From memory I seem to recall that Vince Cable declined on age grounds to run for the leadership when Ming Campbell stepped down - despite having been acting leader. If he considered himself too old for the position ten years ago it must raise questions as to his suitability now.
The ball is very simple. Every man and his dog, incluuding all economists and all sane politicians, and particularly including Conservative Chancellors, and including myself, agree that when there's a downturn, a government of a country which is not already over-borrowing, can and should expand the economy by means of a fiscal stimulus.
Denmark, which entered the crisis with a budget surplus and very low overall debt, is a prime example of how this can work.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend: Darling was splurging out £4 for every £3 raised in tax. So of course Osborne had no room to do the kind of fiscal stimulus which countries which had managed their finances soundly could do, but instead had to rein it in - which he did extremely skilfully, completely avoiding the mass unemployment which Krugman and pals had forecast..
This shouldn't be hard to understand, surely?
I find it bewildering that there is even a debate about this. The other deep rooted problem for the UK economy is our horrendous trade deficit. This is being met by selling more and more of our assets into foreign ownership with the consequence that future profits or rent will have to be paid on them impoverishing our country and future generations.
This is an enormous constraint on public fiscal policy. A government deficit boosts domestic demand. That is its purpose. If too much of that demand is met by imports then you run a trade deficit. That is exactly where we are. Those who are talking about austerity impeding growth completely ignore the fact that we were running such large deficits before 2008 restricts our room for manoeuvre.
If we boost government borrowing now our trade deficit will get bigger and our children will be poorer. It really is that simple. A country that was already overspending both at national and private level simply does not have the capacity to boost demand in a crisis by nearly as much as a country that wasn't.
Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
Gordon Brown, by doing the debate. Once one PM had done it, that completely changed the situation. Then Cameron agreed to do one too, after which it was an unbreakable constitutional tradition.
Well it has now been broken - even if not to Theresa May's advantage! She has provided a useful precedent for any future party leader to rely on should they wish to avoid them.
The broadcasters also need to grow a pair. However :
Although I missed much of the 2 hour Victoria Derbyshire show this morning (as you do .. ) I caught a few snippets. The residents of Grenfell were interviewed and present were the new local Labour MP, a Labour Shadow and a Tory AM.
K&C Council were asked repeatedly to attend but declined. They were literally empty chaired. The government initially failed to put up a spokesman but as the show progressed someone, somewhere decided it was a poor look and wonder of wonders up popped the Housing minister quicker than you could bung the DUP a billion quid.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
The broadcasters in 2017 are no more bound by events decades ago than Cameron and Brown were in 2010 in agreeing to debate and including Nick Clegg.
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
But it still raises the question as to why the Broadcasters failed to stage a debate for the willing participants in earlier elections.
The answer is the greater deference that broadcasters used to have toward the larger parties and Prime Ministers and their unwillingness to poke the bear and provide a platform to chip away at the two party system. Over the decades that forelock tugging diminished significantly, the more so with 24 news channels and the boom in social media.
But that deference had surely gone by the 92 and 97 campaigns - indeed the Alliance challenge had pretty well undermined it by 1983.
My tuppence worth is that Brown needed a black swan and debates could have been it.
Blair did not in 05 and 01, Major arguably did not in 92. 1997 doesn't quite fit - can't remember if debates were even mentioned tbh
May needs to act fast now that she is open to the charge of abandoning austerity.
More money for the NHS and education also, and a proper fiscal stimulus programme together with an acknowledgement that our decision to leave the EU means we need to fund growth centrally to get us over the hump, while our monetary sovereignty, issuing debt in our own currency, will, at historic low interest rates, protect us from the worst of the problems that have affected other free-spending and borrowing nations.
(Note: of course we always were monetarily sovereign...but you all knew that.)
There is a case for Hammond nicking the LibDems poicy of a penny on Income Tax for the NHS.
- the Tories already went through the pain of refusing to pledge not to raise Income Tax in the election camapign. They may as well use that to polular effect.
- adopting a LibDem policy might make it easier to get the LibDems onside with not voting down legislation this Parliament if the DUP get too greedy.
- knowing the LibDems might step in to replace them might stop the DUP getting too greedy.
- Labour can hardly object - although it makes their own manifesto pledge not to raise tax for the many more difficult to justify if the move proved popular.
- May can say the NHS is safe in Tory hands.
£17.47 a month that'd cost me. £27.92 is the most it would cost anyone.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
The broadcasters in 2017 are no more bound by events decades ago than Cameron and Brown were in 2010 in agreeing to debate and including Nick Clegg.
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
But it still raises the question as to why the Broadcasters failed to stage a debate for the willing participants in earlier elections.
The answer is the greater deference that broadcasters used to have toward the larger parties and Prime Ministers and their unwillingness to poke the bear and provide a platform to chip away at the two party system. Over the decades that forelock tugging diminished significantly, the more so with 24 news channels and the boom in social media.
But that deference had surely gone by the 92 and 97 campaigns - indeed the Alliance challenge had pretty well undermined it by 1983.
My tuppence worth is that Brown needed a black swan and debates could have been it.
Blair did not in 05 and 01, Major arguably did not in 92. 1997 doesn't quite fit - can't remember if debates were even mentioned tbh
In 1997 Major did challenge Blair to a debate - despite having declined himself in 1992.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
The broadcasters in 2017 are no more bound by events decades ago than Cameron and Brown were in 2010 in agreeing to debate and including Nick Clegg.
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
But it still raises the question as to why the Broadcasters failed to stage a debate for the willing participants in earlier elections.
The answer is the greater deference that broadcasters used to have toward the larger parties and Prime Ministers and their unwillingness to poke the bear and provide a platform to chip away at the two party system. Over the decades that forelock tugging diminished significantly, the more so with 24 news channels and the boom in social media.
But that deference had surely gone by the 92 and 97 campaigns - indeed the Alliance challenge had pretty well undermined it by 1983.
My tuppence worth is that Brown needed a black swan and debates could have been it.
Blair did not in 05 and 01, Major arguably did not in 92. 1997 doesn't quite fit - can't remember if debates were even mentioned tbh
Major wanted to debate in 1997... But Blair said no!
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
The broadcasters in 2017 are no more bound by events decades ago than Cameron and Brown were in 2010 in agreeing to debate and including Nick Clegg.
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
But it still raises the question as to why the Broadcasters failed to stage a debate for the willing participants in earlier elections.
The answer is the greater deference that broadcasters used to have toward the larger parties and Prime Ministers and their unwillingness to poke the bear and provide a platform to chip away at the two party system. Over the decades that forelock tugging diminished significantly, the more so with 24 news channels and the boom in social media.
But that deference had surely gone by the 92 and 97 campaigns - indeed the Alliance challenge had pretty well undermined it by 1983.
My tuppence worth is that Brown needed a black swan and debates could have been it.
Blair did not in 05 and 01, Major arguably did not in 92. 1997 doesn't quite fit - can't remember if debates were even mentioned tbh
My recollection is that Major offered a debate and Blair ignored him as winners usually do. May's mistake was thinking that she was a winner when she wasn't.
The ball is very simple. Every man and his dog, incluuding all economists and all sane politicians, and particularly including Conservative Chancellors, and including myself, agree that when there's a downturn, a government of a country which is not already over-borrowing, can and should expand the economy by means of a fiscal stimulus.
Denmark, which entered the crisis with a budget surplus and very low overall debt, is a prime example of how this can work.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend: Darling was splurging out £4 for every £3 raised in tax. So of course Osborne had no room to do the kind of fiscal stimulus which countries which had managed their finances soundly could do, but instead had to rein it in - which he did extremely skilfully, completely avoiding the mass unemployment which Krugman and pals had forecast..
This shouldn't be hard to understand, surely?
I find it bewildering that there is even a debate about this. The other deep rooted problem for the UK economy is our horrendous trade deficit. This is being met by selling more and more of our assets into foreign ownership with the consequence that future profits or rent will have to be paid on them impoverishing our country and future generations.
This is an enormous constraint on public fiscal policy. A government deficit boosts domestic demand. That is its purpose. If too much of that demand is met by imports then you run a trade deficit. That is exactly where we are. Those who are talking about austerity impeding growth completely ignore the fact that we were running such large deficits before 2008 restricts our room for manoeuvre.
If we boost government borrowing now our trade deficit will get bigger and our children will be poorer. It really is that simple. A country that was already overspending both at national and private level simply does not have the capacity to boost demand in a crisis by nearly as much as a country that wasn't.
Yeah, and our EU membership (huge deficit in goods, and a small but notable surplus in services, where its expansion was continually filibustered by other member states) really worked out well for us.
I will enjoy the humble pie on here if (as I expect it to) the greater services liberalisation that the UK can push globally post-EU actually improves both our trade deficit and economy.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
The broadcasters in 2017 are no more bound by events decades ago than Cameron and Brown were in 2010 in agreeing to debate and including Nick Clegg.
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
But it still raises the question as to why the Broadcasters failed to stage a debate for the willing participants in earlier elections.
The answer is the greater deference that broadcasters used to have toward the larger parties and Prime Ministers and their unwillingness to poke the bear and provide a platform to chip away at the two party system. Over the decades that forelock tugging diminished significantly, the more so with 24 news channels and the boom in social media.
But that deference had surely gone by the 92 and 97 campaigns - indeed the Alliance challenge had pretty well undermined it by 1983.
My tuppence worth is that Brown needed a black swan and debates could have been it.
Blair did not in 05 and 01, Major arguably did not in 92. 1997 doesn't quite fit - can't remember if debates were even mentioned tbh
In 1997 Major did challenge Blair to a debate - despite having declined himself in 1992.
Cable was one of the ones which shafted Ming wasn't he?
I think so... Though weren't quite a few involved? These Lib-Dems comes across as peace loving, sandal wearing, muesli eaters... But their ruthless buggers really!!!
May needs to act fast now that she is open to the charge of abandoning austerity.
More money for the NHS and education also, and a proper fiscal stimulus programme together with an acknowledgement that our decision to leave the EU means we need to fund growth centrally to get us over the hump, while our monetary sovereignty, issuing debt in our own currency, will, at historic low interest rates, protect us from the worst of the problems that have affected other free-spending and borrowing nations.
(Note: of course we always were monetarily sovereign...but you all knew that.)
There is a case for Hammond nicking the LibDems poicy of a penny on Income Tax for the NHS.
- the Tories already went through the pain of refusing to pledge not to raise Income Tax in the election camapign. They may as well use that to polular effect.
- adopting a LibDem policy might make it easier to get the LibDems onside with not voting down legislation this Parliament if the DUP get too greedy.
- knowing the LibDems might step in to replace them might stop the DUP getting too greedy.
- Labour can hardly object - although it makes their own manifesto pledge not to raise tax for the many more difficult to justify if the move proved popular.
- May can say the NHS is safe in Tory hands.
£17.47 a month that'd cost me. £27.92 is the most it would cost anyone.
would expect the 1p to continue into the higher rate (so 40p becomes 41p and 45p becomes 46p), so probably more.
Spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 47% under Brown to about 41% now which is where it was for most of the Major and Blair years. There is no appetite to take it down to 35% as Osborne wanted so any further action to reduce the deficit will likely come mainly from tax rises
My memory of this is that the problem with Ming wasn't that he was too old, it was that he wasn't very good.
The LDs won the Dunfermline by election under Ming and almost won the Bromley and Chislehurst by election and unlike Clegg he would probably not have done a coalition deal with Cameron which cost them over 75% of their seats
Not quite true I recall - the Dunfermline by-election was during the leadership contest, there was a really awkward photo shoot the day after with the new MP (Willie Rennie) and all the leadership candidates having to look like happy best mates as they couldn't do the traditional leader visit.
I'd agree that Ming wouldn't have initiated the coalition had he been leader in 2010 but I think he'd have lost a lot of seats. He had no leadership spark in my view, much easier to talk about it in terms of age but I think he'd have made a poor leader whenever. Superb elder statesman and Foreign expert but just not cut out as a front man.
Ming would not have done as well as Clegg in 2010 but would have done better than Clegg in 2015
But in any case, what were the options? Boris is flaky and blustering; Osborne was tied to the Cameron project, austerity and the Remain Project Fear; Leadsom was grossly underqualified and proved within days her unsuitability; Gove is divisive and overly intellectual; Hammond might or might not be a male version of May but is uncharismatic and untested on the campaign trail. Indeed, the entire field of possibles all had significant question marks against them. At the time, May had fewer confirmed negatives which is why she won.
In fact, Mr Herdson, there is nobody in the ranks of the Conservative Party who has any leadership qualities, who would be capable of uniting the nation. Except for your good self, of course. And I get the feeling that recently you have started to become a bit disenchanted with the Conservatives.
I'm not at all disenchanted with the Party, just the leadership. Not that it's an easy job but nobody forces anyone to do it and those who put themselves forward have to expect the scrutiny and expectations that come with it.
Quite right, Mr Herdson, quite right. :The problem is that the rot sets in from the head.....
Not with Labour, it didn't: the rot set in from the body (you could make a case that the problem was Blair / Brown / Miliband but I don't really buy that: their problem now is of a different order to an unpopular, tired or ineffectual leader). Similarly with the Lib Dems: it wasn't so much that rot set in as that the environment changed and became far more hostile, though their decisions didn't help them adapt.
Wow! That would make a wonderful story for the press.
"Lib Dems not rotten," says leading Tory. "They are consistent to a fault, " he adds.
May we quote you on that?
Organisms that fail to adapt to a changed environment tend to become extinct.
But I've said before, the problem with the Lib Dems is even more existential than that facing Labour or the Tories: what are the Lib Dems for? They are not a party of protest but nor are they now even an aspirant party of government. To be local champions is weak and 'the nice party' doesn't work when it's not believed (which it's not, going by current approval figures). Brexit is distinctive but it's fishing in a small pool. There might be scope in theory to 'do a Macron' but it will take a much more potent presence to get there and even if the Lib Dems do find someone with that skill and charisma, the window the bigger parties have opened to that opportunity might by then have closed.
May needs to act fast now that she is open to the charge of abandoning austerity.
More money for the NHS and education also, and a proper fiscal stimulus programme together with an acknowledgement that our decision to leave the EU means we need to fund growth centrally to get us over the hump, while our monetary sovereignty, issuing debt in our own currency, will, at historic low interest rates, protect us from the worst of the problems that have affected other free-spending and borrowing nations.
(Note: of course we always were monetarily sovereign...but you all knew that.)
There is a case for Hammond nicking the LibDems poicy of a penny on Income Tax for the NHS.
- the Tories already went through the pain of refusing to pledge not to raise Income Tax in the election camapign. They may as well use that to polular effect.
- adopting a LibDem policy might make it easier to get the LibDems onside with not voting down legislation this Parliament if the DUP get too greedy.
- knowing the LibDems might step in to replace them might stop the DUP getting too greedy.
- Labour can hardly object - although it makes their own manifesto pledge not to raise tax for the many more difficult to justify if the move proved popular.
- May can say the NHS is safe in Tory hands.
An excellent idea, put a penny on lower band and 2p on higher bands. Get rid of Osbornes stealth taxes though which will be sweetner for middle class with kids. This will spike McDonnell's guns - modest increase in expenditure but still slowly reducing deficit.
May needs to act fast now that she is open to the charge of abandoning austerity.
More money for the NHS and education also, and a proper fiscal stimulus programme together with an acknowledgement that our decision to leave the EU means we need to fund growth centrally to get us over the hump, while our monetary sovereignty, issuing debt in our own currency, will, at historic low interest rates, protect us from the worst of the problems that have affected other free-spending and borrowing nations.
(Note: of course we always were monetarily sovereign...but you all knew that.)
There is a case for Hammond nicking the LibDems poicy of a penny on Income Tax for the NHS.
- the Tories already went through the pain of refusing to pledge not to raise Income Tax in the election camapign. They may as well use that to polular effect.
- adopting a LibDem policy might make it easier to get the LibDems onside with not voting down legislation this Parliament if the DUP get too greedy.
- knowing the LibDems might step in to replace them might stop the DUP getting too greedy.
- Labour can hardly object - although it makes their own manifesto pledge not to raise tax for the many more difficult to justify if the move proved popular.
- May can say the NHS is safe in Tory hands.
£17.47 a month that'd cost me. £27.92 is the most it would cost anyone.
It could be limited to not being extended into the 45p band. Not sure if the LibDem manifesto proposal made this clear.
Of course, there are large numbers of people who would get a better funded NHS without having to pay anything more.
May needs to act fast now that she is open to the charge of abandoning austerity.
More money for the NHS and education also, and a proper fiscal stimulus programme together with an acknowledgement that our decision to leave the EU means we need to fund growth centrally to get us over the hump, while our monetary sovereignty, issuing debt in our own currency, will, at historic low interest rates, protect us from the worst of the problems that have affected other free-spending and borrowing nations.
(Note: of course we always were monetarily sovereign...but you all knew that.)
There is a case for Hammond nicking the LibDems poicy of a penny on Income Tax for the NHS.
- the Tories already went through the pain of refusing to pledge not to raise Income Tax in the election camapign. They may as well use that to polular effect.
- adopting a LibDem policy might make it easier to get the LibDems onside with not voting down legislation this Parliament if the DUP get too greedy.
- knowing the LibDems might step in to replace them might stop the DUP getting too greedy.
- Labour can hardly object - although it makes their own manifesto pledge not to raise tax for the many more difficult to justify if the move proved popular.
- May can say the NHS is safe in Tory hands.
The Cons reputation and strategy of being good on the economy is blunted when there seems plainly to be an appetite for higher spending and associated higher taxes (although it could be funded by borrowing, which would be my preference).
So here is some spending and higher taxes, I agree it would shoot a lot of foxes (although again, my preference would be to hunt them with hounds, but hey).
I am always wary of hypothecating taxes, however, as the resulting tax take is not as clear cut and usually gets lost in the morass. But I like the idea because it shows original thinking.
May needs to act fast now that she is open to the charge of abandoning austerity.
More money for the NHS and education also, and a proper fiscal stimulus programme together with an acknowledgement that our decision to leave the EU means we need to fund growth centrally to get us over the hump, while our monetary sovereignty, issuing debt in our own currency, will, at historic low interest rates, protect us from the worst of the problems that have affected other free-spending and borrowing nations.
(Note: of course we always were monetarily sovereign...but you all knew that.)
There is a case for Hammond nicking the LibDems poicy of a penny on Income Tax for the NHS.
- the Tories already went through the pain of refusing to pledge not to raise Income Tax in the election camapign. They may as well use that to polular effect.
- adopting a LibDem policy might make it easier to get the LibDems onside with not voting down legislation this Parliament if the DUP get too greedy.
- knowing the LibDems might step in to replace them might stop the DUP getting too greedy.
- Labour can hardly object - although it makes their own manifesto pledge not to raise tax for the many more difficult to justify if the move proved popular.
- May can say the NHS is safe in Tory hands.
An excellent idea, put a penny on lower band and 2p on higher bands. Get rid of Osbornes stealth taxes though which will be sweetner for middle class with kids. This will spike McDonnell's guns - modest increase in expenditure but still slowly reducing deficit.
It's obviously a niche interest, but something needs to be done about the weird 100 - 123k band. Perhaps bring in the additional rate at 95 -> 110k say (Wherever is tax neutral), but allow everyone to keep the personal allowance.
Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. .
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.
Let's be cynical about this.
Clearly the tory campaign failed. Re-running it would be idiotic. A new strategy and framework would/will be needed.
One thing which I (and other's no doubt) though, was that when May launched the election she had a plan figured out. Clearly she didn't, as no one else had been working on it.
I assumed that there was a really really good plan ready to roll. I took the previous denials to be part of the strategy. I was even thinking that the wilder suggestions of the Tory majority might be conservative and that they were heading for an historic win.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.
He then proceeded to increase the tax take from the rich and from business taxes very substantially, amazingly without increasing unemployment. An inconvenient truth for the Left, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
But what we don't know is whether the policy was the cause of the increase in tax rate and the steady employment figures. An inconvenient truth for the partisan, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
From memory I seem to recall that Vince Cable declined on age grounds to run for the leadership when Ming Campbell stepped down - despite having been acting leader. If he considered himself too old for the position ten years ago it must raise questions as to his suitability now.
Yes, it was a very poor campaign by the Tories, but sometimes there's a mood around in the country for a change - no matter what.
[snip]
Which there wasn't. The Tories massacred Labour in the local elections five weeks before the General. When there's a mood for change, you get the kind of local elections that we had in 1994-6 or 2008-9.
The NEV based on the local elections implied a Tory lead of 11% and a majority of 45 - 60 - a comfortable win but well short of what the pollsters were then suggesting.
Perhaps, although the Con wins in the W Mids, Teesside and so on suggested that the votes were in the right place to go a lot deeper - and the precedent from 1983/7 (admittedly, a long time ago but the comparison data we have), suggests that the GE Con lead could well have increased from the locals, as indeed the polls in early May indicated was on the cards.
But either way, the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that there *wasn't* any 'mood for change', though nor was there any great mood the other way: the public was fairly agnostic on the issue and was voting on perceived competence, personalities and policy.
From memory I seem to recall that Vince Cable declined on age grounds to run for the leadership when Ming Campbell stepped down - despite having been acting leader. If he considered himself too old for the position ten years ago it must raise questions as to his suitability now.
It is a much less important job now.
There is nobody else?
Swinson needs a few more years back near frontline. Clegg is out.
The ball is very simple. Every man anre's a downturn, a government of a country which is not already over-borrowing, can and should expand the economy by means of a fiscal stimulus.
Denmark, which entered the crisis with a budget surplus and very low overall debt, is a prime example of how this can work.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inhehich Krugman and pals had forecast..
This shouldn't be hard to understand, surely?
I find it bewildering that there is even a debate about this. The other deep rooted problem for the UK economy is our horrendous trade deficit. This is being met by selling more and more of our assets into foreign ownership with the consequence that future profits or rent will have to be paid on them impoverishing our country and future generations.
This is an enormous constraint on public fiscal policy. A government deficit boosts domestic demand. That is its purpose. If too much of that demand is met by imports then you run a trade deficit. That is exactly where we are. Those who are talking about austerity impeding growth completely ignore the fact that we were running such large deficits before 2008 restricts our room for manoeuvre.
If we boost government borrowing now our trade deficit will get bigger and our children will be poorer. It really is that simple. A country that was already overspending both at national and private level simply does not have the capacity to boost demand in a crisis by nearly as much as a country that wasn't.
We are fine and can continue to fund the deficit for several years to come; in addition we need stimulus of the economy. We have run out of monetary tools to do this, and are at what is known as the zero lower bound. From this position, we either drop money from helicopters, which is what we have been doing, move to negative nominal interest rates (we already have, of course, negative real rates) or we start spending to increase growth.
We are a million miles away from the problems of Greece et al as our debt is sterling denominated and we literally can't run out of money to service it. Our sovereign spreads have barely moved these past five years.
Of course, interest payments will at some stage come to be a factor but we are years away from that right now and have other pressing problems.
Many years ago in the Scouts we learned practical stuff such as chopping wood and building a fire. From the latter anybody with a grain of sense would know how fires spread by convection. And we used flammable cladding on tall buildings? Practical common sense seems to be in short supply amongst our managers and officials.
Why are we preparing to increase public pay and not do anything about the appalling levels of things like ESA, PIP and carers allowance?
Because not quite enough people (such as yourself?) voted Labour.
Well, yes, Labour did say they would raise Carers a bit. Work Group ESA was to be put back to its previous level. Hardly earth shattering and I wonder how quickly it would have been done given the vast sums that were about to be spent on students and nationalising the Royal Mail and water companies.
Yes, it was a very poor campaign by the Tories, but sometimes there's a mood around in the country for a change - no matter what.
[snip]
Which there wasn't. The Tories massacred Labour in the local elections five weeks before the General. When there's a mood for change, you get the kind of local elections that we had in 1994-6 or 2008-9.
The NEV based on the local elections implied a Tory lead of 11% and a majority of 45 - 60 - a comfortable win but well short of what the pollsters were then suggesting.
Perhaps, although the Con wins in the W Mids, Teesside and so on suggested that the votes were in the right place to go a lot deeper - and the precedent from 1983/7 (admittedly, a long time ago but the comparison data we have), suggests that the GE Con lead could well have increased from the locals, as indeed the polls in early May indicated was on the cards.
But either way, the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that there *wasn't* any 'mood for change', though nor was there any great mood the other way: the public was fairly agnostic on the issue and was voting on perceived competence, personalities and policy.
IMO, May WAS seen as a "change" candidate by a fair few working-class Labour voters initially: people generally were believing of her talk about helping the lower classes, and being a break from Cameron and Osborne. What changed was her backing fox-hunting, the various sneery dismissals of the "magic money tree", and of course the manifesto (not just the negative things that were in it, but also the lack of anything concrete to help the "just about managing" that people were expecting), which meant the image of her suddenly morphed into being "just another Tory".
Separately, I also wonder if, with Labour now being so much more reliant on young voters than ever before, even with them now being more politically-engaged, whether they simply don't show up at local elections or general mid-term elections, abit like how Democrats always do better in presidential elections than in mid-term elections - because a lot of their voters just don't think it's worth it if there isn't a chance to affect the make-up of the government on offer (something which might help the Tories in mid-term elections in this parliamentary term even if they become very unpopular).
The ball is very simple. Every man anre's a downturn, a government of a country which is not already over-borrowing, can and should expand the economy by means of a fiscal stimulus.
Denmark, which entered the crisis with a budget surplus and very low overall debt, is a prime example of how this can work.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inhehich Krugman and pals had forecast..
This shouldn't be hard to understand, surely?
I find it bewildering that there is even a debate about this. The other deep rooted problem for the UK economy is our horrendous trade deficit. This is being met by selling more and more of our assets into foreign ownership with the consequence that future profits or rent will have to be paid on them impoverishing our country and future generations.
This is an enormous constraint on public fiscal policy. A government deficit boosts domestic demand. That is its purpose. If too much of that demand is met by imports then you run a trade deficit. That is exactly where we are. Those who are talking about austerity impeding growth completely ignore the fact that we were running such large deficits before 2008 restricts our room for manoeuvre.
If we boost government borrowing now our trade deficit will get bigger and our children will be poorer. It really is that simple. A country that was already overspending both at national and private level simply does not have the capacity to boost demand in a crisis by nearly as much as a country that wasn't.
We are both fine and can continue to fund the deficit for several years to come; in addition we need stimulus of the economy. We have run out of monetary tools to do this, and are at what is known as the zero lower bound. From this position, we either drop money from helicopters, which is what we have been doing, move to negative nominal interest rates (we already have, of course, negative real rates) or we start spending to increase growth.
We are a million miles away from the problems of Greece et al as our debt is sterling denominated and we literally can't run out of money to service it.
That worked well for Zimbabwe, I think?
Obviously, that's an example taken to an extreme but it remains nonetheless a legitimate counter to your assertion that "we literally can't run out of money to service it", which while technically true, ignores the fact that not only does the interest need to be serviced but new debt needs to be taken out as the old bonds expire, even if the country isn't running an in-year deficit. If no-one trusts the government to repay the debt in a trusted currency, you will get a funding strike.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
I think we're also some way from no one trusting the government to service the debt. Neither do I recall any problems with the DMO's auctions.
We do have the ability to borrow further; but of course the caveat is that, unlike Brown 2002-onwards, it must result in an increase in productivity if it is to be spent on services, or on worthwhile infrastructure projects.
Everyone of every party bangs on about housing; perhaps this is an avenue (!) also, although I appreciate that you get a different story about housing from developers.
What? That the possibly unlawful deaths of British citizens are not even worth investigating, depending on who might have done the killing?
That ship has sailed. You can't reasonably grant amnesties and comfort letters to IRA, UVF, UDA, and then hound soldiers for things that happened decades ago.
From memory I seem to recall that Vince Cable declined on age grounds to run for the leadership when Ming Campbell stepped down - despite having been acting leader. If he considered himself too old for the position ten years ago it must raise questions as to his suitability now.
1. The problem with Campbell wasn't so much that he was old (he wasn't particularly); it was that he looked, sounded and acted old.
2. Cable's issue was as much thin-pope-fat-pope as anything. He probably wouldn't have considered himself too old in his mid-60s had the previous leader been kicked out because of alcoholism, say. But the fact that Campbell's age was an issue meant that it would inevitably have become at the minimum a point of heightened scrutiny for Cable too.
3. There were many more options as leader then than there are now.
4. But you're right: it is a demanding job for someone in their mid-70s - and who looks his age - and questions will no doubt be asked.
Leaders are usually chosen on a 'two elections and half a parliament' basis i.e. to serve through to the next election with the expectation or hope that they'll do well there and if they do, they will then serve a full parliament and fight a second election. Only then is retirement considered likely. Even if we shorten that timeframe by an entire parliament, if Cable is perceived to have done a decent job (and why else would people be supporting him now unless in that expectation?), the pressure will be for him to fight the election. And if he does well there - which again, will be the Lib Dem hope - whether taking them into government in coalition or holding the government to account from opposition, he'd need to serve at least a year or so before handing the baton over. Will he be able to do that at 80? Perhaps, but it's a fair question to ask.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Well no, obvs, it doesn't.
If you were going to be taxed starting tomorrow at 95% and someone said: here is a way to reduce the amount of tax you pay, it's called an ISA, I'm guessing you would take a look.
Which there wasn't. The Tories massacred Labour in the local elections five weeks before the General. When there's a mood for change, you get the kind of local elections that we had in 1994-6 or 2008-9.
The NEV based on the local elections implied a Tory lead of 11% and a majority of 45 - 60 - a comfortable win but well short of what the pollsters were then suggesting.
Perhaps, although the Con wins in the W Mids, Teesside and so on suggested that the votes were in the right place to go a lot deeper - and the precedent from 1983/7 (admittedly, a long time ago but the comparison data we have), suggests that the GE Con lead could well have increased from the locals, as indeed the polls in early May indicated was on the cards.
But either way, the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that there *wasn't* any 'mood for change', though nor was there any great mood the other way: the public was fairly agnostic on the issue and was voting on perceived competence, personalities and policy.
IMO, May WAS seen as a "change" candidate by a fair few working-class Labour voters initially: people generally were believing of her talk about helping the lower classes, and being a break from Cameron and Osborne. What changed was her backing fox-hunting, the various sneery dismissals of the "magic money tree", and of course the manifesto (not just the negative things that were in it, but also the lack of anything concrete to help the "just about managing" that people were expecting), which meant the image of her suddenly morphed into being "just another Tory".
Separately, I also wonder if, with Labour now being so much more reliant on young voters than ever before, even with them now being more politically-engaged, whether they simply don't show up at local elections or general mid-term elections, abit like how Democrats always do better in presidential elections than in mid-term elections - because a lot of their voters just don't think it's worth it if there isn't a chance to affect the make-up of the government on offer (something which might help the Tories in mid-term elections in this parliamentary term even if they become very unpopular).
I think that's probably a pretty good summary. The lack of obvious, positive, saleable help for the JAMs was an extraordinary omission from the manifesto.
I disagree slightly about the magic money tree. As part of a proper campaign of economic delivery - jobs, growth, stability etc - it had a place and was critical to winning in 2015. It's an argument that the economically vulnerable will buy into but only if you've set the context for it.
We are fine and can continue to fund the deficit for several years to come; in addition we need stimulus of the economy. We have run out of monetary tools to do this, and are at what is known as the zero lower bound. From this position, we either drop money from helicopters, which is what we have been doing, move to negative nominal interest rates (we already have, of course, negative real rates) or we start spending to increase growth.
We are a million miles away from the problems of Greece et al as our debt is sterling denominated and we literally can't run out of money to service it. Our sovereign spreads have barely moved these past five years.
Of course, interest payments will at some stage come to be a factor but we are years away from that right now and have other pressing problems.
What else would you do?
I would continue with Osborne's policy of slowly, slowly catchy monkey. The government deficit needs to continue to fall but it cannot do so precipitously because that would cause a recession. As the government stimulus to domestic demand diminishes the trade balance should improve, particularly in light of our recent devaluation.
In the meantime government spending needs to be increasingly focussed on encouraging domestic production. So we need to focus on infrastructure relevant to productivity (the new runway at Heathrow should really be built by now), education that is focussed on skills shortages in rapidly growing industries (software being perhaps the most obvious) and doing what we can to encourage substitutional production here of things that we currently import in supply chains (we may have slightly more room for manoeuvre on this post Brexit, depending on the deal).
None of this provides an instant fix. We were in a very bad place and are now merely in a bad place. But more central borrowing and bigger trade deficits are not the answer and threaten what has been achieved over the last 7 years.
I think we're also some way from no one trusting the government to service the debt. Neither do I recall any problems with the DMO's auctions.
We do have the ability to borrow further; but of course the caveat is that, unlike Brown 2002-onwards, it must result in an increase in productivity if it is to be spent on services, or on worthwhile infrastructure projects.
Everyone of every party bangs on about housing; perhaps this is an avenue (!) also, although I appreciate that you get a different story about housing from developers.
Sure, and that wasn't the point I was making. Governments do have a great deal of discretion in funding their activities where they have capacity to engage in unorthodox measures, and there are good reasons for doing so at the right times in the right conditions. But there are always limits.
But what we don't know is whether the policy was the cause of the increase in tax rate and the steady employment figures. An inconvenient truth for the partisan, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
Indeed, critics of Osborne's economic stewardship are reduced to muttering 'I grudgingly admit that it was a success, but I damned if I'm going to give him any credit for it'.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
That is why I said in a work environment.
Anyone with the least exposure to business, whether on the sales or purchase send, would understand that cutting tax rates will grow the economy. Growing the pie so that each slice is bigger.
I understand that excludes vast swathes of the left vote, so it doesn't surprise me that so many people don't get it...
We are fine and can continue to fund the deficit for s
We are a million miles away from the problems of Greece et al as our debt is sterling denominated and we literally can't run out of money to service it. Our sovereign spreads have barely moved these past five years.
Of course, interest payments will at some stage come to be a factor but we are years away from that right now and have other pressing problems.
What else would you do?
I would continue with Osborne's policy of slowly, slowly catchy monkey. The government deficit needs to continue to fall but it cannot do so precipitously because that would cause a recession. As the government stimulus to domestic demand diminishes the trade balance should improve, particularly in light of our recent devaluation.
In the meantime government spending needs to be increasingly focussed on encouraging domestic production. So we need to focus on infrastructure relevant to productivity (the new runway at Heathrow should really be built by now), education that is focussed on skills shortages in rapidly growing industries (software being perhaps the most obvious) and doing what we can to encourage substitutional production here of things that we currently import in supply chains (we may have slightly more room for manoeuvre on this post Brexit, depending on the deal).
None of this provides an instant fix. We were in a very bad place and are now merely in a bad place. But more central borrowing and bigger trade deficits are not the answer and threaten what has been achieved over the last 7 years.
I think the difference in our approach is minimal; both include borrowing (as we are not yet running a surplus). My response to David was that the money spent should be geared towards infrastructure and increased productivity.
The key point is that we need to do something; the country is crying out for some kind of stimulus that is not buying a new car on the never never.
Otherwise I think we are in 1995 again and people will go for Jezza because up with such a diminution in public services, education, and health, the public will not put.
Anyone with the least exposure to business, whether on the sales or purchase send, would understand that cutting tax rates will grow the economy. Growing the pie so that each slice is bigger.
I understand that excludes vast swathes of the left vote, so it doesn't surprise me that so many people don't get it...
But the Laffer curve argument is that there is an optimal tax-rate which maximises revenue, ie that if a tax-rate is above that, cutting the tax rate will not just grow the economy, but increase revenue.
As Topping says, the curve makes sense at the extremes. But empirical evidence to support its shape away from the extremes is very thin on the ground. Hence why I thought it had gone out of fashion, and my rather flippant reference to the Neo-Laffer curve.
Mr. P, I wonder if a potential leadership candidate not being attacked by the Evening Osborne might lead to them being viewed as the Osborne choice for leader.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think it works exactly the other way round for the Lib Dems. They've kept their involvement in debates because in a multiparty format they're unexcludable. When those numbers are winnowed down, why would you include the Lib Dems and not the DUP?
I'd suggest one criteria would be standing candidates in at LEAST 326 seats.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
Not true, take the child benefit tax, which for 3 children is close to 70%. I have a choice to do overtime and earn extra. If I keep £58 of every £100 I earn I'll do it and the tax man gets £42 plus employers ni. Keeping just £30 means I don't do it and the tax man loses out on £42. Similarly I directed my bonus into my pension to avoid 70% tax.
Yes, it was a very poor campaign by the Tories, but sometimes there's a mood around in the country for a change - no matter what.
[snip]
Which there wasn't. The Tories massacred Labour in the local elections five weeks before the General. When there's a mood for change, you get the kind of local elections that we had in 1994-6 or 2008-9.
The NEV based on the local elections implied a Tory lead of 11% and a majority of 45 - 60 - a comfortable win but well short of what the pollsters were then suggesting.
Perhaps, although the Con wins in the W Mids, Teesside and so on suggested that the votes were in the right place to go a lot deeper - and the precedent from 1983/7 (admittedly, a long time ago but the comparison data we have), suggests that the GE Con lead could well have increased from the locals, as indeed the polls in early May indicated was on the cards.
But either way, the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that there *wasn't* any 'mood for change', though nor was there any great mood the other way: the public was fairly agnostic on the issue and was voting on perceived competence, personalities and policy.
A problem with making comparisons with 1983 & 1987 is that no General Election had been announced when the local elections took place. In 1983, in particular, there was no great expectation of an imminent election - a few days before it was called the commentariat expected an Autumn poll.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
That's not entirely true. Rich people (and companies) generally don't deliberately evade paying taxes; they simply try to minimise what is due under the law, which if often quite a grey area. Paying taxes is indeed an obligation and should be seen as such but no-one is required to pay taxes that aren't legislated for and if someone can exploit a loophole then that is the fault of those who drafted the legislation, not those who are using it. There will come a point where a given individual will stop trying to use clever schemes to legitimately avoid tax because (1) the net gain is too low, (or, if you prefer, the cost of employing accountants and advisors is too high relative to the gain), and (2) because the risk involved in engaging in untested schemes is not worth the benefit.
But taxes are not set in a static environment. Rich people and large companies can find more clement tax environments if provoked and it's not necessarily 'dodging' tax to do so. Getting round that challenge is something that governments in all high-walfare societies,
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think it works exactly the other way round for the Lib Dems. They've kept their involvement in debates because in a multiparty format they're unexcludable. When those numbers are winnowed down, why would you include the Lib Dems and not the DUP?
I'd suggest one criteria would be standing candidates in at LEAST 326 seats.
That would exclude the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Including the Lib Dems but not including the SNP would be making quite a statement.
Not true, take the child benefit tax, which for 3 children is close to 70%. I have a choice to do overtime and earn extra. If I keep £58 of every £100 I earn I'll do it and the tax man gets £42 plus employers ni. Keeping just £30 means I don't do it and the tax man loses out on £42. Similarly I directed my bonus into my pension to avoid 70% tax.
What would be the cut off point for you, if you don't mind me asking? At what point between 42% and 70% would you decide not to do the overtime?
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
That's not entirely true. Rich people (and companies) generally don't deliberately evade paying taxes; they simply try to minimise what is due under the law, which if often quite a grey area. Paying taxes is indeed an obligation and should be seen as such but no-one is required to pay taxes that aren't legislated for and if someone can exploit a loophole then that is the fault of those who drafted the legislation, not those who are using it. There will come a point where a given individual will stop trying to use clever schemes to legitimately avoid tax because (1) the net gain is too low, (or, if you prefer, the cost of employing accountants and advisors is too high relative to the gain), and (2) because the risk involved in engaging in untested schemes is not worth the benefit.
But taxes are not set in a static environment. Rich people and large companies can find more clement tax environments if provoked and it's not necessarily 'dodging' tax to do so. Getting round that challenge is something that governments in all high-walfare societies,
A point made all the more acute by impending Brexit, when a significant number of multinationals will be deciding whether or not to scale back their operations here. Something which makes the prospect of full blooded tax&spend under Corbyn particularly alarming.
Anyone with the least exposure to business, whether on the sales or purchase send, would understand that cutting tax rates will grow the economy. Growing the pie so that each slice is bigger.
I understand that excludes vast swathes of the left vote, so it doesn't surprise me that so many people don't get it...
But the Laffer curve argument is that there is an optimal tax-rate which maximises revenue, ie that if a tax-rate is above that, cutting the tax rate will not just grow the economy, but increase revenue.
As Topping says, the curve makes sense at the extremes. But empirical evidence to support its shape away from the extremes is very thin on the ground. Hence why I thought it had gone out of fashion, and my rather flippant reference to the Neo-Laffer curve.
I liked that Neo-Laffer curve graph. Better than a "LibDems winning here" one.
I think the difference in our approach is minimal; both include borrowing (as we are not yet running a surplus). My response to David was that the money spent should be geared towards infrastructure and increased productivity.
The key point is that we need to do something; the country is crying out for some kind of stimulus that is not buying a new car on the never never.
Otherwise I think we are in 1995 again and people will go for Jezza because up with such a diminution in public services, education, and health, the public will not put.
I do agree that there are shades of 1997 when policies to reduce what was in retrospect a rather modest deficit had resulted in impoverishment of the public sector in terms of capital spendin which Blair and Brown promised to meet (mainly off balance sheet but hey) as well as staffing levels and wages. The pressure on public sector pay is an obvious example.
But it is difficult to make the case for sensible fiscal conservatism when you have completely humiliated a very successful Chancellor and you don't let his successor out of the cupboard for the duration of the campaign. I still like to believe that if the case was positively made then it would be more persuasive than it was on June 8th. And I certainly don't think that the Tories should be turning around and admitting the Corbyn's fantasies were right after all. They weren't. They were absurd.
I think the difference in our approach is minimal; both include borrowing (as we are not yet running a surplus). My response to David was that the money spent should be geared towards infrastructure and increased productivity.
The key point is that we need to do something; the country is crying out for some kind of stimulus that is not buying a new car on the never never.
Otherwise I think we are in 1995 again and people will go for Jezza because up with such a diminution in public services, education, and health, the public will not put.
I do agree that there are shades of 1997 when policies to reduce what was in retrospect a rather modest deficit had resulted in impoverishment of the public sector in terms of capital spendin which Blair and Brown promised to meet (mainly off balance sheet but hey) as well as staffing levels and wages. The pressure on public sector pay is an obvious example.
But it is difficult to make the case for sensible fiscal conservatism when you have completely humiliated a very successful Chancellor and you don't let his successor out of the cupboard for the duration of the campaign. I still like to believe that if the case was positively made then it would be more persuasive than it was on June 8th. And I certainly don't think that the Tories should be turning around and admitting the Corbyn's fantasies were right after all. They weren't. They were absurd.
Absolutely agree. But we are where we are and the country needs something (note to @freetochoose: it doesn't need Jeremy Corbyn).
We are also in strange times and under such circumstances, I don't think the Cons have much to lose.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
Not true, take the child benefit tax, which for 3 children is close to 70%. I have a choice to do overtime and earn extra. If I keep £58 of every £100 I earn I'll do it and the tax man gets £42 plus employers ni. Keeping just £30 means I don't do it and the tax man loses out on £42. Similarly I directed my bonus into my pension to avoid 70% tax.
Quite. Paying taxes is indeed an obligation, and most of us don't spend too much time trying to look for ways to avoid them. Work/life balance is entirely up to the individual, and if you are likely to lose the lions share of the reward for extra effort, many will choose not to make that effort.
Absent a new Stakhanovite socialism (possibly a McMao fantasy ?) that will always remain the case.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think it works exactly the other way round for the Lib Dems. They've kept their involvement in debates because in a multiparty format they're unexcludable. When those numbers are winnowed down, why would you include the Lib Dems and not the DUP?
I'd suggest one criteria would be standing candidates in at LEAST 326 seats.
That would exclude the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Including the Lib Dems but not including the SNP would be making quite a statement.
Is there a case for excluding Plaid & the Greens, but including the SNP and the Lib Dems ?
Yes, it was a very poor campaign by the Tories, but sometimes there's a mood around in the country for a change - no matter what.
[snip]
Which there wasn't. The Tories massacred Labour in the local elections five weeks before the General. When there's a mood for change, you get the kind of local elections that we had in 1994-6 or 2008-9.
The NEV based on the local elections implied a Tory lead of 11% and a majority of 45 - 60 - a comfortable win but well short of what the pollsters were then suggesting.
Perhaps, although the Con wins in the W Mids, Teesside and so on suggested that the votes were in the right place to go a lot deeper - and the precedent from 1983/7 (admittedly, a long time ago but the [best] comparison data we have), suggests that the GE Con lead could well have increased from the locals, as indeed the polls in early May indicated was on the cards.
But either way, the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that there *wasn't* any 'mood for change', though nor was there any great mood the other way: the public was fairly agnostic on the issue and was voting on perceived competence, personalities and policy.
A problem with making comparisons with 1983 & 1987 is that no General Election had been announced when the local elections took place. In 1983, in particular, there was no great expectation of an imminent election - a few days before it was called the commentariat expected an Autumn poll.
Yes, it's not a perfect example by any means but it's the closest equivalent without going back decades. We can of course debate the extent to which it's relevant. FWIW, I think it is a reasonably good guide. I think that the national polls were probably about right at the time; certainly in putting the Con lead well above the local election results, even if some of the 20+ point leads were excessive. Copeland is the best confirmation of that. Even with some of the unusual circumstances, for the government to make a gain at a by-election was truly extraordinary; even Blair in his pomp never managed that.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think it works exactly the other way round for the Lib Dems. They've kept their involvement in debates because in a multiparty format they're unexcludable. When those numbers are winnowed down, why would you include the Lib Dems and not the DUP?
I'd suggest one criteria would be standing candidates in at LEAST 326 seats.
That would exclude the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Including the Lib Dems but not including the SNP would be making quite a statement.
Is there a case for excluding Plaid & the Greens, but including the SNP and the Lib Dems ?
You can make lots of different cases. That's really my point. It's going to be very messy next time and there's no obvious right answer. If the TV companies are going to empty-chair a party leader next time, they're going to struggle to justify imposing a particular format.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
That's not entirely true. Rich people (and companies) generally don't deliberately evade paying taxes; they simply try to minimise what is due under the law, which if often quite a grey area. Paying taxes is indeed an obligation and should be seen as such but no-one is required to pay taxes that aren't legislated for and if someone can exploit a loophole then that is the fault of those who drafted the legislation, not those who are using it. There will come a point where a given individual will stop trying to use clever schemes to legitimately avoid tax because (1) the net gain is too low, (or, if you prefer, the cost of employing accountants and advisors is too high relative to the gain), and (2) because the risk involved in engaging in untested schemes is not worth the benefit.
But taxes are not set in a static environment. Rich people and large companies can find more clement tax environments if provoked and it's not necessarily 'dodging' tax to do so. Getting round that challenge is something that governments in all high-walfare societies,
A point made all the more acute by impending Brexit, when a significant number of multinationals will be deciding whether or not to scale back their operations here. Something which makes the prospect of full blooded tax&spend under Corbyn particularly alarming.
I see a positive feedback loop here. The more the internationals decide to scale back, the bigger the economic price of Brexit, so the worse the hit for the Tories and the greater the likelihood of Corbyn being elected afterwards, so, predicting this, more internationals scale back...
Anyone with the least exposure to business, whether on the sales or purchase send, would understand that cutting tax rates will grow the economy. Growing the pie so that each slice is bigger.
I understand that excludes vast swathes of the left vote, so it doesn't surprise me that so many people don't get it...
But the Laffer curve argument is that there is an optimal tax-rate which maximises revenue, ie that if a tax-rate is above that, cutting the tax rate will not just grow the economy, but increase revenue.
As Topping says, the curve makes sense at the extremes. But empirical evidence to support its shape away from the extremes is very thin on the ground. Hence why I thought it had gone out of fashion, and my rather flippant reference to the Neo-Laffer curve.
The idea that there might be one 'correct' curve is a silly one; societies, cultures and circumstances differ geographically, and over time, as does willingness to put up with various levels of tax. The idea makes absolute sense at the extremes, providing the shape of the curve is some sort of inverted bath, with quite a large fuzzy bit in the middle. Changes in tax rates, and expectations of the same, obviously have an effect too.
Well the curve exists but all we know is wh, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
That's not entirely true. Rich peoto use clever schemes to legitimately avoid tax because (1) the net gain is too low, (or, if you prefer, the cost of employing accountants and advisors is too high relative to the gain), and (2) because the risk involved in engaging in untested schemes is not worth the benefit.
But taxes are not set in a static environment. Rich people and large companies can find more clement tax environments if provoked and it's not necessarily 'dodging' tax to do so. Getting round that challenge is something that governments in all high-walfare societies,
A point made all the more acute by impending Brexit, when a significant number of multinationals will be deciding whether or not to scale back their operations here. Something which makes the prospect of full blooded tax&spend under Corbyn particularly alarming.
I see a positive feedback loop here. The more the internationals decide to scale back, the bigger the economic price of Brexit, so the worse the hit for the Tories and the greater the likelihood of Corbyn being elected afterwards, so, predicting this, more internationals scale back...
Interesting terminology.
I would see that as a negative feedback loop. "The worse the hit for the Tories" = the worse the hit for the country.
Or do such things not matter to you in the grand scheme of getting Jezza into No. 10?
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think it works exactly the other way round for the Lib Dems. They've kept their involvement in debates because in a multiparty format they're unexcludable. When those numbers are winnowed down, why would you include the Lib Dems and not the DUP?
I'd suggest one criteria would be standing candidates in at LEAST 326 seats.
That would exclude the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Including the Lib Dems but not including the SNP would be making quite a statement.
Is there a case for excluding Plaid & the Greens, but including the SNP and the Lib Dems ?
You can make lots of different cases. That's really my point. It's going to be very messy next time and there's no obvious right answer. If the TV companies are going to empty-chair a party leader next time, they're going to struggle to justify imposing a particular format.
I think on current rules it'd be
SNP-Plaid-Green-Lib Dem-Tory-Labour.
I doubt any party leaders would not show up or send a substitute next time either - that undoubtedly contributed towards the Tories barely winning any undecideds. (The SNP/Plaid could send Blackford/Williams as they're the commons leaders instead of Sturgeon/Wood)
The idea that there might be one 'correct' curve is a silly one; societies, cultures and circumstances differ geographically, and over time, as does willingness to put up with various levels of tax. The idea makes absolute sense at the extremes, providing the shape of the curve is some sort of inverted bath, with quite a large fuzzy bit in the middle. Changes in tax rates, and expectations of the same, obviously have an effect too.
Yes, it's not a single curve. Quite apart from anything else, it depends what alternatives are available to those who might consider changing their behaviour in response to a given marginal rate.
The key point is that we need to do something; the country is crying out for some kind of stimulus that is not buying a new car on the never never.
Otherwise I think we are in 1995 again and people will go for Jezza because up with such a diminution in public services, education, and health, the public will not put.
I do agree that there are shades of 1997 when policies to reduce what was in retrospect a rather modest deficit had resulted in impoverishment of the public sector in terms of capital spendin which Blair and Brown promised to meet (mainly off balance sheet but hey) as well as staffing levels and wages. The pressure on public sector pay is an obvious example.
But it is difficult to make the case for sensible fiscal conservatism when you have completely humiliated a very successful Chancellor and you don't let his successor out of the cupboard for the duration of the campaign. I still like to believe that if the case was positively made then it would be more persuasive than it was on June 8th. And I certainly don't think that the Tories should be turning around and admitting the Corbyn's fantasies were right after all. They weren't. They were absurd.
I tend to the view that we have been focussed on the wrong deficit - ie that the Balance of Payments deficit is more disturbing than the size of the Budget Deficit. Exchange rate flexibility does take away to an extent the policy constraints of the 1950s and 60s - though too sharp a fall in sterling would clearly have adverse consequences for inflation.. I am much more relaxed re- the National Debt and the Budget Deficit. The Debt : GDP ratio is no higher today than was the case in the mid-60s twenty years after World War 2. It was not an issue at the 1964 election - nor in 1959 when the ratio was higher than it is today. I accept that a Budget Deficit of 10%/11% a year would not be sustainable but it has now fallen to below 3% which should be manageable in an environment of circa 3% inflation and negative real interest rates. There needs to be a change in the balance of policy - fiscal policy needs to be loosened whilst monetary policy is tightened via a gradual rise in interest rates from their absurdly low level.
Which there wasn't. The Tories massacred Labour in the local elections five weeks before the General. When there's a mood for change, you get the kind of local elections that we had in 1994-6 or 2008-9.
The NEV based on the local elections implied a Tory lead of 11% and a majority of 45 - 60 - a comfortable win but well short of what the pollsters were then suggesting.
snip... ....agnostic on the issue and was voting on perceived competence, personalities and policy.
IMO, May WAS seen as a "change" candidate by a fair few working-class Labour voters initially: people generally were believing of her talk about helping the lower classes, and being a break from Cameron and Osborne. What changed was her backing fox-hunting, the various sneery dismissals of the "magic money tree", and of course the manifesto (not just the negative things that were in it, but also the lack of anything concrete to help the "just about managing" that people were expecting), which meant the image of her suddenly morphed into being "just another Tory".
Separately, I also wonder if, with Labour now being so much more reliant on young voters than ever before, even with them now being more politically-engaged, whether they simply don't show up at local elections or general mid-term elections, abit like how Democrats always do better in presidential elections than in mid-term elections ....).
I think that's probably a pretty good summary. The lack of obvious, positive, saleable help for the JAMs was an extraordinary omission from the manifesto.
I disagree slightly about the magic money tree. As part of a proper campaign of economic delivery - jobs, growth, stability etc - it had a place and was critical to winning in 2015. It's an argument that the economically vulnerable will buy into but only if you've set the context for it.
The problem with the 'magic money tree' is that it's a very simple explanation of a complicated idea - how does it account for the availability of cash for the DUP bung, for instance, while much smaller sums are regularly denied because resources are scarce ?
Set against that the simple proposition that 'we'll spend whatever is needed' - we're the '6th richest country in the world' - and if necessary we'll soak the rich to pay for it, and you can see the difficulty. You can't demonstrate the economic incoherence of that with simple rhetoric.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think it works exactly the other way round for the Lib Dems. They've kept their involvement in debates because in a multiparty format they're unexcludable. When those numbers are winnowed down, why would you include the Lib Dems and not the DUP?
I'd suggest one criteria would be standing candidates in at LEAST 326 seats.
That would exclude the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Including the Lib Dems but not including the SNP would be making quite a statement.
Is there a case for excluding Plaid & the Greens, but including the SNP and the Lib Dems ?
You can make lots of different cases. That's really my point. It's going to be very messy next time and there's no obvious right answer. If the TV companies are going to empty-chair a party leader next time, they're going to struggle to justify imposing a particular format.
I think on current rules it'd be
SNP-Plaid-Green-Lib Dem-Tory-Labour.
I doubt any party leaders would not show up or send a substitute next time either - that undoubtedly contributed towards the Tories barely winning any undecideds. (The SNP/Plaid could send Blackford/Williams as they're the commons leaders instead of Sturgeon/Wood)
Actually should the Greens be there...
The Greens and Plaid shouldn't be there IMO
There will always be someone upset. What happens if Brexit is put on hold, immigration goes up, and by the time the next GE comes around, a Farage led UKIP are on 18% in the polls and have won a couple of by elections inc Farage himself? You would have plenty of people saying they shouldn't be allowed on the debates as they had no MPs and 2% of the vote in 2017
I say the TV stations should just invite who they think is currently most relevant, and tell the people who don't like it to do one!
Well the curve exists but all we know is wh, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
That's not entirely true. Rich peoto use clever schemes to legitimately avoid tax because (1) the net gain is too low, (or, if you prefer, the cost of employing accountants and advisors is too high relative to the gain), and (2) because the risk involved in engaging in untested schemes is not worth the benefit.
But taxes are not set in a static environment. Rich people and large companies can find more clement tax environments if provoked and it's not necessarily 'dodging' tax to do so. Getting round that challenge is something that governments in all high-walfare societies,
A point made all the more acute by impending Brexit, when a significant number of multinationals will be deciding whether or not to scale back their operations here. Something which makes the prospect of full blooded tax&spend under Corbyn particularly alarming.
I see a positive feedback loop here. The more the internationals decide to scale back, the bigger the economic price of Brexit, so the worse the hit for the Tories and the greater the likelihood of Corbyn being elected afterwards, so, predicting this, more internationals scale back...
Interesting terminology.
I would see that as a negative feedback loop. "The worse the hit for the Tories" = the worse the hit for the country.
Or do such things not matter to you in the grand scheme of getting Jezza into No. 10?
You misunderstand. A positive feedback loop is a feedback loop that acts so as to amplify, rather than dampen the original perturbation. It's engineering terminology, nothing to do with my opinions.
Not true, take the child benefit tax, which for 3 children is close to 70%. I have a choice to do overtime and earn extra. If I keep £58 of every £100 I earn I'll do it and the tax man gets £42 plus employers ni. Keeping just £30 means I don't do it and the tax man loses out on £42. Similarly I directed my bonus into my pension to avoid 70% tax.
What would be the cut off point for you, if you don't mind me asking? At what point between 42% and 70% would you decide not to do the overtime?
Off the cuff I'd say 50%, so if I was giving away more than half, but that would depend upon circumstances, say I'm feeling a bit brassic I might accept 40% with the gov getting 60%, whereas if I'm feeling flush it would be close to the current level, or I'd do the overtime but direct all the extra to my pension
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think it works exactly the other way round for the Lib Dems. They've kept their involvement in debates because in a multiparty format they're unexcludable. When those numbers are winnowed down, why would you include the Lib Dems and not the DUP?
I'd suggest one criteria would be standing candidates in at LEAST 326 seats.
That would exclude the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Including the Lib Dems but not including the SNP would be making quite a statement.
It's an election for the government of the United Kingdom as a whole. There is no possible way that either Plaid or the SNP can form that government (unless they want to start standing in England). The best they hope to achieve is to be in coalition (and even that is unlikely).
I don't want to hear what the SNP will do in Scotland. It has no bearing on me, I can't vote for this party or this person. If they want localised debates they can have (and I think they do) but not for the UK wide debates. If we are including them, why not the DUP, UUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance?
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
That's not entirely true. There will come a point where a given individual will stop trying to use clever schemes to legitimately avoid tax because (1) the net gain is too low, (or, if you prefer, the cost of employing accountants and advisors is too high relative to the gain), and (2) because the risk involved in engaging in untested schemes is not worth the benefit.
But taxes are not set in a static environment. Rich people and large companies can find more clement tax environments if provoked and it's not necessarily 'dodging' tax to do so. Getting round that challenge is something that governments in all high-walfare societies,
A point made all the more acute by impending Brexit, when a significant number of multinationals will be deciding whether or not to scale back their operations here. Something which makes the prospect of full blooded tax&spend under Corbyn particularly alarming.
I see a positive feedback loop here. The more the internationals decide to scale back, the bigger the economic price of Brexit, so the worse the hit for the Tories and the greater the likelihood of Corbyn being elected afterwards, so, predicting this, more internationals scale back...
Call it a positive or negative loop as you will. The point is that a combination of Brexit and Corbyn is likely to inflict much more serious damage on the UK economy than either alone.
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
That's not entirely true. There will come a point where a given individual will stop trying to use clever schemes to legitimately avoid tax because (1) the net gain is too low, (or, if you prefer, the cost of employing accountants and advisors is too high relative to the gain), and (2) because the risk involved in engaging in untested schemes is not worth the benefit.
But taxes are not set in a static environment. Rich people and large companies can find more clement tax environments if provoked and it's not necessarily 'dodging' tax to do so. Getting round that challenge is something that governments in all high-walfare societies,
A point made all the more acute by impending Brexit, when a significant number of multinationals will be deciding whether or not to scale back their operations here. Something which makes the prospect of full blooded tax&spend under Corbyn particularly alarming.
I see a positive feedback loop here. The more the internationals decide to scale back, the bigger the economic price of Brexit, so the worse the hit for the Tories and the greater the likelihood of Corbyn being elected afterwards, so, predicting this, more internationals scale back...
Call it a positive or negative loop as you will. The point is that a combination of Brexit and Corbyn is likely to inflict much more serious damage on the UK economy than either alone.
It's the fact that it is a positive feedback loop (in engineering terms) that makes it so dangerous!
Well the curve exists but all we know is what happens at one extreme, and also what happens at the other.
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
"Common sense" suggests the exact opposite of "individual people paying lower tax rates = higher overall tax take".
Only common sense if you've never been involved in a) selling anything or b) buying anything in a work environment.
Paying taxes is (or should be) an obligation, it's not an optional thing like buying something in a shop.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
That's not entirely true. There will come a point where a given individual will stop trying to use clever schemes to legitimately avoid tax because (1) the net gain is too low, (or, if you prefer, the cost of employing accountants and advisors is too high relative to the gain), and (2) because the risk involved in engaging in untested schemes is not worth the benefit.
But taxes are not set in a static environment. Rich people and large companies can find more clement tax environments if provoked and it's not necessarily 'dodging' tax to do so. Getting round that challenge is something that governments in all high-walfare societies,
A point made all the more acute by impending Brexit, when a significant number of multinationals will be deciding whether or not to scale back their operations here. Something which makes the prospect of full blooded tax&spend under Corbyn particularly alarming.
I see a positive feedback loop here. The more the internationals decide to scale back, the bigger the economic price of Brexit, so the worse the hit for the Tories and the greater the likelihood of Corbyn being elected afterwards, so, predicting this, more internationals scale back...
Call it a positive or negative loop as you will. The point is that a combination of Brexit and Corbyn is likely to inflict much more serious damage on the UK economy than either alone.
It's the fact that it is a positive feedback loop (in engineering terms) that makes it so dangerous!
In fact, going further. I'd have three criteria - must meet TWO out of three to get into the UK wide debates (shade of Small Company Accounting limits here!):
- Party must be standing in at least 326 seats - Must have at least 1 MP elected at election - Must have polled at least X%* UK wide at last election
* Probably between 5-10%.
Only Labour and Con meet all three. Lib Dems meet two or three Greens meet two
I think we're also some way from no one trusting the government to service the debt. Neither do I recall any problems with the DMO's auctions.
We do have the ability to borrow further; but of course the caveat is that, unlike Brown 2002-onwards, it must result in an increase in productivity if it is to be spent on services, or on worthwhile infrastructure projects.
Everyone of every party bangs on about housing; perhaps this is an avenue (!) also, although I appreciate that you get a different story about housing from developers.
Sure, and that wasn't the point I was making. Governments do have a great deal of discretion in funding their activities where they have capacity to engage in unorthodox measures, and there are good reasons for doing so at the right times in the right conditions. But there are always limits.
The other point is that if those limits are reached, finding a way back is a great deal more painful and difficult than avoiding the risk of testing them in the first place. Accumulate enough debt, and simple arithmetic and compound interest will force you to reach those limits whether you want to or not.
Anyone with the least exposure to business, whether on the sales or purchase send, would understand that cutting tax rates will grow the economy. Growing the pie so that each slice is bigger.
I understand that excludes vast swathes of the left vote, so it doesn't surprise me that so many people don't get it...
But the Laffer curve argument is that there is an optimal tax-rate which maximises revenue, ie that if a tax-rate is above that, cutting the tax rate will not just grow the economy, but increase revenue.
As Topping says, the curve makes sense at the extremes. But empirical evidence to support its shape away from the extremes is very thin on the ground. Hence why I thought it had gone out of fashion, and my rather flippant reference to the Neo-Laffer curve.
That seems like saying you can see the locomotive at one end of a railway tunnel and the guards van at the other, but there's no evidence of a train between them inside the tunnel.
Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had dodgy associates" and people felt that was a pretty feeble argument for voting Goldsmith. It's a real plus for democracy as a whole that it's increasingly clear that you can't win an election just by rubbishing people on the other side (and part of Corbyn's appeal that he doesn't). Even if the voters accept that there's something in the rubbishing, it isn't a clincher for them. This is rather a new development - it used to be true that the way to get votes was to bash the other side.
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.
Personally I think one sentence from Nick Palmer is worth a thousand posts from all the naive people who perceive the world only in 1-bit monochrome, and not very accurately at that.
Comments
This is an enormous constraint on public fiscal policy. A government deficit boosts domestic demand. That is its purpose. If too much of that demand is met by imports then you run a trade deficit. That is exactly where we are. Those who are talking about austerity impeding growth completely ignore the fact that we were running such large deficits before 2008 restricts our room for manoeuvre.
If we boost government borrowing now our trade deficit will get bigger and our children will be poorer. It really is that simple. A country that was already overspending both at national and private level simply does not have the capacity to boost demand in a crisis by nearly as much as a country that wasn't.
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/879995640432013312
Although I missed much of the 2 hour Victoria Derbyshire show this morning (as you do ..
K&C Council were asked repeatedly to attend but declined. They were literally empty chaired. The government initially failed to put up a spokesman but as the show progressed someone, somewhere decided it was a poor look and wonder of wonders up popped the Housing minister quicker than you could bung the DUP a billion quid.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north
Blair did not in 05 and 01, Major arguably did not in 92. 1997 doesn't quite fit - can't remember if debates were even mentioned tbh
£27.92 is the most it would cost anyone.
I will enjoy the humble pie on here if (as I expect it to) the greater services liberalisation that the UK can push globally post-EU actually improves both our trade deficit and economy.
Cheers.
I prefer the Neo-Laffer curve myself...
https://ygiraud.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/giraud_rsp_figure3.jpg
But I've said before, the problem with the Lib Dems is even more existential than that facing Labour or the Tories: what are the Lib Dems for? They are not a party of protest but nor are they now even an aspirant party of government. To be local champions is weak and 'the nice party' doesn't work when it's not believed (which it's not, going by current approval figures). Brexit is distinctive but it's fishing in a small pool. There might be scope in theory to 'do a Macron' but it will take a much more potent presence to get there and even if the Lib Dems do find someone with that skill and charisma, the window the bigger parties have opened to that opportunity might by then have closed.
Do such bodies submit their explanatory notes to the Government for approval, or at least for information?
Of course, there are large numbers of people who would get a better funded NHS without having to pay anything more.
Many of them voters....
So here is some spending and higher taxes, I agree it would shoot a lot of foxes (although again, my preference would be to hunt them with hounds, but hey).
I am always wary of hypothecating taxes, however, as the resulting tax take is not as clear cut and usually gets lost in the morass. But I like the idea because it shows original thinking.
But either way, the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that there *wasn't* any 'mood for change', though nor was there any great mood the other way: the public was fairly agnostic on the issue and was voting on perceived competence, personalities and policy.
Swinson needs a few more years back near frontline. Clegg is out.
Er, that's it...
We are a million miles away from the problems of Greece et al as our debt is sterling denominated and we literally can't run out of money to service it. Our sovereign spreads have barely moved these past five years.
Of course, interest payments will at some stage come to be a factor but we are years away from that right now and have other pressing problems.
What else would you do?
Separately, I also wonder if, with Labour now being so much more reliant on young voters than ever before, even with them now being more politically-engaged, whether they simply don't show up at local elections or general mid-term elections, abit like how Democrats always do better in presidential elections than in mid-term elections - because a lot of their voters just don't think it's worth it if there isn't a chance to affect the make-up of the government on offer (something which might help the Tories in mid-term elections in this parliamentary term even if they become very unpopular).
It's in between that is the tricky bit. But common sense and greed suggest that there is some justification for its lessons, if not any particular (x, y) coordinate.
I think we're also some way from no one trusting the government to service the debt. Neither do I recall any problems with the DMO's auctions.
We do have the ability to borrow further; but of course the caveat is that, unlike Brown 2002-onwards, it must result in an increase in productivity if it is to be spent on services, or on worthwhile infrastructure projects.
Everyone of every party bangs on about housing; perhaps this is an avenue (!) also, although I appreciate that you get a different story about housing from developers.
2. Cable's issue was as much thin-pope-fat-pope as anything. He probably wouldn't have considered himself too old in his mid-60s had the previous leader been kicked out because of alcoholism, say. But the fact that Campbell's age was an issue meant that it would inevitably have become at the minimum a point of heightened scrutiny for Cable too.
3. There were many more options as leader then than there are now.
4. But you're right: it is a demanding job for someone in their mid-70s - and who looks his age - and questions will no doubt be asked.
Leaders are usually chosen on a 'two elections and half a parliament' basis i.e. to serve through to the next election with the expectation or hope that they'll do well there and if they do, they will then serve a full parliament and fight a second election. Only then is retirement considered likely. Even if we shorten that timeframe by an entire parliament, if Cable is perceived to have done a decent job (and why else would people be supporting him now unless in that expectation?), the pressure will be for him to fight the election. And if he does well there - which again, will be the Lib Dem hope - whether taking them into government in coalition or holding the government to account from opposition, he'd need to serve at least a year or so before handing the baton over. Will he be able to do that at 80? Perhaps, but it's a fair question to ask.
The argument that "if you lower tax rates then rich people will be willing to pay more tax rather than dodge them altogether" is equivalent to saying that if you make it legal to shop-lift a little bit, then rates of shop-lifting overall will come down.
If you were going to be taxed starting tomorrow at 95% and someone said: here is a way to reduce the amount of tax you pay, it's called an ISA, I'm guessing you would take a look.
I disagree slightly about the magic money tree. As part of a proper campaign of economic delivery - jobs, growth, stability etc - it had a place and was critical to winning in 2015. It's an argument that the economically vulnerable will buy into but only if you've set the context for it.
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/880057677069647872
In the meantime government spending needs to be increasingly focussed on encouraging domestic production. So we need to focus on infrastructure relevant to productivity (the new runway at Heathrow should really be built by now), education that is focussed on skills shortages in rapidly growing industries (software being perhaps the most obvious) and doing what we can to encourage substitutional production here of things that we currently import in supply chains (we may have slightly more room for manoeuvre on this post Brexit, depending on the deal).
None of this provides an instant fix. We were in a very bad place and are now merely in a bad place. But more central borrowing and bigger trade deficits are not the answer and threaten what has been achieved over the last 7 years.
Anyone with the least exposure to business, whether on the sales or purchase send, would understand that cutting tax rates will grow the economy. Growing the pie so that each slice is bigger.
I understand that excludes vast swathes of the left vote, so it doesn't surprise me that so many people don't get it...
The key point is that we need to do something; the country is crying out for some kind of stimulus that is not buying a new car on the never never.
Otherwise I think we are in 1995 again and people will go for Jezza because up with such a diminution in public services, education, and health, the public will not put.
As Topping says, the curve makes sense at the extremes. But empirical evidence to support its shape away from the extremes is very thin on the ground. Hence why I thought it had gone out of fashion, and my rather flippant reference to the Neo-Laffer curve.
But taxes are not set in a static environment. Rich people and large companies can find more clement tax environments if provoked and it's not necessarily 'dodging' tax to do so. Getting round that challenge is something that governments in all high-walfare societies,
Something which makes the prospect of full blooded tax&spend under Corbyn particularly alarming.
But it is difficult to make the case for sensible fiscal conservatism when you have completely humiliated a very successful Chancellor and you don't let his successor out of the cupboard for the duration of the campaign. I still like to believe that if the case was positively made then it would be more persuasive than it was on June 8th. And I certainly don't think that the Tories should be turning around and admitting the Corbyn's fantasies were right after all. They weren't. They were absurd.
We are also in strange times and under such circumstances, I don't think the Cons have much to lose.
Paying taxes is indeed an obligation, and most of us don't spend too much time trying to look for ways to avoid them.
Work/life balance is entirely up to the individual, and if you are likely to lose the lions share of the reward for extra effort, many will choose not to make that effort.
Absent a new Stakhanovite socialism (possibly a McMao fantasy ?) that will always remain the case.
The idea makes absolute sense at the extremes, providing the shape of the curve is some sort of inverted bath, with quite a large fuzzy bit in the middle.
Changes in tax rates, and expectations of the same, obviously have an effect too.
I would see that as a negative feedback loop. "The worse the hit for the Tories" = the worse the hit for the country.
Or do such things not matter to you in the grand scheme of getting Jezza into No. 10?
SNP-Plaid-Green-Lib Dem-Tory-Labour.
I doubt any party leaders would not show up or send a substitute next time either - that undoubtedly contributed towards the Tories barely winning any undecideds.
(The SNP/Plaid could send Blackford/Williams as they're the commons leaders instead of Sturgeon/Wood)
Actually should the Greens be there...
Set against that the simple proposition that 'we'll spend whatever is needed' - we're the '6th richest country in the world' - and if necessary we'll soak the rich to pay for it, and you can see the difficulty. You can't demonstrate the economic incoherence of that with simple rhetoric.
There will always be someone upset. What happens if Brexit is put on hold, immigration goes up, and by the time the next GE comes around, a Farage led UKIP are on 18% in the polls and have won a couple of by elections inc Farage himself? You would have plenty of people saying they shouldn't be allowed on the debates as they had no MPs and 2% of the vote in 2017
I say the TV stations should just invite who they think is currently most relevant, and tell the people who don't like it to do one!
Off the cuff I'd say 50%, so if I was giving away more than half, but that would depend upon circumstances, say I'm feeling a bit brassic I might accept 40% with the gov getting 60%, whereas if I'm feeling flush it would be close to the current level, or I'd do the overtime but direct all the extra to my pension
I don't want to hear what the SNP will do in Scotland. It has no bearing on me, I can't vote for this party or this person. If they want localised debates they can have (and I think they do) but not for the UK wide debates. If we are including them, why not the DUP, UUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance?
- Party must be standing in at least 326 seats
- Must have at least 1 MP elected at election
- Must have polled at least X%* UK wide at last election
* Probably between 5-10%.
Only Labour and Con meet all three.
Lib Dems meet two or three
Greens meet two
UKIP and the Nats would be excluded.
new thread