On the past post about Heathrow, I think it's political suicide for anyone to support a third runway at Heathrow and also it makes no sense practically and economically. For one Heathrow is already dysfunctional due to it's immense size, making it bigger will make it worse, not counting that it there is no space available for a third runway without cutting the M25 in two.
And then comes the politics which means that even if the government pushes for it, it might never be built anyway. Far more sensible is to look beyond Heathrow, it will be quicker, cheaper and less controversial.
On the past post about Heathrow, I think it's political suicide for anyone to support a third runway at Heathrow and also it makes no sense practically and economically. For one Heathrow is already dysfunctional due to it's immense size, making it bigger will make it worse, not counting that it there is no space available for a third runway without cutting the M25 in two.
And then comes the politics which means that even if the government pushes for it, it might never be built anyway. Far more sensible is to look beyond Heathrow, it will be quicker, cheaper and less controversial.
Cramming too much infrastructure into the LHR area would be like pouring too much tea into your favourite mug.
The Brown vs Nadal game is the most exciting game of Wimbledon 2015 yet, proper old fashioned serve volley tennis against boring boring French-court style tennis.
Sunil As Andy JS points out UKIP is not wholly rightwing in economic terms, yes it supports tax cuts at all levels and yes it would stop ringfencing overseas aid, but it also opposed the 'bedroom tax' and opposed cutting defence spending so you cannot really use UKIP to say 50%+ supported cutting spending all the way back to 35%
JohnM But 1989 was the year before the downfall of Thatcher, public spending then increased to just over 40% under John Major which was roughly where it remained for most of the Blair years. I think voters would be happier to have it at that level than the 47% Brown left or the 35% of the last years of the Thatcher era which Osborne proposes
The Greek polling situation is just baffling. GPO doesn't seem to be quite saying they didn't do the poll, but that it's a partial snapshot from one afternoon:
Sunil As Andy JS points out UKIP is not wholly rightwing in economic terms, yes it supports tax cuts at all levels and yes it would stop ringfencing overseas aid, but it also opposed the 'bedroom tax' and opposed cutting defence spending so you cannot really use UKIP to say 50%+ supported cutting spending all the way back to 35%
The more of HYUFD's posts I see, the more I wonder if he is a clever bot designed to reference:
- Polls - PB comments - Wikipedia
But a bot which has been incorrectly programmed with regard to full stops. ;-)
Frank Gardner on BBC News probably caused a few eyebrows to be raised just now by offering his opinion on the prospect of British airstrikes. He said he wasn't convinced it was worth it.
Sunil As Andy JS points out UKIP is not wholly rightwing in economic terms, yes it supports tax cuts at all levels and yes it would stop ringfencing overseas aid, but it also opposed the 'bedroom tax' and opposed cutting defence spending so you cannot really use UKIP to say 50%+ supported cutting spending all the way back to 35%
The more of HYUFD's posts I see, the more I wonder if he is a clever bot designed to reference:
- Polls - PB comments - Wikipedia
But a bot which has been incorrectly programmed with regard to full stops. ;-)
Not even sure what the point of second-guessing what UKIP voters wanted serves. The constitution is clear, the Tories have a majority while UKIP have one MP. In five years time we get to go through this all over again but until then Osborne is Chancellor.
Sunil As Andy JS points out UKIP is not wholly rightwing in economic terms, yes it supports tax cuts at all levels and yes it would stop ringfencing overseas aid, but it also opposed the 'bedroom tax' and opposed cutting defence spending so you cannot really use UKIP to say 50%+ supported cutting spending all the way back to 35%
HYUFD more Lefty straw-clutching.
UKIP are a right-wing party. 50.5% of UK voters voted for right-wing parties, 55.0% in England.
Sunil As Andy JS points out UKIP is not wholly rightwing in economic terms, yes it supports tax cuts at all levels and yes it would stop ringfencing overseas aid, but it also opposed the 'bedroom tax' and opposed cutting defence spending so you cannot really use UKIP to say 50%+ supported cutting spending all the way back to 35%
The more of HYUFD's posts I see, the more I wonder if he is a clever bot designed to reference:
- Polls - PB comments - Wikipedia
But a bot which has been incorrectly programmed with regard to full stops. ;-)
He once replied to PB user Alistair about Ronald Reagan, and typed "Alistair Reagan..."
JohnM But 1989 was the year before the downfall of Thatcher, public spending then increased to just over 40% under John Major which was roughly where it remained for most of the Blair years. I think voters would be happier to have it at that level than the 47% Brown left or the 35% of the last years of the Thatcher era which Osborne proposes
There was the small matter of the early 90s recession which distorts the figures a little.
However, I think we're both arguing on a false premise. There's little point in setting targets for public spending based on its relation to national GDP. It's like the recently abolished measure of poverty; counter-productive.
We need to ensure we're spending the right amount of money. There are arguments (and political philosophies) around how much is 'right'. However, in Osborne's case, he doesn't have much choice - he has to get us back into surplus, we have to be in a position to manage the national debt. That requires a smaller state, at least for now.
Wherever we sit in the political spectrum, surely it's inarguable that spending a quarter of a trillion pounds on debt servicing (this parliament, and thence, ad nauseam) is a massive opportunity cost.
PT Yes, he has a majority in the Commons to cut spending back to 35%, I was just questioning whether he had the full support of more than 50% of the voters. Once spending falls below 40% and is cut back yet further that is when we will really find out. That is especially true if he cuts the top tax rate before a surplus is achieved
Frank Gardner on BBC News probably caused a few eyebrows to be raised just now by offering his opinion on the prospect of British airstrikes. He said he wasn't convinced it was worth it.
The temperature in the Midlands is about half what it was this time yesterday: 16 vs 32.
That's not quite right. As temperature is the measure of thermal energy, you really want to be measuring from absolute zero to work out what proportions are.
JohnM But 1989 was the year before the downfall of Thatcher, public spending then increased to just over 40% under John Major which was roughly where it remained for most of the Blair years. I think voters would be happier to have it at that level than the 47% Brown left or the 35% of the last years of the Thatcher era which Osborne proposes
There was the small matter of the early 90s recession which distorts the figures a little.
However, I think we're both arguing on a false premise. There's little point in setting targets for public spending based on its relation to national GDP. It's like the recently abolished measure of poverty; counter-productive.
We need to ensure we're spending the right amount of money. There are arguments (and political philosophies) around how much is 'right'. However, in Osborne's case, he doesn't have much choice - he has to get us back into surplus, we have to be in a position to manage the national debt. That requires a smaller state, at least for now.
Wherever we sit in the political spectrum, surely it's inarguable that spending a quarter of a trillion pounds on debt servicing (this parliament, and thence, ad nauseam) is a massive opportunity cost.
John, I couldn't agree more with the last sentence. It is the argument I never anything but agreement with on the doorstep. Hopefully encouraged a few LD switchers down in Dorset with it....
Frank Gardner on BBC News probably caused a few eyebrows to be raised just now by offering his opinion on the prospect of British airstrikes. He said he wasn't convinced it was worth it.
One or two tornados strafing the odd Toyota or desert hut two or three times a week in Syria really isn't going to make much difference to anything.
Sunil As I said it depends how you classify right-wing, on social issues UKIP are certainly rightwing, on economics the picture is more nuanced. You certainly cannot say most UKIP voters backed UKIP because they wanted spending cut to 35%
John M Major increased spending from when he took office to a level just under 40% which is roughly where it remained until the end of his premiership.
I agree we have to cut spending to reduce the debt, if Osborne ended ringfencing he would be able to do it a bit quicker and more fairly
Sunil As I said it depends how you classify right-wing, on social issues UKIP are certainly rightwing, on economics the picture is more nuanced. You certainly cannot say most UKIP voters backed UKIP because they wanted spending cut to 35%
Enough already. The original point I was making is that your argument was weak not because of the % level of anyones vote, but because you were saying Osborne didn't have a mandate to cut it to an arbitrary level.
If he only has 30-something%, by your argument, he logically has no mandate to change anything. Which is in fact totally the opposite of the constitutional reality, whereby he has a mandate to do pretty much anything. Stop talking numbers, you're not convincing anyone more than Jonathan did last week about Tory vs Labour 'popularity'.
Sunil As I said it depends how you classify right-wing, on social issues UKIP are certainly rightwing, on economics the picture is more nuanced. You certainly cannot say most UKIP voters backed UKIP because they wanted spending cut to 35%
HYUFD - continue with your Lefty straw-clutching. Kippers knew they were voting for a right-wing populist Party.
Mortimer He has a mandate under the FPTP system which gave the Tories over 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. However, that does not mean a majority of voters support cutting spending right back to 35%, especially if cutting back that far is accompanied by a further cut in the top tax rate at the same time
Mortimer He has a mandate under the FPTP system which gave the Tories over 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. However, that does not mean a majority of voters support cutting spending right back to 35%, especially if cutting back that far is accompanied by a further cut in the top tax rate at the same time
Wait for it PB lefties, prepare to be bewildered by reality.
Cutting the top rate of tax will likely increase the tax take in this country over the medium term, probably within the life of the parliament.
'Do the Greek govt really think that the IMF are going to accept a haircut, just because they say so? Mme. Legard is the one person they desperately need on side if it all goes bang, yet they seem to want to piss her off more than anyone. Truly the party of have cake, eat cake and lose weight.'
The Greek government is running rings around the IMF, Euro Zone et al. They know they cannot be thrown out of the Euro and know they can get a much better deal with significant debt write off.
How many times did we hear that if agreement wasn't reached last Friday Greece would be thrown out of the Euro?
Or if Greece defaulted on the IMF repayment on Tuesday it would be thrown out?
Or if they voted no on Sunday they would be out of the Euro ?
Or the deal they were meant to sign last Friday was the best they were going to get and yet this weak the talks have offered debt write off.
This view is incomprehensible.
The best case scenario for Greece on Monday is that the Eurozone does nothing.
That is, it maintains the €93bn ELA lifeline for the Greek banking sector, and does nothing else.
So. The banks cannot open. And people still can't spend more than €60. That's the best case following a "No".
John M Major increased spending from when he took office to a level just under 40% which is roughly where it remained until the end of his premiership.
I agree we have to cut spending to reduce the debt, if Osborne ended ringfencing he would be able to do it a bit quicker and more fairly
How fair is it when you turn up at hospital and / or your GP's and find its not able to treat you? Are you Superman or some other individual with supernatural powers? Are you invulnerable to illness? Or are your children spouse parent siblings etc? Everyone is vulnerable to illness. The NHS has just gone through a 4 year 20 billion efficiency programme. It's got to go through another 4 years of the same. If you want a health service like France be prepared to pay double what you do now and ours spends much less on administration.
Mortimer He has a mandate under the FPTP system which gave the Tories over 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. However, that does not mean a majority of voters support cutting spending right back to 35%, especially if cutting back that far is accompanied by a further cut in the top tax rate at the same time
35% is an outrageously massive size for the State to be. I agree with you that as we move towards 30% ALL taxes should be cut, not just the top rate.
'Do the Greek govt really think that the IMF are going to accept a haircut, just because they say so? Mme. Legard is the one person they desperately need on side if it all goes bang, yet they seem to want to piss her off more than anyone. Truly the party of have cake, eat cake and lose weight.'
The Greek government is running rings around the IMF, Euro Zone et al. They know they cannot be thrown out of the Euro and know they can get a much better deal with significant debt write off.
How many times did we hear that if agreement wasn't reached last Friday Greece would be thrown out of the Euro?
Or if Greece defaulted on the IMF repayment on Tuesday it would be thrown out?
Or if they voted no on Sunday they would be out of the Euro ?
Or the deal they were meant to sign last Friday was the best they were going to get and yet this weak the talks have offered debt write off.
This view is incomprehensible.
The best case scenario for Greece on Monday is that the Eurozone does nothing.
That is, it maintains the €93bn ELA lifeline for the Greek banking sector, and does nothing else.
So. The banks cannot open. And people still can't spend more than €60. That's the best case following a "No".
The best case is that the EU cave, and offer to bailout the Greek people. Not doing so makes it look like they were more concerned about the Northern European banks than members of a political union.
Mortimer He has a mandate under the FPTP system which gave the Tories over 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. However, that does not mean a majority of voters support cutting spending right back to 35%, especially if cutting back that far is accompanied by a further cut in the top tax rate at the same time
Wait for it PB lefties, prepare to be bewildered by reality.
Cutting the top rate of tax will likely increase the tax take in this country over the medium term, probably within the life of the parliament.
Saying "cutting taxes increases tax revenues" sounds to the public as implausible as the "increasing spending will cut the deficit" line that the left sometimes pushes.
Interesting stat re TVLF - N Ireland has the highest % who don't pay for a licence - 8% say they don't watch live TV.
The telly tax was abolished in Gib a decade or so ago largely because people saw it as voluntary. Including me - we just threw the nagging GBC letters in the bin. They couldn't round up all of us so they gave up and rolled it into general taxation.
Mortimer He has a mandate under the FPTP system which gave the Tories over 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. However, that does not mean a majority of voters support cutting spending right back to 35%, especially if cutting back that far is accompanied by a further cut in the top tax rate at the same time
Wait for it PB lefties, prepare to be bewildered by reality.
Cutting the top rate of tax will likely increase the tax take in this country over the medium term, probably within the life of the parliament.
Saying "cutting taxes increases tax revenues" sounds to the public as implausible as the "increasing spending will cut the deficit" line that the left sometimes pushes.
Nope, people understand that individuals make better economic use of their money than a wasteful state.
Hence the only modern PM to regularly cut income tax was one of the most popular in the modern era.
'Do the Greek govt really think that the IMF are going to accept a haircut, just because they say so? Mme. Legard is the one person they desperately need on side if it all goes bang, yet they seem to want to piss her off more than anyone. Truly the party of have cake, eat cake and lose weight.'
The Greek government is running rings around the IMF, Euro Zone et al. They know they cannot be thrown out of the Euro and know they can get a much better deal with significant debt write off.
How many times did we hear that if agreement wasn't reached last Friday Greece would be thrown out of the Euro?
Or if Greece defaulted on the IMF repayment on Tuesday it would be thrown out?
Or if they voted no on Sunday they would be out of the Euro ?
Or the deal they were meant to sign last Friday was the best they were going to get and yet this weak the talks have offered debt write off.
This view is incomprehensible.
The best case scenario for Greece on Monday is that the Eurozone does nothing.
That is, it maintains the €93bn ELA lifeline for the Greek banking sector, and does nothing else.
So. The banks cannot open. And people still can't spend more than €60. That's the best case following a "No".
The best case is that the EU cave, and offer to bailout the Greek people. Not doing so makes it look like they were more concerned about the Northern European banks than members of a political union.
Tosh.
The Northern European banks hardly own any Greek debt.
Geoff M Spending 35% of GDP would lead us to spend less than Luxembourg and the US and Japan and Brazil, spending 30% would lead us to spend less than Switzerland, Qatar and Australia too
I agree there may be scope for further tax cuts beyond those announced but only once a surplus is achieved
'Do the Greek govt really think that the IMF are going to accept a haircut, just because they say so? Mme. Legard is the one person they desperately need on side if it all goes bang, yet they seem to want to piss her off more than anyone. Truly the party of have cake, eat cake and lose weight.'
The Greek government is running rings around the IMF, Euro Zone et al. They know they cannot be thrown out of the Euro and know they can get a much better deal with significant debt write off.
How many times did we hear that if agreement wasn't reached last Friday Greece would be thrown out of the Euro?
Or if Greece defaulted on the IMF repayment on Tuesday it would be thrown out?
Or if they voted no on Sunday they would be out of the Euro ?
Or the deal they were meant to sign last Friday was the best they were going to get and yet this weak the talks have offered debt write off.
This view is incomprehensible.
The best case scenario for Greece on Monday is that the Eurozone does nothing.
That is, it maintains the €93bn ELA lifeline for the Greek banking sector, and does nothing else.
So. The banks cannot open. And people still can't spend more than €60. That's the best case following a "No".
The best case is that the EU cave, and offer to bailout the Greek people. Not doing so makes it look like they were more concerned about the Northern European banks than members of a political union.
Tosh.
The Northern European banks hardly own any Greek debt.
I imagine they had quite a bit before the first bailout, no?
Breaking news from Greece. An MP from the junior governing partner has resigned from parliament after he came out for YES, under the greek system the next in line becomes MP so the government doesn't lose MP's.
Sunil You have totally failed to engage with my point that UKIP voters were not voting UKIP to cut tax to 35% otherwise they would have voted for Cameron and Osborne
Geoff M Spending 35% of GDP would lead us to spend less than Switzerland and the US and Japan and Brazil, spending 30% would lead us to spend less than Qatar and Australia too
While I agree with your point that ring-fencing is daft (though politically expedient (end ring-fencing of the NHS and I can hear the cries of "baby-eating Tories" now), the idea that there is something inherently virtuous about a given level of spend is equally daft.
We spend around 8% of GDP on healthcare. That's only going to go up. We spend about 15% on welfare, including pensions. That's difficult to tackle, both practically and politically. I'd expect that to rise, though more gently than healthcare spending.
I'd rather we concentrated on economic growth, from which flows the ability to have the debate about how much (and what on) we spend. Greece is an extreme example of what happens when you don't.
Mortimer Maybe, politically it would be very unpopular
Cutting the taxes of the middle classes is very rarely unpopular. Look at the history of, ooooh, just about anywhere in the Western world in the past few hundred years.
Mortimer Maybe, politically it would be very unpopular
There would be legions of self-appointed handwringing shouty people on the BBC but in real life nobody would notice the slightest difference to their world.
Interesting stat re TVLF - N Ireland has the highest % who don't pay for a licence - 8% say they don't watch live TV.
The telly tax was abolished in Gib a decade or so ago largely because people saw it as voluntary. Including me - we just threw the nagging GBC letters in the bin. They couldn't round up all of us so they gave up and rolled it into general taxation.
It shouldn't be in general taxation either. That way we, the users, lose all control over it (at least we can refuse to pay currently); people who do not use the service will have to pay; and it will come even more under the government's whim.
As some of us were saying at the time, they should have insisted on smartcards in all the new DTV boxes sold/handed out on digital switchover, ready for a potential subscription service. The fact they did not was a major mistake, and one that is very hard to rectify.
Geoff M Spending 35% of GDP would lead us to spend less than Luxembourg and the US and Japan and Brazil, spending 30% would lead us to spend less than Switzerland, Qatar and Australia too
I agree there may be scope for further tax cuts beyond those announced but only once a surplus is achieved
Could someone please list from Switzerland, Qatar and Australia (in order of people shot dead) where the most intense spontaneous popular uprisings have been against the awful financial squeeze on the peoples of those three underfunded collapsing states?
Sunil As Andy JS points out UKIP is not wholly rightwing in economic terms, yes it supports tax cuts at all levels and yes it would stop ringfencing overseas aid, but it also opposed the 'bedroom tax' and opposed cutting defence spending so you cannot really use UKIP to say 50%+ supported cutting spending all the way back to 35%
Yes you can. It is perfectly possible to be in favour of cutting an overall headline rate by a certain percentage but to still oppose cuts in specific areas based on your own priorities. There are plenty of Tories who also oppose cuts to military spending.
Geoff M Spending 35% of GDP would lead us to spend less than Luxembourg and the US and Japan and Brazil, spending 30% would lead us to spend less than Switzerland, Qatar and Australia too
I agree there may be scope for further tax cuts beyond those announced but only once a surplus is achieved
Could someone please list from Switzerland, Qatar and Australia (in order of people shot dead) where the most intense spontaneous popular uprisings have been against the awful financial squeeze on the peoples of those three underfunded collapsing states?
Indeed, HYUFD doesnt seem to have clocked that those three countries have a very low % because of high GDP, rather than high public spending.
My theory that many socialists don't understand percentages remains intact....
Interesting stat re TVLF - N Ireland has the highest % who don't pay for a licence - 8% say they don't watch live TV.
The telly tax was abolished in Gib a decade or so ago largely because people saw it as voluntary. Including me - we just threw the nagging GBC letters in the bin. They couldn't round up all of us so they gave up and rolled it into general taxation.
It shouldn't be in general taxation either. That way we, the users, lose all control over it (at least we can refuse to pay currently); people who do not use the service will have to pay; and it will come even more under the government's whim.
As some of us were saying at the time, they should have insisted on smartcards in all the new DTV boxes sold/handed out on digital switchover, ready for a potential subscription service. The fact they did not was a major mistake, and one that is very hard to rectify.
Agree with that entirely. My intention was merely to give an actual real life example of how Plato's Norn Iron non payment has played out elsewhere. Your more general point is spot on.
Here is a question which may highlight just how facile the argument on % of GDP spent on the state is:
If British GDP doubled, would you like public spending to double too? Just to keep the % up?
Depends on whether it has doubled due to increasing productivity per person (in which case we don't need it to double or increase by very much - which means everyone would be better off) or if it is purely because there are twice as many people in the UK - in which case we do need it to increase substantially. (and we won't be better off.)
You can guess which method is recommended by the Conservatives and which one by labour.
Here is a question which may highlight just how facile the argument on % of GDP spent on the state is:
If British GDP doubled, would you like public spending to double too? Just to keep the % up?
Depends on whether it has doubled due to increasing productivity per person (in which case we don't need it to double or increase by very much - which means everyone would be better off) or if it is purely because there are twice as many people in the UK - in which case we do need it to increase substantially. (and we won't be better off.)
You can guess which method is recommended by the Conservatives and which one by labour.
A very worthwhile point to be made. I should of course have said, if GDP doubled whilst population remained the same.
GeoffM Switzerland and Qatar are both largely havens for the rich, in Australia Abbott had to abandon plans to cut spending further after his budget last year which led to his polling nosediving and to his facing a leadership challenge
The Tory share of the vote dropped dramatically after they cut the top rate in 2012, they eventually recovered, that does not mean lightning will strike twice
GeoffM Switzerland and Qatar are both largely havens for the rich, in Australia Abbott had to abandon plans to cut spending further after his budget last year which led to his polling nosediving and to his facing a leadership challenge
The Tory share of the vote dropped dramatically after they cut the top rate in 2012, they eventually recovered, that does not mean lightning will strike twice
Nope, their share of the vote did not drop massively, and they won more seats in the subsequent national election. Their position in 2012-15 opinion polls, which have largely proved little use as predictors of people's voting intention, fell.
JohnM Of course we need to put economic growth first and encourage those who can afford it to make their own healthcare and pensions provision, but the knock-on effects of cutting spending too far in terms of our defence, police numbers, social care and health provision, local community services and support for those most in need would be dramatic
GeoffM Switzerland and Qatar are both largely havens for the rich, in Australia Abbott had to abandon plans to cut spending further after his budget last year which led to his polling nosediving and to his facing a leadership challenge
The Tory share of the vote dropped dramatically after they cut the top rate in 2012, they eventually recovered, that does not mean lightning will strike twice
Qatar is a tiny country with the world's largest gas reserves. There is literally nowhere like it on earth.
If it's politically impossible to 'reduce' the NHS, perhaps the only solution is to massively expand the NHS, and merge it with the Department of Health (renamed the National Heath Service). Sack the senior management, expand its remit, and you can spend less on what it does at the moment.
GeoffM Switzerland and Qatar are both largely havens for the rich, in Australia Abbott had to abandon plans to cut spending further after his budget last year which led to his polling nosediving and to his facing a leadership challenge
The Tory share of the vote dropped dramatically after they cut the top rate in 2012, they eventually recovered, that does not mean lightning will strike twice
Qatar is a tiny country with the world's largest gas reserves. There is literally nowhere like it on earth.
Mortimer Australia has about the same gdp as Spain and Canada but spends around 5-10% less and who ever said I was a socialist, was John Major a socialist when he spent over 35% or indeed Thatcher for most of her term or Cameron for his first term?
Mortimer Australia has about the same gdp as Spain and Canada but spends around 5-10% less and who ever said I was a socialist, was John Major a socialist when he spent over 35% or indeed Thatcher for most of her term or Cameron for his first term?
Apologies, I thought you were part of Andy Burnham's campaign?
GeoffM Switzerland and Qatar are both largely havens for the rich, in Australia Abbott had to abandon plans to cut spending further after his budget last year which led to his polling nosediving and to his facing a leadership challenge
The Tory share of the vote dropped dramatically after they cut the top rate in 2012, they eventually recovered, that does not mean lightning will strike twice
Qatar is a tiny country with the world's largest gas reserves. There is literally nowhere like it on earth.
Thank goodness.
Ah, the standard "They're not quite like us and they're not quite like us and neither are they ... therefore we must randomly spend like drunken sailors" argument!
Mortimer The Tories were polling 37-40% before that Budget, afterwards 30-34%, even accounting for errors in election polling the drop was clear http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
The reason I become so strident is that we're due a recession in the next few years and the public finances are in a mess.
Collectively, we seem to be incapable of looking at the world in the medium or long term. That's exacerbated by our modern political scene, which is woefully short of visionaries and strategists.
Mortimer The fact I think Burnham is the most electable leadership candidate for Labour does not mean I think he is the next Messiah or even that I would vote for him, this is a politicalbetting site after all
Mortimer The Tories were polling 37-40% before that Budget, afterwards 30-34%, even accounting for errors in election polling the drop was clear http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
POLLING! There is a difference between polling and what you said.
Mortimer Yes, their intended voteshare in the polls fell dramatically as a result of that Budget, in the May 2012 council elections they lost 12 councils and 405 councillors and they also lost the Corby by-election to Labour in November 2012
Mortimer Yes, their intended voteshare in the polls fell dramatically as a result of that Budget, in the May 2012 council elections they lost 12 councils and 405 councillors and they also lost the Corby by-election to Labour in November 2012
And yet the won the next general election. You know, the one where they secure a majority. Tax cuts are popular, it would seem. Who knew.
GeoffM Switzerland and Qatar are both largely havens for the rich, in Australia Abbott had to abandon plans to cut spending further after his budget last year which led to his polling nosediving and to his facing a leadership challenge
The Tory share of the vote dropped dramatically after they cut the top rate in 2012, they eventually recovered, that does not mean lightning will strike twice
Qatar is a tiny country with the world's largest gas reserves. There is literally nowhere like it on earth.
Thank goodness.
Ah, the standard "They're not quite like us and they're not quite like us and neither are they ... therefore we must randomly spend like drunken sailors" argument!
Edit: not meant seriously, to be clear
Surely our having no gas reserves like Qatar's should mean we spend less, not more.
A wonderfully pleasant and fresh evening in London Town after the heat of the past 36 hours.
My critique of Osborne (and I have to say Coalition) economic policy was the absurdity of ring-fencing certain areas of Government expenditure. The concept of "sacred cows" notwithstanding, it seems hard to argue that if local Government can make efficiency savings without, so some say, impairing front-line service delivery, the same should be true of the NHS, Police Authorities and everyone else.
As for benefits, we spend around £160 billion of which £75 billion is or are pensions. If that is sacrosanct, the proposed cut is £12 billion off a budget of £85 billion which will be interesting.
It would be interesting to periodically survey PB users political leanings using one of the NOJAM tables, as opposed to party affiliations I think the following should cover most basis:
- left wing - centre left - centrist - centre right - right wing
Want a laugh? Ted Cruz auditions for the Simpsons (this is real people, a US senator and presidential candidate has dropped so low): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0sRkvX4KE
Speedy Yes, lifelong fan apparently, though the production team unlikely to give him a role. Makes a change from George HW Bush asking to be a 'little more like the Waltons and a little less like the Simpsons'. Leading Bart to quip 'we're just like the Waltons we're going through a depression too!'
Stodge Yes ringfencing has been Blair's greatest mistake
Five and a bit years is enough time to take responsibility for one's party's actions in government.
The radicalism and purpose of Thatcher is completely absent from Cameron, who has no idea why he wants to be Prime Minister, except that it is an Eton lark (I mean this in the nicest possible way).
Ringfencing is a good way to appear nice while accepting that a long-term fiscal direction doesn't exist for this government, except welfare cuts that nobody has any idea how to implement.
'Do the Greek govt really think that the IMF are going to accept a haircut, just because they say so? Mme. Legard is the one person they desperately need on side if it all goes bang, yet they seem to want to piss her off more than anyone. Truly the party of have cake, eat cake and lose weight.'
The Greek government is running rings around the IMF, Euro Zone et al. They know they cannot be thrown out of the Euro and know they can get a much better deal with significant debt write off.
How many times did we hear that if agreement wasn't reached last Friday Greece would be thrown out of the Euro?
Or if Greece defaulted on the IMF repayment on Tuesday it would be thrown out?
Or if they voted no on Sunday they would be out of the Euro ?
Or the deal they were meant to sign last Friday was the best they were going to get and yet this weak the talks have offered debt write off.
This view is incomprehensible.
The best case scenario for Greece on Monday is that the Eurozone does nothing.
That is, it maintains the €93bn ELA lifeline for the Greek banking sector, and does nothing else.
So. The banks cannot open. And people still can't spend more than €60. That's the best case following a "No".
The best case is that the EU cave, and offer to bailout the Greek people. Not doing so makes it look like they were more concerned about the Northern European banks than members of a political union.
Tosh.
The Northern European banks hardly own any Greek debt.
Well they don't own any Greek debt nowadays....
As for the previous comments regarding best case scenarios. I think that is the best case no matter what the vote. There is no way Greek banks are stable and liquid enough for capital controls to be removable...
It would be interesting to periodically survey PB users political leanings using one of the NOJAM tables, as opposed to party affiliations I think the following should cover most basis:
- left wing - centre left - centrist - centre right - right wing
I would guess it is very different.
Readers would be like the British public, a mild centre-right plurality but with very few at all self-identifying as right-wing. Commenters would be about 75 centre-right or right-wing. I guess because betting is an individualistic activity.
Comments
For one Heathrow is already dysfunctional due to it's immense size, making it bigger will make it worse, not counting that it there is no space available for a third runway without cutting the M25 in two.
And then comes the politics which means that even if the government pushes for it, it might never be built anyway.
Far more sensible is to look beyond Heathrow, it will be quicker, cheaper and less controversial.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11712465/greece-crisis-live-no-vote-polls.html
Bet at your peril!
O/T: A couple of days since Winton died but still worth catching this clip if you haven't seen it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nFuJAF5F0&ncid=newsletter-uk
- Polls
- PB comments
- Wikipedia
But a bot which has been incorrectly programmed with regard to full stops. ;-)
- I should have been a tennis player
or
- I should have married a tennis player
Fantastic seats!
UKIP are a right-wing party. 50.5% of UK voters voted for right-wing parties, 55.0% in England.
However, I think we're both arguing on a false premise. There's little point in setting targets for public spending based on its relation to national GDP. It's like the recently abolished measure of poverty; counter-productive.
We need to ensure we're spending the right amount of money. There are arguments (and political philosophies) around how much is 'right'. However, in Osborne's case, he doesn't have much choice - he has to get us back into surplus, we have to be in a position to manage the national debt. That requires a smaller state, at least for now.
Wherever we sit in the political spectrum, surely it's inarguable that spending a quarter of a trillion pounds on debt servicing (this parliament, and thence, ad nauseam) is a massive opportunity cost.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004D4Y29O?keywords=frank gardner&qid=1435857892&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_bailout_referendum,_2015#Opinion_polls
NO 51.5
YES 37
So that means that after the denial from GPO that it ever conducted that YES poll, all polls show NO in the lead.
The average is now:
NO 46
YES 37
The interesting thing is that all 3 polls that have been published show YES at exactly the same figure of 37%.
I will personally wait until tomorrow night before I'll make a prediction.
I felt very sorry for my kitties - they laid on the bathroom floor, or in the sink - even in front of a fan didn't help them.
I agree we have to cut spending to reduce the debt, if Osborne ended ringfencing he would be able to do it a bit quicker and more fairly
If he only has 30-something%, by your argument, he logically has no mandate to change anything. Which is in fact totally the opposite of the constitutional reality, whereby he has a mandate to do pretty much anything. Stop talking numbers, you're not convincing anyone more than Jonathan did last week about Tory vs Labour 'popularity'.
£10 on
Cutting the top rate of tax will likely increase the tax take in this country over the medium term, probably within the life of the parliament.
The best case scenario for Greece on Monday is that the Eurozone does nothing.
That is, it maintains the €93bn ELA lifeline for the Greek banking sector, and does nothing else.
So. The banks cannot open. And people still can't spend more than €60. That's the best case following a "No".
The NHS has just gone through a 4 year 20 billion efficiency programme. It's got to go through another 4 years of the same. If you want a health service like France be prepared to pay double what you do now and ours spends much less on administration.
I agree with you that as we move towards 30% ALL taxes should be cut, not just the top rate.
Hence the only modern PM to regularly cut income tax was one of the most popular in the modern era.
'The best case is that the EU cave'
That's a given whether it's yes or no,the final deal will just be even more expensive with a third bailout thrown in for good measure.
Saw the first set of Nadal and Brown. Extremely entertaining stuff.
The Northern European banks hardly own any Greek debt.
I agree there may be scope for further tax cuts beyond those announced but only once a surplus is achieved
Seen bits and pieces of other matches, but that was easily the most enthralling.
An MP from the junior governing partner has resigned from parliament after he came out for YES, under the greek system the next in line becomes MP so the government doesn't lose MP's.
We spend around 8% of GDP on healthcare. That's only going to go up. We spend about 15% on welfare, including pensions. That's difficult to tackle, both practically and politically. I'd expect that to rise, though more gently than healthcare spending.
I'd rather we concentrated on economic growth, from which flows the ability to have the debate about how much (and what on) we spend. Greece is an extreme example of what happens when you don't.
If British GDP doubled, would you like public spending to double too? Just to keep the % up?
As some of us were saying at the time, they should have insisted on smartcards in all the new DTV boxes sold/handed out on digital switchover, ready for a potential subscription service. The fact they did not was a major mistake, and one that is very hard to rectify.
My theory that many socialists don't understand percentages remains intact....
You can guess which method is recommended by the Conservatives and which one by labour.
The Tory share of the vote dropped dramatically after they cut the top rate in 2012, they eventually recovered, that does not mean lightning will strike twice
Thank goodness.
Edit: not meant seriously, to be clear
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
Collectively, we seem to be incapable of looking at the world in the medium or long term. That's exacerbated by our modern political scene, which is woefully short of visionaries and strategists.
A wonderfully pleasant and fresh evening in London Town after the heat of the past 36 hours.
My critique of Osborne (and I have to say Coalition) economic policy was the absurdity of ring-fencing certain areas of Government expenditure. The concept of "sacred cows" notwithstanding, it seems hard to argue that if local Government can make efficiency savings without, so some say, impairing front-line service delivery, the same should be true of the NHS, Police Authorities and everyone else.
As for benefits, we spend around £160 billion of which £75 billion is or are pensions. If that is sacrosanct, the proposed cut is £12 billion off a budget of £85 billion which will be interesting.
- left wing
- centre left
- centrist
- centre right
- right wing
Want a laugh?
Ted Cruz auditions for the Simpsons (this is real people, a US senator and presidential candidate has dropped so low):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0sRkvX4KE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ervjj_qRXXQ
The radicalism and purpose of Thatcher is completely absent from Cameron, who has no idea why he wants to be Prime Minister, except that it is an Eton lark (I mean this in the nicest possible way).
Ringfencing is a good way to appear nice while accepting that a long-term fiscal direction doesn't exist for this government, except welfare cuts that nobody has any idea how to implement.
As for the previous comments regarding best case scenarios. I think that is the best case no matter what the vote. There is no way Greek banks are stable and liquid enough for capital controls to be removable...
Readers would be like the British public, a mild centre-right plurality but with very few at all self-identifying as right-wing.
Commenters would be about 75 centre-right or right-wing.
I guess because betting is an individualistic activity.