@IsabelHardman: More importantly, aside from his "IF I offended" stuff, McDonnell basically admitted he hadn't yet worked out his main line of attack on CSR
I'm still scratching my head over Labour on Trident - there were hardly any votes cast - Jezza didn't vote did he? Did all the rest not turn up or abstain?
George Osborne has shown he is an artful chancellor of the exchequer and, so far, a lucky one. A marked improvement in forecast tax revenue, together with an inept Opposition that considers it clever to quote Chairman Mao, allowed him to make tactical retreats in his Autumn Statement, while cleverly masking the size of other more controversial moves.
Let there be no doubt: Mr Osborne’s strategic direction remains unchanged. He wants to continue to shrink the size of government. His plans will leave the state to focus ever more on health and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
Having slept on it I tend to agree with this. Osborne has really been at his tricks again. All the headlines and controversy is about the movement of relatively small sums on the surface whilst much larger sums were quietly deducted from unprotected departments underneath. Any idea that he has abandoned austerity is false and misleading.
Do I like this kind of politics? Not really. I think that it undermines the essential messages about the importance of getting our accounts in order and trying to prepare this country for the next inevitable downturn. He did the same in the last Parliament when he undermined the very valuable "we are all in it together" meme with his higher rate tax cut.
This country is still living way beyond its means, we still think that we are entitled to largesse and goodies from the State that the tax base cannot sustain. We are piling up debt for our children at a disgraceful rate. At the moment that debt is cheap but there is no guarantee that it will remain so and the vast majority of it will be rolled over as it matures. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
@Maomentum_: Every Labour leader has betrayed the party the moment he walked into Downing St. Thank god under @jeremycorbyn this can never happen again.
@Maomentum_: Every Labour leader has betrayed the party the moment he walked into Downing St. Thank god under @jeremycorbyn this can never happen again.
Mr. Scrapheap: Strategic Defence Review response - quotes about abolishing the army (in August of this year) and disbanding MI5 (April) sunk Corbyn/McDonnell Trident - Corbyn lost this before it started Autumn statement - McDonnell quoted from Mao [who is next? Stalin?] Syria statement - if the top 2 can avoid quoting Stalin, they may just scrape a draw.
There's still the NHS, where McDonnell could yet reach for his Mass Murderer du Jour: "that Dr. Harold Shipman, he had the right idea about caring for the elderly..."
George Osborne has shown he is an artful chancellor of the exchequer and, so far, a lucky one. A marked improvement in forecast tax revenue, together with an inept Opposition that considers it clever to quote Chairman Mao, allowed him to make tactical retreats in his Autumn Statement, while cleverly masking the size of other more controversial moves.
Let there be no doubt: Mr Osborne’s strategic direction remains unchanged. He wants to continue to shrink the size of government. His plans will leave the state to focus ever more on health and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
Having slept on it I tend to agree with this. Osborne has really been at his tricks again. All the headlines and controversy is about the movement of relatively small sums on the surface whilst much larger sums were quietly deducted from unprotected departments underneath. Any idea that he has abandoned austerity is false and misleading.
Do I like this kind of politics? Not really. I think that it undermines the essential messages about the importance of getting our accounts in order and trying to prepare this country for the next inevitable downturn. He did the same in the last Parliament when he undermined the very valuable "we are all in it together" meme with his higher rate tax cut.
This country is still living way beyond its means, we still think that we are entitled to largesse and goodies from the State that the tax base cannot sustain. We are piling up debt for our children at a disgraceful rate. At the moment that debt is cheap but there is no guarantee that it will remain so and the vast majority of it will be rolled over as it matures. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
The article points out that he is still intent on shrinking the size of the state.
Mr. Foxinsox, be fair. It's a Long March from Labour HQ to the Commons.
Even more so when the first step starts with the loss of a million votes....
I think of the 100 000 communists who set out on the long march only 5 000 survived. So there is some hope (albeit 1/20) of survival for current Labour MPs.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Yes. It's time people tried to engage their brains when discussing Osborne. Far too many somply cannot understand economic management. Local authorities will still see significant cuts. It's not less austerity we need its more reform of delivering services.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Yes. It's time people tried to engage their brains when discussing Osborne. Far too many somply cannot understand economic management. Local authorities will still see significant cuts. It's not less austerity we need its more reform of delivering services.
Some quite big cuts in the DoH outside the NHS. 25% off public health, and apparantly converting bursaries to loans will improve nurse recruitment. Colour me a little sceptical!
George Osborne has shown he is an artful chancellor of the exchequer and, so far, a lucky one. A marked improvement in forecast tax revenue, together with an inept Opposition that considers it clever to quote Chairman Mao, allowed him to make tactical retreats in his Autumn Statement, while cleverly masking the size of other more controversial moves.
Let there be no doubt: Mr Osborne’s strategic direction remains unchanged. He wants to continue to shrink the size of government. His plans will leave the state to focus ever more on health and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
Having slept on it I tend to agree with this. Osborne has really been at his tricks again. All the headlines and controversy is about the movement of relatively small sums on the surface whilst much larger sums were quietly deducted from unprotected departments underneath. Any idea that he has abandoned austerity is false and misleading.
Do I like this kind of politics? Not really. I think that it undermines the essential messages about the importance of getting our accounts in order and trying to prepare this country for the next inevitable downturn. He did the same in the last Parliament when he undermined the very valuable "we are all in it together" meme with his higher rate tax cut.
This country is still living way beyond its means, we still think that we are entitled to largesse and goodies from the State that the tax base cannot sustain. We are piling up debt for our children at a disgraceful rate. At the moment that debt is cheap but there is no guarantee that it will remain so and the vast majority of it will be rolled over as it matures. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
The article points out that he is still intent on shrinking the size of the state.
That's what I said as well. He is indeed. What he has done is lost his nerve in seeking to sell the importance of shrinking the state to what we can afford. The headlines today indicate that he has given up on austerity. That is not true but in allowing that perception he gives credence to the Labour position that austerity was a political choice not an economic necessity. It was and is necessary and a Tory chancellor should not be shy of saying so or making the case.
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Yes. It's time people tried to engage their brains when discussing Osborne. Far too many somply cannot understand economic management. Local authorities will still see significant cuts. It's not less austerity we need its more reform of delivering services.
Plus the welfare cap and cuts to the Home Office, Transport, the Treasury and other Whitehall Departments. Councils will be able to raise council tax to fund social care. Ludicrous though the Overseas Aid budget will now be bigger than that for thr Home Office
George Osborne has shown he is an artful chancellor of the exchequer and, so far, a lucky one. A marked improvement in forecast tax revenue, together with an inept Opposition that considers it clever to quote Chairman Mao, allowed him to make tactical retreats in his Autumn Statement, while cleverly masking the size of other more controversial moves.
Let there be no doubt: Mr Osborne’s strategic direction remains unchanged. He wants to continue to shrink the size of government. His plans will leave the state to focus ever more on health and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
Having slept on it I tend to agree with this. Osborne has really been at his tricks again. All the headlines and controversy is about the movement of relatively small sums on the surface whilst much larger sums were quietly deducted from unprotected departments underneath. Any idea that he has abandoned austerity is false and misleading.
Do I like this kind of politics? Not really. I think that it undermines the essential messages about the importance of getting our accounts in order and trying to prepare this country for the next inevitable downturn. He did the same in the last Parliament when he undermined the very valuable "we are all in it together" meme with his higher rate tax cut.
This country is still living way beyond its means, we still think that we are entitled to largesse and goodies from the State that the tax base cannot sustain. We are piling up debt for our children at a disgraceful rate. At the moment that debt is cheap but there is no guarantee that it will remain so and the vast majority of it will be rolled over as it matures. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
The article points out that he is still intent on shrinking the size of the state.
That's what I said as well. He is indeed. What he has done is lost his nerve in seeking to sell the importance of shrinking the state to what we can afford. The headlines today indicate that he has given up on austerity. That is not true but in allowing that perception he gives credence to the Labour position that austerity was a political choice not an economic necessity. It was and is necessary and a Tory chancellor should not be shy of saying so or making the case.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Yes. It's time people tried to engage their brains when discussing Osborne. Far too many somply cannot understand economic management. Local authorities will still see significant cuts. It's not less austerity we need its more reform of delivering services.
Plus the welfare cap and cuts to the Home Office, Transport, the Treasury and other Whitehall Departments. Councils will be able to raise council tax to fund social care. Ludicrous though the Overseas Aid budget will now be bigger than that for thr Home Office
There have been reports of fraud and mismanagement of aid for Syrian refugees. This money could be diverted to pay for elderly care. Instead large numbers of people will pay more council tax.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Yes. It's time people tried to engage their brains when discussing Osborne. Far too many somply cannot understand economic management. Local authorities will still see significant cuts. It's not less austerity we need its more reform of delivering services.
Funnily enough disagreeing with Osborne or his economic approach doesn't mean you are brainless.
There are criticisms from several posters here who have defended Osborne in the past. Not just me but also respected pb'ers like Robert Smithson, DavidL and - I assume - David Herdson who did not want Osborne to backtrack.
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
The lucky chancellor continually deciding to let it ride? I can see that.
Mr. Foxinsox, be fair. It's a Long March from Labour HQ to the Commons.
Be fair .... the Long March from Labour HQ to Downing Street is like a Star Trek episode :
These are the voyages of the Corbynite Labour Party. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilisations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Yes. It's time people tried to engage their brains when discussing Osborne. Far too many somply cannot understand economic management. Local authorities will still see significant cuts. It's not less austerity we need its more reform of delivering services.
Funnily enough disagreeing with Osborne or his economic approach doesn't mean you are brainless.
There are criticisms from several posters here who have defended Osborne in the past. Not just me but also respected pb'ers like Robert Smithson, DavidL and - I assume - David Herdson who did not want Osborne to backtrack.
You can't just dismiss them.
I thought Smithson Jnr's comment yesterday was very telling.
Mr. W, one can only imagine the episode where Kirk lands on Planet Corbyn.
"Captain's Log: Corbyn is a strange place, a place where all the laws of reason and logic appear to play no part. Men cheerfully quote mass murderers, and the army has been abolished, despite the perpetual war."
Mr. W, one can only imagine the episode where Kirk lands on Planet Corbyn.
"Captain's Log: Corbyn is a strange place, a place where all the laws of reason and logic appear to play no part. Men cheerfully quote mass murderers, and the army has been abolished, despite the perpetual war."
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
snip
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
snip
.
Plus the welfare cap and cuts to the Home Office, Transport, the Treasury and other Whitehall Departments. Councils will be able to raise council tax to fund social care. Ludicrous though the Overseas Aid budget will now be bigger than that for thr Home Office
There have been reports of fraud and mismanagement of aid for Syrian refugees. This money could be diverted to pay for elderly care. Instead large numbers of people will pay more council tax.
Morning all,
"Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020."
Yep, I'd agree. The same thought crossed my mind as soon as I saw the run of 2% per annum growth figures stretching into the distance. And yet we are due a recession by historical standards, probably in 2017 or 2018.
Having said that, all Chancellors do this. Everything he said will be entirely forgotten by then.
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
The mere existence of the state and the job of chancellor means he is going to 'meddle'.
The problem in giving people much larger tax free allowances every year is that it means employers can avoid giving pay rises because the government is upping disposable income, while some in work subsidies (tax credits) never reduce because they are based on gross pay and it all hinders the chancellor in the job of balancing the books.
Forcing up gross pay cuts in work subsidies and drives an increase in earnings tax revenue, which helps balance the books.
Osborne could also do with a bit of inflation to inflate VAT takings and so on.
The risk, of course, is an increase in unemployment and fewer workers - but immigration makes the latter unlikely.
George Osborne has showalth and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
Having slept on it I
Do n he undermined the very valuable "we are all in it together" meme with his higher rate tax cut.
This country is still living way beyond its means, we still think that we are entitled to largesse and goodies from the State that the tax base cannot sustain. We are piling up debt for our children at a disgraceful rate. At the moment that debt is cheap but there is no guarantee that it will remain so and the vast majority of it will be rolled over as it matures. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
The article points out that he is still intent on shrinking the size of the state.
That's what I said as well. He is indeed. What he has done is lost his nerve in seeking to sell the importance of shrinking the state to what we can afford. The headlines today indicate that he has given up on austerity. That is not true but in allowing that perception he gives credence to the Labour position that austerity was a political choice not an economic necessity. It was and is necessary and a Tory chancellor should not be shy of saying so or making the case.
Austerity was a political choice. Back George Osborne and any sensible erstwhile Labour MP with any kind of economic brief or knowledge into a corner and they would accept that.
Spending was too high, yes, but austerity was a political choice which chimed with the prevailing mood where Greece, Italy, Spain, etc were or people believed soon could be facing cataclysm.
But they were in the euro. We were and are not. There is no such thing as running out of money and hence bond yields are protected if you can issue your own currency. I mean we lost our supposed crucial AAA rating and no one seemed to notice (as, of course, did the US).
So GO's decision was a political one tapping into the mood of fear and uncertainty. It was of course hugely successful eventually, including scaring Lab into not knowing quite how to respond.
Spending had to slow dramatically but austerity was not a necessity. It was politically expedient and may or may not have affected the pace of recovery.
The sooner Cons supporters understand and accept that the more healthy future debate about policy direction will be.
Back in March there was a conversation on here about West Coast Railways, who operate steam and diesel charters on Network Rail. Back then, the ORR suspended their operations as an excursion train passed a signal at danger and nearly caused a crash. It turned out that the footplate crew had disabled the on-train warning system, allowing it to pass the red signal.
After a few months, they were allowed to start running services again. But as of last night, their right to run steam services was mostly suspended once again. The reason? Last month an inspection showed that someone had disabled the warning system on another train.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Yes. It's time people tried to engage their brains when discussing Osborne. Far too many somply cannot understand economic management. Local authorities will still see significant cuts. It's not less austerity we need its more reform of delivering services.
Plus the welfare cap and cuts to the Home Office, Transport, the Treasury and other Whitehall Departments. Councils will be able to raise council tax to fund social care. Ludicrous though the Overseas Aid budget will now be bigger than that for thr Home Office
There have been reports of fraud and mismanagement of aid for Syrian refugees. This money could be diverted to pay for elderly care. Instead large numbers of people will pay more council tax.
Reducing spending on Public Health, especially preventative medicine, has an effect down the line on the NHS. Will we see a rise in the rate of teenage pregnancy, for example?
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Yes. It's time people tried to engage their brains when discussing Osborne. Far too many somply cannot understand economic management. Local authorities will still see significant cuts. It's not less austerity we need its more reform of delivering services.
Some quite big cuts in the DoH outside the NHS. 25% off public health, and apparantly converting bursaries to loans will improve nurse recruitment. Colour me a little sceptical!
The idea being that loans won't deter applicants so much as the quid pro quo - abolishing the cap on places - achieves. Osborne said the current places were significantly oversubscribed - if that's right, then the logic seems fair.
George Osborne has showalth and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
[...]
This country is still living way beyond its means, we still think that we are entitled to largesse and goodies from the State that the tax base cannot sustain. We are piling up debt for our children at a disgraceful rate. At the moment that debt is cheap but there is no guarantee that it will remain so and the vast majority of it will be rolled over as it matures. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
The article points out that he is still intent on shrinking the size of the state.
That's what I said as well. He is indeed. What he has done is lost his nerve in seeking to sell the importance of shrinking the state to what we can afford. The headlines today indicate that he has given up on austerity. That is not true but in allowing that perception he gives credence to the Labour position that austerity was a political choice not an economic necessity. It was and is necessary and a Tory chancellor should not be shy of saying so or making the case.
Austerity was a political choice. Back George Osborne and any sensible erstwhile Labour MP with any kind of economic brief or knowledge into a corner and they would accept that.
Spending was too high, yes, but austerity was a political choice which chimed with the prevailing mood where Greece, Italy, Spain, etc were or people believed soon could be facing cataclysm.
But they were in the euro. We were and are not. There is no such thing as running out of money and hence bond yields are protected if you can issue your own currency. I mean we lost our supposed crucial AAA rating and no one seemed to notice (as, of course, did the US).
So GO's decision was a political one tapping into the mood of fear and uncertainty. It was of course hugely successful eventually, including scaring Lab into not knowing quite how to respond.
Spending had to slow dramatically but austerity was not a necessity. It was politically expedient and may or may not have affected the pace of recovery.
The sooner Cons supporters understand and accept that the more healthy future debate about policy direction will be.
It seems very unlikely given the rate of growth actually achieved that a less austerity driven policy could have achieved more in growth; therefore the choice would remain tax rises or spending cuts. Increasing inflation is, of course, just another form of regressive taxation.
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
The mere existence of the state and the job of chancellor means he is going to 'meddle'.
The problem in giving people much larger tax free allowances every year is that it means employers can avoid giving pay rises because the government is upping disposable income, while some in work subsidies (tax credits) never reduce because they are based on gross pay and it all hinders the chancellor in the job of balancing the books.
Forcing up gross pay cuts in work subsidies and drives an increase in earnings tax revenue, which helps balance the books.
Osborne could also do with a bit of inflation to inflate VAT takings and so on.
The risk, of course, is an increase in unemployment and fewer workers - but immigration makes the latter unlikely.
Well quite, but the state doesn't exist, it was created by people like Osborne and he is manipulating it to his own end. Take "the living wage", if Brown had so much as mentioned that the tories would have been apoplectic.
Osborne is making no attempt at balancing the books despite running a campaign to do exactly that. We spend £1bn each month on foreign aid, very few people have the foggiest idea where it goes.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Let's leave out the spin: what do you think?
Osborne is assuming there's no economic downturn between now and 2020.
Sir Humphrey would call that a courageous assumption.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Let's leave out the spin: what do you think?
Osborne is assuming there's no economic downturn between now and 2020.
Sir Humphrey would call that a courageous assumption.
Fair enough. I thought you might have a view on scrapping the tax credit cuts and increasing employer NI instead, as well as breeching the welfare cap and allowing council tax to rise.
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
The mere existence of the state and the job of chancellor means he is going to 'meddle'.
The problem in giving people much larger tax free allowances every year is that it means employers can avoid giving pay rises because the government is upping disposable income, while some in work subsidies (tax credits) never reduce because they are based on gross pay and it all hinders the chancellor in the job of balancing the books.
Forcing up gross pay cuts in work subsidies and drives an increase in earnings tax revenue, which helps balance the books.
Osborne could also do with a bit of inflation to inflate VAT takings and so on.
The risk, of course, is an increase in unemployment and fewer workers - but immigration makes the latter unlikely.
Well quite, but the state doesn't exist, it was created by people like Osborne and he is manipulating it to his own end. Take "the living wage", if Brown had so much as mentioned that the tories would have been apoplectic.
Osborne is making no attempt at balancing the books despite running a campaign to do exactly that. We spend £1bn each month on foreign aid, very few people have the foggiest idea where it goes.
George Osborne has showalth and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
[...]
This country is still living way beyond its means, we still think that we are entitled to largesse and goodies from the State that the tax base cannot sustain. We are piling up debt for our children at a disgraceful rate. At the moment that debt is cheap but there is no guarantee that it will remain so and the vast majority of it will be rolled over as it matures. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
The article points out that he is still intent on shrinking the size of the state.
That's what I said as well. He an economic necessity. It was and is necessary and a Tory chancellor should not be shy of saying so or making the case.
Austerity was a political choice
But they were in the euro. We were and are not. There is no such thing as running out of money and hence bond yields are protected if you can issue your own currency. I mean we lost our supposed crucial AAA rating and no one seemed to notice (as, of course, did the US).
So GO's decision was a political one tapping into the mood of fear and uncertainty. It was of course hugely successful eventually, including scaring Lab into not knowing quite how to respond.
Spending had to slow dramatically but austerity was not a necessity. It was politically expedient and may or may not have affected the pace of recovery.
The sooner Cons supporters understand and accept that the more healthy future debate about policy direction will be.
It seems very unlikely given the rate of growth actually achieved that a less austerity driven policy could have achieved more in growth; therefore the choice would remain tax rises or spending cuts. Increasing inflation is, of course, just another form of regressive taxation.
Yes don't disagree, although there was a lot of current consumption driving growth (still is). Perhaps spending where the multiplier might have helped rebalance growth..but such speculation doesn't achieve anything today.
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
The mere existence of the state and the job of chancellor means he is going to 'meddle'.
The problem in giving people much larger tax free allowances every year is that it means employers can avoid giving pay rises because the government is upping disposable income, while some in work subsidies (tax credits) never reduce because they are based on gross pay and it all hinders the chancellor in the job of balancing the books.
Forcing up gross pay cuts in work subsidies and drives an increase in earnings tax revenue, which helps balance the books.
Osborne could also do with a bit of inflation to inflate VAT takings and so on.
The risk, of course, is an increase in unemployment and fewer workers - but immigration makes the latter unlikely.
Well quite, but the state doesn't exist, it was created by people like Osborne and he is manipulating it to his own end. Take "the living wage", if Brown had so much as mentioned that the tories would have been apoplectic.
Osborne is making no attempt at balancing the books despite running a campaign to do exactly that. We spend £1bn each month on foreign aid, very few people have the foggiest idea where it goes.
Do you have the foggiest where it goes?
No and frankly I don't care, we're £1.5 trillion in debt, our foreign aid budget is the biggest in the world.
Frontbenchers were left infuriated as Mr Corbyn demanded they consult their local parties - which have swelled with his supporters since he became leader - before making a decision.
After the closed-door meeting senior Labour MPs found dozens of emails from Momentum and Stop The War Coalition, which Mr Corbyn once chaired, lobbying them to block the bombings.
George Osborne has showalth and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
Having slept on it I
Do n he undermined the very valuable "we are all in it together" meme with his higher rate tax cut.
This country is still living way beyond its means, we still think that we are entitled to largesse and goodies from the State that the tax base cannot sustain. We are piling up debt for our children at a disgraceful rate. At the moment that debt is cheap but there is no guarantee that it will remain so and the vast majority of it will be rolled over as it matures. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
The article points out that he is still intent on shrinking the size of the state.
That's what I said as well. He is indeed. What he has done is lost his nerve in seeking to sell the importance of shrinking the state to what we can afford. The headlines today indicate that he has given up on austerity. That is not true but in allowing that perception he gives credence to the Labour position that austerity was a political choice not an economic necessity. It was and is necessary and a Tory chancellor should not be shy of saying so or making the case.
Austerity was a political choice. Back George Osborne and any sensible erstwhile Labour MP with any kind of economic brief or knowledge into a corner and they would accept that.
Spending was too high, yes, but austerity was a political choice which chimed with the prevailing mood where Greece, Italy, Spain, etc were or people believed soon could be facing cataclysm.
But they were in the euro. We were and are not. There is no such thing as running out of money and hence bond yields are protected if you can issue your own currency. I mean we lost our supposed crucial AAA rating and no one seemed to notice (as, of course, did the US).
So GO's decision was a political one tapping into the mood of fear and uncertainty. It was of course hugely successful eventually, including scaring Lab into not knowing quite how to respond.
Spending had to slow dramatically but austerity was not a necessity. It was politically expedient and may or may not have affected the pace of recovery.
The sooner Cons supporters understand and accept that the more healthy future debate about policy direction will be.
You lost me when you said austerity was a political choice. You risked permenantly losing me (on economic posts of yours) when you said there was no such thing as running out of money.
I have always thought the comparisons between Brown and Osborne were lazy and frankly silly but one thing they have in common is that you do have to watch what they do much more carefully than what they say.
In the last Parliament Osborne talked very tough but his actions were extremely nuanced, responding to the economic situation, particularly in the EZ, with remarkable skill delivering growth and employment in a very difficult situation.
In this Parliament he has responded to Labour abandoning the centre ground by seeking to seize it for the Tories. This has made his rhetoric much more moderate, understating his direction of travel rather than overstating it as he did previously. I preferred the mark I version.
It beggars belief that train crew would turn off the safety system against regulation.
According to local press, there was a similar cause to the Alton towers rollercoaster accident a few months ago. Manual override...
It's surprising how many incidents are caused by incorrect usage of manual overrides. People realise that something is easier or quicker using the override, so they use it. Unfortunately they also lose the associated safety systems. The same is true for other safety systems.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020.
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're opponents are Corbyn and McDonnell you know you can't lose, even if George went round to every marginal voters' house and took a dump in their living rooms, he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've spent far too much of the last 48 hours with depressed Labour supporters.
To quote one them, Osborne as PM could announce he had appointed Herod the Great as Minister for Childcare and he'd still get a majority because his opponents are shite.
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Let's leave out the spin: what do you think?
Osborne is assuming there's no economic downturn between now and 2020.
Sir Humphrey would call that a courageous assumption.
Fair enough. I thought you might have a view on scrapping the tax credit cuts and increasing employer NI instead, as well as allowing council tax to rise.
Not to mention his overall political judgement.
Experience has taught me not to underestimate George Osborne.
But the increase on NI is a mistake (a tax on job creation is the phrase)
Would I like him to cut spending more and not increase taxes, yes I would, without a doubt, but I realise Osborne has to live in both the economic and political worlds.
As I noted up thread the fact is he's cut nearly as much in five years than Thatcher did in eleven years.
I'm happy with Osborne's general direction of travel. I just wish he'd get there quicker in a slightly different route
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
The mere existence of the state and the job of chancellor means he is going to 'meddle'.
The problem in giving people much larger tax free allowances every year is that it means employers can avoid giving pay rises because the government is upping disposable income, while some in work subsidies (tax credits) never reduce because they are based on gross pay and it all hinders the chancellor in the job of balancing the books.
Forcing up gross pay cuts in work subsidies and drives an increase in earnings tax revenue, which helps balance the books.
Osborne could also do with a bit of inflation to inflate VAT takings and so on.
The risk, of course, is an increase in unemployment and fewer workers - but immigration makes the latter unlikely.
Well quite, but the state doesn't exist, it was created by people like Osborne and he is manipulating it to his own end. Take "the living wage", if Brown had so much as mentioned that the tories would have been apoplectic.
Osborne is making no attempt at balancing the books despite running a campaign to do exactly that. We spend £1bn each month on foreign aid, very few people have the foggiest idea where it goes.
Do you have the foggiest where it goes?
No and frankly I don't care, we're £1.5 trillion in debt, our foreign aid budget is the biggest in the world.
Perhaps you should look into it and make an informed decision on whether you support it or not.
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
The mere existence of the state and the job of chancellor means he is going to 'meddle'.
The problem in giving people much larger tax free allowances every year is that it means employers can avoid giving pay rises because the government is upping disposable income, while some in work subsidies (tax credits) never reduce because they are based on gross pay and it all hinders the chancellor in the job of balancing the books.
Forcing up gross pay cuts in work subsidies and drives an increase in earnings tax revenue, which helps balance the books.
Osborne could also do with a bit of inflation to inflate VAT takings and so on.
The risk, of course, is an increase in unemployment and fewer workers - but immigration makes the latter unlikely.
Well quite, but the state doesn't exist, it was created by people like Osborne and he is manipulating it to his own end. Take "the living wage", if Brown had so much as mentioned that the tories would have been apoplectic.
Osborne is making no attempt at balancing the books despite running a campaign to do exactly that. We spend £1bn each month on foreign aid, very few people have the foggiest idea where it goes.
Do you have the foggiest where it goes?
He assumes that it goes into the pockets of 'foreigners', and that's enough.
Of ours, were foreign aid slashed and he was now dying of Ebola, the thought would be 'why didn't we do anything to stop it spreading?'
Osborne is engineering an upward movement in wages, whilst at the same time freezing thresholds for NI, student loan repayments etc and withdrawing in work benefits with the transition to Universal Credit.
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
The mere existence of the state and the job of chancellor means he is going to 'meddle'.
The problem in giving people much larger tax free allowances every year is that it means employers can avoid giving pay rises because the government is upping disposable income, while some in work subsidies (tax credits) never reduce because they are based on gross pay and it all hinders the chancellor in the job of balancing the books.
Forcing up gross pay cuts in work subsidies and drives an increase in earnings tax revenue, which helps balance the books.
Osborne could also do with a bit of inflation to inflate VAT takings and so on.
The risk, of course, is an increase in unemployment and fewer workers - but immigration makes the latter unlikely.
Well quite, but the state doesn't exist, it was created by people like Osborne and he is manipulating it to his own end. Take "the living wage", if Brown had so much as mentioned that the tories would have been apoplectic.
Osborne is making no attempt at balancing the books despite running a campaign to do exactly that. We spend £1bn each month on foreign aid, very few people have the foggiest idea where it goes.
Do you have the foggiest where it goes?
No and frankly I don't care, we're £1.5 trillion in debt, our foreign aid budget is the biggest in the world.
Perhaps you should look into it and make an informed decision on whether you support it or not.
I've made an informed decision based on knocking of hundreds of doors of council estates earlier this year thanks. You should come with next time and ask people what they think of our foreign aid budget.
''As I noted up thread the fact is he's cut nearly as much in five years than Thatcher did in eleven years. ''
Let's get some perspective here. Mrs Thatcher inherited an economy that closely resembled a former soviet bloc state.
George Osborne inherited an economy that was heavily indebted, but had a huge money making machine at its core in the form of financial services. A money making machine Mrs Thatcher single handedly ushered in.
All he has really done so far is make it more and more indebted.
''Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.''
He isn;t just gambling our children and grandchildren's future Mr Blackburn, he's gambling the tory party's future.
when you take a reputation for economic competence away from the tory party, you get 1997. Complete wipeout.
Labour only need a decent person to be right back in the game.
Generally agree with that, except for the final sentence. The longer Corbyn stays in place, the greater the damage that is done to the Labour Party's electoral chances. And the more it is damaged, the more it moves away from the Blairite electability, the more they need a genius rather than a 'decent person'.
The problem is Labour does not seem to have many geniuses, and particularly any with enough of a backbone to deal with the Corbynite threat.
Yes, but we are in a wholly different world to Thatcher's time now so such comparisons don't impress me much. There were larger and faster cuts under Denis Healey/Callaghan - economic reality can force your hand.
Leaving aside the economics, my big criticism is his political judgement: he got it wrong in the first place by making the tax credit cuts too fast and unfairly stepped on the withdrawal rate, then he and his aides put it about that he didn't think much of anyone on welfare, sneering rather than recognising many were decent folk in a welfare trap.
Then he chose to have a separate vote on the tax credit cuts to wrongfoot Labour in the Commons (which he won more than once, at notable political cost) but it ultimately backfired as pressure built up and the Lords rejected it.
And now he's done a full u-turn - and gone through all of the above for nothing. Either he was playing politics the whole time (badly) or he has fickle economic judgement.
Neither are good. He might have got out of a short-term hole but, having got it wrong first and hen having done a full u-turn that cedes the entire political argument, I lost respect for him as a potential leader yesterday.
George Osborne has showalth and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
The article points out that he is still intent on shrinking the size of the state.
ption he gives credence to the Labour position that austerity was a political choice not an economic necessity. It was and is necessary and a Tory chancellor should not be shy of saying so or making the case.
Austerity was a political choice. Back George Osborne and any sensible erstwhile Labour MP with any kind of economic brief or knowledge into a corner and they would accept that.
Spending was too high, yes, but austerity was a political choice which chimed with the prevailing mood where Greece, Italy, Spain, etc were or people believed soon could be facing cataclysm.
But they were in the euro. We were and are not. There is no such thing as running out of money and hence bond yields are protected if you can issue your own currency. I mean we lost our supposed crucial AAA rating and no one seemed to notice (as, of course, did the US).
So GO's decision was a political one tapping into the mood of fear and uncertainty. It was of course hugely successful eventually, including scaring Lab into not knowing quite how to respond.
Spending had to slow dramatically but austerity was not a necessity. It was politically expedient and may or may not have affected the pace of recovery.
The sooner Cons supporters understand and accept that the more healthy future debate about policy direction will be.
You lost me when you said austerity was a political choice. You risked permenantly losing me (on economic posts of yours) when you said there was no such thing as running out of money.
I'm sorry your nuances are too nuanced!
I am assuming you think we could run out of money and austerity was not a political choice?
On your second point, for an economy which is able to issue and which borrows in its own currency it cannot run out of money. I'm sorry but that is just a truism. There may be other consequences but suffice to say in 2008 they were not a significant factor, they still probably aren't (unless you are expecting rampant inflation any time soon).
On your first point, if you accept the above then austerity does indeed become a political choice.
Haha put some Palmolive on Mr Watford, it will stop your hands chafing as you wring them together.
Anybody would think the only people that ever die are Africans with ebola, sad as that is take a trip to a children's hospice or a cancer ward in your town then tell me where your priorities lie.
Doesn't that nullify Labour's attack about austerity? I think the Spectator had a chart showing some departments were down 20% between now and 2020.
Kinda. I had drin
If there is a recession then Osborne is fecked.
Seems a losing gambit, quite frankly.
If you're he'd win a majority.
Well he might - but he wouldn't get my vote.
I've sp
(I'm so using the Herod the Great line in a future thread)
What do you think of the new fiscally wet, socially liberal, not obsessed with the Gays or Europe Tory Party?
Osborne is still drier than Thatcher, see the comment from RBS economics up thread.
@BBCNormanS: Spending Review not the end of the austerity - Paul Johnson @TheIFS
Let's leave out the spin: what do you think?
Osborne is assuming there's no economic downturn between now and 2020.
Sir Humphrey would call that a courageous assumption.
Fair enough. I thought you might have a view on scrapping the tax credit cuts and increasing employer NI instead, as well as allowing council tax to rise.
Not to mention his overall political judgement.
Experience has taught me not to underestimate George Osborne.
But the increase on NI is a mistake (a tax on job creation is the phrase)
Would I like him to cut spending more and not increase taxes, yes I would, without a doubt, but I realise Osborne has to live in both the economic and political worlds.
As I noted up thread the fact is he's cut nearly as much in five years than Thatcher did in eleven years.
I'm happy with Osborne's general direction of travel. I just wish he'd get there quicker in a slightly different route
In the words of Shakespeare "pish"
where were the reforms, the measures to rebalance the economy, trhe simplification of taxation etc.
are our banks still to big to fail ?
In January Osborne will have been in office for as long as it took to defeat Nazi Germany and has done very little.
If he wants to play politics he should bugger off and become party chairman and leave the CoE job to someone whose heart is in it.
I've made an informed decision based on knocking of hundreds of doors of council estates earlier this year thanks. You should come with next time and ask people what they think of our foreign aid budget.
But that's just pathetic. You're not making an 'informed decision': you're making an utterly uninformed decision based on generally uninformed anecdata.
It seems your doorstop conversations are out of tune with the GBP. Are you sure you've not got a lead ear for people who want us to meet our international obligations?
I have to say, Mr @chestnut you're one of the very few on here who actually has figures at his finger tips, that blow almost all the hyperbole out of the water.
Long may you post here. I'd love to see a thread header by you.
Haha put some Palmolive on Mr Watford, it will stop your hands chafing as you wring them together.
Anybody would think the only people that ever die are Africans with ebola, sad as that is take a trip to a children's hospice or a cancer ward in your town then tell me where your priorities lie.
We dodged a bullet with the last Ebola outbreak. That was overseas aid very well spent.
Haha put some Palmolive on Mr Watford, it will stop your hands chafing as you wring them together.
Anybody would think the only people that ever die are Africans with ebola, sad as that is take a trip to a children's hospice or a cancer ward in your town then tell me where your priorities lie.
We dodged a bullet with the last Ebola outbreak. That was overseas aid very well spent.
''If he wants to play politics he should bugger off and become party chairman and leave the CoE job to someone whose heart is in it.''
The big gag for me is that people have seen right through this budget. Everybody knows its a budget for George and not a budget for the country or even the party.
Haha put some Palmolive on Mr Watford, it will stop your hands chafing as you wring them together.
Anybody would think the only people that ever die are Africans with ebola, sad as that is take a trip to a children's hospice or a cancer ward in your town then tell me where your priorities lie.
We dodged a bullet with the last Ebola outbreak. That was overseas aid very well spent.
we would have spent the money to help out without the daft GDP target we have forced on ourselves
George Osborne has showalth and welfare. The first goal is defensible; the second carries risks.
. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
The article points out that he is still intent on shrinking the size of the state.
ptio
Austerity was a political choice. Back George Osborne and any sensible erstwhile Labour MP with any kind of economic brief or knowledge into a corner and they would accept that.
Spending was too high, yes, but austerity was a political choice which chimed with the prevailing mood where Greece, Italy, Spain, etc were or people believed soon could be facing cataclysm.
But they were in the euro. We were and are not. There is no such thing as running out of money and hence bond yields are protected if you can issue your own currency. I mean we lost our supposed crucial AAA rating and no one seemed to notice (as, of course, did the US).
So GO's decision was a political one tapping into the mood of fear and uncertainty. It was of course hugely successful eventually, including scaring Lab into not knowing quite how to respond.
Spending had to slow dramatically but austerity was not a necessity. It was politically expedient and may or may not have affected the pace of recovery.
The sooner Cons supporters understand and accept that the more healthy future debate about policy direction will be.
You lost me when you said austerity was a political choice. You risked permenantly losing me (on economic posts of yours) when you said there was no such thing as running out of money.
I'm sorry your nuances are too nuanced!
I am assuming you think we could run out of money and austerity was not a political choice?
On your second point, for an economy which is able to issue and which borrows in its own currency it cannot run out of money. I'm sorry but that is just a truism. There may be other consequences but suffice to say in 2008 they were not a significant factor, they still probably aren't (unless you are expecting rampant inflation any time soon).
On your first point, if you accept the above then austerity does indeed become a political choice.
Just because Governments with their own currency can always print more of it doesn't mean they can't run out of money.
Indeed, history shows that when Governments hit the printing presses it's precisely because they've run out of money.
Haha put some Palmolive on Mr Watford, it will stop your hands chafing as you wring them together.
Anybody would think the only people that ever die are Africans with ebola, sad as that is take a trip to a children's hospice or a cancer ward in your town then tell me where your priorities lie.
We dodged a bullet with the last Ebola outbreak. That was overseas aid very well spent.
So is it ALL well spent?
Nope. But given the choice I suspect you'd cut all overseas aid. And given what's happened that's crackers.
NHS waste and fiddles must be gargantuan too. Let's sort those out at the same time, and divert the money to the cancer wards and hospices.
Meanwhile I read more good news in the Telegraph this morning: Net immigration has hit a new record - 336,000 (636,000 gross) to the 12 months ending in June.
By the end of this parliament in 2020, the state will still be the same size as in 2001 – when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were starting to turn on the spending taps.
I've made an informed decision based on knocking of hundreds of doors of council estates earlier this year thanks. You should come with next time and ask people what they think of our foreign aid budget.
But that's just pathetic. You're not making an 'informed decision': you're making an utterly uninformed decision based on generally uninformed anecdata.
It seems your doorstop conversations are out of tune with the GBP. Are you sure you've not got a lead ear for people who want us to meet our international obligations?
All those other wicked countries around the world, refusing to be as generous as us.
Whether you like it or not, lots of people in the UK are having a tough time, for various reasons. Ask them what they think of us sending money to countries with space programmes.
And let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion: why not just ask countries how much they need and we fulfil their request? Come on - exactly how far should our benevolence extend when our debt is £1.5 trillion and rising?
Meanwhile I read more good news in the Telegraph this morning: Net immigration has hit a new record - 336,000 (636,000 gross) to the 12 months ending in June.
Yes, but we are in a wholly different world to Thatcher's time now so such comparisons don't impress me much. There were larger and faster cuts under Denis Healey/Callaghan - economic reality can force your hand.
Leaving aside the economics, my big criticism is his political judgement: he got it wrong in the first place by making the tax credit cuts too fast and unfairly stepped on the withdrawal rate, then he and his aides put it about that he didn't think much of anyone on welfare, sneering rather than recognising many were decent folk in a welfare trap.
Then he chose to have a separate vote on the tax credit cuts to wrongfoot Labour in the Commons (which he won more than once, at notable political cost) but it ultimately backfired as pressure built up and the Lords rejected it.
And now he's done a full u-turn - and gone through all of the above for nothing. Either he was playing politics the whole time (badly) or he has fickle economic judgement.
Neither are good. He might have got out of a short-term hole but, having got it wrong first and hen having done a full u-turn that cedes the entire political argument, I lost respect for him as a potential leader yesterday.
That's why I have a lot of sympathy for Osborne. Healey and Callaghan did what was best for the country. Whereas as Brown and Darling were determined to leave Osborne with several booby traps.
Interesting, I'm not sure the Chancellor's remit is to engineer anything. He should balance the books and get out of people's lives instead of meddling all the time.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
The mere existence of the state and the job of chancellor means he is going to 'meddle'.
The problem in giving people much larger tax free allowances every year is that it means employers can avoid giving pay rises because the government is upping disposable income, while some in work subsidies (tax credits) never reduce because they are based on gross pay and it all hinders the chancellor in the job of balancing the books.
Forcing up gross pay cuts in work subsidies and drives an increase in earnings tax revenue, which helps balance the books.
Osborne could also do with a bit of inflation to inflate VAT takings and so on.
The risk, of course, is an increase in unemployment and fewer workers - but immigration makes the latter unlikely.
Well quite, but the state doesn't exist, it was created by people like Osborne and he is manipulating it to his own end. Take "the living wage", if Brown had so much as mentioned that the tories would have been apoplectic.
Osborne is making no attempt at balancing the books despite running a campaign to do exactly that. We spend £1bn each month on foreign aid, very few people have the foggiest idea where it goes.
Do you have the foggiest where it goes?
No and frankly I don't care, we're £1.5 trillion in debt, our foreign aid budget is the biggest in the world.
The debt is not going to go away even once we balance the books. We will need decades of restraint on spending. And the deficit is coming down. Pretending that it is not hardly shows you in a good light. We are a country. We have responsibilities. Leaving aside the moral and humanitarian responsibilities to our fellow human beings we have a strategic responsibility to ourselves to create a safer and prosperous democratic world. Do we really want to spend more blood because we allow the world to regress backwards.
Haha put some Palmolive on Mr Watford, it will stop your hands chafing as you wring them together.
Anybody would think the only people that ever die are Africans with ebola, sad as that is take a trip to a children's hospice or a cancer ward in your town then tell me where your priorities lie.
We dodged a bullet with the last Ebola outbreak. That was overseas aid very well spent.
So is it ALL well spent?
Nope. But given the choice I suspect you'd cut all overseas aid. And given what's happened that's crackers.
NHS waste and fiddles must be gargantuan too. Let's sort those out at the same time, and divert the money to the cancer wards and hospices.
Well you suspect wrong, that's the problem with tribal assumptions. Any way I'll leave you now, I've got to go and bash some immigrants, protest against gay marriage, privatise the NHS and read about Enoch.
By the end of this parliament in 2020, the state will still be the same size as in 2001 – when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were starting to turn on the spending taps.
It's going to be interesting to see how he correlates his millions of new jobs promise with additional taxes on employers. This will make me look at sacking people.
Meanwhile, another disastrous set of immigration numbers...failure on the deficit, failure on the EU, failure on immigration...not a lot to get excited about.
"As I observed earlier, these are the pricks (courtesy TSE) who voted for the Chuckle Brothers and who now sustain them. For "brave" read "fucking idiotic".
The decision to choose Corbyn wasn't illogical. Choosing a clone of Ed wasn't an option and when the talk turned to terrorist sympathies circling the wagons wasn't unreasonable. Good socialists should hear other points of view. Appointing McDonnel caused the first flinch but his first few outings weren't a disaster.
It only started to unravel when it became obvious that he had no leadership skills and without direction the party couldn't function. Then it quickly fell apart and it's impossible to see how a recovery is now possible
Comments
Trump? Perhaps that's why he isn't proposing a Northern wall - he's going to just invade instead.
New York Times slams 'outrageous' Donald Trump for mocking reporter's disability
Republican front-runner twisted his arms in apparent imitation of Serge Kovaleski’s arthrogryposis as he reiterated controversial 9/11 claims
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/26/new-york-times-outrageous-donald-trump-mocking-reporter-disability
Do I like this kind of politics? Not really. I think that it undermines the essential messages about the importance of getting our accounts in order and trying to prepare this country for the next inevitable downturn. He did the same in the last Parliament when he undermined the very valuable "we are all in it together" meme with his higher rate tax cut.
This country is still living way beyond its means, we still think that we are entitled to largesse and goodies from the State that the tax base cannot sustain. We are piling up debt for our children at a disgraceful rate. At the moment that debt is cheap but there is no guarantee that it will remain so and the vast majority of it will be rolled over as it matures. These are important messages about consequences and mature, grown up politics and they get lost with slights of hand like yesterday.
Mr. Eagles, prefer Shapur II myself, but there we are.
Surprised there weren't more Shapurs, given the success of those two.
Mr. B, I'd vote for the Ultimate Warrior over Corbyn.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, that's despicable of Trump.
Still, just think of the educational value for youngsters who didn't know much about Mao before - they will now.
FFS.
Mr. Eagles, you always did focus too much on instances rather than the big picture (cf Hannibal).
http://www.nursingtimes.net/roles/nurse-educators/breaking-osborne-confirms-nurse-education-funding-reform/7000609.article
Obviously, there is a risk of increased unemployment, but again the public sector administrative payroll is being reduced. Norman Smith mentioned 80,000 posts.
Interesting to see the amalgamation of police forces mentioned yesterday by a PCC.
43 police forces in England, some with officer numbers below 1,000, others with over 30,000. I am inclined to imagine that there must be some economies of scale there.
There are criticisms from several posters here who have defended Osborne in the past. Not just me but also respected pb'ers like Robert Smithson, DavidL and - I assume - David Herdson who did not want Osborne to backtrack.
You can't just dismiss them.
Articles this morning saying if the £27bn windfall doesn't turn up we're royally f****d, he's gambling our future with his own career.
These are the voyages of the Corbynite Labour Party. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilisations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.
But .... Oldham West first ....
"Captain's Log: Corbyn is a strange place, a place where all the laws of reason and logic appear to play no part. Men cheerfully quote mass murderers, and the army has been abolished, despite the perpetual war."
"Kinda. I had drinks with someone who knows about economics. He said from his analysis, Osborne is betting the farm on there being no recession between now and 2020."
Yep, I'd agree. The same thought crossed my mind as soon as I saw the run of 2% per annum growth figures stretching into the distance. And yet we are due a recession by historical standards, probably in 2017 or 2018.
Having said that, all Chancellors do this. Everything he said will be entirely forgotten by then.
The problem in giving people much larger tax free allowances every year is that it means employers can avoid giving pay rises because the government is upping disposable income, while some in work subsidies (tax credits) never reduce because they are based on gross pay and it all hinders the chancellor in the job of balancing the books.
Forcing up gross pay cuts in work subsidies and drives an increase in earnings tax revenue, which helps balance the books.
Osborne could also do with a bit of inflation to inflate VAT takings and so on.
The risk, of course, is an increase in unemployment and fewer workers - but immigration makes the latter unlikely.
Spending was too high, yes, but austerity was a political choice which chimed with the prevailing mood where Greece, Italy, Spain, etc were or people believed soon could be facing cataclysm.
But they were in the euro. We were and are not. There is no such thing as running out of money and hence bond yields are protected if you can issue your own currency. I mean we lost our supposed crucial AAA rating and no one seemed to notice (as, of course, did the US).
So GO's decision was a political one tapping into the mood of fear and uncertainty. It was of course hugely successful eventually, including scaring Lab into not knowing quite how to respond.
Spending had to slow dramatically but austerity was not a necessity. It was politically expedient and may or may not have affected the pace of recovery.
The sooner Cons supporters understand and accept that the more healthy future debate about policy direction will be.
Back in March there was a conversation on here about West Coast Railways, who operate steam and diesel charters on Network Rail. Back then, the ORR suspended their operations as an excursion train passed a signal at danger and nearly caused a crash. It turned out that the footplate crew had disabled the on-train warning system, allowing it to pass the red signal.
After a few months, they were allowed to start running services again. But as of last night, their right to run steam services was mostly suspended once again. The reason? Last month an inspection showed that someone had disabled the warning system on another train.
http://railwayherald.com/uknews/orr-issues-prohibition-notice-on-wcr
It beggars belief that train crew would turn off the safety system against regulation.
2010 = £673bn
2020 = £821bn
Osborne is making no attempt at balancing the books despite running a campaign to do exactly that. We spend £1bn each month on foreign aid, very few people have the foggiest idea where it goes.
Sir Humphrey would call that a courageous assumption.
Not to mention his overall political judgement.
In the last Parliament Osborne talked very tough but his actions were extremely nuanced, responding to the economic situation, particularly in the EZ, with remarkable skill delivering growth and employment in a very difficult situation.
In this Parliament he has responded to Labour abandoning the centre ground by seeking to seize it for the Tories. This has made his rhetoric much more moderate, understating his direction of travel rather than overstating it as he did previously. I preferred the mark I version.
But the increase on NI is a mistake (a tax on job creation is the phrase)
Would I like him to cut spending more and not increase taxes, yes I would, without a doubt, but I realise Osborne has to live in both the economic and political worlds.
As I noted up thread the fact is he's cut nearly as much in five years than Thatcher did in eleven years.
I'm happy with Osborne's general direction of travel. I just wish he'd get there quicker in a slightly different route
He isn;t just gambling our children and grandchildren's future Mr Blackburn, he's gambling the tory party's future.
when you take a reputation for economic competence away from the tory party, you get 1997.
Complete wipeout.
Labour only need a decent person to be right back in the game.
Of ours, were foreign aid slashed and he was now dying of Ebola, the thought would be 'why didn't we do anything to stop it spreading?'
Let's get some perspective here. Mrs Thatcher inherited an economy that closely resembled a former soviet bloc state.
George Osborne inherited an economy that was heavily indebted, but had a huge money making machine at its core in the form of financial services. A money making machine Mrs Thatcher single handedly ushered in.
All he has really done so far is make it more and more indebted.
The problem is Labour does not seem to have many geniuses, and particularly any with enough of a backbone to deal with the Corbynite threat.
I mean, McDonnell.
Really.
Yes, but we are in a wholly different world to Thatcher's time now so such comparisons don't impress me much. There were larger and faster cuts under Denis Healey/Callaghan - economic reality can force your hand.
Leaving aside the economics, my big criticism is his political judgement: he got it wrong in the first place by making the tax credit cuts too fast and unfairly stepped on the withdrawal rate, then he and his aides put it about that he didn't think much of anyone on welfare, sneering rather than recognising many were decent folk in a welfare trap.
Then he chose to have a separate vote on the tax credit cuts to wrongfoot Labour in the Commons (which he won more than once, at notable political cost) but it ultimately backfired as pressure built up and the Lords rejected it.
And now he's done a full u-turn - and gone through all of the above for nothing. Either he was playing politics the whole time (badly) or he has fickle economic judgement.
Neither are good. He might have got out of a short-term hole but, having got it wrong first and hen having done a full u-turn that cedes the entire political argument, I lost respect for him as a potential leader yesterday.
Agreed .... but hasn't that been Labour's "only" problem for the best part of the past decade?
I am assuming you think we could run out of money and austerity was not a political choice?
On your second point, for an economy which is able to issue and which borrows in its own currency it cannot run out of money. I'm sorry but that is just a truism. There may be other consequences but suffice to say in 2008 they were not a significant factor, they still probably aren't (unless you are expecting rampant inflation any time soon).
On your first point, if you accept the above then austerity does indeed become a political choice.
Haha put some Palmolive on Mr Watford, it will stop your hands chafing as you wring them together.
Anybody would think the only people that ever die are Africans with ebola, sad as that is take a trip to a children's hospice or a cancer ward in your town then tell me where your priorities lie.
Brown was pumping the state up at £35bn a year on a £1tn economy from 2002.
The comparisons between them don't hold.
where were the reforms, the measures to rebalance the economy, trhe simplification of taxation etc.
are our banks still to big to fail ?
In January Osborne will have been in office for as long as it took to defeat Nazi Germany and has done very little.
If he wants to play politics he should bugger off and become party chairman and leave the CoE job to someone whose heart is in it.
As a start, you might want to read the following:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/refugee-crisis/63394/foreign-aid-how-does-britain-spend-its-overseas-aid-budget
It seems your doorstop conversations are out of tune with the GBP. Are you sure you've not got a lead ear for people who want us to meet our international obligations?
Long may you post here. I'd love to see a thread header by you.
https://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole/status/669817262157766656
The big gag for me is that people have seen right through this budget. Everybody knows its a budget for George and not a budget for the country or even the party.
Nobody is fooled
Louisa Loveluck @leloveluck
Britain’s offensive contribution to campaign to date: 8 Tornado jets, 10 Reaper attack drones. Carried out just 4% of coalition airstrikes.
Indeed, history shows that when Governments hit the printing presses it's precisely because they've run out of money.
NHS waste and fiddles must be gargantuan too. Let's sort those out at the same time, and divert the money to the cancer wards and hospices.
immigration up again
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/26/net-migration-britain-new-high-ons-immigration
By the end of this parliament in 2020, the state will still be the same size as in 2001 – when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were starting to turn on the spending taps.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3334173/Whatever-happened-austerity-Osborne-ducks-big-welfare-cuts-INCREASES-spending.html#ixzz3sahMSSL5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
All those other wicked countries around the world, refusing to be as generous as us.
Whether you like it or not, lots of people in the UK are having a tough time, for various reasons. Ask them what they think of us sending money to countries with space programmes.
And let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion: why not just ask countries how much they need and we fulfil their request? Come on - exactly how far should our benevolence extend when our debt is £1.5 trillion and rising?
Edit it out of their official video.
OK, how could he make that worse?
@ShippersUnbound: McDonnell has told the Labour party to put the Mao moment back in to their video highlights of his speech...
We are a country. We have responsibilities. Leaving aside the moral and humanitarian responsibilities to our fellow human beings we have a strategic responsibility to ourselves to create a safer and prosperous democratic world. Do we really want to spend more blood because we allow the world to regress backwards.
@krishgm: OBR says growth higher thanks to slower cuts and higher net migration.
You keep telling the world how beastly I am
"As I observed earlier, these are the pricks (courtesy TSE) who voted for the Chuckle Brothers and who now sustain them. For "brave" read "fucking idiotic".
The decision to choose Corbyn wasn't illogical. Choosing a clone of Ed wasn't an option and when the talk turned to terrorist sympathies circling the wagons wasn't unreasonable. Good socialists should hear other points of view. Appointing McDonnel caused the first flinch but his first few outings weren't a disaster.
It only started to unravel when it became obvious that he had no leadership skills and without direction the party couldn't function. Then it quickly fell apart and it's impossible to see how a recovery is now possible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015