To think that, not so long ago, the fashionable view was that Boris's "buffoon" thing was all just an act, and that he was in reality a super-intelligent man.
One can be highly intelligent and also lacking in many other things like common sense or basic life skills.
I once had to teach the 20 year old Oxford undergraduate daughter of a former SoS for Health how to make instant coffee...
Spend anytime in academia and it is the norm, not the exception....
I'm implying we as a nation have an issue. Now it's not simple of course, if your economy is growing at 3% and inflation is also 3% (say late 1960's) as long as you are borrowing in your own currency running a say 2% deficit is not going to frighten anyone (except of course bond holders who are on the quiet getting 3% taken off them every year less the bond yield), and your debt to GDP will drop. But generally we don't seem to want to live within our means.
Take the triple lock, the removal of one part of which would only have kicked in if inflation was less than 2.5% (and uprating for inflation would still have taken place), and was proposed only six months ago and we collectively threw our hands up and said "no". So it has become a shibboleth that is put in the electoral kryptonite box for all parties in future marked "never, ever, under any circumstances touch, even with a mile long bargepole". Now in reality there is a way out of the maths on that one by increasing the pension age faster than otherwise would have been the case, and I'm sure, on the quiet, whoever is in power that will now happen, but it seems to me illustrative.
We have run a deficit with the rest of the world for the past 20 odd years without a break, we have net foreign debts now I believe, in 2010 we were borrowing (if I recall rightly) about 13% of GDP on the public finances, and though the present lot have got that down to 3% ish (?), the country now seems to be chafing again at how "tough" things are.
It's a problem we should see in our national mirror rather than though one particular party prism. Even if I personally think one of the present lot's proposals are a lot worse than the other I think it's deeper than that, and given a globalised world I doubt we are ever going to get back to those 1950's and 60's numbers any time soon which made life pretty easy relatively.
I don't disagree with much of that at all. I would point out ,however, that out Debt/GDP ratio was higher in the 1950s and early 1960s than is the case today.
Indeed it was. I think we were at 200% or so, but we had just fought a world war, so it was an extreme place to start. However, we were able to take advantage of the most benign 25 years that has ever existed for economies of the West, and through a combination of growth (rebound from a war leaves lots of pent up demand?), and rising inflation (which was a fairly new thing then) got that debt to GDP figure down. One suspects the huge bulge in the workforce as the Baby Boomers entered their working lives 1960- about 1980 helped too, though those self same Boomers are now becoming a burden rather than a positive which also does not help balance the books, especially as retirement assumptions in the 60's probably assumed they would drop off their perches at about 70 and clearly most are not going to.
To think that, not so long ago, the fashionable view was that Boris's "buffoon" thing was all just an act, and that he was in reality a super-intelligent man.
One can be highly intelligent and also lacking in many other things like common sense or basic life skills.
I once had to teach the 20 year old Oxford undergraduate daughter of a former SoS for Health how to make instant coffee...
Spend anytime in academia and it is the norm, not the exception....
Well indeed - and the rarefied atmosphere in the dreaming spires of my adopted hometown demonstrates the lack of life skills by so many here.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
£££££££££££££££££ for you..
Yes and if you add up the numbers for 2010-17 you will find the total exceeds those of any previous government. The annual sums borrowed have come down but they are now going to start going up again.
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
@tnewtondunn: After an hour, Boris almost apologises: "Of course I'm sorry if words of mine have been misconstrued and caused upset to Nazanin's family".
To think that, not so long ago, the fashionable view was that Boris's "buffoon" thing was all just an act, and that he was in reality a super-intelligent man.
He is very intelligent but as often is the case not a wise counsellor - Reckon this has lost him any leadership hope
If Angela Rayner had said what Boris did, it would've been used as proof that she was "thick as mince".
It's only because Boris is posh that people still insist he's intelligent.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
£££££££££££££££££ for you..
Yes and if you add up the numbers for 2010-17 you will find the total exceeds those of any previous government. The annual sums borrowed have come down but they are now going to start going up again.
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
The Conservatives had an entirely coherent case. Until Brexit, when they decided to spunk large sums of money on a mad hobbyhorse project.
To think that, not so long ago, the fashionable view was that Boris's "buffoon" thing was all just an act, and that he was in reality a super-intelligent man.
One can be highly intelligent and also lacking in many other things like common sense or basic life skills.
I once had to teach the 20 year old Oxford undergraduate daughter of a former SoS for Health how to make instant coffee...
Wouldn't teaching her how to use an Espresso machine have been more useful to prepare her for her future career?
@tnewtondunn: After an hour, Boris almost apologises: "Of course I'm sorry if words of mine have been misconstrued and caused upset to Nazanin's family".
FFS, that makes it worse. It's not 'upset to the family' which is the issue.
People who confuse geological areas with geo-political entities really do need to go back to school and learn some basics.
That said Ishmael is talking utter bollocks as well. We are part of the European continental plate and nothing he can say can change that. Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.
The Continental plates have been around in their current form give or take a foot or two for a lot longer than the Channel which only appeared about 8000 years ago.
I am not talking bollocks, why would I deny that we are on the European continental plate? Of course I wouldn't. The point is, as you say, that you can't derive politics from geology - an extreme case of the rule that you can't derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. And if we are on a bollocks-spotting expedition, what on earth does longevity have to do with anything? A well educated ten year old could list a dozen times when the existence of the English Channel has been politically crucial to us. How does the existence of the European plate stack up against that?
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
Which continent are we part of then Ishmael?
'Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.'
How does that work if he's talking about political identity and historical experience? Was the existence of the continental plate defining our political identity before we knew of it? Surely our perception of being an island apart from Europe moulded that far more strongly.
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. They have borrowed at a level which in 2010 Osborne was saying would turn the UK into Greece. So they are not in a strong position to criticise Labour plans - in fact a Tory Cabinet minister, Javid, has already come out in support of additional borrowing.
Nonsense. When Labour left office they were borrowing four pounds for every three raised in revenue - an eye-watering overspend, far worse than any other major economy in the world. Osborne got that deficit down from around 10% GDP to 2.6% of GDP, and, amazingly, did so whilst simultaneously reducing unemployment. It is a superb record by any standard, and completely vindicated his approach. Labour under its relatively sane previous management wanted to spend a lot more, and under its current barmy management wants to spend humoungous amounts more, so it's a bit rich to criticise the Tories for not spending less. Of course, Labour will no doubt shamelessly attempt to blame the Tories for not doing worse as Labour proposed, but no-one is going to be fooled.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
@tnewtondunn: After an hour, Boris almost apologises: "Of course I'm sorry if words of mine have been misconstrued and caused upset to Nazanin's family".
FFS, that makes it worse. It's not 'upset to the family' which is the issue.
I assume by "FFS" you didn't mean the Theresa May-definition of the term?
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
£££££££££££££££££ for you..
Yes and if you add up the numbers for 2010-17 you will find the total exceeds those of any previous government. The annual sums borrowed have come down but they are now going to start going up again.
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
Yes they are, given that they are trying to reduce borrowing.
@tnewtondunn: After an hour, Boris almost apologises: "Of course I'm sorry if words of mine have been misconstrued and caused upset to Nazanin's family".
FFS, that makes it worse. It's not 'upset to the family' which is the issue.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
I think it will, if Labour's manifesto is similar to the last one. I would certainly hope that the Conservatives won't repeat the mistake of letting McDonnell get away with his absurdities.
One of the many issues with the House of Commons is that there are large numbers of backbenchers with not enough to do, who are given limitless opportunities to drink to excess in tax-payer subsidised bars. By convention, no Member of the House is ever "drunk" but in practice many are much of the time. Introducing breathalysers to the votes would solve a lot of issues at a stroke. It would be no different to workers on the railways, or airlines or a host of other safety critical industries.
People who confuse geological areas with geo-political entities really do need to go back to school and learn some basics.
That said Ishmael is talking utter bollocks as well. We are part of the European continental plate and nothing he can say can change that. Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.
The Continental plates have been around in their current form give or take a foot or two for a lot longer than the Channel which only appeared about 8000 years ago.
I am not talking bollocks, why would I deny that we are on the European continental plate? Of course I wouldn't. The point is, as you say, that you can't derive politics from geology - an extreme case of the rule that you can't derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. And if we are on a bollocks-spotting expedition, what on earth does longevity have to do with anything? A well educated ten year old could list a dozen times when the existence of the English Channel has been politically crucial to us. How does the existence of the European plate stack up against that?
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
Which continent are we part of then Ishmael?
Shit, you cannot seriously still not have got the point, surely? Continents are big contiguous landmasses. Islands are smaller landmasses which by definition are not part of any continent. Being on the same tectonic plate as a continent does not imply being part of that continent. Tectonic plates do not correspond one to one with continents: there both are now and have been in the past multi-plate continents and multi-continent plates. Some geological facts (e.g. the English Channel), including some which depend on plate tectonics (e.g. the Pyrenees) have profound consequences for human history, and some do not.
Your question is exactly as penetrating and intelligent as saying: You claim that Boris Johnson does not play for Manchester United, so which premiership team does he play for, then?
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. They have borrowed at a level which in 2010 Osborne was saying would turn the UK into Greece. So they are not in a strong position to criticise Labour plans - in fact a Tory Cabinet minister, Javid, has already come out in support of additional borrowing.
Nonsense. When Labour left office they were borrowing four pounds for every three raised in revenue - an eye-watering overspend, far worse than any other major economy in the world. Osborne got that deficit down from around 10% GDP to 2.6% of GDP, and, amazingly, did so whilst simultaneously reducing unemployment. It is a superb record by any standard, and completely vindicated his approach. Labour under its relatively sane previous management wanted to spend a lot more, and under its current barmy management wants to spend humoungous amounts more, so it's a bit rich to criticise the Tories for not spending less. Of course, Labour will no doubt shamelessly attempt to blame the Tories for not doing worse as Labour proposed, but no-one is going to be fooled.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
It's disingenuous to make the deficit in 2010 defining for Labour, given in all forecasts it was a temporary high as a consequence of 2008. Osborne's austerity may have impacted growth enough to slow down deficit reduction compared to Labour's plan - it certainly made him miss his own targets by miles.
Yes and if you add up the numbers for 2010-17 you will find the total exceeds those of any previous government. The annual sums borrowed have come down but they are now going to start going up again.
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
So let's start with the 2010 deficit of £100bn; how do you think the Tories should have gone about borrowing less in that year?
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. They have borrowed at a level which in 2010 Osborne was saying would turn the UK into Greece. So they are not in a strong position to criticise Labour plans - in fact a Tory Cabinet minister, Javid, has already come out in support of additional borrowing.
Nonsense. When Labour left office they were borrowing four pounds for every three raised in revenue - an eye-watering overspend, far worse than any other major economy in the world. Osborne got that deficit down from around 10% GDP to 2.6% of GDP, and, amazingly, did so whilst simultaneously reducing unemployment. It is a superb record by any standard, and completely vindicated his approach. Labour under its relatively sane previous management wanted to spend a lot more, and under its current barmy management wants to spend humoungous amounts more, so it's a bit rich to criticise the Tories for not spending less. Of course, Labour will no doubt shamelessly attempt to blame the Tories for not doing worse as Labour proposed, but no-one is going to be fooled.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
It's disingenuous to make the deficit in 2010 defining for Labour, given in all forecasts it was a temporary high as a consequence of 2008. Osborne's austerity may have impacted growth enough to slow down deficit reduction compared to Labour's plan - it certainly made him miss his own targets by miles.
Yet the impact of the LibDems on the Conservatives' original spending plans and profile of cuts was to push them back to pretty much the rate that Labour had itself proposed during the 2010 election under Ed Balls.....
Was today the day that Boris Johnson's leadership ambitions were finally extinguished?
Been laying him for ages, but yes.
I thought the tipping point was when he said the EU could go whistle for the exit bill and Barnier replied with something along of the lines of 'I don't hear whistling, just the sound of a clock ticking down'
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
I think it will, if Labour's manifesto is similar to the last one. I would certainly hope that the Conservatives won't repeat the mistake of letting McDonnell get away with his absurdities.
That requires a Chancellor (and team) who are confident, articulate, intelligent and personable.
Was today the day that Boris Johnson's leadership ambitions were finally extinguished?
I doubt it. Boris is hilarious and very smart. Apparently.
More seriously, may is surely strengthened by just how out of his depth he is. Putting to one side the fact the she appointed him to a role that he is clearly unfit for, after today's performance and all the other gaffes, how could anyone seriously object to his removal and how could anyone, with a straight face, back him to be the next PM? The same applies to the ludicrously over-promoted Priti Patel, too, of course.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
I think it will, if Labour's manifesto is similar to the last one. I would certainly hope that the Conservatives won't repeat the mistake of letting McDonnell get away with his absurdities.
That requires a Chancellor (and team) who are confident, articulate, intelligent and personable.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
I think it will, if Labour's manifesto is similar to the last one. I would certainly hope that the Conservatives won't repeat the mistake of letting McDonnell get away with his absurdities.
That requires a Chancellor (and team) who are confident, articulate, intelligent and personable.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
I think it will, if Labour's manifesto is similar to the last one. I would certainly hope that the Conservatives won't repeat the mistake of letting McDonnell get away with his absurdities.
That requires a Chancellor (and team) who are confident, articulate, intelligent and personable.
So certainly not Hammond.
Hammond would do very well. It's a tragedy that he was sidelined in the GE2017 campaign; if he'd be allowed to go out and make the case as he wanted to, the PM, the party and the government wouldn't be in the mess they are in.
Yes and if you add up the numbers for 2010-17 you will find the total exceeds those of any previous government. The annual sums borrowed have come down but they are now going to start going up again.
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
So let's start with the 2010 deficit of £100bn; how do you think the Tories should have gone about borrowing less in that year?
That is not the point I am making. I am not suggesting the Tories should have borrowed less - merely that they missed their own targets, their rhetoric about the UK becoming Greece was shown to be groundless and there is no likelihood of them balancing the books in the forseeable future. They have themselves borrowed at a level that a few years ago they said would be disastrous. Which makes it hard for them to criticise Labour for planning higher borrowing.
I am not talking bollocks, why would I deny that we are on the European continental plate? Of course I wouldn't. The point is, as you say, that you can't derive politics from geology - an extreme case of the rule that you can't derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. And if we are on a bollocks-spotting expedition, what on earth does longevity have to do with anything? A well educated ten year old could list a dozen times when the existence of the English Channel has been politically crucial to us. How does the existence of the European plate stack up against that?
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
Which continent are we part of then Ishmael?
Shit, you cannot seriously still not have got the point, surely? Continents are big contiguous landmasses. Islands are smaller landmasses which by definition are not part of any continent. Being on the same tectonic plate as a continent does not imply being part of that continent. Tectonic plates do not correspond one to one with continents: there both are now and have been in the past multi-plate continents and multi-continent plates. Some geological facts (e.g. the English Channel), including some which depend on plate tectonics (e.g. the Pyrenees) have profound consequences for human history, and some do not.
Your question is exactly as penetrating and intelligent as saying: You claim that Boris Johnson does not play for Manchester United, so which premiership team does he play for, then?
So the Isle of Wight is not part of Great Britain then? Yes, I understand that by a very strict definition it is a separate island from Great Britain proper, but pretty much anyone would agree it’s part of the geographical entity of Great Britain. And if not the Isle of Wight, how about the Isle of Sheppey? Or the Isle of Thanet? That used to be separated from the mainland by a natural channel, now filled in. What about the Isle of Dogs? Is that now not part of Great Britain the island because of the man-made docks? How about Eel Pie Island in the Thames?
Was today the day that Boris Johnson's leadership ambitions were finally extinguished?
I doubt it. Boris is hilarious and very smart. Apparently.
More seriously, may is surely strengthened by just how out of his depth he is. Putting to one side the fact the she appointed him to a role that he is clearly unfit for, after today's performance and all the other gaffes, how could anyone seriously object to his removal and how could anyone, with a straight face, back him to be the next PM? The same applies to the ludicrously over-promoted Priti Patel, too, of course.
I imagine May will sack Boris the next time she needs something from the EU. Perhaps the head of Boris on a platter will be the price of beginning trade talks in December.
Today's figures have been published using the new definition of alcohol-specific deaths. In 2016, there were 7,327 alcohol-specific deaths in the UK, an age-standardised rate of 11.7 deaths per 100,000 population.
The 2016 alcohol-specific deaths rate continues to remain unchanged since 2013 in the UK, but is still higher than observed 15 years ago.
In 2016, the male alcohol-specific death rate continues to be more than double the rate among females.
For both sexes, rates of alcohol-specific deaths were highest among those aged 55 to 64 years in 2016.
Scotland remains the constituent country with the highest rate of alcohol-specific deaths in 2016; yet Scotland has also seen the largest decrease in its rates since they peaked in the early 2000s.
In England, for both sexes, alcohol-specific rates in 2016 were significantly higher in the most deprived local areas when compared to the least deprived local areas.
Yes and if you add up the numbers for 2010-17 you will find the total exceeds those of any previous government. The annual sums borrowed have come down but they are now going to start going up again.
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
So let's start with the 2010 deficit of £100bn; how do you think the Tories should have gone about borrowing less in that year?
That is not the point I am making. I am not suggesting the Tories should have borrowed less - merely that they missed their own targets, their rhetoric about the UK becoming Greece was shown to be groundless and there is no likelihood of them balancing the books in the forseeable future. They have themselves borrowed at a level that a few years ago they said would be disastrous. Which makes it hard for them to criticise Labour for planning higher borrowing.
Of course they can criticise. Labour want to borrow more, the Tories less. While the pace may not have been at target, the direction of travel is clear.
Yes and if you add up the numbers for 2010-17 you will find the total exceeds those of any previous government. The annual sums borrowed have come down but they are now going to start going up again.
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
So let's start with the 2010 deficit of £100bn; how do you think the Tories should have gone about borrowing less in that year?
That is not the point I am making. I am not suggesting the Tories should have borrowed less - merely that they missed their own targets, their rhetoric about the UK becoming Greece was shown to be groundless and there is no likelihood of them balancing the books in the forseeable future. They have themselves borrowed at a level that a few years ago they said would be disastrous. Which makes it hard for them to criticise Labour for planning higher borrowing.
In Corbyn's own words; he won't borrow the money, he'll issue government bonds. That is terrifying.
Yes and if you add up the numbers for 2010-17 you will find the total exceeds those of any previous government. The annual sums borrowed have come down but they are now going to start going up again.
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
So let's start with the 2010 deficit of £100bn; how do you think the Tories should have gone about borrowing less in that year?
That is not the point I am making. I am not suggesting the Tories should have borrowed less - merely that they missed their own targets, their rhetoric about the UK becoming Greece was shown to be groundless and there is no likelihood of them balancing the books in the forseeable future. They have themselves borrowed at a level that a few years ago they said would be disastrous. Which makes it hard for them to criticise Labour for planning higher borrowing.
In Corbyn's own words; he won't borrow the money, he'll issue government bonds. That is terrifying.
The next thing you know the government will be creating bonds and buying them itself....
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. They have borrowed at a level which in 2010 Osborne was saying would turn the UK into Greece. So they are not in a strong position to criticise Labour plans - in fact a Tory Cabinet minister, Javid, has already come out in support of additional borrowing.
Nonsense. When Labour left office they were borrowing four pounds for every three raised in revenue - an eye-watering overspend, far worse than any other major economy in the world. Osborne got that deficit down from around 10% GDP to 2.6% of GDP, and, amazingly, did so whilst simultaneously reducing unemployment. It is a superb record by any standard, and completely vindicated his approach. Labour under its relatively sane previous management wanted to spend a lot more, and under its current barmy management wants to spend humoungous amounts more, so it's a bit rich to criticise the Tories for not spending less. Of course, Labour will no doubt shamelessly attempt to blame the Tories for not doing worse as Labour proposed, but no-one is going to be fooled.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
It's disingenuous to make the deficit in 2010 defining for Labour, given in all forecasts it was a temporary high as a consequence of 2008. Osborne's austerity may have impacted growth enough to slow down deficit reduction compared to Labour's plan - it certainly made him miss his own targets by miles.
Yet the impact of the LibDems on the Conservatives' original spending plans and profile of cuts was to push them back to pretty much the rate that Labour had itself proposed during the 2010 election under Ed Balls.....
So which is it? Osborne reducing the deficit versus 'Labour [who] wanted to spend more' or is the difference really so slight? It's amazing how Labour can be castigated for not wanting to deal with the deficit on the one hand, and when the impact of austerity on growth is brought up the response is 'Labour planned pretty much the same cuts'.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
I think it will, if Labour's manifesto is similar to the last one. I would certainly hope that the Conservatives won't repeat the mistake of letting McDonnell get away with his absurdities.
That requires a Chancellor (and team) who are confident, articulate, intelligent and personable.
So certainly not Hammond.
Hammond would do very well. It's a tragedy that he was sidelined in the GE2017 campaign; if he'd be allowed to go out and make the case as he wanted to, the PM, the party and the government wouldn't be in the mess they are in.
Maybe. There was a mood afoot and no amount of espousing post-neo classical endogenous growth theories could have helped much, IMO.
Yes and if you add up the numbers for 2010-17 you will find the total exceeds those of any previous government. The annual sums borrowed have come down but they are now going to start going up again.
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
So let's start with the 2010 deficit of £100bn; how do you think the Tories should have gone about borrowing less in that year?
That is not the point I am making. I am not suggesting the Tories should have borrowed less - merely that they missed their own targets, their rhetoric about the UK becoming Greece was shown to be groundless and there is no likelihood of them balancing the books in the forseeable future. They have themselves borrowed at a level that a few years ago they said would be disastrous. Which makes it hard for them to criticise Labour for planning higher borrowing.
In Corbyn's own words; he won't borrow the money, he'll issue government bonds. That is terrifying.
But all government debt is issued in the form of bonds.
Maybe. There was a mood afoot and no amount of espousing post-neo classical endogenous growth theories could have helped much, IMO.
It wasn't a question of post-neo classical endogenous growth theories, it was a question of pointing out how much extra tax and debt McDonnell's spending plans would impose on ordinary people, and how many jobs would be lost as a result of his policies.
Was today the day that Boris Johnson's leadership ambitions were finally extinguished?
I doubt it. Boris is hilarious and very smart. Apparently.
More seriously, may is surely strengthened by just how out of his depth he is. Putting to one side the fact the she appointed him to a role that he is clearly unfit for, after today's performance and all the other gaffes, how could anyone seriously object to his removal and how could anyone, with a straight face, back him to be the next PM? The same applies to the ludicrously over-promoted Priti Patel, too, of course.
I imagine May will sack Boris the next time she needs something from the EU. Perhaps the head of Boris on a platter will be the price of beginning trade talks in December.
Was today the day that Boris Johnson's leadership ambitions were finally extinguished?
I doubt it. Boris is hilarious and very smart. Apparently.
More seriously, may is surely strengthened by just how out of his depth he is. Putting to one side the fact the she appointed him to a role that he is clearly unfit for, after today's performance and all the other gaffes, how could anyone seriously object to his removal and how could anyone, with a straight face, back him to be the next PM? The same applies to the ludicrously over-promoted Priti Patel, too, of course.
I imagine May will sack Boris the next time she needs something from the EU. Perhaps the head of Boris on a platter will be the price of beginning trade talks in December.
But all government debt is issued in the form of bonds.
Exactly. Tell that to Corbyn.
"Corbyn replied: “What we will do is for the public ownership elements there’ll be an exchange for [sic] bonds for shares in it”. Neil suggested that this was still borrowing. “No, it’s not [borrowing]”, Corbyn replied, “it’s a swap of shares for a government bond”."
To all those criticising Boris: have you actually listened to what he said rather than the partial quotes of it?
Although poorly worded (!) you could tell (by his adding "at the very limit") that he was referring to Iran's allegations against Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. In other words even if they were true it would still be unacceptable to jail her for it.
Maybe. There was a mood afoot and no amount of espousing post-neo classical endogenous growth theories could have helped much, IMO.
It wasn't a question of post-neo classical endogenous growth theories, it was a question of pointing out how much extra tax and debt McDonnell's spending plans would impose on ordinary people, and how many jobs would be lost as a result of his policies.
And my point was that the mood was afoot to try the outsider out and that was Jezza. Any amount of dry economic arguments by Hammond or anyone else would, IMO, have been of limited use against the prevailing what-are-you-rebelling-against-what-have-you-got mood.
But all government debt is issued in the form of bonds.
Exactly. Tell that to Corbyn.
"Corbyn replied: “What we will do is for the public ownership elements there’ll be an exchange for [sic] bonds for shares in it”. Neil suggested that this was still borrowing. “No, it’s not [borrowing]”, Corbyn replied, “it’s a swap of shares for a government bond”."
Maybe. There was a mood afoot and no amount of espousing post-neo classical endogenous growth theories could have helped much, IMO.
It wasn't a question of post-neo classical endogenous growth theories, it was a question of pointing out how much extra tax and debt McDonnell's spending plans would impose on ordinary people, and how many jobs would be lost as a result of his policies.
And my point was that the mood was afoot to try the outsider out and that was Jezza. Any amount of dry economic arguments by Hammond or anyone else would, IMO, have been of limited use against the prevailing what-are-you-rebelling-against-what-have-you-got mood.
Yes, you are right, but it wouldn't have needed a big shift in vote share to avert the GE2017 disaster.
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. They have borrowed at a level which in 2010 Osborne was saying would turn the UK into Greece. .
.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
It's disingenuous to make the deficit in 2010 defining for Labour, given in all forecasts it was a temporary high as a consequence of 2008. Osborne's austerity may have impacted growth enough to slow down deficit reduction compared to Labour's plan - it certainly made him miss his own targets by miles.
Yet the impact of the LibDems on the Conservatives' original spending plans and profile of cuts was to push them back to pretty much the rate that Labour had itself proposed during the 2010 election under Ed Balls.....
So which is it? Osborne reducing the deficit versus 'Labour [who] wanted to spend more' or is the difference really so slight? It's amazing how Labour can be castigated for not wanting to deal with the deficit on the one hand, and when the impact of austerity on growth is brought up the response is 'Labour planned pretty much the same cuts'.
The reality is that it is all just political knockabout.
Labour isn't to blame for the financial crisis any more than the Tories are to blame for the borrowing since then. The same things would have happened to pretty much the same extent, whoever was sitting in the chair.
Certainly we can blame Labour for ignoring the warnings (from Vince Cable among others) about the impending crisis, for going easy on the financial sector, and having the hubris to announce that it had "abolished boom and bust" in the middle of a massive credit boom. We can blame the Tories for putting too much emphasis on spending cuts and not enough on capital investment or raising money through fairer taxation. And for their policy of going even easier on big finance. And both parties are to blame for the QE programme, which turned out to be the slow acting poison that fuels much of the current day discontent.
But the reality is that most of the political decisions on the economy since 2008 (QE possibly excepted) have been around the margins of unavoidable events. It would have been better if we had never become so reliant on debt, public and private, over the decades prior. But no politician was advocating that - both our economy and our political system is set up to encourage precisely the opposite.
Shit, you cannot seriously still not have got the point, surely? Continents are big contiguous landmasses. Islands are smaller landmasses which by definition are not part of any continent. Being on the same tectonic plate as a continent does not imply being part of that continent. Tectonic plates do not correspond one to one with continents: there both are now and have been in the past multi-plate continents and multi-continent plates. Some geological facts (e.g. the English Channel), including some which depend on plate tectonics (e.g. the Pyrenees) have profound consequences for human history, and some do not.
Your question is exactly as penetrating and intelligent as saying: You claim that Boris Johnson does not play for Manchester United, so which premiership team does he play for, then?
Sorry Ishmael but this is clearly utter bollocks. The fact that the UK has a thin stretch of water separating it from the rest of the European continent is an accident of timing and sealevel which, whilst undoubtedly very fortunate for us, has absolutely no bearing on our connection to the European continental plate. The idea that you can change a the geological basis for a continent simply by changing the temperature by a couple of degrees is just plain dumb.
And the English Channel is not a geological fact. It might be a geographical one but geology has nothing to do with it.
But all government debt is issued in the form of bonds.
Exactly. Tell that to Corbyn.
"Corbyn replied: “What we will do is for the public ownership elements there’ll be an exchange for [sic] bonds for shares in it”. Neil suggested that this was still borrowing. “No, it’s not [borrowing]”, Corbyn replied, “it’s a swap of shares for a government bond”."
People who confuse geological areas with geo-political entities really do need to go back to school and learn some basics.
That said Ishmael is talking utter bollocks as well. We are part of the European continental plate and nothing he can say can change that. Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.
The Continental plates have been around in their current form give or take a foot or two for a lot longer than the Channel which only appeared about 8000 years ago.
I am not talking bollocks, why would I deny that we are on the European continental plate? Of course I wouldn't. The point is, as you say, that you can't derive politics from geology - an extreme case of the rule that you can't derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. And if we are on a bollocks-spotting expedition, what on earth does longevity have to do with anything? A well educated ten year old could list a dozen times when the existence of the English Channel has been politically crucial to us. How does the existence of the European plate stack up against that?
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
Which continent are we part of then Ishmael?
'Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.'
How does that work if he's talking about political identity and historical experience? Was the existence of the continental plate defining our political identity before we knew of it? Surely our perception of being an island apart from Europe moulded that far more strongly.
But he is not talking about political identity or historical experience. Inexplicably he is actually trying to argue geologically (and with a geologist mind) that the UK is not part of the continent of Europe. He is even using the word geology to support his position. It is a stunning example of ignorance.
Didn't McDonnell say something about the "fair market value" being decided by him?
Who knows, they were making it up as they went along, they couldn't care less about sound finances, they think all investors are by definition immoral leeches who deserve nothing, and they think the only thing that is ever wrong with government borrowing is that it's not high enough.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
Didn't McDonnell say something about the "fair market value" being decided by him?
Who knows, they were making it up as they went along, they couldn't care less about sound finances, they think all investors are by definition immoral leeches who deserve nothing, and they think the only thing that is ever wrong with government borrowing is that it's not high enough.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
The current lot are hardly taking reality in their stride?
I am not talking bollocks, why would I deny that we are on the European continental plate? Of course I wouldn't. The point is, as you say, that you can't derive politics from geology - an extreme case of the rule that you can't derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. And if we are on a bollocks-spotting expedition, what on earth does longevity have to do with anything? A well educated ten year old could list a dozen times when the existence of the English Channel has been politically crucial to us. How does the existence of the European plate stack up against that?
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
Which continent are we part of then Ishmael?
Shit, you cannot seriously still not have got the point, surely? Continents are big contiguous landmasses. Islands are smaller landmasses which by definition are not part of any continent. Being on the same tectonic plate as a continent does not imply being part of that continent. Tectonic plates do not correspond one to one with continents: there both are now and have been in the past multi-plate continents and multi-continent plates. Some geological facts (e.g. the English Channel), including some which depend on plate tectonics (e.g. the Pyrenees) have profound consequences for human history, and some do not.
Your question is exactly as penetrating and intelligent as saying: You claim that Boris Johnson does not play for Manchester United, so which premiership team does he play for, then?
So the Isle of Wight is not part of Great Britain then? Yes, I understand that by a very strict definition it is a separate island from Great Britain proper, but pretty much anyone would agree it’s part of the geographical entity of Great Britain. And if not the Isle of Wight, how about the Isle of Sheppey? Or the Isle of Thanet? That used to be separated from the mainland by a natural channel, now filled in. What about the Isle of Dogs? Is that now not part of Great Britain the island because of the man-made docks? How about Eel Pie Island in the Thames?
Didn't McDonnell say something about the "fair market value" being decided by him?
Who knows, they were making it up as they went along, they couldn't care less about sound finances, they think all investors are by definition immoral leeches who deserve nothing, and they think the only thing that is ever wrong with government borrowing is that it's not high enough.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
The current lot are hardly taking reality in their stride?
The likely disaster of Brexit is hardly a reason to embrace the catastrophe of Brexit combined with McDonnell.
Didn't McDonnell say something about the "fair market value" being decided by him?
Who knows, they were making it up as they went along, they couldn't care less about sound finances, they think all investors are by definition immoral leeches who deserve nothing, and they think the only thing that is ever wrong with government borrowing is that it's not high enough.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
The current lot are hardly taking reality in their stride?
The likely disaster of Brexit is hardly a reason to embrace the catastrophe of Brexit combined with McDonnell.
Much of the electorate will more likely be thinking 'in for a penny...'
A mother-of-five who encouraged terror attacks on the UK after joining a pro-ISIS Facebook group was spared jail after a judge said 'the sooner you get back to your children the better'.
The Tories have increased the national debt by 50% - a huge amount of cash borrowed with no assets to show. The Labour plan was borrow money to buy assets, an entirely different proposition.
What entertains me most is this - Tories seem aghast at the idea of borrowing to invest. As this is at the very heart of capitalism it demonstrates how far removed they are from how business works. Perhaps because they're more interested in city types only interested in selling things off for a one time fee.
I am not talking bollocks, why would I deny that we are on the European continental plate? Of course I wouldn't. The point is, as you say, that you can't derive politics from geology - an extreme case of the rule that you can't derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. And if we are on a bollocks-spotting expedition, what on earth does longevity have to do with anything? A well educated ten year old could list a dozen times when the existence of the English Channel has been politically crucial to us. How does the existence of the European plate stack up against that?
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
Which continent are we part of then Ishmael?
Shit, you cannot seriously still not have got the point, surely? Continents are big contiguous landmasses. Islands are smaller landmasses which by definition are not part of any continent. Being on the same tectonic plate as a continent does not imply being part of that continent. Tectonic plates do not correspond one to one with continents: there both are now and have been in the past multi-plate continents and multi-continent plates. Some geological facts (e.g. the English Channel), including some which depend on plate tectonics (e.g. the Pyrenees) have profound consequences for human history, and some do not.
Your question is exactly as penetrating and intelligent as saying: You claim that Boris Johnson does not play for Manchester United, so which premiership team does he play for, then?
So the Isle of Wight is not part of Great Britain then? Yes, I understand that by a very strict definition it is a separate island from Great Britain proper, but pretty much anyone would agree it’s part of the geographical entity of Great Britain. And if not the Isle of Wight, how about the Isle of Sheppey? Or the Isle of Thanet? That used to be separated from the mainland by a natural channel, now filled in. What about the Isle of Dogs? Is that now not part of Great Britain the island because of the man-made docks? How about Eel Pie Island in the Thames?
Didn't McDonnell say something about the "fair market value" being decided by him?
Who knows, they were making it up as they went along, they couldn't care less about sound finances, they think all investors are by definition immoral leeches who deserve nothing, and they think the only thing that is ever wrong with government borrowing is that it's not high enough.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
The current lot are hardly taking reality in their stride?
The Government is in a parallel universe. They have achieved the unlikely feat of making Corbyn look a model of realism and sobriety compared to them.
A mother-of-five who encouraged terror attacks on the UK after joining a pro-ISIS Facebook group was spared jail after a judge said 'the sooner you get back to your children the better'.
The Tories have increased the national debt by 50% - a huge amount of cash borrowed with no assets to show. The Labour plan was borrow money to buy assets, an entirely different proposition..
Ho ho ho. So the Labour plan was to cut welfare payments, pensions, education and the NHS faster than Osborne, but to borrow more for infrastructure?
People who confuse geological areas with geo-political entities really do need to go back to school and learn some basics.
That said Ishmael is talking utter bollocks as well. We are part of the European continental plate and nothing he can say can change that. Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.
The Continental plates have been around in their current form give or take a foot or two for a lot longer than the Channel which only appeared about 8000 years ago.
I am not talking bollocks, why would I deny that we are on the European continental plate? Of course I wouldn't. The point is, as you say, that you can't derive politics from geology - an extreme case of the rule that you can't derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. And if we are on a bollocks-spotting expedition, what on earth does longevity have to do with anything? A well educated ten year old could list a dozen times when the existence of the English Channel has been politically crucial to us. How does the existence of the European plate stack up against that?
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
Which continent are we part of then Ishmael?
'Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.'
How does that work if he's talking about political identity and historical experience? Was the existence of the continental plate defining our political identity before we knew of it? Surely our perception of being an island apart from Europe moulded that far more strongly.
But he is not talking about political identity or historical experience. Inexplicably he is actually trying to argue geologically (and with a geologist mind) that the UK is not part of the continent of Europe. He is even using the word geology to support his position. It is a stunning example of ignorance.
I am trying to argue that, because that is the case. You think the definition of "continent" has been updated. it hasn't. Europe is a continent. The British isles are islands close to the continent. They are on the same plate, but why does that make the one a part of the other? You are like someone claiming that that the everyday concept of "solid object" is obsolete since the discovery of atomic theory.
Didn't McDonnell say something about the "fair market value" being decided by him?
Who knows, they were making it up as they went along, they couldn't care less about sound finances, they think all investors are by definition immoral leeches who deserve nothing, and they think the only thing that is ever wrong with government borrowing is that it's not high enough.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
The current lot are hardly taking reality in their stride?
The likely disaster of Brexit is hardly a reason to embrace the catastrophe of Brexit combined with McDonnell.
Much of the electorate will more likely be thinking 'in for a penny...'
Come an election whenever that is no one can say at present, even remotely, they can predict the outcome in Parliamentary seats and the formation of a Government.
However if Corbyn and McDonnell were out of the picture labour would be odds on for a majority
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. ... .
.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
It's disingenuous to make the deficit in 2010 defining for Labour, given in all forecasts it was a temporary high as a consequence of 2008.
Yet ....
So which is it? Osborne reducing the deficit versus 'Labour ...
...
Certainly we can blame Labour for ignoring the warnings (from Vince Cable among others) about the impending crisis, for going easy on the financial sector, and having the hubris to announce that it had "abolished boom and bust" in the middle of a massive credit boom. We can blame the Tories for putting too much emphasis on spending cuts and not enough on capital investment or raising money through fairer taxation. And for their policy of going even easier on big finance. And both parties are to blame for the QE programme, which turned out to be the slow acting poison that fuels much of the current day discontent.
But the reality is that most of the political decisions on the economy since 2008 (QE possibly excepted) have been around the margins of unavoidable events. It would have been better if we had never become so reliant on debt, public and private, over the decades prior. But no politician was advocating that - both our economy and our political system is set up to encourage precisely the opposite.
Most politics is definitely fiddling around the edges to give the material for journalists to over-inflate. I tend to agree except for the 'abolished boom and bust' comment, repeating a barney I had on here with someone the other day (i.e., everybody knew at the time that when 'boom and bust' meant the 'political business cycle' of chancellors fiddling about with interest rates to boost growth in the run up to an election - quite a different beast from the pre-2008 credit boom).
There was a really great essay by some 1970s Marxist on the increase in state spending, seeing it as a way of socialising the costs of reproducing capital (subsidising wages directly and indirectly, for instance) in order to offset the tendency for the rate or profit to fall - preventing crisis by storing it up for the future. I'll try to dig it out and see if it's still interesting.
Didn't McDonnell say something about the "fair market value" being decided by him?
Who knows, they were making it up as they went along, they couldn't care less about sound finances, they think all investors are by definition immoral leeches who deserve nothing, and they think the only thing that is ever wrong with government borrowing is that it's not high enough.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
The current lot are hardly taking reality in their stride?
The Government is in a parallel universe. They have achieved the unlikely feat of making Corbyn look a model of realism and sobriety compared to them.
Didn't McDonnell say something about the "fair market value" being decided by him?
Who knows, they were making it up as they went along, they couldn't care less about sound finances, they think all investors are by definition immoral leeches who deserve nothing, and they think the only thing that is ever wrong with government borrowing is that it's not high enough.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
The current lot are hardly taking reality in their stride?
The likely disaster of Brexit is hardly a reason to embrace the catastrophe of Brexit combined with McDonnell.
Much of the electorate will more likely be thinking 'in for a penny...'
Come an election whenever that is no one can say at present, even remotely, they can predict the outcome in Parliamentary seats and the formation of a Government.
However if Corbyn and McDonnell were out of the picture labour would be odds on for a majority
As long as they took Abbott, Thornberry, Cat Smith and many others with them.
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. ... .
.
My guess is that this will not be a big theme during the next general election campaign.
It's disingenuous to make the deficit in 2010 defining for Labour, given in all forecasts it was a temporary high as a consequence of 2008.
Yet ....
So which is it? Osborne reducing the deficit versus 'Labour ...
...
But the reality is that most of the political decisions on the economy since 2008 (QE possibly excepted) have been around the margins of unavoidable events. It would have been better if we had never become so reliant on debt, public and private, over the decades prior. But no politician was advocating that - both our economy and our political system is set up to encourage precisely the opposite.
Most politics is definitely fiddling around the edges to give the material for journalists to over-inflate. I tend to agree except for the 'abolished boom and bust' comment, repeating a barney I had on here with someone the other day (i.e., everybody knew at the time that when 'boom and bust' meant the 'political business cycle' of chancellors fiddling about with interest rates to boost growth in the run up to an election - quite a different beast from the pre-2008 credit boom).
There was a really great essay by some 1970s Marxist on the increase in state spending, seeing it as a way of socialising the costs of reproducing capital (subsidising wages directly and indirectly, for instance) in order to offset the tendency for the rate or profit to fall - preventing crisis by storing it up for the future. I'll try to dig it out and see if it's still interesting.
It was James O'Connor, 'The Fiscal Crisis of the State' from 1973 - actually a book, but I think I read an extract in a collection of essays. It was pretty good on analysing these long-term trends of state debt and its relation to the wider economy if I remember right.
As long as they took Abbott, Thornberry, Cat Smith and many others with them.
Thornberry is OK. She seems quite sane, and is certainly articulate. If the opposition comprised people like her and Keir Starmer they would be a credible alternative government.
The Tories have increased the national debt by 50% - a huge amount of cash borrowed with no assets to show. The Labour plan was borrow money to buy assets, an entirely different proposition..
Ho ho ho. So the Labour plan was to cut welfare payments, pensions, education and the NHS faster than Osborne, but to borrow more for infrastructure?
As long as they took Abbott, Thornberry, Cat Smith and many others with them.
Thornberry is OK. She seems quite sane, and is certainly articulate. If the opposition comprised people like her and Keir Starmer they would be a credible alternative government.
And she came out with the best political joke in recent years.
The Tories have increased the national debt by 50% - a huge amount of cash borrowed with no assets to show. The Labour plan was borrow money to buy assets, an entirely different proposition..
Ho ho ho. So the Labour plan was to cut welfare payments, pensions, education and the NHS faster than Osborne, but to borrow more for infrastructure?
The Labour plan was to alter the mix of cuts and tax increases, weighting it slightly more towards the latter, arguing that the impact on growth would be less harmful. The IMF has belatedly come to the same position...
Didn't McDonnell say something about the "fair market value" being decided by him?
Who knows, they were making it up as they went along, they couldn't care less about sound finances, they think all investors are by definition immoral leeches who deserve nothing, and they think the only thing that is ever wrong with government borrowing is that it's not high enough.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
The current lot are hardly taking reality in their stride?
The likely disaster of Brexit is hardly a reason to embrace the catastrophe of Brexit combined with McDonnell.
Much of the electorate will more likely be thinking 'in for a penny...'
Come an election whenever that is no one can say at present, even remotely, they can predict the outcome in Parliamentary seats and the formation of a Government.
However if Corbyn and McDonnell were out of the picture labour would be odds on for a majority
As long as they took Abbott, Thornberry, Cat Smith and many others with them.
Cat Smith is a political titan when compared to the C. Smith on the Tory benches...
As long as they took Abbott, Thornberry, Cat Smith and many others with them.
Thornberry is OK. She seems quite sane, and is certainly articulate. If the opposition comprised people like her and Keir Starmer they would be a credible alternative government.
In the current circumstances , I think you are correct.Both Thornberry and Starmer look credible to me , when you compare the current cabinet.
The Tories have increased the national debt by 50% - a huge amount of cash borrowed with no assets to show. The Labour plan was borrow money to buy assets, an entirely different proposition..
Ho ho ho. So the Labour plan was to cut welfare payments, pensions, education and the NHS faster than Osborne, but to borrow more for infrastructure?
The Labour plan was to alter the mix of cuts and tax increases, weighting it slightly more towards the latter, arguing that the impact on growth would be less harmful. The IMF has belatedly come to the same position...
Nonsense. The Labour 'plan', if that's not too strong a word, was to say that the deficit could be cut with no pain to anyone. We never did find out what if anything they actually proposed to do, but they seemed to oppose every single spending cut Osborne implemented, even the most obvious and painless.
Comments
Which means the Tories are not in a strong position to criticise Labour for planning additional borrowing. Especially when Tory Cabinet ministers also want to borrow more.
It's only because Boris is posh that people still insist he's intelligent.
How does that work if he's talking about political identity and historical experience? Was the existence of the continental plate defining our political identity before we knew of it? Surely our perception of being an island apart from Europe moulded that far more strongly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbCTLvXxB9I
Your question is exactly as penetrating and intelligent as saying: You claim that Boris Johnson does not play for Manchester United, so which premiership team does he play for, then?
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/927890500509683712
I thought the tipping point was when he said the EU could go whistle for the exit bill and Barnier replied with something along of the lines of 'I don't hear whistling, just the sound of a clock ticking down'
So certainly not Hammond.
More seriously, may is surely strengthened by just how out of his depth he is. Putting to one side the fact the she appointed him to a role that he is clearly unfit for, after today's performance and all the other gaffes, how could anyone seriously object to his removal and how could anyone, with a straight face, back him to be the next PM? The same applies to the ludicrously over-promoted Priti Patel, too, of course.
Alcohol-specific deaths in UK: registered in 2016
Today's figures have been published using the new definition of alcohol-specific deaths.
In 2016, there were 7,327 alcohol-specific deaths in the UK, an age-standardised rate of 11.7 deaths per 100,000 population.
The 2016 alcohol-specific deaths rate continues to remain unchanged since 2013 in the UK, but is still higher than observed 15 years ago.
In 2016, the male alcohol-specific death rate continues to be more than double the rate among females.
For both sexes, rates of alcohol-specific deaths were highest among those aged 55 to 64 years in 2016.
Scotland remains the constituent country with the highest rate of alcohol-specific deaths in 2016; yet Scotland has also seen the largest decrease in its rates since they peaked in the early 2000s.
In England, for both sexes, alcohol-specific rates in 2016 were significantly higher in the most deprived local areas when compared to the least deprived local areas.
I find this a good summary of the coalition's record: https://www.ft.com/content/2da09f02-cbe3-11e4-aeb5-00144feab7de
"Corbyn replied: “What we will do is for the public ownership elements there’ll be an exchange for [sic] bonds for shares in it”. Neil suggested that this was still borrowing. “No, it’s not [borrowing]”, Corbyn replied, “it’s a swap of shares for a government bond”."
https://iea.org.uk/what-jeremy-corbyn-doesnt-know-about-government-debt/
To all those criticising Boris: have you actually listened to what he said rather than the partial quotes of it?
Although poorly worded (!) you could tell (by his adding "at the very limit") that he was referring to Iran's allegations against Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. In other words even if they were true it would still be unacceptable to jail her for it.
Labour isn't to blame for the financial crisis any more than the Tories are to blame for the borrowing since then. The same things would have happened to pretty much the same extent, whoever was sitting in the chair.
Certainly we can blame Labour for ignoring the warnings (from Vince Cable among others) about the impending crisis, for going easy on the financial sector, and having the hubris to announce that it had "abolished boom and bust" in the middle of a massive credit boom. We can blame the Tories for putting too much emphasis on spending cuts and not enough on capital investment or raising money through fairer taxation. And for their policy of going even easier on big finance. And both parties are to blame for the QE programme, which turned out to be the slow acting poison that fuels much of the current day discontent.
But the reality is that most of the political decisions on the economy since 2008 (QE possibly excepted) have been around the margins of unavoidable events. It would have been better if we had never become so reliant on debt, public and private, over the decades prior. But no politician was advocating that - both our economy and our political system is set up to encourage precisely the opposite.
And the English Channel is not a geological fact. It might be a geographical one but geology has nothing to do with it.
That ain't justice.
If we ever do (God forbid) get a Corbyn/McDonnell government, the clash with reality is going to be something extraordinary to behold.
#Priti2FO
I expect he will be punishing himself already far more than any prison would.
Between 2011 and 2016, more than 40 Kenyan track-and-field athletes failed doping tests.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/41903500
One or two can be put down to rogue athletes, but 40....some might say that is quite an accident.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5058023/Mother-five-encouraged-terror-attacks-spared-jail.html
That will learn her....
What entertains me most is this - Tories seem aghast at the idea of borrowing to invest. As this is at the very heart of capitalism it demonstrates how far removed they are from how business works. Perhaps because they're more interested in city types only interested in selling things off for a one time fee.
However if Corbyn and McDonnell were out of the picture labour would be odds on for a majority
As a rule, judges don't like sending the elderly to prison for non violent, non sexual crimes.
Prisons don't have the facilities to deal with elderly prisoners.
There was a really great essay by some 1970s Marxist on the increase in state spending, seeing it as a way of socialising the costs of reproducing capital (subsidising wages directly and indirectly, for instance) in order to offset the tendency for the rate or profit to fall - preventing crisis by storing it up for the future. I'll try to dig it out and see if it's still interesting.
new thread