I can highly recommend to PB film buffs the new version of Journeys End. The original play in 1928 was alongside All Quiet on the Western Front as a critique of the conduct of WW1, written by a veteran. It is important in understanding the antiwar movement of the Thirties, and why appeasement was a popular policy. Very powerfully acted and directed:
He should have read David Herdson's piece on why the timing is so tight as to be practically impossible. (Even if there was the will by Corbyn to force the issue - which there isn't.) David's piece contains more political wisdom than Boulton can hope to muster.
I tend to agree that politics has ground to a halt.
The puzzling thing is how left wing Labour are at the moment and still doing alright in the polls. I think a lot of people like me forget that for Labour, the party platform has to take on policies in obscure subject areas to follow through the political narrative they wish to paint. It is ideologically driven and so the pacifism of the left is not just confined to defence policy but encompasses banning the sales of weapons, ammunition and military vehicles. Some of these ideas tend to be repellent to more centrist free minded voters or Tories.
I do wonder if Corbyn will produce a manifesto in 2022 like the 1983 version, though much derided by opponents. Corbyn could claim after all that the electorate were enthused by his previous offering in 2017 and a more left wing manifesto might engender real change. The UK has elected left-wing governments in the past in 1945, 1950 and 1974, so without a split on the left it is a possibility of it happening again.
Like the 1983 manifesto Corbyn will also be committed to keeping the UK out of the EU/EEC too.
Of course in 1950 and October 1974 Labour only won with tiny majorities of 5 and 3 respectively.
Corbyn should have the guts to draw up a Corbynista manifesto in 2022, and not hide behind Blairite tax pledges and slogans.
Corbyn's proposed 50% top income tax rate is not Blairite
But Thatcher had a 60% top rate until 1988.
Over the course of the Thatcher years the top rate of income tax fell from 83% in 1979 to 40% by the time she left office in 1990
Indeed - and it is greatly to Labour's discredit that it failed to reverse the 1988 higher rate tax cut.
Or Blair's discredit from your point of view, Brown did reverse it
Never mind hamsters rights Mr Corbyn -although I am very much in favour of hamsters rights.
Its time for Corbyn to stop treating voters on the tax issue as if they are as dumb as hamsters.
Corbyn has a long shopping list of spending plans. He wants to roll back spending to the days before Thatcher.
Yet at the election he
Pre Thatcher spending at Post Thatcher tax rates.
Who does Mr Corbyn think he is fooling?
Instead of posing and preening as a red blooded socialist, he should put his mouth where his money is and stop hiding behind Blairite promises on tax.
He wants the NHS to be properly funded, he wants good social care, a pay rise for all public sector workers, nationalisation of public utilities, a national education service, an end to tuition fees, more spending on welfare..................................That will cost a lot.
This cannot be paid for by 95% paying no extra income tax or NI, and the rich and companies paying less than under Thatcher.
Time for Corbyn and McDonnell to be honest on tax. If you want to turn back the clock to before Thatcher on spending, you have to turn back the clock on taxes too.
Anything else is a lie.
Labour are going to be surprised at just how mobile the richest 5% of taxpayers are..... Then it will be down to the 95% to make up the shortfall. Broken pledge right there.
Are there figures on this mobility? A genuine question because the top rate has been up and down a bit over the past decade so has anyone bothered to count how many top payers emigrated and came back?
But the graph in the Telegraph shows a constant rise in the share paid for by the 1%. That cannot be explained by inequality, since it has been decreasing for the past decade.
as one ofothe 1%, I have seen my own taxes up recently.
Worth noting though that in the daysdof the 83% rate, there were lots of generous allowances. There has been a big shift to indirect taxes over the years.
I tend to agree that politics has ground to a halt.
The puzzling thing is how left wing Labour are at the moment and still doing alright in the polls. I think a lot of people like me forget that for Labour, the party platform has to take on policies in obscure subject areas to follow through the political narrative they wish to paint. It is ideologically driven and so the pacifism of the left is not just confined to defence policy but encompasses banning the sales of weapons, ammunition and military vehicles. Some of these ideas tend to be repellent to more centrist free minded voters or Tories.
I do wonder if Corbyn will produce a manifesto in 2022 like the 1983 version, though much derided by opponents. Corbyn could claim after all that the electorate were enthused by his previous offering in 2017 and a more left wing manifesto might engender real change. The UK has elected left-wing governments in the past in 1945, 1950 and 1974, so without a split on the left it is a possibility of it happening again.
Like the 1983 manifesto Corbyn will also be committed to keeping the UK out of the EU/EEC too.
Of course in 1950 and October 1974 Labour only won with tiny majorities of 5 and 3 respectively.
Corbyn should have the guts to draw up a Corbynista manifesto in 2022, and not hide behind Blairite tax pledges and slogans.
Corbyn's proposed 50% top income tax rate is not Blairite
But Thatcher had a 60% top rate until 1988.
Over the course of the Thatcher years the top rate of income tax fell from 83% in 1979 to 40% by the time she left office in 1990
Indeed - and it is greatly to Labour's discredit that it failed to reverse the 1988 higher rate tax cut.
Or Blair's discredit from your point of view, Brown did reverse it
Never mind hamsters rights Mr Corbyn -although I am very much in favour of hamsters rights.
Its time for Corbyn to stop treating voters on the tax issue as if they are as dumb as hamsters.
Corbyn has a long shopping list of spending plans. He wants to roll back spending to the days before Thatcher.
Yet at the election he claims this can be done with 95% of the population paying no more income tax or NI, with the top rate of income tax up only to Gordon Brown 2010 levels, lower than under Thatcher, and with Corporation Tax only at the level under Gordon Brown.
Pre Thatcher spending at Post Thatcher tax rates.
Who does Mr Corbyn think he is fooling?
Instead of posing and preening as a red blooded socialist, he should put his mouth where his money is and stop hiding behind Blairite promises on tax.
He wants the NHS to be properly funded, he wants good social care, a pay rise for all public sector workers, nationalisation of public utilities, a national education service, an end to tuition fees, more spending on welfare..................................That will cost a lot.
This cannot be paid for by 95% paying no extra income tax or NI, and the rich and companies paying less than under Thatcher.
Time for Corbyn and McDonnell to be honest on tax. If you want to turn back the clock to before Thatcher on spending, you have to turn back the clock on taxes too.
Anything else is a lie.
Labour are going to be surprised at just how mobile the richest 5% of taxpayers are..... Then it will be down to the 95% to make up the shortfall. Broken pledge right there.
Are there figures on this mobility? A genuine question because the top rate has been up and down a bit over the past decade so has anyone bothered to count how many top payers emigrated and came back?
But the graph in the Telegraph shows a constant rise in the share paid for by the 1%. That cannot be explained by inequality, since it has been decreasing for the past decade.
Whereas the line showing the % of income "earned" by the 1% does show increasing inequality.
Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?
Steve is supposedly a Blairite ultra-Brexiteer who hates Corbyn. I have my doubts he's a real person.
He's a caricature, he'll accuse you of being Corbynista bullies trying to silence him next.
Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?
I can highly recommend to PB film buffs the new version of Journeys End. The original play in 1928 was alongside All Quiet on the Western Front as a critique of the conduct of WW1, written by a veteran. It is important in understanding the antiwar movement of the Thirties, and why appeasement was a popular policy. Very powerfully acted and directed:
I tend to agree that politics has ground to a halt.
The puzzling thing is how left wing Labour are at the moment and still doing alright in the polls. I think a lot of people like me forget that for Labour, the party platform has to take on policies in obscure subject areas to follow through the political narrative they wish to paint. It is ideologically driven and so the pacifism of the left is not just confined to defence policy but encompasses banning the sales of weapons, ammunition and military vehicles. Some of these ideas tend to be repellent to more centrist free minded voters or Tories.
I do wonder if Corbyn will produce a manifesto in 2022 like the 1983 version, though much derided by opponents. Corbyn could claim after all that the electorate were enthused by his previous offering in 2017 and a more left wing manifesto might engender real change. The UK has elected left-wing governments in the past in 1945, 1950 and 1974, so without a split on the left it is a possibility of it happening again.
Like the 1983 manifesto Corbyn will also be committed to keeping the UK out of the EU/EEC too.
Of course in 1950 and October 1974 Labour only won with tiny majorities of 5 and 3 respectively.
Corbyn should have the guts to draw up a Corbynista manifesto in 2022, and not hide behind Blairite tax pledges and slogans.
Corbyn's proposed 50% top income tax rate is not Blairite
But Thatcher had a 60% top rate until 1988.
Over the course of the Thatcher years the top rate of income tax fell from 83% in 1979 to 40% by the time she left office in 1990
Indeed - and it is greatly to Labour's discredit that it failed to reverse the 1988 higher rate tax cut.
Or Blair's discredit from your point of view, Brown did reverse it
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Well, put it another way: the OBR think we at least six years more until a surplus. On Wednesday it will look rather more like two or three...
Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
I am not an economist, but from my POV, I have yet to see a proposal from any main party that would fix it.
Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?
+1
You Corbynistas dont like criticism of Corbyn -we all know that. He is the Messiah. Corbynistas like to bully on the internet to silence critics, but they arent going to bully me. This is a political website and Corbyn is supposedly Leader of the Opposition. People are entitled to raise legitimate questions about a political leader in the same way as people are entitled to criticise May, Johnson and Brexit.
Now where was I?
Yes how is Corbyn going to pay for his spending? Do you have any answers?
Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?
+1
You Corbynistas dont like criticism of Corbyn -we all know that.
If we add "helping people with vets bills" to Corbyn's already long spending programme, how is is Corbyn going to pay for it without putting up tax for ordinary people?
Perhaps Corbynistas instead of behaving in their usual "Corbyn is King and we mustn't criticise him in any way" sterotype, can explain?
Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?
Steve is supposedly a Blairite ultra-Brexiteer who hates Corbyn. I have my doubts he's a real person.
He's a caricature, he'll accuse you of being Corbynista bullies trying to silence him next.
You are Corbynista bullies trying to silence me. LOL
Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...
For a lifelong Labour voter he sure ain't keen on anyone in Labour...
He has his own unique vision for what true Labour is and condemns all those who don't conform, in this way he's worse than some of the more zealous Corbynistas.
Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...
For a lifelong Labour voter he sure ain't keen on anyone in Labour...
He has his own unique vision for what true Labour is and condemns all those who don't conform, in this way he's worse than some of the more zealous Corbynistas.
Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...
As for the threader, a one-word response: Blondi.
Aww, poor dog, not his fault his master was a nutter. Along the lines of what I hinted in my post though. To some people even more than the environmentalism is the perception as someone kind to animals, it would probably help colour my view a bit.
Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?
Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?
I have him on ignore.
Closed mind, poor politics.
Dont be so hard on yourself
I was actually referring to BJO ignoring you, and not your fine self.
My opinion of Anna Soubry, MP has just gone up tenfold.
Why? She’s now openly calling for a second referendum despite being elected on a manifesto to implement Brexit.
I've just been on her Twitter, and she has a picture of Bennerley Viaduct at the top of her page. She must be a top woman to have that engineering masterpiece in such a prominent position.
@YBarddCwsc, @Sandpit, you make bloody good points on the previous thread, but I don't know the solution.
Over the past five years my freelance jobs have taken a rather weird step regarding predictions and their measurement, and I have the scars on my back to tell you that models used to predict future events are rarely assessed by modellers for accuracy against the actual outcome[1], and that non-modelling-based predictions are discarded and forgotten as soon as the event occurs, with the predictor cherry-picking the correct ones to burnish his rep (Roger Bootle is a case in point, although he only stands out because Capital Economics made such an arse of predicting house prices in the Noughties: I think all predictors do this and it's not fair to single out him).
We only spot the weirdness because opinion-poll data is easily available. But in most other cases it is not. For example, tell me what Deutsche Bank predictions were in 2004 for the pound in 2005? Pantheon Macroeconomic's predictions for growth in 2014? Moody Analytics's predictions in December 2015 of the 2016 POTUS election? Ladbroke's odds on April 1st on a Conservative victory in March? This stuff is subscription only or listed on dynamic websites that change from moment-to-moment and is ('scuse my French) fucking difficult to capture.
Somebody on here (it might be @Philip_Thompson, but my memory is poor) insists that betting odds on Reagan and Bush the Elder being nominated as GOP Potus candidate were good predictors of the outcome. But I need sources to believe that and he does not provide them (he may be working from memory), which leaves me tearing my hair out in frustration.
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
There are some votes to be won.
Indeed it might be that "radical centre" to which someone asked: is that not a contradiction in terms?
Things like plastic bag levies, bottle deposit schemes - and work on electric cars as well as the electricity that powers them. Not in truth left/right issues - even if the far left has historically found an angle to exploit green issues for statist gain.
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
@YBarddCwsc, @Sandpit, you make bloody good points on the previous thread, but I don't know the solution.
Over the past five years my freelance jobs have taken a rather weird step regarding predictions and their measurement, and I have the scars on my back to tell you that models used to predict future events are rarely assessed by modellers for accuracy against the actual outcome[1], and that non-modelling-based predictions are discarded and forgotten as soon as the event occurs, with the predictor cherry-picking the correct ones to burnish his rep (Roger Bootle is a case in point, although he only stands out because Capital Economics made such an arse of predicting house prices in the Noughties: I think all predictors do this and it's not fair to single out him).
We only spot the weirdness because opinion-poll data is easily available. But in most other cases it is not. For example, tell me what Deutsche Bank predictions were in 2004 for the pound in 2005? Pantheon Macroeconomic's predictions for growth in 2014? Moody Analytics's predictions in December 2015 of the 2016 POTUS election? Ladbroke's odds on April 1st on a Conservative victory in March? This stuff is subscription only or listed on dynamic websites that change from moment-to-moment and is ('scuse my French) fucking difficult to capture.
Somebody on here (it might be @Philip_Thompson, but my memory is poor) insists that betting odds on Reagan and Bush the Elder being nominated as GOP Potus candidate were good predictors of the outcome. But I need sources to believe that and he does not provide them (he may be working from memory), which leaves me tearing my hair out in frustration.
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?
Controversial opinion, but perhaps they are the best.
Of course the NHS stands out: a deeply flawed institution, but one that now handles exponentially more patients, more visits, more drugs and longer life expectancies than ever before.
My opinion of Anna Soubry, MP has just gone up tenfold.
Why? She’s now openly calling for a second referendum despite being elected on a manifesto to implement Brexit.
I've just been on her Twitter, and she has a picture of Bennerley Viaduct at the top of her page. She must be a top woman to have that engineering masterpiece in such a prominent position.
I used to go to school near the Giltbrook Viaduct - the Forty Bridges. Sadly had to be demolished to upgrade the A610.
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.
I a sure my discussion with Sandy will give you the opportunity to return to our traditional sparring
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
Every society in human history that has consumed wealth faster than creating it has fallen. Every single one. No exceptions. This cannot go on.
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.
There is, however, plenty of money that currently isn't available because it is salted away by the super wealthy in their offshore tax havens. Mine this rich seam and we could have 10 in a class in every school, single hospital rooms for every patient and free social care for all.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.
Boulton, the Sky presenter whose every interview is anti Brexit and cannot even attempt to be even handed. Ably supported by Faisal Islam
Not going to happen
Well, Bolton is correct that the PM has made a mess of negotiating Brexit. I don't think many people in opinion polls rate her so far in her efforts to get a deal.
My thoughts beyond Brexit is do we really want someone so useless representing our interests in any other trade deals assuming the UK can get anywhere in trying to initiate them?
Personally, I don't think another referendum is a good idea as they get hijacked by issues only tangentially connected to the main question. I also think they are too divisive and spread hatred in those people that are less civilised. However, some people might be wanting a second referendum to settle this question once and for all.
Far from taking back control we seem to have NO control at all.
As Brexit has so far gone pretty much as I expected it to go, I don't blame Theresa May for it going badly. If anything she is getting to delay the inevitable.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It leads to some grim thoughts, but like others I have to agree.
We must be the nation's favourite team the way we wish to share the joy of playing at Wembley with so many lower league teams.... AFC Wimbledon, Newport and now Rochdale.
There's no replays in the QF so we won't be able to offer that service to Sheffield sadly (if they beat Swansea)
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?
If you doubled the wages of all civil servants you would have more expensive public services but not necessarily better.
So long as one side of the debate is focus on inputs rather than outputs it’s difficult to have a pragmatic conversation
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.
There is, however, plenty of money that currently isn't available because it is salted away by the super wealthy in their offshore tax havens. Mine this rich seam and we could have 10 in a class in every school, single hospital rooms for every patient and free social care for all.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.
I agree. Perhaps we could come up with a convenient term for those who salt money away off shore to avoid their obligations to society. I know! How about “citizens of nowhere”
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.
Agree, he genuinely appears to want to confuse right thing wherever he goes. Given he also delivers successful outcomes, he's pretty unique amongst modern politicians.
He'd probably be a brilliant PM, the best candidate of any of the current lot in parliament of any party, based upon his abilities to make things happen.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.
There is, however, plenty of money that currently isn't available because it is salted away by the super wealthy in their offshore tax havens. Mine this rich seam and we could have 10 in a class in every school, single hospital rooms for every patient and free social care for all.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.
I agree. Perhaps we could come up with a convenient term for those who salt money away off shore to avoid their obligations to society. I know! How about “citizens of nowhere”
Come on Charles this isn't fair - disagreeing with one of my posts and then agreeing with the next!
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.
There is, however, plenty of money that currently isn't available because it is salted away by the super wealthy in their offshore tax havens. Mine this rich seam and we could have 10 in a class in every school, single hospital rooms for every patient and free social care for all.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.
I agree. Perhaps we could come up with a convenient term for those who salt money away off shore to avoid their obligations to society. I know! How about “citizens of nowhere”
Come on Charles this isn't fair - disagreeing with one of my posts and then agreeing with the next!
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
The corporation tax rise takes in 13 billion (maybe).
That is petty cash when you consider an extra 30 billion a year is needed for the NHS aand Social Care alone, and of course another 8 billion or so to scap tuition fees and hand large sums to the wealthy students
Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?
We probably do have the best health and education services we've ever had. Perhaps criminal justice, too.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.
Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
Ah, Nigel 'the case for colonialism' Biggar. Not sure if that'll do much to support the Brexity crie de coeur that Empire nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Afore ye know it they'll be getting the other Nigel on board to prove Brexit isn't about immigration, xenophobia and racism.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
Ah, Nigel 'the case for colonialism' Biggar. Not sure if that'll do much to support the Brexity crie de coeur that Empire nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Afore ye know it they'll be getting the other Nigel on board to prove Brexit isn't about immigration, xenophobia and racism.
You'll be pleased to know he thinks that Scotland would probably continue to be a democracy without Westminster's guiding hand.
Of course, if Scotland or Wales were to secede from the Union, or if Northern Ireland were to be absorbed into its southern neighbour, they would most probably continue to maintain the liberal democratic political institutions and customs that the British had developed together.
And climate sceptics are being left homeless.....come back UKIP the only party who have questioned whether the whole `man made global warming` is a scam.
Never mind that we've had global cooling over the past few years, record snow amounts in lots of places in the Northern Hemisphere over the past winter and many cold records broken. Antarctic ice at record extents since measurements began (funny how we don't hear about that!). Arctic ice recovering significantly since 2012 - according to Al Gore it was all going to be gone by now - oh dear! And we should have a good blast of the beast from the east in place by next weekend.
An enlightened government would be preparing the population for the oncoming grand solar minimum in 2024 and mini ice age conditions to come, which are going to threaten global food supplies. There's as much chance of this happening under any government in the UK as Barnet winning the premiership by 2030.
Follow the money and see that our current government collects in the order of £45,000 million from CO2 based taxes, on a completely false prospectus. What a crazy world we live in.
Actually Antarctic ice fell to an all time low in 2017 reversing a couple of decades of increase in a single year. The reasons are not clear.
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.
Unpopular as it may seem if people can afford to spend that much on foreign holidays they can instead afford to spend more on health and education and social care for their elderly relatives, whether through tax or directly.
But suggesting it seems to be the equivalent of proposing the slaughter of the first born.
People want to have low taxation, excellent public services and to spend all their free money on goodies for themselves rather than take - at a time when, even after the financial crisis, we are richer than our parents and grandparents - some more financial responsibility for their own lives.
Neither the Tories nor Labour nor the Lib Dems are willing to point this out to the public. All of them compete to pretend that the public can have more for less or something for nothing or that there is a group of rich people over there to pay for everything. They may as well point towards the end of the next rainbow.
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.
Unpopular as it may seem if people can afford to spend that much on foreign holidays they can instead afford to spend more on health and education and social care for their elderly relatives, whether through tax or directly.
But suggesting it seems to be the equivalent of proposing the slaughter of the first born.
People want to have low taxation, excellent public services and to spend all their free money on goodies for themselves rather than take - at a time when, even after the financial crisis, we are richer than our parents and grandparents - some more financial responsibility for their own lives.
Neither the Tories nor Labour nor the Lib Dems are willing to point this out to the public. All of them compete to pretend that the public can have more for less or something for nothing or that there is a group of rich people over there to pay for everything. They may as well point towards the end of the next rainbow.
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.
Agree, he genuinely appears to want to confuse right thing wherever he goes. Given he also delivers successful outcomes, he's pretty unique amongst modern politicians.
He'd probably be a brilliant PM, the best candidate of any of the current lot in parliament of any party, based upon his abilities to make things happen.
Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
Ah, Nigel 'the case for colonialism' Biggar. Not sure if that'll do much to support the Brexity crie de coeur that Empire nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Afore ye know it they'll be getting the other Nigel on board to prove Brexit isn't about immigration, xenophobia and racism.
You'll be pleased to know he thinks that Scotland would probably continue to be a democracy without Westminster's guiding hand.
Of course, if Scotland or Wales were to secede from the Union, or if Northern Ireland were to be absorbed into its southern neighbour, they would most probably continue to maintain the liberal democratic political institutions and customs that the British had developed together.
Comforting that we can depend on our Britishness to save us from the regressive brutishness that bubbles in our Celtic hearts.
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.
Agree, he genuinely appears to want to confuse right thing wherever he goes. Given he also delivers successful outcomes, he's pretty unique amongst modern politicians.
He'd probably be a brilliant PM, the best candidate of any of the current lot in parliament of any party, based upon his abilities to make things happen.
We do live in strange times. It could happen.
What has Gove made happen?
He ended Boris's bid to be PM. For that alone he deserves beatification.
How much of the financial problems of the public services in particular and country as a whole is that the extra wealth created gets 'eaten up' by extra costs:
' When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £15 billion at today’s value). For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion. '
' " Any expansion in one part of the National Health Service must in future be met by economies or, if necessary, by contraction in others. " Budget statement by the Labour Chancellor, Stafford Cripps, in March 1950, limiting expenditure on the NHS in 1950-51 to a total three times higher than Bevan's original estimate of the annual cost. '
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.
Unpopular as it may seem if people can afford to spend that much on foreign holidays they can instead afford to spend more on health and education and social care for their elderly relatives, whether through tax or directly.
But suggesting it seems to be the equivalent of proposing the slaughter of the first born.
People want to have low taxation, excellent public services and to spend all their free money on goodies for themselves rather than take - at a time when, even after the financial crisis, we are richer than our parents and grandparents - some more financial responsibility for their own lives.
Neither the Tories nor Labour nor the Lib Dems are willing to point this out to the public. All of them compete to pretend that the public can have more for less or something for nothing or that there is a group of rich people over there to pay for everything. They may as well point towards the end of the next rainbow.
Indeed. Well they can stop bloody complaining then. People spend, spend, spend on all sorts of luxuries and moan when asked to contribute to the essentials. The sense of entitlement amongst all groups is, frankly, mind-boggling.
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
Comments
He should have read David Herdson's piece on why the timing is so tight as to be practically impossible. (Even if there was the will by Corbyn to force the issue - which there isn't.) David's piece contains more political wisdom than Boulton can hope to muster.
Worth noting though that in the daysdof the 83% rate, there were lots of generous allowances. There has been a big shift to indirect taxes over the years.
He was quite a dashing looking chap:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/R._C._Sherriff.jpg
Now where was I?
Yes how is Corbyn going to pay for his spending? Do you have any answers?
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...
*I don't really.
If we add "helping people with vets bills" to Corbyn's already long spending programme, how is is Corbyn going to pay for it without putting up tax for ordinary people?
Perhaps Corbynistas instead of behaving in their usual "Corbyn is King and we mustn't criticise him in any way" sterotype, can explain?
You're gonna have to explain sometime.
I think Corbynistas think I should be lynched for daring to criticise Jeremy Corbyn.
Nevertheless the questions about Corbyn will keep coming........
As for the threader, a one-word response: Blondi.
Corbynistas: the more you tell lies about us, the more we will tell the truth about you.
Have you read Superforecasting?
It's excellent and well worth a read.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
Indeed it might be that "radical centre" to which someone asked: is that not a contradiction in terms?
Things like plastic bag levies, bottle deposit schemes - and work on electric cars as well as the electricity that powers them. Not in truth left/right issues - even if the far left has historically found an angle to exploit green issues for statist gain.
Of course the NHS stands out: a deeply flawed institution, but one that now handles exponentially more patients, more visits, more drugs and longer life expectancies than ever before.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
There's no replays in the QF so we won't be able to offer that service to Sheffield sadly (if they beat Swansea)
So long as one side of the debate is focus on inputs rather than outputs it’s difficult to have a pragmatic conversation
He'd probably be a brilliant PM, the best candidate of any of the current lot in parliament of any party, based upon his abilities to make things happen.
We do live in strange times. It could happen.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
That is petty cash when you consider an extra 30 billion a year is needed for the NHS aand Social Care alone, and of course another 8 billion or so to scap tuition fees and hand large sums to the wealthy students
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brains-for-brexit-top-academics-and-thinkers-put-the-case-for-leave-d7pzdhb2s
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/timeseries/gmbb/ott
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/uk-as-a-national-state/
Of course, if Scotland or Wales were to secede from the Union, or if Northern Ireland were to be absorbed into its southern neighbour, they would most probably continue to maintain the liberal democratic political institutions and customs that the British had developed together.
Foreign holidays now seen as almost a basic British right...
But suggesting it seems to be the equivalent of proposing the slaughter of the first born.
People want to have low taxation, excellent public services and to spend all their free money on goodies for themselves rather than take - at a time when, even after the financial crisis, we are richer than our parents and grandparents - some more financial responsibility for their own lives.
Neither the Tories nor Labour nor the Lib Dems are willing to point this out to the public. All of them compete to pretend that the public can have more for less or something for nothing or that there is a group of rich people over there to pay for everything. They may as well point towards the end of the next rainbow.
Also @stodge's post down thread is excellent.
' When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £15 billion at today’s value). For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion. '
https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx
As Corelli Barnett writes in https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Victory-British-Dreams-Realities/dp/0330346393/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518988997&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=corelli+barnett+the+lost+victory :
' " Any expansion in one part of the National Health Service must in future be met by economies or, if necessary, by contraction in others. " Budget statement by the Labour Chancellor, Stafford Cripps, in March 1950, limiting expenditure on the NHS in 1950-51 to a total three times higher than Bevan's original estimate of the annual cost. '