Mr. Chuck, for Hannibal I'd raise the following points:
Cannae - arguably the greatest battlefield victory in history (nothing Caesar did comes close)...
...Ask yourself this: if the two men had met with armies of equal size, who would have won the day? Surely the answer must be Hannibal.
An interesting case well put, Mr Dancer. Many thanks. I must further inform myself and consider, although I was never sure why Cannae was not more a demonstration of Roman over-confidence than Carthaginian guile - surely it was not the first battle in which the tactic of false retreat was decisive? I shall get back to you!
Mr. Chuck, for Hannibal I'd raise the following points:
Cannae - arguably the greatest battlefield victory in history (nothing Caesar did comes close) Lake Trasimene - arguably the greatest ambush in history The Alpine March - the most audacious and heroic march in history (even the lesser known Arnus Marshes march is more impressive than anything Caesar did)
Also, consider the opponents. Pompey was an old man, who paid too much heed to non-combatant advisers (ie the Senate) and was so predictable that at Pharsalus Caesar's 'strategy' was to place a fourth line to see off the inevitable cavalry charge [compare and contrast to Cannae].
Hannibal did face some ropey opponents, especially early on, but later had to grapple with Quintus Fabius Maximus, Nero, Marcellus and Scipio.
Ask yourself this: if the two men had met with armies of equal size, who would have won the day? Surely the answer must be Hannibal.
Some might contend that the real sign of a truly great general is that he never lets the situation arise where he is meeting an enemy of equal size in open battle.
That will depend on the nature of the war that the general is deployed into, which may be something outside his control.
The other end of the process - the use to which those victories is put - is equally important and irrespective of whether Caesar was the superior general to Hannibal or vice-versa, there can be no question as to who the superior politician of the two was.
"Labour is trying to switch attention to living standards, with a blizzard of press releases and speeches. It is not hard to see why the party is doing this, although I doubt much or any of it will penetrate the public consciousness. Living standards have taken a huge hit since the recession, families are getting into more debt and it is very tough for a lot of people, but the party that proclaimed the end of boom and bust – and predicated its policies on the boom going on for ever – is not in the best place to complain about the long-term consequences of the crash. I am sure those pushing the new line from Labour are sincere, but it sounds like displacement activity because the party can no longer say GDP growth is absent."
Mr. Chuck, you're quite right. I must've been rather sleepyheaded this morning. I do apologise to Mr. Eagles (although he's still 100% wrong about an oriental despot's boy-toy being a superior general to Hannibal).
A pleasure for me to have the opportunity for some mid-morning pedantry Mr Dancer.
Still very much on the fence re the important Caesar/Hannibal question myself, and following the occasional bouts of detailed discussion between you and Mr Eagles with great enjoyment.
It is very simple.
Under Hannibal's leadership the seeds were sown for the Carthaginians to be wiped out.
Under Caesar's leadership the seeds were sown for the Roman Empire.
The greatest Empire in history until the British Empire.
A big case, Mr Eagles, with less detail than that put by Mr Dancer. But still powerful. Certainly Hannibal's last few years in Italy seem a pointless waste of time and men. On the other hand, one could well argue that the Roman Imperium was reasonably well established before the conquest of Gaul and would not have been particularly endangered without it. Expansion in the East preceded Caesar and was surely not dependent on him, no?
My vote for best example of generalship probably goes to Keith Park. Victory in the Battle of Britain was very, very far from assured at the outset. Park managed his assets quite brilliantly, resisting huge temptation and pressure to commit more aircraft each day. He realised astutely that victory meant surviving. As long as he had aircraft left to commit he was not defeated. He fed fighters in piecemeal in small numbers and dragged the battle out over weeks when the Germans were seeking a decisive battle. In a war of attrition the winner is the last man standing not the one who blows his enemy away in magnificent spectacle.
Anyone who thinks the rising birth rate was due solely to immigration is a fool. But of course the low birthdate in the 80s and nineties made immigration inevitable as I'm sure you understand don't you?
Inevitable is not the same as uncontrolled.
Not if you get out of the EU, true. Although as we saw last week net migration is rising under the coalition, excellent news, compare it to the emigration from Ireland.
It does seem from today's headlines thought that the current govt is allowing a lot more people through illegally at the borders. I'm sure the PB Tories have a conspiracy theory as to why they are doing that
They may, they may not. Here's an anecdote for you - came through Bristol airport on an Australian passport 4 weeks ago, with British wife and kids. Never seen it so tight - they seemed to be being careful with everybody. I was genuinely surprised, and then surprised again to see that my anecdote was utterly at odds with the headlines. No doubt there's a lesson there.
Richard Nabavi, by 2015 there will be a shortage of primary places in most areas. Very few of your lauded Free Schools have been Primary ones. The Free Schools ' programme is taking money away from local authorities who need to provide either extra classes or new primary schools in their areas. A foolish policy from a foolish Secretary of State.You should be sorry that so many Free Schools have been established.
@roserees64 - Yes, and isn't it terrible that there are competitors to BT. All those competitors taking money away from properly-planned central allocation of resources. In fact, come to think of it, it's clear in retrospect that the best way of allocating resources is central control of everything and ensuring no choice. That way you don't have any duplication, and it explains why the Soviet Union did so much better than the United States during the last century.
Richard Nabavi, by 2015 there will be a shortage of primary places in most areas. Very few of your lauded Free Schools have been Primary ones. The Free Schools ' programme is taking money away from local authorities who need to provide either extra classes or new primary schools in their areas. A foolish policy from a foolish Secretary of State.You should be sorry that so many Free Schools have been established.
Half of all the free schools opening this year will be primary ('offering primary places', which I assume is the same thing except in exceptional circumstances). That means at least a quarter of all free schools do. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23931974
As that article notes "the findings do not take into account some recent steps to increase school places because the analysis is based on official figures from the last academic year." and when I had a look at the figures the gov't record up to this point in terms of the past looks pretty good - although that clearly doesn't mean that the number of places created for the future is satisfactory.
Mr. Chuck, for Hannibal I'd raise the following points:
Cannae - arguably the greatest battlefield victory in history (nothing Caesar did comes close) Lake Trasimene - arguably the greatest ambush in history The Alpine March - the most audacious and heroic march in history (even the lesser known Arnus Marshes march is more impressive than anything Caesar did)
Also, consider the opponents. Pompey was an old man, who paid too much heed to non-combatant advisers (ie the Senate) and was so predictable that at Pharsalus Caesar's 'strategy' was to place a fourth line to see off the inevitable cavalry charge [compare and contrast to Cannae].
Hannibal did face some ropey opponents, especially early on, but later had to grapple with Quintus Fabius Maximus, Nero, Marcellus and Scipio.
Ask yourself this: if the two men had met with armies of equal size, who would have won the day? Surely the answer must be Hannibal.
Some might contend that the real sign of a truly great general is that he never lets the situation arise where he is meeting an enemy of equal size in open battle.
Hence a quote from Marius in the Social War, to an opposing general who outnumbered him, and had the advantage of the ground, but couldn't bring him to battle.
"If you're such a great general, come out and fight me."
"If you're such a great general, why don't you make me?"
Anyone who thinks the rising birth rate was due solely to immigration is a fool. But of course the low birthdate in the 80s and nineties made immigration inevitable as I'm sure you understand don't you?
It isn't inevitable. It is more than possible to manage a population decline and I'm sure if put to the vote that is what would have been chosen by the majority rather than mass immigration.
Actually, managing a population decline is incredibly difficult. Let's have a think for what it means for a second:
Firstly, as the number of retired people is rising, the burden on the workers must grow. Fewer workers supporting an increasing number of old people (with associated health care and pension costs) puts an enormous strain on government finances.
Secondly, from a financial perspective, retirees are typically drawing down their savings. This means that banks suffer from the problem of falling deposit levels. This chokes off credit to industry.
Thirdly, there is inevitable downward pressure on house prices. Fewer households, and the same size of housing stock means that prices must fall to make the market clear. While more affordable housing would not be a bad thing, constant price deflation would have a very negative wealth impacy.
Fourthly, businesses would be wary of investing in a place where the number of worker are in long-term secular decline. Because of the deteriorating government finances in the first point, they would also be concerned about their future tax levels.
Japan is currently suffering from falling population. Debt-to-GDP is an astonishing 230%. Japan's nominal GDP peaked in 1995. With the number of retirees continuing to swell, the question is not "will Japan default?" but "when will Japan default?" If you think what has happened in Greece is ugly, see what happens when Japan does a 60 or 70% debt haircut.
Anyone who thinks the rising birth rate was due solely to immigration is a fool. But of course the low birthdate in the 80s and nineties made immigration inevitable as I'm sure you understand don't you?
It isn't inevitable. It is more than possible to manage a population decline and I'm sure if put to the vote that is what would have been chosen by the majority rather than mass immigration.
Actually, managing a population decline is incredibly difficult. Let's have a think for what it means for a second:
Firstly, as the number of retired people is rising, the burden on the workers must grow. Fewer workers supporting an increasing number of old people (with associated health care and pension costs) puts an enormous strain on government finances.
Secondly, from a financial perspective, retirees are typically drawing down their savings. This means that banks suffer from the problem of falling deposit levels. This chokes off credit to industry.
Thirdly, there is inevitable downward pressure on house prices. Fewer households, and the same size of housing stock means that prices must fall to make the market clear. While more affordable housing would not be a bad thing, constant price deflation would have a very negative wealth impacy.
Fourthly, businesses would be wary of investing in a place where the number of worker are in long-term secular decline. Because of the deteriorating government finances in the first point, they would also be concerned about their future tax levels.
Japan is currently suffering from falling population. Debt-to-GDP is an astonishing 230%. Japan's nominal GDP peaked in 1995. With the number of retirees continuing to swell, the question is not "will Japan default?" but "when will Japan default?" If you think what has happened in Greece is ugly, see what happens when Japan does a 60 or 70% debt haircut.
The problem isn't really declining population - its the entitlement ponzi scheme collapsing.
Urgent Questions are no doubt annoying for Ministers and there clearly has been a significant increase in them but they have the undoubted benefit of making what is debated in Parliament relevant to the news and what is discussed elsewhere. They are a good thing and Ministers have to live with them.
The Border Agency is probably the biggest single hurdle to Mrs May's formidible progress to the leadership of the party if Cameron loses the next election. Any number of Ministers have tried any number of methods to make this organisation either deniable (by putting it at arm's length) or fit for purpose. All have failed.
The decision to bring it back "in house" was probably the correct one given the political sensitivities but it was brave in the Yes Minister sense. Today will be a good test for Mrs May.
@roserees64 - Yes, and isn't it terrible that there are competitors to BT. All those competitors taking money away from properly-planned central allocation of resources. In fact, come to think of it, it's clear in retrospect that the best way of allocating resources is central control of everything and ensuring no choice. That way you don't have any duplication, and it explains why the Soviet Union did so much better than the United States during the last century.
It would be utterly ridiculous to forbid BT from offering services in areas where its competitors did not or could not operate. Not every area in which there are school places shortages is replete with parents able to find the time to set up a free school. In such circumstances, why stop councils from doing something?
Anyone who thinks the rising birth rate was due solely to immigration is a fool. But of course the low birthdate in the 80s and nineties made immigration inevitable as I'm sure you understand don't you?
It isn't inevitable. It is more than possible to manage a population decline and I'm sure if put to the vote that is what would have been chosen by the majority rather than mass immigration.
Actually, managing a population decline is incredibly difficult. Let's have a think for what it means for a second:
Firstly, as the number of retired people is rising, the burden on the workers must grow. Fewer workers supporting an increasing number of old people (with associated health care and pension costs) puts an enormous strain on government finances.
Secondly, from a financial perspective, retirees are typically drawing down their savings. This means that banks suffer from the problem of falling deposit levels. This chokes off credit to industry.
Thirdly, there is inevitable downward pressure on house prices. Fewer households, and the same size of housing stock means that prices must fall to make the market clear. While more affordable housing would not be a bad thing, constant price deflation would have a very negative wealth impacy.
Fourthly, businesses would be wary of investing in a place where the number of worker are in long-term secular decline. Because of the deteriorating government finances in the first point, they would also be concerned about their future tax levels.
Japan is currently suffering from falling population. Debt-to-GDP is an astonishing 230%. Japan's nominal GDP peaked in 1995. With the number of retirees continuing to swell, the question is not "will Japan default?" but "when will Japan default?" If you think what has happened in Greece is ugly, see what happens when Japan does a 60 or 70% debt haircut.
The problem isn't really declining population - its the entitlement ponzi scheme collapsing.
Yes: and I'm so glad that at least one of the political parties has had the guts to stand up and say "the state provision of pensions is unaffordable". Oh wait, that's not true.
My vote for best example of generalship probably goes to Keith Park. Victory in the Battle of Britain was very, very far from assured at the outset. Park managed his assets quite brilliantly, resisting huge temptation and pressure to commit more aircraft each day. He realised astutely that victory meant surviving. As long as he had aircraft left to commit he was not defeated. He fed fighters in piecemeal in small numbers and dragged the battle out over weeks when the Germans were seeking a decisive battle. In a war of attrition the winner is the last man standing not the one who blows his enemy away in magnificent spectacle.
Keith Park's never quite got the recognition he deserved.
Anyone who thinks the rising birth rate was due solely to immigration is a fool. But of course the low birthdate in the 80s and nineties made immigration inevitable as I'm sure you understand don't you?
It isn't inevitable. It is more than possible to manage a population decline and I'm sure if put to the vote that is what would have been chosen by the majority rather than mass immigration.
Actually, managing a population decline is incredibly difficult. Let's have a think for what it means for a second:
Firstly, as the number of retired people is rising, the burden on the workers must grow. Fewer workers supporting an increasing number of old people (with associated health care and pension costs) puts an enormous strain on government finances.
Secondly, from a financial perspective, retirees are typically drawing down their savings. This means that banks suffer from the problem of falling deposit levels. This chokes off credit to industry.
Thirdly, there is inevitable downward pressure on house prices. Fewer households, and the same size of housing stock means that prices must fall to make the market clear. While more affordable housing would not be a bad thing, constant price deflation would have a very negative wealth impacy.
Fourthly, businesses would be wary of investing in a place where the number of worker are in long-term secular decline. Because of the deteriorating government finances in the first point, they would also be concerned about their future tax levels.
Japan is currently suffering from falling population. Debt-to-GDP is an astonishing 230%. Japan's nominal GDP peaked in 1995. With the number of retirees continuing to swell, the question is not "will Japan default?" but "when will Japan default?" If you think what has happened in Greece is ugly, see what happens when Japan does a 60 or 70% debt haircut.
The problem isn't really declining population - its the entitlement ponzi scheme collapsing.
Japan has fairly low levels of entitlement spending.
Anyone who thinks the rising birth rate was due solely to immigration is a fool. But of course the low birthdate in the 80s and nineties made immigration inevitable as I'm sure you understand don't you?
It isn't inevitable. It is more than possible to manage a population decline and I'm sure if put to the vote that is what would have been chosen by the majority rather than mass immigration.
Actually, managing a population decline is incredibly difficult. Let's have a think for what it means for a second:
Firstly, as the number of retired people is rising, the burden on the workers must grow. Fewer workers supporting an increasing number of old people (with associated health care and pension costs) puts an enormous strain on government finances.
Secondly, from a financial perspective, retirees are typically drawing down their savings. This means that banks suffer from the problem of falling deposit levels. This chokes off credit to industry.
Thirdly, there is inevitable downward pressure on house prices. Fewer households, and the same size of housing stock means that prices must fall to make the market clear. While more affordable housing would not be a bad thing, constant price deflation would have a very negative wealth impacy.
Fourthly, businesses would be wary of investing in a place where the number of worker are in long-term secular decline. Because of the deteriorating government finances in the first point, they would also be concerned about their future tax levels.
Japan is currently suffering from falling population. Debt-to-GDP is an astonishing 230%. Japan's nominal GDP peaked in 1995. With the number of retirees continuing to swell, the question is not "will Japan default?" but "when will Japan default?" If you think what has happened in Greece is ugly, see what happens when Japan does a 60 or 70% debt haircut.
The problem isn't really declining population - its the entitlement ponzi scheme collapsing.
Yes: and I'm so glad that at least one of the political parties has had the guts to stand up and say "the state provision of pensions is unaffordable". Oh wait, that's not true.
So Labour's 'granny tax' attacks were all imaginary? The pace of increase in the retirement age has also been raised and there is probably room for further increase.
It would be utterly ridiculous to forbid BT from offering services in areas where its competitors did not or could not operate. Not every area in which there are school places shortages is replete with parents able to find the time to set up a free school. In such circumstances, why stop councils from doing something?
I agree entirely, and so does Michael Gove, which is why he's not stopping councils from setting up new schools or expanding existing ones. He is insisting any new schools set up in this way should be structured as academies, building on one of Tony Blair's most successful policies.
Anyone who thinks the rising birth rate was due solely to immigration is a fool. But of course the low birthdate in the 80s and nineties made immigration inevitable as I'm sure you understand don't you?
It isn't inevitable. It is more than possible to manage a population decline and I'm sure if put to the vote that is what would have been chosen by the majority rather than mass immigration.
Actually, managing a population decline is incredibly difficult. Let's have a think for what it means for a second:
Firstly, as the number of retired people is rising, the burden on the workers must grow. Fewer workers supporting an increasing number of old people (with associated health care and pension costs) puts an enormous strain on government finances.
Secondly, from a financial perspective, retirees are typically drawing down their savings. This means that banks suffer from the problem of falling deposit levels. This chokes off credit to industry.
Thirdly, there is inevitable downward pressure on house prices. Fewer households, and the same size of housing stock means that prices must fall to make the market clear. While more affordable housing would not be a bad thing, constant price deflation would have a very negative wealth impacy.
Fourthly, businesses would be wary of investing in a place where the number of worker are in long-term secular decline. Because of the deteriorating government finances in the first point, they would also be concerned about their future tax levels.
Japan is currently suffering from falling population. Debt-to-GDP is an astonishing 230%. Japan's nominal GDP peaked in 1995. With the number of retirees continuing to swell, the question is not "will Japan default?" but "when will Japan default?" If you think what has happened in Greece is ugly, see what happens when Japan does a 60 or 70% debt haircut.
All it requires is for people to be fiscally neutral on average over their lifetimes ie. not take out more than they put in. Unfortunately for years the government has spent more per person than it takes in tax, shunts the burden onto the next generation and then has to increase the population to try and make the numbers work. Unfortunately this just increases the amount of people that are taking out more than they're putting in so makes the problem worse further down the line.
Falling house prices is a very good thing overall. Sure some boomers don't get a half million pound unearned nest egg paid for by the young generation, but overall wealth can go into productive matters rather than propping up house prices and the huge amounts of interest that go with it.
The problem isn't really declining population - its the entitlement ponzi scheme collapsing.
Japan has fairly low levels of entitlement spending.
True, but...
Japan's spending on pensions has risen from 1% of GDP in 1970 to 10% today. That number is only going to get worse in the next 15 years. And this is in the context of a country with a government deficit of 9% of GDP. (That's worse than anything in Europe or the US.)
So, massive budget deficit that's only going to get worse as demographic trends deteriorate, appalling debt-to-GDP, and 10 year government bond yields below 1%.
Anyone else want to lend money to the Japanese government?
Is it really necessary for the Commons to hold a debate next week in order to congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Prince George? Can't MPs just use Twitter like everyone else?
The problem isn't really declining population - its the entitlement ponzi scheme collapsing.
Japan has fairly low levels of entitlement spending.
True, but...
Japan's spending on pensions has risen from 1% of GDP in 1970 to 10% today. That number is only going to get worse in the next 15 years. And this is in the context of a country with a government deficit of 9% of GDP. (That's worse than anything in Europe or the US.)
So, massive budget deficit that's only going to get worse as demographic trends deteriorate, appalling debt-to-GDP, and 10 year government bond yields below 1%.
Anyone else want to lend money to the Japanese government?
Right, I agree with your diagnosis upthread, and disagree with TGOHF's. BTW I don't think this is particularly a private provision vs public provision issue. It's an arithmetic issue. The solution, to the extent that there is one, is to let more young people in.
All it requires is for people to be fiscally neutral on average over their lifetimes ie. not take out more than they put in. Unfortunately for years the government has spent more per person than it takes in tax, shunts the burden onto the next generation and then has to increase the population to try and make the numbers work. Unfortunately this just increases the amount of people that are taking out more than they're putting in so makes the problem worse further down the line.
Falling house prices is a very good thing overall. Sure some boomers don't get a half million pound unearned nest egg paid for by the young generation, but overall wealth can go into productive matters rather than propping up house prices and the huge amounts of interest that go with it.
"All it requires is for people to be fiscally neutral on average over their lifetimes"
Here's the problem. What is the incentive for me to be fiscally neutral? If there is any kind of 'safety net' then the incentive is for me to make use of it.
Australia and Chile have the right solution: compulsory saving schemes.
But here we have the party that claims to speak truth to power, offering a citizens' pension that is wildly unaffordable.
And there's another point, which delves deeper into economic theory, but is worth making all the same. The workers of tomorrow will have to pay for the pensioners of tomorrow. If there are fewer workers and more pensioners then there will be a burden on the state - in terms of health care costs and in terms of state provision for the poorest. You can try and hide behind 'fiscally neutral' but this does not change the fact that if the dependency ratio worsens, then more of your countries' economic effort is going to be spent on supporting the old than on new productive capacity (or indeed on allowing the young to enjoy the fruits of their labours).
The problem isn't really declining population - its the entitlement ponzi scheme collapsing.
Japan has fairly low levels of entitlement spending.
True, but...
Japan's spending on pensions has risen from 1% of GDP in 1970 to 10% today. That number is only going to get worse in the next 15 years. And this is in the context of a country with a government deficit of 9% of GDP. (That's worse than anything in Europe or the US.)
So, massive budget deficit that's only going to get worse as demographic trends deteriorate, appalling debt-to-GDP, and 10 year government bond yields below 1%.
Anyone else want to lend money to the Japanese government?
Right, I agree with your diagnosis upthread, and disagree with TGOHF's. BTW I don't think this is particularly a private provision vs public provision issue. It's an arithmetic issue. The solution, to the extent that there is one, is to let more young people in.
Is it really necessary for the Commons to hold a debate next week in order to congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Prince George? Can't MPs just use Twitter like everyone else?
What is there exactly to debate? - Just send a box of Thortons with a card and be done with it.
Ben @Jamin2g 35s -Miliband isn't the leader of the Labour Party, more of a consortium, comprising of Len McCluskey, Hugh Grant & Brown-Balls. #skynews #pmqs
Mr. Chuck, Roman overconfidence was not so much a flaw of that age as a constant for centuries (which often helped them out). Hannibal's tactics were perfect, but despite them several thousand Romans did manage to fight their way free (I believe rather a lot of them were killed the day after by Punic cavalry). If even half the 80,000 foot soldiers could've brought their arms to bear consistently it could've been the end of Hannibal. By surrounding them he not only made retreat very difficult [but not quite impossible], he also massively reduced the proportion of Romans who could actually use their weapons against him.
Anyone who thinks the rising birth rate was due solely to immigration is a fool. But of course the low birthdate in the 80s and nineties made immigration inevitable as I'm sure you understand don't you?
It isn't inevitable. It is more than possible to manage a population decline and I'm sure if put to the vote that is what would have been chosen by the majority rather than mass immigration.
Actually, managing a population decline is incredibly difficult. Let's have a think for what it means for a second:
Firstly, as the number of retired people is rising, the burden on the workers must grow. Fewer workers supporting an increasing number of old people (with associated health care and pension costs) puts an enormous strain on government finances.
Secondly, from a financial perspective, retirees are typically drawing down their savings. This means that banks suffer from the problem of falling deposit levels. This chokes off credit to industry.
Thirdly, there is inevitable downward pressure on house prices. Fewer households, and the same size of housing stock means that prices must fall to make the market clear. While more affordable housing would not be a bad thing, constant price deflation would have a very negative wealth impacy.
Fourthly, businesses would be wary of investing in a place where the number of worker are in long-term secular decline. Because of the deteriorating government finances in the first point, they would also be concerned about their future tax levels.
Japan is currently suffering from falling population. Debt-to-GDP is an astonishing 230%. Japan's nominal GDP peaked in 1995. With the number of retirees continuing to swell, the question is not "will Japan default?" but "when will Japan default?" If you think what has happened in Greece is ugly, see what happens when Japan does a 60 or 70% debt haircut.
The problem isn't really declining population - its the entitlement ponzi scheme collapsing.
You seem to have summed it up much better than me in one sentence.
Point of order on Gaul: Gallia Narbonensis was founded decades before Caesar did anything there (before he was born, I believe).
Mr. F, a witty line from Marius, but Arbela and Issus prove that a great general can win against the odds. I'm not arguing that's always the right approach, but I don't believe Cunctatory avoidance is the best strategy in all situations either.
'The best way to plan for immigration and schools demand is to get rid of the census.'
I think most voters would have been happy if New Labour had got as far as having a plan.
10 years of mass uncontrolled immigration, driving down wages,combined with government policy to have the lowest social house building program since world war two, resulting in a housing crisis and a surge in housing benefit payments..
Even PB Lefties will agree that the census can't help with idiotic policies like that.
@JGForsyth: Iran isn't the solution to the Middle East's problems but the cause of many of them. Bizarre for Labour to be so keen on closer relations
To be fair, that is wrong. There could be an opportunity for thawing relations, or at least having a go. There's potentially a good opening not only because of the new president (although how much power he actually has and how he will position himself are open questions at this stage), but also because of revulsion in Iran to chemical warfare, of which Iran has been one of the biggest victims ever.
However, Ed is just using this as a smokescreen; he knows perfectly well that there are diplomatic channels being (tentatively) opened.
All it requires is for people to be fiscally neutral on average over their lifetimes ie. not take out more than they put in. Unfortunately for years the government has spent more per person than it takes in tax, shunts the burden onto the next generation and then has to increase the population to try and make the numbers work. Unfortunately this just increases the amount of people that are taking out more than they're putting in so makes the problem worse further down the line.
Falling house prices is a very good thing overall. Sure some boomers don't get a half million pound unearned nest egg paid for by the young generation, but overall wealth can go into productive matters rather than propping up house prices and the huge amounts of interest that go with it.
"All it requires is for people to be fiscally neutral on average over their lifetimes"
Here's the problem. What is the incentive for me to be fiscally neutral? If there is any kind of 'safety net' then the incentive is for me to make use of it.
Australia and Chile have the right solution: compulsory saving schemes.
But here we have the party that claims to speak truth to power, offering a citizens' pension that is wildly unaffordable.
And there's another point, which delves deeper into economic theory, but is worth making all the same. The workers of tomorrow will have to pay for the pensioners of tomorrow. If there are fewer workers and more pensioners then there will be a burden on the state - in terms of health care costs and in terms of state provision for the poorest. You can try and hide behind 'fiscally neutral' but this does not change the fact that if the dependency ratio worsens, then more of your countries' economic effort is going to be spent on supporting the old than on new productive capacity (or indeed on allowing the young to enjoy the fruits of their labours).
It's true the older generation have voted themselves unsustainable pensions and also huge amounts of government spending on healthcare and pensioner freebies.
There's no natural law that states the young have to pay for all the things they will have no chance of getting themselves. Perhaps the old will have to go without instead of creating an immigration pyramid scheme which will just collapse further down the line.
'we all know".. "everyone knows" .."we all agree" Paragraph one, page one ,day one of the Labour training manual for its bloggers.. the inclusive element ..which is designed to discourage debate or argument... tim uses it all the time.. it never really works tho..
'we all know".. "everyone knows" .."we all agree" Paragraph one, page one ,day one of the Labour training manual for its bloggers.. the inclusive element ..which is designed to discourage debate or argument... tim uses it all the time.. it never really works tho..
''we all know".. "everyone knows" .."we all agree" Paragraph one, page one ,day one of the Labour training manual for its bloggers.. the inclusive element ..which is designed to discourage debate or argument... tim uses it all the time.. it never really works tho..'
Tony McNulty @Tony_McNulty Although focus on Geneva II was encouraging, unhelpful that there were so many Labour BB voices wittering on about Iran,opens false critique
We've already had 0.7% growth in Q2, now we're talking 1% growth in Q3, "adding up" to 1.7% growth in just six months, so how does that = the predicted 1.5% growth in 2013?
I know there is an answer - GDP is calculated in some foolish and devious way, can a pb brainiac explain it to me?
I learned this at Economics A Level but I done forgot.
I don't see any way that it is. Presumably they aren't forecasting 1% growth next quarter.
Comments
The other end of the process - the use to which those victories is put - is equally important and irrespective of whether Caesar was the superior general to Hannibal or vice-versa, there can be no question as to who the superior politician of the two was.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100234165/growth-gives-labour-an-enormous-headache/
"Labour is trying to switch attention to living standards, with a blizzard of press releases and speeches. It is not hard to see why the party is doing this, although I doubt much or any of it will penetrate the public consciousness. Living standards have taken a huge hit since the recession, families are getting into more debt and it is very tough for a lot of people, but the party that proclaimed the end of boom and bust – and predicated its policies on the boom going on for ever – is not in the best place to complain about the long-term consequences of the crash. I am sure those pushing the new line from Labour are sincere, but it sounds like displacement activity because the party can no longer say GDP growth is absent."
A foolish policy from a foolish Secretary of State.You should be sorry that so many Free Schools have been established.
As that article notes "the findings do not take into account some recent steps to increase school places because the analysis is based on official figures from the last academic year." and when I had a look at the figures the gov't record up to this point in terms of the past looks pretty good - although that clearly doesn't mean that the number of places created for the future is satisfactory.
"If you're such a great general, come out and fight me."
"If you're such a great general, why don't you make me?"
Firstly, as the number of retired people is rising, the burden on the workers must grow. Fewer workers supporting an increasing number of old people (with associated health care and pension costs) puts an enormous strain on government finances.
Secondly, from a financial perspective, retirees are typically drawing down their savings. This means that banks suffer from the problem of falling deposit levels. This chokes off credit to industry.
Thirdly, there is inevitable downward pressure on house prices. Fewer households, and the same size of housing stock means that prices must fall to make the market clear. While more affordable housing would not be a bad thing, constant price deflation would have a very negative wealth impacy.
Fourthly, businesses would be wary of investing in a place where the number of worker are in long-term secular decline. Because of the deteriorating government finances in the first point, they would also be concerned about their future tax levels.
Japan is currently suffering from falling population. Debt-to-GDP is an astonishing 230%. Japan's nominal GDP peaked in 1995. With the number of retirees continuing to swell, the question is not "will Japan default?" but "when will Japan default?" If you think what has happened in Greece is ugly, see what happens when Japan does a 60 or 70% debt haircut.
The Border Agency is probably the biggest single hurdle to Mrs May's formidible progress to the leadership of the party if Cameron loses the next election. Any number of Ministers have tried any number of methods to make this organisation either deniable (by putting it at arm's length) or fit for purpose. All have failed.
The decision to bring it back "in house" was probably the correct one given the political sensitivities but it was brave in the Yes Minister sense. Today will be a good test for Mrs May.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23884378
So Labour's 'granny tax' attacks were all imaginary? The pace of increase in the retirement age has also been raised and there is probably room for further increase.
Falling house prices is a very good thing overall. Sure some boomers don't get a half million pound unearned nest egg paid for by the young generation, but overall wealth can go into productive matters rather than propping up house prices and the huge amounts of interest that go with it.
Japan's spending on pensions has risen from 1% of GDP in 1970 to 10% today. That number is only going to get worse in the next 15 years. And this is in the context of a country with a government deficit of 9% of GDP. (That's worse than anything in Europe or the US.)
So, massive budget deficit that's only going to get worse as demographic trends deteriorate, appalling debt-to-GDP, and 10 year government bond yields below 1%.
Anyone else want to lend money to the Japanese government?
Be nicer to Iran? Is that really Labour's #Syria policy? #PMQs
Here's the problem. What is the incentive for me to be fiscally neutral? If there is any kind of 'safety net' then the incentive is for me to make use of it.
Australia and Chile have the right solution: compulsory saving schemes.
But here we have the party that claims to speak truth to power, offering a citizens' pension that is wildly unaffordable.
And there's another point, which delves deeper into economic theory, but is worth making all the same. The workers of tomorrow will have to pay for the pensioners of tomorrow. If there are fewer workers and more pensioners then there will be a burden on the state - in terms of health care costs and in terms of state provision for the poorest. You can try and hide behind 'fiscally neutral' but this does not change the fact that if the dependency ratio worsens, then more of your countries' economic effort is going to be spent on supporting the old than on new productive capacity (or indeed on allowing the young to enjoy the fruits of their labours).
Rather apt.
Mr. Chuck, Roman overconfidence was not so much a flaw of that age as a constant for centuries (which often helped them out). Hannibal's tactics were perfect, but despite them several thousand Romans did manage to fight their way free (I believe rather a lot of them were killed the day after by Punic cavalry). If even half the 80,000 foot soldiers could've brought their arms to bear consistently it could've been the end of Hannibal. By surrounding them he not only made retreat very difficult [but not quite impossible], he also massively reduced the proportion of Romans who could actually use their weapons against him.
Mr. F, a witty line from Marius, but Arbela and Issus prove that a great general can win against the odds. I'm not arguing that's always the right approach, but I don't believe Cunctatory avoidance is the best strategy in all situations either.
'The best way to plan for immigration and schools demand is to get rid of the census.'
I think most voters would have been happy if New Labour had got as far as having a plan.
10 years of mass uncontrolled immigration, driving down wages,combined with government policy to have the lowest social house building program since world war two, resulting in a housing crisis and a surge in housing benefit payments..
Even PB Lefties will agree that the census can't help with idiotic policies like that.
Could see 1pc in Q3 which is bang on the kind of numbers that we've seen in historic recoveries.
No caveats, no bull. This is good news*
*hat-tip @AveryLP to whom I probably owe a bit of an apology I think.
However, Ed is just using this as a smokescreen; he knows perfectly well that there are diplomatic channels being (tentatively) opened.
There's no natural law that states the young have to pay for all the things they will have no chance of getting themselves. Perhaps the old will have to go without instead of creating an immigration pyramid scheme which will just collapse further down the line.
Voice: NO.
@IanDunt: God, that was soggy. Labour feels doomed.
@DPJHodges: Having just seen Ed Miliband's latest Syria tweet, it's clear Labour;s communications strategy has temporarily imploded. Almost pleading.
@MShapland: Heres the rush to war Miliband Stopped #Syria #PMQs http://t.co/F6Dh745Gpb
Tautology-oholics.
I have never seen a more unhappy looking opposition front bench.
''we all know".. "everyone knows" .."we all agree" Paragraph one, page one ,day one of the Labour training manual for its bloggers.. the inclusive element ..which is designed to discourage debate or argument... tim uses it all the time.. it never really works tho..'
It's called PB comedy gold.
Are the PB Kinnocks still using that score?
Iran?
Tony McNulty @Tony_McNulty
Although focus on Geneva II was encouraging, unhelpful that there were so many Labour BB voices wittering on about Iran,opens false critique