They are the most notable achievement of this government.
I think the most notable achievement of this government is the combination of reducing the deficit from the mind-blowing levels inherited from Brown at the same time as reducing unemployment and rebalancing employment way from the pubic sector to the private sector. Osborne has comprehensively disproved the proposition that you can't reduce unemployment at the same time as engaging in a substantial fiscal tightening.
In stormy seas Osborne has managed to avoid the rocks on all sides, whilst steadily making progress. Of course there's a lot more to do, and it's frustrating that we were somewhat blown off-course by the Eurozone and by unexpectedly high commodity prices, but his overall macro-economic judgement has been perfect.
Our economy can sustain only so much tax take. We choose to spend alot more than that. This cannot last.
Thanks Patrick. That's a very good summary.
There is another reason why Osborne ought to be soiling his pants. The expected glut of income tax receipts from newly self employed workers due January is not going to materialise. The deficit is going to ahve risen by the election. And by some margin.
This was behind the increasingly discredited OBR's mea culpa on Monday.
Mr. StClare, quite. If I ever feel unhealthily happy (manic) I may watch Eastenders to depress me back to equilibrium, but otherwise do not feel the need to subject myself to half an hour of cockney misery.
Oh - just NO NO NO. There is so much wrong with all of that. Much better to say you watch something else than lie about it. Some wag will catch you out and make a chump out of you instead.
What are they thinking of? Even if EdM spent a single weekend watching everything he doesn't like, at least he can comment on it with some sincerity.
Ed Miliband is researching popular television shows despite not watching them amid criticism of his perceived image problem, according to reports.
The Labour leader is said to be brushing up his knowledge of British favourites like EastEnders via online research as the 2015 general election approaches.
@Sean_Kemp: Was about to say this story was surely made-up, then saw it was based on an Ed quote and the party had stood it up: http://t.co/YZqh9m5nOO
If we go back to the [otherwise embarrassing] OBR June 2010 Budget forecast, then I think they are the one measure that has come out better than forecast. The forecast was that: "...the ILO unemployment rate falls to 6 per cent in 2015." [C20, page 82]
This is doubly impressive when you consider how the UK economy has underperformed expectations since 2010.
Also note that the OBR forecast for 2014 was that there would be 29.8 million people in employment. The figure today is 30.76. There are roughly one million more people in employment than forecast by the OBR in 2010.
Miliband made a comment about TOWIE or Made in Chelsea or some such programme (mocking the Conservatives) and was then asked about it, before admitting he didn't watch the show in question (this was at least a year, probably 2-3, ago).
People shouldn't pretend to be into something they are not. As you say, they get caught out by making simple, foolish errors. Just look at Mr. Eagles pretending to like classical history.
Just wanted to let people know the latest charities we've funded if anyone is interested in backing them or getting involved
Archway Project (www.archwayproject.org) - Training for young people referred by Youth Offending Schemes / Police to help give them qualifications and skills to avoid crime (London)
Covent Garden Dragon Hall (www.dragonhall.org.uk) - helping a youth centre in central London develop external income sources
Generation Rwanda (www.generationrwanda.org) - similar to the work we did with GROW in Uganda and Business Bridge in South Africa this programme is designed to teach young people the skills they need to set up and develop their own businesses
Bridge Community Education Centre (www.thebridgebrigton.com) funding the development of a new one-on-one adult literacy programme in East Brighton
Thanks Charles - will take a look at those in due course.
Great. Just fyi, we usually get 300-400 applications per round and the team spends quite a bit of time sifting the best projects, so we are happy with the management, financial structure, governance and the transformational nature of the project *on the charity*. What we don't consider at all is what the actual charitable purpose of the organisation is: we are deliberately trying to be sector blind.
My point is that you can be comfortable that these are all good organisations that are well run.
The debate in the UK about limiting EU migration is fantasy.
It is not going to happen no matter what hue the government.
The options are In the EU or Out. This is the honest position.
Actually I reckon it's even starker than that. It's accept free movement of peoples, and choose whether to be In or Out, but the latter will not alter the former.
Post-Brexit, there would be a cost for and obligations on an Out Britain as a condition of accessing the EU markets. I expect that these would be remarkably, eerily similar to what they are now, right down to the monies we would pay the EU and the right of EU citizens to come here. They'll be red lines I would think.
I think Farage knows this and is lying to the children's crusade party he leads. He will have to accept this because by saying he's going to leave he's given up his whole negotiating position and must leave however unfavourable the resulting arrangements.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
Eh? You been asleep at the wheel Antifrank? How 'unexplained'? Incentives matter - when you push the rewards of working and reduce the benefits of not working you get a change in behaviour. It's not rocket science.
The debate in the UK about limiting EU migration is fantasy.
It is not going to happen no matter what hue the government.
The options are In the EU or Out. This is the honest position.
Actually I reckon it's even starker than that. It's accept free movement of peoples, and choose whether to be In or Out, but the latter will not alter the former.
Post-Brexit, there would be a cost for and obligations on an Out Britain as a condition of accessing the EU markets. I expect that these would be remarkably, eerily similar to what they are now, right down to the monies we would pay the EU and the right of EU citizens to come here. They'll be red lines I would think.
I think Farage knows this and is lying to the children's crusade party he leads. He will have to accept this because by saying he's going to leave he's given up his whole negotiating position and must leave however unfavourable the resulting arrangements.
This is why it'd be good to know exactly what an out-of-EU Britain would look like: it certainly will not be the nirvana that some UKIPpers / BOOers seem to think.
But with a few honourable exceptions, that seems to be a bit too difficult for them. Instead it';s easier just to blame everything on immigrants.
I think you missed the signficance of that article, which isn't really about penalties as such. What it is saying is that the Germans are using the possibility of EU knuckle-rapping as a lever to get France to finally do something about the most urgent problem facing its economy: the sclerotic labour market. At the same time Germany does seem to be tentatively edging towards addressing the most urgent problem facing its economy (and by extension the Eurozone as a whole): the need to boost public spending in Germany, whose problem is one of insufficient deficit and insufficient inflation.
We'll have to see what the reality actually turns out to be - we've heard this sort of thing before, and little has been done - but, just maybe, they might be edging towards actually doing something this time.
Wages growth still behind inflation 0.9% despite inflation being 1.2%
Slit your wrist times on Bloomberg
Lol - most transparent troll of the day. Did you think no-one would notice the stunning unemployment figures? Labour trolls are utterly pathetic. At least with BenM there is an attempt at balance.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
Eh? You been asleep at the wheel Antifrank? How 'unexplained'? Incentives matter - when you push the rewards of working and reduce the benefits of not working you get a change in behaviour. It's not rocket science.
That certainly seems to be part of it (the Bank of England committee thought so too). But it isn't all of it.
Nothing wrong with the anti - ISIS motion and "Birmingham student Bouattia says she plans to put forward another motion in the next meeting to condemn ISIS " Looks like student politics meets the Judean Peoples Front http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE .
I do like the T Shirt with Farage as Che. Very amusing.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
The two most likely explanations in my view are that:
(1) Deflation in the cost of labour has encouraged businesses to employ more workers, rather than to make investments in using their existing workers more efficiently. This helps to explain the weakness of productivity growth and the low level of business investment.
(2) Jobcentre staff have been advising people to declare as self-employed so that they fall off the unemployment figures and can claim more generous in-work benefits free of the threat of sanctions - but that most of these newly self-employed do not have a viable business, or any business, at all. This helps to explain the lack of the expected growth in income tax receipts.
There's only anecdotal evidence for (2) at the moment, and I think (1) is most likely to explain the majority of the fall in unemployment. This is very much in the realms of plausible explanations than anything definitive, though.
There appears to have been a lot of rebalancing both in the UK and in parts of the EU. More people have become self-employed, either running their own business and maybe employing the odd person or some casual labour, whilst others are operating as contractors to large and small organisations. Also there are quite a few people who are combining a lot of part-time jobs - in order to get the money in - as my waitress informed me on Sunday.
Thus, both the timing and nature of any tax take has changed and HMRC may well have not caught up. Certainly there will be less Employers NI.
Also have noticed a lot more cash-in-hand for work that normally would have been invoiced.
So either the tax take has to increase or the spending reduced or a bit of both - which is more likely. Currently there is no Car Tax on 'green cars' and expect that to go as this type of cars increases. Also there are vary large capital allowances for such vehicles and expect that to diminish.
However, a continued increase in personal allowances will require new tax thinking and perhaps a wealth tax (as in some of the EU countries) may be on its way - with major exceptions for one's home to a certain regional value. Am not sure how successful these taxes are or the cost of collection as undoubtedly they would increase the employment for clever accountants.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a partial insurance for health, charge for self-inflicted health problems and their consequences (obesity, drugs and alcohol), reduce/eliminate child allowances for all children after the first two and target overseas aid more effectively.
Councils can cut costs by not paying councillors (it should not be a career) and eliminating bin collection by following continental examples. They should only employ staff that are necessary and eliminate such things as subsidised canteens, employed trade union officials etc.
The whole UK tax take and expenditure needs a relook and am not sure whether any of our political parties have the thinking ability, foresight and political honesty to do it.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
The two most likely explanations in my view are that:
(1) Deflation in the cost of labour has encouraged businesses to employ more workers, rather than to make investments in using their existing workers more efficiently. This helps to explain the weakness of productivity growth and the low level of business investment.
(2) Jobcentre staff have been advising people to declare as self-employed so that they fall off the unemployment figures and can claim more generous in-work benefits free of the threat of sanctions - but that most of these newly self-employed do not have a viable business, or any business, at all. This helps to explain the lack of the expected growth in income tax receipts.
There's only anecdotal evidence for (2) at the moment, and I think (1) is most likely to explain the majority of the fall in unemployment. This is very much in the realms of plausible explanations than anything definitive, though.
(3) Private companies effectively incentivised have done a far better job of getting people off the dole than the useless Job Centres
(4) The shift to reduced out of work benefits is putting more of a fire behind people to find jobs.
There appears to have been a lot of rebalancing both in the UK and in parts of the EU. More people have become self-employed, either running their own business and maybe employing the odd person or some casual labour, whilst others are operating as contractors to large and small organisations. Also there are quite a few people who are combining a lot of part-time jobs - in order to get the money in - as my waitress informed me on Sunday.
Thus, both the timing and nature of any tax take has changed and HMRC may well have not caught up. Certainly there will be less Employers NI.
Also have noticed a lot more cash-in-hand for work that normally would have been invoiced.
So either the tax take has to increase or the spending reduced or a bit of both - which is more likely. Currently there is no Car Tax on 'green cars' and expect that to go as this type of cars increases. Also there are vary large capital allowances for such vehicles and expect that to diminish.
However, a continued increase in personal allowances will require new tax thinking and perhaps a wealth tax (as in some of the EU countries) may be on its way - with major exceptions for one's home to a certain regional value. Am not sure how successful these taxes are or the cost of collection as undoubtedly they would increase the employment for clever accountants.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a partial insurance for health, charge for self-inflicted health problems and their consequences (obesity, drugs and alcohol), reduce/eliminate child allowances for all children after the first two and target overseas aid more effectively.
Councils can cut costs by not paying councillors (it should not be a career) and eliminating bin collection by following continental examples. They should only employ staff that are necessary and eliminate such things as subsidised canteens, employed trade union officials etc.
The whole UK tax take and expenditure needs a relook and am not sure whether any of our political parties have the thinking ability, foresight and political honesty to do it.
There's plenty of fat that can be trimmed, but no-one has the balls to do it, lest they lose votes.
I suspect you could go into any local or county council offices and lose 25% of the staff with no noticeable effect.
2nd Texas health worker now confirmed with Ebola. (BBC)
European Stock markets falling for 5th consecutive day.
Will PMQs touch these subjects?
I'd have thought as morally responsible leaders, most of the discussion will about the national scandal of hundreds of child rapists walking with impunity on the streets of Manchester.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
The two most likely explanations in my view are that:
(1) Deflation in the cost of labour has encouraged businesses to employ more workers, rather than to make investments in using their existing workers more efficiently. This helps to explain the weakness of productivity growth and the low level of business investment.
(2) Jobcentre staff have been advising people to declare as self-employed so that they fall off the unemployment figures and can claim more generous in-work benefits free of the threat of sanctions - but that most of these newly self-employed do not have a viable business, or any business, at all. This helps to explain the lack of the expected growth in income tax receipts.
There's only anecdotal evidence for (2) at the moment, and I think (1) is most likely to explain the majority of the fall in unemployment. This is very much in the realms of plausible explanations than anything definitive, though.
(3) Private companies effectively incentivised have done a far better job of getting people off the dole than the useless Job Centres
(4) The shift to reduced out of work benefits is putting more of a fire behind people to find jobs.
People can't take jobs that aren't offered. The effect of both (3) and (4) is mostly seen in deflation in the cost of Labour - which leads to businesses changing the balance of employment and investment.
Although I don't think there's any evidence for (3) - the private businesses seem to have been even more inept than the jobcentres in some cases.
Farage's position on EU membership seems to me to be intellectually identical to that of all other party leaders present and past. They're all either for it or against it. Hence any attempt at either negotiated membership or negotiated exit terms is doomed to achieve nothing. The other side already knows what you have to do.
Cameron wants us to stay in; everyone knows this; therefore he will obtain nothing by negotiation. Farage wants us to leave; everyone knows this; therefore he will obtain nothing by negotiation.
The optimal way to renegotiate EU membership is to be armed with an Out vote that you need not implement. So if Cameron's In / Out referendum produces an Out vote, he and the EU can panic together over the implications, and come up with some semi-detached version of membership. This is then offered to the public via a new referendum - In-on-new-terms / Out.
Normally worn by rich spoilt kids pretending to be socialist. Before they get picked up by their dads in their Jags and whisked back to their 5 bedroom houses in Surrey.
@MichaelWhite: Only one nomination for new SNP leader? Is it Ok to ask our fellow-countrymen/women what happened to that vibrant, new democratic dialogue?
SNP don't seem to learn from the mistakes of others."
This isn't like the Gordon Brown situation in which all his opponents were cowed into submission. It is simply that at this point in time a leadership election would be a total waste of time and money-Ms Sturgeon would win handsomely. I believe that intending SNP voters will be perfectly happy with this. As I recollect, all leadership contests for many decades in the SNP have been contested,
Electoral democracy will be duly served by a three sided contest for the Deputy Leadership where the outcome is less clear cut.
Apparently one reason the unemployment rate is dropping sharply is that the number of students is increasing. This suggests that some people are responding to the lack of wage growth by seeking to gain extra skills that will enable them to command a higher salary.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
The two most likely explanations in my view are that:
(1) Deflation in the cost of labour has encouraged businesses to employ more workers, rather than to make investments in using their existing workers more efficiently. This helps to explain the weakness of productivity growth and the low level of business investment.
(2) Jobcentre staff have been advising people to declare as self-employed so that they fall off the unemployment figures and can claim more generous in-work benefits free of the threat of sanctions - but that most of these newly self-employed do not have a viable business, or any business, at all. This helps to explain the lack of the expected growth in income tax receipts.
There's only anecdotal evidence for (2) at the moment, and I think (1) is most likely to explain the majority of the fall in unemployment. This is very much in the realms of plausible explanations than anything definitive, though.
(3) Private companies effectively incentivised have done a far better job of getting people off the dole than the useless Job Centres
(4) The shift to reduced out of work benefits is putting more of a fire behind people to find jobs.
People can't take jobs that aren't offered. The effect of both (3) and (4) is mostly seen in deflation in the cost of Labour - which leads to businesses changing the balance of employment and investment.
Although I don't think there's any evidence for (3) - the private businesses seem to have been even more inept than the jobcentres in some cases.
You speak as if the jobs on offer is a fixed amount. In my experience there are often situations where you offer more jobs when you know there are willing candidates out there to take them.
@MichaelWhite: Only one nomination for new SNP leader? Is it Ok to ask our fellow-countrymen/women what happened to that vibrant, new democratic dialogue?
Well in democratic elections, if there is only one candidate, that candidate wins!
Is bigging up the Greens the new media tactic to try and create a split on the left?
The Greens increased poll numbers, and membership, are not a journalist's fiction.
My impression is that they're more a threat to LDs than Labour though.
It depends what you mean. Lib Dem seats are more under threat from the Greens. But these are seats that Labour would otherwise expect to take. Similarly, Labour may not pick up some of the Red Liberals in other constituencies if they decide to vote Green instead. So it's potentially a lost opportunity for Labour, even if they aren't defectors from the 2010 Labour cohort.
There was a truly astonishing statistic in an article by Ed Conway in the Times yesterday, which was so astonishing I wonder if anyone can confirm it? It is so remarkable because it shows just how dangerous - and self defeating - Ed Milband's attacks on the rich will be for a man who puts the NHS at the top of his agenda.
The figures that got my attention were these. In 1979 - after 5 years of Denis "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" Healey the top 1% of earners paid 11% of the total tax bill.
Today that figure is 27.5%.
Over a quarter of ALL taxes (not just Income Tax - ALL taxes) paid for by just one in a hundred.
What nobody seems to have told the Leader of the Opposition is that the NHS has indeed already been privatised. But only in terms of the running costs of it being picked up by the richest in the land.
What state will the NHS be in if Miliband follows Hollande in his economic mis-management - and causes an exodus of the top earners? The NHS will be in deep trouble is what.
Flipped around, imagine how good the NHS could be if we enticed another tranche of high earner? What if that 27.5% could rise to say 35%?
As usual, Ed is 100% wrong in what he is proposing to deliver for the voters.
Is bigging up the Greens the new media tactic to try and create a split on the left?
The Greens increased poll numbers, and membership, are not a journalist's fiction.
My impression is that they're more a threat to LDs than Labour though.
It depends what you mean. Lib Dem seats are more under threat from the Greens. But these are seats that Labour would otherwise expect to take. Similarly, Labour may not pick up some of the Red Liberals in other constituencies if they decide to vote Green instead. So it's potentially a lost opportunity for Labour, even if they aren't defectors from the 2010 Labour cohort.
The Spectator article mentions the Greens doing very well vs the LDs in the 2014 London elections.
"[London LDs] reported a direct correlation between the Lib Dem vote falling and the Green vote going up, leaving councillors who’d held seats for many years in fourth place."
Have you noticed the Greens becoming more prominent in London?
The biggest issue for public spending is the public sector pension liabilities.
Ireland took quite a radical approach here and it seems to have 'paid off' but politically it would not have passed the coalition here and imagine the strikes that would have been called.
There's plenty of fat that can be trimmed, but no-one has the balls to do it, lest they lose votes.
I suspect you could go into any local or county council offices and lose 25% of the staff with no noticeable effect.
The usual piffle from someone who clearly has little or no comprehension of what local Government and how it functions.
For everyone else, morning all
In truth, in every Council I visit, the subsidised canteen has gone the way of the dodo and indeed I'm often told it's only because I'm an external visitor that they get refreshments at meetings.
The issue of Councillor allowances is a huge one - the simplistic view of some that they should be scrapped is absurd - are we therefore saying the only people who can become Councillors are those who can afford to ?
The real interest in local authorities at the moment is the partnership or collaborative working meme - all sorts of relationships between and across Councils covering all areas of activity are developing and this is pretty fundamental stuff concentrating specialist knowledge in one authority and working with a number of others. The two-tier system of provision looks increasingly anachronistic but if you speak to Counties they are more interested in a) getting the same powers as cities and b) looking to take over some Health functions.
It's a facet of devolution that has gone under the radar but for me the logical conclusion is bottom-up regionalism though not as a Regional Assembly (no one wants those) but networks of like-minded authorities working together and pooling resources so in the future a "Council worker" may not be working for one Council but providing a service to a number of authorities.
@MichaelWhite: Only one nomination for new SNP leader? Is it Ok to ask our fellow-countrymen/women what happened to that vibrant, new democratic dialogue?
Well in democratic elections, if there is only one candidate, that candidate wins!
"In truth, in every Council I visit, the subsidised canteen has gone the way of the dodo and indeed I'm often told it's only because I'm an external visitor that they get refreshments at meetings."
You say this as if it's unusual in the private sector.
There's plenty of fat that can be trimmed, but no-one has the balls to do it, lest they lose votes.
I suspect you could go into any local or county council offices and lose 25% of the staff with no noticeable effect.
The usual piffle from someone who clearly has little or no comprehension of what local Government and how it functions.
For everyone else, morning all
In truth, in every Council I visit, the subsidised canteen has gone the way of the dodo and indeed I'm often told it's only because I'm an external visitor that they get refreshments at meetings.
The issue of Councillor allowances is a huge one - the simplistic view of some that they should be scrapped is absurd - are we therefore saying the only people who can become Councillors are those who can afford to ?
The real interest in local authorities at the moment is the partnership or collaborative working meme - all sorts of relationships between and across Councils covering all areas of activity are developing and this is pretty fundamental stuff concentrating specialist knowledge in one authority and working with a number of others. The two-tier system of provision looks increasingly anachronistic but if you speak to Counties they are more interested in a) getting the same powers as cities and b) looking to take over some Health functions.
It's a facet of devolution that has gone under the radar but for me the logical conclusion is bottom-up regionalism though not as a Regional Assembly (no one wants those) but networks of like-minded authorities working together and pooling resources so in the future a "Council worker" may not be working for one Council but providing a service to a number of authorities.
My council and new government buildings - all have subsidised canteens. Why cannot councillors attend evening meetings as previously - that does not exclude anyone and may get the people who really want the job and not as a stepping stone to Westminster.
Wales is trying to reduce its 22 councils back to about 7 and is facing a massive resistance, even about cross-council co-operation and so reducing the number of 'managers' and 'directors'.
"In truth, in every Council I visit, the subsidised canteen has gone the way of the dodo and indeed I'm often told it's only because I'm an external visitor that they get refreshments at meetings."
You say this as if it's unusual in the private sector.
I was thinking it's somewhat surprising that it's clearly new enough that they mention it!
Councillor allowances have clearly got out of control, as have MPs wages. There's a clear conflict of having politicians vote for their own packages, but I'm not sure how you change that.
I'd probably suggest a reworking of the overall structure (one bill, covering both councillors and MPs - with regional weighting naturally - but that councillors should be seen as pretty nominal rather than being a career - say £10 per hour or something: perhaps @JohnO an say how much time per week a councillor spends, but I'm assuming it's 10 hours max in official meetings).
Going forward it should be explicitly tied - for both MPs and councillors - to national wage rates to get away from the farce of annual votes.
There's plenty of fat that can be trimmed, but no-one has the balls to do it, lest they lose votes.
I suspect you could go into any local or county council offices and lose 25% of the staff with no noticeable effect.
The usual piffle from someone who clearly has little or no comprehension of what local Government and how it functions.
For everyone else, morning all
In truth, in every Council I visit, the subsidised canteen has gone the way of the dodo and indeed I'm often told it's only because I'm an external visitor that they get refreshments at meetings.
The issue of Councillor allowances is a huge one - the simplistic view of some that they should be scrapped is absurd - are we therefore saying the only people who can become Councillors are those who can afford to ?
The real interest in local authorities at the moment is the partnership or collaborative working meme - all sorts of relationships between and across Councils covering all areas of activity are developing and this is pretty fundamental stuff concentrating specialist knowledge in one authority and working with a number of others. The two-tier system of provision looks increasingly anachronistic but if you speak to Counties they are more interested in a) getting the same powers as cities and b) looking to take over some Health functions.
It's a facet of devolution that has gone under the radar but for me the logical conclusion is bottom-up regionalism though not as a Regional Assembly (no one wants those) but networks of like-minded authorities working together and pooling resources so in the future a "Council worker" may not be working for one Council but providing a service to a number of authorities.
My council and new government buildings - all have subsidised canteens. Why cannot councillors attend evening meetings as previously - that does not exclude anyone and may get the people who really want the job and not as a stepping stone to Westminster.
Wales is trying to reduce its 22 councils back to about 7 and is facing a massive resistance, even about cross-council co-operation and so reducing the number of 'managers' and 'directors'.
Indeed.
No doubt Councils are licking their lips at the prospect of getting the same powers as cities, and taking over healthcare provision as it will enable them to further raise revenues (i.e. drain the tax payer dry), and grow departments.
There was a truly astonishing statistic in an article by Ed Conway in the Times yesterday, which was so astonishing I wonder if anyone can confirm it? It is so remarkable because it shows just how dangerous - and self defeating - Ed Milband's attacks on the rich will be for a man who puts the NHS at the top of his agenda.
The figures that got my attention were these. In 1979 - after 5 years of Denis "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" Healey the top 1% of earners paid 11% of the total tax bill.
Today that figure is 27.5%.
Over a quarter of ALL taxes (not just Income Tax - ALL taxes) paid for by just one in a hundred.
What nobody seems to have told the Leader of the Opposition is that the NHS has indeed already been privatised. But only in terms of the running costs of it being picked up by the richest in the land.
What state will the NHS be in if Miliband follows Hollande in his economic mis-management - and causes an exodus of the top earners? The NHS will be in deep trouble is what.
Flipped around, imagine how good the NHS could be if we enticed another tranche of high earner? What if that 27.5% could rise to say 35%?
As usual, Ed is 100% wrong in what he is proposing to deliver for the voters.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
Significantly reduced productivity.
Spain's productivity has gone through the roof since 2008; ours has stagnated.
....
But why, Mr. Robert? Why has productivity stagnated? Nobody in politics in government or out of it seems to accept that there is even a question that needs to be looked at let alone answered. Yet until productivity improves we as a nation ain't going to get any richer.
@MichaelWhite: Only one nomination for new SNP leader? Is it Ok to ask our fellow-countrymen/women what happened to that vibrant, new democratic dialogue?
Well in democratic elections, if there is only one candidate, that candidate wins!
Kinnochio's appearance reminds us that we really dodged a bullet when he blew the General Election in 1992.
Just no good at it. I think that's what Lab proved both under Kinnock and then 1997-2010. All the best will in the world, hearts in the right place, caring pseudo-democro-capitalo-socialism with NuLab characteristics but when it came down to it...useless.
That is what will be going through voters' minds come May 2015.
It led, ultimately, to a Blair landslide and 13 years of Labour. Disaster in the Middle East, economy a smouldering ruin, long-term cracks riven into a hitherto strong union for petty partisan advantage. Would Kinnock have been worse?
I'm too young (and not a student of recent events) to say.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
The two most likely explanations in my view are that:
(1) Deflation in the cost of labour has encouraged businesses to employ more workers, rather than to make investments in using their existing workers more efficiently. This helps to explain the weakness of productivity growth and the low level of business investment.
(2) Jobcentre staff have been advising people to declare as self-employed so that they fall off the unemployment figures and can claim more generous in-work benefits free of the threat of sanctions - but that most of these newly self-employed do not have a viable business, or any business, at all. This helps to explain the lack of the expected growth in income tax receipts.
There's only anecdotal evidence for (2) at the moment, and I think (1) is most likely to explain the majority of the fall in unemployment. This is very much in the realms of plausible explanations than anything definitive, though.
(3) Private companies effectively incentivised have done a far better job of getting people off the dole than the useless Job Centres
(4) The shift to reduced out of work benefits is putting more of a fire behind people to find jobs.
They are the most notable achievement of this government.
I think the most notable achievement of this government is the combination of reducing the deficit from the mind-blowing levels inherited from Brown at the same time as reducing unemployment and rebalancing employment way from the pubic sector to the private sector. Osborne has comprehensively disproved the proposition that you can't reduce unemployment at the same time as engaging in a substantial fiscal tightening.
In stormy seas Osborne has managed to avoid the rocks on all sides, whilst steadily making progress. Of course there's a lot more to do, and it's frustrating that we were somewhat blown off-course by the Eurozone and by unexpectedly high commodity prices, but his overall macro-economic judgement has been perfect.
For all its other disappointments, you can't deny this government has met with considerable success in getting people into work.
I have a terrible spelling substitution issue when trying to discuss Golems and typing Gollums instead.
I note that the Vanilla system tried to replace Golem with Togolese - I learn something new everyday here. I presume that's their official language ;^ )
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
Significantly reduced productivity.
Spain's productivity has gone through the roof since 2008; ours has stagnated.
....
But why, Mr. Robert? Why has productivity stagnated? Nobody in politics in government or out of it seems to accept that there is even a question that needs to be looked at let alone answered. Yet until productivity improves we as a nation ain't going to get any richer.
Ukip wants Ed Miliband in power because voters are more likely to opt to stay in the EU if a referendum takes place under David Cameron, senior party figures admit.
Two Ukip sources have conceded privately that they would prefer Labour to win the next election, since they believe that would maximise the chances of Britain exiting the European Union.
The prospect of people voting out would be increased under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister who has shown little interest in reform of Britain’s relationship with Brussels, one said.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
Significantly reduced productivity.
Spain's productivity has gone through the roof since 2008; ours has stagnated.
....
But why, Mr. Robert? Why has productivity stagnated? Nobody in politics in government or out of it seems to accept that there is even a question that needs to be looked at let alone answered. Yet until productivity improves we as a nation ain't going to get any richer.
Everyone knows why productivity has fallen, it's not a surprise:
1. Finance and Oil & Gas, two of the most 'productive' sectors in the UK economy (in terms of units of output per worker) have declined since 2007. In the former case, it's because the banks have been in full scale retreat. While for Oil & Gas, it is the inevitable consequence of declining North Sea oil fields.
2. Our unemployment rate is falling. Because workers who are 'taken on' are the ones of who add the least incremental output (otherwise they would have been employed before), it is almost inevitable that when unemployment is falling rapidly, then measured productivity will stagnate at best. Spain's productivity went up for the same reason in reverse: if you fire the least productive workers, then productivity statistics goes up.
Comments
In stormy seas Osborne has managed to avoid the rocks on all sides, whilst steadily making progress. Of course there's a lot more to do, and it's frustrating that we were somewhat blown off-course by the Eurozone and by unexpectedly high commodity prices, but his overall macro-economic judgement has been perfect.
There is another reason why Osborne ought to be soiling his pants. The expected glut of income tax receipts from newly self employed workers due January is not going to materialise. The deficit is going to ahve risen by the election. And by some margin.
This was behind the increasingly discredited OBR's mea culpa on Monday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587711
I wonder if we will see that on an election poster anywhere...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/financialservices/Business-services/11157188/FTSE-100-bosses-see-pay-rise-by-a-fifth.html
What are they thinking of? Even if EdM spent a single weekend watching everything he doesn't like, at least he can comment on it with some sincerity. @Sean_Kemp: Was about to say this story was surely made-up, then saw it was based on an Ed quote and the party had stood it up: http://t.co/YZqh9m5nOO
It's less than 5 years ago that we were there.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/green-party-will-have-a-significant-if-not-decisive-impact-on-the-2015-election/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/how-the-greens-are-spooking-labour-and-the-lib-dems/
"Am I a man of the people? No. But I am a man for the people."
2nd Texas health worker now confirmed with Ebola. (BBC)
European Stock markets falling for 5th consecutive day.
Will PMQs touch these subjects?
Miliband made a comment about TOWIE or Made in Chelsea or some such programme (mocking the Conservatives) and was then asked about it, before admitting he didn't watch the show in question (this was at least a year, probably 2-3, ago).
People shouldn't pretend to be into something they are not. As you say, they get caught out by making simple, foolish errors. Just look at Mr. Eagles pretending to like classical history.
Quite aside from the tragedy, this still has the potential to throw everything out of kilter.
But pass a motion to email every student telling them to boycott Ukip
http://tab.co.uk/2014/10/14/nus-refuses-to-condemn-terrorists-because-its-islamophobic/
My point is that you can be comfortable that these are all good organisations that are well run.
Post-Brexit, there would be a cost for and obligations on an Out Britain as a condition of accessing the EU markets. I expect that these would be remarkably, eerily similar to what they are now, right down to the monies we would pay the EU and the right of EU citizens to come here. They'll be red lines I would think.
I think Farage knows this and is lying to the children's crusade party he leads. He will have to accept this because by saying he's going to leave he's given up his whole negotiating position and must leave however unfavourable the resulting arrangements.
But let us be thankful that these highly paid people will be amongst the 1% of taxpayers who pay 25% of all income tax received by the treasury.
http://m.ebay.co.uk/itm?itemId=251548328502
But with a few honourable exceptions, that seems to be a bit too difficult for them. Instead it';s easier just to blame everything on immigrants.
We'll have to see what the reality actually turns out to be - we've heard this sort of thing before, and little has been done - but, just maybe, they might be edging towards actually doing something this time.
Just been listening to the Great Roll n Roll Swindle again - I'd forgotten what a tale that was.
Looks like student politics meets the Judean Peoples Front http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE .
I do like the T Shirt with Farage as Che. Very amusing.
(1) Deflation in the cost of labour has encouraged businesses to employ more workers, rather than to make investments in using their existing workers more efficiently. This helps to explain the weakness of productivity growth and the low level of business investment.
(2) Jobcentre staff have been advising people to declare as self-employed so that they fall off the unemployment figures and can claim more generous in-work benefits free of the threat of sanctions - but that most of these newly self-employed do not have a viable business, or any business, at all. This helps to explain the lack of the expected growth in income tax receipts.
There's only anecdotal evidence for (2) at the moment, and I think (1) is most likely to explain the majority of the fall in unemployment. This is very much in the realms of plausible explanations than anything definitive, though.
There appears to have been a lot of rebalancing both in the UK and in parts of the EU. More people have become self-employed, either running their own business and maybe employing the odd person or some casual labour, whilst others are operating as contractors to large and small organisations. Also there are quite a few people who are combining a lot of part-time jobs - in order to get the money in - as my waitress informed me on Sunday.
Thus, both the timing and nature of any tax take has changed and HMRC may well have not caught up. Certainly there will be less Employers NI.
Also have noticed a lot more cash-in-hand for work that normally would have been invoiced.
So either the tax take has to increase or the spending reduced or a bit of both - which is more likely. Currently there is no Car Tax on 'green cars' and expect that to go as this type of cars increases. Also there are vary large capital allowances for such vehicles and expect that to diminish.
However, a continued increase in personal allowances will require new tax thinking and perhaps a wealth tax (as in some of the EU countries) may be on its way - with major exceptions for one's home to a certain regional value. Am not sure how successful these taxes are or the cost of collection as undoubtedly they would increase the employment for clever accountants.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a partial insurance for health, charge for self-inflicted health problems and their consequences (obesity, drugs and alcohol), reduce/eliminate child allowances for all children after the first two and target overseas aid more effectively.
Councils can cut costs by not paying councillors (it should not be a career) and eliminating bin collection by following continental examples. They should only employ staff that are necessary and eliminate such things as subsidised canteens, employed trade union officials etc.
The whole UK tax take and expenditure needs a relook and am not sure whether any of our political parties have the thinking ability, foresight and political honesty to do it.
(4) The shift to reduced out of work benefits is putting more of a fire behind people to find jobs.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/unopposed-nicola-sturgeon-to-be-new-snp-leader-1-3573100
I suspect you could go into any local or county council offices and lose 25% of the staff with no noticeable effect.
Ahem.
My impression is that they're more a threat to LDs than Labour though.
We run the NHS at near 100% bed occupancy, while in the sensible EU 80-85% is more typical. There is very little slack in the system.
Although I don't think there's any evidence for (3) - the private businesses seem to have been even more inept than the jobcentres in some cases.
Did they also decide any motion on Rotherham would be Islamophobic?
Cameron wants us to stay in; everyone knows this; therefore he will obtain nothing by negotiation. Farage wants us to leave; everyone knows this; therefore he will obtain nothing by negotiation.
The optimal way to renegotiate EU membership is to be armed with an Out vote that you need not implement. So if Cameron's In / Out referendum produces an Out vote, he and the EU can panic together over the implications, and come up with some semi-detached version of membership. This is then offered to the public via a new referendum - In-on-new-terms / Out.
Normally worn by rich spoilt kids pretending to be socialist. Before they get picked up by their dads in their Jags and whisked back to their 5 bedroom houses in Surrey.
"Sturgeon crowned as leader.
One candidate, one Scotland...
SNP don't seem to learn from the mistakes of others."
This isn't like the Gordon Brown situation in which all his opponents were cowed into submission. It is simply that at this point in time a leadership election would be a total waste of time and money-Ms Sturgeon would win handsomely. I believe that intending SNP voters will be perfectly happy with this. As I recollect, all leadership contests for many decades in the SNP have been contested,
Electoral democracy will be duly served by a three sided contest for the Deputy Leadership where the outcome is less clear cut.
Some people see an employment rate slowdown. I see a record (marred by a single-month blip) https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/522321678081474560/photo/1
That sounds like good news.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115908091
The figures that got my attention were these. In 1979 - after 5 years of Denis "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" Healey the top 1% of earners paid 11% of the total tax bill.
Today that figure is 27.5%.
Over a quarter of ALL taxes (not just Income Tax - ALL taxes) paid for by just one in a hundred.
What nobody seems to have told the Leader of the Opposition is that the NHS has indeed already been privatised. But only in terms of the running costs of it being picked up by the richest in the land.
What state will the NHS be in if Miliband follows Hollande in his economic mis-management - and causes an exodus of the top earners? The NHS will be in deep trouble is what.
Flipped around, imagine how good the NHS could be if we enticed another tranche of high earner? What if that 27.5% could rise to say 35%?
As usual, Ed is 100% wrong in what he is proposing to deliver for the voters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29629455
Have hacked off pontificated yet?
"[London LDs] reported a direct correlation between the Lib Dem vote falling and the Green vote going up, leaving councillors who’d held seats for many years in fourth place."
Have you noticed the Greens becoming more prominent in London?
For everyone else, morning all
In truth, in every Council I visit, the subsidised canteen has gone the way of the dodo and indeed I'm often told it's only because I'm an external visitor that they get refreshments at meetings.
The issue of Councillor allowances is a huge one - the simplistic view of some that they should be scrapped is absurd - are we therefore saying the only people who can become Councillors are those who can afford to ?
The real interest in local authorities at the moment is the partnership or collaborative working meme - all sorts of relationships between and across Councils covering all areas of activity are developing and this is pretty fundamental stuff concentrating specialist knowledge in one authority and working with a number of others. The two-tier system of provision looks increasingly anachronistic but if you speak to Counties they are more interested in a) getting the same powers as cities and b) looking to take over some Health functions.
It's a facet of devolution that has gone under the radar but for me the logical conclusion is bottom-up regionalism though not as a Regional Assembly (no one wants those) but networks of like-minded authorities working together and pooling resources so in the future a "Council worker" may not be working for one Council but providing a service to a number of authorities.
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/evel-or-just-stupid-are-there-any-good-answers-to-the-west-lothian-question/
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/ed-miliband-should-take-the-best-advice-he-can-get-his-own/
You say this as if it's unusual in the private sector.
Where would you rather be a worker?
Neil Kinnock has admitted that Labour is still seen by the public as “the incompetent party” when it comes to the economy.
He compared Chancellor George Osborne with the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for the “big lie” that Labour was “not fit to govern”.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/neil-kinnock-accuses-osborne-of-behaving-like-goebbels-9795636.html
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.
"...UKIP is aiming to target two or three seats in Wales."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-29625643
Alyn and Deeside and Pontypridd are mentioned in the article.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/alynanddeeside/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/pontypridd/
Councillor allowances have clearly got out of control, as have MPs wages. There's a clear conflict of having politicians vote for their own packages, but I'm not sure how you change that.
I'd probably suggest a reworking of the overall structure (one bill, covering both councillors and MPs - with regional weighting naturally - but that councillors should be seen as pretty nominal rather than being a career - say £10 per hour or something: perhaps @JohnO an say how much time per week a councillor spends, but I'm assuming it's 10 hours max in official meetings).
Going forward it should be explicitly tied - for both MPs and councillors - to national wage rates to get away from the farce of annual votes.
No doubt Councils are licking their lips at the prospect of getting the same powers as cities, and taking over healthcare provision as it will enable them to further raise revenues (i.e. drain the tax payer dry), and grow departments.
That is what will be going through voters' minds come May 2015.
It led, ultimately, to a Blair landslide and 13 years of Labour. Disaster in the Middle East, economy a smouldering ruin, long-term cracks riven into a hitherto strong union for petty partisan advantage. Would Kinnock have been worse?
I'm too young (and not a student of recent events) to say.
I note that the Vanilla system tried to replace Golem with Togolese - I learn something new everyday here. I presume that's their official language ;^ )
Ukip wants Ed Miliband in power because voters are more likely to opt to stay in the EU if a referendum takes place under David Cameron, senior party figures admit.
Two Ukip sources have conceded privately that they would prefer Labour to win the next election, since they believe that would maximise the chances of Britain exiting the European Union.
The prospect of people voting out would be increased under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister who has shown little interest in reform of Britain’s relationship with Brussels, one said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793688/farage-backs-miliband-ukip-want-labour-win-election-fear-cameron-win-eu-referendum.html#ixzz3GCy9Eu00
1. Finance and Oil & Gas, two of the most 'productive' sectors in the UK economy (in terms of units of output per worker) have declined since 2007. In the former case, it's because the banks have been in full scale retreat. While for Oil & Gas, it is the inevitable consequence of declining North Sea oil fields.
2. Our unemployment rate is falling. Because workers who are 'taken on' are the ones of who add the least incremental output (otherwise they would have been employed before), it is almost inevitable that when unemployment is falling rapidly, then measured productivity will stagnate at best. Spain's productivity went up for the same reason in reverse: if you fire the least productive workers, then productivity statistics goes up.