On the idea that there would be no legal way for the UK to stay in the EU even if they, the Commission, the European Parliament and the EU27 all unanimously wanted them to, I think there's a good reason people aren't spending a lot of time discussing it.
There are ways, clearly. Just not ways that involve the revocation of article 50. Nothing in Lisbon suggests that such a thing is, or was intended, to be possible.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
I think the UK could conceivably sign up for *a* Euro, but not the current one.
The problem is the last Eurozone crisis was treated as a liquidity crisis when it was a solvency crisis. There has been no solution to the solvency crisis because none of the solutions were politically palatable to Merkel.
A Eurozone that took the solvency crisis seriously, would be one modelled very much along the lines that the Thatcher always wanted.
Its not an economic issue, but a cultural one.
I don't know a single person who wants to get rid of the pound. Apart from william.
The problem with Remaining is what happens the first time the EU suggest some form of additional integration, say an EU army, or EU wide taxes?
Generally the UK gets opt-outs for stuff it doesn't want to join. Seems like an EU army might be something the British want to be part of though, if NATO continues to fall apart and/or pivot away from Europe. Weirdly it's something you could see the UK joining even if they *leave*...
I think the UK would be far more relaxed about it if we’d left, because we wouldn’t see it as an agency of a superstate, and even more so if the Americans withdraw/pullback from NATO.
But, I don’t expect this. More likely is that NATO develops into a global Western alliance, rather than just a transatlantic one.
This is something I know about (hoorah, at last, say PB's long-suffering readership). The US has always been absolutely against any replication of NATO's C3I. We've been in full agreement with that on the entirely sensible basis that the US is guarantor of European security and most EU armed forces couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.
However, if the US abandons NATO, it's a moot point. That said, historically, we've spent a lot of blood and treasure defending the continent, and from my perspective, I wouldn't want us to do that again.
I think the UK could conceivably sign up for *a* Euro, but not the current one.
The problem is the last Eurozone crisis was treated as a liquidity crisis when it was a solvency crisis. There has been no solution to the solvency crisis because none of the solutions were politically palatable to Merkel.
A Eurozone that took the solvency crisis seriously, would be one modelled very much along the lines that the Thatcher always wanted.
Its not an economic issue, but a cultural one.
I don't know a single person who wants to get rid of the pound. Apart from william.
Speaking as an employee of an exporter, I'd absolu-fucking-lubtely lock in at current rates :>
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
Who did better? The UK, with its largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, or the US returning to growth faster and more strongly than anyone else in the G8 with its Keynesian stimulus?
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
We were running a ruinously high deficit which we struggled to bring under control and created several hundred billion of new money by QE. It was Keynesian stimulus on stilts and at the very edge of what we could afford/risk. As it was this stimulus was sufficient to give us a horrendous trade deficit which will mean that the next generation is paying a lot of rent on UK assets sold to fund it.
The idea that the government could have done more in the form of stimulus without very substantial counterbalancing cuts in expenditure elsewhere is really for the birds.
I think the UK could conceivably sign up for *a* Euro, but not the current one.
The problem is the last Eurozone crisis was treated as a liquidity crisis when it was a solvency crisis. There has been no solution to the solvency crisis because none of the solutions were politically palatable to Merkel.
A Eurozone that took the solvency crisis seriously, would be one modelled very much along the lines that the Thatcher always wanted.
Its not an economic issue, but a cultural one.
I don't know a single person who wants to get rid of the pound. Apart from william.
But we do like fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets and all that jazz.
If we'd gone for fiscal union before monetary union, I think the UK would have been a flag-waving cheerleader for the whole project.
That is such an irony. The more the government plan for a no deal the more Brexiteers cry project fear but this time it is coming from their own side.
The move is very much towards remain and this is likely to become the electorates default position.
I do not know if TM has engineered this or not or that she is willing to be perceived by Brexiteers as betrayal but it is becoming increasingly clear that somehow the politics will see us remain
I also do not know how we get there but if we do it could see Boris being elected PM and taking on the EU from a seat at the table, which may well be the best outcome in truth
Other than how do we replace Ken Dodd I can't think of any question to which the answer is Boris Johnson.
It should be said, as this question seems to have gone quiet, that the UK really ought to seek assurance that Remain is even a legal option - never mind one that has agreement among the EU27, before it can be an answer in a new referendum.
In practical terms, unless you got moving on a re-referendum very soon, you'd presumably need an extension just to get it done in time, so the consent of the EU27 is a necessary condition. This would also be a pragmatic concern for the hypothetical Remain side, because the Leave side would want to claim that the UK would have to submit to a punishment beating and a Euro membership as the price of remaining, so the Remain side would want (and get) a clear statement to the contrary.
On the idea that there would be no legal way for the UK to stay in the EU even if they, the Commission, the European Parliament and the EU27 all unanimously wanted them to, I think there's a good reason people aren't spending a lot of time discussing it.
The EU does not want the UK to go. If there was clear evidence that the UK had changed this mind and wanted to stay a way would be found to allow this to happen.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Obama didn't. He talked the talk, a bit, about non-existent 'shovel-ready' projects, and the federal government made up a bit for the drop in state spending, but (very sensibly) there was no significant stimulus overall.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
That's an entirely different discussion. The point I am agreeing with is that there were major political consequences to austerity. Supporters of austerity do not help themselves deal with those consequences by pretending that it was minor.
Politically, I think that Osborne undermined his "we're all in it together" rhetoric far too early by giving away money to those he deemed to be deserving. Any sense of national unity in the face of economic adversity was dissipated, and it became a contest between different client groups. If you were in a group that was losing out it wasn't because the nation as a whole had to tighten its belt, but because someone else had done you out of what you deserved.
And then the Brexit referendum came along and gave people a repository for all their frustrations.
The idea that the government could have done more in the form of stimulus without very substantial counterbalancing cuts in expenditure elsewhere is really for the birds.
Before Osborne, we were running a ruinously high deficit.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
I think the UK could conceivably sign up for *a* Euro, but not the current one.
The problem is the last Eurozone crisis was treated as a liquidity crisis when it was a solvency crisis. There has been no solution to the solvency crisis because none of the solutions were politically palatable to Merkel.
A Eurozone that took the solvency crisis seriously, would be one modelled very much along the lines that the Thatcher always wanted.
Its not an economic issue, but a cultural one.
I don't know a single person who wants to get rid of the pound. Apart from william.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
Who did better? The UK, with its largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, or the US returning to growth faster and more strongly than anyone else in the G8 with its Keynesian stimulus?
What the UK has achieved over the last 8 years is remarkable. The deficit has nearly gone and we have full employment. The Government really does not get credit for an incredible transformation.
And then there will be the medicine shortages. We will run out of drugs and people will die. They’re literally saying this. The head of output at Channel 4 News says a No Deal Brexit threatens the supply of insulin from the EU to the UK. ‘What are the government going to do to prevent type-1 diabetics dying?’, he asks. Erm, make a deal with an insulin-producing European country? Or import insulin from the US or India? This is a minor practical matter transformed by vested-interest Remoaners into a terrifying tale of diabetic death. They are happy to panic diabetes sufferers, to lower the quality of life of people with diabetes right now by telling them they might die soon, in the name of wounding Brexit. Such reckless cynicism.
(Although I thought that the demands about insulin supply were made by Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, not 'The head of output at Channel 4 News'.)
Brendan is right to be contemptuous. It was the Head of Output at C4 News who added the shitty Chicken Licken "we are all going to dieeee" slant.
As a Type I Diabetic I think he should be down the road with a size 11 bootprint on his arse.
He did not appear to even bother to Fact Check the claims before turning me into a bit of mud to sling at the Govt. The "what when Type I diabetics start dying" was just trolling / shitstirring - if he had checked with the insulin manufacturing companies he would know they have contingency plans.
But - as a senior figure at C4 News - he didn't bother to check. Why am I not surprised?
Appalling behaviour.
More worryingly, there’s probably a lot of diabetics and their families who saw this yesterday and don’t realise it’s, errr, incorrect.
Some of the media need to be extremely careful about what they’re doing here, there’s a real risk of their being responsible for at best panic buying and at worst civil disorder, if they keep up this blatant scaremongering.
Panic buying of an on-prescription medication presumably means buying it over the internet with no guarantee of quality.
The people who need to be considering stock-piling of on-prescription things are the NHS, pharmacies, etc, surely.
As The Prime minister has type 1 diabetes I'm sure she will find a solution
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Obama didn't. He talked the talk, a bit, about non-existent 'shovel-ready' projects, and the federal government made up a bit for the drop in state spending, but (very sensibly) there was no significant stimulus overall.
Trump seems to be doing something right wrt the US economy - heading for 4.1% growth based off Q2 numbers !
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
Who did better? The UK, with its largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, or the US returning to growth faster and more strongly than anyone else in the G8 with its Keynesian stimulus?
What the UK has achieved over the last 8 years is remarkable. The deficit has nearly gone and we have full employment. The Governemnt really does not get credit for an incredible transformation.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
It's certainly "remarkable", although whether those remarks are printable in a family newspaper is doubtful.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
Who did better? The UK, with its largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, or the US returning to growth faster and more strongly than anyone else in the G8 with its Keynesian stimulus?
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Obama didn't. He talked the talk, a bit, about non-existent 'shovel-ready' projects, and the federal government made up a bit for the drop in state spending, but (very sensibly) there was no significant stimulus overall.
Trump seems to be doing something right wrt the US economy - heading for 4.1% growth based off Q2 numbers !
Obama had better numbers on four occasions. Something I came across while doing a retrospective on the 70s - we had growth of 5.8% in Q1 '73, which surprised me. Of course we were in recession by the end of the year!
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
Who did better? The UK, with its largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, or the US returning to growth faster and more strongly than anyone else in the G8 with its Keynesian stimulus?
What the UK has achieved over the last 8 years is remarkable. The deficit has nearly gone and we have full employment. The Governemnt really does not get credit for an incredible transformation.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
It's certainly "remarkable", although whether those remarks are printable in a family newspaper is doubtful.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
Who did better? The UK, with its largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, or the US returning to growth faster and more strongly than anyone else in the G8 with its Keynesian stimulus?
What the UK has achieved over the last 8 years is remarkable. The deficit has nearly gone and we have full employment. The Governemnt really does not get credit for an incredible transformation.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
It's certainly "remarkable", although whether those remarks are printable in a family newspaper is doubtful.
A high deficit now, are you sure?
It's as high as Gordon was running in 2007. It's not ruinous, but nothing to turn cartwheels about either. We've had 11 years to sort the public finances. Osborne did a pretty good job, but wasn't perfect.
Mr. Jessop, that does sound about right. But having a tight package (ahem) is not worth it if your engine blows every three races. McLaren had a car winning races at the start, middle, and end of 2012, yet they were nowhere in the title race because it was too unreliable.
I'm halfway through Newey's book and he made some interesting observations about the McLaren of 2011-13. He says they had a decent car in 2011 but then ripped it up to do something completely different in 2012. And in 2013 he says their car looked like they'd copied the front of the Ferrari and the rear of the RedBull (or something like that). They've been rubbish ever since.
Newey’s book is brilliant, probably second only to Sid Watkins’ book on the F1 reading list.
I got the former for my brother at Christmas but haven;t read it myself. Is it that good ?
I have a copy of the latter signed by Sid himself.
You never mentioned that before
(Snip)
Haven't I? How remiss of me.
Rather like my friend who once got upgraded to Concorde, he only ever mentioned that story on one occasion too!!
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
Who did better? The UK, with its largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, or the US returning to growth faster and more strongly than anyone else in the G8 with its Keynesian stimulus?
What the UK has achieved over the last 8 years is remarkable. The deficit has nearly gone and we have full employment. The Governemnt really does not get credit for an incredible transformation.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
It's certainly "remarkable", although whether those remarks are printable in a family newspaper is doubtful.
A high deficit now, are you sure?
It's as high as Gordon was running in 2007. It's not ruinous, but nothing to turn cartwheels about either. We've had 11 years to sort the public finances. Osborne did a pretty good job, but wasn't perfect.
I cant believe some of the comments on here, What was the deficit Labour left office in 2010? Osborne had to get that down. Brown was left a golden economic legacy and destroyed it, Osborne was left a horrific legacy and what he achived and what has contiinued to be achieved by Hammond is remarkable. The country is a transformed place.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
I cant believe some of the comments on here, What was the deficit Labour left office in 2010? Osborne had to get that down. Brown was left a golden economic legacy and destroyed it, Osborne was left a horrific legacy and what he achived and what has contiinued to be achieved by Hammond is remarkable. The country is a transformed place.
I mean maybe, it's debatable to the extent of how badly oversold the crisis was.
But he didn't have to hollow out our public services He didn't have to double the national debt He didn't have to oversee the greatest fall in living standards since the Napoleonic wars He didn't have to gift us the weakest growth in the G8
These were all things he did because he *wanted* to, not because he *had* to. Good old Tory class warfare against the poor.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
Who did better? The UK, with its largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, or the US returning to growth faster and more strongly than anyone else in the G8 with its Keynesian stimulus?
What the UK has achieved over the last 8 years is remarkable. The deficit has nearly gone and we have full employment. The Governemnt really does not get credit for an incredible transformation.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
It's certainly "remarkable", although whether those remarks are printable in a family newspaper is doubtful.
Yes, we are indeed still running a ruinously high deficit, nine years after the last recession. Government spending is still £100,000,000 a week higher than government receipts.
The only valid criticism of Osborne’s economics is that, for all the talk of austerity, public spending rose every year he was Chancellor. Thanks mainly to the Department of Debt Interest, which now consumes £52,000,000,000 a year, a billion pounds a week.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
By the end of 2017 the median income was up £1,600 on pre crash levels and had increased by 2.3% that year, just above the long term average.
As the ONS put it: "The median equivalised household disposable income in the UK was £27,300 in the financial year ending (FYE) 2017. After taking account of inflation and changes in household structures over time, the median disposable income has increased by £600 (or 2.3%) since FYE 2016 and is £1,600 higher than the pre-economic downturn level observed in FYE 2008. The year-on-year growth rate is broadly in line with the average growth rate per year for the past 40 years with median household income growing from £12,500 at an average rate of 2.1% per year between 1977 and FYE 2017."
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
You realise these tiny increases in tax allowances were pissing in the wind compared to the catastrophic decrease in living standards Osborne's class war against the poor caused, right?
But let's be honest, stuff like that, which should appal any right thinking person, just makes Tories even more aroused for another round of Fuck the Poor.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Despite the deficit you think they should have increased it more?
Who did better? The UK, with its largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, or the US returning to growth faster and more strongly than anyone else in the G8 with its Keynesian stimulus?
What the UK has achieved over the last 8 years is remarkable. The deficit has nearly gone and we have full employment. The Governemnt really does not get credit for an incredible transformation.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
It's certainly "remarkable", although whether those remarks are printable in a family newspaper is doubtful.
Yes, we are indeed still running a ruinously high deficit, nine years after the last recession. Government spending is still £100,000,000 a week higher than government receipts.
The only valid criticism of Osborne’s economics is that, for all the talk of austerity, public spending rose every year he was Chancellor. Thanks mainly to the Department of Debt Interest, which now consumes £52,000,000,000 a year, a billion pounds a week.
We also should not forget one lucky break - a big one ! The entire period since 2010, interest rates have been historically low. So compared to pre 2008, governments could have double the debt but the same interest costs.
Tories hate the poor. Tories use an illusory deficit reduction to wage class war against the poor. Tories tell the poor "it was for their own good" and that they should be thanking them.
Tories hate the poor. Tories use an illusory deficit reduction to wage class war against the poor. Tories tell the poor "it was for their own good" and that they should be thanking them.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Obama didn't. He talked the talk, a bit, about non-existent 'shovel-ready' projects, and the federal government made up a bit for the drop in state spending, but (very sensibly) there was no significant stimulus overall.
Trump seems to be doing something right wrt the US economy - heading for 4.1% growth based off Q2 numbers !
Surprisingly, people on the right talk about deficits all the time unless created by themselves. Reagan massively increased total debt, and Trump is about to break all records.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
Raising personal tax allowances was a Lib Dem signature policy but in fact higher tax allowances do not benefit the poorest in society as they do not pay income tax. And the largest benefit goes to the highest earners.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
To be fair, increasing tax allowances doesn’t do a lot for the very poor - the higher the threshold gets, the more you have to earn to benefit at all. Negative tax rates (tax credits) or benefits are more relevant.
Tories hate the poor. Tories use an illusory deficit reduction to wage class war against the poor. Tories tell the poor "it was for their own good" and that they should be thanking them.
Plus ca change.
Why do you think the Tories hate the poor?
When did a Tory government last pass up the opportunity to make the poor poorer? It's basically a Tory's third favourite sport after rabid eurofrothing and ripping apart terrified foxes with packs of vicious dogs.
The Brexit tracker is obviously more reliable than the Sky poll and it seems public opinion has not changed in months and months. Another referendum seems highly unlikely in the current circumstances and you'd think it would need to be called in the next 2 months. Certainly the kitchen sink is being thrown with all the scare stories but it has more the feel of a last hurrah than a game changer simply became the arch Europhiles are struggling to have a consistent message and can't agree on scrapping brexit/a 2nd ref/ 'a people's vote' or respecting the vote and pushing for soft brexit.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
Raising personal tax allowances was a Lib Dem signature policy but in fact higher tax allowances do not benefit the poorest in society as they do not pay income tax. And the largest benefit goes to the highest earners.
You do realise that those earning over £110K don't actually get any personal allowances at all do you? Those fortunate enough to be in that position pay tax on every pound so the level of allowances does not help them at all.
Tories hate the poor. Tories use an illusory deficit reduction to wage class war against the poor. Tories tell the poor "it was for their own good" and that they should be thanking them.
Plus ca change.
Why do you think the Tories hate the poor?
When did a Tory government last pass up the opportunity to make the poor poorer? It's basically a Tory's third favourite sport after rabid eurofrothing and ripping apart terrified foxes with packs of vicious dogs.
I wonder what you're doing to alleviate poverty?
A darn sight less than the Govt, I imagine.
No one goes into politics with malicious intent. Recognising that is a good start to discourse here.
Tories hate the poor. Tories use an illusory deficit reduction to wage class war against the poor. Tories tell the poor "it was for their own good" and that they should be thanking them.
Plus ca change.
Also, by the time we've finished fecking over the NHS for personal profit and pleasure, its own mother won't recognise it. So don't, whatever you do, get ill.
"It ought to be clear that Mr Corbyn’s views should be taken literally. Voters should take at his word a man whose world view is underpinned by anti-Americanism, who wants to scrap the nuclear deterrent and leave Nato."
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
Raising personal tax allowances was a Lib Dem signature policy but in fact higher tax allowances do not benefit the poorest in society as they do not pay income tax. And the largest benefit goes to the highest earners.
Whilst we’re doing tax pedantry it’s worth pointing out that the withdrawal of the personal allowance at the rate of £2 for every £1 earned over £100k means that actually it doesn’t benefit the highest earners - roughly anyone over £125k. But it’s a saving at 40p in the pound for people earning between about £45k and £100k versus a saving a 20p for lower earners. Makes it a very expensive way of benefiting the poor, almost looking as if it’s a policy to benefit mid-high earners dressed up as helping the poor.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
Raising personal tax allowances was a Lib Dem signature policy but in fact higher tax allowances do not benefit the poorest in society as they do not pay income tax. And the largest benefit goes to the highest earners.
Whilst we’re doing tax pedantry it’s worth pointing out that the withdrawal of the personal allowance at the rate of £2 for every £1 earned over £100k means that actually it doesn’t benefit the highest earners - roughly anyone over £125k. But it’s a saving at 40p in the pound for people earning between about £45k and £100k versus a saving a 20p for lower earners. Makes it a very expensive way of benefiting the poor, almost looking as if it’s a policy to benefit mid-high earners dressed up as helping the poor.
That’s wrong too. Every time Osborne increased the personal allowance he also lowered the 40p rate threshold, so that only 20p taxpayers would benefit from the change. Osborne knew Ed Balls wasn’t stupid and would have jumped on this if the benefit went to higher earners.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
Raising personal tax allowances was a Lib Dem signature policy but in fact higher tax allowances do not benefit the poorest in society as they do not pay income tax. And the largest benefit goes to the highest earners.
Whilst we’re doing tax pedantry it’s worth pointing out that the withdrawal of the personal allowance at the rate of £2 for every £1 earned over £100k means that actually it doesn’t benefit the highest earners - roughly anyone over £125k. But it’s a saving at 40p in the pound for people earning between about £45k and £100k versus a saving a 20p for lower earners. Makes it a very expensive way of benefiting the poor, almost looking as if it’s a policy to benefit mid-high earners dressed up as helping the poor.
That’s wrong too. Every time Osborne increased the personal allowance he also lowered the 40p rate threshold, so that only 20p taxpayers would benefit from the change. Osborne knew Ed Balls wasn’t stupid.
Yep. Combined with the above average increases in the Living Wage it was these policies that reduced the Gini co-efficient year on year.
It is of course true that living standards declined somewhat during the years when the deficit was brought under control...
I do appreciate British understatement, but I believe it was the largest decline in living standards since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You are, somewhat, downplaying its severity and potential impact on contemporary politics.
So what should the Government have done?
What Obama did. Keynesian stimulus.
Obama didn't. He talked the talk, a bit, about non-existent 'shovel-ready' projects, and the federal government made up a bit for the drop in state spending, but (very sensibly) there was no significant stimulus overall.
Trump seems to be doing something right wrt the US economy - heading for 4.1% growth based off Q2 numbers !
Obama had quarter growth of over 4% on multiple occasions.
"It ought to be clear that Mr Corbyn’s views should be taken literally. Voters should take at his word a man whose world view is underpinned by anti-Americanism, who wants to scrap the nuclear deterrent and leave Nato."
You do realise that those earning over £110K don't actually get any personal allowances at all do you? Those fortunate enough to be in that position pay tax on every pound so the level of allowances does not help them at all.
The wilful ignorance of Osborne's critics (on the left especially) is absolutely remarkable, and seemingly quite impervious to the most basic facts, such as HMRC's tax tables.
You do realise that those earning over £110K don't actually get any personal allowances at all do you? Those fortunate enough to be in that position pay tax on every pound so the level of allowances does not help them at all.
The wilful ignorance of Osborne's critics (on the left especially) is absolutely remarkable, and seemingly quite impervious to the most basic facts, such as HMRC's tax tables.
Yep. The result of the policy @Sandpit has described is that those earning more than £110K were paying 40% on an ever increasing share of their income so that rather than benefiting from increases in personal allowances they were paying yet more tax. This is, in large part, how the increases in PA were funded.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Edit: Since one of our new posters is modelling themselves as a less interesting and more crude lefty version of seanT I think this is a good time to take a sabbatical. See you again for the fun of the Conference Season?
The idea that the government could have done more in the form of stimulus without very substantial counterbalancing cuts in expenditure elsewhere is really for the birds.
Before Osborne, we were running a ruinously high deficit.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
WHAT A FUCKING HERO OSBORNE IS.
Actually, it's largely gone unnoticed, but French growth for Q218 - the most recent quarter, was a pathetically feeble 0.2%. An annualised rate of 0.8%
So it's quite possible, even probable, that the UK is growing faster than France (and maybe Italy).
Not that this makes Osborne - or Hammond - a genius.
Is that because they are all on strike over Macron's very minor labour reforms?
What next - Best of three? Best of five? Best of eleven?
The scenario to have another referendum would rely on the Lib Dems stealing seats off the Tories just as UKIP did. Im amazed by the lack of recent by-elections, it's certainly been good news for Brexit voters.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
I don't think it's controversial, when it comes to Tories screwing over the poor it's the parable of the scorpion and the turtle. We no more blame a Tory for making the poor poorer than we blame the scorpion for stinging the turtle. It's their nature, it's what they *do*.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
To be fair, PB managed a generally polite and informative discussion of Israel and Palestine yesterday - not something that happens on many websites. Almost any other forum would have had the moderator tearing their hair out.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
To be fair, PB managed a generally polite and informative discussion of Israel and Palestine yesterday - not something that happens on many websites. Almost any other forum would have had the moderator tearing their hair out.
I am sure there is similar polite and informative discussion on corbynista forums on this issue....the difference is they all agree that Israel is evil and there should be a final solution, but not in an antisemitic way, only an anti-Zionist way....
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
h.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
Raising personal tax allowances was a Lib Dem signature policy but in fact higher tax allowances do not benefit the poorest in society as they do not pay income tax. And the largest benefit goes to the highest earners.
Whilst we’re doing tax pedantry it’s worth pointing out that the withdrawal of the personal allowance at the rate of £2 for every £1 earned over £100k means that actually it doesn’t benefit the highest earners - roughly anyone over £125k. But it’s a saving at 40p in the pound for people earning between about £45k and £100k versus a saving a 20p for lower earners. Makes it a very expensive way of benefiting the poor, almost looking as if it’s a policy to benefit mid-high earners dressed up as helping the poor.
That’s wrong too. Every time Osborne increased the personal allowance he also lowered the 40p rate threshold, so that only 20p taxpayers would benefit from the change. Osborne knew Ed Balls wasn’t stupid and would have jumped on this if the benefit went to higher earners.
My post agreeing with you seems to have gone missing. But on a budget-by-budget basis, I agree. When taking into account the ambitions to increase the higher rate threshold I seem to remember that over a period of time a surprising amount of the cost to the Exchequer benefited higher earners - but it will take me longer than I have available to provide a source for that, so I don’t expect you to take my word for it.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You really are an ignorant arsehole. I really can't be bothered pointing out the errors in pretty much every post.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
I think your juvenile posts say far more about you than they do David.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
I don't think it's controversial, when it comes to Tories screwing over the poor it's the parable of the scorpion and the turtle. We no more blame a Tory for making the poor poorer than we blame the scorpion for stinging the turtle. It's their nature, it's what they *do*.
That wank you posted about DavidL is possibly the shittiest thing I've ever seen posted on here. Admittedly, lately that's a low bar. I don't personally know anyone on here, never met any of them but DavidL pretty much seems a calm and reasonable poster, even if he is a Tory.
Sqwawkbox is only marginally behind Novara media in their attempt at becoming the Corbynista equivalent of InfoWars....
Their existence feeds into the myth that journalism is corrupted and the media lie all the time.
Dangerous times.
In all seriousness it really is shocking, I have no idea what Sky News are doing having one of their people on as a regular contributor. It is totally different to having say somebody from the New Statesman.
I pointed out numerous times on here about in particular Sqwawkbox in the past.
You see, there's an argument made that you should always assume good faith. But I think Brexit has taught us that Tories never do *anything* in good faith so I dunno.
Also SeanT is here so it pays to take nothing you read seriously.
Sqwawkbox is only marginally behind Novara media in their attempt at becoming the Corbynista equivalent of InfoWars....
Their existence feeds into the myth that journalism is corrupted and the media lie all the time.
Dangerous times.
In all seriousness it really is shocking, I have no idea what Sky News are doing having one of their people on as a regular contributor. It is totally different to having say somebody from the New Statesman.
I pointed out numerous times on here about in particular Sqwawkbox in the past.
We need a Royal Commission or some such on the role of new media in our democracy, before it eats our democracy.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
Raising personal tax allowances was a Lib Dem signature policy but in fact higher tax allowances do not benefit the poorest in society as they do not pay income tax. And the largest benefit goes to the highest earners.
Whilst we’re doing tax pedantry it’s worth pointing out that the withdrawal of the personal allowance at the rate of £2 for every £1 earned over £100k means that actually it doesn’t benefit the highest earners - roughly anyone over £125k. But it’s a saving at 40p in the pound for people earning between about £45k and £100k versus a saving a 20p for lower earners. Makes it a very expensive way of benefiting the poor, almost looking as if it’s a policy to benefit mid-high earners dressed up as helping the poor.
That’s wrong too. Every time Osborne increased the personal allowance he also lowered the 40p rate threshold, so that only 20p taxpayers would benefit from the change. Osborne knew Ed Balls wasn’t stupid and would have jumped on this if the benefit went to higher earners.
My post agreeing with you seems to have gone missing. But on a budget-by-budget basis, I agree. When taking into account the ambitions to increase the higher rate threshold I seem to remember that over a period of time a surprising amount of the cost to the Exchequer benefited higher earners - but it will take me longer than I have available to provide a source for that, so I don’t expect you to take my word for it.
I think that from 2010 to 2015 the emphasis was on the tax allowance, adjusting the 40% threshold down to compensate. Since 2015 however, the 40% threshold has risen. We can agree that it’s not immediately obvious where to find these numbers in a series going back several years.
People getting poorer actually arouses you a little bit, doesn't it?
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
You can criticise the Tories for cutting public spending. You can criticise them for not doing it quickly enough to keep on top of the national debt. You cannot do both.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
To be fair, PB managed a generally polite and informative discussion of Israel and Palestine yesterday - not something that happens on many websites. Almost any other forum would have had the moderator tearing their hair out.
Just admit that you like it that George made everyone poorer.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes ure.
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
Raising personal tax allowances was a Lib Dem signature policy but in fact higher tax allowances do not benefit the poorest in society as they do not pay income tax. And the largest benefit goes to the highest earners.
Whilst we’re doing tax pedantry it’s worth pointing out that the withdrawal of the personal allowance at the rate of £2 for every £1 earned over £100k means that actually it doesn’t benefit the highest earners - roughly anyone over £125k. But it’s a saving at 40p in the pound for people earning between about £45k and £100k versus a saving a 20p for lower earners. Makes it a very expensive way of benefiting the poor, almost looking as if it’s a policy to benefit mid-high earners dressed up as helping the poor.
That’s wrong too. Every time Osborne increased the personal allowance he also lowered the 40p rate threshold, so that only 20p taxpayers would benefit from the change. Osborne knew Ed Balls wasn’t stupid and would have jumped on this if the benefit went to higher earners.
My post agreeing with you seems to have gone missing. But on a budget-by-budget basis, I agree. When taking into account the ambitions to increase the higher rate threshold I seem to remember that over a period of time a surprising amount of the cost to the Exchequer benefited higher earners - but it will take me longer than I have available to provide a source for that, so I don’t expect you to take my word for it.
I think that from 2010 to 2015 the emphasis was on the tax allowance, adjusting the 40% threshold down to compensate. Since 2015 however, the 40% threshold has risen. We can agree that it’s not immediately obvious where to find these numbers in a series going back several years.
There was a good graph of it in the budget red book a year or two back, but I can’t remember which year or find it. But if I ever do I’ll be sure to post it in order to provide a brief respite from the discussions of Brexit.
Sqwawkbox is only marginally behind Novara media in their attempt at becoming the Corbynista equivalent of InfoWars....
Their existence feeds into the myth that journalism is corrupted and the media lie all the time.
Dangerous times.
In all seriousness it really is shocking, I have no idea what Sky News are doing having one of their people on as a regular contributor. It is totally different to having say somebody from the New Statesman.
I pointed out numerous times on here about in particular Sqwawkbox in the past.
We need a Royal Commission or some such on the role of new media in our democracy, before it eats our democracy.
Not sure what channel it will be on in the U.K., but John Oliver’s HBO show did a very cutting spoof of Facebook’s ‘apology’ advert yesterday.
As we also saw with the C4 News manager’s tweet about medicines, the fake news is getting pervasive and it’s becoming a serious problem that threatens to undermine democracy (and even the rule of law) if not tackled. India currently has a problem with lynch mobs responding to social media posts by killing people.
The idea that the government could have done more in the form of stimulus without very substantial counterbalancing cuts in expenditure elsewhere is really for the birds.
Before Osborne, we were running a ruinously high deficit.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
WHAT A FUCKING HERO OSBORNE IS.
Actually, it's largely gone unnoticed, but French growth for Q218 - the most recent quarter, was a pathetically feeble 0.2%. An annualised rate of 0.8%
So it's quite possible, even probable, that the UK is growing faster than France (and maybe Italy)...
I believe this was discussed a couple of days back - along with the relative household savings rates, which give a rather different perspective.
"It ought to be clear that Mr Corbyn’s views should be taken literally. Voters should take at his word a man whose world view is underpinned by anti-Americanism, who wants to scrap the nuclear deterrent and leave Nato."
Sqwawkbox is only marginally behind Novara media in their attempt at becoming the Corbynista equivalent of InfoWars....
Their existence feeds into the myth that journalism is corrupted and the media lie all the time.
Dangerous times.
In all seriousness it really is shocking, I have no idea what Sky News are doing having one of their people on as a regular contributor. It is totally different to having say somebody from the New Statesman.
I pointed out numerous times on here about in particular Sqwawkbox in the past.
We need a Royal Commission or some such on the role of new media in our democracy, before it eats our democracy.
Won't they then just claim it is the establishment deep state trying to silence the masses and the truth, which is Alex Jones usual line when people call out his bullshit.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
I wonder if part of the problem was people accusing their opponents of being Nazi's...
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
To be fair, PB managed a generally polite and informative discussion of Israel and Palestine yesterday - not something that happens on many websites. Almost any other forum would have had the moderator tearing their hair out.
I am sure there is similar polite and informative discussion on corbynista forums on this issue....the difference is they all agree that Israel is evil and there should be a final solution, but not in an antisemitic way, only an anti-Zionist way....
I notice that you have repeatedly claimed on this thread that living standards in the last ten years have fallen further and faster than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars.
Leaving aside the fact this is a very strange time period to choose - the Napoleonic Wars from 1805 to 1815 were actually quite a prosperous time in Britain, and the hardship came mostly later with the peace - I also think it is a very strange claim. I can think of three time periods; 1877-1903, 1914-1918 and 1940-49 - when the decline in relative wages and living standards was much more severe. 1920-23 might be added in although that is more dubious.
So I was curious - what is your source for this claim?
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
I wonder if part of the problem was people accusing their opponents of being Nazi's...
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
To be fair, PB managed a generally polite and informative discussion of Israel and Palestine yesterday - not something that happens on many websites. Almost any other forum would have had the moderator tearing their hair out.
I am sure there is similar polite and informative discussion on corbynista forums on this issue....the difference is they all agree that Israel is evil and there should be a final solution, but not in an antisemitic way, only an anti-Zionist way....
It's not actually that long ago that we couldn't discuss anything to do with Nazis or the Holocaust on PB, because we had a real live Nazi who always went mad when you did, spouting off the bullshit of Faurisson and Zundel.
Got a feeling he was a Liberal Democrat in real life.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
Still quite common IMO. And conversely I recall some horrendous abuse at times which the moderators successfully stamped on. You probably have a happy nature so have forgotten them!
I don't know a single person who wants to get rid of the pound. Apart from william.
"Culture" is an odd reason for something practical like a currency - it's like saying that you insist on British cars even if they're poor value. If it'd be economically beneficial to Britain to adopt the Euro, we should; if not, then we shouldn't. The cultural argument would apply if it was something like curriculum content.
I notice that you have repeatedly claimed on this thread that living standards in the last ten years have fallen further and faster than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars.
Leaving aside the fact this is a very strange time period to choose - the Napoleonic Wars from 1805 to 1815 were actually quite a prosperous time in Britain, and the hardship came mostly later with the peace - I also think it is a very strange claim. I can think of three time periods; 1877-1903, 1914-1918 and 1940-49 - when the decline in relative wages and living standards was much more severe. 1920-23 might be added in although that is more dubious.
So I was curious - what is your source for this claim?
As an aside, pretty much the whole continent of Europe was imposing a trade blockade on the UK at the time.
Strikes me as potentially delusion of the highest order. If Brexit is reversed, or doesn't happen (as I keep saying it won't), I expect the fall-out to be bloody awful.
Strikes me as potentially delusion of the highest order. If Brexit is reversed, or doesn't happen (as I keep saying it won't), I expect the fall-out to be bloody awful.
If Brexit doesn't happen because public opinion has swung decisively against it and Remain wins in a landslide, it will be a galvanising and unifying moment, and perhaps a fatal setback for the Kremlin's strategy of dividing the west and recreating a 19th century world order.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddon_by-election,_2018#Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremantle_by-election,_2018#Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longman_by-election,_2018#Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_by-election,_2018#Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_by-election,_2018#Results
I don't know a single person who wants to get rid of the pound. Apart from william.
However, if the US abandons NATO, it's a moot point. That said, historically, we've spent a lot of blood and treasure defending the continent, and from my perspective, I wouldn't want us to do that again.
The idea that the government could have done more in the form of stimulus without very substantial counterbalancing cuts in expenditure elsewhere is really for the birds.
If we'd gone for fiscal union before monetary union, I think the UK would have been a flag-waving cheerleader for the whole project.
Politically, I think that Osborne undermined his "we're all in it together" rhetoric far too early by giving away money to those he deemed to be deserving. Any sense of national unity in the face of economic adversity was dissipated, and it became a contest between different client groups. If you were in a group that was losing out it wasn't because the nation as a whole had to tighten its belt, but because someone else had done you out of what you deserved.
And then the Brexit referendum came along and gave people a repository for all their frustrations.
Now we're running a ruinously high deficit, have suffered the largest drop in living standards since the Napoleonic wars, have doubled our national debt, and our growth is the weakest in the G8.
WHAT A FUCKING HERO OSBORNE IS.
It's certainly "remarkable", although whether those remarks are printable in a family newspaper is doubtful.
You really are bleathering.
You're one of those. The thought of all the extra poverty Osborne caused when doubling our national debt and hollowing out our living standards and public services actually makes your loins twitch.
Just look at them go.
It makes you feel a little tingle in your special place knowing your boy helped put those povvoes in their place by cutting their living standards and public services and helped make those oiks poor and miserable.
It's what they deserve, after all.
And if you want to touch your special place, we understand. You're a Tory. Making people poorer is pretty much the only thing that gives you any kind of pleasure.
But he didn't have to hollow out our public services
He didn't have to double the national debt
He didn't have to oversee the greatest fall in living standards since the Napoleonic wars
He didn't have to gift us the weakest growth in the G8
These were all things he did because he *wanted* to, not because he *had* to. Good old Tory class warfare against the poor.
The only valid criticism of Osborne’s economics is that, for all the talk of austerity, public spending rose every year he was Chancellor. Thanks mainly to the Department of Debt Interest, which now consumes £52,000,000,000 a year, a billion pounds a week.
Personal tax allowance 2018-2019 £11850
Thats an 83% increase under a Tory government in 9 years.
Personal tax allowance 1997-1998 £4,045
Personal tax allowance 2009-2010 £6,475
Thats a 60% increase under a Labour Government in 13 years.
But hey dont let facts get in the way of your utter stupidity
By the end of 2017 the median income was up £1,600 on pre crash levels and had increased by 2.3% that year, just above the long term average.
As the ONS put it:
"The median equivalised household disposable income in the UK was £27,300 in the financial year ending (FYE) 2017. After taking account of inflation and changes in household structures over time, the median disposable income has increased by £600 (or 2.3%) since FYE 2016 and is £1,600 higher than the pre-economic downturn level observed in FYE 2008. The year-on-year growth rate is broadly in line with the average growth rate per year for the past 40 years with median household income growing from £12,500 at an average rate of 2.1% per year between 1977 and FYE 2017."
https://www.jrf.org.uk/press/work-poverty-hits-record-high-housing-crisis-fuels-insecurity
But let's be honest, stuff like that, which should appal any right thinking person, just makes Tories even more aroused for another round of Fuck the Poor.
Tories use an illusory deficit reduction to wage class war against the poor.
Tories tell the poor "it was for their own good" and that they should be thanking them.
Plus ca change.
A darn sight less than the Govt, I imagine.
No one goes into politics with malicious intent. Recognising that is a good start to discourse here.
say **what** now?
Stop being silly.
"It's funny when Tories get a little bit horny when they think of all the misery and poverty they've caused.
Just look at them go."
wonderful.
round of applause.
you won the internet today, mate.
https://www.ft.com/content/297a0306-93da-11e8-b747-fb1e803ee64e
The same applies to tax policy, seizing private homes for rehousing, capital controls etc. the article says.
Moderates who are hoping he will seek compromise when in power are deluded.
https://twitter.com/JewishLabour/status/1023875300801830912
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Edit: Since one of our new posters is modelling themselves as a less interesting and more crude lefty version of seanT I think this is a good time to take a sabbatical. See you again for the fun of the Conference Season?
Dangerous times.
I pointed out numerous times on here about in particular Sqwawkbox in the past.
Also SeanT is here so it pays to take nothing you read seriously.
We can agree that it’s not immediately obvious where to find these numbers in a series going back several years.
As we also saw with the C4 News manager’s tweet about medicines, the fake news is getting pervasive and it’s becoming a serious problem that threatens to undermine democracy (and even the rule of law) if not tackled. India currently has a problem with lynch mobs responding to social media posts by killing people.
It's good to see that viewpoint is becoming much more common.
Fuck facebook. Fuck twitter.
I notice that you have repeatedly claimed on this thread that living standards in the last ten years have fallen further and faster than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars.
Leaving aside the fact this is a very strange time period to choose - the Napoleonic Wars from 1805 to 1815 were actually quite a prosperous time in Britain, and the hardship came mostly later with the peace - I also think it is a very strange claim. I can think of three time periods; 1877-1903, 1914-1918 and 1940-49 - when the decline in relative wages and living standards was much more severe. 1920-23 might be added in although that is more dubious.
So I was curious - what is your source for this claim?
https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/1023981024542384129
Got a feeling he was a Liberal Democrat in real life.
https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/1023986453234298881
I'd suggest you take a break from site before you embarrass yourself further.