The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
I have little problems with the government borrowing to fund infrastructure projects - my dislike is borrowing to fund day to day spending..
How do we know which is which though? If we're running a deficit it means expenditure exceeds revenue, just that. Who's to say what revenue matches what expense and therefore what expense is being funded by borrowing? Money is fungible.
...and if an infrastructure project turns out to be worth less than we borrowed to build it? Has been known to happen.
That can happen. But I meant the point more generally.
Eg, Revenue is 80, Expenditure is 100 (of which 10 is Investment). Borrowing is 20.
What's funding what?
(a) The Investment of 10 is covered by Revenue so all of the 20 Borrowing is for Current Spending?
(b) Or is the Current Spending of 90 matched by the 80 Revenue and the 20 Borrowing is therefore half for Investment (10) and half for the (also 10) unmatched Current Spending?
(c) Or is the Current Spending and the Investment covered pro rata by Revenue meaning the 20 Borrowing is 90% (18) for Current Spending and 10% (2) for Investment?
(b) looks more prudent than (c) which looks more prudent than (a). Yet it's all the same. There's no difference. It's all fungible.
Actually, I would argue that it was the crushing deflation that followed that ushered in Hitler.
You're both wrong.
It was a corrupt bargain between von Papen and Oskar von Hindenburg that ushered in Hitler.
Actually it might have been the early demise of Stresemann which dished Weimar's chances.
Wasn't it the failure to appreciate his art? Thankfully we've learned the lessons of history and now award prizes to all sorts of people who might otherwise turn into dictators.
Thank you
I’ve half started writing a short story, where it turns out that the bullshit modern art market is actually time travellers preventing the next Hitler by burying him/her in money….
Explains Damian Hurst....
The cow guy. I never understood it
Started off with a shark, I think. Then the cow. Then a sheep. Also a unicorn:
It's ironic -then- that nothing would worsen inflation for average Americans more than Donald Trump's proposed tariff plan.
I really do not think Trump understands tariffs. He speaks as if they were some sort of tax paid by the exporting country, say China or Mexico, rather than simply pushing up prices to American consumers.
That gives the mistaken impression that Trump cares about US consumers.
He cares about himself and maybe his friends. Not sure about the friends part.
FAKE NEWS! Trump has no friends, just a mix of hangers on and his worshippers.
It's ironic -then- that nothing would worsen inflation for average Americans more than Donald Trump's proposed tariff plan.
I really do not think Trump understands tariffs. He speaks as if they were some sort of tax paid by the exporting country, say China or Mexico, rather than simply pushing up prices to American consumers.
That gives the mistaken impression that Trump cares about US consumers.
He cares about himself and maybe his friends. Not sure about the friends part.
FAKE NEWS! Trump has no friends, just a mix of hangers on and his worshippers.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
And the university has already spent £30 million on the building for it. Apparently according to the government its a waste of money, because not focused on AI. Rather than it being a bonus, because very few facilities in the world can do this research.
I don't even understand that criticism. Both Nvidia and AMD sell their cards as both AI and HPC accelerators, because there isn't a seperate product line at the high-end, merely some different parts of the processors are used depending upon the types and operations used by a particular workload.
Unless you are buying something very specialised* there is no meaningful difference between most AI or HPC focused supercomputers. Most of the large-scale deployments that are being deployed could run a wide variety of workloads.
Maybe some networking or storage choices would vary, but generally even there it is common to have some configurability and scalability options as very few systems are targetting such a narrow range of work that extreme specialisation is desirable.
* You probably don't want the truly AI specialised hardware, much of it isn't very good, because paper specs don't perform great in practice, and the software and tools are half-baked. There are lots of AI specialist hardware companies that are burning through investor capital hoping for someone bigger to buy them. Anyone who recalls the early days of graphics accelerators, RISC processors, ethernet switching, or minicomputers will know that most of the competing companies failed.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Dishonest would be pretending she isn't changing her rules. She's openly announcing she will borrow more to invest.
Selling off assets is what the last lot were doing. Reeves is borrowing to build/buy assets like roads and other infrastructure.
Actually, I would argue that it was the crushing deflation that followed that ushered in Hitler.
You're both wrong.
It was a corrupt bargain between von Papen and Oskar von Hindenburg that ushered in Hitler.
Actually it might have been the early demise of Stresemann which dished Weimar's chances.
Wasn't it the failure to appreciate his art? Thankfully we've learned the lessons of history and now award prizes to all sorts of people who might otherwise turn into dictators.
Thank you
I’ve half started writing a short story, where it turns out that the bullshit modern art market is actually time travellers preventing the next Hitler by burying him/her in money….
Explains Damian Hurst....
The cow guy. I never understood it
Started off with a shark, I think. Then the cow. Then a sheep. Also a unicorn:
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
I have little problems with the government borrowing to fund infrastructure projects - my dislike is borrowing to fund day to day spending..
How do we know which is which though? If we're running a deficit it means expenditure exceeds revenue, just that. Who's to say what revenue matches what expense and therefore what expense is being funded by borrowing? Money is fungible.
No I don't think that is the right way of considering the issue. If revenue - current expenditure is zero or positive... then you're okay. Any investment is the bit financed by borrowing.
@Leon see the drip, drip, drip of support from labour figures for this. It’s going to happen.
As for this quote. What a load of BS.
Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Harman said Starmer did not appreciate why this was a live issue for so many country, and she said the PM should “lean in to a sense of cultural respect and equality”
She does have a history of supporting abhorrent causes.
And the university has already spent £30 million on the building for it. Apparently according to the government its a waste of money, because not focused on AI. Rather than it being a bonus, because very few facilities in the world can do this research.
I don't even understand that criticism. Both Nvidia and AMD sell their cards as both AI and HPC accelerators, because there isn't a seperate product line at the high-end, merely some different parts of the processors are used depending upon the types and operations used by a particular workload.
Unless you are buying something very specialised* there is no meaningful difference between most AI or HPC focused supercomputers. Most of the large-scale deployments that are being deployed could run a wide variety of workloads.
Maybe some networking or storage choices would vary, but generally even their it is common to have some configurability and scalability options as very few systems are targetting such a narrow range of work that extreme specialisation is desirable.
* You probably don't want the truly AI specialised hardware, much of it isn't very good, because paper specs don't perform great in practice, and the software and tools are half-baked. There are lots of AI specialist hardware companies that are burning through investor capital hoping for someone bigger to buy them. Anyone who recalls the early days of graphics accelerators, RISC processors, ethernet switching, or minicomputers will know that most of the competing companies failed.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Dishonest would be pretending she isn't changing her rules. She's openly announcing she will borrow more to invest.
Selling off assets is what the last lot were doing. Reeves is borrowing to build/buy assets like roads and other infrastructure.
Lets see the budget! Could be good or bad from what we know so far. Will find out soon enough.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Dishonest would be pretending she isn't changing her rules. She's openly announcing she will borrow more to invest.
Selling off assets is what the last lot were doing. Reeves is borrowing to build/buy assets like roads and other infrastructure.
Lets see the budget! Could be good or bad from what we know so far. Will find out soon enough.
@Leon see the drip, drip, drip of support from labour figures for this. It’s going to happen.
As for this quote. What a load of BS.
Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Harman said Starmer did not appreciate why this was a live issue for so many country, and she said the PM should “lean in to a sense of cultural respect and equality”
She does have a history of supporting abhorrent causes.
Actually, I would argue that it was the crushing deflation that followed that ushered in Hitler.
You're both wrong.
It was a corrupt bargain between von Papen and Oskar von Hindenburg that ushered in Hitler.
Actually it might have been the early demise of Stresemann which dished Weimar's chances.
Wasn't it the failure to appreciate his art? Thankfully we've learned the lessons of history and now award prizes to all sorts of people who might otherwise turn into dictators.
Thank you
I’ve half started writing a short story, where it turns out that the bullshit modern art market is actually time travellers preventing the next Hitler by burying him/her in money….
Explains Damian Hurst....
The cow guy. I never understood it
Started off with a shark, I think. Then the cow. Then a sheep. Also a unicorn:
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Can you really run a country with arbitrary economic rules that every chancellor for the last decade has been gaming? I think much of what we've taken as economic gospel is simply post facto justification for ideological choice and now the ideology has hit reality.
Actually, I would argue that it was the crushing deflation that followed that ushered in Hitler.
You're both wrong.
It was a corrupt bargain between von Papen and Oskar von Hindenburg that ushered in Hitler.
Actually it might have been the early demise of Stresemann which dished Weimar's chances.
The German Nationalists, the Catholic Centre, and the KPD all hated Weimar, for their own reasons. The SPD and Liberals saw it, at best, as a necessary evil. Pretty well everybody wanted the outcome of WWI to be overturned.
Catholic Center Party - Zentrum - "hated" the Weimar Republic? Odd kinda hate, seeing as how
"For most of the Weimar Republic, the Centre Party was the third-largest party in the Reichstag and a bulwark of the Republic, participating in all governments until 1932."
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
I have little problems with the government borrowing to fund infrastructure projects - my dislike is borrowing to fund day to day spending..
How do we know which is which though? If we're running a deficit it means expenditure exceeds revenue, just that. Who's to say what revenue matches what expense and therefore what expense is being funded by borrowing? Money is fungible.
No I don't think that is the right way of considering the issue. If revenue - current expenditure is zero or positive... then you're okay. Any investment is the bit financed by borrowing.
But why? We don't have hypothecated taxes.
Not sure this is a great explanation but I'll try. The golden fiscal rule is taxes = or > current spending. So theoretically you could have taxes = 100, current expenditure = 100 and investment = 150 if you really thought there were enough good investments to be made which would grow economy. The limit on investment is that net debt (newly defined) has to be falling as share of GDP by 5th year.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Half agree, but I think you're only telling one side of the story.
The other side? My school is in the process of some potentially illegal funding cuts which I and other staff are considering whistle-blowing on. Our hands are only stayed currently by the honest reflection that, with a £400k hole in our finances this year alone, we're not sure we wouldn't be making the same illegal cuts were we in charge.
And, whilst this makes me faintly incandescent with rage, I can also see that schools are rightly a long way from top priority for any new funding.
The public finances have been left in a truly parlous state. Austerity played a big part, but it goes deeper and longer than that (our misuse of North Sea oil revenues, for example).
I don't envy the choices facing Reeves one bit. By rewriting the rules she is, at least, aiming to head off the sort of chaos Truss caused by being unpredictable. An additional, predictable, borrowing regime for investment spending has some merits, therefore.
What would you do instead? I mean, the answer surely has to be to cut spending, but where?
I must say. Vienna is a stunning city. The buildings are magnificent. The food is fabulous and the people are friendly. Well worth it!
Yes, I used to live there and remember it as visually striking and very atmospheric. I can't say I found the inhabitants especially friendly though. Bit grim tbh. But that could have been my fault. It was rather a turbulent time for me and I was probably not Mr Sunshine myself.
And the university has already spent £30 million on the building for it. Apparently according to the government its a waste of money, because not focused on AI. Rather than it being a bonus, because very few facilities in the world can do this research.
I don't even understand that criticism. Both Nvidia and AMD sell their cards as both AI and HPC accelerators, because there isn't a seperate product line at the high-end, merely some different parts of the processors are used depending upon the types and operations used by a particular workload.
Unless you are buying something very specialised* there is no meaningful difference between most AI or HPC focused supercomputers. Most of the large-scale deployments that are being deployed could run a wide variety of workloads.
Maybe some networking or storage choices would vary, but generally even there it is common to have some configurability and scalability options as very few systems are targetting such a narrow range of work that extreme specialisation is desirable.
* You probably don't want the truly AI specialised hardware, much of it isn't very good, because paper specs don't perform great in practice, and the software and tools are half-baked. There are lots of AI specialist hardware companies that are burning through investor capital hoping for someone bigger to buy them. Anyone who recalls the early days of graphics accelerators, RISC processors, ethernet switching, or minicomputers will know that most of the competing companies failed.
Won't CPU clusters be poor for current AI stuff, or are they going extinct?
I must say. Vienna is a stunning city. The buildings are magnificent. The food is fabulous and the people are friendly. Well worth it!
Yes, I used to live there and remember it as visually striking and very atmospheric. I can't say I found the inhabitants especially friendly though. Bit grim tbh. But that could have been my fault. It was rather a turbulent time for me and I was probably not Mr Sunshine myself.
Interesting to get you perspective. I only visited once in May for a week.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
But your expenditure still exceeds the tax revenues raised by the same amount. It is a sleight of hand. It is the same sort of thing that made politicians think that PFI was ok because the debts incurred were "off balance sheet" and didn't show up in the accounts. That was a disaster for us.
I accept the need to invest more in infrastructure. But the reality is that if you want to do more of that you need to either do less of something else (current expenditure) or you need to increase taxes to pay for it. Borrowing more without one of those alternatives simply digs the hole even deeper.
Harman's decision to order Labour MPs to abstain on the welfare bill helped usher in the Absolute Boy. Pretty good evidence I'd say that her political instincts aren't the best.
I must say. Vienna is a stunning city. The buildings are magnificent. The food is fabulous and the people are friendly. Well worth it!
Yes, I used to live there and remember it as visually striking and very atmospheric. I can't say I found the inhabitants especially friendly though. Bit grim tbh. But that could have been my fault. It was rather a turbulent time for me and I was probably not Mr Sunshine myself.
Interesting to get you perspective. I only visited once in May for a week.
@Leon see the drip, drip, drip of support from labour figures for this. It’s going to happen.
As for this quote. What a load of BS.
Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Harman said Starmer did not appreciate why this was a live issue for so many country, and she said the PM should “lean in to a sense of cultural respect and equality”
Harman. Not a pleasant person. Yuck.
You just know that the argument will pivot to labelling any objectors to so called reparations ‘racists’ to quell any dissent, or at least reduce it.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Can you really run a country with arbitrary economic rules that every chancellor for the last decade has been gaming? I think much of what we've taken as economic gospel is simply post facto justification for ideological choice and now the ideology has hit reality.
The rules of the last government reached new depths in that. Debt will be falling as a share of GDP in 5 years time. Not over 5 years, not even long term but in that year which, like Brown's economic cycles over which he was going to balance the budget, drifts further into the future like a Cheshire cat.
I am not making a party political point against Reeves. The last lot were equally shocking in this respect. I am making the point that there comes a time when we need to stop kidding ourselves.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Can you really run a country with arbitrary economic rules that every chancellor for the last decade has been gaming? I think much of what we've taken as economic gospel is simply post facto justification for ideological choice and now the ideology has hit reality.
Every single budget has assumed that fuel duty would be going up in the future, and it never has. The "rules" are easily swerved. Happily, we have institutions like the OBR and IFS who, while not perfect, at least have a go at assessing them and call governments out.
Mayoral elections could go back to an ordinal system.
Just as you can't elect a single person by FPTP - because there is no post - you can't elect a single person by PR. Proportional representation is a system by which the body being elected is in proportion to the number of votes for each party. When a mayor such as Andy Burnham is elected, 100% of the mayor is from one party. This is not proportional.
It may or not be appropriate to elect mayors by an alternate vote system or by a plurality system, but it really grinds my gears when people are cavalier with the names for electoral systems.
@Leon see the drip, drip, drip of support from labour figures for this. It’s going to happen.
As for this quote. What a load of BS.
Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Harman said Starmer did not appreciate why this was a live issue for so many country, and she said the PM should “lean in to a sense of cultural respect and equality”
Harman. Not a pleasant person. Yuck.
You just know that the argument will pivot to labelling any objectors to so called reparations ‘racists’ to quell any dissent, or at least reduce it.
I must say. Vienna is a stunning city. The buildings are magnificent. The food is fabulous and the people are friendly. Well worth it!
Yes, I used to live there and remember it as visually striking and very atmospheric. I can't say I found the inhabitants especially friendly though. Bit grim tbh. But that could have been my fault. It was rather a turbulent time for me and I was probably not Mr Sunshine myself.
Interesting to get you perspective. I only visited once in May for a week.
Ah ok - you sounded as if you were there now!
Not now! After I visited there A few years ago I took a train to Prague. I enjoyed that as well.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
But your expenditure still exceeds the tax revenues raised by the same amount. It is a sleight of hand. It is the same sort of thing that made politicians think that PFI was ok because the debts incurred were "off balance sheet" and didn't show up in the accounts. That was a disaster for us.
I accept the need to invest more in infrastructure. But the reality is that if you want to do more of that you need to either do less of something else (current expenditure) or you need to increase taxes to pay for it. Borrowing more without one of those alternatives simply digs the hole even deeper.
No, it is more like a mortgage to buy a house (and look, I'm turning into Mrs Thatcher with these half-baked domestic analogies).
You borrow £500,000 to buy a £500,000 house, so are you level (minus future interest payments) because you now have a house or are you £500,000 down on the deal because that is what you spent?
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
Perpetual motion discovered. Borrow £100 billion, use it to build assets - schools, hospitals, HS2, roads, prisons, social housing - valued at £100 billion, and rising with the rise in asset values, so net cost is zero. Use the new asset as the collateral basis for borrowing the next £100 billion.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
But your expenditure still exceeds the tax revenues raised by the same amount. It is a sleight of hand. It is the same sort of thing that made politicians think that PFI was ok because the debts incurred were "off balance sheet" and didn't show up in the accounts. That was a disaster for us.
I accept the need to invest more in infrastructure. But the reality is that if you want to do more of that you need to either do less of something else (current expenditure) or you need to increase taxes to pay for it. Borrowing more without one of those alternatives simply digs the hole even deeper.
Disagree. Taxes should pay for current spending (albeit with some adjustment for economic cycle). Investment is supposed to pay for itself over time. If you rely on taxes to pay for investment then you'll always underinvest.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Can you really run a country with arbitrary economic rules that every chancellor for the last decade has been gaming? I think much of what we've taken as economic gospel is simply post facto justification for ideological choice and now the ideology has hit reality.
Every single budget has assumed that fuel duty would be going up in the future, and it never has. The "rules" are easily swerved. Happily, we have institutions like the OBR and IFS who, while not perfect, at least have a go at assessing them and call governments out.
Mayoral elections could go back to an ordinal system.
Just as you can't elect a single person by FPTP - because there is no post - you can't elect a single person by PR. Proportional representation is a system by which the body being elected is in proportion to the number of votes for each party. When a mayor such as Andy Burnham is elected, 100% of the mayor is from one party. This is not proportional.
It may or not be appropriate to elect mayors by an alternate vote system or by a plurality system, but it really grinds my gears when people are cavalier with the names for electoral systems.
Not sure he said it was PR, just the organisation had it in its name. #labour4PR
@Leon see the drip, drip, drip of support from labour figures for this. It’s going to happen.
As for this quote. What a load of BS.
Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Harman said Starmer did not appreciate why this was a live issue for so many country, and she said the PM should “lean in to a sense of cultural respect and equality”
Harman. Not a pleasant person. Yuck.
You just know that the argument will pivot to labelling any objectors to so called reparations ‘racists’ to quell any dissent, or at least reduce it.
I think that stuff no longer has the resonance it once has. There's a fair few articulate non white people on the conservative benches who can and will put the boot in hard. Of course, all the grifting diversity industry will be all up to slurp on the free beer.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Half agree, but I think you're only telling one side of the story.
The other side? My school is in the process of some potentially illegal funding cuts which I and other staff are considering whistle-blowing on. Our hands are only stayed currently by the honest reflection that, with a £400k hole in our finances this year alone, we're not sure we wouldn't be making the same illegal cuts were we in charge.
And, whilst this makes me faintly incandescent with rage, I can also see that schools are rightly a long way from top priority for any new funding.
The public finances have been left in a truly parlous state. Austerity played a big part, but it goes deeper and longer than that (our misuse of North Sea oil revenues, for example).
I don't envy the choices facing Reeves one bit. By rewriting the rules she is, at least, aiming to head off the sort of chaos Truss caused by being unpredictable. An additional, predictable, borrowing regime for investment spending has some merits, therefore.
What would you do instead? I mean, the answer surely has to be to cut spending, but where?
We need to cut spending where it is not needed. The WFA was a step in the right direction. We need to pay care costs out of the capital of the elderly. The public purse is more important than private inheritance.May was right about that (stopped clocks etc).
We need to think why it is ok to use pensions to have our better off pay a lower rate of tax than a working man or woman with an average income and why the better off in our society can get such large tax free lump sums.
We frankly need to get a bit more realistic about how much money we want to spend on those with learning difficulties who, in many cases, will never actually be employable. We need to stop over promising and then corner cutting.
And then we need to invest the money generated by this into roads, railways, public transport, green energy, research and incentivising private sector investment.
Of course any government doing anything like this can forget ever being re-elected!
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Can you really run a country with arbitrary economic rules that every chancellor for the last decade has been gaming? I think much of what we've taken as economic gospel is simply post facto justification for ideological choice and now the ideology has hit reality.
The rules of the last government reached new depths in that. Debt will be falling as a share of GDP in 5 years time. Not over 5 years, not even long term but in that year which, like Brown's economic cycles over which he was going to balance the budget, drifts further into the future like a Cheshire cat.
I am not making a party political point against Reeves. The last lot were equally shocking in this respect. I am making the point that there comes a time when we need to stop kidding ourselves.
Yes, it started as long ago as Thatcher. I think there might have been a brief opportunity post Major (who for all his failings actually more or less held the line) for the incoming government to completely redefine economic strategy. Instead they opted for carrying on the fudge, and turbocharged it.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
But your expenditure still exceeds the tax revenues raised by the same amount. It is a sleight of hand. It is the same sort of thing that made politicians think that PFI was ok because the debts incurred were "off balance sheet" and didn't show up in the accounts. That was a disaster for us.
I accept the need to invest more in infrastructure. But the reality is that if you want to do more of that you need to either do less of something else (current expenditure) or you need to increase taxes to pay for it. Borrowing more without one of those alternatives simply digs the hole even deeper.
Disagree. Taxes should pay for current spending (albeit with some adjustment for economic cycle). Investment is supposed to pay for itself over time. If you rely on taxes to pay for investment then you'll always underinvest.
That does, though, depend on a pretty rigorous definition of investment.
Quite a few of those cities require the alcohol to be massively taxed to avoid the depression and suicide that comes from the long winter nights.
I thought suicides in Scandinavia were highest in May and October and not during the winter?
Something to do with temperature changes was suggested.
I didnt know that, interesting. It could be like here though that it ends up being the recording of the suicides is in the warmer months rather than the actual day of death.
There are a fair few stories on X and elsewhere claiming: "Dutch Court rules Bill Gates can face trial over COVID-19 vaccine injuries"
I haven't been able to find a reputable source for this. Is there one?
Also, could anyone please tell me whether it's true that a double-decker bus was found on the Moon?
It was. Musk was sat inside it putting together his future campaign to be president of the world.
Thanks for the confirmation. Sounds plausible enough. But just to clarify - which world?
Our world. Next we take over our solar system. Then The Milky Way. After that Andromeda. Then the Universe. And if there is a parallel universe he will have that as well.
There are a fair few stories on X and elsewhere claiming: "Dutch Court rules Bill Gates can face trial over COVID-19 vaccine injuries"
I haven't been able to find a reputable source for this. Is there one?
Also, could anyone please tell me whether it's true that a double-decker bus was found on the Moon?
It was. Musk was sat inside it putting together his future campaign to be president of the world.
Thanks for the confirmation. Sounds plausible enough. But just to clarify - which world?
Our world. Next we take over our solar system. Then The Milky Way. After that Andromeda. Then the Universe. And if there is a parallel universe he will have that as well.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
But your expenditure still exceeds the tax revenues raised by the same amount. It is a sleight of hand. It is the same sort of thing that made politicians think that PFI was ok because the debts incurred were "off balance sheet" and didn't show up in the accounts. That was a disaster for us.
I accept the need to invest more in infrastructure. But the reality is that if you want to do more of that you need to either do less of something else (current expenditure) or you need to increase taxes to pay for it. Borrowing more without one of those alternatives simply digs the hole even deeper.
No, it is more like a mortgage to buy a house (and look, I'm turning into Mrs Thatcher with these half-baked domestic analogies).
You borrow £500,000 to buy a £500,000 house, so are you level (minus future interest payments) because you now have a house or are you £500,000 down on the deal because that is what you spent?
If the house mortgage deal fails, the lender takes back the house. He lends you the money not because of the house but because he believes you have 30 years worth of income, wholly unrelated to your house, which can pay back both principal and interest. If that fails he has the house to fall back on, and you are then jobless (a fortiori) and houseless.
The lender to UK plc can't enforce the debt as a bank can, can't take the M6 and put it to auction and may come to believe the income stream is such that it isn't safe to lend to UK plc.
Anyway, in the end we, like the rest of the rich world, will inflate it away, as we did last time.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
But your expenditure still exceeds the tax revenues raised by the same amount. It is a sleight of hand. It is the same sort of thing that made politicians think that PFI was ok because the debts incurred were "off balance sheet" and didn't show up in the accounts. That was a disaster for us.
I accept the need to invest more in infrastructure. But the reality is that if you want to do more of that you need to either do less of something else (current expenditure) or you need to increase taxes to pay for it. Borrowing more without one of those alternatives simply digs the hole even deeper.
Disagree. Taxes should pay for current spending (albeit with some adjustment for economic cycle). Investment is supposed to pay for itself over time. If you rely on taxes to pay for investment then you'll always underinvest.
Not just that, but also invest at the wrong times. Within the limits we can sensibly schedule investment it is better to do more when the private sector is struggling and less when it is booming. If it is closely following tax receipts you get the opposite.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
Perpetual motion discovered. Borrow £100 billion, use it to build assets - schools, hospitals, HS2, roads, prisons, social housing - valued at £100 billion, and rising with the rise in asset values, so net cost is zero. Use the new asset as the collateral basis for borrowing the next £100 billion.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
But your expenditure still exceeds the tax revenues raised by the same amount. It is a sleight of hand. It is the same sort of thing that made politicians think that PFI was ok because the debts incurred were "off balance sheet" and didn't show up in the accounts. That was a disaster for us.
I accept the need to invest more in infrastructure. But the reality is that if you want to do more of that you need to either do less of something else (current expenditure) or you need to increase taxes to pay for it. Borrowing more without one of those alternatives simply digs the hole even deeper.
No, it is more like a mortgage to buy a house (and look, I'm turning into Mrs Thatcher with these half-baked domestic analogies).
You borrow £500,000 to buy a £500,000 house, so are you level (minus future interest payments) because you now have a house or are you £500,000 down on the deal because that is what you spent?
You are level in a capital sense. But if your mortgage is less than you might have paid renting an equivalent property you have saved yourself future income flows. The opposite is also true of course.
All of which indicates that the cost of borrowing turns on the rate of additional return generated by the investment. That is a lot more difficult to estimate for a government than it is for a householder. It is highly probable that the Elizabeth line has generated sufficient additional tax revenues to pay for the money we borrowed to build it. It is less obvious that, say, duelling the A9 would have the same effect. Building nuclear power stations that produce energy that needs to be subsidised because it is above the market rate for that energy has a negative return. Are you confident that this borrowing will generate sufficient additional tax revenues to pay the interest?
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Can you really run a country with arbitrary economic rules that every chancellor for the last decade has been gaming? I think much of what we've taken as economic gospel is simply post facto justification for ideological choice and now the ideology has hit reality.
Every single budget has assumed that fuel duty would be going up in the future, and it never has. The "rules" are easily swerved. Happily, we have institutions like the OBR and IFS who, while not perfect, at least have a go at assessing them and call governments out.
This is what dishonesty looks like:
In fact, fuel duty is a great example of short term gain, long term pain. In real terms it's been cut by over a third so far, and will cost nearly a cumulative £200 billion if frozen again next year. For that money, you could afford ALL of:
HS2 to Manchester Northern Powerhouse Rail 50,000 miles of cycle lane (a sixth of the entire road network) 30GW of offshore wind (more than double what we have now)
No. They deserved to go. Could have been fine in a different iteration of the Conservative party, but the current version is not just a basket case but a deeply divided one lacking in quality and way too high on personal ambition.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Half agree, but I think you're only telling one side of the story.
The other side? My school is in the process of some potentially illegal funding cuts which I and other staff are considering whistle-blowing on. Our hands are only stayed currently by the honest reflection that, with a £400k hole in our finances this year alone, we're not sure we wouldn't be making the same illegal cuts were we in charge.
And, whilst this makes me faintly incandescent with rage, I can also see that schools are rightly a long way from top priority for any new funding.
The public finances have been left in a truly parlous state. Austerity played a big part, but it goes deeper and longer than that (our misuse of North Sea oil revenues, for example).
I don't envy the choices facing Reeves one bit. By rewriting the rules she is, at least, aiming to head off the sort of chaos Truss caused by being unpredictable. An additional, predictable, borrowing regime for investment spending has some merits, therefore.
What would you do instead? I mean, the answer surely has to be to cut spending, but where?
We need to cut spending where it is not needed. The WFA was a step in the right direction. We need to pay care costs out of the capital of the elderly. The public purse is more important than private inheritance.May was right about that (stopped clocks etc).
We need to think why it is ok to use pensions to have our better off pay a lower rate of tax than a working man or woman with an average income and why the better off in our society can get such large tax free lump sums.
We frankly need to get a bit more realistic about how much money we want to spend on those with learning difficulties who, in many cases, will never actually be employable. We need to stop over promising and then corner cutting.
And then we need to invest the money generated by this into roads, railways, public transport, green energy, research and incentivising private sector investment.
Of course any government doing anything like this can forget ever being re-elected!
Well, yes, as May amply demonstrated.
Which is why Reeves is in such an invidious position, albeit at the start of a term she can afford to be bolder.
Thing is, one could argue that Labour are doing absolutely as much of what you're prescribing as they think they can get away with politically - they did the WFA thing, which is probably the easiest of that sort of cut, and got absolutely hammered in terms of Starmer's popularity (alright, for being entitled fools with regard to freebies too).
They'll probably try another similar cut in the budget, and get pilloried again. In the festering real world of our current politics maybe they are following the least worst path in what they're doing i.e. do any more of what you prescribe and they lose legitimacy to do any of it at all a la May.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
But your expenditure still exceeds the tax revenues raised by the same amount. It is a sleight of hand. It is the same sort of thing that made politicians think that PFI was ok because the debts incurred were "off balance sheet" and didn't show up in the accounts. That was a disaster for us.
I accept the need to invest more in infrastructure. But the reality is that if you want to do more of that you need to either do less of something else (current expenditure) or you need to increase taxes to pay for it. Borrowing more without one of those alternatives simply digs the hole even deeper.
Disagree. Taxes should pay for current spending (albeit with some adjustment for economic cycle). Investment is supposed to pay for itself over time. If you rely on taxes to pay for investment then you'll always underinvest.
The word "supposed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. If it doesn't the tax revenues have to fund it.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
It is not necessarily dishonest. If you count assets, then one side-effect might be to boost infrastructure investment over current spending.
Perpetual motion discovered. Borrow £100 billion, use it to build assets - schools, hospitals, HS2, roads, prisons, social housing - valued at £100 billion, and rising with the rise in asset values, so net cost is zero. Use the new asset as the collateral basis for borrowing the next £100 billion.
What could possibly go wrong?
Show me a company that did not borrow to invest.
Even Norway borrows to invest despite a $1.7 trillion wealth fund.
It’s more that the housing market in Vienna clears.
That is, the number of properties vs the number of people who need a place means that a number of properties aren’t let.
I know this will boggle the mind. Try this. friend had a flat in Vienna. Family’s old place etc. Nice building, modernised, but with old charm. Good quality, up to date. It was empty, because he couldn’t find a tenant. The problem wasn’t the price - it was a renters market. Everyone had a place.
Stayed there a couple of times - he lent it to friends for holidays.
In the end, it did get rented. After years of being empty.
Given the way Hunt run his last two Statement / Budgets removing £20bn of tax revenue via the 4% cut in NI - I doubt I would ever agree with that statement...
No. They deserved to go. Could have been fine in a different iteration of the Conservative party, but the current version is not just a basket case but a deeply divided one lacking in quality and way too high on personal ambition.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Can you really run a country with arbitrary economic rules that every chancellor for the last decade has been gaming? I think much of what we've taken as economic gospel is simply post facto justification for ideological choice and now the ideology has hit reality.
Every single budget has assumed that fuel duty would be going up in the future, and it never has. The "rules" are easily swerved. Happily, we have institutions like the OBR and IFS who, while not perfect, at least have a go at assessing them and call governments out.
This is what dishonesty looks like:
In fact, fuel duty is a great example of short term gain, long term pain. In real terms it's been cut by over a third so far, and will cost nearly a cumulative £200 billion if frozen again next year. For that money, you could afford ALL of:
HS2 to Manchester Northern Powerhouse Rail 50,000 miles of cycle lane (a sixth of the entire road network) 30GW of offshore wind (more than double what we have now)
Edit: Sorry, should be £150 billion (£200 billion by 2028). Knock the cycle lanes off that list.
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box in the treasury that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
This is so dishonest. Changing the rules does not change our balance sheet by 1p. Our debts will be large and growing our assets gradually being sold off to pay for the trade deficit. Pretending that the numbers are in some way better to allow yet more borrowing in the expectation, against all experience, that this will generate adequate returns to pay for that debt, doesn't change that reality at all.
An honest Chancellor, one who wanted to be candid with the British people about their very unhappy state, would not be looking to deceive the naïve in this way. They would be looking to genuinely improve the situation. Instead, we are going to pretend things are fine for a few more years until the markets say enough.
Can you really run a country with arbitrary economic rules that every chancellor for the last decade has been gaming? I think much of what we've taken as economic gospel is simply post facto justification for ideological choice and now the ideology has hit reality.
The rules of the last government reached new depths in that. Debt will be falling as a share of GDP in 5 years time. Not over 5 years, not even long term but in that year which, like Brown's economic cycles over which he was going to balance the budget, drifts further into the future like a Cheshire cat.
I am not making a party political point against Reeves. The last lot were equally shocking in this respect. I am making the point that there comes a time when we need to stop kidding ourselves.
A little OT but ...
What is it to kid ourselves, maybe the metrics play as much a role than any qualitative measure? We pronounce these very Germanic economic rules around debt to GDP ratios, inflation targets, ideal interest rates, rates of unemployment and everything seems aimed at influencing these metrics. I'm not convinced that all the target chasing is the optimal way of improving people's lives. Especially given the nebulousness of some of the oft proclaimed targets.
As an example: inflation must be at 2%. there is no real justification for 2% but for some reason all western societies see the optimal inflation rate as 2%. Can it really be true that 2% is the best rate for both Australia and the UK?
The government will change its self-imposed debt rules in order to free up billions for infrastructure spending, the chancellor has told the BBC. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that there will be a technical change to the way debt is measured which will allow it to fund extra investment.
That reporting makes it sound like there was a load of money locked in a box that just needed unlocking, rather than what in reality it means is loads of extra borrowing.
I have little problems with the government borrowing to fund infrastructure projects - my dislike is borrowing to fund day to day spending..
I would point out that that hasn't been a great success in Japan.
(Although I guess the difference there is that they had great infrastructure, and they added unnecessary stuff. While we have poor infrastructure, and refuse to do extremely useful things.)
Mayoral elections could go back to an ordinal system.
Just as you can't elect a single person by FPTP - because there is no post - you can't elect a single person by PR. Proportional representation is a system by which the body being elected is in proportion to the number of votes for each party. When a mayor such as Andy Burnham is elected, 100% of the mayor is from one party. This is not proportional.
It may or not be appropriate to elect mayors by an alternate vote system or by a plurality system, but it really grinds my gears when people are cavalier with the names for electoral systems.
No-one in the tweet does refer to AV or any other system as PR. Your gears should be unground. The worst they do is "at" a group called "Labour4PR". Perhaps that group should change its name to "Labour4electoralreform", but I think you're being a bit harsh.
Inflation in the US is now down to 2.5% from about 4% last year and 8% in 2022 so it is not fatal for the Democrats now necessarily.
Having said that if Trump wasn't the nominee more independents would likely vote for say Haley than will vote for Trump. It may end up such fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters vote GOP for Congress to get inflation down further and Harris for President to keep Trump out
It's ironic -then- that nothing would worsen inflation for average Americans more than Donald Trump's proposed tariff plan.
I really do not think Trump understands tariffs. He speaks as if they were some sort of tax paid by the exporting country, say China or Mexico, rather than simply pushing up prices to American consumers.
It's more complex than that because the price of anything is subject to constant negotiation in the market. If there's a tariff on exporting goods to the US, you can't assume that the full cost of the tariff will be absorbed by the consumer.
That's true:
But it's also true that it will negatively impact production of products in the US that rely on foreign components - which is (of course) most thing. And this is especially true of goods that might be exported: why build a car in the US, when its components from Canada or Mexico or Germany face tariffs? Given how narrow car margins are, you'd much rather build stuff for export outside the US.
There are a fair few stories on X and elsewhere claiming: "Dutch Court rules Bill Gates can face trial over COVID-19 vaccine injuries"
I haven't been able to find a reputable source for this. Is there one?
Also, could anyone please tell me whether it's true that a double-decker bus was found on the Moon?
It was. Musk was sat inside it putting together his future campaign to be president of the world.
Thanks for the confirmation. Sounds plausible enough. But just to clarify - which world?
Our world. Next we take over our solar system. Then The Milky Way. After that Andromeda. Then the Universe. And if there is a parallel universe he will have that as well.
People are always going on about parallel universes but what if the other universes are not parallel but skew?
Exposed: leaked WhatsApps show prison officers celebrating inmate’s suicide
A whistleblower from HMP Wandsworth has shared their staff chat with The Times. Messages include homophobia, misogyny and jokes about assaulting prisoners
CBC - How the internal push to force Trudeau to resign played out — and what might happen next
Internal calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to resign as Liberal leader were aired out behind closed doors Wednesday as Liberal MPs met on Parliament Hill.
What happened in the caucus meeting?
Sources speaking to Radio-Canada said that 24 MPs signed an agreement to call on Trudeau to step down as Liberal leader.
Two sources told CBC News that B.C. MP Patrick Weiler read out a separate document — which laid out an argument for Trudeau's resignation — during the meeting. Weiler pointed to the boost that Democrats gained after U.S. President Joe Biden backed out of the presidential race and suggested the Liberals could see a similar rebound.
MPs were given two minutes each to address the room during the three-hour-long meeting. About 20 — none of them cabinet ministers — stood up to urge Trudeau to step aside before the next election, sources said. But a number of MPs also stood to voice support for the prime minister.
The dissident MPs gave Trudeau until Oct. 28 to decide on his future, sources said. But no consequences attached to that deadline were mentioned in the document read to caucus Wednesday.
The prime minister himself addressed the meeting and two MPs told CBC News that he became emotional when he talked about his children having to see "F--- Trudeau" signs in public. At the end of the meeting, Trudeau said he would reflect on what he heard but didn't indicate that he would resign. . . .
Despite the pressure on Trudeau, the decision on whether to stay or go ultimately rests with him. He has said repeatedly he wants to lead the party into the next election; it remains to be seen if Wednesday's meeting will make him reconsider. . . .
The Liberal caucus could have had a secret ballot option if MPs had agreed to adopt the provisions in the 2015 Reform Act — legislation meant to make party leaders more accountable to their caucus members.
Under the act, if 20 per cent of caucus members sign a petition calling for a leadership review, a vote is triggered. If a majority of the MPs vote against the leader, they are forced to step down. This measure was used to oust former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole in 2022.
But the Reform Act states that parties must vote on whether to adopt its measures after each general election and the Liberals have never done so. Even if the Liberals did have the Reform Act option at their disposal, the 24 MPs who signed the document wouldn't be enough to force the vote. . . .
There are a fair few stories on X and elsewhere claiming: "Dutch Court rules Bill Gates can face trial over COVID-19 vaccine injuries"
I haven't been able to find a reputable source for this. Is there one?
Also, could anyone please tell me whether it's true that a double-decker bus was found on the Moon?
It was. Musk was sat inside it putting together his future campaign to be president of the world.
Thanks for the confirmation. Sounds plausible enough. But just to clarify - which world?
Our world. Next we take over our solar system. Then The Milky Way. After that Andromeda. Then the Universe. And if there is a parallel universe he will have that as well.
People are always going on about parallel universes but what if the other universes are not parallel but skew?
CBC - How the internal push to force Trudeau to resign played out — and what might happen next
Internal calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to resign as Liberal leader were aired out behind closed doors Wednesday as Liberal MPs met on Parliament Hill.
What happened in the caucus meeting?
Sources speaking to Radio-Canada said that 24 MPs signed an agreement to call on Trudeau to step down as Liberal leader.
Two sources told CBC News that B.C. MP Patrick Weiler read out a separate document — which laid out an argument for Trudeau's resignation — during the meeting. Weiler pointed to the boost that Democrats gained after U.S. President Joe Biden backed out of the presidential race and suggested the Liberals could see a similar rebound.
MPs were given two minutes each to address the room during the three-hour-long meeting. About 20 — none of them cabinet ministers — stood up to urge Trudeau to step aside before the next election, sources said. But a number of MPs also stood to voice support for the prime minister.
The dissident MPs gave Trudeau until Oct. 28 to decide on his future, sources said. But no consequences attached to that deadline were mentioned in the document read to caucus Wednesday.
The prime minister himself addressed the meeting and two MPs told CBC News that he became emotional when he talked about his children having to see "F--- Trudeau" signs in public. At the end of the meeting, Trudeau said he would reflect on what he heard but didn't indicate that he would resign. . . .
Despite the pressure on Trudeau, the decision on whether to stay or go ultimately rests with him. He has said repeatedly he wants to lead the party into the next election; it remains to be seen if Wednesday's meeting will make him reconsider. . . .
The Liberal caucus could have had a secret ballot option if MPs had agreed to adopt the provisions in the 2015 Reform Act — legislation meant to make party leaders more accountable to their caucus members.
Under the act, if 20 per cent of caucus members sign a petition calling for a leadership review, a vote is triggered. If a majority of the MPs vote against the leader, they are forced to step down. This measure was used to oust former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole in 2022.
But the Reform Act states that parties must vote on whether to adopt its measures after each general election and the Liberals have never done so. Even if the Liberals did have the Reform Act option at their disposal, the 24 MPs who signed the document wouldn't be enough to force the vote. . . .
Years ago, I heard this summary: Democrats are the party of government, Republicans the party of business.
I think there is a lot of truth in that, and that if offers possibilities for both parties. Right now, for example, it is easy to make arguments blaming either business or government for inflation. And easy to find examples to blame in both business and government.
There are a fair few stories on X and elsewhere claiming: "Dutch Court rules Bill Gates can face trial over COVID-19 vaccine injuries"
I haven't been able to find a reputable source for this. Is there one?
Also, could anyone please tell me whether it's true that a double-decker bus was found on the Moon?
It was. Musk was sat inside it putting together his future campaign to be president of the world.
Thanks for the confirmation. Sounds plausible enough. But just to clarify - which world?
Our world. Next we take over our solar system. Then The Milky Way. After that Andromeda. Then the Universe. And if there is a parallel universe he will have that as well.
That's looking like a lot of reparations, some way down the line...
Comments
Eg, Revenue is 80, Expenditure is 100 (of which 10 is Investment). Borrowing is 20.
What's funding what?
(a) The Investment of 10 is covered by Revenue so all of the 20 Borrowing is for Current Spending?
(b) Or is the Current Spending of 90 matched by the 80 Revenue and the 20 Borrowing is therefore half for Investment (10) and half for the (also 10) unmatched Current Spending?
(c) Or is the Current Spending and the Investment covered pro rata by Revenue meaning the 20 Borrowing is 90% (18) for Current Spending and 10% (2) for Investment?
(b) looks more prudent than (c) which looks more prudent than (a). Yet it's all the same. There's no difference. It's all fungible.
Aarhus, Denmark
Zurich, Switzerland
Berlin, Germany
Gothenburg, Sweden
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Helsinki, Finland
Bristol, United Kingdom
Copenhagen, Denmark
Geneva, Switzerland,
Munich, Germany
Stockholm, Sweden
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Oulu, Finland
Vienna, Austria
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Reykjavík, Iceland
Aalborg, Denmark
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Basel, Switzerland
Alesund, Norway"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/denmark/aarhus-happiest-city-in-the-world/
Unless you are buying something very specialised* there is no meaningful difference between most AI or HPC focused supercomputers. Most of the large-scale deployments that are being deployed could run a wide variety of workloads.
Maybe some networking or storage choices would vary, but generally even there it is common to have some configurability and scalability options as very few systems are targetting such a narrow range of work that extreme specialisation is desirable.
* You probably don't want the truly AI specialised hardware, much of it isn't very good, because paper specs don't perform great in practice, and the software and tools are half-baked. There are lots of AI specialist hardware companies that are burning through investor capital hoping for someone bigger to buy them. Anyone who recalls the early days of graphics accelerators, RISC processors, ethernet switching, or minicomputers will know that most of the competing companies failed.
She's openly announcing she will borrow more to invest.
Selling off assets is what the last lot were doing. Reeves is borrowing to build/buy assets like roads and other infrastructure.
Someone bought them, even if you or I wouldn't.
Something to do with temperature changes was suggested.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city
"For most of the Weimar Republic, the Centre Party was the third-largest party in the Reichstag and a bulwark of the Republic, participating in all governments until 1932."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_(Germany)
The golden fiscal rule is taxes = or > current spending.
So theoretically you could have taxes = 100, current expenditure = 100 and investment = 150 if you really thought there were enough good investments to be made which would grow economy. The limit on investment is that net debt (newly defined) has to be falling as share of GDP by 5th year.
The other side? My school is in the process of some potentially illegal funding cuts which I and other staff are considering whistle-blowing on. Our hands are only stayed currently by the honest reflection that, with a £400k hole in our finances this year alone, we're not sure we wouldn't be making the same illegal cuts were we in charge.
And, whilst this makes me faintly incandescent with rage, I can also see that schools are rightly a long way from top priority for any new funding.
The public finances have been left in a truly parlous state. Austerity played a big part, but it goes deeper and longer than that (our misuse of North Sea oil revenues, for example).
I don't envy the choices facing Reeves one bit. By rewriting the rules she is, at least, aiming to head off the sort of chaos Truss caused by being unpredictable. An additional, predictable, borrowing regime for investment spending has some merits, therefore.
What would you do instead? I mean, the answer surely has to be to cut spending, but where?
I accept the need to invest more in infrastructure. But the reality is that if you want to do more of that you need to either do less of something else (current expenditure) or you need to increase taxes to pay for it. Borrowing more without one of those alternatives simply digs the hole even deeper.
Quite a nice canteen (when it’s not raining!)
I am not making a party political point against Reeves. The last lot were equally shocking in this respect. I am making the point that there comes a time when we need to stop kidding ourselves.
This is what dishonesty looks like:
It may or not be appropriate to elect mayors by an alternate vote system or by a plurality system, but it really grinds my gears when people are cavalier with the names for electoral systems.
You borrow £500,000 to buy a £500,000 house, so are you level (minus future interest payments) because you now have a house or are you £500,000 down on the deal because that is what you spent?
(Some may even have leftist newspapers that like their nations.)
What could possibly go wrong?
Investment is supposed to pay for itself over time. If you rely on taxes to pay for investment then you'll always underinvest.
We need to think why it is ok to use pensions to have our better off pay a lower rate of tax than a working man or woman with an average income and why the better off in our society can get such large tax free lump sums.
We frankly need to get a bit more realistic about how much money we want to spend on those with learning difficulties who, in many cases, will never actually be employable. We need to stop over promising and then corner cutting.
And then we need to invest the money generated by this into roads, railways, public transport, green energy, research and incentivising private sector investment.
Of course any government doing anything like this can forget ever being re-elected!
I think there might have been a brief opportunity post Major (who for all his failings actually more or less held the line) for the incoming government to completely redefine economic strategy. Instead they opted for carrying on the fudge, and turbocharged it.
The lender to UK plc can't enforce the debt as a bank can, can't take the M6 and put it to auction and may come to believe the income stream is such that it isn't safe to lend to UK plc.
Anyway, in the end we, like the rest of the rich world, will inflate it away, as we did last time.
All of which indicates that the cost of borrowing turns on the rate of additional return generated by the investment. That is a lot more difficult to estimate for a government than it is for a householder. It is highly probable that the Elizabeth line has generated sufficient additional tax revenues to pay for the money we borrowed to build it. It is less obvious that, say, duelling the A9 would have the same effect. Building nuclear power stations that produce energy that needs to be subsidised because it is above the market rate for that energy has a negative return. Are you confident that this borrowing will generate sufficient additional tax revenues to pay the interest?
HS2 to Manchester
Northern Powerhouse Rail
50,000 miles of cycle lane (a sixth of the entire road network)
30GW of offshore wind (more than double what we have now)
Which is why Reeves is in such an invidious
position, albeit at the start of a term she can
afford to be bolder.
Thing is, one could argue that Labour are doing
absolutely as much of what you're prescribing as
they think they can get away with politically - they
did the WFA thing, which is probably the easiest
of that sort of cut, and got absolutely hammered
in terms of Starmer's popularity (alright, for being
entitled fools with regard to freebies too).
They'll probably try another similar cut in the
budget, and get pilloried again. In the festering real world of our current politics maybe they are following the least worst path in what they're
doing i.e. do any more of what you prescribe and they lose legitimacy to do any of it at all a la May.
That is, the number of properties vs the number of people who need a place means that a number of properties aren’t let.
I know this will boggle the mind. Try this. friend had a flat in Vienna. Family’s old place etc. Nice building, modernised, but with old charm. Good quality, up to date. It was empty, because he couldn’t find a tenant. The problem wasn’t the price - it was a renters market. Everyone had a place.
Stayed there a couple of times - he lent it to friends for holidays.
In the end, it did get rented. After years of being empty.
What is it to kid ourselves, maybe the metrics play as much a role than any qualitative measure? We pronounce these very Germanic economic rules around debt to GDP ratios, inflation targets, ideal interest rates, rates of unemployment and everything seems aimed at influencing these metrics. I'm not convinced that all the target chasing is the optimal way of improving people's lives. Especially given the nebulousness of some of the oft proclaimed targets.
As an example: inflation must be at 2%. there is no real justification for 2% but for some reason all western societies see the optimal inflation rate as 2%. Can it really be true that 2% is the best rate for both Australia and the UK?
It’s like Truss never left 😀
(Although I guess the difference there is that they had great infrastructure, and they added unnecessary stuff. While we have poor infrastructure, and refuse to do extremely useful things.)
Having said that if Trump wasn't the nominee more independents would likely vote for say Haley than will vote for Trump. It may end up such fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters vote GOP for Congress to get inflation down further and Harris for President to keep Trump out
But it's also true that it will negatively impact production of products in the US that rely on foreign components - which is (of course) most thing. And this is especially true of goods that might be exported: why build a car in the US, when its components from Canada or Mexico or Germany face tariffs? Given how narrow car margins are, you'd much rather build stuff for export outside the US.
A whistleblower from HMP Wandsworth has shared their staff chat with The Times. Messages include homophobia, misogyny and jokes about assaulting prisoners
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/whatsapp-messages-show-prison-officers-celebrating-inmate-death-5xbjrkshl
40 years of running policy based on Daily Mail headlines.
I think there is a lot of truth in that, and that if offers possibilities for both parties. Right now, for example, it is easy to make arguments blaming either business or government for inflation. And easy to find examples to blame in both business and government.
And we got instead, quite soon, a ...
‘Good Omens’ Season 3 to Consist of One 90-Minute Episode, Neil Gaiman Not Involved in Production
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/good-omens-season-3-neil-gaiman-one-episode-1236189647/
"Gene Hunt. Your DCI. And it's 1973. Almost dinner time. I'm 'avin' 'oops."
"She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot."
"He's got fingers in more pies than a leper on a cookery course."