There's something I've never understood about the LD tuition fees issue which someone here probably knows. Given the coalition agreement gave them the right to abstain on it, why did they whip votes in favour? Seems like rubbing salt into the wound unnecessarily.
The other thing about Clegg's proposal is that the tuition fee argument by it's very nature appealed to alot of young people.
Of course wiser, more cynical and less naive heads won't have been taken in as they were. But this was alot of these young pup's first elections. First cut/deepest and all that.
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
To be fair, it was probably more the VAT rise announced in Osborne's first budget that did for the LDs.
JackW is correct that coalition government by their very nature make all manifesto promises are null and void – but the Lib Dems made a solemn ‘pledge’ - they signed it and everything…!
I’m sure the sense betrayal was palpable by those ‘students’ that voted LD on the back of such campaigning.
Is there any significant difference between a "solemn pledge" and a "manifesto pledge". The essential to carrying out either is to win the election.
To my mind the LibDems were guilty of executing an electorially excellent campaign proposal that they were in no position to implement even in the event of a Coalition.
In short they successfully deluded themselves and students.
The difference with the tuition fees was the incredibly pious/sad/solemn/serious face way Nick Clegg went about it. All politicians spew seven thousand litres of bunkum, and we know its all bunkum where they stand next to the poster saying how if the other lot get in, taxes will go up, puppies will burn (In the case of Labour this is often true but hey ho) and people think - its politicians being politicians. Ed Balls is a good example of this, you don't believe a word he says, but hey thats ok; he is Ed Balls and obviously he's just spouting claptrap trying to get into power.
But Clegg's promises - they were different. This was a man who was going to do it differently, he wasn't just another politician. YOU COULD BELIEVE NICK. He was on your side, those nasty tuition fees. HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST it. Because he wasn't just another politician, he was Nick Clegg. The deception was deeper with Clegg. The lies worse, because he built that entire campaign on being the one you could trust, a different type of politician. Except he wasn't.
That's all fine and dandy.
However you miss the fundamental fact that the LibDems didn't win the election and accordingly were in no position to enact anything.
You seem to be in the bizarre position of finding them guilty of something they couldn't possibly have done.
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
Why would cutting taxes on consumption make more sense than, say, income or employment?
Avery - so are you suggesting that £30Bn has been taken out of the economy by borrowing less - how can we have growth without govt spending ? Ed Balls must be mystified.
There are a few particular aspects about the tuition fees debacle that the Lib Dems messed-up.
1. As I understand it, Lib Dem policy was for a graduate tax to replace tuition fees. The system we have ended up with is essentially a capped graduate tax, dressed up in the language of fees, loans, etc. Why couldn't the Lib Dems manage to get the Tories to agree to call it a [capped] graduate tax instead of tuition fees?
2. Given the obvious difficulties this policy was expected to cause the Lib Dems, as recognised by the fudge in the Coalition Agreement allowing Lib Dem MPs to abstain on the vote, what explains the comic ineptness of the Secretary of State in charge of the policy being the Lib Dem Vince Cable? Surely they could have transferred Universities back to the Education Department, or agreed upon some other division of Cabinet posts?
3. Having agreed to a compromise in the Coalition Agreement allowing the Lib Dems to abstain on the policy, why did the Lib Dems tie themselves up in knots for months arguing over whether to vote for the policy?
Error heaped upon error. It's not just that the Lib Dems went into Coalition with the Tories, it's that they were so absurdly inept in doing so that they have nothing to show for it.
I can only think of one thing that the Coalition has done that Cameron et al are unhappy about - and that was to hold the AV referendum. And the Lib Dems managed to lose that anyway.
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
I think pragmatically it was such a huge financial commitment that tuition fees had to be decided upon immediately.
As for future tax cuts I'd be bound to say "Carry on Danny" - Continue to Increase the tax threshold to help the working poor and also look at the starting rate for NI.
Why would the "working poor" not be helped by a cut in VAT? I know food isn't covered, but quite a lot of things the are used regularly …… fuel being one ….. are.
It's not that they wouldn't be helped but where does the government get more bang for its buck in helping the working poor. Raising thresholds both in income tax and NI does it much better.
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
To be fair, it was probably more the VAT rise announced in Osborne's first budget that did for the LDs.
JackW is correct that coalition government by their very nature make all manifesto promises are null and void – but the Lib Dems made a solemn ‘pledge’ - they signed it and everything…!
I’m sure the sense betrayal was palpable by those ‘students’ that voted LD on the back of such campaigning.
Is there any significant difference between a "solemn pledge" and a "manifesto pledge". The essential to carrying out either is to win the election.
To my mind the LibDems were guilty of executing an electorially excellent campaign proposal that they were in no position to implement even in the event of a Coalition.
In short they successfully deluded themselves and students.
No, the Lab/Lib/Con are all liars, but that doesn't resonate with JackW and quite a few others. Only if UKIP caught in a gaff or lie is it deemed to be serious, heinous, etc,.
My position in relation to politicians and the public is clear - Lamp post and dog.
So politicians pissing on the "people" is ok and the norm with you?
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
I think pragmatically it was such a huge financial commitment that tuition fees had to be decided upon immediately.
As for future tax cuts I'd be bound to say "Carry on Danny" - Continue to Increase the tax threshold to help the working poor and also look at the starting rate for NI.
Why would the "working poor" not be helped by a cut in VAT? I know food isn't covered, but quite a lot of things the are used regularly …… fuel being one ….. are.
Cutting in work taxes helps those in work - and incentivises those not in work to enter work.
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
To be fair, it was probably more the VAT rise announced in Osborne's first budget that did for the LDs.
JackW is correct that coalition government by their very nature make all manifesto promises are null and void – but the Lib Dems made a solemn ‘pledge’ - they signed it and everything…!
I’m sure the sense betrayal was palpable by those ‘students’ that voted LD on the back of such campaigning.
Is there any significant difference between a "solemn pledge" and a "manifesto pledge". The essential to carrying out either is to win the election.
To my mind the LibDems were guilty of executing an electorially excellent campaign proposal that they were in no position to implement even in the event of a Coalition.
In short they successfully deluded themselves and students.
No, the Lab/Lib/Con are all liars, but that doesn't resonate with JackW and quite a few others. Only if UKIP caught in a gaff or lie is it deemed to be serious, heinous, etc,.
My position in relation to politicians and the public is clear - Lamp post and dog.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
Why would cutting taxes on consumption make more sense than, say, income or employment?
To be fair, it was probably more the VAT rise announced in Osborne's first budget that did for the LDs.
JackW is correct that coalition government by their very nature make all manifesto promises are null and void – but the Lib Dems made a solemn ‘pledge’ - they signed it and everything…!
I’m sure the sense betrayal was palpable by those ‘students’ that voted LD on the back of such campaigning.
Is there any significant difference between a "solemn pledge" and a "manifesto pledge". The essential to carrying out either is to win the election.
To my mind the LibDems were guilty of executing an electorially excellent campaign proposal that they were in no position to implement even in the event of a Coalition.
In short they successfully deluded themselves and students.
The difference with the tuition fees was the incredibly pious/sad/solemn/serious face way Nick Clegg went about it. All politicians spew seven thousand litres of bunkum, and we know its all bunkum where they stand next to the poster saying how if the other lot get in, taxes will go up, puppies will burn (In the case of Labour this is often true but hey ho) and people think - its politicians being politicians. Ed Balls is a good example of this, you don't believe a word he says, but hey thats ok; he is Ed Balls and obviously he's just spouting claptrap trying to get into power.
But Clegg's promises - they were different. This was a man who was going to do it differently, he wasn't just another politician. YOU COULD BELIEVE NICK. He was on your side, those nasty tuition fees. HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST it. Because he wasn't just another politician, he was Nick Clegg. The deception was deeper with Clegg. The lies worse, because he built that entire campaign on being the one you could trust, a different type of politician. Except he wasn't.
That's all fine and dandy.
However you miss the fundamental fact that the LibDems didn't win the election and accordingly were in no position to enact anything.
You seem to be in the bizarre position of finding them guilty of something they couldn't possibly have done.
That isn't really the point, Jack. He may well have painted himself into a corner, but it was the way that he totally reversed his position that was so hard to take.
Having said that, it doesn't seem to have stopped students without significant family financial backing from attending University, although the scheme is unquestionably in trouble.
@JackW If it isn't Eastleigh/Thanet South I'm not sure where it is
Gt Yarmouth. And they have an outside chance in Norwich North if they can keep Labour from coming through the middle. It's more likely they will hand the seat to Labour on a 28/20/33 split or thereabouts
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
To be fair, it was probably more the VAT rise announced in Osborne's first budget that did for the LDs.
JackW is correct that coalition government by their very nature make all manifesto promises are null and void – but the Lib Dems made a solemn ‘pledge’ - they signed it and everything…!
I’m sure the sense betrayal was palpable by those ‘students’ that voted LD on the back of such campaigning.
Is there any significant difference between a "solemn pledge" and a "manifesto pledge". The essential to carrying out either is to win the election.
To my mind the LibDems were guilty of executing an electorially excellent campaign proposal that they were in no position to implement even in the event of a Coalition.
In short they successfully deluded themselves and students.
One can only presume that there is a “significant difference” between a ‘solemn pledge’ and a ‘manifesto pledge’ as that is exactly what Clegg chose to do for his election campaign.
As to what that ‘difference’ might be, I would suggest that manifesto promises can be altered or dropped entirely with the excuse of rational, political expediency , whereas a ‘solemn pledge’ is an emotionally charged undertaking and the reaction by those ‘students’ of its abandonment equally emotive.
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
Why would cutting taxes on consumption make more sense than, say, income or employment?
Because taxes on consumption bear hardest upon those at the bottom and in the middle.
The system we have ended up with is essentially a capped graduate tax, dressed up in the language of fees, loans, etc. Why couldn't the Lib Dems manage to get the Tories to agree to call it a [capped] graduate tax instead of tuition fees?
Because then those who moved abroad after university (either because they were returning home or emigrating) would no longer have to pay.
As you say the current system is like a graduate tax (but even slightly better since it allows recovery from those abroad) and the calculated effect is that those on lower post graduation incomes pay less than they would have under the previous system. The LDs should be proud of the new system.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
Even on Avery's preferred measure we borrowed a stonking £75bn last year. And people are debating tax cuts.
I despair.
It is properly the time to debate what new tax on housing is going to be introduced to both reduce the deficit and to dampen down the developing housing bubble.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
Why would cutting taxes on consumption make more sense than, say, income or employment?
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
To be fair, it was probably more the VAT rise announced in Osborne's first budget that did for the LDs.
JackW is correct that coalition government by their very nature make all manifesto promises are null and void – but the Lib Dems made a solemn ‘pledge’ - they signed it and everything…!
I’m sure the sense betrayal was palpable by those ‘students’ that voted LD on the back of such campaigning.
Is there any significant difference between a "solemn pledge" and a "manifesto pledge". The essential to carrying out either is to win the election.
To my mind the LibDems were guilty of executing an electorially excellent campaign proposal that they were in no position to implement even in the event of a Coalition.
In short they successfully deluded themselves and students.
No, the Lab/Lib/Con are all liars, but that doesn't resonate with JackW and quite a few others. Only if UKIP caught in a gaff or lie is it deemed to be serious, heinous, etc,.
My position in relation to politicians and the public is clear - Lamp post and dog.
So politicians pissing on the "people" is ok and the norm with you?
Please note the position between the subjects in my sentence.
The Dyedwoolie projection stands at UKIP walkover in the euros, Lab and Tories in the 20s GE- Lab largest party, 25 short and no more than 10 ahead Indy - 48/52 no to win, but yes closing
3. Having agreed to a compromise in the Coalition Agreement allowing the Lib Dems to abstain on the policy, why did the Lib Dems tie themselves up in knots for months arguing over whether to vote for the policy?
In terms of the political damage, I think that was the key mistake. They spent months agonising in public and wondering aloud about what they would do and how they got into the mess, thereby maximising the publicity and bigging up the 'betrayal'.
Breaking political promises is like any other ruthless act of political expediency or necessity: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly". And preferably silently in the middle of the night.
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
It is properly the time to debate what new tax on housing is going to be introduced to both reduce the deficit and to dampen down the developing housing bubble.
No need. The Mortgage Market Review rules coming into effect this week should take the wind out of most peoples desire to overborrow and the new CGT and stamp duty on foreign purchases should reduce the attraction of London property.
Also worth noting that the Land Registry figures for this month - using both mortgaged and cash purchases - showed a 0.4% fall in house prices, so I expect the mini-bubble we had is already leaking.
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
The caveat to UKIP decline is if they win in May. Then they have the bright lights of victory to carry them. I can see them getting 8-10%, pushing the Libs for third One or two seats, and chaos in the marginals
I like the dyedwool projection. That would have been my position on both votes until I started coming here and now I'm more suspicious of the UKIP 1st prediction.
I like the dyedwool projection. That would have been my position on both votes until I started coming here and now I'm more suspicious of the UKIP 1st prediction.
I hate it! I'm looking for a Stronger govt recovery conference onwards to reverse the position :-)
"That isn't really the point, Jack. He may well have painted himself into a corner, but it was the way that he totally reversed his position that was so hard to take.
Having said that, it doesn't seem to have stopped students without significant family financial backing from attending University, although the scheme is unquestionably in trouble."
Borrowing figures seem encouraging but we need Avery!
"In March 2014, public sector net borrowing excluding temporary effects of financial interventions (PSNB ex) was £6.7 billion. This was £4.7 billion lower than in March 2013, when it was £11.4 billion"
And looks as if DavidL has won his bet with tim with £7.5bn to spare. He is thus inducted into the Most Salacious Order of the PbTories.
Salacious sounds fun. I think the winning margin is in fact £8.5bn because the comparator for the previous year was £116bn although it was then revised down a bit (presumably someone checked down the back of the sofa.)
All very cheering but as I said I have no means of contacting Tim.
Whilst Osborne has clearly achieved his main objective of letting me win my bet I think it is slightly concerning that growth more than 3x what was originally projected for the year reduced the underlying deficit by such a modest amount. No doubt Avery will tell us that the net cash requirement fell considerably more but that was flattered by the sale of assets such as the Lloyds shares.
The sad truth is that the extent of our in work benefits is now such that growth has a more marginal effect on the public finances than hitherto. This makes the continuing scale of our deficit truly frightening. We are not going to grow our way out of this in a decade. Cuts in spending or increases in taxes or both will be required throughout the next Parliament.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
Why would cutting taxes on consumption make more sense than, say, income or employment?
Reduce taxes on employment then.
Also look at reform of property tax (an annual charge rather than stamp duty).
Borrowing figures seem encouraging but we need Avery!
"In March 2014, public sector net borrowing excluding temporary effects of financial interventions (PSNB ex) was £6.7 billion. This was £4.7 billion lower than in March 2013, when it was £11.4 billion"
And looks as if DavidL has won his bet with tim with £7.5bn to spare. He is thus inducted into the Most Salacious Order of the PbTories.
Salacious sounds fun. I think the winning margin is in fact £8.5bn because the comparator for the previous year was £116bn although it was then revised down a bit (presumably someone checked down the back of the sofa.)
All very cheering but as I said I have no means of contacting Tim.
Whilst Osborne has clearly achieved his main objective of letting me win my bet I think it is slightly concerning that growth more than 3x what was originally projected for the year reduced the underlying deficit by such a modest amount. No doubt Avery will tell us that the net cash requirement fell considerably more but that was flattered by the sale of assets such as the Lloyds shares.
The sad truth is that the extent of our in work benefits is now such that growth has a more marginal effect on the public finances than hitherto. This makes the continuing scale of our deficit truly frightening. We are not going to grow our way out of this in a decade. Cuts in spending or increases in taxes or both will be required throughout the next Parliament.
If you send me an e-mail at john-oreilly@tiscali.co.uk I will give you his address. I think that's allowed but you're the lawyer.
"That isn't really the point, Jack. He may well have painted himself into a corner, but it was the way that he totally reversed his position that was so hard to take.
Having said that, it doesn't seem to have stopped students without significant family financial backing from attending University, although the scheme is unquestionably in trouble."
It is the harsh reality of not winning elections and then being in Coalition with a partner who wouldn't be swayed.
The reality of Coalition government instead of the pipedreams of opposition.
Are you seriously suggesting that if, for example, the Tories hasd said that coming out of Europe would be a new policy, the LD's should have gone along with it?
Got my (London) poll card today and noticed two things I didn't know about the Euros. First, one can vote for a party or an individual candidate, apparently. What's that about? Perhaps single candidates putting up as party lists?
Second, if you're a non-British EU citizen, yes you can vote in the Euros, but whereas for the local election you get your yellow ballot paper automatically, to vote in the Euros you apparently need to fill out a separate application form. Perhaps Mrs Farage will bother, but not many others will. What is the reason for this extra bureaucracy? I remember that the LibDems announced that they were going to drum up support in this group - perhaps they should take up the issue, seeing that they're in government and all.
"... the new CGT and stamp duty on foreign purchases should reduce the attraction of London property."
I doubt it will make much difference.
I used to do some work for a seriously wealthy chap who drove a Rolls Royce Phantom (well actually his chauffeur drove it). When it came time to change the car he did not buy a Prius because the tax disc for a new Roller was going to cost him £1,000 and £400 a year thereafter, the tax was trivial compared to the cost of purchase (£350,000) and employing someone to drive it (£90,000 p.a.).
The same for very wealth foreigners spending millions on a place in London. The new taxes add to the cost but not to the extent that they will be put off. Form the point of view of raising revenue the taxes are a very good idea (maximum milk with no moo) and politically they play well too. From the point of view of damping down house prices they will be a failure.
The deficit stood at 6.6% of GDP last year on a nominal basis down from 11% in 2009/10. That's actually not so bad. Next year I expect that figure to come down to 5%, which would actually place the government ahead of Labour's go to "Darling plan" which is now their final bedrock of economic policy. If the government can get ahead of the "Darling plan" before the election Labour will literally have no economic policy to speak of.
Looking through the YouGov on economic competence:
Improving standards of living for people like you?
Net Lab lead of +4, down from a lead of +9 in October.
Providing more jobs?
Net Lab lead of +1, down from a lead of +8 in October.
On Labour's pet subject:
Who do you think is more to blame for people's incomes not keeping pace with rising prices?
Blame Labour - 27 (25) Blame coalition - 25 (25) Both equally - 26 (28)
These are the areas on which Labour have campaigned heavily over the last couple of years, jobs, living standards and falling real terms income. On living standards they have a slender lead, on jobs their lead has vanished and on incomes they are now a net -2 for "blame".
Both of the Eds need to rethink their core economic policies because their current ones are all swinging toward the government.
Even on less important questions related to Ed energy price freeze they are losing their lead:
Keeping prices down?
Net Lab lead of +1, down from a lead of +6 in October.
I don't see any changes in economic performance of the economy coming to save Labour's bacon and with that in mind all of these questions will continue to swing toward the government, especially as incomes in the private sector continue to outstrip inflation. Their core message will be lost on most people who will see their wages rising in real terms and the ones who haven't may not view the government as the culprits. The polling picture has also changed. Labour are now in that 35-38% territory with the Tories in the 33-35% territory. The changes in overall polling have come with the change in economic competence gains by the government. It may not be a voteless recovery after all, the improvement just needs to be larger than what we currently have for the government parties to benefit. Lucky for them there are still 13 months until the election...
Mr Farage: "The next wave of posters will be about how our lives can be enriched by throwing off the shackles of bureaucracy and how we can all be better off by freeing ourselves from this political union.
From energy and food prices to preserving our common law heritage, Ukip isn’t just about the negative. It’s about how Great Britain can be outside this outdated political model. ... we’re the party that wants to open ourselves up to the world, not shut ourselves off in Fortress Europe."
Got my (London) poll card today and noticed two things I didn't know about the Euros. First, one can vote for a party or an individual candidate, apparently. What's that about? Perhaps single candidates putting up as party lists?
I believe that you can stand as an individual candidate, rather than as a party list which is what they are referring to I believe. (last time Jan Jananayagam stood in London and got 50,000 votes or similar)
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Why would the "working poor" not be helped by a cut in VAT? I know food isn't covered, but quite a lot of things the are used regularly …… fuel being one ….. are.
OKC
The OECD reviewed the fiscal consolidation plans of all its member countries following the financial crash. Its aim was to calculatevthe amount taxes had to be increased and government spending reduced in order to bring each country's public finances into compliance with international norms and EU rules by 2030.
The UK, under Osborne, has chosen to adopt a fiscal consolidation plan which raises 20% from tax increases and 80% from spending cuts. This is the lowest ratio for tax rises of all plans considered by the OECD.
So far, mainly through the VAT increases increased in 2010, the tax increase side of the ratio has been fulfilled. Substantial cuts in spending have been made, mainly to administration spend, but 60% of the cuts needed have yet to be implemented. Effectively these will need to be made over the next fifteen years, with a large proportion coming in the next parliamentary term, mainly to 'programme expenditure' (i.e. social benefits not admin) in order to get the UK's cyclically adjusted current balance into surplus.
Only once a current account surplus is achieved then the task of debt reduction can begin.
So over the long term there is very little opportunity for substantial tax cuts and certainly no option to reverse the VAT rise.
If the prospect of 'austerity' continuing to 2030 sounds unpalatable, you should take note that the balance and timing of fiscal consolidation adopted by Osborne has led to the UK economy not only growing faster (at present) than all its G7 partners but also to the rate of reduction in our cyclically adjusted current balance (the key deficit measure) being the largest too. On average since 2010, Osborne has achieved a 1.6% rate of fiscal consolidation.
So although today's news is good we are still very much in the early stages of the journey required. It hasn't helped the UK starting from the second lowest position in the G7 in terms of debt and deficit ratios. A high growth rate will assist progress but low inflation (i.e. below the BoE 2% target for a sustained period) is a headwind which will make the task of debt reduction more difficult.
If current EU deflation/low inflation persists then some further QE monetary stimulus may be needed. The UK may be better shielded from Eurozone deflation than its main competitors but it is not immune to its effects.
"That isn't really the point, Jack. He may well have painted himself into a corner, but it was the way that he totally reversed his position that was so hard to take.
Having said that, it doesn't seem to have stopped students without significant family financial backing from attending University, although the scheme is unquestionably in trouble."
It is the harsh reality of not winning elections and then being in Coalition with a partner who wouldn't be swayed.
The reality of Coalition government instead of the pipedreams of opposition.
Are you seriously suggesting that if, for example, the Tories hasd said that coming out of Europe would be a new policy, the LD's should have gone along with it?
No.
What I am saying is that reality breeds pragmatism. Both parties had to give and take within a framework of what was feasible.
Let me also put this to you being a LibDem.
If, say 12 months before the last general election I'd have offered to you a raft of LibDem policies that would be implemented, but not abolition of tuition fees, would you have been a happy bunny ?
Are you a pint half full man or as it appears to me a pint almost empty man .... and that coming from a party whose glass had been empty for almost a century ?
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
Why would cutting taxes on consumption make more sense than, say, income or employment?
Because taxes on consumption bear hardest upon those at the bottom and in the middle.
There are more efficient ways to help those at the bottom and the middle.
And if you want to rebalance the economy, encouraging consumption is not a good use of resources
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Bollocks , it has been well documented under International law that over 90% of the oil and Gas is Scottish waters. panicked unionists looking for the lifeboats and trying to steal as much as they can as they head for them shouting money and me first , women and children get to the back of teh queue.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
Even on Avery's preferred measure we borrowed a stonking £75bn last year. And people are debating tax cuts.
I despair.
It is properly the time to debate what new tax on housing is going to be introduced to both reduce the deficit and to dampen down the developing housing bubble.
Annual property tax, perhaps with capital gains tax unless you are resident in the property. Use the money to eliminate stamp duty and various other more economically damaging taxes
"That isn't really the point, Jack. He may well have painted himself into a corner, but it was the way that he totally reversed his position that was so hard to take.
Having said that, it doesn't seem to have stopped students without significant family financial backing from attending University, although the scheme is unquestionably in trouble."
It is the harsh reality of not winning elections and then being in Coalition with a partner who wouldn't be swayed.
The reality of Coalition government instead of the pipedreams of opposition.
Are you seriously suggesting that if, for example, the Tories hasd said that coming out of Europe would be a new policy, the LD's should have gone along with it?
No.
What I am saying is that reality breeds pragmatism. Both parties had to give and take within a framework of what was feasible.
Let me also put this to you being a LibDem.
If, say 12 months before the last general election I'd have offered to you a raft of LibDem policies that would be implemented, but not abolition of tuition fees, would you have been a happy bunny ?
Are you a pint half full man or as it appears to me a pint almost empty man .... and that coming from a party whose glass had been empty for almost a century ?
Of course I'd have taken it Jack! Doesn't stop me grumbling that the way one or two policies were lost in the horse trading was counter-productive for the future of the Party!
"The sad truth is that the extent of our in work benefits is now such that growth has a more marginal effect on the public finances than hitherto. This makes the continuing scale of our deficit truly frightening. We are not going to grow our way out of this in a decade. Cuts in spending or increases in taxes or both will be required throughout the next Parliament."
The first time I have seen this acknowledged on here and it is something that needs wider circulation. The taxpayer is subsidising employment and housing, to the benefit of employers and landlords, to an unprecedented degree and it is not clear how this will ever be changed.
Both of the Eds need to rethink their core economic policies because their current ones are all swinging toward the government.
.
Patrick Wintour has a write up on that YouGov poll along with a discussion on Labour's cost of living campaign.
"Labour's decision to double-down on squeezed living standards – as exemplified by last week's appointment of Obama adviser David Axelrod – reflects a gamble at the top of the party that the issue will continue to resonate despite what is expected to be a daily drumbeat of better economic news.
Party officials have discussed at length the so-called "crossover" – the moment when wages rose faster than prices – and rejected any suggestion that it meant the living standards agenda had reached political or intellectual exhaustion. They believe the subject is a symbol of an economy that is not working for most people, opening a wider argument about a government for the elite.
Labour's persistence may be justified by recent polling: YouGov published figures at the weekend showing 84% agree that "in the last few years most people's incomes have not kept pace with rising prices" – a figure that the latest wage and inflation figures last week have not altered."
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Bollocks , it has been well documented under International law that over 90% of the oil and Gas is Scottish waters. panicked unionists looking for the lifeboats and trying to steal as much as they can as they head for them shouting money and me first , women and children get to the back of teh queue.
I wouldn't bother malc, He's show time and time again to be trolling on all matters Scottish. I have to assume it's trolling as the alternative is that he's a grad A idiot, and otherwise he seems fairly normal...
Mike: Today's Poll is Cons:34; LAB:37;LD:10; UKIP:12
YouGov looks at the VOTE/WNV for the EU election. It finds that 48% (+5) definitely will vote and a further 16% are very likely to vote (8 and 9 on a 1-10 scale where 10 is will vote).
Of the current VI, the strongest Voters are UKIP and the weakest are the Cons. Also 25% of the current Cons VI will vote UKIP, whilst only 8% of LAB and 5% of LD will do so.
On blame for the spending cuts: Coalition is on 25 (0), last Labour Government 38(+2) and Both is 25(-1).
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Bollocks , it has been well documented under International law that over 90% of the oil and Gas is Scottish waters. panicked unionists looking for the lifeboats and trying to steal as much as they can as they head for them shouting money and me first , women and children get to the back of teh queue.
rUK can keep the gas landed at the Bacton and Easington terminals.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
Money's too tight to mention: "These could cost up to £1bn each year in subsidies, but the government says they would encourage firms to invest much more than that in low-carbon electricity generation."
Biomass and wind are stupid renewables. Solar and hydro-electric make much more sense for a rainy island covered with rivers. I wonder if hydro-electric pumps could provide an automatic response to rivers that have risen to a dangerous level...
"... the new CGT and stamp duty on foreign purchases should reduce the attraction of London property."
I doubt it will make much difference.
I used to do some work for a seriously wealthy chap who drove a Rolls Royce Phantom (well actually his chauffeur drove it). When it came time to change the car he did not buy a Prius because the tax disc for a new Roller was going to cost him £1,000 and £400 a year thereafter, the tax was trivial compared to the cost of purchase (£350,000) and employing someone to drive it (£90,000 p.a.).
The same for very wealth foreigners spending millions on a place in London. The new taxes add to the cost but not to the extent that they will be put off. Form the point of view of raising revenue the taxes are a very good idea (maximum milk with no moo) and politically they play well too. From the point of view of damping down house prices they will be a failure.
From foreigner it's maximum milk.
From locals (who are the main buyers in the sub £1m market and outside London) they will reflect the future cost in the price of the house (partially offset by the elimination of stamp duty)
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
Even on Avery's preferred measure we borrowed a stonking £75bn last year. And people are debating tax cuts.
I despair.
It is properly the time to debate what new tax on housing is going to be introduced to both reduce the deficit and to dampen down the developing housing bubble.
Annual property tax, perhaps with capital gains tax unless you are resident in the property. Use the money to eliminate stamp duty and various other more economically damaging taxes
Otherwise known as Land Value Tax - that traditional liberal policy which the Lib Dems (and every other major party) have long since abandoned...
Quite a lot more constituency betting added in recent days on the Ladbrokes site, including every Tory seat with a majority of under 12%. Hopefully it's also a bit easier to find these now once you get to the politics section. http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/politics
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
Why would cutting taxes on consumption make more sense than, say, income or employment?
Extra taxes on lefties! No votes for lefties!
At last. A voice of reason in the wilderness.
You are learning, IA, from your [re-]association with PB!
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas?
That's as likely as Scotland not agreeing to a share of UK debt - great stuff for bar-room braggadocio - but so deeply foolish as to not merit serious consideration.....
"That isn't really the point, Jack. He may well have painted himself into a corner, but it was the way that he totally reversed his position that was so hard to take.
Having said that, it doesn't seem to have stopped students without significant family financial backing from attending University, although the scheme is unquestionably in trouble."
It is the harsh reality of not winning elections and then being in Coalition with a partner who wouldn't be swayed.
The reality of Coalition government instead of the pipedreams of opposition.
Are you seriously suggesting that if, for example, the Tories hasd said that coming out of Europe would be a new policy, the LD's should have gone along with it?
No.
What I am saying is that reality breeds pragmatism. Both parties had to give and take within a framework of what was feasible.
Let me also put this to you being a LibDem.
If, say 12 months before the last general election I'd have offered to you a raft of LibDem policies that would be implemented, but not abolition of tuition fees, would you have been a happy bunny ?
Are you a pint half full man or as it appears to me a pint almost empty man .... and that coming from a party whose glass had been empty for almost a century ?
Of course I'd have taken it Jack! Doesn't stop me grumbling that the way one or two policies were lost in the horse trading was counter-productive for the future of the Party!
Fine, but an old adage comes to mind - "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face."
As a Coalitionista I'm also unhappy about a number of policies but I recognize in the round that this government, given the hand it was dealt, has been one of the best for a century.
Yes, it has made mistakes but the government that never made mistakes has never and will never be elected.
Money's too tight to mention: "These could cost up to £1bn each year in subsidies, but the government says they would encourage firms to invest much more than that in low-carbon electricity generation."
Biomass and wind are stupid renewables. Solar and hydro-electric make much more sense for a rainy island covered with rivers. I wonder if hydro-electric pumps could provide an automatic response to rivers that have risen to a dangerous level...
Wind is hardly a stupid renewable resource, unless you base all of your capacity on it. Oh, and how is solar less stupid that wind on, as you say, "a rainy island"? The problem with both wind and solar is one of storage for when it isnae sunny and when the wind doesnae blow.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
"The sad truth is that the extent of our in work benefits is now such that growth has a more marginal effect on the public finances than hitherto. This makes the continuing scale of our deficit truly frightening. We are not going to grow our way out of this in a decade. Cuts in spending or increases in taxes or both will be required throughout the next Parliament."
The first time I have seen this acknowledged on here and it is something that needs wider circulation. The taxpayer is subsidising employment and housing, to the benefit of employers and landlords, to an unprecedented degree and it is not clear how this will ever be changed.
The government is a big buyer of rental services. They should use their monopsonistic power to cut prices.
As a Coalitionista I'm also unhappy about a number of policies but I recognize in the round that this government, given the hand it was dealt, has been one of the best for a century.
Good Lord, I've been out-Nabavied! I generally stop at a cunningly-selected half-century.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Gordon Brown is probably the best example of how being part of the Union allows Scots to achieve more than they would if we were independent and that we punch above our weight already. Would a Scot have been at the centre of dealing with the credit crunch in 2008 if it wasn't for the Union?
My three problems with independence are that the transaction costs will be horrendous and probably outweigh any hypothetical improved economic performance, that we will loose out from not being part of a single UK market and the labour mobility that comes with it, and that it will take us off the global stage - eg security council seat loss.
Both of the Eds need to rethink their core economic policies because their current ones are all swinging toward the government.
.
Patrick Wintour has a write up on that YouGov poll along with a discussion on Labour's cost of living campaign.
"Labour's decision to double-down on squeezed living standards – as exemplified by last week's appointment of Obama adviser David Axelrod – reflects a gamble at the top of the party that the issue will continue to resonate despite what is expected to be a daily drumbeat of better economic news.
Party officials have discussed at length the so-called "crossover" – the moment when wages rose faster than prices – and rejected any suggestion that it meant the living standards agenda had reached political or intellectual exhaustion. They believe the subject is a symbol of an economy that is not working for most people, opening a wider argument about a government for the elite.
Labour's persistence may be justified by recent polling: YouGov published figures at the weekend showing 84% agree that "in the last few years most people's incomes have not kept pace with rising prices" – a figure that the latest wage and inflation figures last week have not altered."
Classic Guardian article. Completely ignores the key part of the question on blame. It's all well and good to say that people feel that wages have fallen but its no use to Labour when 54% of people blame them for that fall in wages. Additionally we're still a year away from the election. A year in which wages will continue to grow faster than inflation.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
Even on Avery's preferred measure we borrowed a stonking £75bn last year. And people are debating tax cuts.
I despair.
It is properly the time to debate what new tax on housing is going to be introduced to both reduce the deficit and to dampen down the developing housing bubble.
Annual property tax, perhaps with capital gains tax unless you are resident in the property. Use the money to eliminate stamp duty and various other more economically damaging taxes
Otherwise known as Land Value Tax - that traditional liberal policy which the Lib Dems (and every other major party) have long since abandoned...
No - I'd do it just on residential property. LVT is way too complicated. The economic problem that we have is too much capital is tied up in non-productive uses.
"The sad truth is that the extent of our in work benefits is now such that growth has a more marginal effect on the public finances than hitherto. This makes the continuing scale of our deficit truly frightening. We are not going to grow our way out of this in a decade. Cuts in spending or increases in taxes or both will be required throughout the next Parliament."
The first time I have seen this acknowledged on here and it is something that needs wider circulation. The taxpayer is subsidising employment and housing, to the benefit of employers and landlords, to an unprecedented degree and it is not clear how this will ever be changed.
The government is a big buyer of rental services. They should use their monopsonistic power to cut prices.
Sorry, Mr. C., you have lost me there. If you have time could you expand a little, please?
As a Coalitionista I'm also unhappy about a number of policies but I recognize in the round that this government, given the hand it was dealt, has been one of the best for a century.
Good Lord, I've been out-Nabavied! I generally stop at a cunningly-selected half-century.
Titters ....
Excluding the WWII Coalition I'm not too sure adding another half century and "one of the best" was too much of a stretch given the competition.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
Why would cutting taxes on consumption make more sense than, say, income or employment?
The rising property prices are accompanied by a fall in borrowing in the Uk - so no bubble.
Property ownership taxes are pernicious - you earn and are taxed - then are taxed again for not spending the money on non property - will have distorting effects and not be efficient to collect. If you want to soak the castles then add some more council tax bands at the top end.
Money's too tight to mention: "These could cost up to £1bn each year in subsidies, but the government says they would encourage firms to invest much more than that in low-carbon electricity generation."
Biomass and wind are stupid renewables. Solar and hydro-electric make much more sense for a rainy island covered with rivers. I wonder if hydro-electric pumps could provide an automatic response to rivers that have risen to a dangerous level...
I disagree. Biomass: stupid, if the biomass is imported. Wind: okay as (say 10-15%) of generative capacity. Hydro-electric: we've done many of the possible schemes already. Wave: an immature technology. Continue investing at a small (in power terms) level. Tidal: see wave Solar: unsuitable for UK on a large scale.
IMHO, the best way to be 'green' is for each country to do the best they can: for the UK, that might be wave/tidal/wind/gas, or for Spain wind/solar. Then have a series of low-loss HVDC routes to transmit across Europe. I'd like to see more progress towards this - Germany already are in a local manner to get over some of the problems renewables are causing their networks.
Classic Guardian article. Completely ignores the key part of the question on blame. It's all well and good to say that people feel that wages have fallen but its no use to Labour when 54% of people blame them for that fall in wages. Additionally we're still a year away from the election. A year in which wages will continue to grow faster than inflation.
To be fair, Patrick Wintour does recognise both those points in his article.
In any case he's describing Labour's thinking, not his own. Actually he does a very good job of showing how vacuous it is. In particular, citing a 700-page book by a French left-wing economist [is there any other sort of French economist?] is hardly going to help deal with the central flaw in Miliband's approach: it's all very well pointing to a problem, but he also needs to convince people that he's got a better solution than Osborne has. That, in turn, is going to be tricky, when we're doing better than nearly all other comparable economies, and in particular a lot better than the country run by Miliband's hero François Hollande.
Salmond can blether on about St George's Day as much as he likes (and I'm sure he likes, a lot.) There is no honest way in which a nationalist separatist can claim that independence implies that everything would change, while, simultaneously, everything would also stay the same. Mr Salmond would require to travel much further than Carlisle to turn such a logical impossibility into a fact: Wonderland, perhaps?
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Bollocks , it has been well documented under International law that over 90% of the oil and Gas is Scottish waters. panicked unionists looking for the lifeboats and trying to steal as much as they can as they head for them shouting money and me first , women and children get to the back of teh queue.
So is Scotland mentioned anywhere in the agreements that carved up the North Sea in the 1970s? It's a serious question. I don't know. But I rather think you'd find that what is mentioned is the UK. As the UK will still persist, those agreements will persist too. Swearily asserting otherwise may feel good, but what's in the contract language? What do the contracts actually say?
Scotland wanting a piece of the oil and gas feels to me like an ask, rather than a tell. Are the Nats good at asking Westminster for things nicely?
Some tax receipts are delayed compared to when profits are earned. Whilst PAYE and VAT are in the main not delayed, corporation tax for large profit making companies are roughly 5 months delayed and for smaller profit companies 15 month delayed. Self assessment for income tax on profits for partnerships and self traders can be anything from 16 months to 27 months depending on accounting year end dates. I have taken the average point of earning profits for this purpose, ie 30 June for a December year end.
So if increased GDP has caused greater profits, this should start to show up in 2014/15, whilst tax on salaries and VAT should be already starting to show.
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Bollocks , it has been well documented under International law that over 90% of the oil and Gas is Scottish waters. panicked unionists looking for the lifeboats and trying to steal as much as they can as they head for them shouting money and me first , women and children get to the back of teh queue.
So is Scotland mentioned anywhere in the agreements that carved up the North Sea in the 1970s? It's a serious question. I don't know. But I rather think you'd find that what is mentioned is the UK. As the UK will still persist, those agreements will persist too. Swearily asserting otherwise may feel good, but what's in the contract language? What do the contracts actually say?
Scotland wanting a piece of the oil and gas feels to me like an ask, rather than a tell. Are the Nats good at asking Westminster for things nicely?
The 1707 Acts of Union declared that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
"That isn't really the point, Jack. He may well have painted himself into a corner, but it was the way that he totally reversed his position that was so hard to take.
Having said that, it doesn't seem to have stopped students without significant family financial backing from attending University, although the scheme is unquestionably in trouble."
It is the harsh reality of not winning elections and then being in Coalition with a partner who wouldn't be swayed.
The reality of Coalition government instead of the pipedreams of opposition.
Are you seriously suggesting that if, for example, the Tories hasd said that coming out of Europe would be a new policy, the LD's should have gone along with it?
No.
What I am saying is that reality breeds pragmatism. Both parties had to give and take within a framework of what was feasible.
Let me also put this to you being a LibDem.
If, say 12 months before the last general election I'd have offered to you a raft of LibDem policies that would be implemented, but not abolition of tuition fees, would you have been a happy bunny ?
Are you a pint half full man or as it appears to me a pint almost empty man .... and that coming from a party whose glass had been empty for almost a century ?
Of course I'd have taken it Jack! Doesn't stop me grumbling that the way one or two policies were lost in the horse trading was counter-productive for the future of the Party!
Fine, but an old adage comes to mind - "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face."
As a Coalitionista I'm also unhappy about a number of policies but I recognize in the round that this government, given the hand it was dealt, has been one of the best for a century.
Yes, it has made mistakes but the government that never made mistakes has never and will never be elected.
One of my problems with this Government is, as I've said before, that it appears to govern in the interests of the fortunate, not of us all. As a CAB Trustee I'm constantly reminded of the considerable, and increasing, difficulties some of our fellow citzens are facing while the eggs are being re-scrambled. Sadly, those with the biggest problems seem to be those with the least ability to cope.
I am reading a book by Schmidt, of Google, in which he talks, inter alia, about people going to work and preparing presentations for their clients all over the world, as though that will be the norm in, at least, Western economies. He has clearly never been to some of the districts in UK to which I have been.
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Bollocks , it has been well documented under International law that over 90% of the oil and Gas is Scottish waters. panicked unionists looking for the lifeboats and trying to steal as much as they can as they head for them shouting money and me first , women and children get to the back of teh queue.
So is Scotland mentioned anywhere in the agreements that carved up the North Sea in the 1970s? It's a serious question. I don't know. But I rather think you'd find that what is mentioned is the UK. As the UK will still persist, those agreements will persist too. Swearily asserting otherwise may feel good, but what's in the contract language? What do the contracts actually say?
Scotland wanting a piece of the oil and gas feels to me like an ask, rather than a tell. Are the Nats good at asking Westminster for things nicely?
Well, of the 3 gas terminals serving the North Sea fields, 2 are in England. Perhaps Salmond could fight us for it with his 1 naval vessel and 12 Typhoons. Assuming we let him have spares for the latter, of course.
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Bollocks , it has been well documented under International law that over 90% of the oil and Gas is Scottish waters. panicked unionists looking for the lifeboats and trying to steal as much as they can as they head for them shouting money and me first , women and children get to the back of teh queue.
So is Scotland mentioned anywhere in the agreements that carved up the North Sea in the 1970s? It's a serious question. I don't know. But I rather think you'd find that what is mentioned is the UK. As the UK will still persist, those agreements will persist too. Swearily asserting otherwise may feel good, but what's in the contract language? What do the contracts actually say?
Scotland wanting a piece of the oil and gas feels to me like an ask, rather than a tell. Are the Nats good at asking Westminster for things nicely?
The 1707 Acts of Union declared that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
The rUK (what ever it chooses to call itself) would be the 'continuing state' and Scotland the new state - so technically rUK could try to pull the stunt being suggested - but I doubt anyone would be so daft as to try it - Scotland would take rUK to court and win, easily.
I find it very hard to imagine UKIP polling 12% at a GE. In 2009-2010 they went from 16.6% to 3.1%. Something similar seems likely for 2015, i.e they'll shed just over 80% of their Euro support and poll around 5%.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Bollocks , it has been well documented under International law that over 90% of the oil and Gas is Scottish waters. panicked unionists looking for the lifeboats and trying to steal as much as they can as they head for them shouting money and me first , women and children get to the back of teh queue.
So is Scotland mentioned anywhere in the agreements that carved up the North Sea in the 1970s? It's a serious question. I don't know. But I rather think you'd find that what is mentioned is the UK. As the UK will still persist, those agreements will persist too. Swearily asserting otherwise may feel good, but what's in the contract language? What do the contracts actually say?
Scotland wanting a piece of the oil and gas feels to me like an ask, rather than a tell. Are the Nats good at asking Westminster for things nicely?
The 1707 Acts of Union declared that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
The union with Ireland created the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' in 1800.
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
It wont .. we'll all disappear in a puff of smoke!
Slightly sarky, but if the UK refers to the union between 2 kingdoms, and one decides to leave then the entity known as the Union ceases to be. The Kingdom England will persist, but the United part of "UK" will not.
Besides, BJB is trying to argue that Scotland will effectively have no territorial waters post independence, which is patently nonsense.
Further, the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law. Combined with the principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), I think it fairly safe to say that once again BJB is talking shite.
...the central flaw in Miliband's approach: it's all very well pointing to a problem, but he also needs to convince people that he's got a better solution than Osborne has.
Richard
This debate between economists was referred to by Osborne in his recent speech in Washington:
I bring this same optimism to the second of today’s pessimistic predictions – that even if growth is sustained the benefits will accrue to the few not the many.
This prediction – that the link between living standards and economic growth has broken – also leads its proponents to the same prescription: more government spending on welfare and the costs of economic dependency.
But it too can be proved wrong if we follow a different approach.
To begin with it is not well supported by the facts.
As Greg Mankiw has pointed out for the US, on a superficial reading the data appears to show that real median incomes grew by only 3% over the entire period from 1979 to 2007. That sounds like there is a big problem.
But in fact once you take account of changes in household composition, lower taxes, healthcare benefits and other forms of remuneration then that number turns into a 37% real terms increase.
Of course that’s not to say that inequality doesn’t matter – it does.
The Great Recession made our countries poorer and times have been difficult for British and American families.
But in the UK the evidence shows that growth supports rising living standards.
Recent work by academics at the London School of Economics and our own analysis at the Treasury has found no evidence that employee compensation has become detached from GDP growth in recent decades.
Previous results that appear to show a break disappear once you take account of rising pension contributions and payroll taxes.
That is one reason why the labour share of national income in the UK has stayed constant over the last decade.
Nor does the evidence support the so-called “hollowing out” hypothesis in the UK – the idea that middle-skill and middle-income jobs are disappearing with most of the growth in employment either at the top or the bottom of the distribution.
While some traditional mid-level occupations have shrunk or moved down the income scale, new ones have been created to take their place.
So we have fewer middle-paid production line and secretarial jobs, but a lot more middle-paid jobs in IT and professional services.
Overall there has been little change in the proportion of people in middle-income jobs in recent years.
And after rising during the industrial restructuring of the 1980s, as it did in many countries, the level of inequality in the UK has been fairly constant for two decades, and according to the latest data is at its lowest level since 1986.
So the long term link between economic growth and living standards has not been broken.
Classic Guardian article. Completely ignores the key part of the question on blame. It's all well and good to say that people feel that wages have fallen but its no use to Labour when 54% of people blame them for that fall in wages. Additionally we're still a year away from the election. A year in which wages will continue to grow faster than inflation.
To be fair, Patrick Wintour does recognise both those points in his article.
In any case he's describing Labour's thinking, not his own. Actually he does a very good job of showing how vacuous it is. In particular, citing a 700-page book by a French left-wing economist [is there any other sort of French economist?] is hardly going to help deal with the central flaw in Miliband's approach: it's all very well pointing to a problem, but he also needs to convince people that he's got a better solution than Osborne has. That, in turn, is going to be tricky, when we're doing better than nearly all other comparable economies, and in particular a lot better than the country run by Miliband's hero François Hollande.
Fair enough. In that case Labour are stuffed. The most important issue at the next election will be stewardship of the economy if Labour can't make a case beyond their commitment to 2015/16 spending and they can't show what they would do differently or better than the current lot I don't see them winning a majority, and they will also struggle to get the most seats. The polling has been moving toward the Tories, and while I'm not going to make any predictions about crossover in the polls I do believe the current picture is Torieson about 34 and Labour on aabout 36. There is a lot of economic improvement yet to come and I don't see how Labour will continue to poll above about 33 with no economic policy. Especially since they will be campaigning on areas in which they are weaker than the government on jobs, wages and growth.
Also, I'm sure that CCHQ have noted that Axelrod worked as a lobbyist for an energy company to champion higher energy costs in the US so I do not believe Ed will make any headway on energy costs should the subject come back to the fore.
Money's too tight to mention: "These could cost up to £1bn each year in subsidies, but the government says they would encourage firms to invest much more than that in low-carbon electricity generation."
Biomass and wind are stupid renewables. Solar and hydro-electric make much more sense for a rainy island covered with rivers. I wonder if hydro-electric pumps could provide an automatic response to rivers that have risen to a dangerous level...
Wind is hardly a stupid renewable resource, unless you base all of your capacity on it. Oh, and how is solar less stupid that wind on, as you say, "a rainy island"? The problem with both wind and solar is one of storage for when it isnae sunny and when the wind doesnae blow.
Interesting things are starting to happen with energy storage, because of the opportunities provided by intermittent renewables. A recent example that I heard about uses liquid nitrogen:
@JosiasJessup "... Hydro-electric: we've done many of the possible schemes already..."
Mr. Jessup, You may be able to answer a question that has vexed me for many years. In the pre-industrial era water power was preferred to wind where ever possible. However, nowadays the power of our rivers to turn wheels is rejected in favour of modern-day wind mills. Any idea why?
@dsmitheconomics: Very upbeat CBI survey- optimism among manufacturers shows sharpest rise since early 1970s, investment plans up: http://t.co/cnDaPAP7qC
"The sad truth is that the extent of our in work benefits is now such that growth has a more marginal effect on the public finances than hitherto. This makes the continuing scale of our deficit truly frightening. We are not going to grow our way out of this in a decade. Cuts in spending or increases in taxes or both will be required throughout the next Parliament."
The first time I have seen this acknowledged on here and it is something that needs wider circulation. The taxpayer is subsidising employment and housing, to the benefit of employers and landlords, to an unprecedented degree and it is not clear how this will ever be changed.
The government is a big buyer of rental services. They should use their monopsonistic power to cut prices.
Sorry, Mr. C., you have lost me there. If you have time could you expand a little, please?
What happens if the government goes to all the current landlords and tells them they will cut their payments by 10%? Or requires them to enter into 5 year agreements to lease the property to the government at a fixed price & if they don't then the government will not renew the current lease when it expires?
A lot of the properties are poor quality and/or in poor locations and yet the government was paying through the nose for them. There has been some work by the government to reduce the rents paid, but I am certain that there is more they can do.
What they absolutely should be doing is encouraging the development of institutional investment in the rental sector (e.g. I think Avivia is doing it).
Comments
As to what he did say he must be one of the only people in the Western world who could have said it (about Islam..)
However you miss the fundamental fact that the LibDems didn't win the election and accordingly were in no position to enact anything.
You seem to be in the bizarre position of finding them guilty of something they couldn't possibly have done.
1. As I understand it, Lib Dem policy was for a graduate tax to replace tuition fees. The system we have ended up with is essentially a capped graduate tax, dressed up in the language of fees, loans, etc. Why couldn't the Lib Dems manage to get the Tories to agree to call it a [capped] graduate tax instead of tuition fees?
2. Given the obvious difficulties this policy was expected to cause the Lib Dems, as recognised by the fudge in the Coalition Agreement allowing Lib Dem MPs to abstain on the vote, what explains the comic ineptness of the Secretary of State in charge of the policy being the Lib Dem Vince Cable? Surely they could have transferred Universities back to the Education Department, or agreed upon some other division of Cabinet posts?
3. Having agreed to a compromise in the Coalition Agreement allowing the Lib Dems to abstain on the policy, why did the Lib Dems tie themselves up in knots for months arguing over whether to vote for the policy?
Error heaped upon error. It's not just that the Lib Dems went into Coalition with the Tories, it's that they were so absurdly inept in doing so that they have nothing to show for it.
I can only think of one thing that the Coalition has done that Cameron et al are unhappy about - and that was to hold the AV referendum. And the Lib Dems managed to lose that anyway.
I think I'll roll a dice when I had to the polling booth for the euros.
A
As to what that ‘difference’ might be, I would suggest that manifesto promises can be altered or dropped entirely with the excuse of rational, political expediency , whereas a ‘solemn pledge’ is an emotionally charged undertaking and the reaction by those ‘students’ of its abandonment equally emotive.
Because then those who moved abroad after university (either because they were returning home or emigrating) would no longer have to pay.
As you say the current system is like a graduate tax (but even slightly better since it allows recovery from those abroad) and the calculated effect is that those on lower post graduation incomes pay less than they would have under the previous system. The LDs should be proud of the new system.
I despair.
It is properly the time to debate what new tax on housing is going to be introduced to both reduce the deficit and to dampen down the developing housing bubble.
GE- Lab largest party, 25 short and no more than 10 ahead
Indy - 48/52 no to win, but yes closing
Breaking political promises is like any other ruthless act of political expediency or necessity: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly". And preferably silently in the middle of the night.
I just don't get the impression that 27%, 12% or frankly even 5% of voters are furious about absolutely everything. If 27% really were as irrational as your typical UKIPper then this country would be far more like Iran than it is.
O/T - has any thought been given to the possibility that an independent Scotland would receive none of the North Sea oil and gas? This seems to me to be the likeliest scenario. Both are in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit. Ownership was settled 40 years ago between the UK and Norway. Scotland can leave the UK if it likes, but the oil still belongs to the UK.Scotland would get none of the existing reserves, title to which has already been settled, but it may have a case for a small share of any new oil and gas.
We'd then have a golden scenario whereby we lose all the costs of Scotland, but none of the revenues.
Also worth noting that the Land Registry figures for this month - using both mortgaged and cash purchases - showed a 0.4% fall in house prices, so I expect the mini-bubble we had is already leaking.
I can see them getting 8-10%, pushing the Libs for third
One or two seats, and chaos in the marginals
"That isn't really the point, Jack. He may well have painted himself into a corner, but it was the way that he totally reversed his position that was so hard to take.
Having said that, it doesn't seem to have stopped students without significant family financial backing from attending University, although the scheme is unquestionably in trouble."
........................................................................................................
It is the point. The exact point.
It is the harsh reality of not winning elections and then being in Coalition with a partner who wouldn't be swayed.
The reality of Coalition government instead of the pipedreams of opposition.
All very cheering but as I said I have no means of contacting Tim.
Whilst Osborne has clearly achieved his main objective of letting me win my bet I think it is slightly concerning that growth more than 3x what was originally projected for the year reduced the underlying deficit by such a modest amount. No doubt Avery will tell us that the net cash requirement fell considerably more but that was flattered by the sale of assets such as the Lloyds shares.
The sad truth is that the extent of our in work benefits is now such that growth has a more marginal effect on the public finances than hitherto. This makes the continuing scale of our deficit truly frightening. We are not going to grow our way out of this in a decade. Cuts in spending or increases in taxes or both will be required throughout the next Parliament.
Also look at reform of property tax (an annual charge rather than stamp duty).
Second, if you're a non-British EU citizen, yes you can vote in the Euros, but whereas for the local election you get your yellow ballot paper automatically, to vote in the Euros you apparently need to fill out a separate application form. Perhaps Mrs Farage will bother, but not many others will. What is the reason for this extra bureaucracy? I remember that the LibDems announced that they were going to drum up support in this group - perhaps they should take up the issue, seeing that they're in government and all.
I doubt it will make much difference.
I used to do some work for a seriously wealthy chap who drove a Rolls Royce Phantom (well actually his chauffeur drove it). When it came time to change the car he did not buy a Prius because the tax disc for a new Roller was going to cost him £1,000 and £400 a year thereafter, the tax was trivial compared to the cost of purchase (£350,000) and employing someone to drive it (£90,000 p.a.).
The same for very wealth foreigners spending millions on a place in London. The new taxes add to the cost but not to the extent that they will be put off. Form the point of view of raising revenue the taxes are a very good idea (maximum milk with no moo) and politically they play well too. From the point of view of damping down house prices they will be a failure.
Looking through the YouGov on economic competence:
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l1m6nd2qg3/Sunday_Times_Results_170414_Economy.pdf
Improving standards of living for people like you?
Net Lab lead of +4, down from a lead of +9 in October.
Providing more jobs?
Net Lab lead of +1, down from a lead of +8 in October.
On Labour's pet subject:
Who do you think is more to blame for people's incomes not keeping pace with rising prices?
Blame Labour - 27 (25)
Blame coalition - 25 (25)
Both equally - 26 (28)
These are the areas on which Labour have campaigned heavily over the last couple of years, jobs, living standards and falling real terms income. On living standards they have a slender lead, on jobs their lead has vanished and on incomes they are now a net -2 for "blame".
Both of the Eds need to rethink their core economic policies because their current ones are all swinging toward the government.
Even on less important questions related to Ed energy price freeze they are losing their lead:
Keeping prices down?
Net Lab lead of +1, down from a lead of +6 in October.
I don't see any changes in economic performance of the economy coming to save Labour's bacon and with that in mind all of these questions will continue to swing toward the government, especially as incomes in the private sector continue to outstrip inflation. Their core message will be lost on most people who will see their wages rising in real terms and the ones who haven't may not view the government as the culprits. The polling picture has also changed. Labour are now in that 35-38% territory with the Tories in the 33-35% territory. The changes in overall polling have come with the change in economic competence gains by the government. It may not be a voteless recovery after all, the improvement just needs to be larger than what we currently have for the government parties to benefit. Lucky for them there are still 13 months until the election...
"The next wave of posters will be about how our lives can be enriched by throwing off the shackles of bureaucracy and how we can all be better off by freeing ourselves from this political union.
From energy and food prices to preserving our common law heritage, Ukip isn’t just about the negative. It’s about how Great Britain can be outside this outdated political model. ... we’re the party that wants to open ourselves up to the world, not shut ourselves off in Fortress Europe."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-farage-calling-ukips-posters-racist-is-yet-another-example-of-shameful-westminster-evasion-9275375.html
Why would the "working poor" not be helped by a cut in VAT? I know food isn't covered, but quite a lot of things the are used regularly …… fuel being one ….. are.
OKC
The OECD reviewed the fiscal consolidation plans of all its member countries following the financial crash. Its aim was to calculatevthe amount taxes had to be increased and government spending reduced in order to bring each country's public finances into compliance with international norms and EU rules by 2030.
The UK, under Osborne, has chosen to adopt a fiscal consolidation plan which raises 20% from tax increases and 80% from spending cuts. This is the lowest ratio for tax rises of all plans considered by the OECD.
So far, mainly through the VAT increases increased in 2010, the tax increase side of the ratio has been fulfilled. Substantial cuts in spending have been made, mainly to administration spend, but 60% of the cuts needed have yet to be implemented. Effectively these will need to be made over the next fifteen years, with a large proportion coming in the next parliamentary term, mainly to 'programme expenditure' (i.e. social benefits not admin) in order to get the UK's cyclically adjusted current balance into surplus.
Only once a current account surplus is achieved then the task of debt reduction can begin.
So over the long term there is very little opportunity for substantial tax cuts and certainly no option to reverse the VAT rise.
If the prospect of 'austerity' continuing to 2030 sounds unpalatable, you should take note that the balance and timing of fiscal consolidation adopted by Osborne has led to the UK economy not only growing faster (at present) than all its G7 partners but also to the rate of reduction in our cyclically adjusted current balance (the key deficit measure) being the largest too. On average since 2010, Osborne has achieved a 1.6% rate of fiscal consolidation.
So although today's news is good we are still very much in the early stages of the journey required. It hasn't helped the UK starting from the second lowest position in the G7 in terms of debt and deficit ratios. A high growth rate will assist progress but low inflation (i.e. below the BoE 2% target for a sustained period) is a headwind which will make the task of debt reduction more difficult.
If current EU deflation/low inflation persists then some further QE monetary stimulus may be needed. The UK may be better shielded from Eurozone deflation than its main competitors but it is not immune to its effects.
What I am saying is that reality breeds pragmatism. Both parties had to give and take within a framework of what was feasible.
Let me also put this to you being a LibDem.
If, say 12 months before the last general election I'd have offered to you a raft of LibDem policies that would be implemented, but not abolition of tuition fees, would you have been a happy bunny ?
Are you a pint half full man or as it appears to me a pint almost empty man .... and that coming from a party whose glass had been empty for almost a century ?
And if you want to rebalance the economy, encouraging consumption is not a good use of resources
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/2014/04/scotlands-five-big-positives-excerpt-from-gordon-browns-speech-on-tuesday-22nd-april-2014/#sthash.Iirwy6PN.dpuf
The first time I have seen this acknowledged on here and it is something that needs wider circulation. The taxpayer is subsidising employment and housing, to the benefit of employers and landlords, to an unprecedented degree and it is not clear how this will ever be changed.
Patrick Wintour has a write up on that YouGov poll along with a discussion on Labour's cost of living campaign.
"Labour's decision to double-down on squeezed living standards – as exemplified by last week's appointment of Obama adviser David Axelrod – reflects a gamble at the top of the party that the issue will continue to resonate despite what is expected to be a daily drumbeat of better economic news.
Party officials have discussed at length the so-called "crossover" – the moment when wages rose faster than prices – and rejected any suggestion that it meant the living standards agenda had reached political or intellectual exhaustion. They believe the subject is a symbol of an economy that is not working for most people, opening a wider argument about a government for the elite.
Labour's persistence may be justified by recent polling: YouGov published figures at the weekend showing 84% agree that "in the last few years most people's incomes have not kept pace with rising prices" – a figure that the latest wage and inflation figures last week have not altered."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/22/labour-bets-living-standards-elections-miliband-economy
I have to assume it's trolling as the alternative is that he's a grad A idiot, and otherwise he seems fairly normal...
ICM 2010 LD EU Parliament: Lab 31%, LD 29%, Con 6%, UKIP 23%, Green 12%
Table 5, page 6.
http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/ST_april14_poll.pdf
"These could cost up to £1bn each year in subsidies, but the government says they would encourage firms to invest much more than that in low-carbon electricity generation."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27121801
Biomass and wind are stupid renewables. Solar and hydro-electric make much more sense for a rainy island covered with rivers. I wonder if hydro-electric pumps could provide an automatic response to rivers that have risen to a dangerous level...
From locals (who are the main buyers in the sub £1m market and outside London) they will reflect the future cost in the price of the house (partially offset by the elimination of stamp duty)
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/politics
You are learning, IA, from your [re-]association with PB!
Well done my boy.
As a Coalitionista I'm also unhappy about a number of policies but I recognize in the round that this government, given the hand it was dealt, has been one of the best for a century.
Yes, it has made mistakes but the government that never made mistakes has never and will never be elected.
Oh, and how is solar less stupid that wind on, as you say, "a rainy island"?
The problem with both wind and solar is one of storage for when it isnae sunny and when the wind doesnae blow.
Gordon Brown is probably the best example of how being part of the Union allows Scots to achieve more than they would if we were independent and that we punch above our weight already. Would a Scot have been at the centre of dealing with the credit crunch in 2008 if it wasn't for the Union?
My three problems with independence are that the transaction costs will be horrendous and probably outweigh any hypothetical improved economic performance, that we will loose out from not being part of a single UK market and the labour mobility that comes with it, and that it will take us off the global stage - eg security council seat loss.
Excluding the WWII Coalition I'm not too sure adding another half century and "one of the best" was too much of a stretch given the competition.
"Incoming" is expected however ....
Property ownership taxes are pernicious - you earn and are taxed - then are taxed again for not spending the money on non property - will have distorting effects and not be efficient to collect. If you want to soak the castles then add some more council tax bands at the top end.
Biomass: stupid, if the biomass is imported.
Wind: okay as (say 10-15%) of generative capacity.
Hydro-electric: we've done many of the possible schemes already.
Wave: an immature technology. Continue investing at a small (in power terms) level.
Tidal: see wave
Solar: unsuitable for UK on a large scale.
IMHO, the best way to be 'green' is for each country to do the best they can: for the UK, that might be wave/tidal/wind/gas, or for Spain wind/solar. Then have a series of low-loss HVDC routes to transmit across Europe. I'd like to see more progress towards this - Germany already are in a local manner to get over some of the problems renewables are causing their networks.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/germany-takes-the-lead-in-hvdc
Note the sums: as ever with energy, a billion does not go far.
In any case he's describing Labour's thinking, not his own. Actually he does a very good job of showing how vacuous it is. In particular, citing a 700-page book by a French left-wing economist [is there any other sort of French economist?] is hardly going to help deal with the central flaw in Miliband's approach: it's all very well pointing to a problem, but he also needs to convince people that he's got a better solution than Osborne has. That, in turn, is going to be tricky, when we're doing better than nearly all other comparable economies, and in particular a lot better than the country run by Miliband's hero François Hollande.
Scotland wanting a piece of the oil and gas feels to me like an ask, rather than a tell. Are the Nats good at asking Westminster for things nicely?
So if increased GDP has caused greater profits, this should start to show up in 2014/15, whilst tax on salaries and VAT should be already starting to show.
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
I am reading a book by Schmidt, of Google, in which he talks, inter alia, about people going to work and preparing presentations for their clients all over the world, as though that will be the norm in, at least, Western economies. He has clearly never been to some of the districts in UK to which I have been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1800
Besides, BJB is trying to argue that Scotland will effectively have no territorial waters post independence, which is patently nonsense.
Further, the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law. Combined with the principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), I think it fairly safe to say that once again BJB is talking shite.
...the central flaw in Miliband's approach: it's all very well pointing to a problem, but he also needs to convince people that he's got a better solution than Osborne has.
Richard
This debate between economists was referred to by Osborne in his recent speech in Washington:
I bring this same optimism to the second of today’s pessimistic predictions – that even if growth is sustained the benefits will accrue to the few not the many.
This prediction – that the link between living standards and economic growth has broken – also leads its proponents to the same prescription: more government spending on welfare and the costs of economic dependency.
But it too can be proved wrong if we follow a different approach.
To begin with it is not well supported by the facts.
As Greg Mankiw has pointed out for the US, on a superficial reading the data appears to show that real median incomes grew by only 3% over the entire period from 1979 to 2007. That sounds like there is a big problem.
But in fact once you take account of changes in household composition, lower taxes, healthcare benefits and other forms of remuneration then that number turns into a 37% real terms increase.
Of course that’s not to say that inequality doesn’t matter – it does.
The Great Recession made our countries poorer and times have been difficult for British and American families.
But in the UK the evidence shows that growth supports rising living standards.
Recent work by academics at the London School of Economics and our own analysis at the Treasury has found no evidence that employee compensation has become detached from GDP growth in recent decades.
Previous results that appear to show a break disappear once you take account of rising pension contributions and payroll taxes.
That is one reason why the labour share of national income in the UK has stayed constant over the last decade.
Nor does the evidence support the so-called “hollowing out” hypothesis in the UK – the idea that middle-skill and middle-income jobs are disappearing with most of the growth in employment either at the top or the bottom of the distribution.
While some traditional mid-level occupations have shrunk or moved down the income scale, new ones have been created to take their place.
So we have fewer middle-paid production line and secretarial jobs, but a lot more middle-paid jobs in IT and professional services.
Overall there has been little change in the proportion of people in middle-income jobs in recent years.
And after rising during the industrial restructuring of the 1980s, as it did in many countries, the level of inequality in the UK has been fairly constant for two decades, and according to the latest data is at its lowest level since 1986.
So the long term link between economic growth and living standards has not been broken.
Also, I'm sure that CCHQ have noted that Axelrod worked as a lobbyist for an energy company to champion higher energy costs in the US so I do not believe Ed will make any headway on energy costs should the subject come back to the fore.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/liquefied-air-to-store-energy-on-uk-grid
It doesn't mention any efficiency figures to compare with those of pumped storage hydro though.
Like I've always said when people have criticised renewables on intermittency grounds - this is an engineering challenge and it can be overcome.
Off out for a few hours .... collecting Mrs JackW ... my bank balance is twitching already !!
I'll get back to your last post this afternoon.
"... Hydro-electric: we've done many of the possible schemes already..."
Mr. Jessup, You may be able to answer a question that has vexed me for many years. In the pre-industrial era water power was preferred to wind where ever possible. However, nowadays the power of our rivers to turn wheels is rejected in favour of modern-day wind mills. Any idea why?
A lot of the properties are poor quality and/or in poor locations and yet the government was paying through the nose for them. There has been some work by the government to reduce the rents paid, but I am certain that there is more they can do.
What they absolutely should be doing is encouraging the development of institutional investment in the rental sector (e.g. I think Avivia is doing it).