The £122 billion "cost" of Brexit isn't perhaps the killer line some Remainers think it is.
If one was being sheer bloody minded about it, one could counterargue that saving £7bn a year of net EU contributions means the UK would be in profit on Brexit by 2037, increasing year-after-year thereon after. So it's an investment.
Funny, I don't remember the outrage bus stopping on the right side of the road when Paul Dacre was labelling judges "enemies of the people" for having the temerity to perform their job in the way that he didn't like.
Is anyone outraged? Two of the most deeply dislikeable people in British public life are having a go at each other - entertained is surely nearer the mark.
Dacre was a big friend of Gordon Brown.. nuff said
@Pulpstar The sting of Alastair Campbell's jibe is not that Paul Dacre is a murderer but that his worldview is closer to that of a murderous far right extremist than his Labour MP victim. Fair comment is a defence to libel provided the view is honestly held, no matter how prejudiced the view might be. Whether this is fair comment or a statement of fact is, I would have thought, up for discussion. Given the Mail's article on the possible motivations of Thomas Mair today, I would not particularly care to take up the cudgels on Paul Dacre's behalf.
Alastair Campbell has always had a visceral hatred for Paul Dacre and I don't much care for the reasons why. What happened to Jo Cox was tragic but thankfully extremely rare. I wish people would stop using it for political purposes.
The £122 billion "cost" of Brexit isn't perhaps the killer line some Remainers think it is.
If one was being sheer bloody minded about it, one could counterargue that saving £7bn a year of net EU contributions means the UK would be in profit on Brexit by 2037, increasing year-after-year thereon after. So it's an investment.
But that would be almost as silly.
That would only be true if the rate of economic growth increases as a result of Brexit. If it remains the same as pre-brexit the gap will never close, just as I can never catch up with my brothers age.
I lost interest in the IFS after a spokeman sounded off on the BBC that the IFS had identified a small shortfall in the funding of a government department (not an important one), which if left uncorrected for a few decades would add up to not very much at all.
On some issues the IFS is more left wing than Labour. For example they think that all inheritance should be taxed and there should be no Nil Rate Band.
Actually, so does Portillo. In fact, his argument is quite sound coming from the Right.
Portillo says that Income Tax is tax on Earnings. Therefore, should be taxed a lower rate.
Inheritance tax is unearned. Therefore, to try and equalise opportunity as far as possible, it should be taxed at a higher rate thereby making the field slightly more towards level.
The £122 billion "cost" of Brexit isn't perhaps the killer line some Remainers think it is.
If one was being sheer bloody minded about it, one could counterargue that saving £7bn a year of net EU contributions means the UK would be in profit on Brexit by 2037, increasing year-after-year thereon after. So it's an investment.
But that would be almost as silly.
That would only be true if the rate of economic growth increases as a result of Brexit. If it remains the same as pre-brexit the gap will never close, just as I can never catch up with my brothers age.
You do if he gets hit by a car. Your assumption is that the EU survives.
The Daily Mail story is no different to the backlash articles that appear on the Guardian website hours after a Muslim nut job has killed a load of people in France.
Or the "not a real Muslim because" articles that always appear after Islamist terrorist attacks, even the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that that's nonsense.
The IFS has a well-deserved reputation for presenting without prejudice the factual reality of Government budgets, cutting through the smoke and mirrors with which governments employ to try and obscure those facts. So I haven't stopped listening to them, and in fact I always reserve judgement until I've seen what they have to say. They've pointed out today the reality that the Autumn Statement has confirmed the stagnation of real wages for a decade now. That is an inconvenient truth, and it is quite sad that the reaction here to it is to trash the IFS.
The Daily Mail has supported fascism for over 80 years now , Dacre is simply continuing that editorial policy .
Jenny Tonge also has some, shall we say, "interesting" views regarding the Jews....
Israelis. The two are not the same however some may try to make it so.
Na, she is anti-Semitic as evidenced by her support for conspiracy theories involving Jews. She has long hid behind opposing Israel/Zionists but like most bigots the mask eventually slipped.
I decided that Brexiters are full on recliners on long haul flights and Remainers non recliners...but the not changing your pants...I can take that too. Not only are Brexiters selfish mofos...but they are dirty little bastards too....
The £122 billion "cost" of Brexit isn't perhaps the killer line some Remainers think it is.
If one was being sheer bloody minded about it, one could counterargue that saving £7bn a year of net EU contributions means the UK would be in profit on Brexit by 2037, increasing year-after-year thereon after. So it's an investment.
But that would be almost as silly.
That would only be true if the rate of economic growth increases as a result of Brexit. If it remains the same as pre-brexit the gap will never close, just as I can never catch up with my brothers age.
No, all things being equal it would be true. In other words, if the rate of economic growth of the UK either outside or inside the EU is the same, because of the saved net contributions.
If the argument is that economic growth will be materially and permanently lower as a result of Brexit, then it wouldn't be true.
The IFS has a well-deserved reputation for presenting without prejudice the factual reality of Government budgets, cutting through the smoke and mirrors with which governments employ to try and obscure those facts. So I haven't stopped listening to them, and in fact I always reserve judgement until I've seen what they have to say. They've pointed out today the reality that the Autumn Statement has confirmed the stagnation of real wages for a decade now. That is an inconvenient truth, and it is quite sad that the reaction here to it is to trash the IFS.
They had a hard won reputation, it is now getting trashed because Paul Johnson isn't able to keep his mouth shut. The IFS used to present data and let people draw their own conclusions, not lead the conversation themselves as that would mean someone's agenda will be there.
I lost interest in the IFS after a spokeman sounded off on the BBC that the IFS had identified a small shortfall in the funding of a government department (not an important one), which if left uncorrected for a few decades would add up to not very much at all.
On some issues the IFS is more left wing than Labour. For example they think that all inheritance should be taxed and there should be no Nil Rate Band.
The IFS does a good job of being politically independent for the most part and does great work explaining complicated government finance and tax policies.
It helps non-experts out for when the politicians are lying/hiding behind statistical sophistry e.g. when Cameron and Osborne claimed a higher national minimum wage would leave poor working families better off given tax credit changes or when Labour claimed they had set out their plans for how to reduce the deficit.
Their paper on inheritance tax pointed out that it would be logical either to abolish it... or to extend it.... but that in it's current form it's too easy to avoid/has too many loopholes. That seems perfectly reasonable and non-partisan to me- they're simply saying if your objective is x... this isn't achieving it.
They've pointed out today the reality that the Autumn Statement has confirmed the stagnation of real wages for a decade now. That is an inconvenient truth, and it is quite sad that the reaction here to it is to trash the IFS.
It's a selected timespan though. If the timespan is changed, the outcome changes.
It's also the case that comparing gross pay and take home pay to living costs will produce different outcomes.
It often feels that the IFS, and many organisations of their ilk, are desperate for a headline.
Sounds like a great job. Call someone up. Ask them "Which party do you support? And how often do you change your underwear?"
According to this historic poll, Leavites (19%) are nearly twice as likely as Remainers (11%) to wear their underwear for a second day! I always knew they were a bunch of dirty b*stards!
As for the party breakdown: UKIP 21% (disgusting!), Tories (15%) (not much better!), Labour and Lib Dems (13%) (mostly genteel and sweet-smelling). And the prize for the only party that registers on the scale for having some of its supporters who don't change their underpants or knickers for 10 days goes to... Is this why people call them "Kippers"?
According to this historic poll, Leavites (19%) are nearly twice as likely as Remainers (11%) to wear their underwear for a second day! I always knew they were a bunch of dirty b*stards!
Probably a link to being less well off, not owning washing facilities and having to go to the laundrette.
The £122 billion "cost" of Brexit isn't perhaps the killer line some Remainers think it is.
If one was being sheer bloody minded about it, one could counterargue that saving £7bn a year of net EU contributions means the UK would be in profit on Brexit by 2037, increasing year-after-year thereon after. So it's an investment.
But that would be almost as silly.
That would only be true if the rate of economic growth increases as a result of Brexit. If it remains the same as pre-brexit the gap will never close, just as I can never catch up with my brothers age.
You do if he gets hit by a car. Your assumption is that the EU survives.
That's the last sad and pathetically nihilistic hope of the Brexiters...that the EU implodes...and then you can say "I told you so"
I decided that Brexiters are full on recliners on long haul flights and Remainers non recliners...but the not changing your pants...I can take that too. Not only are Brexiters selfish mofos...but they are dirty little bastards too....
The TV debate between the last two candidates left in the race will be held in the final fortnight. It has to be: it can't happen before their identities are known. Of course if a candidate wins the first round (R1) outright they become the president and there's no debate.
If Le Pen ends up winning R2, those 14 days will be likely to have been a breathless and memorable time in France.
These are the indicators I will be looking out for before R1:
1) FREXIT:
articles in the big French media, or statements made by leading French figures whether in politics or other spheres,
a) advocating Frexit;
b) discussing it as a significant possibility;
2) SUPPORT FROM LEADING FIGURES OUTSIDE OF HER PARTY, explicit or otherwise:
a) inside France, where unlike under her father Jean-Marie the party now has quite a big border zone; I will be watching for what Dieudonné M'bala M'bala says, for example, and for statements by religious, military or security figures;
b) outside France - for example, statements by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, etc.; or the involvement of Breitbart in the game in a big way
3) PERCEIVED FEASIBILITY:
"financial, business and diplomatic circles have come to terms with the possibility of a Le Pen presidency" - that kind of statement
4) HER KIND OF NEWS STORY
Stories involving terrorism or Arabs that incite a strong reaction that helps her to paint her type of nationalism as necessary for dealing with the country's problems: the stories could be so big that they are reported by almost everyone right away, or initially they could be pushed mainly by e.g. Pamela Geller and Breitbart, as was the Cologne New Year's Eve assaults story
5) POLLS
If she is going to win I would expect her to have reached or exceeded a predicted R1 40% in at least one serious poll at some time.
I decided that Brexiters are full on recliners on long haul flights and Remainers non recliners...but the not changing your pants...I can take that too. Not only are Brexiters selfish mofos...but they are dirty little bastards too....
I decided that Brexiters are full on recliners on long haul flights and Remainers non recliners...but the not changing your pants...I can take that too. Not only are Brexiters selfish mofos...but they are dirty little bastards too....
Maybe they pull more often and have to do "the walk of shame" home in yesterday's garments before luxuriously bathing, changing, and reflecting on the previous night's antics.
I decided that Brexiters are full on recliners on long haul flights and Remainers non recliners...but the not changing your pants...I can take that too. Not only are Brexiters selfish mofos...but they are dirty little bastards too....
Maybe they pull more often and have to do "the walk of shame" home in yesterday's garments before luxuriously bathing, changing, and reflecting on the previous night's antics.
We can interpret this data at will
That's a beautiful piece of interpretative work, but how would the 6% of Kippers who wear their underwear three or more days running manage to pull on the second night?
Also let's not forget the "not applicables": UKIP 9%; no other party more than 3%. Do they go commando or what?
I used to eschew the term "Kipper" because I thought it sounded too cuddly, but after YouGov's sterling work with this poll it seems more apt.
I decided that Brexiters are full on recliners on long haul flights and Remainers non recliners...but the not changing your pants...I can take that too. Not only are Brexiters selfish mofos...but they are dirty little bastards too....
Maybe they pull more often and have to do "the walk of shame" home in yesterday's garments before luxuriously bathing, changing, and reflecting on the previous night's antics.
We can interpret this data at will
That's a beautiful piece of interpretative work, but how would the 6% of Kippers who wear their underwear three or more days running manage to pull on the second night?
Also let's not forget the "not applicables": UKIP 9%; no other party more than 3%. Do they go commando or what?
I used to eschew the term "Kipper" because I thought it sounded too cuddly, but after YouGov's sterling work with this poll it seems more apt.
The £122 billion "cost" of Brexit isn't perhaps the killer line some Remainers think it is.
If one was being sheer bloody minded about it, one could counterargue that saving £7bn a year of net EU contributions means the UK would be in profit on Brexit by 2037, increasing year-after-year thereon after. So it's an investment.
But that would be almost as silly.
That would only be true if the rate of economic growth increases as a result of Brexit. If it remains the same as pre-brexit the gap will never close, just as I can never catch up with my brothers age.
No, all things being equal it would be true. In other words, if the rate of economic growth of the UK either outside or inside the EU is the same, because of the saved net contributions.
If the argument is that economic growth will be materially and permanently lower as a result of Brexit, then it wouldn't be true.
Growth is compounded, so if we stagnate for a couple of years then resume the same rate of growth as we would have had if we had voted Remain, we can never catch up. Only if we grow faster in a catch up phase, or permanently, can we close the gap.
I accept that keeping our contributions we have more as a nation, so possibly more potential investment. On the other hand reduced inward migration may lead to permanently slowed growth.
Ultimately we can never know the alternate reality so it is all speculation. The best gauge may well be to look at our PPP adjusted per capita GDP compared with international peers.
Comments
Portillo says that Income Tax is tax on Earnings. Therefore, should be taxed a lower rate.
Inheritance tax is unearned. Therefore, to try and equalise opportunity as far as possible, it should be taxed at a higher rate thereby making the field slightly more towards level.
If the argument is that economic growth will be materially and permanently lower as a result of Brexit, then it wouldn't be true.
It helps non-experts out for when the politicians are lying/hiding behind statistical sophistry e.g. when Cameron and Osborne claimed a higher national minimum wage would leave poor working families better off given tax credit changes or when Labour claimed they had set out their plans for how to reduce the deficit.
Their paper on inheritance tax pointed out that it would be logical either to abolish it... or to extend it.... but that in it's current form it's too easy to avoid/has too many loopholes. That seems perfectly reasonable and non-partisan to me- they're simply saying if your objective is x... this isn't achieving it.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7164
It's also the case that comparing gross pay and take home pay to living costs will produce different outcomes.
It often feels that the IFS, and many organisations of their ilk, are desperate for a headline.
According to this historic poll, Leavites (19%) are nearly twice as likely as Remainers (11%) to wear their underwear for a second day! I always knew they were a bunch of dirty b*stards!
As for the party breakdown: UKIP 21% (disgusting!), Tories (15%) (not much better!), Labour and Lib Dems (13%) (mostly genteel and sweet-smelling). And the prize for the only party that registers on the scale for having some of its supporters who don't change their underpants or knickers for 10 days goes to... Is this why people call them "Kippers"?
David Wasserman puts the conspiracy loons in their place.
Hardly inspiring....
If you must know I wash my condoms after every use.
The TV debate between the last two candidates left in the race will be held in the final fortnight. It has to be: it can't happen before their identities are known. Of course if a candidate wins the first round (R1) outright they become the president and there's no debate.
If Le Pen ends up winning R2, those 14 days will be likely to have been a breathless and memorable time in France.
These are the indicators I will be looking out for before R1:
1) FREXIT:
articles in the big French media, or statements made by leading French figures whether in politics or other spheres,
a) advocating Frexit;
b) discussing it as a significant possibility;
2) SUPPORT FROM LEADING FIGURES OUTSIDE OF HER PARTY, explicit or otherwise:
a) inside France, where unlike under her father Jean-Marie the party now has quite a big border zone; I will be watching for what Dieudonné M'bala M'bala says, for example, and for statements by religious, military or security figures;
b) outside France - for example, statements by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, etc.; or the involvement of Breitbart in the game in a big way
3) PERCEIVED FEASIBILITY:
"financial, business and diplomatic circles have come to terms with the possibility of a Le Pen presidency" - that kind of statement
4) HER KIND OF NEWS STORY
Stories involving terrorism or Arabs that incite a strong reaction that helps her to paint her type of nationalism as necessary for dealing with the country's problems: the stories could be so big that they are reported by almost everyone right away, or initially they could be pushed mainly by e.g. Pamela Geller and Breitbart, as was the Cologne New Year's Eve assaults story
5) POLLS
If she is going to win I would expect her to have reached or exceeded a predicted R1 40% in at least one serious poll at some time.
We can interpret this data at will
Also let's not forget the "not applicables": UKIP 9%; no other party more than 3%. Do they go commando or what?
I used to eschew the term "Kipper" because I thought it sounded too cuddly, but after YouGov's sterling work with this poll it seems more apt.
Also, with the ribs on the inside you get to keep the extra pleasure for yourself.
I accept that keeping our contributions we have more as a nation, so possibly more potential investment. On the other hand reduced inward migration may lead to permanently slowed growth.
Ultimately we can never know the alternate reality so it is all speculation. The best gauge may well be to look at our PPP adjusted per capita GDP compared with international peers.
new thread