Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
No Boris won't vote for Corbyn as PM diehard Remainer MPs will but Corbyn as PM post extension is a Tory dream in Labour Leave seats while Remainers will still not trust Corbyn either after Labour refused to commit to back Remain this week
Boris doesn’t need to vote for Corbyn. If he resigns, Corbyn will probably be appointed. If he doesn’t resign, he will be forced to extend.
Snookered.
Boris will resign as PM rather than extend and take the Tories into opposition
Swinson and the LDs and Independents and anti No Deal Tory rebels likely vote down Corbyn as PM anyway but in the unlikely event Corbyn becomes PM and extends himself watch the Labour Leave seats fall to the Tories and Brexit Party like skittles at the next general election.
Snookered
There are no skittles in snooker. You are thinking of bar billiards. It is just about possible that an agreeable (to Corbyn, Swinson and Clarke) price for supporting a strictly splash-and-dash, extension and election, Labour minority government is a different PM, and if this looks likely (big if) that could be Laura Pidcock, Rebecca Long-Bailey or Dawn Butler (who I do not think is even quoted by the satchel-swingers).
A splash and dash extension is pretty useless.
It allows election followed by:
Revoke, No Deal or pre negotiated WA.
Where are we now? Revoke, No Deal or WA.
For election and referendum extend by a minimum of 7 months For election and renegotiate extend for a minimum of 10 months For election renegotiate and referendum extend for a minimum of 16 months
All assuming the election creates a decisive result.
Which is why the EU should grant us no further extensions.
They will. They are afraid of otherwise having to pick up negotiations in a situation where the UK had left and they could no longer not rely on Remainers here to kick the can down the road until the UK had changed its mind, leaving them to deal with the trade and budget contribution consequences in the meantime.
What an absolute drama queen she is. Totally lost the plot and her God complex has gone crazy. Time her parents took her away and sent her back to school. Total breakdown on the horizon.
Greta is a star, but a fragile one. She is after all a child. The UN know already what the issues are, they have just chosen to ignore them. Frankie Boyle is right.
There is value in stating your case clearly to people who are not interested in listening. Other people may be listening, and they may choose to act.
I do not think that Ms Thunberg believes that the politicians at the UN will suddenly start acting on their knowledge as she thinks necessary, but I think that she hopes that non-politicians the world over will be listening, and will choose to join future protests, to create the political pressure that politicians will have to respond to - or be swept aside by.
The problem with this is that Macron put uhas to be the answer.
I'm not sure I said any thing about making people poorer. There are ways to increase carbon taxes that are redistributive, for example the tax and dividend plan pushed by Hansen.
In any case, the whole point of of public campaigning on this issue is to push it higher up people's list of priorities. We've seen with brexit that people will vote to make themselves poorer, if they value what they hope to receive in exchange more highly.
I don’t think anybody thought they were voting to make themselves poorer as they were told the opposite by those making the leave case.
We're gonna save loads of money getting rid of the foreigners blocking up our hospitals.
Think how much more roomy our hospitals would be without all those foreign born doctors and nurses getting in the way, also the money we save on all their wages.
The number of foreign, non-EU nurses in the UK has doubled in a year.
People who hate foreigners hate foreigners. You think there won't come a time when some bright spark will ask why we have so many Philippino nurses working in the NHS taking jobs away from true Brits?
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
Right now, it might need votes from the Lib Dems to do anything about reforming the system...
I've really enjoyed the Mirror Universe saga over the summer - Johnson getting smashed on every vote, the resurrection of the LibDems, the did he lie to the Queen saga which gets resolved in today's episode, the brilliant Labour Party conference parody. I assume though that at some point Zarniwoop will tire of the alternate universe and return to his office on Ursa Minor Beta.
Will we find the real world a let down in comparison to the satirical alternative we're all still enjoying?
Speak for yourself RP, but I ain't enjoying this. It's a tragedy and a disgrace that's smashing our country to pieces.
Likewise. Amusing though @Cyclefree's header is this has been miserable and has done real damage to our country whatever the outcome.
Any outcome from here is bad. Whatever contortions parliament goes through we end up with something, a country, that is damaged.
I have no idea what any solution would comprise.
And what will happen? Brexitcast like the rest of us had it right we just don't know.
The current shake up has been on the cards for quite some time for those who bothered to look. The politicos have ignored all the warning signs and continued as normal. A new consensus will emerge but it wont be quick.
If the shake up was going to address that pent up frustration then I would perhaps see some merit in that view. But Brexit was simply getting a bollocking from your boss at work, coming home, and kicking the dog.
It will solve nothing for those most in need.
If it is respected - a big IF, given the behaviour of Remainers - Brexit will give many millions of people a sense of agency. A feeling that, when it REALLY mattered, their vote counted, because Britain is a democracy. This is of incalculable value. Worth far more than 2% of GDP or whatever. No one is ignored, no matter how poor or humble.
Remainers don’t understand this because they have never felt ignored. They would throw this prize away because they are selfish, stupid and nasty.
Viewers in Scotland and NI will have their own sense of agency of course.
Will we find the real world a let down in comparison to the satirical alternative we're all still enjoying?
Speak for yourself RP, but I ain't enjoying this. It's a tragedy and a disgrace that's smashing our country to pieces.
Likewise. Amusing though @Cyclefree's header is this has been miserable and has done real damage to our country whatever the outcome.
Any outcome from here is bad. Whatever contortions parliament goes through we end up with something, a country, that is damaged.
I have no idea what any solution would comprise.
And what will happen? Brexitcast like the rest of us had it right we just don't know.
The current shake up has been on the cards for quite some time for those who bothered to look. The politicos have ignored all the warning signs and continued as normal. A new consensus will emerge but it wont be quick.
If the shake up was going to address that pent up frustration then I would perhaps see some merit in that view. But Brexit was simply getting a bollocking from your boss at work, coming home, and kicking the dog.
It will solve nothing for those most in need.
If it is respected - a big IF, given the behaviour of Remainers - Brexit will give many millions of people a sense of agency. A feeling that, when it REALLY mattered, their vote counted, because Britain is a democracy. This is of incalculable value. Worth far more than 2% of GDP or whatever. No one is ignored, no matter how poor or humble.
Remainers don’t understand this because they have never felt ignored. They would throw this prize away because they are selfish, stupid and nasty.
Cliched drivel.
Remainers have never felt ignorned! Half the country are not all Eton educated, Oxbridge graduates, floating merrily above the law, earning millions per year whilst being incompetent but using our network of chums to get what we want rather than deserve.
The prosaic reality is most people whether leavers or remainers sometimes feel ignored by government, the status quo and society, at other times they are included. Given the breakdowns of votes by age, it is clear a lot of the young remainers feel ignored on tuition fees, housing or climate change for examples.
Half the country being selfish, stupid and nasty is just ridiculous. Most people are actually all right, with a fair few flaws thrown in, trying to navigate through as best we can.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
nah
HMG will double down, sell the debt to financial shysters and really piss off younger voters as they are hit with court demands and penal rates of interest.
Then wanker Willetts will come back telling us his foundation is really concerned why young people have no money.
I've really enjoyed the Mirror Universe saga over the summer - Johnson getting smashed on every vote, the resurrection of the LibDems, the did he lie to the Queen saga which gets resolved in today's episode, the brilliant Labour Party conference parody. I assume though that at some point Zarniwoop will tire of the alternate universe and return to his office on Ursa Minor Beta.
Will we find the real world a let down in comparison to the satirical alternative we're all still enjoying?
Speak for yourself RP, but I ain't enjoying this. It's a tragedy and a disgrace that's smashing our country to pieces.
Likewise. Amusing though @Cyclefree's header is this has been miserable and has done real damage to our country whatever the outcome.
Any outcome from here is bad. Whatever contortions parliament goes through we end up with something, a country, that is damaged.
I have no idea what any solution would comprise.
And what will happen? Brexitcast like the rest of us had it right we just don't know.
I've done my mourning some time ago.
As to what the solution will comprise, there will be no solution until Remainers accept that they have lost and Leavers accept that Brexit has been a disaster. Neither of those conditions has been met yet, nor will they be for a long time. So just settle back and enjoy the decline.
People speak as if everything was fine and dandy equally across the country on June 22nd 2016. What Brexit has done is reveal to people who benefited from modern politics how it feels to be on the other side. They probably didn’t realise how much help they were getting; when riding your bike, you never notice the wind blowing when it’s behind you
What an absolute drama queen she is. Totally lost the plot and her God complex has gone crazy. Time her parents took her away and sent her back to school. Total breakdown on the horizon.
Greta is a star, but a fragile one. She is after all a child. The UN know already what the issues are, they have just chosen to ignore them. Frankie Boyle is right.
There is value in stating your case clearly to people who are not interested in listening. Other people may be listening, and they may choose to act.
I do not think that Ms Thunberg believes that the politicians at the UN will suddenly start acting on their knowledge as she thinks necessary, but I think that she hopes that non-politicians the world over will be listening, and will choose to join future protests, to create the political pressure that politicians will have to respond to - or be swept aside by.
The problem with this is that Macron put uhas to be the answer.
I'm not sure I said any thing about making people poorer. There are ways to increase carbon taxes that are redistributive, for example the tax and dividend plan pushed by Hansen.
In any case, the whole point of of public campaigning on this issue is to push it higher up people's list of priorities. We've seen with brexit that people will vote to make themselves poorer, if they value what they hope to receive in exchange more highly.
I don’t think anybody thought they were voting to make themselves poorer as they were told the opposite by those making the leave case.
We're gonna save loads of money getting rid of the foreigners blocking up our hospitals.
Think how much more roomy our hospitals would be without all those foreign born doctors and nurses getting in the way, also the money we save on all their wages.
The number of foreign, non-EU nurses in the UK has doubled in a year.
People who hate foreigners hate foreigners. You think there won't come a time when some bright spark will ask why we have so many Philippino nurses working in the NHS taking jobs away from true Brits?
"Xenophobic lies" is a statement of fact, and one of the most important facts of the last decade. The manner in which the referendum was won was disastrous. Leavers have been trapped by the inexorable logic of the mandate they won.
really it isnt.
This is simply your take on people you have made little effort to understand. The UK remains one of the least racist places on the planet.
It's amazing that I can have made the point so many times and yet you still don't understand it. The campaign was founded and won on xenophobic lies. You seem to think I'm labelling all the people who voted.
The disaster was when a bunch of affluent reactionaries decided that it was worth pandering to xenophobia to win the vote to indulge their own mad prejudices, not realising or caring what that would mean after the vote was won.
bar some arseholes. the country continues to welcome thousands of people to live and work here, there arent riots on the streets or lynchings in the boondocks.
Immigration was an issue for the consequences it was seen to be having. Lower wages, overstretched services, social change packed in to small areas. We can all advance our yes no theories on whether this was correct or not, but for a big chunk of the population it was their perception. The politicians in situ responded to concerns by ignoring them, putting no countermeasures in places and then then demonising those who raised the issues. Mainstream politicians got Farage because they deserved him.
And still you miss the point. The framing of the post-referendum debate about how Leave must be implemented was set - correctly - by the referendum campaign. And it turns out, when you negotiate with red lines as set by that referendum campaign, you end up with a deal that is utterly detested by all and sundry.
That leads us directly to the current impasse, where one side wants to press ahead with a no deal Brexit, even if that results in us all eating grass, and the other side wants to call the whole thing off, waking up to Bobby Ewing in the shower. Neither side is anywhere near ready to make nice with the other. Nor will it be, until Remain confronts the fact that it lost and Leave confronts the fact that the whole premise on which the referendum was won has led to this disaster. But we're a long way from that point just yet.
Let’s say we do get to that point, with both the Leave and Remain sides reaching those realisations as you describe.
Yep, for a while now people have been pushing a mostly unwritten and informal constitutional system to breaking point, using and abusing. The EU for negotiating in bad faith, then refusing to get back to the table in any meaningful way when it became clear the WA was dead in Parliament. Boris’s Parliamentary tricks in response to Bercow’s tricks Corbyn’s refusal to table a vote of no confidence for political reasons, and Parliament’s collective refusal to vote for an election when the government has clearly lost its majority. Use by many parties of the courts in an activist manner, leading them to interfere in the running of politics.
There’s going to be many more that I missed from that list. Once the immediate crisis is over, with Brexit resolved in whatever way it is, there’s a serious need for a major constitutional convention, leading to roles and processes being formalised that until now have never needed to be - because everyone used to understand the rules and play the game fairly.
That reads like an extended tantrum. Many of the things that you refer to were normal procedural matters. Some (eg "Behaviour of Remain campaigners to try every trick to overturn the referendum result") are just paranoid nonsense.
By far the worst thing on that list is the thing you gloss over. "Boris's Parliamentary tricks" was, I take it, your way of referring to the suspension of Parliamentary democracy. This thing is not like the other things.
extended tantrum, "xenophobic lies", pot, kettle.
"Xenophobic lies" is a statement of fact, and one of the most important facts of the last decade. The manner in which the referendum was won was disastrous. Leavers have been trapped by the inexorable logic of the mandate they won.
You really are blind to what an unpleasant, bitter little man you come across as aren’t you? This is why the Remain campaign is ultimately doomed to lose.
And yet you are the one who resorts to ad hominem in response to an argued point.
Someone on here called me 'The lowest form of pond life'. Now THAT'S what I call an ad hominem!
Whatever the outcome of this court case, I find it depressing that we have ended up in this situation, whereby a massive legal case is deciding this issue rather than parliament.
But the court is just deciding what the law *is*. Parliament can change it if they don’t like it.
Quite. When there is a large blank space in the law, there aren't many other ways of filling it in.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
At the very least you’d think we could lift the veil now and call it what it is: a graduate tax but only on the young. That would then show what a regressive tax it is, since the richest get to stop paying after a while, and those of us too old to have been caught pay little towards the graduates the country needs.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
Right now, it might need votes from the Lib Dems to do anything about reforming the system...
I'm still astonished that the LibDems reneged on their tuition fees promise.
I've really enjoyed the Mirror Universe saga over the summer - Johnson getting smashed on every vote, the resurrection of the LibDems, the did he lie to the Queen saga which gets resolved in today's episode, the brilliant Labour Party conference parody. I assume though that at some point Zarniwoop will tire of the alternate universe and return to his office on Ursa Minor Beta.
Will we find the real world a let down in comparison to the satirical alternative we're all still enjoying?
Speak for yourself RP, but I ain't enjoying this. It's a tragedy and a disgrace that's smashing our country to pieces.
Likewise. Amusing though @Cyclefree's header is this has been miserable and has done real damage to our country whatever the outcome.
Any outcome from here is bad. Whatever contortions parliament goes through we end up with something, a country, that is damaged.
I have no idea what any solution would comprise.
And what will happen? Brexitcast like the rest of us had it right we just don't know.
I've done my mourning some time ago.
As to what the solution will comprise, there will be no solution until Remainers accept that they have lost and Leavers accept that Brexit has been a disaster. Neither of those conditions has been met yet, nor will they be for a long time. So just settle back and enjoy the decline.
People speak as if everything was fine and dandy equally across the country on June 22nd 2016. What Brexit has done is reveal to people who benefited from modern politics how it feels to be on the other side. They probably didn’t realise how much help they were getting; when riding your bike, you never notice the wind blowing when it’s behind you
Another myth peddled to justify Brexit. When economy slows (as everyone - even Leavers - agree it will) and the overall pie cannot keep up with the demand, it will be the poorer who suffer most.
No Boris won't vote for Corbyn as PM diehard Remainer MPs will but Corbyn as PM post extension is a Tory dream in Labour Leave seats while Remainers will still not trust Corbyn either after Labour refused to commit to back Remain this week
Boris doesn’t need to vote for Corbyn. If he resigns, Corbyn will probably be appointed. If he doesn’t resign, he will be forced to extend.
Snookered.
Boris will resign as PM rather than extend and take the Tories into opposition
Swinson and the LDs and Independents and anti No Deal Tory rebels likely vote down Corbyn as PM anyway but in the unlikely event Corbyn becomes PM and extends himself watch the Labour Leave seats fall to the Tories and Brexit Party like skittles at the next general election.
Snookered
There are no skittles in snooker. You are thinking of bar billiards. It is just about possible that an agreeable (to Corbyn, Swinson and Clarke) price for supporting a strictly splash-and-dash, extension and election, Labour minority government is a different PM, and if this looks likely (big if) that could be Laura Pidcock, Rebecca Long-Bailey or Dawn Butler (who I do not think is even quoted by the satchel-swingers).
A splash and dash extension is pretty useless.
It allows election followed by:
Revoke, No Deal or pre negotiated WA.
Where are we now? Revoke, No Deal or WA.
For election and referendum extend by a minimum of 7 months For election and renegotiate extend for a minimum of 10 months For election renegotiate and referendum extend for a minimum of 16 months
All assuming the election creates a decisive result.
Which is why the EU should grant us no further extensions.
They will. They are afraid of otherwise having to pick up negotiations in a situation where the UK had left and they could no longer not rely on Remainers here to kick the can down the road until the UK had changed its mind, leaving them to deal with the trade and budget contribution consequences in the meantime.
I think the penny has dropped in Brussels. We are not changing our mind. And the LibDems have just legitimised leaving without a further referendum as long as you have a majority in Parliament. Which will happen. So they might as well give up on ther wet dream of the UK remaining - and cast us adrift, asap.
There is value in stating your case clearly to people who are not interested in listening. Other people may be listening, and they may choose to act.
I do not think that Ms Thunberg believes that the politicians at the UN will suddenly start acting on their knowledge as she thinks necessary, but I think that she hopes that non-politicians the world over will be listening, and will choose to join future protests, to create the political pressure that politicians will have to respond to - or be swept aside by.
The problem with this is that Macron put up fuel taxes to help the environment and it spawned the gilets jaunes. In theory, people may pay lip service to the idea that economic growth is bad, but in reality no-one is going to tolerate being signficantly poorer. Any attempts to stop global warming through making people poorer is doomed to failure. Technology has to be the answer.
I'm not sure I said any thing about making people poorer. There are ways to increase carbon taxes that are redistributive, for example the tax and dividend plan pushed by Hansen.
In any case, the whole point of of public campaigning on this issue is to push it higher up people's list of priorities. We've seen with brexit that people will vote to make themselves poorer, if they value what they hope to receive in exchange more highly.
I don’t think anybody thought they were voting to make themselves poorer as they were told the opposite by those making the leave case.
We're gonna save loads of money getting rid of the foreigners blocking up our hospitals.
Think how much more roomy our hospitals would be without all those foreign born doctors and nurses getting in the way, also the money we save on all their wages.
The number of foreign, non-EU nurses in the UK has doubled in a year.
Stephen Kinnock on Labour Brexit policy on Sky News :
"We've had more positions than the Kamasutra."
Orgasmic ....
Alternatively, Labour know how to make even sex tedious...
Say it isn't so .... are we not awaiting, with 'mounting' anticipation, the memoir of Corbyn/Abbott and those historic and lusty travels through East Germany on a motorbike and side car?
If we all assume that prorogation is lawful - since governments do it all the time - then the issue at stake must be timing or procedural. Was the length of prorogation illegal? If so, why? Was there a separate procedural error made - the advice to the Queen? The odds are that it will go against the government but I'm unsure why.
I respect the Supreme Court but I feel they will try to protect her majesty which may not be good for Boris.
Regardless of the effects on London this will bring a certain amusement to millions of people living elsewhere:
Thousands of Extinction Rebellion (XR) activists are planning to shut down parts of central London for at least two weeks in October to demand governments take urgent action to tackle the climate crisis.
Organisers say the next round of protests, centred around parliament and surrounding government departments, will be bigger than those in April, when Extinction Rebellion activists brought key sites across the capital to a standstill for two weeks and more than 1,000 people were arrested.
It’s this sort of dickheadery that turns people off action on climate change.
What do they hope to achieve? Bring the economy to a grinding halt?
They are just the Left-wing equivalent of tungsten-tipped No Dealers. Worse, in fact, because at least the latter don’t try to deliberately block trade through our major ports and airports.
I've really enjoyed the Mirror Universe saga over the summer - Johnson getting smashed on every vote, the resurrection of the LibDems, the did he lie to the Queen saga which gets resolved in today's episode, the brilliant Labour Party conference parody. I assume though that at some point Zarniwoop will tire of the alternate universe and return to his office on Ursa Minor Beta.
Will we find the real world a let down in comparison to the satirical alternative we're all still enjoying?
Speak for yourself RP, but I ain't enjoying this. It's a tragedy and a disgrace that's smashing our country to pieces.
Likewise. Amusing though @Cyclefree's header is this has been miserable and has done real damage to our country whatever the outcome.
Any outcome from here is bad. Whatever contortions parliament goes through we end up with something, a country, that is damaged.
I have no idea what any solution would comprise.
And what will happen? Brexitcast like the rest of us had it right we just don't know.
The current shake up has been on the cards for quite some time for those who bothered to look. The politicos have ignored all the warning signs and continued as normal. A new consensus will emerge but it wont be quick.
If the shake up was going to address that pent up frustration then I would perhaps see some merit in that view. But Brexit was simply getting a bollocking from your boss at work, coming home, and kicking the dog.
It will solve nothing for those most in need.
If it is respected - a big IF, given the behaviour of Remainers - Brexit will give many millions of people a sense of agency. A feeling that, when it REALLY mattered, their vote counted, because Britain is a democracy. This is of incalculable value. Worth far more than 2% of GDP or whatever. No one is ignored, no matter how poor or humble.
Remainers don’t understand this because they have never felt ignored. They would throw this prize away because they are selfish, stupid and nasty.
Oh I get the democracy fact. The problem is that leavers are, by definition, morons (Brexiter has come to be used as urban slang as I'm sure you realise). Hence whatever nuances of democracy are involved will be lost on them. Because they are idiots.
If today is a Leaver day for you then you, likewise, are a moron and idiot. If you are having a remainer day then you will understand this.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
nah
HMG will double down, sell the debt to financial shysters and really piss off younger voters as they are hit with court demands and penal rates of interest.
Then wanker Willetts will come back telling us his foundation is really concerned why young people have no money.
Given that Boris wasn't an MP when Cameron and Clegg tripled tuition fees there is an opportunity here for a vote winning change.
Long Bailey isn't wonderful but she's miles better than Laura Pidcock. Yesterday and to day are the first time I've heard both speak at length. It's possible with time Long Bailey could be quite good. Infinitely more appealing to non cult members than Corbyn. Piddock just sounds like an affected moron. The other disappointment is Keir Starmer (Sir). For someone who reached the heights he did he's very inarticulate
Starmer is a lifeless plank. He’s symptomatic of a wider problem for Remainers: all their political leaders are either boring, or snobbish, or weird, or off-putting in some other way. They have no one with charisma, no one able to voice Remainer feelings with verve and plausibility. Leave had Farage and Boris, last time.
The C4 movie, Brexit, the Uncivil War, which I watched the other day, is very good on this. All the Remainers are boring and inert.
Mainstream Remain tends to become just a defence of the crappy half-in, half-out status we fell into - Euroscepticism lite. We need a new generation of truly pro-EU politicians to come to the fore.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
From the report:
"Student loans Improvements in the statistical treatment of student loans have added £12.4 billion to net borrowing in the financial year ending March 2019. Outlays are no longer all treated as conventional loans. Instead, we split lending into two components: a genuine loan to students and government spending. This new approach recognises that a significant proportion of student loan debt will never be repaid. We record government expenditure related to the expected cancellation of student loans in the period that loans are issued. Further, government revenue no longer includes interest accrued that will never be paid."
This seems in line with recognising that our student loans are essentially a graduate tax not a traditional loan. Given we have never been expecting most of the money back it seems to make more sense to me.
Recording interest on loans that no-one expects to be repaid as government revenue today, and then bad debt in 30 years time looks like it was a con? What am I missing?
Yep, for a while now people have been pushing a mostly unwritten and informal constitutional system to breaking point, using and abusing. The EU for negotiating in bad faith, then refusing to get back to the table in any meaningful way when it became clear the WA was dead in Parliament. Boris’s Parliamentary tricks in response to Bercow’s tricks Corbyn’s refusal to table a vote of no confidence for political reasons, and Parliament’s collective refusal to vote for an election when the government has clearly lost its majority. Use by many parties of the courts in an activist manner, leading them to interfere in the running of politics.
There’s going to be many more that I missed from that list. Once the immediate crisis is over, with Brexit resolved in whatever way it is, there’s a serious need for a major constitutional convention, leading to roles and processes being formalised that until now have never needed to be - because everyone used to understand the rules and play the game fairly.
That reads like an extended tantrum. Many of the things that you refer to were normal procedural matters. Some (eg "Behaviour of Remain campaigners to try every trick to overturn the referendum result") are just paranoid nonsense.
By far the worst thing on that list is the thing you gloss over. "Boris's Parliamentary tricks" was, I take it, your way of referring to the suspension of Parliamentary democracy. This thing is not like the other things.
extended tantrum, "xenophobic lies", pot, kettle.
"Xenophobic lies" is a statement of fact, and one of the most important facts of the last decade. The manner in which the referendum was won was disastrous. Leavers have been trapped by the inexorable logic of the mandate they won.
You really are blind to what an unpleasant, bitter little man you come across as aren’t you? This is why the Remain campaign is ultimately doomed to lose.
And yet you are the one who resorts to ad hominem in response to an argued point.
Smeone on here called me 'The lowest form of pond life'. Now THAT'S what I call an ad hominem!
Whatever the outcome of this court case, I find it depressing that we have ended up in this situation, whereby a massive legal case is deciding this issue rather than parliament.
But the court is just deciding what the law *is*. Parliament can change it if they don’t like it.
Quite. When there is a large blank space in the law, there aren't many other ways of filling it in.
There isn't a large blank space though. There is prerogative power filling that space.
I've really enjoyed the Mirror Universe saga over the summer - Johnson getting smashed on every vote, the resurrection of the LibDems, the did he lie to the Queen saga which gets resolved in today's episode, the brilliant Labour Party conference parody. I assume though that at some point Zarniwoop will tire of the alternate universe and return to his office on Ursa Minor Beta.
Will we find the real world a let down in comparison to the satirical alternative we're all still enjoying?
Speak for yourself RP, but I ain't enjoying this. It's a tragedy and a disgrace that's smashing our country to pieces.
Likewise. Amusing though @Cyclefree's header is this has been miserable and has done real damage to our country whatever the outcome.
Any outcome from here is bad. Whatever contortions parliament goes through we end up with something, a country, that is damaged.
I have no idea what any solution would comprise.
And what will happen? Brexitcast like the rest of us had it right we just don't know.
The current shake up has been on the cards for quite some time for those who bothered to look. The politicos have ignored all the warning signs and continued as normal. A new consensus will emerge but it wont be quick.
If the shake up was going to address that pent up frustration then I would perhaps see some merit in that view. But Brexit was simply getting a bollocking from your boss at work, coming home, and kicking the dog.
It will solve nothing for those most in need.
If it is respected - a big IF, given the behaviour of Remainers - Brexit will give many millions of people a sense of agency. A feeling that, when it REALLY mattered, their vote counted, because Britain is a democracy. This is of incalculable value. Worth far more than 2% of GDP or whatever. No one is ignored, no matter how poor or humble.
Remainers don’t understand this because they have never felt ignored. They would throw this prize away because they are selfish, stupid and nasty.
Oh I get the democracy fact. The problem is that leavers are, by definition, morons (Brexiter has come to be used as urban slang as I'm sure you realise). Hence whatever nuances of democracy are involved will be lost on them. Because they are idiots.
If today is a Leaver day for you then you, likewise, are a moron and idiot. If you are having a remainer day then you will understand this.
You really do need help
I hear he doesn't even read Guido Fawkes, proper lunatic...
"Xenophobic lies" is a statement of fact, and one of the most important facts of the last decade. The manner in which the referendum was won was disastrous. Leavers have been trapped by the inexorable logic of the mandate they won.
really it isnt.
This is simply your take on people you have made little effort to understand. The UK remains one of the least racist places on the planet.
It's amazing that I can have made the point so many times and yet you still don't understand it. The campaign was founded and won on xenophobic lies. You seem to think I'm labelling all the people who voted.
The disaster was when a bunch of affluent reactionaries decided that it was worth pandering to xenophobia to win the vote to indulge their own mad prejudices, not realising or caring what that would mean after the vote was won.
How valid would a remain victory have been if the same alleged xenophobic lies had not been told, and the racists had accordingly voted remain?
Did I say the Leave victory was not valid? I said it was disastrous because of the way in which it was won.
How disastrous would a remain victory have been, had it rested on the inertia voting of the racists
Since it would not obviously have led to the complete and extended breakdown of the political system with the country consumed by essential irrelevancies and the government seeking to suspend democracy for its own ends, not particularly disastrous.
If we all assume that prorogation is lawful - since governments do it all the time - then the issue at stake must be timing or procedural. Was the length of prorogation illegal? If so, why? Was there a separate procedural error made - the advice to the Queen? The odds are that it will go against the government but I'm unsure why.
I respect the Supreme Court but I feel they will try to protect her majesty which may not be good for Boris.
Would anyone be surprised if the SC stated that the Government lied to the Queen.
Equally would anyone be surprised if this Government shrugged it's shoulders and didn't do anything.
Yep, for a while now people have been pushing a mostly unwritten and informal constitutional system to breaking point, using and abusing. The EU for negotiating in bad faith, then refusing to get back to the table in any meaningful way when it became clear the WA was dead in Parliament. Boris’s Parliamentary tricks in response to Bercow’s tricks Corbyn’s refusal to table a vote of no confidence for political reasons, and Parliament’s collective refusal to vote for an election when the government has clearly lost its majority. Use by many parties of the courts in an activist manner, leading them to interfere in the running of politics.
There’s going to be many more that I missed from that list. Once the immediate crisis is over, with Brexit resolved in whatever way it is, there’s a serious need for a major constitutional convention, leading to roles and processes being formalised that until now have never needed to be - because everyone used to understand the rules and play the game fairly.
That reads like an extended tantrum. Many of the things that you refer to were normal procedural matters. Some (eg "Behaviour of Remain campaigners to try every trick to overturn the referendum result") are just paranoid nonsense.
By far the worst thing on that list is the thing you gloss over. "Boris's Parliamentary tricks" was, I take it, your way of referring to the suspension of Parliamentary democracy. This thing is not like the other things.
extended tantrum, "xenophobic lies", pot, kettle.
"Xenophobic lies" is a statement of fact, and one of the most important facts of the last decade. The manner in which the referendum was won was disastrous. Leavers have been trapped by the inexorable logic of the mandate they won.
You really are blind to what an unpleasant, bitter little man you come across as aren’t you? This is why the Remain campaign is ultimately doomed to lose.
And yet you are the one who resorts to ad hominem in response to an argued point.
Smeone on here called me 'The lowest form of pond life'. Now THAT'S what I call an ad hominem!
I'm sure we don't, Alan. But that is nothing to do with Brexit. To use a tired, cliched analogy (something that @Byronic might use for example), if you can't swim it won't do you any good to be thrown into the water to force you to learn.
I've really enjoyed the Mirror Universe saga over the summer - Johnson getting smashed on every vote, the resurrection of the LibDems, the did he lie to the Queen saga which gets resolved in today's episode, the brilliant Labour Party conference parody. I assume though that at some point Zarniwoop will tire of the alternate universe and return to his office on Ursa Minor Beta.
Will we find the real world a let down in comparison to the satirical alternative we're all still enjoying?
Speak for yourself RP, but I ain't enjoying this. It's a tragedy and a disgrace that's smashing our country to pieces.
Likewise. Amusing though @Cyclefree's header is this has been miserable and has done real damage to our country whatever the outcome.
Any outcome from here is bad. Whatever contortions parliament goes through we end up with something, a country, that is damaged.
I have no idea what any solution would comprise.
And what will happen? Brexitcast like the rest of us had it right we just don't know.
The current shake up has been on the cards for quite some time for those who bothered to look. The politicos have ignored all the warning signs and continued as normal. A new consensus will emerge but it wont be quick.
If the shake up was going to address that pent up frustration then I would perhaps see some merit in that view. But Brexit was simply getting a bollocking from your boss at work, coming home, and kicking the dog.
It will solve nothing for those most in need.
If it is respected - a big IF, given the behaviour of Remainers - Brexit will give many millions of people a sense of agency. A feeling that, when it REALLY mattered, their vote counted, because Britain is a democracy. This is of incalculable value. Worth far more than 2% of GDP or whatever. No one is ignored, no matter how poor or humble.
Remainers don’t understand this because they have never felt ignored. They would throw this prize away because they are selfish, stupid and nasty.
Oh I get the democracy fact. The problem is that leavers are, by definition, morons (Brexiter has come to be used as urban slang as I'm sure you realise). Hence whatever nuances of democracy are involved will be lost on them. Because they are idiots.
If today is a Leaver day for you then you, likewise, are a moron and idiot. If you are having a remainer day then you will understand this.
You really do need help
To help cope with the morons on this site? You betcha.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
From the report:
"Student loans Improvements in the statistical treatment of student loans have added £12.4 billion to net borrowing in the financial year ending March 2019. Outlays are no longer all treated as conventional loans. Instead, we split lending into two components: a genuine loan to students and government spending. This new approach recognises that a significant proportion of student loan debt will never be repaid. We record government expenditure related to the expected cancellation of student loans in the period that loans are issued. Further, government revenue no longer includes interest accrued that will never be paid."
This seems in line with recognising that our student loans are essentially a graduate tax not a traditional loan. Given we have never been expecting most of the money back it seems to make more sense to me.
Recording interest on loans that no-one expects to be repaid as government revenue today, and then bad debt in 30 years time looks like it was a con? What am I missing?
Nothing - it was off balance sheet financing and its right it has been stopped.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
nah
HMG will double down, sell the debt to financial shysters and really piss off younger voters as they are hit with court demands and penal rates of interest.
Then wanker Willetts will come back telling us his foundation is really concerned why young people have no money.
Given that Boris wasn't an MP when Cameron and Clegg tripled tuition fees there is an opportunity here for a vote winning change.
yup
1. free fees for sttudents 2. reset fees at £7k for unis 3. pay for it by removing Cameron Clegg DfiD nonsense.of 0.7% of GDP.
Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.
But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.
Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.
But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.
.
Their order of preference is Remain, soft Brexit, May Brexit, No Deal, undermine SM/screw Ireland brexit.
If Boris brings back May's deal he will have a rebellion in his own party. Can't see many Lab Mps backing it either.
Of course MPs will back it - if the alternative is No Deal. They have just spent the time since the EU extended parading their views on the awfulness of No Deal.
You forget that Boris and many in the Conservative Party have already voted for May's Deal. So it comes down to Labour. Are they going to permit No Deal? Really? What planet are you on?
We have a zombie government, an election is imminent. The EU will almost certainly extend to let that happen. So the choice for Labour MPs is to vote for the deal and give the Tories a 10pt boost in the polls, or force an extension that takes 10pts off the Tories and then have an election. They're not stupid.
If you think Boris is going to request an extension then you are deluded. He will resign as part of his Parliament vs People schtick. You have it the wrong way around - the best way to beat the Tories is to approve the WA which they authored, but do this subject to a confirmatory referendum. GONU put legislation through and then election happens. Other parties seen as sensible - Tories mad as a box of frogs.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
At the very least you’d think we could lift the veil now and call it what it is: a graduate tax but only on the young. That would then show what a regressive tax it is, since the richest get to stop paying after a while, and those of us too old to have been caught pay little towards the graduates the country needs.
People blame Willetts but it was George Osborne who stopped an actual graduate tax. This is more of an income-contingent loan scheme. Politically and economically stupid.
If I were blue-sky thinking at party hq (any party): 1) scrap all debts (with an hour in the stocks for those who said it would cost trillions when Labour floated it last time) 2) consider an actual graduate tax 3) for true radicals, make income tax more progressive
ETA: funny thing is there might be a case for income-contingent loans in other spheres including post-Brexit support of industry.
Yep, for a while now people have been pushing a mostly unwritten and informal constitutional system to breaking point, using and abusing. The EU for negotiating in bad faith, then refusing to get back to the table in any meaningful way when it became clear the WA was dead in Parliament. Boris’s Parliamentary tricks in response to Bercow’s tricks Corbyn’s refusal to table a vote of no confidence for political reasons, and Parliament’s collective refusal to vote for an election when the government has clearly lost its majority. Use by many parties of the courts in an activist manner, leading them to interfere in the running of politics.
There’s going to be many more that I missed from that list. Once the immediate crisis is over, with Brexit resolved in whatever way it is, there’s a serious need for a major constitutional convention, leading to roles and processes being formalised that until now have never needed to be - because everyone used to understand the rules and play the game fairly.
That reads like an extended tantrum. Many of the things that you refer to were normal procedural matters. Some (eg "Behaviour of Remain campaigners to try every trick to overturn the referendum result") are just paranoid nonsense.
By far the worst thing on that list is the thing you gloss over. "Boris's Parliamentary tricks" was, I take it, your way of referring to the suspension of Parliamentary democracy. This thing is not like the other things.
extended tantrum, "xenophobic lies", pot, kettle.
"Xenophobic lies" is a statement of fact, and one of the most important facts of the last decade. The manner in which the referendum was won was disastrous. Leavers have been trapped by the inexorable logic of the mandate they won.
You really are blind to what an unpleasant, bitter little man you come across as aren’t you? This is why the Remain campaign is ultimately doomed to lose.
And yet you are the one who resorts to ad hominem in response to an argued point.
Smeone on here called me 'The lowest form of pond life'. Now THAT'S what I call an ad hominem!
Whatever the outcome of this court case, I find it depressing that we have ended up in this situation, whereby a massive legal case is deciding this issue rather than parliament.
But the court is just deciding what the law *is*. Parliament can change it if they don’t like it.
On something like this, the law should be obvious. It isn't (two courts have decided in different ways), which is a failure of our system.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
At the very least you’d think we could lift the veil now and call it what it is: a graduate tax but only on the young. That would then show what a regressive tax it is, since the richest get to stop paying after a while, and those of us too old to have been caught pay little towards the graduates the country needs.
People blame Willetts but it was George Osborne who stopped an actual graduate tax. This is more of an income-contingent loan scheme. Politically and economically stupid.
If I were blue-sky thinking at party hq (any party): 1) scrap all debts (with an hour in the stocks for those who said it would cost trillions when Labour floated it last time) 2) consider an actual graduate tax 3) for true radicals, make income tax more progressive
ETA: funny thing is there might be a case for income-contingent loans in other spheres including post-Brexit support of industry.
Why is making income tax more progressive than a graduate tax?
Why is it progressive for people who havent gone to university (generally the less well off and privileged) to subsidise those who do? I am not questioning which one is better (can see arguments for either) but surely a graduate tax is almost by definition more progressive than additional income tax?
Question: if you actually introduced a graduate tax, would it be discriminatory to pay graduates more for doing the same job - to equalise the take home pay?
Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.
But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.
Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.
But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.
.
Their order of preference is Remain, soft Brexit, May Brexit, No Deal, undermine SM/screw Ireland brexit.
If Boris brings back May's deal he will have a rebellion in his own party. Can't see many Lab Mps backing it either.
Of course MPs will back it - if the alternative is No Deal. They have just spent the time since the EU extended parading their views on the awfulness of No Deal.
You forget that Boris and many in the Conservative Party have already voted for May's Deal. So it comes down to Labour. Are they going to permit No Deal? Really? What planet are you on?
We have a zombie government, an election is imminent. The EU will almost certainly extend to let that happen. So the choice for Labour MPs is to vote for the deal and give the Tories a 10pt boost in the polls, or force an extension that takes 10pts off the Tories and then have an election. They're not stupid.
If you think Boris is going to request an extension then you are deluded. He will resign as part of his Parliament vs People schtick. You have it the wrong way around - the best way to beat the Tories is to approve the WA which they authored, but do this subject to a confirmatory referendum. GONU put legislation through and then election happens. Other parties seen as sensible - Tories mad as a box of frogs.
I absolutely don't expect Johnson to request an extension, I think he will run away and make someone else do it. I still think that hurts the Tories more than Labour. Your suggestion is an alternative way forward, I think they will deliver similar outcomes.
Long Bailey isn't wonderful but she's miles better than Laura Pidcock. Yesterday and to day are the first time I've heard both speak at length. It's possible with time Long Bailey could be quite good. Infinitely more appealing to non cult members than Corbyn. Piddock just sounds like an affected moron. The other disappointment is Keir Starmer (Sir). For someone who reached the heights he did he's very inarticulate
Starmer is a lifeless plank. He’s symptomatic of a wider problem for Remainers: all their political leaders are either boring, or snobbish, or weird, or off-putting in some other way. They have no one with charisma, no one able to voice Remainer feelings with verve and plausibility. Leave had Farage and Boris, last time.
The C4 movie, Brexit, the Uncivil War, which I watched the other day, is very good on this. All the Remainers are boring and inert.
Mainstream Remain tends to become just a defence of the crappy half-in, half-out status we fell into - Euroscepticism lite. We need a new generation of truly pro-EU politicians to come to the fore.
Yes, when you consider the full-blooded pro-Europeans of yesteryear - Ken Clarke, Hezza, Churchill - it's clear that these men oozed persuasiveness and aplomb. You'll just never get that from meek time servers who always act with one fearful eye on the racist underbelly of the lower orders.
Whatever the outcome of this court case, I find it depressing that we have ended up in this situation, whereby a massive legal case is deciding this issue rather than parliament.
But the court is just deciding what the law *is*. Parliament can change it if they don’t like it.
Quite. When there is a large blank space in the law, there aren't many other ways of filling it in.
There isn't a large blank space though. There is prerogative power filling that space.
That extent of the gap, and whether it is wholly filled by the prerogative power, is also unknown for another fifteen minutes.
Major methodology changes to the government borrowing data re student loans and public sector pensions:
In the latest full financial year (April 2018 to March 2019), the overall impact of the methodology and data changes introduced this month have led to a £17.8 billion increase in borrowing and a £29.3 billion decrease in net debt at the end of March 2019 but have had no effect on net cash requirement.
The revised treatment of student loans following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £12.4 billion but had had no impact on net debt.
The revised treatment of pensions following methodology and data changes increased borrowing by £1.3 billion and reduced debt by £28.6 billion.
So if £10bn+ student loan bad debt is now going to be included in the government borrowing figures each year has the last reason for continuing with the current failed system been removed ?
At the very least you’d think we could lift the veil now and call it what it is: a graduate tax but only on the young. That would then show what a regressive tax it is, since the richest get to stop paying after a while, and those of us too old to have been caught pay little towards the graduates the country needs.
People blame Willetts but it was George Osborne who stopped an actual graduate tax. This is more of an income-contingent loan scheme. Politically and economically stupid.
If I were blue-sky thinking at party hq (any party): 1) scrap all debts (with an hour in the stocks for those who said it would cost trillions when Labour floated it last time) 2) consider an actual graduate tax 3) for true radicals, make income tax more progressive
ETA: funny thing is there might be a case for income-contingent loans in other spheres including post-Brexit support of industry.
Don’t disagree. The income contingent bit, when applied to degrees, ignores the fact that some brilliants research scientists (to give one example, but I could have written “poet”) will never earn all that much. The language of “having a degree guarantees you X more over your career” needs to stop.
Of course the really tricky bit would be that the more you move towards a more obviously tax funded solution, the more it looks attractive to prune the available degrees down to “proper” ones, which is an endless rabbit hole. The one feature off the current system is the “if you want to do it, crack on you’re paying for it” veneer.
Mr. Royale, forget where it was, but some poor soul was unable to say goodbye to his dying father because some self-righteous pricks had blocked a route to the hospital.
I would be interested in hearing an objective reason why Corbyn should be challenged for his membership elected position when the members largely backed him and Watson should remain in his membership elected position when the members largely don't back him.
Is there anyone who is shocked and horrified at the attempts to remove Watson who would also think it unfair if the membership wanted rid of Corbyn and were offered the chance?
There seems to be some confusing concept of democracy some Conservatives have were Labour members deciding Labour policy and positions against their wishes is 'undemocratic'
Quite frankly it would be more undemocratic if we allowed members of the ruling party to decide its major oppositions party policy (or elected positions) against the wishes of Labour members.
For it to be a democracy there can't be 2 guido fawkes parties out of the 2 major parties available, people need choice.
But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.
There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
Labour, Greens, SNP and maybe PC would work together to avoid a Tory government and hold a 2nd ref. There is every chance in terms of seat numbers that the SNP are more important than the Lib Dems.
I'm not going to bet on it but are there odds on SNP finishing with more seats than the Lib Dems? or the reverse?
Just curious how punters/bookmakers would have priced it.
I see the SNP somewhere in the low to mid 40s, I'd expect the Lib Dems to have more.
I'd price the Lib Dems somewhere around 1.75 favs
Please list the 30+ seats the Liberal Democrats are going to gain in order to overtake the Scottish National Party.
But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.
There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
Labour, Greens, SNP and maybe PC would work together to avoid a Tory government and hold a 2nd ref. There is every chance in terms of seat numbers that the SNP are more important than the Lib Dems.
I'm not going to bet on it but are there odds on SNP finishing with more seats than the Lib Dems? or the reverse?
Just curious how punters/bookmakers would have priced it.
I see the SNP somewhere in the low to mid 40s, I'd expect the Lib Dems to have more.
I'd price the Lib Dems somewhere around 1.75 favs
Please list the 30+ seats the Liberal Democrats are going to gain in order to overtake the Scottish National Party.
Does anyone else have any opinions on SNP vs Lib Dems most seats?
I was personally leaning towards the SNP (although not certain) with it being relatively close.
I would be interested in hearing an objective reason why Corbyn should be challenged for his membership elected position when the members largely backed him and Watson should remain in his membership elected position when the members largely don't back him.
Is there anyone who is shocked and horrified at the attempts to remove Watson who would also think it unfair if the membership wanted rid of Corbyn and were offered the chance?
There seems to be some confusing concept of democracy some Conservatives have were Labour members deciding Labour policy and positions against their wishes is 'undemocratic'
Quite frankly it would be more undemocratic if we allowed members of the ruling party to decide its major oppositions party policy (or elected positions) against the wishes of Labour members.
For it to be a democracy there can't be 2 guido fawkes parties out of the 2 major parties available, people need choice.
Those are fair-ish points. On the other hand, no one is proposing abolishing the leadership position...
But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.
There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
Labour, Greens, SNP and maybe PC would work together to avoid a Tory government and hold a 2nd ref. There is every chance in terms of seat numbers that the SNP are more important than the Lib Dems.
I'm not going to bet on it but are there odds on SNP finishing with more seats than the Lib Dems? or the reverse?
Just curious how punters/bookmakers would have priced it.
I see the SNP somewhere in the low to mid 40s, I'd expect the Lib Dems to have more.
I'd price the Lib Dems somewhere around 1.75 favs
Please list the 30+ seats the Liberal Democrats are going to gain in order to overtake the Scottish National Party.
Start with the seats that were held at the 2010 and 2005
But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.
There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
Labour, Greens, SNP and maybe PC would work together to avoid a Tory government and hold a 2nd ref. There is every chance in terms of seat numbers that the SNP are more important than the Lib Dems.
I'm not going to bet on it but are there odds on SNP finishing with more seats than the Lib Dems? or the reverse?
Just curious how punters/bookmakers would have priced it.
I see the SNP somewhere in the low to mid 40s, I'd expect the Lib Dems to have more.
I'd price the Lib Dems somewhere around 1.75 favs
Please list the 30+ seats the Liberal Democrats are going to gain in order to overtake the Scottish National Party.
I would be interested in hearing an objective reason why Corbyn should be challenged for his membership elected position when the members largely backed him and Watson should remain in his membership elected position when the members largely don't back him.
Is there anyone who is shocked and horrified at the attempts to remove Watson who would also think it unfair if the membership wanted rid of Corbyn and were offered the chance?
There seems to be some confusing concept of democracy some Conservatives have were Labour members deciding Labour policy and positions against their wishes is 'undemocratic'
Quite frankly it would be more undemocratic if we allowed members of the ruling party to decide its major oppositions party policy (or elected positions) against the wishes of Labour members.
For it to be a democracy there can't be 2 guido fawkes parties out of the 2 major parties available, people need choice.
Do you not understand anything? Tories want Jezza out and Tom (or Keir or at a pinch Ems) in and hence so should the Labour Party membership.
Question: if you actually introduced a graduate tax, would it be discriminatory to pay graduates more for doing the same job - to equalise the take home pay?
And how would the proposals take account of immigration and emigration, for both students and graduates?
I would be interested in hearing an objective reason why Corbyn should be challenged for his membership elected position when the members largely backed him and Watson should remain in his membership elected position when the members largely don't back him.
Is there anyone who is shocked and horrified at the attempts to remove Watson who would also think it unfair if the membership wanted rid of Corbyn and were offered the chance?
There seems to be some confusing concept of democracy some Conservatives have were Labour members deciding Labour policy and positions against their wishes is 'undemocratic'
Quite frankly it would be more undemocratic if we allowed members of the ruling party to decide its major oppositions party policy (or elected positions) against the wishes of Labour members.
For it to be a democracy there can't be 2 guido fawkes parties out of the 2 major parties available, people need choice.
Those are fair-ish points. On the other hand, no one is proposing abolishing the leadership position...
Happy to be corrected here but whilst the NEC could propose abolishing his position they couldn't force an election.
Worth noting that when Corbyn was challenged he was happy to go to the members, it was his opponents that wanted to stitch it up without the members say.
Undemocratic seems to mean Labour members voting for what they want and getting their way within Labour, presumably democratic would be if the Labour members were overruled and decisions were made in line with the wishes of Conservative members like Rottenborough....
People blame Willetts but it was George Osborne who stopped an actual graduate tax. This is more of an income-contingent loan scheme. Politically and economically stupid.
If I were blue-sky thinking at party hq (any party): 1) scrap all debts (with an hour in the stocks for those who said it would cost trillions when Labour floated it last time) 2) consider an actual graduate tax 3) for true radicals, make income tax more progressive
ETA: funny thing is there might be a case for income-contingent loans in other spheres including post-Brexit support of industry.
Don’t disagree. The income contingent bit, when applied to degrees, ignores the fact that some brilliants research scientists (to give one example, but I could have written “poet”) will never earn all that much. The language of “having a degree guarantees you X more over your career” needs to stop.
Of course the really tricky bit would be that the more you move towards a more obviously tax funded solution, the more it looks attractive to prune the available degrees down to “proper” ones, which is an endless rabbit hole. The one feature off the current system is the “if you want to do it, crack on you’re paying for it” veneer.
I thought the main driver for not calling it a tax is that a loan is collectable if graduates move overseas, and a tax is not.
I would be interested in hearing an objective reason why Corbyn should be challenged for his membership elected position when the members largely backed him and Watson should remain in his membership elected position when the members largely don't back him.
Is there anyone who is shocked and horrified at the attempts to remove Watson who would also think it unfair if the membership wanted rid of Corbyn and were offered the chance?
There seems to be some confusing concept of democracy some Conservatives have were Labour members deciding Labour policy and positions against their wishes is 'undemocratic'
Quite frankly it would be more undemocratic if we allowed members of the ruling party to decide its major oppositions party policy (or elected positions) against the wishes of Labour members.
For it to be a democracy there can't be 2 guido fawkes parties out of the 2 major parties available, people need choice.
Those are fair-ish points. On the other hand, no one is proposing abolishing the leadership position...
Happy to be corrected here but whilst the NEC could propose abolishing his position they couldn't force an election.
Worth noting that when Corbyn was challenged he was happy to go to the members, it was his opponents that wanted to stitch it up without the members say.
Undemocratic seems to mean Labour members voting for what they want and getting their way within Labour, presumably democratic would be if the Labour members were overruled and decisions were made in line with the wishes of Conservative members like Rottenborough....
There are already rules in place to permit a deputy leader challenge. Just as there are rules in place for a leadership challenge. Why not follow the rules rather than try to short circuit them?
People blame Willetts but it was George Osborne who stopped an actual graduate tax. This is more of an income-contingent loan scheme. Politically and economically stupid.
If I were blue-sky thinking at party hq (any party): 1) scrap all debts (with an hour in the stocks for those who said it would cost trillions when Labour floated it last time) 2) consider an actual graduate tax 3) for true radicals, make income tax more progressive
ETA: funny thing is there might be a case for income-contingent loans in other spheres including post-Brexit support of industry.
Don’t disagree. The income contingent bit, when applied to degrees, ignores the fact that some brilliants research scientists (to give one example, but I could have written “poet”) will never earn all that much. The language of “having a degree guarantees you X more over your career” needs to stop.
Of course the really tricky bit would be that the more you move towards a more obviously tax funded solution, the more it looks attractive to prune the available degrees down to “proper” ones, which is an endless rabbit hole. The one feature off the current system is the “if you want to do it, crack on you’re paying for it” veneer.
I thought the main driver for not calling it a tax is that a loan is collectable if graduates move overseas, and a tax is not.
The main driver was that Osborne remembered what had happened to President "read my lips: no new taxes" Bush snr.
I would be interested in hearing an objective reason why Corbyn should be challenged for his membership elected position when the members largely backed him and Watson should remain in his membership elected position when the members largely don't back him.
Is there anyone who is shocked and horrified at the attempts to remove Watson who would also think it unfair if the membership wanted rid of Corbyn and were offered the chance?
There seems to be some confusing concept of democracy some Conservatives have were Labour members deciding Labour policy and positions against their wishes is 'undemocratic'
Quite frankly it would be more undemocratic if we allowed members of the ruling party to decide its major oppositions party policy (or elected positions) against the wishes of Labour members.
For it to be a democracy there can't be 2 guido fawkes parties out of the 2 major parties available, people need choice.
Do you not understand anything? Tories want Jezza out and Tom (or Keir or at a pinch Ems) in and hence so should the Labour Party membership.
Ahh yes, that is why the right wing press is constantly bigging up Jezza and attacking Tom for being against him...
I remember my friend telling me how he convinced his sister she was torturing him by forcing him to eat her smarties. I think she was probably like 4 or something at the time though, it is a bit of a tougher trick to pull off on adults.
People blame Willetts but it was George Osborne who stopped an actual graduate tax. This is more of an income-contingent loan scheme. Politically and economically stupid.
If I were blue-sky thinking at party hq (any party): 1) scrap all debts (with an hour in the stocks for those who said it would cost trillions when Labour floated it last time) 2) consider an actual graduate tax 3) for true radicals, make income tax more progressive
ETA: funny thing is there might be a case for income-contingent loans in other spheres including post-Brexit support of industry.
Don’t disagree. The income contingent bit, when applied to degrees, ignores the fact that some brilliants research scientists (to give one example, but I could have written “poet”) will never earn all that much. The language of “having a degree guarantees you X more over your career” needs to stop.
Of course the really tricky bit would be that the more you move towards a more obviously tax funded solution, the more it looks attractive to prune the available degrees down to “proper” ones, which is an endless rabbit hole. The one feature off the current system is the “if you want to do it, crack on you’re paying for it” veneer.
I thought the main driver for not calling it a tax is that a loan is collectable if graduates move overseas, and a tax is not.
The USA has no issue collecting taxes from overseas earnings, presumably parliament, if it chose to do so, could legislate for a tax that is payable on overseas earnings.
What an absolute drama queen she is. Totally lost the plot and her God complex has gone crazy. Time her parents took her away and sent her back to school. Total breakdown on the horizon.
I agree.
We are witnessing a human tragedy.
Obviously, her parents bear the greatest responsibility, but I’m quite angry with the environmentalist movement. They have grossly abused a vulnerable individual. One messiah cannot make up for their grave lack of leadership over many decades. They need to step up and professionalise and stop relying on gifted individuals.
Comments
Remainers have never felt ignorned! Half the country are not all Eton educated, Oxbridge graduates, floating merrily above the law, earning millions per year whilst being incompetent but using our network of chums to get what we want rather than deserve.
The prosaic reality is most people whether leavers or remainers sometimes feel ignored by government, the status quo and society, at other times they are included. Given the breakdowns of votes by age, it is clear a lot of the young remainers feel ignored on tuition fees, housing or climate change for examples.
Half the country being selfish, stupid and nasty is just ridiculous. Most people are actually all right, with a fair few flaws thrown in, trying to navigate through as best we can.
I do wonder about the Electoral commission
HMG will double down, sell the debt to financial shysters and really piss off younger voters as they are hit with court demands and penal rates of interest.
Then wanker Willetts will come back telling us his foundation is really concerned why young people have no money.
I am reminded of this short story
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d317/ba42f5716881c691d652672f66de87b4d677.pdf
What happens then?
When there is a large blank space in the law, there aren't many other ways of filling it in.
Happy Supreme Court Day.
Which is 31st October.
I voted remain.
*Plenty of stupid remain voters out there as well.
Breathless I tell you, breathless !!
I respect the Supreme Court but I feel they will try to protect her majesty which may not be good for Boris.
What do they hope to achieve? Bring the economy to a grinding halt?
They are just the Left-wing equivalent of tungsten-tipped No Dealers. Worse, in fact, because at least the latter don’t try to deliberately block trade through our major ports and airports.
"Student loans
Improvements in the statistical treatment of student loans have added £12.4 billion to net borrowing in the financial year ending March 2019. Outlays are no longer all treated as conventional loans. Instead, we split lending into two components: a genuine loan to students and government spending. This new approach recognises that a significant proportion of student loan debt will never be repaid. We record government expenditure related to the expected cancellation of student loans in the period that loans are issued. Further, government revenue no longer includes interest accrued that will never be paid."
This seems in line with recognising that our student loans are essentially a graduate tax not a traditional loan. Given we have never been expecting most of the money back it seems to make more sense to me.
Recording interest on loans that no-one expects to be repaid as government revenue today, and then bad debt in 30 years time looks like it was a con? What am I missing?
Equally would anyone be surprised if this Government shrugged it's shoulders and didn't do anything.
1. free fees for sttudents
2. reset fees at £7k for unis
3. pay for it by removing Cameron Clegg DfiD nonsense.of 0.7% of GDP.
If I were blue-sky thinking at party hq (any party):
1) scrap all debts (with an hour in the stocks for those who said it would cost trillions when Labour floated it last time)
2) consider an actual graduate tax
3) for true radicals, make income tax more progressive
ETA: funny thing is there might be a case for income-contingent loans in other spheres including post-Brexit support of industry.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1176403500391194624
Why is it progressive for people who havent gone to university (generally the less well off and privileged) to subsidise those who do? I am not questioning which one is better (can see arguments for either) but surely a graduate tax is almost by definition more progressive than additional income tax?
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1176399040864563201?s=21
Of course the really tricky bit would be that the more you move towards a more obviously tax funded solution, the more it looks attractive to prune the available degrees down to “proper” ones, which is an endless rabbit hole. The one feature off the current system is the “if you want to do it, crack on you’re paying for it” veneer.
It's wretched behaviour.
Is there anyone who is shocked and horrified at the attempts to remove Watson who would also think it unfair if the membership wanted rid of Corbyn and were offered the chance?
There seems to be some confusing concept of democracy some Conservatives have were Labour members deciding Labour policy and positions against their wishes is 'undemocratic'
Quite frankly it would be more undemocratic if we allowed members of the ruling party to decide its major oppositions party policy (or elected positions) against the wishes of Labour members.
For it to be a democracy there can't be 2 guido fawkes parties out of the 2 major parties available, people need choice.
Or start reading and take ages to get to the point from 10.30?
I was personally leaning towards the SNP (although not certain) with it being relatively close.
On the other hand, no one is proposing abolishing the leadership position...
Presumably, this being the 21st century, the written judgement will be published before they hit the second hour of summing up though?
Worth noting that when Corbyn was challenged he was happy to go to the members, it was his opponents that wanted to stitch it up without the members say.
Undemocratic seems to mean Labour members voting for what they want and getting their way within Labour, presumably democratic would be if the Labour members were overruled and decisions were made in line with the wishes of Conservative members like Rottenborough....
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
https://twitter.com/BrianUkulele/status/1176428883366821888?s=20
I remember my friend telling me how he convinced his sister she was torturing him by forcing him to eat her smarties. I think she was probably like 4 or something at the time though, it is a bit of a tougher trick to pull off on adults.
We are witnessing a human tragedy.
Obviously, her parents bear the greatest responsibility, but I’m quite angry with the environmentalist movement. They have grossly abused a vulnerable individual. One messiah cannot make up for their grave lack of leadership over many decades. They need to step up and professionalise and stop relying on gifted individuals.