Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
It wouldn't benefit everyone as a point of order - anyone earning over £125k will have no personal allowance at all still. You may not be unhappy at that of course but it wouldn't benefit 'everyone'
It is bit depressing that the article starts off with a clearly falsifiable fact: “In summer 2012, English tuition fees suddenly tripled to become the highest in the world”. Highest in Europe, for sure, but not in the world. They are cheaper than US state universities and much cheaper than US private universities.
The article then says something that I agree with: “Labour ... cannot go into an election telling young people that if they are unlucky enough to have started university the day before a Labour government is elected, they will still have to pay off a £30,000 loan, just to cover their fees.’
And it comes to a solution: "How will we pay for this? The answer is another question: if the rest of Europe can do it, why can’t we?”
Is that really it? We are all familiar to our cost with the depressingly low standards of Oxford PPE and the generation of vacuous pols it has produced. It seems that Oxford Geography is as bad. No costing at all, no examination of different alternatives, no serious analysis of the differences between continental Europe and the UK (e.g., in Germany, much lower proportions of the population go to University).
And finally, at the end of the article the traditional Corbynista free lunch, “we could raise taxes on wealth, on corporations and on people receiving the highest incomes to the levels of the rest of western Europe.”
So even at the end, a cop-out. Facebook & Amazon will pay. In fact, there is no reason why higher levels of Income Tax should not fund this. If numbers at University are reduced to German or Swiss levels and the money is raised in a sensible manner, the people benefiting from Universities would (in the main) end up paying.
I.e., the situation needs returning to before New Labour got their sweaty hands on it.
The budget had far too many gimmicks for me. There were at least 4 announcements of £10m. On the back of a fag packet I worked out that £10m is just under 7 minutes of government spending in the year. Utterly trivial. Much bigger sums barely got a mention.
There were also too many fires needing put out where public services are facing a real crisis. The extra money for schools is not enough to make a difference and very much a one off, not built into the budget for later years. The pot hole payments covers approximately 1/20th of the backlog. The additional money for Social Care will not stop Councils facing a financial crisis. The £1bn extra for defence in these circumstances seemed slightly eccentric and must surely have been to buy some votes for something.
This is not to say for a moment that the budget should have been some Corbynite bonanza. It simply reflects the fact that the calls upon the public budget are more than the government can hope to meet, especially after the massive allocation towards Health. In light of that the tax cuts were something of a surprise even if they were counterbalanced by increases elsewhere.
The reality to me is that we have a Tory government committed to spending all of the proceeds of growth rather than sharing them. Deficit reduction is no longer a priority, let alone reducing government debt. Any tax cuts are counterbalanced by increases plus just a little bit more. We are committed to real terms increases in public spending of 1.4% a year and we can add annual goodies from the Chancellor on top of that. I can't help feeling the likes of Ed Miliband would have been pretty comfortable with such an approach, even if Labour have moved further left since then.
There's more than a few billion available if Overseas Aid spending is reduced to the levels of other G7 countries.
Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.
The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.
Someone earning over £50k has a 'crisis'? Yeah, right.
You obviously didn’t learn the lesson that Labour learnt the hard way in the 1970’s that higher taxes reduce economic activity levels. France learnt that lesson under Hollande which is why Macron is reversing it
Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.
The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.
Voters back prioritising spending more now over continuing to balance the books by 52% to 12%.
After 8 years of austerity Hammond could not ignore that message
What austerity ? Gov spending has risen inexorably since 2010. There was a time when Tory Gov’s would have sought to make public spending value for money for tax payers rather than just throw money at problems. Sadly no longer. There was a time Tory Giv’s would have worried about, and addressed, productivity and underinvestment to boost economic performance. Sadly no longer. There was a time Tory’s would have sought to lead public opinion on spending rather than pander to it. Sadly no longer.
Hammond abdicated responsibility in this budget rather than assumed it.
Spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen from about 48% in 2010 to about 41% now and the deficit has fallen too
It is bit depressing that the article starts off with a clearly falsifiable fact: “In summer 2012, English tuition fees suddenly tripled to become the highest in the world”. Highest in Europe, for sure, but not in the world. They are cheaper than US state universities and much cheaper than US private universities.
The article then says something that I agree with: “Labour ... cannot go into an election telling young people that if they are unlucky enough to have started university the day before a Labour government is elected, they will still have to pay off a £30,000 loan, just to cover their fees.’
And it comes to a solution: "How will we pay for this? The answer is another question: if the rest of Europe can do it, why can’t we?”
Is that really it? We are all familiar to our cost with the depressingly low standards of Oxford PPE and the generation of vacuous pols it has produced. It seems that Oxford Geography is as bad. No costing at all, no examination of different alternatives, no serious analysis of the differences between continental Europe and the UK (e.g., in Germany, much lower proportions of the population go to University).
And finally, at the end of the article the traditional Corbynista free lunch, “we could raise taxes on wealth, on corporations and on people receiving the highest incomes to the levels of the rest of western Europe.”
So even at the end, a cop-out. Facebook & Amazon will pay. In fact, there is no reason why higher levels of Income Tax should not fund this. If numbers at University are reduced to German or Swiss levels and the money is raised in a sensible manner, the people benefiting from Universities would (in the main) end up paying.
I.e., the situation needs returning to before New Labour got their sweaty hands on it.
I think they get to their "fact" about highest in the world, even US, by including US community colleges to make the average lower.
Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.
The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.
Voters back prioritising spending more now over continuing to balance the books by 52% to 12%.
After 8 years of austerity Hammond could not ignore that message
It is bit depressing that the article starts off with a clearly falsifiable fact: “In summer 2012, English tuition fees suddenly tripled to become the highest in the world”. Highest in Europe, for sure, but not in the world. They are cheaper than US state universities and much cheaper than US private universities.
The article then says something that I agree with: “Labour ... cannot go into an election telling young people that if they are unlucky enough to have started university the day before a Labour government is elected, they will still have to pay off a £30,000 loan, just to cover their fees.’
And it comes to a solution: "How will we pay for this? The answer is another question: if the rest of Europe can do it, why can’t we?”
Is that really it? We are all familiar to our cost with the depressingly low standards of Oxford PPE and the generation of vacuous pols it has produced. It seems that Oxford Geography is as bad. No costing at all, no examination of different alternatives, no serious analysis of the differences between continental Europe and the UK (e.g., in Germany, much lower proportions of the population go to University).
And finally, at the end of the article the traditional Corbynista free lunch, “we could raise taxes on wealth, on corporations and on people receiving the highest incomes to the levels of the rest of western Europe.”
So even at the end, a cop-out. Facebook & Amazon will pay. In fact, there is no reason why higher levels of Income Tax should not fund this. If numbers at University are reduced to German or Swiss levels and the money is raised in a sensible manner, the people benefiting from Universities would (in the main) end up paying.
I.e., the situation needs returning to before New Labour got their sweaty hands on it.
I think they get to their "fact" about highest in the world, even US, by including US community colleges.
You mean by including things that are not universities ... because Community Colleges don’t offer degrees.
Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.
The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.
Someone earning over £50k has a 'crisis'? Yeah, right.
You obviously didn’t learn the lesson that Labour learnt the hard way in the 1970’s that higher taxes reduce economic activity levels. France learnt that lesson under Hollande which is why Macron is reversing it
Ah, the old "the rich need to be incentivised, the poor need to be punished" argument.
Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.
The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.
Voters back prioritising spending more now over continuing to balance the books by 52% to 12%.
After 8 years of austerity Hammond could not ignore that message
What austerity ? Gov spending has risen inexorably since 2010. There was a time when Tory Gov’s would have sought to make public spending value for money for tax payers rather than just throw money at problems. Sadly no longer. There was a time Tory Giv’s would have worried about, and addressed, productivity and underinvestment to boost economic performance. Sadly no longer. There was a time Tory’s would have sought to lead public opinion on spending rather than pander to it. Sadly no longer.
Hammond abdicated responsibility in this budget rather than assumed it.
Spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen from about 48% in 2010 to about 41% now and the deficit has fallen too
Big deal. There is nothing magical about a ratio of spending to GDP and it doesn’t negate the fact that spending has risen inexorably since 2010 nor the fact that Giv gets poor value for money from public spending reversing which should be a greater priority than spending more.
It is bit depressing that the article starts off with a clearly falsifiable fact: “In summer 2012, English tuition fees suddenly tripled to become the highest in the world”. Highest in Europe, for sure, but not in the world. They are cheaper than US state universities and much cheaper than US private universities.
The article then says something that I agree with: “Labour ... cannot go into an election telling young people that if they are unlucky enough to have started university the day before a Labour government is elected, they will still have to pay off a £30,000 loan, just to cover their fees.’
And it comes to a solution: "How will we pay for this? The answer is another question: if the rest of Europe can do it, why can’t we?”
Is that really it? We are all familiar to our cost with the depressingly low standards of Oxford PPE and the generation of vacuous pols it has produced. It seems that Oxford Geography is as bad. No costing at all, no examination of different alternatives, no serious analysis of the differences between continental Europe and the UK (e.g., in Germany, much lower proportions of the population go to University).
And finally, at the end of the article the traditional Corbynista free lunch, “we could raise taxes on wealth, on corporations and on people receiving the highest incomes to the levels of the rest of western Europe.”
So even at the end, a cop-out. Facebook & Amazon will pay. In fact, there is no reason why higher levels of Income Tax should not fund this. If numbers at University are reduced to German or Swiss levels and the money is raised in a sensible manner, the people benefiting from Universities would (in the main) end up paying.
I.e., the situation needs returning to before New Labour got their sweaty hands on it.
I think they get to their "fact" about highest in the world, even US, by including US community colleges.
You mean by including things that are not universities ... because Community Colleges don’t offer degrees.
Well yes, but Gruadian / facts / figures ....
The Guardian quietly issued a sheepish correction last week, admitting they got their benefit cap figures out by a mere 5,100%.
Also, I guess they would argue that a significant number of people go to community college to get an "Associate degree" or then use the grades to transfer to a full university course with those credits.
Edit - According to wikipedia, since 2013, some Community Colleges have offered bachelor's degrees.
Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.
The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.
Someone earning over £50k has a 'crisis'? Yeah, right.
You obviously didn’t learn the lesson that Labour learnt the hard way in the 1970’s that higher taxes reduce economic activity levels. France learnt that lesson under Hollande which is why Macron is reversing it
Ah, the old "the rich need to be incentivised, the poor need to be punished" argument.
It is bit depressing that the article starts off with a clearly falsifiable fact: “In summer 2012, English tuition fees suddenly tripled to become the highest in the world”. Highest in Europe, for sure, but not in the world. They are cheaper than US state universities and much cheaper than US private universities.
The article then says something that I agree with: “Labour ... cannot go into an election telling young people that if they are unlucky enough to have started university the day before a Labour government is elected, they will still have to pay off a £30,000 loan, just to cover their fees.’
And it comes to a solution: "How will we pay for this? The answer is another question: if the rest of Europe can do it, why can’t we?”
Is that really it? We are all familiar to our cost with the depressingly low standards of Oxford PPE and the generation of vacuous pols it has produced. It seems that Oxford Geography is as bad. No costing at all, no examination of different alternatives, no serious analysis of the differences between continental Europe and the UK (e.g., in Germany, much lower proportions of the population go to University).
And finally, at the end of the article the traditional Corbynista free lunch, “we could raise taxes on wealth, on corporations and on people receiving the highest incomes to the levels of the rest of western Europe.”
So even at the end, a cop-out. Facebook & Amazon will pay. In fact, there is no reason why higher levels of Income Tax should not fund this. If numbers at University are reduced to German or Swiss levels and the money is raised in a sensible manner, the people benefiting from Universities would (in the main) end up paying.
I.e., the situation needs returning to before New Labour got their sweaty hands on it.
Also, I guess they would argue that a significant number of people go to community college to get an "Associate degree" or then use the grades to transfer to a full university course with those credits.
Edit - According to wikipedia, since 2013, some Community Colleges have offered bachelor's degrees.
The Gruadian alone, there is no hope. Semi-numerate, semi-illiterate, London-centric grand-standing is all that I expect.
But it is not the Gruadian alone. It is the Prof of Geography at Oxford, who should have some basic idea of research methodology/statistics/arithemetic.
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
"It could mean the official stats are under-estimating the cash size of the economy or general improvement in the tax revenues we get from each pound," Mr Chote adds.
Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.
The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.
Someone earning over £50k has a 'crisis'? Yeah, right.
You obviously didn’t learn the lesson that Labour learnt the hard way in the 1970’s that higher taxes reduce economic activity levels. France learnt that lesson under Hollande which is why Macron is reversing it
Ah, the old "the rich need to be incentivised, the poor need to be punished" argument.
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
I know where you're coming from, but I don't think it would have that effect. The rich already take on overwhelmingly the lion's share of the burden, but that doesn't stop the Class War crowd, who are impervious to facts, because they argue from emotion. And taking the poorest out of tax increases yet further the number of people with interests in higher taxes and higher spending. Finally, focusing tax on fewer and fewer people makes revenues much more volatile. On this, Hammond was right and Osborne was wrong.
... or axed altogether. When I am dictator, overseas aid, farm subsidies and the Northern Ireland and Scottish subsidies will all go. As we're also saving £10 billion/year from not being in the EU, I estimate this country's hard pressed taxpayers would be £30-40 billion better off.
... or axed altogether. When I am dictator, overseas aid, farm subsidies and the Northern Ireland and Scottish subsidies will all go. As we're also saving £10 billion/year from not being in the EU, I estimate this country's hard pressed taxpayers would be £30-40 billion better off.
So Welsh fishermen will be OK (all four of them) but nobody else?
So far I only have the one Budget unravel - Hammond's stupid (as I think Richard noted) description of money for schools as 'for the little things'. Everything else seems to stack up ok so far...
... or axed altogether. When I am dictator, overseas aid, farm subsidies and the Northern Ireland and Scottish subsidies will all go. As we're also saving £10 billion/year from not being in the EU, I estimate this country's hard pressed taxpayers would be £30-40 billion better off.
So Welsh fishermen will be OK (all four of them) but nobody else?
... or axed altogether. When I am dictator, overseas aid, farm subsidies and the Northern Ireland and Scottish subsidies will all go. As we're also saving £10 billion/year from not being in the EU, I estimate this country's hard pressed taxpayers would be £30-40 billion better off.
So Welsh fishermen will be OK (all four of them) but nobody else?
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants? More expansion, can't see that ending well....there are so many people / places willing to pay £15 for some noodles.
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants?
Hmmm.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants? More expansion, can't see that ending well....there are so many people / places willing to pay £15 for some noodles.
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants?
Hmmm.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
Article says mixture of debt and new share offering.
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants?
Hmmm.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
Article says mixture of debt and new share offering.
I wouldn't take the latter, certainly. And when your cash flow is weak is hardly the time to take on more debt. I think they may be making the same mistake as Carillion.
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants?
Hmmm.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
Article says mixture of debt and new share offering.
I wouldn't take the latter, certainly. And when your cash flow is weak is hardly the time to take on more debt. I think they may be making the same mistake as Carillion.
Seems bonkers to me. They are already saddled with some poorly performing brands, rather than making sure they having sorted those out, they now want to take more debt to buy a profitable one and massively expand it when the trend is against over-priced high street food outlets.
Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
The private equity firms who own Wagamama's must have thought Christmas has come early when TRG came knocking.
So far I only have the one Budget unravel - Hammond's stupid (as I think Richard noted) description of money for schools as 'for the little things'. Everything else seems to stack up ok so far...
Yes it seems much of a muchness, me and my partner both get the BR £120 bonus but otherwise nothing much doing. Good to see money for potholes too.
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants?
Hmmm.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
Article says mixture of debt and new share offering.
I wouldn't take the latter, certainly. And when your cash flow is weak is hardly the time to take on more debt. I think they may be making the same mistake as Carillion.
Seems bonkers to me. They are already saddled with some poorly performing brands, rather than making sure they having sorted those out, they now want to take more debt to buy a profitable one and massively expand it when the trend is against over-priced high street food outlets.
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants?
Hmmm.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
Article says mixture of debt and new share offering.
I wouldn't take the latter, certainly. And when your cash flow is weak is hardly the time to take on more debt. I think they may be making the same mistake as Carillion.
Seems bonkers to me. They are already saddled with some poorly performing brands, rather than making sure they having sorted those out, they now want to take more debt to buy a profitable one and massively expand it when the trend is against over-priced high street food outlets.
Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
Perhaps the management are misincentivised through share options.
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants?
Hmmm.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
Article says mixture of debt and new share offering.
I wouldn't take the latter, certainly. And when your cash flow is weak is hardly the time to take on more debt. I think they may be making the same mistake as Carillion.
Seems bonkers to me. They are already saddled with some poorly performing brands, rather than making sure they having sorted those out, they now want to take more debt to buy a profitable one and massively expand it when the trend is against over-priced high street food outlets.
Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
Perhaps the management are misincentivised through share options.
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants?
Hmmm.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
Article says mixture of debt and new share offering.
I wouldn't take the latter, certainly. And when your cash flow is weak is hardly the time to take on more debt. I think they may be making the same mistake as Carillion.
Seems bonkers to me. They are already saddled with some poorly performing brands, rather than making sure they having sorted those out, they now want to take more debt to buy a profitable one and massively expand it when the trend is against over-priced high street food outlets.
As expected. If they're to buy this, I think they will have to sell off some other brands, but they're not likely to get high prices for them.
This could end in bankruptcy if the share price drops like this just before a planned issue.
Be interesting who would want to even buy the likes of Frankie and Bennys etc. Their portfolio of brands is very poor. Brunning & Price being the only half decent one.
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants?
Hmmm.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
Article says mixture of debt and new share offering.
I wouldn't take the latter, certainly. And when your cash flow is weak is hardly the time to take on more debt. I think they may be making the same mistake as Carillion.
Seems bonkers to me. They are already saddled with some poorly performing brands, rather than making sure they having sorted those out, they now want to take more debt to buy a profitable one and massively expand it when the trend is against over-priced high street food outlets.
Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
Perhaps the management are misincentivised through share options.
If only somebody had done a YouTube video on this topic....
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
I can’t help feeling that this budget is wrongly timed. Surely, we should have been having a budget after Brexit so we could know what what sort of a position we were in and how best to mitigate it/take advantage.
It feels as if we are living in a fool’s paradise when in a few months we may find (I hope not) ourselves in a very difficult position.
On the detail, I can’t say I feel strongly. Schools may complain about the little extras comment but aren’t we always reading stories about schools having to raise money from parents for extras so why can’t this money be used for those sorts of expenses?
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
It wouldn't benefit everyone as a point of order - anyone earning over £125k will have no personal allowance at all still. You may not be unhappy at that of course but it wouldn't benefit 'everyone'
Pedantically, those over £125k and below £128 k or £130k (dependent on if it was raised to 14k or 15k) would benefit to a degree, as the taper down would be from £100k-£128k/£130k instead of to £125k.
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
I can’t help feeling that this budget is wrongly timed. Surely, we should have been having a budget after Brexit so we could know what what sort of a position we were in and how best to mitigate it/take advantage.
It feels as if we are living in a fool’s paradise when in a few months we may find (I hope not) ourselves in a very difficult position.
On the detail, I can’t say I feel strongly. Schools may complain about the little extras comment but aren’t we always reading stories about schools having to raise money from parents for extras so why can’t this money be used for those sorts of expenses?
Didn't Hammond say he was 'confident' of a good deal ?
Now I wouldn't say that unless I was VERY confident.
But I prefer to under-promise and over-deliver.
Politicians have been known to take a different strategy
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
I'm toying with the idea of a hybrid as well. It's either that, or petrol with an LPG conversion.
Depends on what's available and what the price is. This will probably be next August as my current car won't pass its next MOT.
So - if 40% of GDP comes in tax, and we're approximately £44.5 billion down economy-wise due to Brexit so far, it's cost us a little under £18bn per year to the Treasury in tax.
The amusing irony is that it's £350 million per week. So far, anyway.
I can’t help feeling that this budget is wrongly timed. Surely, we should have been having a budget after Brexit so we could know what what sort of a position we were in and how best to mitigate it/take advantage.
It feels as if we are living in a fool’s paradise when in a few months we may find (I hope not) ourselves in a very difficult position.
On the detail, I can’t say I feel strongly. Schools may complain about the little extras comment but aren’t we always reading stories about schools having to raise money from parents for extras so why can’t this money be used for those sorts of expenses?
Didn't Hammond say he was 'confident' of a good deal ?
Now I wouldn't say that unless I was VERY confident.
But I prefer to under-promise and over-deliver.
Politicians have been known to take a different strategy
I feel that Hammond would be a better Chancellor if May did not undermine him. Another of her faults.
Hammond did OK. But his and the Tories shtick was that they were getting on with putting things right with the public finances. Now they risk undermining that. If the spending was directed in one or two good focused long-term ways I could understand it but it was bits of money here and there. I'm not sure what the theme was and I don’t know how long-term any of this is.
Thatcher achieved the most when she had a good relationship with Chancellor, first Howe then Lawson. Ditto Cameron and Osborne.
For all his faults Corbyn seems to have let McDonnell get on with things and their close relationship appears to be one of Corbyn’s Labour’s strengths.
So - if 40% of GDP comes in tax, and we're approximately £44.5 billion down economy-wise due to Brexit so far, it's cost us a little under £18bn per year to the Treasury in tax.
The amusing irony is that it's £350 million per week. So far, anyway.
If that was right then the deficit would have increased rather than decreased.
Mr. Ace, one of the more unexpected twists in Ian Mortimer's biography of Henry IV was when the eponymous king lost authority to his son (largely due to illness) but then managed to regain it.
So - if 40% of GDP comes in tax, and we're approximately £44.5 billion down economy-wise due to Brexit so far, it's cost us a little under £18bn per year to the Treasury in tax.
The amusing irony is that it's £350 million per week. So far, anyway.
If they use June 2016 as the Brexit date then that is 28 months. So your 18 bil is technically 7.7bil per annum.
A professor of surgery says students have spent so much time in front of screens and so little time using their hands that they have lost the dexterity for stitching or sewing up patients.
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
Given the UK is now outperforming the Eurozone I would find claims that we would be growing by an additional 1% in the coutnerfactual a little doubtful. I think, to be fair, that Ben has simply compared March 2016 forecasts with now, not actually a counterfactual comparison done in the present
No, I don't think that's it. Currently only about 10% of pensioners work, and over half only work part-time or are self-employed, and so wouldn't pay much NI. The figure was much lower a few years ago, when the change should have been made - it will get more difficult in the future as there will be more losers from any change.
I think the real reason for not doing it is that civil servants and governments want to maintain the fiction that National Insurance is national insurance.
Morning Richard.
Don't you think there's at least a chance that it's because it makes older workers more attractive to employers, and therefore allows them to find work more easily, and keeps them from claiming their pensions for a bit longer?
The exemption from NI for pensioners applies only the the employee's contribution, not to the employer's, so there's no direct advantage for employers. I suppose that at the margin it might have a small effect on encouraging oldies to stay in employment, but I've never seen any suggestion that that is the motive.
McDonnell was asked this morning if he supported the tax cut for 32 million including big increases to the better off or would he reverse it. His response was of course they will support it confirming labour are now in favour of tax cuts for the rich. You couldn't make it up.
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
I dont think the UN's panel of experts would agree with that,,,,,
Given the UK is now outperforming the Eurozone I would find claims that we would be growing by an additional 1% in the coutnerfactual a little doubtful. I think, to be fair, that Ben has simply compared March 2016 forecasts with now, not actually a counterfactual comparison done in the present
What the OBR report stated was "Studies that construct a pre-vote ‘doppelganger’ for the UK suggest that the economy was 2 to 2½ per cent smaller by mid-2018 than it would have been if the referendum had not been called." The OBR themselves did not give their view at all.
The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...
That said, I have always rated Hammond.
Yes the same here. He reminds me of Alistair Darling and John Reid in Blair's cabinets.
You could always rely on them.
Darling was a good Chancellor. He was extremely unfortunate in the situation he found himself in. Not only did he have to deal with the GFC very soon after appointment, but a PM who couldn't admit having made an error and who was determined to continue as Chancellor himself -this despite the fact that by all accounts Darling's political instincts were much shrewder than his.
I don't think history will judge Darling necessarily kindly, but it will I think be kinder to him than to Brown or Lamont.
(And his memoirs are brilliant. I especially enjoyed the moment when he said Fred the Shred should have accepted £350k pension, as 'most people could have struggled by on that.')
Brown was a far better chancellor than Darling. However, you will recall over the last few years I've been excoriating Brown for PFIs. After yesterday, when he axed PFIs, perhaps Philip Hammond can be outed as a pb reader. What is his forum name? Not Plato, surely? Anyway, I am now expecting pb Tory support of PFIs to melt away like the October snow.
Tory support for PFI was as a means to fund infrastructure projects and push the risk onto private bodies. It isn’t a bad thing in itself. Only as good as the deal struck. Some deals have been dreadful, especially around hospital management.
As a means to spunk around lots of spending on schools and hospitals that you don’t need to account for in the public finances whatever the cost, less so.
I am afraid the idea and the consequences cannot be separated so easily. The idea was flawed because the risk was always likely to drop back into the public sector eventually, in part because the private sector is more experienced at playing the contracting game. And because without offloading the risk the public sector is simply left with the extra costs of commercial borrowing and the private sector profit margin. And because it further encouraged spending now and repaying later, by taking the borrowing off book as far as public debt is concerned.
And because it further encouraged spending now and repaying later, by taking the borrowing off book as far as public debt is concerned. I saw that as a big advantage
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
I dont think the UN's panel of experts would agree with that,,,,,
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
People earning more than roughly £110k don't get any personal allowance at all (I know, heart bleeds, don't know how lucky you are etc etc) so they don't get a tax cut unless the higher rate goes up. Of course in Scotland the last time the Chancellor did this the Scottish government did not pass it on and that might well happen again.
The evil Tory bean-counters do nothing to address the grievance of those women born in the 1950s who have had their pensions stolen from them without due notification and consultation.If this was a private sector provider it would involved in a great mis-selling scandal but the government thinks it can get away with it.Working women to their early deaths,including Mrs volcano,is not an acceptable policy.They demand and deserve redress for this grievance.These are hard-working people who may well have worked since the age of 15 and have borne a disproportiate amount of this austerity belief system of the small-state ideology. The Tories will pay for this one way or the other.
Mr. Malph, always tricky with that sort of thing, though, as we don't know what would've happened. We can't even be sure of the economic stats of the real world, let alone a theoretical one.
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
People earning more than roughly £110k don't get any personal allowance at all (I know, heart bleeds, don't know how lucky you are etc etc) so they don't get a tax cut unless the higher rate goes up. Of course in Scotland the last time the Chancellor did this the Scottish government did not pass it on and that might well happen again.
Should I open a Just giving account?
Sure - Hopefully you are giving to charity and so forth if you're lucky enough to be earning over a hundred grand a year.
The evil Tory bean-counters do nothing to address the grievance of those women born in the 1950s who have had their pensions stolen from them without due notification and consultation.If this was a private sector provider it would involved in a great mis-selling scandal but the government thinks it can get away with it.Working women to their early deaths,including Mrs volcano,is not an acceptable policy.They demand and deserve redress for this grievance.These are hard-working people who may well have worked since the age of 15 and have borne a disproportiate amount of this austerity belief system of the small-state ideology. The Tories will pay for this one way or the other.
As Alistair Meeks pointed out, they were notified in the mid 1990's, and there are at least 600 newspaper articles dealing with the subject.
A professor of surgery says students have spent so much time in front of screens and so little time using their hands that they have lost the dexterity for stitching or sewing up patients.
Given the UK is now outperforming the Eurozone I would find claims that we would be growing by an additional 1% in the coutnerfactual a little doubtful. I think, to be fair, that Ben has simply compared March 2016 forecasts with now, not actually a counterfactual comparison done in the present
Or they could just take the very broad hint from Mr Chote yesterday and look for evidence that the economy is already somewhat larger than the ONS seem determined to think despite the increase in employment, the increase in tax revenues, the VAT income, the PIs for construction etc, etc. That could close the gap.
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
I dont think the UN's panel of experts would agree with that,,,,,
I'd have a lot more time for that sort of view if other countries also acted. Remember the ozone hole (as it happens, a British discovery)? At vast expense, governments and industry banned CFCs.
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
People earning more than roughly £110k don't get any personal allowance at all (I know, heart bleeds, don't know how lucky you are etc etc) so they don't get a tax cut unless the higher rate goes up. Of course in Scotland the last time the Chancellor did this the Scottish government did not pass it on and that might well happen again.
Should I open a Just giving account?
Sure - Hopefully you are giving to charity and so forth if you're lucky enough to be earning over a hundred grand a year.
There is a genuine issue with this though as the removal of the allowance of £1 for every £2 earned means there is in effect a 60% band. So it goes 20%, 40%, 60% 40%, 45% which is nonsense. It could easily be done better, even bring it in earlier with a longer taper. The current set up is so extreme it just allows avoidance by those on the cusp by use of AVCs for instance. To change would be fairer and probably bring in more tax.
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
I dont think the UN's panel of experts would agree with that,,,,,
I'd have a lot more time for that sort of view if other countries also acted. Remember the ozone hole (as it happens, a British discovery)? At vast expense, governments and industry banned CFCs.
Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).
I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
People earning more than roughly £110k don't get any personal allowance at all (I know, heart bleeds, don't know how lucky you are etc etc) so they don't get a tax cut unless the higher rate goes up. Of course in Scotland the last time the Chancellor did this the Scottish government did not pass it on and that might well happen again.
Should I open a Just giving account?
Sure - Hopefully you are giving to charity and so forth if you're lucky enough to be earning over a hundred grand a year.
There is a genuine issue with this though as the removal of the allowance of £1 for every £2 earned means there is in effect a 60% band. So it goes 20%, 40%, 60% 40%, 45% which is nonsense. It could easily be done better, even bring it in earlier with a longer taper. The current set up is so extreme it just allows avoidance by those on the cusp by use of AVCs for instance. To change would be fairer and probably bring in more tax.
A surprisingly good Budget in these miserable times - although it says a lot about the state of the world that I'm now genuinely suprised that a Conservative Chancellor is actually cutting my taxes.
McDonnell was asked this morning if he supported the tax cut for 32 million including big increases to the better off or would he reverse it. His response was of course they will support it confirming labour are now in favour of tax cuts for the rich. You couldn't make it up.
I noticed you were jumping around celebrating every syllable offered by Hammond yesterday. Forgive me if I don't join you in the euphoria - a very small tax break for lower earners like me which (and no one seems to have noticed the personal allowances will be frozen in 20/21) which will be eaten by inflation in 2020.
In addition, very little meaningful help for local authorities looking at some difficult financial settlements this autumn and into next year. It's all very well Hammond saying "650 million for councils" but a) that is a drop in the ocean and b) who decides how that money is allocated.
McDonnell could have supported the rise in personal allowances to £12500 which helps a lot of people a little but instead urged the Chancellor to eschew an inflation-busting rise in the high income threshold to £50k in favour of a more modest inflationary increase of 2% in the threshold to £47500 with a view to getting to £50k over three years.
That would have helped him meet his borrowing targets but the Conservatives are now a tax and spend party so sound financial management has gone out the window.
The evil Tory bean-counters do nothing to address the grievance of those women born in the 1950s who have had their pensions stolen from them without due notification and consultation.If this was a private sector provider it would involved in a great mis-selling scandal but the government thinks it can get away with it.Working women to their early deaths,including Mrs volcano,is not an acceptable policy.They demand and deserve redress for this grievance.These are hard-working people who may well have worked since the age of 15 and have borne a disproportiate amount of this austerity belief system of the small-state ideology. The Tories will pay for this one way or the other.
You lost any credibility as a contributor after three words.....
Not long after the IPCC called for immediate action in reducing CO2, with the UK having previously used Budgets to trumpet "green initiatives" Phil seemed singularly indifferent to Green energy, environmental incentives and efforts from Dave and George, no huskies in this administration......then again, I dont see the environment havign much voice in the current BREXIT climate
Even without the budget, the UK's energy mix is rapidly becoming greener.
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen without government assistance. We're getting PV installed and our next car will be, at worst, a hybrid if not full electric. That's because it's increasingly making sense.
Previous years governments have nudged through taxes and incentives to encourage greener uptake. Now the market is responding in force.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
I dont think the UN's panel of experts would agree with that,,,,,
I'd have a lot more time for that sort of view if other countries also acted. Remember the ozone hole (as it happens, a British discovery)? At vast expense, governments and industry banned CFCs.
China could easily stop this, but they choose not to.
Blaming other people sometimes makes me feel better for my own shortcomings as well.
Us banning CFCs is rather pointless if China and others are willing to flout the internationally-agreed bans. Likewise many other environmental issues. (Local environmental improvements are another matter).
It doesn't matter how much self-flagellation you want to put us through: us acting alone is pointless in a global environment. Sadly, you appear more willing to blame ourselves than condemn China over this.
The UN panels should be screaming at China over this.
Comments
https://tinyurl.com/y88nx62c
It is bit depressing that the article starts off with a clearly falsifiable fact: “In summer 2012, English tuition fees suddenly tripled to become the highest in the world”. Highest in Europe, for sure, but not in the world. They are cheaper than US state universities and much cheaper than US private universities.
The article then says something that I agree with: “Labour ... cannot go into an election telling young people that if they are unlucky enough to have started university the day before a Labour government is elected, they will still have to pay off a £30,000 loan, just to cover their fees.’
And it comes to a solution: "How will we pay for this? The answer is another question: if the rest of Europe can do it, why can’t we?”
Is that really it? We are all familiar to our cost with the depressingly low standards of Oxford PPE and the generation of vacuous pols it has produced. It seems that Oxford Geography is as bad. No costing at all, no examination of different alternatives, no serious analysis of the differences between continental Europe and the UK (e.g., in Germany, much lower proportions of the population go to University).
And finally, at the end of the article the traditional Corbynista free lunch, “we could raise taxes on wealth, on corporations and on people receiving the highest incomes to the levels of the rest of western Europe.”
So even at the end, a cop-out. Facebook & Amazon will pay. In fact, there is no reason why higher levels of Income Tax should not fund this. If numbers at University are reduced to German or Swiss levels and the money is raised in a sensible manner, the people benefiting from Universities would (in the main) end up paying.
I.e., the situation needs returning to before New Labour got their sweaty hands on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors
[If they really want to make it a twist, they'll have him survive].
You obviously didn’t learn the lesson that Labour learnt the hard way in the 1970’s that higher taxes reduce economic activity levels. France learnt that lesson under Hollande which is why Macron is reversing it
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-spending-to-gdp
The Guardian quietly issued a sheepish correction last week, admitting they got their benefit cap figures out by a mere 5,100%.
https://order-order.com/2018/10/23/guardian-out-by-5100/
Also, I guess they would argue that a significant number of people go to community college to get an "Associate degree" or then use the grades to transfer to a full university course with those credits.
Edit - According to wikipedia, since 2013, some Community Colleges have offered bachelor's degrees.
Theres a jostling for position for the post she has vacated with several declarations of candidature
Nobody convinced she'll go the full term
Mr. HYUFD, Blair went 2-3 years earlier than scheduled, though.
But it is not the Gruadian alone. It is the Prof of Geography at Oxford, who should have some basic idea of research methodology/statistics/arithemetic.
Google pulling out of Berlin citing a climate hostile to investment
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article182942374/Google-Rueckzug-Berlin-als-Standort-fuer-Start-ups-weniger-attraktiv.html
German press now thinking London will get a clear advantage
Which would you rather believe!!
Sounds like a coracle.
It plans to expand the chain, which it says is well placed to capitalise on the trend for healthy eating.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46029362
I thought TRG were in big doo doo like the owners of lots of over priced fast casual restaurants? More expansion, can't see that ending well....there are so many people / places willing to pay £15 for some noodles.
You wonder how they're affording that. Never seen one of those restaurants even busy, never mind full. They're just too pricey. So cash flow can't be brilliant. Maybe by debt?
If I were a shareholder I think I would sell today.
Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
The private equity firms who own Wagamama's must have thought Christmas has come early when TRG came knocking.
Good to see money for potholes too.
This could end in bankruptcy if the share price drops like this just before a planned issue.
Anger over chancellor's £400m 'little extras' for schools
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46028757
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6331223/BBC-Sport-Editor-Dan-Roan-slammed-fans-claiming-beauty-queen-billionaires-MISTRESS.html
I can’t help feeling that this budget is wrongly timed. Surely, we should have been having a budget after Brexit so we could know what what sort of a position we were in and how best to mitigate it/take advantage.
It feels as if we are living in a fool’s paradise when in a few months we may find (I hope not) ourselves in a very difficult position.
On the detail, I can’t say I feel strongly. Schools may complain about the little extras comment but aren’t we always reading stories about schools having to raise money from parents for extras so why can’t this money be used for those sorts of expenses?
Now I wouldn't say that unless I was VERY confident.
But I prefer to under-promise and over-deliver.
Politicians have been known to take a different strategy
Depends on what's available and what the price is. This will probably be next August as my current car won't pass its next MOT.
The amusing irony is that it's £350 million per week.
So far, anyway.
Hammond did OK. But his and the Tories shtick was that they were getting on with putting things right with the public finances. Now they risk undermining that. If the spending was directed in one or two good focused long-term ways I could understand it but it was bits of money here and there. I'm not sure what the theme was and I don’t know how long-term any of this is.
Thatcher achieved the most when she had a good relationship with Chancellor, first Howe then Lawson. Ditto Cameron and Osborne.
For all his faults Corbyn seems to have let McDonnell get on with things and their close relationship appears to be one of Corbyn’s Labour’s strengths.
So your 18 bil is technically 7.7bil per annum.
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46019429
I know I write so little these days that my handwriting is appalling.
To fiddle with green taxes now would frankly be pissing in the wind. Let the market get on with it.
Edit - Re-read the article, I believe that a sub-sample of the poll. Can the media do that here?
suggest that the economy was 2 to 2½ per cent smaller by mid-2018 than it would have
been if the referendum had not been called."
The OBR themselves did not give their view at all.
I saw that as a big advantage
Should I open a Just giving account?
The Tories will pay for this one way or the other.
Have laid the £50 on McSally at 1.90.
Ditto - my current level of handwriting would have seen me get many detentions from the primary school dragon.
John McDonnell has improved a lot these past 3 years.
He has become a skilled operater with the media interviews.
Jeremy Corbyn was dancing at the Pride of Britain Mirror awards.
Must be catching for the over 60s.
Yet atmospheric CFCs are increasing, and the reason is China and, ironically, insulation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44738952
China could easily stop this, but they choose not to.
Forgive me if I don't join you in the euphoria - a very small tax break for lower earners like me which (and no one seems to have noticed the personal allowances will be frozen in 20/21) which will be eaten by inflation in 2020.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/income-tax-personal-allowance-and-basic-rate-limit-from-2019-to-2020/income-tax-personal-allowance-and-basic-rate-limit-from-2019-20
In addition, very little meaningful help for local authorities looking at some difficult financial settlements this autumn and into next year. It's all very well Hammond saying "650 million for councils" but a) that is a drop in the ocean and b) who decides how that money is allocated.
McDonnell could have supported the rise in personal allowances to £12500 which helps a lot of people a little but instead urged the Chancellor to eschew an inflation-busting rise in the high income threshold to £50k in favour of a more modest inflationary increase of 2% in the threshold to £47500 with a view to getting to £50k over three years.
That would have helped him meet his borrowing targets but the Conservatives are now a tax and spend party so sound financial management has gone out the window.
It doesn't matter how much self-flagellation you want to put us through: us acting alone is pointless in a global environment. Sadly, you appear more willing to blame ourselves than condemn China over this.
The UN panels should be screaming at China over this.