Something that is supported by all IQ testing that has ever been done.
Hardly a revelation, IQ Tests are not culturally neutral. They can give some useful indication within a culturally homogenous population, they are mostly next to useless for comparing people of different cultures. Consider one of the questions on the verbal reasoning section of a Cattell type test:
INSOLVENT A. Poor B. Bankrupt C. Penniless D. Broke
Not going to be easy if English isn't your primary language.
None of those is synonymous with insolvent. I'm not even sure which is closest - possibly C?
I haven't looked it up, but I believe it's B. Insolvency is the inability to meet your financial obligations, not a lack of money. If you have no debts you can be both solvent and penniless/broke/poor.
@tnewtondunn: Ed Balls coming unstuck on #r4today by attacking state shrink to 35% of GDP but refusing to say what it should be. Same as Danny Alexander.
@IanDunt: Balls sounded terrible in that interview. Stroppy, unclear, point-scoring. And nothing of any substance behind it.
What can Labour say?
Absolutely nothing, they have completely lost the economic argument again.
No, they havent.
I think you'll find that their approach of fewer cuts than the Tories or Lib Dems over the course of the next Parliament would poll best of all the main parties' offerings.
What cuts Neil?
Explain to me their plan if you would be so kind.
Their isn't one, bar a few snips here and there to raise a few £billion.
O/T there's an item on page 6 of the Times which reads like something from Viz.
AS Sociology students at Varndean College were offered the chance to see Millwall play Brighton & Hove Albtion, so that they could witness - and even talk to - working class football fans, and observe their "working class culture and habits" "new lad culture and hyper-masculinity", and "issues around sexuality, race and ethnicity," In case the students might stand out, they were advised to "buy themselves a pie, and wash it down with tea or a mug of Bovril."
The purpose of the trip was to "observe class, leisure, masculinity, racism, and homophobia."
O/T there's an item on page 6 of the Times which reads like something from Viz.
AS Sociology students at Varndean College were offered the chance to see Millwall play Brighton & Hove Albtion, so that they could witness - and even talk to - working class football fans, and observe their "working class culture and habits" "new lad culture and hyper-masculinity", and "issues around sexuality, race and ethnicity," In case the students might stand out, they were advised to "buy themselves a pie, and wash it down with tea or a mug of Bovril."
The purpose of the trip was to "observe class, leisure, masculinity, racism, and homophobia."
O/T there's an item on page 6 of the Times which reads like something from Viz.
AS Sociology students at Varndean College were offered the chance to see Millwall play Brighton & Hove Albtion, so that they could witness - and even talk to - working class football fans, and observe their "working class culture and habits" "new lad culture and hyper-masculinity", and "issues around sexuality, race and ethnicity," In case the students might stand out, they were advised to "buy themselves a pie, and wash it down with tea or a mug of Bovril."
The purpose of the trip was to "observe class, leisure, masculinity, racism, and homophobia."
He pledged "sensible reductions in public spending" and outlined pledges Labour has made so far:
Stopping the winter fuel allowance for "the wealthiest pensioners" Capping child benefit rises at 1% Scrapping police commissioners Selling off "unwanted government assets".
......initially Labour said it would borrow for growth. But the economy started growing. Then Labour said it would borrow to reduce unemployment. But unemployment fell. So now Labour is pledging to borrow to tackle the cost of living crisis, which Miliband has said is caused by low wages. So in other words, Labour is now planning to borrow to artificially drive wages up.
Labour will not reveal key details of how it will cut the deficit until after the election, Ed Miliband said today, as he attempted to repair the party’s reputation on the economy.
Unless you think he's going to meet their fiscal targets entirely through tax rises there are obviously significant cuts planned. You can try and discredit what you'd like their plans to be (though I cant really see the point of this on pbc) but you'd probably be better off discrediting their actual plans (again, preferably not here).
Something that is supported by all IQ testing that has ever been done.
Hardly a revelation, IQ Tests are not culturally neutral. They can give some useful indication within a culturally homogenous population, they are mostly next to useless for comparing people of different cultures. Consider one of the questions on the verbal reasoning section of a Cattell type test:
INSOLVENT A. Poor B. Bankrupt C. Penniless D. Broke
Not going to be easy if English isn't your primary language.
I don't think you could find a serious scientist who supported your contention regarding IQ tests.
He pledged "sensible reductions in public spending" and outlined pledges Labour has made so far:
Stopping the winter fuel allowance for "the wealthiest pensioners" Capping child benefit rises at 1% Scrapping police commissioners Selling off "unwanted government assets".
'Asked afterwards what more Labour would do to cut spending, he said that beyond the measures announced: "The right way to make these decisions is frankly in government".'
He pledged "sensible reductions in public spending" and outlined pledges Labour has made so far:
Stopping the winter fuel allowance for "the wealthiest pensioners" Capping child benefit rises at 1% Scrapping police commissioners Selling off "unwanted government assets".
'Asked afterwards what more Labour would do to cut spending, he said that beyond the measures announced: "The right way to make these decisions is frankly in government".'
And no plan.
He has a plan. But it is a very secret and cunning plan. So secret and cunning that he can't reveal it. Until after the election. When he won't need to reveal it as he won't be in a position to put it into action.
Oh. So that means there is no plan. If you are never going to do anything, you don't need to plan for it.
Apart from YouGov and Populus, there are surprisingly few pollsters at work at present, especially so when one considers we are < 5 months away from a GE. Some firms appear to have disappeared altogether, including Angus Reid, PB.com's very own poster last time, although it failed to cover itself with glory. Let's hope Lord Ashcroft's pollster, on whom OGH appears to place great belief, fares better this time.
Unless you think he's going to meet their fiscal targets entirely through tax rises there are obviously significant cuts planned.
Sorry to jump in again, but there's an important point of teminology here. Those significant cuts are indeed implied by the arithmetic, as the Conservatives have always pointed out. No one who is vaguely sane doubts that. But are they planned? Where's the plan? All we've had so far is denial of any specific plans, and intemperate attacks on Osborne's plans.
But are they planned? Where's the plan? All we've had so far is denial of any specific plans.
Where are the specific Tory plans for cuts, Richard? My point is that we have roughly the same amount of detail on spending plans for both. For instance we know that the Tories will ring-fence the NHS budget and that Labour will spend a few billion more than that. What are either of their plans for defence spending? Are the Tories any clearer on that than Labour? Or on spending on prisons? I could go on.
Labour will not reveal key details of how it will cut the deficit until after the election, Ed Miliband said today, as he attempted to repair the party’s reputation on the economy.
I fail to see how refusing to divulge the most rudimentary decisions on how eradicating the deficit will be achieved will help restore Ed’s credibility – this has Labour’s refusal to publish an Autumn statement prior to 2010, written all over it. @playingpolitics.
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Put like that is there an opportunity for the Lib Dems??
To take the worst bits of both ?
the deficit is really important and needs to be tackled as quickly as we can without crashing the economy but no, it is not possible to do this by spending cuts alone without imposing unacceptable levels of hardship on the most vulnerable in our country.
Not sure that is absolutely true. Australia manages it. We need to move from 'we spend 700bn and need to find that much' on to 'we have 600bn to spend - what is the best way to spend it?'.
600bn a year is still a gargantuan sum of money. How about X% pay cuts for all earning over 25,000 in the public sector? How about vouchers for schools and disband the DoE? How about leaving the EU and saving 19bn? How about stopping all elective surgery in the NHS? Trim aid. Etc. Etc -> We need to re-imagine the role of the state in a very very competitive world where our economy must survive and can only sustainably offer up 600bn to spend. If you had a blank sheet of paper, no history and someone said 'here's 600bn - design an equitable state that works' we could do it.
One way to reduce long-term spend is to convert to a policy of early intervention across government involving early identification of problems with timely resolution.Thus long-term spend becomes short-term interventions.It is pleasing to note Ed Miliband is adopting this prudent approach.A "Nip it in the bud" approach has the potential to save a lot of money.
Energy is one of our country's biggest challenges . Every country's. And what early intervention did Ed oversee in his years as Energy Sec? What new capacity was built? What decisions actually made? Sweet Fanny Adams. What buds is Ed proposing to nip now?
Not sure that is absolutely true. Australia manages it. We need to move from 'we spend 700bn and need to find that much' on to 'we have 600bn to spend - what is the best way to spend it?'.
600bn a year is still a gargantuan sum of money. How about X% pay cuts for all earning over 25,000 in the public sector? How about vouchers for schools and disband the DoE? How about leaving the EU and saving 19bn? How about stopping all elective surgery in the NHS? Trim aid. Etc. Etc -> We need to re-imagine the role of the state in a very very competitive world where our economy must survive and can only sustainably offer up 600bn to spend. If you had a blank sheet of paper, no history and someone said 'here's 600bn - design an equitable state that works' we could do it.
The proportion of GDP that is spent by the State is dependent on a variety of factors of which the most important are the demographic profile and productivity of the population. Comparisons with Australia are not really that useful.
I agree that the UK economy cannot sustain £700bn of public spending. It won't be able to until it is at least 30% bigger than it is now which is going to take some time. But it is meaningless to point out that £600bn is a lot of money. It is a sum that has to be measured against the needs of the people and the obligations of the State.
So over £50bn of it goes in debt interest and that figure is only heading one way for some time to come. Even when we get to balance it is very likely that rolling over debt will involve borrowing at higher rates than we pay now increasing the burden.
We have had a ludicrously generous public sector pension scheme (specifically for those earning better than average wage) for a couple of generations now. Combine that with the massive increase in headcount under the last government, particularly of those in managerial positions, and another significant chunk of that money is spent.
We have an increasing number of retired old people. I am hoping to be one myself one day but there is no question this absorbs a lot of resources. We have a frightening number of poorly educated citizens who are never going to be worth employing at a living wage. We either let them rot or we subsidise their employment. It is not their fault that the middle classes showed so little interest in working class education after all and so determinedly removed all the ladders behind themselves.
Add all this up and cuts are not easy. If they were Osborne would have done them. Some cuts are necessary but I think some tax increases are too. We cannot go on like this living beyond our means and on our children's credit.
Where are the specific Tory plans for cuts, Richard?
They don't need any.
The Labour Party and SNP have spent four and a half years telling everyone just how brutal the Tory cuts are. Salmond and Miliband and co have supplied the Tories with a character reference.
Where are the specific Tory plans for cuts, Richard? My point is that we have roughly the same amount of detail on spending plans for both. For instance we know that the Tories will ring-fence the NHS budget and that Labour will spend a few billion more than that. What are either of their plans for defence spending? Are the Tories any clearer on that than Labour? Or on spending on prisons? I could go on.
Yes, of course the Tories are more specific - see Table 1.7 Long-Term Capital Commitments and Table B4 Total Managed Expenditure of the Autmn Statement:
No-one is asking for every last penny to be spent in five years' time to be laid out, but it's not unreasonable to ask Labour for that level of detail, or at least some vague indication of where they'd be radically different. They are,after all, on the basis if those figures claiming that Osborne is taking us back to the 1930's, and telling us how disgraceful that is. Fair enough, what would they do differently?
Add all this up and cuts are not easy. If they were Osborne would have done them.
Don;t tories (and for that matter labour) realise its impossible to say this to the electorate whilst also shovelling 20bn and counting into the the EU and overseas aid.
Its really no wonder tories plus labour is at a record low.
People want politicians who will represent them, not try to be the honourable member for Stasbourg West or Mogadishu South.
And that starts with keeping our money here, when we are short of it.
The proportion of GDP that is spent by the State is dependent on a variety of factors of which the most important are the demographic profile and productivity of the population. Comparisons with Australia are not really that useful.
I agree that the UK economy cannot sustain £700bn of public spending. It won't be able to until it is at least 30% bigger than it is now which is going to take some time. But it is meaningless to point out that £600bn is a lot of money. It is a sum that has to be measured against the needs of the people and the obligations of the State.
So over £50bn of it goes in debt interest and that figure is only heading one way for some time to come. Even when we get to balance it is very likely that rolling over debt will involve borrowing at higher rates than we pay now increasing the burden.
We have had a ludicrously generous public sector pension scheme (specifically for those earning better than average wage) for a couple of generations now. Combine that with the massive increase in headcount under the last government, particularly of those in managerial positions, and another significant chunk of that money is spent.
We have an increasing number of retired old people. I am hoping to be one myself one day but there is no question this absorbs a lot of resources. We have a frightening number of poorly educated citizens who are never going to be worth employing at a living wage. We either let them rot or we subsidise their employment. It is not their fault that the middle classes showed so little interest in working class education after all and so determinedly removed all the ladders behind themselves.
Add all this up and cuts are not easy. If they were Osborne would have done them. Some cuts are necessary but I think some tax increases are too. We cannot go on like this living beyond our means and on our children's credit.
After the usual predicatable partisan sniping from your fellow Tory-inclined, it is a breath of fresh air to read your thoughtful contribution which reaches the points other Tories seem incapable of reaching.
One area of clarification - the public sector pension provision is more complex than it appears. There are Funded schemes such as the LPGS (for Council workers) and Unfunded schemes (such as the ones for the armed forces and fire & rescue personnel). The latter are the real black hole, the former are largely paid for out of contributions from both employer and employee and the latter have increased sharply since 2008.
The salient conclusion you reach is one I reached a while back - the deficit cannot be reduced by cuts alone. Taxes will have to rise and possibly by a lot but it's one of the unfortunate truths of modern politics that anyone even hinting at income tax rises for example is almost drowned in a sea of vitriol and abuse.
Where are the specific Tory plans for cuts, Richard? My point is that we have roughly the same amount of detail on spending plans for both. For instance we know that the Tories will ring-fence the NHS budget and that Labour will spend a few billion more than that. What are either of their plans for defence spending? Are the Tories any clearer on that than Labour? Or on spending on prisons? I could go on.
Yes, of course the Tories are more specific - see Table 1.7 Long-Term Capital Commitments and Table B4 Total Managed Expenditure of the Autmn Statement:
No, Richard, that is not more specific overall. Both Labour and Tories have areas where they are specific but neither of them give us anything like the full picture. We're going to have to return to agreeing to disagree about this.
Combine that with the massive increase in headcount under the last government,
Ignoring that tens of thousands who became public sector workers due to the nationalisation of the banks the total number of people employed by the public sector at the end of the last government was the same as in 1991.
In percentage terms (percentage of workforce employed by public sector) the figure in 2010 was actually lower than in 1991.
Combine that with the massive increase in headcount under the last government,
Ignoring that tens of thousands who became public sector workers due to the nationalisation of the banks the total number of people employed by the public sector at the end of the last government was the same as in 1991.
In percentage terms (percentage of workforce employed by public sector) the figure in 2010 was actually lower than in 1991.
The study by The Financial Times found that two out of three jobs created since 1998 were in economic sectors dominated by public services, raising fears that private sector firms may be less resilient to a recession than previously thought.''
Another thing which strikes me is just how low the basic rate of tax is these days at 20%, compared with 35% pre-Thatcher, while the maximum higher rate is now 45%, compared with 83% in then (excluding the investment income suecharge taking it to an incredible effective rate of 98%) in the "good old days". Of course we now pay 20% VAT on virtually everything excl [some] food, compared with the previously very much more selective and generally lower rated purchase tax regime. Duty on a packet of 20 cigarettes in 1990 was £1.24, today it is £6.50. Hardly surprising therefore that the level of illegal imports is so high. A classic case of the law of diminishing returns.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-30080914
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30417955
Anyone suggesting that they know what 'the plan' is, is clearly talking nonsense. It would appear even Ed doesn't know.
O/T there's an item on page 6 of the Times which reads like something from Viz.
AS Sociology students at Varndean College were offered the chance to see Millwall play Brighton & Hove Albtion, so that they could witness - and even talk to - working class football fans, and observe their "working class culture and habits" "new lad culture and hyper-masculinity", and "issues around sexuality, race and ethnicity," In case the students might stand out, they were advised to "buy themselves a pie, and wash it down with tea or a mug of Bovril."
The purpose of the trip was to "observe class, leisure, masculinity, racism, and homophobia."
Stopping the winter fuel allowance for "the wealthiest pensioners"
Capping child benefit rises at 1%
Scrapping police commissioners
Selling off "unwanted government assets".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30417955
So no cuts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11287635/Id-like-to-climb-inside-Ed-Milibands-head.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns
Plenty of journalists would though.
And no plan.
Oh. So that means there is no plan. If you are never going to do anything, you don't need to plan for it.
That's all anyone needs to know.
I fail to see how refusing to divulge the most rudimentary decisions on how eradicating the deficit will be achieved will help restore Ed’s credibility – this has Labour’s refusal to publish an Autumn statement prior to 2010, written all over it. @playingpolitics.
I agree that the UK economy cannot sustain £700bn of public spending. It won't be able to until it is at least 30% bigger than it is now which is going to take some time. But it is meaningless to point out that £600bn is a lot of money. It is a sum that has to be measured against the needs of the people and the obligations of the State.
So over £50bn of it goes in debt interest and that figure is only heading one way for some time to come. Even when we get to balance it is very likely that rolling over debt will involve borrowing at higher rates than we pay now increasing the burden.
We have had a ludicrously generous public sector pension scheme (specifically for those earning better than average wage) for a couple of generations now. Combine that with the massive increase in headcount under the last government, particularly of those in managerial positions, and another significant chunk of that money is spent.
We have an increasing number of retired old people. I am hoping to be one myself one day but there is no question this absorbs a lot of resources. We have a frightening number of poorly educated citizens who are never going to be worth employing at a living wage. We either let them rot or we subsidise their employment. It is not their fault that the middle classes showed so little interest in working class education after all and so determinedly removed all the ladders behind themselves.
Add all this up and cuts are not easy. If they were Osborne would have done them. Some cuts are necessary but I think some tax increases are too. We cannot go on like this living beyond our means and on our children's credit.
The Labour Party and SNP have spent four and a half years telling everyone just how brutal the Tory cuts are. Salmond and Miliband and co have supplied the Tories with a character reference.
new thread
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/382327/44695_Accessible.pdf
No-one is asking for every last penny to be spent in five years' time to be laid out, but it's not unreasonable to ask Labour for that level of detail, or at least some vague indication of where they'd be radically different. They are,after all, on the basis if those figures claiming that Osborne is taking us back to the 1930's, and telling us how disgraceful that is. Fair enough, what would they do differently?
Don;t tories (and for that matter labour) realise its impossible to say this to the electorate whilst also shovelling 20bn and counting into the the EU and overseas aid.
Its really no wonder tories plus labour is at a record low.
People want politicians who will represent them, not try to be the honourable member for Stasbourg West or Mogadishu South.
And that starts with keeping our money here, when we are short of it.
One area of clarification - the public sector pension provision is more complex than it appears. There are Funded schemes such as the LPGS (for Council workers) and Unfunded schemes (such as the ones for the armed forces and fire & rescue personnel). The latter are the real black hole, the former are largely paid for out of contributions from both employer and employee and the latter have increased sharply since 2008.
The salient conclusion you reach is one I reached a while back - the deficit cannot be reduced by cuts alone. Taxes will have to rise and possibly by a lot but it's one of the unfortunate truths of modern politics that anyone even hinting at income tax rises for example is almost drowned in a sea of vitriol and abuse.
In percentage terms (percentage of workforce employed by public sector) the figure in 2010 was actually lower than in 1991.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn145.pdf
''A boom in public sector jobs has propped up employment levels under Labour, according to research today.
The study by The Financial Times found that two out of three jobs created since 1998 were in economic sectors dominated by public services, raising fears that private sector firms may be less resilient to a recession than previously thought.''
Of course we now pay 20% VAT on virtually everything excl [some] food, compared with the previously very much more selective and generally lower rated purchase tax regime.
Duty on a packet of 20 cigarettes in 1990 was £1.24, today it is £6.50. Hardly surprising therefore that the level of illegal imports is so high. A classic case of the law of diminishing returns.
Farage to win in 2 rounds..