Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on Queen’s Speech day – and we still don’t if the Tories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on Queen’s Speech day – and we still don’t if the Tories will get a majorty
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://order-order.com/2017/06/21/what-austerity-public-spending-down-just-0-2-since-2009/
3.05: HAPPY LIKE A FOOL
3.45: SMART CALL
4.20: HIGHLAND REEL
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/poundland-releases-pre-brexit-toblerone-copycat-product-called/
#DayOfRage
She lost 12 seats.
Why is David Davis negotiating?
Or the SNP will make a come back very quickley.
I may nominate a horse as Arlene and another as Theresa. See if Theresa can catch up with that promised C&S deal before passing the Brexit finishing post.
It's going to be like an oven, isn't it?
That hasn't happened here - instead the downward pressure on grades within job profiles has accentuated the differences between the public and private sectors. The skill set required for a medium level post in the public sector and the money that now commands are inferior to the equivalent in the private sector so the public sector struggles to recruit specialists - I've seen this in the field of estate management as an example.
There has also been the ludicrous ring-fencing of NHS, education and other budgets so the reductions have fallen disproportionately in local Government and other sectors.
Sets up different incentives.
Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
Keeping Corbyn out of number 10 only seems to be a goal if by squatting you can get things done.
In my view the key figures are these:
"In 2016-17 spending on welfare for people of working age and children was 3.9 per cent lower than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)
In 2016-17 spending on welfare for pensioners was 12.1 per cent higher than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)."
Now I would accept that there are more pensioners in 2017 than there were in 2010 but not that many more. The invidious effect of the triple lock has been to transfer significant quantities of public spending from the working age population (and their children) to the old. It is, frankly, a disgrace and one can only hope that the higher turnout of younger voters in the recent election means that the incentive to indulge in this intergenerational theft is reduced.
Looked at overall to keep government spending flat when the rest of the economy has grown something like 14% over the period has firstly brought public spending more into line with the taxes raised than it was in 2010 and reduced the % of the economy being taken by the public sector. Public spending is still not at a sustainable level but it is closer.
The major problem is that the economy as a whole has not been rebalanced. In particular we continue to have an unsustainable trade deficit which results in ever more of our assets being foreign owned. We have not managed to increase manufacturing either in terms of employment or as a share of the economy. We are still spending far too much on ourselves as a nation, significantly more than we earn.
http://hastheresamayresignedyet.com
Her claim (promise?) was that if she lost her majority, Corbyn would be the negotiator.
She lost her majority.
There doesn't seem to have been even a hint of Corbyn being the negotiator. Surely she didn't deliberately lie?
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/877467887153426432
Mr. Woolie, traditions are magnificent, you Bercowian modernist!
We're in the Queen Anne enclosure. I still expect rah, but less rah than in the Royal enclosure.
Today it is just embarrassing. A Ruritanian charade. Poor Queen.
All you are seeing there is something very obvious: pensioners' income is less volatile than working-age people's income. In bad times, it doesn't fall much if at all, because there is no effect from unemployment, the state pension doesn't fall (generally not even in real terms), annuities continue to be paid unchanged, and final-salary pensions continue to be paid unchanged. Conversely, though, in good times none of those sources of income increases much if at all, whereas working-age incomes improve because of lower unemployment, higher salaries, and bonuses. As a result of this effect, in the years of good times leading up to the crash, pensioners' income had hugely fallen behind. In the bad times after the crash, it was working-age people who did worse. This is not at all a disgrace, it's perfectly normal.
Of course, none of this takes place in a policy vacuum, and it is true that policy deliberately protected pensioners in and after the crash, in particular with the triple lock. But the triple lock overwhelmingly benefited the poorest pensioners (those reliant on the state pension only), and they are really quite poor, even now. It was a reasonable policy at the time to build in a bit of catch-up for the poorest pensioners after the boom times left them so far behind.
The policy now has done its job, and should be abandoned now, as Theresa May tried to do. Unfortunately the votes of the just-about-managing youngsters and young families made that politically impossible, and have cemented the triple lock in place. It's a funny old world, but that is what they voted for.
Edit: I should have added that of the course the real danger for pensioners is high inflation. If that returns, they will be the ones who are very badly hit, as they were in the 70s and 80s.
Edit: oh...seen that my blinding flash of originality ain't so original...
Huzzah for monarchy!
Mr. Barnesian, and with what would you replace tradition? A kaleidoscope nation? Rewriting the national anthem to make it more inclusive, as Lord Goldsmith once wanted?
When you create a void, something will occupy it. It's not good enough to merely dislike something. You need something better to replace it or you may well end up with something worse.
The national anthem is an outrage to those of us who are agnostic Republicans.
[I'm an atheist, and have no problem with the anthem].
While Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box and wed to his failed policies from the 70s, I have always said McMao is far far more dangerous.
En marche arrière.
I suspect Prince Charles will do so much for the Republican movement.
Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
The interior Grandstand shots were at the Royal Enclosure/Queen Anne stand end as well. We saw only distant views of the tens of thousands camped out on the infield as well as down past the two furlong pole though I did note young men adorned with supplies of Stella moving through the crowd.
It's the "dark underside" of the Royal meeting and why I don't know. Oddly enough, it's the corporate boxes where the drinking is greatest (free) and the behaviour the worst for obvious reasons but we're the same as the Melbourne Cup and I expect the Mail will have some appropriate pictures in the week ahead.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2a04b7b1-8794-452e-8896-300d4ebc7902
Edit - one of the R4 satirical shows used to have a great sketch of the queen reading her speech progressively struggling with fits of the giggles......
At a time when real wages have really struggled or fallen is it really a priority to reduce in work benefits or should state pension increases have been restrained instead? Why do we still have a higher personal allowance for pensioners? Why, as May tried to do, have some of the expensive fripperies such as WFA, free TV licences and bus passes at least been means tested? Why has NI not been incorporated into IT so that everyone pays a share that better reflects their disposable income?
The answer to these questions and more, sadly, has been that oldies vote. I am disappointed by the outcome of the election (to put it mildly) but I very much hope the higher turnout shows younger generations have got the message.
Monarchists are usually crap at explaining why an accident of birth should leave one feather bedded all ones life – as Britain's richest welfare recipients. Hardly a flagship for a meritocracy.
Loose change for the exchequer - issue is do reciprocal Barnett payments have to be made ?
Maybe the next monarch will change it. Replace King/Queen with country and replace God with faith?
Or is meritocracy not applicable to the top of the Labour party?