pretty widely used metric for a sustainable budget deficit.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
It's nominal GDP, not real GDP, that matters.
So it's fine so long as growth plus inflation is 3%?
Technically its multiplicative rather than additive, but yes.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
TSE is a “good Muslim boy” of Indian heritage.
Sunak is Hindu.
Sadly there is a deep engrained prejudice that TSE may not even be aware of himself but it’s been evident since day 1.
I think that's unfair on @TheScreamingEagles . I can't speak to his interiority but I think I can speak to his external behaviour, and it doesn't match somebody with an animus against Hindus.
To quote Bart Simpson, I would tell Hindus to not have a cow about my comments about Sunak. My criticisms about Sunak are solely about him being crap not that he is a cow botherer.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
It's nominal GDP, not real GDP, that matters.
So it's fine so long as growth plus inflation is 3%?
Edit: So a lower growth rate demands higher inflation than before?
Inflation was another of the convergence criteria, so will have been captured separately
(but, yes, there was likely some fiddling around Greece's numbers in particular, with a suspiciously sudden drop in inflation in 1999 whilst nominal GDP continued to power ahead...)
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
shock horror that an institution with a mandate to show a budget is reasonable has metrics to show such reasonableness. You really are a Trussian fruitloop.
PB shrewdies are a genuinely hilarious bunch. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS ASSERTION! *Show them* OH JUST THAT EVIDENCE, WELL THAT'S JUST SENSIBLE AND A GOOD THING!!1! FRUITLOOP!1!!
All right dears. Actually I didn't pass judgement on the desirability or otherwise of keeping deficits below 3% of GDP, I am suggesting that their mandate is anachronistic because it doesn't include a whole raft of targets, such as growth in the economy, which events have shown us are far more important than the 3%.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
It's nominal GDP, not real GDP, that matters.
So it's fine so long as growth plus inflation is 3%?
Technically its multiplicative rather than additive, but yes.
But if you're in a lower growth period inflation has to pick up more of the slack, no?
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
It's nominal GDP, not real GDP, that matters.
So it's fine so long as growth plus inflation is 3%?
Technically its multiplicative rather than additive, but yes.
But if you're in a lower growth period inflation has to pick up more of the slack, no?
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
It's nominal GDP, not real GDP, that matters.
So it's fine so long as growth plus inflation is 3%?
Technically its multiplicative rather than additive, but yes.
But if you're in a lower growth period inflation has to pick up more of the slack, no?
Absolutely.
Well after the financial crash I remember Krugman suggested allowing inflation to go to 3%. But I assumed that was to help manage the debt we already had, not to load up on even more.
It seems to me that if 3% budget deficit applies in a lower growth era you have to explain why a higher inflation target is now appropriate than was the case before.
It's funny. I was a fiscal dove on this site when people like Sean Fear were hawks after the GFC. Now I see him mentioning how well the economy is doing in the US under Biden which to me just looks like maxxing the credit card plus exporting gas to Europe.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
Still a lot of bitterness over what happened to the Lib-Dems in 2015, not to mention Brexit and political demise of Cameron and Osborne! 😂
Lot of ad homs regarding the header tonight.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
- Mrs Thatcher
Our greatest Prime Minister.
Clement Attlee gets my vote.
Mine too. The corpse of Clement Attlee would be a vast improvement on any current option.
Harold Macmillan too. His gravestone would likely to a better job of managing the housing crisis than the current govt.
Who would be the Bob Boothby de nos jours?
In who's had who political Top Trumps no one beats Bob Booth. A love triangle with the Prime Minister's wife and Ronnie Kray takes some beating.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
Still a lot of bitterness over what happened to the Lib-Dems in 2015, not to mention Brexit and political demise of Cameron and Osborne! 😂
Lot of ad homs regarding the header tonight.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
- Mrs Thatcher
Our greatest Prime Minister.
Clement Attlee gets my vote.
Mine too. The corpse of Clement Attlee would be a vast improvement on any current option.
Harold Macmillan too. His gravestone would likely to a better job of managing the housing crisis than the current govt.
Who would be the Bob Boothby de nos jours?
In who's had who political Top Trumps no one beats Bob Booth. A love triangle with the Prime Minister's wife and Ronnie Kray takes some beating.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
shock horror that an institution with a mandate to show a budget is reasonable has metrics to show such reasonableness. You really are a Trussian fruitloop.
PB shrewdies are a genuinely hilarious bunch. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS ASSERTION! *Show them* OH JUST THAT EVIDENCE, WELL THAT'S JUST SENSIBLE AND A GOOD THING!!1! FRUITLOOP!1!!
All right dears. Actually I didn't pass judgement on the desirability or otherwise of keeping deficits below 3% of GDP, I am suggesting that their mandate is anachronistic because it doesn't include a whole raft of targets, such as growth in the economy, which events have shown us are far more important than the 3%.
No, you were suggesting that the OBR 'was set up to ensure that the UK's budgets prepared us for the Euro'.
It's been clear since October 1997 that we weren't going to do that. The OBR dates from 2010, long after the debate over Euro membership had been settled.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
Still a lot of bitterness over what happened to the Lib-Dems in 2015, not to mention Brexit and political demise of Cameron and Osborne! 😂
Lot of ad homs regarding the header tonight.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
- Mrs Thatcher
Our greatest Prime Minister.
Clement Attlee gets my vote.
Mine too. The corpse of Clement Attlee would be a vast improvement on any current option.
Harold Macmillan too. His gravestone would likely to a better job of managing the housing crisis than the current govt.
Who would be the Bob Boothby de nos jours?
In who's had who political Top Trumps no one beats Bob Booth. A love triangle with the Prime Minister's wife and Ronnie Kray takes some beating.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum? And the long run growth rate seems to have fallen.
Trussonomics in a nutshell: If the economy is not growing, cut taxes to make it grow. If the economy is growing, cut taxes because they are affordable.
Really don't think a 2nd May election is happening. It's July or the Autumn. Why (beyond Labour's 20% lead)? Because @RishiSunak's whole campaign is based on the economy turning the corner. The biggest proof point of that (data showing inflation down to 2%) comes... in mid-May
Yes by the Autumn you have: - CPI back down at or below 2% pa - The BoE starting to cut base rates - Growth potentially back in the positives - ... but potentially bad news on small boats.
I'd argue that more votes are won on economic sentiment than data on channel crossings, but we'll see.
I can see you can get 5.2 on Betfair for a May election so there's betting opportunities for those who are convinced as such.
I think Tuesday will be crucial. A May election would need an economic springboard just in case "vote for me to stop extremism and unite the country" doesn't have the traction the Mail thinks it does (imagine their response if Starmer had used the same words).
Tax cuts? More glamorous than NI cuts but I suspect the latter will be on offer. The best Sunak/Hunt can probably offer is no jam now, jam in September then an election. Even with the addition of most of the Reform vote (if you support such a hypothesis), the Conservatives are 32-34% at best and still on the wrong side of a defeat.
I support NI cuts over income tax cuts (with the intention of phasing out NI over time) but as a pre-election giveaway I can see that income tax cuts is much more widely understood by voters as to what it means for them.
I suspect Hunt wants to cut NI and Sunak wands to cut income tax, so it'll be interesting as to who wins out.
Slight problem is if you actually look at the finances there is no money to cut anything
Well, yes, but to solve for that your fiscal plan includes various spending cuts via efficiency savings over years 2-5 of the fiscal forecast such that it meets the relevant fiscal rules... When you won't be in office of course!
Yep - he's basically spending money that doesn't exist and Hunt will watch his name be turned to mud or worse as Labour explain in detail why the recent tax cuts need to be reversed...
Also we have serious problems at £50,000 and £100,000 as exemplified by articles in today's Telegraph saying that working a 4 day week is the only sane option and that is going to take a lot of effort to fix..
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
Which is why I have suggested that any report/review/inquiry for the government should give recommendations, and the government replies with what it intends to do with each recommendation (e.g. object, reject, accept), and for each it accepts, give a timescale for implementation.
Far too many reports have good ideas kicked into the long grass. This often makes such inquiries or reports utterly pointless.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Yet universality was one of key points that government promised in 2021.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Yet universality was one of key points that government promised in 2021.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum? And the long run growth rate seems to have fallen.
Trussonomics in a nutshell: If the economy is not growing, cut taxes to make it grow. If the economy is growing, cut taxes because they are affordable.
See also :
Inflation is low - you don't need much of a payrise Inflation is high - we can't afford that payrise
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
... Even if it's successful?
Other than pregnancy? If we're advocating against that.....
Really don't think a 2nd May election is happening. It's July or the Autumn. Why (beyond Labour's 20% lead)? Because @RishiSunak's whole campaign is based on the economy turning the corner. The biggest proof point of that (data showing inflation down to 2%) comes... in mid-May
Yes by the Autumn you have: - CPI back down at or below 2% pa - The BoE starting to cut base rates - Growth potentially back in the positives - ... but potentially bad news on small boats.
I'd argue that more votes are won on economic sentiment than data on channel crossings, but we'll see.
I can see you can get 5.2 on Betfair for a May election so there's betting opportunities for those who are convinced as such.
I think Tuesday will be crucial. A May election would need an economic springboard just in case "vote for me to stop extremism and unite the country" doesn't have the traction the Mail thinks it does (imagine their response if Starmer had used the same words).
Tax cuts? More glamorous than NI cuts but I suspect the latter will be on offer. The best Sunak/Hunt can probably offer is no jam now, jam in September then an election. Even with the addition of most of the Reform vote (if you support such a hypothesis), the Conservatives are 32-34% at best and still on the wrong side of a defeat.
I support NI cuts over income tax cuts (with the intention of phasing out NI over time) but as a pre-election giveaway I can see that income tax cuts is much more widely understood by voters as to what it means for them.
I suspect Hunt wants to cut NI and Sunak wands to cut income tax, so it'll be interesting as to who wins out.
Slight problem is if you actually look at the finances there is no money to cut anything
I think you'll find there is plenty of scope to cutting in-work anything to the poor.
On homelessness in the US: Some months ago, in a WaPo column, Megan McArdle described a study that found that increasing homeless in US cities was positively correlated with increases in the minimum wage.
Increases in the minimum wage force less productive workers out of the labor force, and that decreases the supply of housing for such workers. (In the US, the minimum wage varies widely among states, and even cities. Though there is a federal minimum wage, many places have much higher hourly rates.)
McArdle did not endorse the argument, despite her (partial) libertarian sympathies but thought, as I do, that the argument deserves attention.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
TSE is a “good Muslim boy” of Indian heritage.
Sunak is Hindu.
Sadly there is a deep engrained prejudice that TSE may not even be aware of himself but it’s been evident since day 1.
I think that's unfair on @TheScreamingEagles . I can't speak to his interiority but I think I can speak to his external behaviour, and it doesn't match somebody with an animus against Hindus.
The only anti-Hindu remark I can remember him making is where in 2018 he declared that if India lost a Test he would eat a pineapple pizza.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
TSE is a “good Muslim boy” of Indian heritage.
Sunak is Hindu.
Sadly there is a deep engrained prejudice that TSE may not even be aware of himself but it’s been evident since day 1.
I think that's unfair on @TheScreamingEagles . I can't speak to his interiority but I think I can speak to his external behaviour, and it doesn't match somebody with an animus against Hindus.
The only anti-Hindu remark I can remember him making is where in 2018 he declared that if India lost a Test he would eat a pineapple pizza.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
It's nominal GDP, not real GDP, that matters.
So it's fine so long as growth plus inflation is 3%?
Technically its multiplicative rather than additive, but yes.
Technically it's additive in logarithms, which is how growth should be analysed
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
TSE is a “good Muslim boy” of Indian heritage.
Sunak is Hindu.
Sadly there is a deep engrained prejudice that TSE may not even be aware of himself but it’s been evident since day 1.
I think that's unfair on @TheScreamingEagles . I can't speak to his interiority but I think I can speak to his external behaviour, and it doesn't match somebody with an animus against Hindus.
The only anti-Hindu remark I can remember him making is where in 2018 he declared that if India lost a Test he would eat a pineapple pizza.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
TSE is a “good Muslim boy” of Indian heritage.
Sunak is Hindu.
Sadly there is a deep engrained prejudice that TSE may not even be aware of himself but it’s been evident since day 1.
I think that's unfair on @TheScreamingEagles . I can't speak to his interiority but I think I can speak to his external behaviour, and it doesn't match somebody with an animus against Hindus.
The only anti-Hindu remark I can remember him making is where in 2018 he declared that if India lost a Test he would eat a pineapple pizza.
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
TSE is a “good Muslim boy” of Indian heritage.
Sunak is Hindu.
Sadly there is a deep engrained prejudice that TSE may not even be aware of himself but it’s been evident since day 1.
I think that's unfair on @TheScreamingEagles . I can't speak to his interiority but I think I can speak to his external behaviour, and it doesn't match somebody with an animus against Hindus.
The only anti-Hindu remark I can remember him making is where in 2018 he declared that if India lost a Test he would eat a pineapple pizza.
@Cyclefree, please skip past this post, it is in the best interests of your health.
‘Pay me £1m or I quit’: staff tell of Post Office boss’s wrath
Chief executive Nick Read was fixated with his salary when he should have been focused on help for wronged postmasters, insiders say
Post Office boss Nick Read threatened to resign multiple times and demanded a pay package of more than £1 million
Read told colleagues he was “prepared to make a drama” and submit a formal grievance or claim constructive dismissal
Senior MPs warn the Post Office chief will have to quit if he is shown to have misled parliament after declaring he never tried to resign
Post Office now faces a bullying investigation and an unfair dismissal claim from its former HR director
Even before he started as chairman of the Post Office, Henry Staunton was lobbying to get its chief executive more money.
On November 11, 2022, almost three weeks before he was due to take up the role, he wrote to the then business secretary, Grant Shapps, warning him of “the urgent requirement for Post Office to take action to retain Nick Read”.
Staunton said that Read, who was paid £816,000 in 2021-22 and £573,000 in 2022-23, was “a prime target for other prospective roles not constrained by … public-sector influence”. The chairman designate suggested boosting the chief executive’s maximum pay package to more than £1.1 million – which he said would still put Read close to the “lower quartile” of private-sector peers.
I'd already seen that. Read should be facing investigation for fraud by abuse of position contrary to S.4 of the Fraud Act 2006 over the bonus awards. He is not the only one.
The whole lot of them need sacking without compensation.
What is now making it worse is the PO getting lawyers to write letters saying the subpostmasters are really guilty when those lawyers cannot possibly have reviewed the investigations, evidence etc in all the cases to come to such a view and appear to be ignoring what the courts have said and the evidence coming out of the inquiry. They are all utter shitbags.
If you think the PO scandal is bad, the blood contamination one is even worse - 40 years on, 1100 victims have died - some in horrible ways (the parents describing the death of their 7 year old son is utterly heart-breaking), compensation still has to be paid and no-one has been held accountable.
Other countries have managed the last two.
But not us. Because the British state is actively malign and incompetent, and the former quality comes even more to the fore when it deals with the victims of its malignity and incompetence.
I am in the middle of writing an article about the low sentences given to men who view, share & create child abuse images. I have a strong stomach but reading about the pathetic sentences, the failure to understand that this is a serious offence and its impact on the victims, the self-serving justifications ("stress" - I ask you) is utterly utterly depressing. And angering.
On homelessness in the US: Some months ago, in a WaPo column, Megan McArdle described a study that found that increasing homeless in US cities was positively correlated with increases in the minimum wage.
Increases in the minimum wage force less productive workers out of the labor force, and that decreases the supply of housing for such workers. (In the US, the minimum wage varies widely among states, and even cities. Though there is a federal minimum wage, many places have much higher hourly rates.)
McArdle did not endorse the argument, despite her (partial) libertarian sympathies but thought, as I do, that the argument deserves attention.
By the way, I oppose a government mandated minimum wage, for exactly the reason that it pushes the least productive people - who often benefit the most from having structure in their lives - out of the labour market
But while the argument is not without merit, I do think there are many different arrows of causality, and I think that this is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy - i.e. an attempt to blame a complex problem on a single factor.
As an example, raising minimum wages is often a misguided attempt by politicians to enable the poorest be able to afford increasingly expensive housing. But the expensive housing is is a major cause of the homelessness, so you see a correlation, even though it is not the primary causation.
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
It's nominal GDP, not real GDP, that matters.
So it's fine so long as growth plus inflation is 3%?
Technically its multiplicative rather than additive, but yes.
Technically it's additive in logarithms, which is how growth should be analysed
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
Couldn't make it up. The Budget Responsibility Committee of the OBR is appointed by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They have executive responsibility for carrying out the core functions of the OBR, including responsibility for the judgements reached in its forecasts.
Galloway, Corbyn and Burgon are not on it.
This is a Trussite complaint, the OBR being part of the deep state. The irony is the Conservatives set up the OBR to screw Labour.
Actually it was set up to ensure that UK budgets prepared us for the Euro. Which is why its mandate is now so irrelevant. As with much of Osborne and Cameron's legacy, it was EU stuff masquerading as Tory politicking. They were the Jeremy Clarkson of politics.
So, in 2010 - when the Euro was already a disaster-zone, and the UK support for joining it had collapsed to near zero - the OBR was created to prepare the UK for joining the Euro?
Really?
Since when have the EU and its supporters let lack of public enthusiasm get in their way?
So, there is no evidence for your assertion.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I suppose the idea is that if you can put it about that the OBR has some secret malign agenda, then it might make Liz Truss's disparagement of it seems less unhinged than it actually is.
The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU.[6] All EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below. As outlined by the "preventive arm" regulation, all EU member states are each year obliged to submit a SGP compliance report for the scrutiny and evaluation of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, that will present the country's expected fiscal development for the current and subsequent three years. These reports are called "stability programmes" for eurozone Member States and "convergence programmes" for non-eurozone Member States, but despite having different titles they are identical in regards of the content.
We use our public finance forecasts to judge the Government’s performance against its fiscal targets. In February 2023 the Government set itself a new mandate for fiscal policy: to have public sector net debt (excluding the Bank of England) as a percentage of GDP falling by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period. The fiscal mandate is accompanied by two supplementary targets: for public sector net borrowing to be below 3 per cent of GDP in the fifth year of the rolling forecast period and to ensure that a subset of welfare spending is contained within a predetermined cap and margin set by the Treasury.
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
So, the fact that the number "3" occurs twice is clear evidence?
Um, the fact that the fiscal target of having net debt/deficit at 3% of GDP is exactly the same target that was specified in the EU stability pact that obliged member states to meet that target and establish reporting bodies to show their compliance, is fairly clear evidence, unless of course you believe that the topping wheeze of setting up such a body to do exactly the same thing occurred to Osborne in a dream at exactly the same time.
You do know that the IMF, the the World Bank and various other bodies state that 3% is the sustainable - through the cycle - budget deficit?
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
You mean on average? Presumably more when you're in recession? However surely it depends on the growth rate. 3% deficit whilst your economy is growing 3%. Okay. But what if the long run growth rate is 1% per annum?
It's nominal GDP, not real GDP, that matters.
So it's fine so long as growth plus inflation is 3%?
Technically its multiplicative rather than additive, but yes.
But if you're in a lower growth period inflation has to pick up more of the slack, no?
Absolutely.
Well after the financial crash I remember Krugman suggested allowing inflation to go to 3%. But I assumed that was to help manage the debt we already had, not to load up on even more.
It seems to me that if 3% budget deficit applies in a lower growth era you have to explain why a higher inflation target is now appropriate than was the case before.
It's funny. I was a fiscal dove on this site when people like Sean Fear were hawks after the GFC. Now I see him mentioning how well the economy is doing in the US under Biden which to me just looks like maxxing the credit card plus exporting gas to Europe.
This is an area where views are (rightly) consistently evolving. Krugman's current view - I think - is that we should be targeting nominal GDP growth of [x], as that means that the real value of debts, relative the ability of the economy to service them, is constantly being eroded.
I suspect, however, that he's rather forgotten the 1970s: i.e., the markets aren't stupid, and if you constantly inflate away the value of liabilities, then investors will demand higher and higher interest rates (or will send their money abroad ).
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
However this is all a bit pedantic. I would simply ask people to compare how they would react if they learned a close relative was going to have IVF treatment to if a close relative wanted full gender reassignment surgery.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
So, here's my forecast for the six:
AZ - Trump gain NV - Trump gain GA - Biden hold MI - Trump gain WI - Biden hold PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
I'd swop GA and WI. They both have 16 electoral votes. My total based on an evaluation of each state and latest polls is 273 Biden, 265 Trump.
On homelessness in the US: Some months ago, in a WaPo column, Megan McArdle described a study that found that increasing homeless in US cities was positively correlated with increases in the minimum wage.
Increases in the minimum wage force less productive workers out of the labor force, and that decreases the supply of housing for such workers. (In the US, the minimum wage varies widely among states, and even cities. Though there is a federal minimum wage, many places have much higher hourly rates.)
McArdle did not endorse the argument, despite her (partial) libertarian sympathies but thought, as I do, that the argument deserves attention.
By the way, I oppose a government mandated minimum wage, for exactly the reason that it pushes the least productive people - who often benefit the most from having structure in their lives - out of the labour market
But while the argument is not without merit, I do think there are many different arrows of causality, and I think that this is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy - i.e. an attempt to blame a complex problem on a single factor.
As an example, raising minimum wages is often a misguided attempt by politicians to enable the poorest be able to afford increasingly expensive housing. But the expensive housing is is a major cause of the homelessness, so you see a correlation, even though it is not the primary causation.
I haven't read the McArdle piece, but it isn't it simply the case that cities with high minimum wages are more likely to be more compassionate towards people with mental health issues etc?
My argument for a minimum wage is that it induces capital investment and productivity growth as labour becomes more expensive. A similar argument to that for inflation and sticky prices.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
If you don't it's a bit of a pointless procedure.
The point is that it is a perfectly natural biological event with relatively few negative health consequences nowadays. Transitioning is rather different.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
However this is all a bit pedantic. I would simply ask people to compare how they would react if they learned a close relative was going to have IVF treatment to if a close relative wanted full gender reassignment surgery.
In both cases: wish them the best of luck.
Despite wokehunter myth, they don't do it for fun.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
However this is all a bit pedantic. I would simply ask people to compare how they would react if they learned a close relative was going to have IVF treatment to if a close relative wanted full gender reassignment surgery.
Protecting people from conversion therapy has very little to do with whether or not they choose to have medical or surgical interventions.
But if you want a more exact comparison, would you ban HRT?
How depressing that the editorial line of this site is now to constantly attack the PM.
By someone who's a self-professed Tory.
Still a lot of bitterness over what happened to the Lib-Dems in 2015, not to mention Brexit and political demise of Cameron and Osborne! 😂
Lot of ad homs regarding the header tonight.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
If you don't it's a bit of a pointless procedure.
The point is that it is a perfectly natural biological event with relatively few negative health consequences nowadays. Transitioning is rather different.
rcs1000 - I agree with your multi-factor point about homelessness, and think McArdle would, too. And I agree with the idea that causality is unlikely to be one directional.
(In my area -- Seattle and its suburbs -- I think much of the recent homelessness is a result of the Growth Mangement Act, passed long ago. Briefly, it confines most new housing to Seattle and the older suburbs. It didn't have much affect, until the Amazon boom. You can see the effects quite clearly by using one of the map programs to look at the area. You'll see large areas quite near growth centers like Redmond and Bellevue that are not being used much for anything.
Our junior senator, Maria Cantwell, sponsored the act when she was in the state legislature. I suspect her home is worth at least a million dollars more than it would, were the act never passed.)
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
If you don't it's a bit of a pointless procedure.
From experience not just pointless, also costly if not NHS!
If he goes for May he ceases to be PM in May. If he goes for December he ceases to be PM in December.
If he goes for May he ceases to be PM in May. If he goes for December he ceases to be PM in May.
There is no way he makes it to December
Replaced by who? Theresa May would be an obvious stopgap choice but 2017 suggests she has no great electoral appeal. Brexit is dead as an issue. Cameron and Boris would need to become MPs, so they are out. Ditto Farage. Liz Truss is a busted flush. Kemi was said to be next in line but the gilt is coming off her gingerbread. No-one wants Michael Gove.
Rishi is safe until the polls point to a more popular successor.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
If you don't it's a bit of a pointless procedure.
The point is that it is a perfectly natural biological event with relatively few negative health consequences nowadays. Transitioning is rather different.
Furthermore trans people often have complex mental health issues. Simply lumping it together with LGB (which is just a reference to one's sexual preferences) isn't actually helpful to anyone.
Alicia Kearns emotive guff in the house in response to a very reasonable Scottish MP shows how far this has all descended into hokum.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
Is anyone proposing to outlaw therapy to help people come to terms with childlessness?
The comments on that story are quite something - from a series of "what sort of woke snowflake cares about being trapped for 7 hours?!" all the way through "the same thing happened to me once thanks to LSD"...
A friend and I once got stuck overnight in a cage lift in an old linen mill halfway up the Crumlin Road in North Belfast. It was the middle of July, and there were fireworks going off all night outside and helicopters hovering overhead, and it was freezing cold. I'd not recommend such an experience to anyone, LSD or not...
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
If you don't it's a bit of a pointless procedure.
The point is that it is a perfectly natural biological event with relatively few negative health consequences nowadays. Transitioning is rather different.
Furthermore trans people often have complex mental health issues. Simply lumping it together with LGB (which is just a reference to one's sexual preferences) isn't actually helpful to anyone.
Alicia Kearns emotive guff in the house in response to a very reasonable Scottish MP shows how far this has all descended into hokum.
Hmm.
I would be interested to see how many have died during transition surgery vs the number of women who have died from perinatal complications.
Also I think rather a lot of women would point out that postpartum depression is in itself a complex mental health issue.
That being said, I actually agree with your main point that it's misleading to lump gender dysphoria together with sexuality as it's an altogether different thing.
Comments
In his autumn statement, Hunt cut 2p from national insurance contributions (NICs) on the grounds that it was a tax on jobs and would do more to boost growth than a cut in income tax. The OBR has also suggested that an income tax cut could be more inflationary. However, ministers are mindful that pensioners, the one sector of the electorate that reliably votes Tory, get no benefit from a cut to NICs but would benefit from an income tax cut.
Another factor is that national insurance is misunderstood by many voters, who believe it is there specifically to pay for pensions and the NHS, when it is simply another tax. “Some voters hear cuts to NI and think the state pension is being cut,” said one senior Tory.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/will-rishi-sunak-fly-flag-for-tory-right-and-cut-2p-off-income-tax-qjln9x3wz
Apart from the Rwanda (Pinky Promise) bill, is anything else currently in the system?
AZ - Trump gain
NV - Trump gain
GA - Biden hold
MI - Trump gain
WI - Biden hold
PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
There must be, I think, more than blind rage going on. There is a longer term policy. This, I wonder, may be to ensure that someone (who?) has no choice but to move the population of Gaza elsewhere.
Any thoughts?
This can be achieved fairly quickly.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/02/29/biden-trails-trump-in-these-7-key-swing-states-as-most-key-biden-voters-say-hes-too-old-poll-finds/?sh=6fce0fc52c77
I thought some might be very concerned by that Sienna Poll.
But I'm also monitoring the polls in the swing states for the reason you give, and as you say, Trump is ahead - but not by a lot.
Germany has admitted the apparent hack by Russia of a military meeting where officers discussed giving Ukraine long-range missiles - and possible targets.
Audio of the video-conference meeting was posted to social media by the head of Russia's state-run RT channel.
The officers discuss how the missiles could hit the Kerch Bridge, which links Russia to the illegally annexed Crimea.
...
According to Der Spiegel magazine, the videoconference was not held on a secret internal army network but on the WebEx platform.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68457087
Webex is end-to-end encrypted so there may be more to this story, whether spies, moles or just incompetent configuration.
https://wethink.report/polls/majority-of-brits-would-back-assisted-dying-in-uk-new-poll-reveals/
https://obr.uk/about-the-obr/what-we-do/
You really think in the most utterly stupid, simplistic terms. You read like Twitter. You think in 'optics'. Exercise your brain.
Animal Welfare
Renters (Reform)
Media
Investigatory Powers (Amendment)
Offshore Petroleum
Pedicabs (London)
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration)
Sentencing
Trade (CPTPP)
Victims and Prisoners
Apart from the Rwanda bill, perhaps the Offshore Petroleum and Pedicabs bills are most likely to tickle the GBNewstariat....
In Arizona they captured the Governor's mansion from the Republicans, and won a competitive Senate race in a midterm.
In Pennsylvania they flipped the Senate seat.
In Georgia, they held their Senate seat.
Against that, they only just held onto Nevada, and the Republicans (just) held on in Wisconsin.
Indeed, the most negative thing for the Republicans is that they don't seem to have done as well in real elections as in the polls:
In Nevada, 538 had Laxalt ahead by 1.4%, and he lost by 1%.
In Arizona, Kelly was ahead by 1.5%, and he won by 4.9%
In Wisconsin, Johnson was polling 3.4% ahead of Barnes, but won by only 1%.
In Pennsylvania, hard though it is to believe, Oz was 0.5% ahead on the 538 average... but lost by 4.9%.
It's a really interesting inversion of the previous cycle, where Republicans were handily outperforming their poll scores.
However otherwise there is no direct link, NI was created to fund state pensions, unemployment benefits and healthcare of course and it would be better if we restored some of that link
I suspect Hunt wants to cut NI and Sunak wands to cut income tax, so it'll be interesting as to who wins out.
It's also entirely possible that Trump loses all seven. (Bloomberg - who did the polling - added North Carolina to the swing states list.)
For what it's worth, that Bloomberg polling has Trump running away with AZ and NV, and only just beating out Biden in WI and MI. So, it takes only a tiny amount of "swing back" for my forecast to be pretty accurate.
Most of the pollsters have a 65+ sub sample and the latest numbers are:
YouGov: Conservative 27%, Don't Know 21%, Labour 20%, Reform 18%
Techne (excluding DKs and WVs): Conservative 37%, Labour 30%, Reform 12%, LD 11%
More In Common (again excluding DKs and WVs) has "Boomers" (56-64): Lab 36%, Con 34%, Ref 12%, LD 10% and Silent Generation (75+) Con 53%, Lab 20%, LD 12% and Reform 10%
Deltapoll: (excluding DKs and WVs): Con 38%, Lab 35%, Ref 12%, LD 10%
Redfield & Wilton (excluding WVs): Con 24%, Lab 24%, DK 18%, Reform 15%, LD 11%
Two things strike me - the highest proportion of Don't Knows is among older voters and the assumption they will all vote is challenged a bit by YouGov which suggests the 56-64 age group now more likely to vote.
In December 2019, the Conservatives got 64% of the vote of those aged 65 or older with Labour on 17% and the LDs on 11%.
The swing (Con-Lab) would be 20% with Techne and 22% with Deltapoll on current numbers so well above the UNS from the poll headline numbers.
It seems the Conservative core is now those aged 75 or over which while not to be ignored is not enough on its own to build a majority. For those with time and the inclination, a look at the demographics at constituency level might be indicative of where the largest swings might be if current polling numbers were repeated in a General Election.
The S&GP long pre-dates the OBR. Gordon Brown made it clear that his Five Economic Tests would have precedence in the UK, but we were still committed to producing the convergence report. The responsibility for doing so was handed to the OBR when it was created, because it was an obvious thing for them to do. The fact that one of the Government's subsidiary fiscal mandates, as monitored by the OBR, is the same as one of the S&GP Convergence Criteria is a matter for the Treasury, not the OBR. It's certainly not any sort of smoking gun.
You've got the chain of causality the wrong way round - there's no conspiracy here.
I.e., that is the level of budget deficit that - on average - results in a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.
The EU didn't pluck that number out of their arses, and nor did the UK.
Edit to add: it's even in Nigel Lawson's View From Number 11!
Edit to add: and - yes - on average.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
Edit: So a lower growth rate demands higher inflation than before?
From the Congressional Budget Office in the US:
In the pursuit of maintaining fiscal discipline while ensuring the agility to respond to economic fluctuations, a stipulated 3% threshold for the appropriate through-the-cycle budget deficit is imperative. This benchmark aligns with our commitment to sustainable economic policies that safeguard against excessive borrowing, thereby reducing the vulnerability to financial crises. In coordination with the Federal Reserve's monetary policy objectives, this fiscal guideline serves to complement efforts to stabilize inflation and foster employment growth, enhancing the overall effectiveness of economic policy. By setting this limit, we encourage prudent fiscal management, ensuring that government spending is both effective and sustainable over the economic cycle. This approach not only preserves the integrity of public finances but also instills confidence among investors and international partners, reinforcing our country's financial stability and creditworthiness. The 3% threshold is a balanced measure that provides sufficient room for maneuver in times of economic downturn, allowing for counter-cyclical fiscal policies without compromising long-term fiscal sustainability, thereby supporting the Federal Reserve in its dual mandate to achieve maximum employment and stable prices.
Edit to add:
That's from 1994 , but isn't in the current version. Still, I think it shows that 3% is a pretty widely used metric for a sustainable budget deficit.
(but, yes, there was likely some fiddling around Greece's numbers in particular, with a suspiciously sudden drop in inflation in 1999 whilst nominal GDP continued to power ahead...)
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS ASSERTION!
*Show them*
OH JUST THAT EVIDENCE, WELL THAT'S JUST SENSIBLE AND A GOOD THING!!1! FRUITLOOP!1!!
All right dears. Actually I didn't pass judgement on the desirability or otherwise of keeping deficits below 3% of GDP, I am suggesting that their mandate is anachronistic because it doesn't include a whole raft of targets, such as growth in the economy, which events have shown us are far more important than the 3%.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-12-07/900634
It seems to me that if 3% budget deficit applies in a lower growth era you have to explain why a higher inflation target is now appropriate than was the case before.
It's funny. I was a fiscal dove on this site when people like Sean Fear were hawks after the GFC. Now I see him mentioning how well the economy is doing in the US under Biden which to me just looks like maxxing the credit card plus exporting gas to Europe.
My type of degenerate behaviour.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
It's been clear since October 1997 that we weren't going to do that. The OBR dates from 2010, long after the debate over Euro membership had been settled.
If the economy is not growing, cut taxes to make it grow.
If the economy is growing, cut taxes because they are affordable.
Also we have serious problems at £50,000 and £100,000 as exemplified by articles in today's Telegraph saying that working a 4 day week is the only sane option and that is going to take a lot of effort to fix..
Far too many reports have good ideas kicked into the long grass. This often makes such inquiries or reports utterly pointless.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy)
Inflation is low - you don't need much of a payrise
Inflation is high - we can't afford that payrise
Increases in the minimum wage force less productive workers out of the labor force, and that decreases the supply of housing for such workers. (In the US, the minimum wage varies widely among states, and even cities. Though there is a federal minimum wage, many places have much higher hourly rates.)
McArdle did not endorse the argument, despite her (partial) libertarian sympathies but thought, as I do, that the argument deserves attention.
(Roger Miller's "King of the Road" illustrates the argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHtoayjVLAY )
They lost.
He was not Mr Happy.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2020056/#Comment_2020056
The whole lot of them need sacking without compensation.
What is now making it worse is the PO getting lawyers to write letters saying the subpostmasters are really guilty when those lawyers cannot possibly have reviewed the investigations, evidence etc in all the cases to come to such a view and appear to be ignoring what the courts have said and the evidence coming out of the inquiry. They are all utter shitbags.
I started this morning listening to this documentary about the victims of the blood contamination scandal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m001r7kz, a good follow up to this programme - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001rqm1.
If you think the PO scandal is bad, the blood contamination one is even worse - 40 years on, 1100 victims have died - some in horrible ways (the parents describing the death of their 7 year old son is utterly heart-breaking), compensation still has to be paid and no-one has been held accountable.
Other countries have managed the last two.
But not us. Because the British state is actively malign and incompetent, and the former quality comes even more to the fore when it deals with the victims of its malignity and incompetence.
I am in the middle of writing an article about the low sentences given to men who view, share & create child abuse images. I have a strong stomach but reading about the pathetic sentences, the failure to understand that this is a serious offence and its impact on the victims, the self-serving justifications ("stress" - I ask you) is utterly utterly depressing. And angering.
This is a really bleak time.
But while the argument is not without merit, I do think there are many different arrows of causality, and I think that this is a classic example of the Sole Actor Fallacy - i.e. an attempt to blame a complex problem on a single factor.
As an example, raising minimum wages is often a misguided attempt by politicians to enable the poorest be able to afford increasingly expensive housing. But the expensive housing is is a major cause of the homelessness, so you see a correlation, even though it is not the primary causation.
There is no way he makes it to December
I suspect, however, that he's rather forgotten the 1970s: i.e., the markets aren't stupid, and if you constantly inflate away the value of liabilities, then investors will demand higher and higher interest rates (or will send their money abroad ).
However this is all a bit pedantic. I would simply ask people to compare how they would react if they learned a close relative was going to have IVF treatment to if a close relative wanted full gender reassignment surgery.
My total based on an evaluation of each state and latest polls is 273 Biden, 265 Trump.
Dr Krisztina Ilko was trapped in the bathroom of her Queens' College room'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13149339/i-stuck-medieval-tower-toilet-cotton-bud-eyeliner-escape-feared-life-trapped.html#comments
My argument for a minimum wage is that it induces capital investment and productivity growth as labour becomes more expensive. A similar argument to that for inflation and sticky prices.
Despite wokehunter myth, they don't do it for fun.
But if you want a more exact comparison, would you ban HRT?
(In my area -- Seattle and its suburbs -- I think much of the recent homelessness is a result of the Growth Mangement Act, passed long ago. Briefly, it confines most new housing to Seattle and the older suburbs. It didn't have much affect, until the Amazon boom. You can see the effects quite clearly by using one of the map programs to look at the area. You'll see large areas quite near growth centers like Redmond and Bellevue that are not being used much for anything.
Our junior senator, Maria Cantwell, sponsored the act when she was in the state legislature. I suspect her home is worth at least a million dollars more than it would, were the act never passed.)
Rishi is safe until the polls point to a more popular successor.
Furthermore trans people often have complex mental health issues. Simply lumping it together with LGB (which is just a reference to one's sexual preferences) isn't actually helpful to anyone.
Alicia Kearns emotive guff in the house in response to a very reasonable Scottish MP shows how far this has all descended into hokum.
A friend and I once got stuck overnight in a cage lift in an old linen mill halfway up the Crumlin Road in North Belfast. It was the middle of July, and there were fireworks going off all night outside and helicopters hovering overhead, and it was freezing cold. I'd not recommend such an experience to anyone, LSD or not...
I would be interested to see how many have died during transition surgery vs the number of women who have died from perinatal complications.
Also I think rather a lot of women would point out that postpartum depression is in itself a complex mental health issue.
That being said, I actually agree with your main point that it's misleading to lump gender dysphoria together with sexuality as it's an altogether different thing.
Keef Starmer.
Tory MPs are staring into the abyss. Knifing Rich is a no cost bet