politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the DUP prepare to back CON on the Queen’s speech here’s th

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the DUP prepare to back CON on the Queen’s speech here’s the implied GE17 result under new boundaries

Electoral Calculus

Read the full story here

Pulpstar

No.

Lucian_Fletcher

Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.

rcs1000

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.

Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?

SirNorfolkPassmore

No.

Note also that the projection is that this is now actually worse for the Tories than for Labour. I'm a little sceptical about that - it may overstate red-ness of areas going into Tory seats based on local election voting - but it's pause for thought for a few MPs. It's relatively easy to find "principled" reasons to vote against boundary changes which "break up natural communities" (and which also happen to bolt a deep red council estate onto your nice, reasonably safe Tory seat).

This one is heading for the long grass, I believe.

GeoffM

The main reason I supported the original reduction in seats - to screw the LibDems into the dirt - has largely gone away now. So I'm really quite 'meh' on the whole thing.

Richard_Nabavi

Not a chance.

RoyalBlue

No. They will be withdrawn and the topic won't be revisited until the 2020s.

Barnesian

I think there is zero chance of a reduction to 600 MPs in this Parliament.

1. NO MOTIVE: The original intention of stuffing Labour has gone so why do it?
2. STRETCHED RESOURCES: Too much else going on - particularly Brexit. Too contentious and disruptive for little political gain.
3. NO CHAMPION: The architects of this proposal (Cameron and Osborne) are gone so who will champion it?
4. LITTLE SUPPORT: MP turkeys voting for Xmas? Don't think so.
5. DUP: Not happy.

Lucian_Fletcher

rcs1000 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.

Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?

There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.

What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.

The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).

Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.

I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).

FrancisUrquhart

Bloody fake news.....

https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/06/28/1436224/the-guardian-backtracks-on-whatsapp-backdoor-report

Alistair

FTPT

Alice_Aforethought said:

Fencesitter said:

Mortimer said:

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...

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.

The Laffer curve rests on the notion of there being a single turning point. There is no evidence that is the case. Indeed only a moments thought would reveal that, at the very least, there would be different turning points for different types of income.

Richard_Nabavi

Alistair said:

The Laffer curve rests on the notion of there being a single turning point.

No it doesn't.

Lucian_Fletcher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland#/media/File:Map_of_predominant_national_identity_in_the_2011_census_in_Northern_Ireland.png

SirNorfolkPassmore

rcs1000 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.

Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?

Slightly depends on how you define. Catholic to Protestant is now very close indeed - about 41%/42%. There will be crossover on that - amongst over 75s, the figures are around 35%/60% and amongst under 30s around 45%/35%.

In General Election voting, traditionally unionist parties have more of an edge. General Election was around 40% SF/SDLP and 48% DUP/UUP/Hermon. The Alliance Party makes up most of the rest - it is an odd one but, on balance, it's more towards moderate unionism and making devolution work.

If there was a referendum, it'd be even more unionist, I suspect. Polls tend to indicate some divide between independence and reunification on the nationalist side, and a degree of pragmatic, cling on to nurse for fear of worse.

rkrkrk

Richard_Nabavi said:

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?

Edit: Okay I should start by acknowledging that I agree with you in the case of Denmark as you've described it.

I completely disagree that every man and his dog agrees with us - I could easily find examples of people getting this completely wrong. David Cameron for instance frequently made speeches misunderstanding this (perhaps deliberately for political reasons I will concede)

But on the substance:

Osborne's efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and particularly by cutting investment choked off growth.

You say he had no room for fiscal stimulus. He repeatedly missed all of his deficit targets, yet UK borrowing costs remained low? So why no room?

This from Simon Wren-Lewis puts it well:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/understanding-george-osborne.html

old_labour

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

dixiedean

One thing not often noted is the extra work. Larger constituencies = 8.33% more constituents. Would you take on 8% more patients/pupils/clients/contracts/hours for the same amount? I wouldn't, and I doubt whether MP's will either.

logical_song

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bloody fake news.....

https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/06/28/1436224/the-guardian-backtracks-on-whatsapp-backdoor-report

Or a mistake that has been admitted?

FrancisUrquhart

logical_song said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bloody fake news.....

https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/06/28/1436224/the-guardian-backtracks-on-whatsapp-backdoor-report

Or a mistake that has been admitted?

Only took 5 months....

FF43

Lucian_Fletcher said:

rcs1000 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.

Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?

There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.

What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.

The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).

Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.

I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).

It would be an interesting thread, if you get round to doing it, Lucian.

Pulpstar

Lucian_Fletcher said:

rcs1000 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.

Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?

There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.

What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.

The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).

Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.

I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).

DUP + UUP + Ind Unionist + NI Cons + TUV = 50.7% at GE2017.
With UKIP was 50.6 GE2015.

david_herdson

dixiedean said:

One thing not often noted is the extra work. Larger constituencies = 8.33% more constituents. Would you take on 8% more patients/pupils/clients/contracts/hours for the same amount? I wouldn't, and I doubt whether MP's will either.

Yes, there ought to be a corresponding increase in office expense allowances if the reduction is carried through.

rcs1000

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alistair said:

The Laffer curve rests on the notion of there being a single turning point.

No it doesn't.

The idea behind the Laffer curve is that there is an inflection point at which an increase in marginal rates causes a reduction in tax recieved. It is possible, of course, that there could be multiple turning points, but it seems unlikely.

GeoffM

dixiedean said:

One thing not often noted is the extra work. Larger constituencies = 8.33% more constituents. Would you take on 8% more patients/pupils/clients/contracts/hours for the same amount? I wouldn't, and I doubt whether MP's will either.

Salaries would rise by at least that 8%, though? And if the admin budget remained the same or rose slightly there would be more money per MP for secretarial and back office work.

MPs are grossly underpaid now and the PM doubly so .... ever since the Sainted Margaret decided that it was too politically difficult to allow them a reasonable salary but they could make up the difference in expenses. A settlement which outlasted her but not the efforts of the Telegraph.

Richard_Nabavi

rkrkrk said:

Osborne's efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and particularly by cutting investment choked off growth.

You say he had no room for fiscal stimulus. He repeatedly missed all of his deficit targets, yet UK borrowing costs remained low? So why no room?

This from Simon Wren-Lewis puts it well:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/understanding-george-osborne.html

He argues backwards from his conclusion. For example:

The pace of austerity clearly changed in 2012. It does not matter in this context why this happened. If the Chancellor thought getting debt down quickly was all important to promoting growth, he should have changed policy to bring deficit reduction back on track in 2012. To most economists it is obvious why he did not do that - because additional austerity would have hurt growth. But if the Chancellor believed fiscal contraction was expansionary, the opposite logic would apply.

That's just silly. He's forgotten to consider the most obvious explanation as to why Osborne didn't alter his policy to get deficit reduction back on track in 2012: namely that deteriorating world conditions, especially in the Eurozone, had changed the balance of risks.

I appreciate that Simon Wren-Lewis is a terribly clever economist, but he does (like many economists) have a tendency to overlook the obvious.

Alice_Aforethought

Alistair said:

FTPT

Alice_Aforethought said:

Fencesitter said:

Mortimer said:

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...

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.

The Laffer curve rests on the notion of there being a single turning point. There is no evidence that is the case. Indeed only a moments thought would reveal that, at the very least, there would be different turning points for different types of income.

Does it?

If we go back to its original formulation, by 14th-century Tunisian economist Ibn Khaldun, we read that

Customs duties are placed upon...commerce...Then gradual increases in the amount of assessments succeed each other regularly, in correspondence with the...spending required in connection with them. Eventually, the taxes will weigh heavily upon the subjects and overburden them…The result is that total tax revenue goes down, as the individual assessments go down. Often, when the decrease is noticed, the amounts of individual imposts are increased...Finally, individual imposts and assessments reach their limit. It would be of no avail to increase them further. The costs of all cultural enterprise are now too high, the taxes are too heavy, and the profits anticipated fail to materialize. Thus, the total revenue continues to decrease, while the amounts of individual imposts and assessments continue to increase..."

It's clear that if you have a tax rate of nil you will raise nil and if you have a tax rate of 100% you will also raise nil. The only question is where between those extremes you'll raise anything. Khaldun's formulation is about individual responses to that question.

He also said, paraphrasing slightly, that

The past resembles the future as water resembles water

which is a cracking epigram to put on the front of any forecast you have to write at work.

GeoffM

Alistair said:

FTPT

Alice_Aforethought said:

Fencesitter said:

Mortimer said:

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...

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.

The Laffer curve rests on the notion of there being a single turning point. There is no evidence that is the case. Indeed only a moments thought would reveal that, at the very least, there would be different turning points for different types of income.

That's simply and factually wrong.

Lucian_Fletcher

Pulpstar said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

rcs1000 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.

Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?

There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.

What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.

The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).

Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.

I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).

DUP + UUP + Ind Unionist + NI Cons + TUV = 50.7% at GE2017.
With UKIP was 50.6 GE2015.

I apologise if I miscounted. I was relying on my (former) MP's rant at a meeting this week.

Richard_Nabavi

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alistair said:

The Laffer curve rests on the notion of there being a single turning point.

No it doesn't.

The idea behind the Laffer curve is that there is an inflection point at which an increase in marginal rates causes a reduction in tax recieved. It is possible, of course, that there could be multiple turning points, but it seems unlikely.

Indeed, but not a single universal inflection point for different taxes and different circumstances.

dixiedean

david_herdson said:

dixiedean said:

One thing not often noted is the extra work. Larger constituencies = 8.33% more constituents. Would you take on 8% more patients/pupils/clients/contracts/hours for the same amount? I wouldn't, and I doubt whether MP's will either.

Yes, there ought to be a corresponding increase in office expense allowances if the reduction is carried through.

Another thing too is the disruption. If you keep it at 650, the majority of constituencies remain unchanged. Relatively few will be radically altered (except for Wales).

Move to 600, and the vast majority are radically altered. This means a new membership/ committee to be cultivated. New contacts to be established with councils, etc. New constituents with different issues and priorities....

All that, and re-selection battles, too.

Suggests inertia will prevail.

rkrkrk

GeoffM said:

dixiedean said:

One thing not often noted is the extra work. Larger constituencies = 8.33% more constituents. Would you take on 8% more patients/pupils/clients/contracts/hours for the same amount? I wouldn't, and I doubt whether MP's will either.

Salaries would rise by at least that 8%, though? And if the admin budget remained the same or rose slightly there would be more money per MP for secretarial and back office work.

MPs are grossly underpaid now and the PM doubly so .... ever since the Sainted Margaret decided that it was too politically difficult to allow them a reasonable salary but they could make up the difference in expenses. A settlement which outlasted her but not the efforts of the Telegraph.

I thought the idea was to reduce the cost of politics so salaries wouldn't rise?

I agree that MPs should be paid a bit more.

I don't see the point in cutting 50 MPs.

If anything I wouldn't mind having more - make it a bit more 'normal' to meet your MP and reduce the divide between the people and parliament....

Lucian_Fletcher

FF43 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

rcs1000 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.

Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?

There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.

What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.

The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).

Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.

I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).

It would be an interesting thread, if you get round to doing it, Lucian.

I honestly don't know whether I need to make my points forcibly in private before doing so in public. The problem is that there's such a sense of DUP victory around that the unionist electorate won't want to listen right now.

I truly believe the road the DUP is leading us down is one signposted Dublin but I fear the unionist electorate won't realise until we're metaphorically well past Dundalk.

rcs1000

Richard_Nabavi said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alistair said:

The Laffer curve rests on the notion of there being a single turning point.

No it doesn't.

The idea behind the Laffer curve is that there is an inflection point at which an increase in marginal rates causes a reduction in tax recieved. It is possible, of course, that there could be multiple turning points, but it seems unlikely.

Indeed, but not a single universal inflection point for different taxes and different circumstances.

Yes.

Lucian_Fletcher

rkrkrk said:

GeoffM said:

dixiedean said:

One thing not often noted is the extra work. Larger constituencies = 8.33% more constituents. Would you take on 8% more patients/pupils/clients/contracts/hours for the same amount? I wouldn't, and I doubt whether MP's will either.

Salaries would rise by at least that 8%, though? And if the admin budget remained the same or rose slightly there would be more money per MP for secretarial and back office work.

MPs are grossly underpaid now and the PM doubly so .... ever since the Sainted Margaret decided that it was too politically difficult to allow them a reasonable salary but they could make up the difference in expenses. A settlement which outlasted her but not the efforts of the Telegraph.

I thought the idea was to reduce the cost of politics so salaries wouldn't rise?

I agree that MPs should be paid a bit more.

I don't see the point in cutting 50 MPs.

If anything I wouldn't mind having more - make it a bit more 'normal' to meet your MP and reduce the divide between the people and parliament....

I think if an MP does the job he/she is supposed to do it shouldn't be THAT abnormal to meet your MP. They should get round a lot of different community groups and be seen around town.

GarethoftheVale2

On topic, I wonder whether the Labour leadership might be in favour of the new boundaries as they may be more helpful to Lab and as a way of trying to get rid of some of the moderates.

BannedInParis

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Osborne's efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and particularly by cutting investment choked off growth.

You say he had no room for fiscal stimulus. He repeatedly missed all of his deficit targets, yet UK borrowing costs remained low? So why no room?

This from Simon Wren-Lewis puts it well:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/understanding-george-osborne.html

He argues backwards from his conclusion. For example:

The pace of austerity clearly changed in 2012. It does not matter in this context why this happened. If the Chancellor thought getting debt down quickly was all important to promoting growth, he should have changed policy to bring deficit reduction back on track in 2012. To most economists it is obvious why he did not do that - because additional austerity would have hurt growth. But if the Chancellor believed fiscal contraction was expansionary, the opposite logic would apply.

That's just silly. He's forgotten to consider the most obvious explanation as to why Osborne didn't alter his policy to get deficit reduction back on track in 2012: namely that deteriorating world conditions, especially in the Eurozone, had changed the balance of risks.

I appreciate that Simon Wren-Lewis is a terribly clever economist, but he does (like many economists) have a tendency to overlook the obvious.

There's an easy test - did we see similar reductions in growth in other Eurozone countries in the same period?

The answer is pretty much unarguably yes (see, for instance, https://tradingeconomics.com/france/gdp-growth [select 10Y and column] and, even better, compare with https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth [select 10Y and column])

Scott_P

Alex Salmond was respected, disdained, despised, even grudgingly admired, but his opponents always feared him. No one fears Nicola Sturgeon. Her tormentors on the Tory and Labour benches cackled and howled. When she allowed that some Scots did not want a second referendum, the opposition MSPs piped up: ‘The majority!’

Later, she ventured that ‘the SNP government has been in power for ten years’; ‘We know!’ came the riposte amid more guffawing. The First Minister strained to be heard and tried to reassert her authority by raising her voice: ‘I and this Government will continue to take the decisions that we think are in the best interests of—’

‘The SNP,’ Miss Davidson chimed in. Up went the chuckling and down went the First Minister’s shoulders. Miss Jean Brodie had been replaced by a hapless substitute who couldn’t control the class and suspected they had stuck a ‘kick me’ sign on her back. Even the Liberal Democrats were laughing at her. The Liberal Democrats.

The picture behind her was very different. Rows upon rows of doleful faces grimaced.

They know what their opponents know: Nicola Sturgeon has lost the argument and she is losing the country.

https://stephendaisley.com/2017/06/28/the-ladys-not-for-turning-on-independence/

rkrkrk

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Osborne's efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and particularly by cutting investment choked off growth.

You say he had no room for fiscal stimulus. He repeatedly missed all of his deficit targets, yet UK borrowing costs remained low? So why no room?

This from Simon Wren-Lewis puts it well:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/understanding-george-osborne.html

He argues backwards from his conclusion. For example:

The pace of austerity clearly changed in 2012. It does not matter in this context why this happened. If the Chancellor thought getting debt down quickly was all important to promoting growth, he should have changed policy to bring deficit reduction back on track in 2012. To most economists it is obvious why he did not do that - because additional austerity would have hurt growth. But if the Chancellor believed fiscal contraction was expansionary, the opposite logic would apply.

That's just silly. He's forgotten to consider the most obvious explanation as to why Osborne didn't alter his policy to get deficit reduction back on track in 2012: namely that deteriorating world conditions, especially in the Eurozone, had changed the balance of risks.

I appreciate that Simon Wren-Lewis is a terribly clever economist, but he does (like many economists) have a tendency to overlook the obvious.

Try this one then:
https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e1

My point is that Osborne's austerity was self-defeating. See in particular the borrow more/borrow less paragraph.

Cameron and Osborne either didn't understand they were undermining their deficit objective (possible) or didn't care (also possible) because their real aim was to reduce the size of the state.

SandyRentool

If there are to be boundary changes, whether for 600 or 650 seats, then these need to be based on the current electoral register, not an out of date version that Cameron insisted on using to gerrymander the outcome.

And if the total number of MPs is reduced, the number of front benchers needs to be reduced too.

MarkSenior

The point of reducing the number of seats to 600 was always for partisan reasons as it would benefit the Conservatives . Now at best the effects are neutral and possibly slightly disadvantageous a new review will be started with around 640/650 seats eliminating the pro Wales bias that exists at the moment .

Richard_Nabavi

BannedInParis said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Osborne's efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and particularly by cutting investment choked off growth.

You say he had no room for fiscal stimulus. He repeatedly missed all of his deficit targets, yet UK borrowing costs remained low? So why no room?

This from Simon Wren-Lewis puts it well:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/understanding-george-osborne.html

He argues backwards from his conclusion. For example:

The pace of austerity clearly changed in 2012. It does not matter in this context why this happened. If the Chancellor thought getting debt down quickly was all important to promoting growth, he should have changed policy to bring deficit reduction back on track in 2012. To most economists it is obvious why he did not do that - because additional austerity would have hurt growth. But if the Chancellor believed fiscal contraction was expansionary, the opposite logic would apply.

That's just silly. He's forgotten to consider the most obvious explanation as to why Osborne didn't alter his policy to get deficit reduction back on track in 2012: namely that deteriorating world conditions, especially in the Eurozone, had changed the balance of risks.

I appreciate that Simon Wren-Lewis is a terribly clever economist, but he does (like many economists) have a tendency to overlook the obvious.

There's an easy test - did we see similar reductions in growth in other Eurozone countries in the same period?

The answer is pretty much unarguably yes (see, for instance, https://tradingeconomics.com/france/gdp-growth [select 10Y and column] and, even better, compare with https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth [select 10Y and column])

The other point is that Simon Wren-Lewis is arguing against a straw man. Osborne didn't think that 'getting debt down quickly was all important to promoting growth', in the sense that getting it down more quickly would promote growth further. Quite the opposite, in fact - Osborne would have known that any fool, even Gordon Brown, could get a temporary boost to growth by turning on the taps. That was never the issue, the issue was the rate at which you get back to fiscal sanity without causing too much damage to growth: a trade-off which Osborne judged extremely well.

Norm

As a reward for leaving the EU and as recognition of the fact they will no longer be rubber stamping EU polices 50% of the time MPs should receive a one -off salary rise to say £100K a year, possibly higher. The 600 MP proposal should also be binned because even without leaving the EU constituency workloads are increasing due to our rapidly increasing population. Other increasingly overloaded professionals though such as GPs may have something to say.

Paristonda

Post brexit you could argue we should put up the number of MPs to 700. If you want to cut the cost of politics, the Lords is the problem.

I don't really see why people think they need higher pay though. They are very well paid compared to many public sector workers. The salary is easily enough for someone to live comfortably on. Unless you are talking about scrapping all expenses to increase the salary - that may have some merit as an argument.

Richard_Nabavi

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Osborne's efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and particularly by cutting investment choked off growth.

You say he had no room for fiscal stimulus. He repeatedly missed all of his deficit targets, yet UK borrowing costs remained low? So why no room?

This from Simon Wren-Lewis puts it well:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/understanding-george-osborne.html

He argues backwards from his conclusion. For example:

The pace of austerity clearly changed in 2012. It does not matter in this context why this happened. If the Chancellor thought getting debt down quickly was all important to promoting growth, he should have changed policy to bring deficit reduction back on track in 2012. To most economists it is obvious why he did not do that - because additional austerity would have hurt growth. But if the Chancellor believed fiscal contraction was expansionary, the opposite logic would apply.

That's just silly. He's forgotten to consider the most obvious explanation as to why Osborne didn't alter his policy to get deficit reduction back on track in 2012: namely that deteriorating world conditions, especially in the Eurozone, had changed the balance of risks.

I appreciate that Simon Wren-Lewis is a terribly clever economist, but he does (like many economists) have a tendency to overlook the obvious.

Try this one then:
https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e1

My point is that Osborne's austerity was self-defeating. See in particular the borrow more/borrow less paragraph.

Cameron and Osborne either didn't understand they were undermining their deficit objective (possible) or didn't care (also possible) because their real aim was to reduce the size of the state.

And yet he got the deficit down at a cracking pace by historic standards, unemployment didn't rise (quite the opposite), and the UK was universally regarded as the most successful major economy in Europe, other than Germany, during his period in office, and one of the most successful in the world. So the facts are in his favour, whatever the economic theorists say.

Recidivist

GeoffM said:

The main reason I supported the original reduction in seats - to screw the LibDems into the dirt - has largely gone away now. So I'm really quite 'meh' on the whole thing.

That's a pretty terrible reason for supporting it - but credit for honesty.

JPJ2

Scott P

If you think the views and reports of Stephen Daisley (turfed out of STV, and NOT at the behest of the SNP) are accurate, then more fool you. Having watched it live, I recognise a work of fiction from Daisley. Davidson looked very uncomfortable when her past pro EU views were thrown back at her.

As I said yesterday, the only thing that changed yesterday is that the work on the legislation has been delayed (to accommodate the hard of thinking).

Whenever all the 27 European nations plus the Commons and Lords are preparing to vote on the Brexit deal, the penny will drop with the Scottish electorate that they would be fools not to have a vote themselves.
Then legislation for a referendum and a second confirming vote for a referendum will be enacted, and all the gathering failures of the Tory Westminster government will come home to roost (the dossier is already building on the "feeble 13").

Pong

We would be better to do a proper boundary review and ditch geographical boundaries for Westminster, altogether.

Give every age their own STV constituency of ~5 MP's.

Scott_P

JPJ2 said:

Scott P

LOL

We are past peak Nicola. She should have reshuffled her team today to rotate the deadwood, but she can't even do that.

NickPalmer

My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.

Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?

felix

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/879970887189090304

FrancisUrquhart

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

It is strangely silent. Perhaps all those outraged of Islington are busy booking their ferry tickets?

JPJ2

Scott P.

I doubt if we are past peak Nicola-but even were it so, there are many excellent candidates to replace her.

Much as I admired the oft praised efforts of Angus Robertson, his absence at Westminster has found an able replacement in Ian Blackford.

If the SNP were ever a one man or woman band (only in the simplistic MSM view), those days are long gone.

IanB2

The Act requires a boundary review every five years, co-ordinated with the expected GE cycle from the FTPA, 2015, 2020, 2025 etc. At the very least the Act will need to be amended to introduce a new timetable (or, more sensibly, to say something like "during every Parliament") now that we have had an election in 2017. This technical amendment (which may start in the Lords, as did the abandonment of the last review) will provide an opportunity to stop the whole process, and we may never see the final recommendations from the 600 review.

As others have said below, it'll re-start using current data, a 650 seat target, and, probably, more flexible criteria. There are sufficient Tories concerned about the changes to make it difficult to get through Parliament, with or without the issue of the NI boundaries (which could easily change at the final stage, if the process is allowed to continue, since surely every interested Unionist party in NI will have objected and submitted alternative proposals). The "extra work" when MEPs disappear, and Parliament's supposed extra business during and after Brexit, provide easy excuses for dropping the reduction in seats, and of course the original justification was linked to austerity, which is now dying before our eyes.

Whether or not the proposals favour Labour isn't the sole issue for them (since this could easily change at final stage) - they won't find the 600 very attractive, since their constituencies tend to generate far more casework than Tory ones in the shires, and they don't like the out of date data which, being the first year of IER, they have always argued favours unreasonably the Tories. Indeed using current data could easily produce a review that ends up favouring Labour overall, particularly given the extra registrations from young people in 2015, 2016 and 2017 which will tend to be concentrated in urban and university seats, all leaning toward Labour.

A restarted review could easily be done by 2020.

GarethoftheVale2

MarkSenior said:

The point of reducing the number of seats to 600 was always for partisan reasons as it would benefit the Conservatives . Now at best the effects are neutral and possibly slightly disadvantageous a new review will be started with around 640/650 seats eliminating the pro Wales bias that exists at the moment .

The important thing is there needs to be some sort of review. Even in England (and ignoring the special case of the Isle of Wight) electorates range from 55,571 in Newcastle Central to 93,223 in Cambs NW. Again, in England there are now 6 seats with over 90k electors and 8 with under 60k electors. The average across the whole of the UK is 72,159 electors per seat

There's no excuse for the wide discrepancy.

Scott_P

JPJ2 said:

Much as I admired the oft praised efforts of Angus Robertson, his absence at Westminster has found an able replacement in Ian Blackford.

Laughing so hard I may injure myself

old_labour

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

I can see TMay being thrown under a bus re trade etc, after he meets Macron. The Donald does not do loyalty.

FrancisUrquhart

old_labour said:

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

I can see TMay being thrown under a bus re trade etc, after he meets Macron. The Donald does not do loyalty.

And then May will get it in the neck again....

isam

FrancisUrquhart said:

old_labour said:

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

I can see TMay being thrown under a bus re trade etc, after he meets Macron. The Donald does not do loyalty.

And then May will get it in the neck again....

I just want Macron to help The Donald down some stairs, main dans la main

JPJ2

Scott P

Are there ANY plausible candidates to replace peak Davidson or the dreadful Dugdale?

Think about that-it should stop you laughing, as what happens at Holyrood is de facto what will determine Scotland's future :-)

SirNorfolkPassmore

Pong said:

Hopefully we'll have another boundary review and ditch geographical boundaries for Westminster, altogether.

Give every age their own STV constituency of ~5 MP's.

Doesn't that presuppose that having MPs representing very homogeneous groups is a good thing?

You could, as you say, cut it by age. Or you could do it in other ways - by wealth, employment status, ethnicity, religion etc. You could possibly cobble together the numbers to have an MP representing 30-something white, atheist delivery men. The MP could then happily ignore the vast majority of the public and put all his energy into aggressively promoting the interests of the tiny segment of society who he represents.

But I query the premise. The point, if anything, is to have reasonably heterogeneous constituencies - each one a different cross-section (Bootle isn't the same as Surrey Heath of course) but each including some public sector workers, some private sector ones, some well off, some struggling, some men, some women, some young, some old etc. The ideal is that the MP then tries to balance competing interests rather than aggressively promoting one over others. The MP ought to be thinking about what is good for society as a whole, not just his "clients".

It doesn't always work like that, of course, but it seems to me preferable to moving explicitly to a system where MPs are encouraged to ignore people who don't fit a particular, narrow template.

RoyalBlue

NickPalmer said:

My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.

Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?

God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.

Richard_Nabavi

Now this is (allegedly) one hell of a perk of the job:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/french-air-force-chief-accused-of-using-fighter-jet-for-weekend-jaunts-gen-richard-reboul-provence

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/bbcparliament/status/880094117690318848

Alistair

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alistair said:

The Laffer curve rests on the notion of there being a single turning point.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does otherwise it is saying nothing. The Laffer curve says that not only is there an optimal tax level for maximising tax revenue but that there are no local-maxima.

Without that constraint the Laffer curve would say that as you change tax rates the amount of tax revenue you get would change - which is a vacuously true statement.

Beverley_C

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.

In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.

DM_Andy

IanB2 said:

Whether or not the proposals favour Labour isn't the sole issue for them (since this could easily change at final stage) - they won't find the 600 very attractive, since their constituencies tend to generate far more casework than Tory ones in the shires, and they don't like the out of date data which, being the first year of IER, they have always argued favours unreasonably the Tories. Indeed using current data could easily produce a review that ends up favouring Labour overall, particularly given the extra registrations from young people in 2015, 2016 and 2017 which will tend to be concentrated in urban and university seats, all leaning toward Labour.

Isn't that an argument for keeping the current review, if the Tories think that a restarted review would benefit Labour?

FrancisUrquhart

Richard_Nabavi said:

Now this is (allegedly) one hell of a perk of the job:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/french-air-force-chief-accused-of-using-fighter-jet-for-weekend-jaunts-gen-richard-reboul-provence

Most disappointing that being French he wasn't taking his mistress with him.

Richard_Nabavi

FrancisUrquhart said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Now this is (allegedly) one hell of a perk of the job:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/french-air-force-chief-accused-of-using-fighter-jet-for-weekend-jaunts-gen-richard-reboul-provence

Most disappointing that being French he wasn't taking his mistress with him.

One has to be discreet. A separate jet for the mistress would be convenable, I imagine.

IanB2

DM_Andy said:

IanB2 said:

Whether or not the proposals favour Labour isn't the sole issue for them (since this could easily change at final stage) - they won't find the 600 very attractive, since their constituencies tend to generate far more casework than Tory ones in the shires, and they don't like the out of date data which, being the first year of IER, they have always argued favours unreasonably the Tories. Indeed using current data could easily produce a review that ends up favouring Labour overall, particularly given the extra registrations from young people in 2015, 2016 and 2017 which will tend to be concentrated in urban and university seats, all leaning toward Labour.

Isn't that an argument for keeping the current review, if the Tories think that a restarted review would benefit Labour?

if there aren't enough Tories willing to vote for it, it doesn't really matter. The 600 review is not regarded favourably because the criteria being so tight and inflexible is throwing up some quite ridiculous proposals.

felix

Beverley_C said:

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.

In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.

Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?

TheScreamingEagles

Another example of Mrs May shitting the bed thanks to her vanity trip with this needless election.

SirNorfolkPassmore

GarethoftheVale2 said:

MarkSenior said:

The point of reducing the number of seats to 600 was always for partisan reasons as it would benefit the Conservatives . Now at best the effects are neutral and possibly slightly disadvantageous a new review will be started with around 640/650 seats eliminating the pro Wales bias that exists at the moment .

The important thing is there needs to be some sort of review. Even in England (and ignoring the special case of the Isle of Wight) electorates range from 55,571 in Newcastle Central to 93,223 in Cambs NW. Again, in England there are now 6 seats with over 90k electors and 8 with under 60k electors. The average across the whole of the UK is 72,159 electors per seat

There's no excuse for the wide discrepancy.

That's not the point Mark was making, I think.

He was saying the reduction in MP numbers was the partisan reasons as, under the old electoral map, that particular change did clearly help the blues and harm others.

"Normal" boundary reviews are less controversial - the Boundary Commission does occasionally redraw to even out numbers a bit.

One of the morals of this story is not to over-focus on projected seat numbers in dealing with boundaries. I recall that the 4th periodic boundary review in the mid-1990s was meant to help the Tories by moving some people from Tory safe seats into marginal seats. As it happened, they would have saved more in 1997 by not bothering - Labour won the marginals easily, and the supposedly "safe" seats could have done with those extra Tory voters. Now, what seemed like a good idea for the Tories in 2010 looks like a wash. Better to have done it as business as usual - it's been more trouble than it's worth.

TheScreamingEagles

I assume this has been discussed?

Ed Balls gives Radiohead at Glastonbury 2017 a big thumbs down. There goes five votes...

http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a831756/ed-balls-pans-radiohead-at-glastonbury-2017/

CarlottaVance

The European Union is willing to give ground on its demand that its judges protect the future rights of EU citizens in the U.K., according to three EU officials, potentially eliminating a major obstruction to progress in the Brexit negotiations.

In what would be a significant concession to the U.K., the EU could settle for alternatives to its original position that the European Court of Justice must be the ultimate arbiter. That would put the onus back in the U.K. to increase the level of protection it’s offering, which the EU says is below existing rights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/eu-said-willing-to-soften-brexit-position-over-court-s-role

Pulpstar

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-sports-channels-prices-football-golf-cricket

Interesting.

Anorak

From the article: "I wonder what the DUP will do"

Do you Mike? Do you really wonder? I think not. As much chance of supporting the reduction as Gerry Adams singing God Save The Queen at the Grand Orange Lodge's Christmas party.

SirNorfolkPassmore

TheScreamingEagles said:

I assume this has been discussed?

Ed Balls gives Radiohead at Glastonbury 2017 a big thumbs down. There goes five votes...

http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a831756/ed-balls-pans-radiohead-at-glastonbury-2017/

They are probably in Lib Dem/Tory marginal, Oxford West and Abingdon, so Labour won't be that bothered.

Actually, I'm not sure they are these days - although I think two or three still live there.

Beverley_C

felix said:

Beverley_C said:

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.

In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.

Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?

I do not know. I have no interest in French politics. I know he won the election and that he is younger than his wife but that is more or less my entire knowledge of the man.

FrancisUrquhart

Pulpstar said:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-sports-channels-prices-football-golf-cricket

Interesting.

They have basically been doing this for ages now. SS4 has been golf, SS2 cricket...

Morris_Dancer

Miss Vance, if it's a significant concession that the EU doesn't want its judges to impose its law on people in our country, that's indicative of why so many people dislike the grasping monstrosity.

Anorak

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, if it's a significant concession that the EU doesn't want its judges to impose its law on people in our country, that's indicative of why so many people dislike the grasping monstrosity.

You're still upset about that VAT thing, aren't you?

CarlottaVance

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, if it's a significant concession that the EU doesn't want its judges to impose its law on people in our country, that's indicative of why so many people dislike the grasping monstrosity.

I suspect its come from the Barnier arm - we've yet to hear from Druncker or Verhofstadt camps I suspect....

Peter_the_Punter

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Osborne's efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and particularly by cutting investment choked off growth.

You say he had no room for fiscal stimulus. He repeatedly missed all of his deficit targets, yet UK borrowing costs remained low? So why no room?

This from Simon Wren-Lewis puts it well:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/understanding-george-osborne.html

He argues backwards from his conclusion. For example:

The pace of austerity clearly changed in 2012. It does not matter in this context why this happened. If the Chancellor thought getting debt down quickly was all important to promoting growth, he should have changed policy to bring deficit reduction back on track in 2012. To most economists it......... do that - because additional austerity would have hurt growth. But if the Chancellor believed fiscal contraction was expansionary, the opposite logic would apply.

That's just silly. He's forgotten to consider the most obvious explanation as to why Osborne didn't alter his policy to get deficit reduction back on track in 2012: namely that deteriorating world conditions, especially in the Eurozone, had changed the balance of risks.

I appreciate that Simon Wren-Lewis is a terribly clever economist, but he does (like many economists) have a tendency to overlook the obvious.

Try this one then:
https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e1

My point is that Osborne's austerity was self-defeating. See in particular the borrow more/borrow less paragraph.

Cameron and Osborne either didn't understand they were undermining their deficit objective (possible) or didn't care (also possible) because their real aim was to reduce the size of the state.

And yet he got the deficit down at a cracking pace by historic standards, unemployment didn't rise (quite the opposite), and the UK was universally regarded as the most successful major economy in Europe, other than Germany, during his period in office, and one of the most successful in the world. So the facts are in his favour, whatever the economic theorists say.

Quite.

And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.

As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.

TLs need to be put on suicide watch.

old_labour

Ruth Davidson has put Nicola Sturgeon “on notice” that she intends to replace her as First Minister at the next Holyrood election after unveiling a reshuffle of her top team.

Peter_the_Punter

Beverley_C said:

felix said:

Beverley_C said:

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.

In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.

Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?

I do not know. I have no interest in French politics. I know he won the election and that he is younger than his wife but that is more or less my entire knowledge of the man.

Macron is a Blairite. The similarities - personal as well as political - are extraordinary.

williamglenn

Peter_the_Punter said:

TLs need to be put on suicide watch.

Tory Remainers who made (and thought in terms of) nothing but cold cost/benefit arguments are almost equally culpable for the result. The EU is ours, not theirs, and the Remain campaign made people feel otherwise.

GeoffM

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, if it's a significant concession that the EU doesn't want its judges to impose its law on people in our country, that's indicative of why so many people dislike the grasping monstrosity.

Exactly. If the man who demands the Moon on a Stick With Sparklers downgrades the demand to Moon on Lollipop with Tinfoil we haven't really gained anything. Just a different battle to fight.

NickPalmer

RoyalBlue said:

NickPalmer said:

My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.

Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?

God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.

When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/880084619630190596

Richard_Nabavi

Peter_the_Punter said:

Quite.

And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.

As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.

TLs need to be put on suicide watch.

A lot now depends on whether a reasonable deal can be done with our EU friends.

Incidentally, after I escalated the issue of the unpaid Betfair cheque yesterday, they did phone me and I think it is being resolved, although no dosh has actually appeared as yet!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Anorak, the VAT mess was and is completely indefensible. The idea of a link tax is even more mental.

GeoffM

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-sports-channels-prices-football-golf-cricket

Interesting.

They have basically been doing this for ages now. SS4 has been golf, SS2 cricket...

I vaguely remember something about paying for television once.

But that was years ago, Now this android box thingy I've got does it all for free.

RobD

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbcparliament/status/880094117690318848

I thought that was an exclusive perk of being a PB Tory

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, if it's a significant concession that the EU doesn't want its judges to impose its law on people in our country, that's indicative of why so many people dislike the grasping monstrosity.

I suspect its come from the Barnier arm - we've yet to hear from Druncker or Verhofstadt camps I suspect....

Has there been movement on the ECJ oversight issue? The two proposals aren't that dissimilar, so I can see an agreement being reached soon.

Richard_Nabavi

NickPalmer said:

When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.

Presumably they see that chaos and confusion seem very popular with the electorate, so they are trying the same approach:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-wont-commit-end-10432938

RoyalBlue

NickPalmer said:

RoyalBlue said:

NickPalmer said:

My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.

Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?

God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.

When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/880084619630190596

Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.

Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.

AndyJS

test

Beverley_C

Peter_the_Punter said:

Beverley_C said:

felix said:

Beverley_C said:

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.

In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.

Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?

I do not know. I have no interest in French politics. I know he won the election and that he is younger than his wife but that is more or less my entire knowledge of the man.

Macron is a Blairite. The similarities - personal as well as political - are extraordinary.

Thank you Peter - but poor France.... a Blairite. Oh dear!

PClipp

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Osborne's efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and particularly by cutting investment choked off growth.

You say he had no room for fiscal stimulus. He repeatedly missed all of his deficit targets, yet UK borrowing costs remained low? So why no room?

This from Simon Wren-Lewis puts it well:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/understanding-george-osborne.html

He argues backwards from his conclusion. For example:

The pace of austerity clearly changed in 2012. It does not matter in this context why this happened. If the Chancellor thought getting debt down quickly was all important to promoting growth, he should have changed policy to bring deficit reduction back on track in 2012. To most economists it is obvious why he did not do that - because additional austerity would have hurt growth. But if the Chancellor believed fiscal contraction was expansionary, the opposite logic would apply.

That's just silly. He's forgotten to consider the most obvious explanation as to why Osborne didn't alter his policy to get deficit reduction back on track in 2012: namely that deteriorating world conditions, especially in the Eurozone, had changed the balance of risks.

I appreciate that Simon Wren-Lewis is a terribly clever economist, but he does (like many economists) have a tendency to overlook the obvious.

Try this one then:
https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e1

My point is that Osborne's austerity was self-defeating. See in particular the borrow more/borrow less paragraph.

Cameron and Osborne either didn't understand they were undermining their deficit objective (possible) or didn't care (also possible) because their real aim was to reduce the size of the state.

And yet he got the deficit down at a cracking pace by historic standards, unemployment didn't rise (quite the opposite), and the UK was universally regarded as the most successful major economy in Europe, other than Germany, during his period in office, and one of the most successful in the world. So the facts are in his favour, whatever the economic theorists say.

The fact that it takes a year or two to work through, as somebody mentioned this afternoon, means that all the good things can be attributed to the influence of the Lib Dems. It does take while for the PB Tories to cotton on.

RobD

Beverley_C said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Beverley_C said:

felix said:

Beverley_C said:

felix said:

old_labour said:

Donald Trump is to visit Paris for Bastille Day.

Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.

Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.

In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.

Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?

I do not know. I have no interest in French politics. I know he won the election and that he is younger than his wife but that is more or less my entire knowledge of the man.

Macron is a Blairite. The similarities - personal as well as political - are extraordinary.

Thank you Peter - but poor France.... a Blairite. Oh dear!

Macron is a Tory? Hm... maybe he's not all that bad.