Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
But isn't it extra money above and beyond the normal budget?
Hmm. It looks like you are right and so I withdraw my comment. Having briefly looked at a Kings Fund report and a Fullfact article, it's pretty complicated. It depends on whether you use RPI/CPI or the healthcare inflator, which is 4% currently. Also whether you take into account a population increase and therefore measure budget per capita and additional demand in the form of a higher percentage of older people, plus other factors.
@rkrkrk does make a good point below that inflation is higher in the NHS than in the wider economy.
To summarise my understanding of the Kings Fund report, the government has committed to increase NHS England's budget in real terms. ie the total budget will increase by more than the standard 3% inflation rate. However, healthcare inflation is running at 4% and the population has increased. This means a decrease of 0.8% in terms of healthcare delivered per head of population. Add in other demographic trends where the proportion of older people increases there is a greater demand on the healthcare system, which further reduces healthcare delivered per patient. All of that is before any improvement in provision in terms of treatments.
I think normally a measure of healthcare inflation would include substituting newer better (hopefully) drugs for older ones. I haven't looked in detail at how the King's Fund have come up with their number.
Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
But isn't it extra money above and beyond the normal budget?
Hmm. It looks like you are right and so I withdraw my comment. Having briefly looked at a Kings Fund report and a Fullfact article, it's pretty complicated. It depends on whether you use RPI/CPI or the healthcare inflator, which is 4% currently. Also whether you take into account a population increase and therefore measure budget per capita and additional demand in the form of a higher percentage of older people, plus other factors.
@rkrkrk does make a good point below that inflation is higher in the NHS than in the wider economy.
To summarise my understanding of the Kings Fund report, the government has committed to increase NHS England's budget in real terms. ie the total budget will increase by more than the standard 3% inflation rate. However, healthcare inflation is running at 4% and the population has increased. This means a decrease of 0.8% in terms of healthcare delivered per head of population. Add in other demographic trends where the proportion of older people increases there is a greater demand on the healthcare system, which further reduces healthcare delivered per patient. All of that is before any improvement in provision in terms of treatments.
But I think they are getting almost all they asked for?
Well duh, that was a given the second Brexit happened, and especially after the GE result. They don't have the numbers or public backing to take the sort of action that would take. Only question is will they get punished for it.
Mr. Divvie, I got thrown out of the PB Tory Club (I forget why), but the Budget so far seems fine. Yeah, it's bland. I'll take bland. It's miles better than I was expecting.
Bland but not a disaster would be some achievement given the government's recent record. It wouldn't exactly be all they hoped for, but preventing anything beyond a standard level of quibbling over the budget would have been accepted as worth it I should think. We'll see if they manage that.
Well duh, that was a given the second Brexit happened, and especially after the GE result. They don't have the numbers or public backing to take the sort of action that would take. Only question is will they get punished for it.
I suspect the Tories may do better if they miss their fiscal targets. It certainly didn't hurt Osborne.
Mr. Divvie, I got thrown out of the PB Tory Club (I forget why), but the Budget so far seems fine. Yeah, it's bland. I'll take bland. It's miles better than I was expecting.
Bland but not a disaster would be some achievement given the government's recent record. It wouldn't exactly be all they hoped for, but preventing anything beyond a standard level of quibbling over the budget would have been accepted as worth it I should think. We'll see if they manage that.
"Bland but not a disaster" ought to quite decent for a Chancellor. It is the gimmicks that tend to backfire.
Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?
"FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."
FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
"FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."
FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.
Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
Isn't that just saying that people with more money can afford more? If they are able to afford a more expensive house, that frees up cheaper stock further down the ladder.
They won't go for more expensive properties, they will bid up their existing target to guarantee getting a house.
SCons MORE enthusiastic than the SNP about a single police force? Well, blow me down with a feather.
Yeah but if the SCons were in Holyrood they'd have made sure that the VAT issue was dealt with at the time rather than just plowing on ahead and then moaning about VAT which was known to be an issue.
Ah, an expert on the subject!
Can you link to SCon statements at the time (2011) on how the VAT issue should be 'dealt with', and any subsequent statements? More importantly, perhaps you could reveal the form of the lobbying from the 13 SCon MPs which held such sway with Hammond, while 139 interventions or points raised by the SNP fell on such stony ground? Just for future reference for our hapless SNP lads & lasses, like.
It would be nice if news organisations (especially the BBC) first reported what was in the budget, then what the Opposition's reaction was. As is now typical, they are obsessed with giving us 'their' slant, rather than focusing on the facts.
I don't need Kuennsberg to tell me what to think. I'll do that myself.
Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?
"FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."
FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
"FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."
FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.
Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
Isn't that just saying that people with more money can afford more? If they are able to afford a more expensive house, that frees up cheaper stock further down the ladder.
They won't go for more expensive properties, they will bid up their existing target to guarantee getting a house.
The OBR forecast suggests this will be a small effect.
Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?
"FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."
FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
"FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."
FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.
Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
Isn't that just saying that people with more money can afford more? If they are able to afford a more expensive house, that frees up cheaper stock further down the ladder.
They won't go for more expensive properties, they will bid up their existing target to guarantee getting a house.
Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?
"FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."
FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
"FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."
FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.
Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
Isn't that just saying that people with more money can afford more? If they are able to afford a more expensive house, that frees up cheaper stock further down the ladder.
They won't go for more expensive properties, they will bid up their existing target to guarantee getting a house.
Which is the purpose of the policy.
What - bidding up prices?
I appreciate that's the likely effect. And maybe it is the underlying purpose - keeps all those Daily Express readers happy at the tought that their house is increasing by £xk per month.
Faisal Islam needs to learn to read. The OBR say that achieving a balanced budget by 2025/26 looks challenging, not that the target will be missed.
I don't see how he can possibly be taken seriously after his disgraceful interviews with Cameron and Gove during the referendum campaign. Being snarky and self-important is not the best way to elicit information from your interviewees.
Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
Stevens asked for a base line increase about 2 years ago. He was given the full amount (£20bn?) he asked for.
This is the amount he was wrong by
No, this is the amount he's asking for this year. Even if Hammond this year gave £4bn extra to the NHS do you think next year they'd say "we have enough money now thanks" or do you think there'd be an urgent reason why another 4-5bn were needed?
There's never enough money. No matter how much you give more could always be used.
Well duh, that was a given the second Brexit happened, and especially after the GE result. They don't have the numbers or public backing to take the sort of action that would take. Only question is will they get punished for it.
SCons MORE enthusiastic than the SNP about a single police force? Well, blow me down with a feather.
Yeah but if the SCons were in Holyrood they'd have made sure that the VAT issue was dealt with at the time rather than just plowing on ahead and then moaning about VAT which was known to be an issue.
Ah, an expert on the subject!
Can you link to SCon statements at the time (2011) on how the VAT issue should be 'dealt with', and any subsequent statements? More importantly, perhaps you could reveal the form of the lobbying from the 13 SCon MPs which held such sway with Hammond, while 139 interventions or points raised by the SNP fell on such stony ground? Just for future reference for our hapless SNP lads & lasses, like.
The 13 Tory MPs were the honourable friends of the Chancellor and not his vehement opponents.
Your hapless SNP lads and lasses could try to get SNP control over Westminster and then they'd have more sway. I remember didn't Salmond talk about writing the Westminster budget after the forthcoming election? Had that come to pass then perhaps the VAT issue would have been dealt with sooner.
In 2011 did the SNP think to embarrass the government by widely broadcasting they wanted to implement SCON policy and needed Westminster to change the VAT rules first in order to do so?
Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?
"FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."
FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
"FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."
FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.
Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
Isn't that just saying that people with more money can afford more? If they are able to afford a more expensive house, that frees up cheaper stock further down the ladder.
They won't go for more expensive properties, they will bid up their existing target to guarantee getting a house.
Which is the purpose of the policy.
What - bidding up prices?
I appreciate that's the likely effect. And maybe it is the underlying purpose - keeps all those Daily Express readers happy at the tought that their house is increasing by £xk per month.
No to "guarantee [first time buyers] getting a house".
It seems the railcard offer from todays' Tory budget is bloody useless as you can't use it until 10 AM.Do the Tories really beleive young people's work and college doesn't start until 10AM?Just how out of touch are these Tories.
Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?
"FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."
FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
"FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."
FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.
Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
Isn't that just saying that people with more money can afford more? If they are able to afford a more expensive house, that frees up cheaper stock further down the ladder.
They won't go for more expensive properties, they will bid up their existing target to guarantee getting a house.
Which is the purpose of the policy.
What - bidding up prices?
I appreciate that's the likely effect. And maybe it is the underlying purpose - keeps all those Daily Express readers happy at the tought that their house is increasing by £xk per month.
No to "guarantee [first time buyers] getting a house".
But everyone they are bidding against is getting the same benefit so how does it not just bid up the price to a point where it is as challenging as it was before? Net effect: Government loses revenue and house price inflation gets a one-off boost.
Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?
"FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."
FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
"FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."
FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.
Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
Isn't that just saying that people with more money can afford more? If they are able to afford a more expensive house, that frees up cheaper stock further down the ladder.
They won't go for more expensive properties, they will bid up their existing target to guarantee getting a house.
Which is the purpose of the policy.
What - bidding up prices?
I appreciate that's the likely effect. And maybe it is the underlying purpose - keeps all those Daily Express readers happy at the tought that their house is increasing by £xk per month.
No to "guarantee [first time buyers] getting a house".
But everyone they are bidding against is getting the same benefit so how does it not just bid up the price to a point where it is as challenging as it was before? Net effect: Government loses revenue and house price inflation gets a one-off boost.
It seems the railcard offer from todays' Tory budget is bloody useless as you can't use it until 10 AM.Do the Tories really beleive young people's work and college doesn't start until 10AM?Just how out of touch are these Tories.
Well duh, that was a given the second Brexit happened, and especially after the GE result. They don't have the numbers or public backing to take the sort of action that would take. Only question is will they get punished for it.
Wasn't the target set after the Brexit vote?
You may be right, they've changed their target on it so many times - in any case, by shifting it to a vague point in the middle of the next decade, it was reasonably clear that it was code for 'we no longer care about the target'.
Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
But isn't it extra money above and beyond the normal budget?
Hmm. It looks like you are right and so I withdraw my comment. Having briefly looked at a Kings Fund report and a Fullfact article, it's pretty complicated. It depends on whether you use RPI/CPI or the healthcare inflator, which is 4% currently. Also whether you take into account a population increase and therefore measure budget per capita and additional demand in the form of a higher percentage of older people, plus other factors.
@rkrkrk does make a good point below that inflation is higher in the NHS than in the wider economy.
To summarise my understanding of the Kings Fund report, the government has committed to increase NHS England's budget in real terms. ie the total budget will increase by more than the standard 3% inflation rate. However, healthcare inflation is running at 4% and the population has increased. This means a decrease of 0.8% in terms of healthcare delivered per head of population. Add in other demographic trends where the proportion of older people increases there is a greater demand on the healthcare system, which further reduces healthcare delivered per patient. All of that is before any improvement in provision in terms of treatments.
I think normally a measure of healthcare inflation would include substituting newer better (hopefully) drugs for older ones. I haven't looked in detail at how the King's Fund have come up with their number.
But otherwise I agree.
Possibly. Essentially the inflation rate is determined by the basket of goods and services that you are measuring the price of. The basket of goods and services in the healthcare inflator looks a whole lot different from those in the Retail Price Index.
Beyond the inflation rate, new treatments allow interventions which weren't possible before and which you would want to do. It's not just a case of doing the same interventions more effectively.
It would be nice if news organisations (especially the BBC) first reported what was in the budget, then what the Opposition's reaction was. As is now typical, they are obsessed with giving us 'their' slant, rather than focusing on the facts.
I don't need Kuennsberg to tell me what to think. I'll do that myself.
Indeed. It's also getting to the stage that no Govt will be able to make any change which adversely affects anyone without an outbreak of media mass hysteria - which is completely absurd.
Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?
"FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."
FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
"FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."
FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.
Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
Isn't that just saying that people with more money can afford more? If they are able to afford a more expensive house, that frees up cheaper stock further down the ladder.
They won't go for more expensive properties, they will bid up their existing target to guarantee getting a house.
Which is the purpose of the policy.
What - bidding up prices?
I appreciate that's the likely effect. And maybe it is the underlying purpose - keeps all those Daily Express readers happy at the tought that their house is increasing by £xk per month.
No to "guarantee [first time buyers] getting a house".
But everyone they are bidding against is getting the same benefit so how does it not just bid up the price to a point where it is as challenging as it was before? Net effect: Government loses revenue and house price inflation gets a one-off boost.
It's about advantaging first time buyers vs others, especially those with large property portfolios.
I think it's excellent - very good retail politics.
I remember when Ed Miliband got attacked for eating a bacon sandwich and a silly stone gaffe - the unreasonableness of parts of the mainstream media didn’t seem to be a problem then....
Also, I wonder what the WWC will think about the ‘Hard Brexit’ Tories giving 3bn to the EU even after the transition (per Laura K’s tweet). We know that their views on matters such as the EU/immigration are very dear to Conservative hearts *innocent face*
I remember when Ed Miliband got attacked for eating a bacon sandwich and a silly stone gaffe - the unreasonableness of parts of the mainstream media didn’t seem to be a problem then....
The unreasonableness isn't a problem now. People should have remembered to not overreact to media then, and shouldn't now, it's how the game is played.
Faisal Islam needs to learn to read. The OBR say that achieving a balanced budget by 2025/26 looks challenging, not that the target will be missed.
In 2010 the previous Conservative chancellor was confidently announcing a balanced budget by 2015. Since then those targets have been put back, and back, and back again.
Why on earth should the latest pronouncement be believed now?
Clearly the OBR don't believe it. The language used by the OBR is clearly indicating that it considers the latest target to be once again to be built on too rosy assumptions, thus inferring that it expects the latest target to be missed.
Ms. Apocalypse, if Cameron had described himself as a friend of Golden Dawn and marched with Nazi banners and Hitler pictures, I'd've been first in line condemning the media for focusing on nonsense.
[There was a serious point about the EdStone, namely the pledges were all utterly vacuous].
I remember when Ed Miliband got attacked for eating a bacon sandwich and a silly stone gaffe - the unreasonableness of parts of the mainstream media didn’t seem to be a problem then....
That was obviously 'left on left' so doesn't count, I guess
This is what the OBR report says, "Achieving the broader balanced budget fiscal objective, interpreted as applying to 2025-26, looks challenging (although this lies beyond our formal forecasting horizon)". Balanced budget is not the same as having a surplus. And saying it won't be until 2031 "on current trends" is not the same as saying it won't be achieved by the middle of the decade. It means that something has to happen to change the current trends to achieve it.
Faisal Islam needs to learn to read. The OBR say that achieving a balanced budget by 2025/26 looks challenging, not that the target will be missed.
In 2010 the previous Conservative chancellor was confidently announcing a balanced budget by 2015. Since then those targets have been put back, and back, and back again.
Why on earth should the latest pronouncement be believed now?
Clearly the OBR don't believe it. The language used by the OBR is clearly indicating that it considers the latest target to be once again to be built on too rosy assumptions, thus inferring that it expects the latest target to be missed.
Here's what they actually say:
According to the Charter for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s fiscal objective is to “return the public finances to balance at the earliest possible date in the next Parliament”. When this objective was set, the ‘next Parliament’ was expected to run to May 2025, so the ‘earliest possible date’ could have been anywhere up to 2025-26. The Conservative Party’s 2017 manifesto similarly committed to “a balanced budget by the middle of the next decade”. Our forecast horizon extends to 2022-23, so we cannot assess performance against this objective using a central forecast for 2025-26. But with our central forecast showing the budget deficit still at 1.1 per cent of GDP (£25.6 billion) by 2022-23, meeting this objective appears challenging from a variety of perspectives.
Can you see the word "miss" in there anywhere? Islam should have just reported what they said, not what he thinks they said.
Faisal Islam needs to learn to read. The OBR say that achieving a balanced budget by 2025/26 looks challenging, not that the target will be missed.
In 2010 the previous Conservative chancellor was confidently announcing a balanced budget by 2015. Since then those targets have been put back, and back, and back again.
Why on earth should the latest pronouncement be believed now?
It shouldn't. When they pushed it back to 2017/18 I said at the time it would eventually become 2020, and so on and so forth. Even before Brexit they were struggling to take the harder decisions which getting the deficit down would require, and they certainly cannot now, so it will go back and back, and the issue will be will people care, given clearly the public want more spending. The answer is yes, if Labour are credible (whether one thinks they should be or not, they clearly were felt to be so in 2017).
Faisal Islam needs to learn to read. The OBR say that achieving a balanced budget by 2025/26 looks challenging, not that the target will be missed.
In 2010 the previous Conservative chancellor was confidently announcing a balanced budget by 2015. Since then those targets have been put back, and back, and back again.
Why on earth should the latest pronouncement be believed now?
Clearly the OBR don't believe it. The language used by the OBR is clearly indicating that it considers the latest target to be once again to be built on too rosy assumptions, thus inferring that it expects the latest target to be missed.
I agree that it is likely the target will be missed. I'm just objecting to people saying that the OBR has said it will be missed when the OBR has merely said meeting the target is challenging.
Friend of mine nearly bought his first flat but pulled out about two months ago. Looks a great decision now!
(snip)
Surely that depends on how much rent he's paying? Before we bought our first house five years ago, we were paying nearly a grand a month in rent. The longer he delays, the more rent he'll have paid that will offset any savings from this change.
That's why buying really matters: even including our minimal mortgage and other homeowning costs, we've probably saved well over £500 a month over renting. That soon mounts up.
It seems the railcard offer from todays' Tory budget is bloody useless as you can't use it until 10 AM.Do the Tories really beleive young people's work and college doesn't start until 10AM?Just how out of touch are these Tories.
It seems the railcard offer from todays' Tory budget is bloody useless as you can't use it until 10 AM.Do the Tories really beleive young people's work and college doesn't start until 10AM?Just how out of touch are these Tories.
This is what the OBR report says, "Achieving the broader balanced budget fiscal objective, interpreted as applying to 2025-26, looks challenging (although this lies beyond our formal forecasting horizon)". Balanced budget is not the same as having a surplus. And saying it won't be until 2031 "on current trends" is not the same as saying it won't be achieved by the middle of the decade. It means that something has to happen to change the current trends to achieve it.
It seems as if Faisal Islam was using a graphic supplied by the OBR, though. I can't see the problem with that.
I remember when Ed Miliband got attacked for eating a bacon sandwich and a silly stone gaffe - the unreasonableness of parts of the mainstream media didn’t seem to be a problem then....
Also, I wonder what the WWC will think about the ‘Hard Brexit’ Tories giving 3bn to the EU even after the transition (per Laura K’s tweet). We know that their views on matters such as the EU/immigration are very dear to Conservative hearts *innocent face*
I have said several times on here the demonisation of moderate social democrat Miliband was a disgrace.
The £3bn payment to the EU post transition is presumably a lot less than the annual membership fee we would pay if we stayed part of it.
This is what the OBR report says, "Achieving the broader balanced budget fiscal objective, interpreted as applying to 2025-26, looks challenging (although this lies beyond our formal forecasting horizon)". Balanced budget is not the same as having a surplus. And saying it won't be until 2031 "on current trends" is not the same as saying it won't be achieved by the middle of the decade. It means that something has to happen to change the current trends to achieve it.
It seems as if Faisal Islam was using a graphic supplied by the OBR, though. I can't see the problem with that.
I think the issue is with what he is claiming they were saying.
I don't think the UK government is responsible for every voice in UK politics. It is accurate that the Irish have been terribly unconstructive over the border. They can get on their Brexit high horse but a breakdown in talks would hurt them more than anyone, so they should think more than two steps ahead.
"Currently one new tech business founded in UK every hour. We want to see that halved".
Thought he was good with figures
That is not what he said, he said he wanted it to be one every half hour. Perhaps you have some sort of virtualfaisalTM extension in your browser which translates the dicta of tory ministers into something you would like them to have said?
I don't think the UK government is responsible for every voice in UK politics. It is accurate that the Irish have been terribly unconstructive over the border. They can get on their Brexit high horse but a breakdown in talks would hurt them more than anyone, so they should think more than two steps ahead.
John Taylor is as Irish as Leo Varadkar
Billy boy Glenn thinks is he not entitled to a view
I don't think the UK government is responsible for every voice in UK politics. It is accurate that the Irish have been terribly unconstructive over the border. They can get on their Brexit high horse but a breakdown in talks would hurt them more than anyone, so they should think more than two steps ahead.
You should take your own advice. Suppose there's a breakdown in talks. What then? Suppose, even, that there's a no deal Brexit. What then?
This is what the OBR report says, "Achieving the broader balanced budget fiscal objective, interpreted as applying to 2025-26, looks challenging (although this lies beyond our formal forecasting horizon)". Balanced budget is not the same as having a surplus. And saying it won't be until 2031 "on current trends" is not the same as saying it won't be achieved by the middle of the decade. It means that something has to happen to change the current trends to achieve it.
It seems as if Faisal Islam was using a graphic supplied by the OBR, though. I can't see the problem with that.
I think the issue is with what he is claiming they were saying.
Having taken a better look at their website, yes, that is a graphic produced by the OBR. But the graphic disagrees with their own report. They should make up their minds. Either it is challenging or the target will definitely be missed. They cannot both be true.
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
If you are commuting, wouldn't you be on a season ticket anyway? The idea that you could cut all tickets by a third in this age of austerity is for the birds. It'd be another middle class bung like the cancellation of tuition debt.
The housing has been discussed below.
For halving/doubling, that's not what the speech said.
Friend of mine nearly bought his first flat but pulled out about two months ago. Looks a great decision now!
(snip)
Surely that depends on how much rent he's paying? Before we bought our first house five years ago, we were paying nearly a grand a month in rent. The longer he delays, the more rent he'll have paid that will offset any savings from this change.
That's why buying really matters: even including our minimal mortgage and other homeowning costs, we've probably saved well over £500 a month over renting. That soon mounts up.
The rent to buy calculation is much closer than your situation generally.
In any case if he now buys it will be c. 3k cheaper for him I imagine.
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The halved/doubled thing is in your head. The stamp duty fiddle is a cleverer way of doing what Osborne tried to do with help to buy, without any particular criticism, because SD can't be rolled up into the mortgage. I don't really understand the claim that if you charge 3 sorts of buyer £14,000, 5,000 and 0.00 respectively on the same transaction, you are not conferring a benefit on the 3rd sort of buyer. I understand your expectation that a Hammond/May budget would be an unmitigated disaster, but you'll just have to live with the disappointment.
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing measures will reduce the amount of deposit needed. That makes them more not less available to First Time Buyers.
I'm finding the shrieking about the stamp duty cut properly irritating.
It's vacuous, economically illiterate, tribal crap based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the measure and a purposeful misunderstanding of the OBR report. It would have been a godsend when I bought my first house, as we struggled to get together a 10% deposit and then budget for stamp. We spent 3 months with bin bags taped over our bedroom window as we couldn't afford curtains ffs (and that was in 1998, not 1958).
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing measures will reduce the amount of deposit needed. That makes them more not less available to First Time Buyers.
Will be inflationary and increase house prices though.
Try building more Council Houses that is the obvious solution.
Council tenants don't tend to vote Conservative. Home ownership and Conservatism are correlated - building more council houses in effect increases the Labour client vote.
Comments
But otherwise I agree.
It certainly didn't hurt Osborne.
Can you link to SCon statements at the time (2011) on how the VAT issue should be 'dealt with', and any subsequent statements?
More importantly, perhaps you could reveal the form of the lobbying from the 13 SCon MPs which held such sway with Hammond, while 139 interventions or points raised by the SNP fell on such stony ground? Just for future reference for our hapless SNP lads & lasses, like.
I don't need Kuennsberg to tell me what to think. I'll do that myself.
I appreciate that's the likely effect. And maybe it is the underlying purpose - keeps all those Daily Express readers happy at the tought that their house is increasing by £xk per month.
http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/money-can-t-buy-health
Some good news out of Europe?
Your hapless SNP lads and lasses could try to get SNP control over Westminster and then they'd have more sway. I remember didn't Salmond talk about writing the Westminster budget after the forthcoming election? Had that come to pass then perhaps the VAT issue would have been dealt with sooner.
In 2011 did the SNP think to embarrass the government by widely broadcasting they wanted to implement SCON policy and needed Westminster to change the VAT rules first in order to do so?
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/933392146765410304
Beyond the inflation rate, new treatments allow interventions which weren't possible before and which you would want to do. It's not just a case of doing the same interventions more effectively.
This makes me think, where does that £40bn show up in forecasts?
And where do the current EU contributions show up as stopping?
Within 5 minutes the "Budget in charts" on the deficit has been completely deleted from the webpage!
I think it's excellent - very good retail politics.
Also, I wonder what the WWC will think about the ‘Hard Brexit’ Tories giving 3bn to the EU even after the transition (per Laura K’s tweet). We know that their views on matters such as the EU/immigration are very dear to Conservative hearts *innocent face*
Why on earth should the latest pronouncement be believed now?
Clearly the OBR don't believe it. The language used by the OBR is clearly indicating that it considers the latest target to be once again to be built on too rosy assumptions, thus inferring that it expects the latest target to be missed.
[There was a serious point about the EdStone, namely the pledges were all utterly vacuous].
According to the Charter for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s fiscal objective is to
“return the public finances to balance at the earliest possible date in the next Parliament”.
When this objective was set, the ‘next Parliament’ was expected to run to May 2025, so the
‘earliest possible date’ could have been anywhere up to 2025-26. The Conservative Party’s
2017 manifesto similarly committed to “a balanced budget by the middle of the next
decade”. Our forecast horizon extends to 2022-23, so we cannot assess performance
against this objective using a central forecast for 2025-26. But with our central forecast showing the budget deficit still at 1.1 per cent of GDP (£25.6 billion) by 2022-23, meeting
this objective appears challenging from a variety of perspectives.
Can you see the word "miss" in there anywhere? Islam should have just reported what they said, not what he thinks they said.
That's why buying really matters: even including our minimal mortgage and other homeowning costs, we've probably saved well over £500 a month over renting. That soon mounts up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42079916
https://www.senior-railcard.co.uk/help/faqs/135/
the only restriction is a ban on peak-time travel within the London area.
In other words, this seems to be a cheap inferior railcard offer, aka a gimmick.
https://twitter.com/KilclooneyJohn/status/932677674509787136
OMNISHAMBLES
maybe he should just have let sleeping dogs lie
Thought he was good with figures
"A new tech business is founded in Britain every hour and I want that to be every half hour."
The £3bn payment to the EU post transition is presumably a lot less than the annual membership fee we would pay if we stayed part of it.
Billy boy Glenn thinks is he not entitled to a view
The EU isn't going anywhere.
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing has been discussed below.
For halving/doubling, that's not what the speech said.
In any case if he now buys it will be c. 3k cheaper for him I imagine.
Net Debt: 86.5%
Net Debt exc Bank of England: 76.9%
2022/23:
Net Debt: 79.1%
Net Debt exc Bank of England: 76.4%
So Net Debt exc Bank of England only falls 0.5% - not that impressive!
But implies Bank of England debt falls 6.9% - which is huge!
How does this happen?
Surely it implies a massive sale of Bank of England debt?
Is this negative QE? ie Reversing QE?
(NB all numbers above are % of GDP)
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/933324442104684545
Try building more Council Houses that is the obvious solution.
It's vacuous, economically illiterate, tribal crap based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the measure and a purposeful misunderstanding of the OBR report. It would have been a godsend when I bought my first house, as we struggled to get together a 10% deposit and then budget for stamp. We spent 3 months with bin bags taped over our bedroom window as we couldn't afford curtains ffs (and that was in 1998, not 1958).
Ewww no, plebs, the great unwashed, and people named Chardonnay and Wayne come from council houses.
Build some tenements instead.
Machines are being replaced by unskilled workers.