Boris is in a very different place to when he faced Paxman.
I can’t imagine it going terribly well for him with Neil. It will take stern stuff to get through it unscathed.
He’s got to avoid the usual tactic of squirming around a question and confront it head on. Neil does his research and he’ll disdainfully attack him if he doesnt, as we saw with Corbyn. I’m not sure Boris is capable of doing that though. So it might be best to stock up on popcorn.
I am sure Boris will do OK with the one-on-one interview.
Andrew Neil really is an excellent interviewer and takes no prisoners. With the BBC's recent track record of editing Johnson's gaffes, I suspect Neil will be substituted for Zoe Ball.
Would be good practice for when Boris does next year's Strictly.
Will that be the new show "Strictly come rioting"?
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, it's good for him that (in the headlines at least) most of the interview is getting drowned out by the Anti-Semitism.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
@timmo I would have voted for Corbyn's Labour if it wasn't for Brexit. I don't trust that he has the strength or the will of mind after the Brexit situation, he is easily swayed by bad people who take advantage of his politeness.He is a man who shows his age unlike last time. However I have no doubt that people would have voted for a Harry Perkins populist, after all Farage, Corbyn and Boris are populists of different flavours.
@humbugger Labour is outspending the Conservatives by 45 times in campaign promises. Even Osborne relaxed austerity temporarily in the run up to the 2015 election, but this time the number of unemployed since the last election has increased to the highest since December 2013. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployed-persons The Conservatives, unlike 2015 and 2017, are going into an election with the economy in bad shape, they need to promise voters better times.
The number of unemployed is over a million lower than it was in 2013.
Speedy, I can't square that with this ONS data which suggests that the number of unemployed people, along with the proportion of the workforce, is falling
The tradingeconomics figures show that employment, both full time and part time are at all time peaks. The increase in the gross number of unemployed reflects a growing population, not an increase in the rate of unemployment which is within 0.1% of its all time low.
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
The strange thing is, Corbyn could have suggested that the return on capital of, say, utilities companies, exceeds (almost by definition) the amount payable by government on its bonds. But he didn't.
You think that these companies would remain profitable in public ownership? Well, its a view.
The way the current Labour leadership treat nationalisation is nothing short of comical. At least with Attlee et al it was about principle, now it's about somehow nationalising the profits whilst taking away the profit motive from the equation at the same time and freezing prices. The profit margin on the railways is around 3%-4%, at best (it was the former in a paper I read yesterday). Even if you take out the howwible howwible executives pay the margin barely shifts due to scale which means they will be wiped in two years max, then fares rise and we are back at the start.
Finally caught up with @afneil’s Corbyn interview after a long night on a train. The antisemitism and foreign policy segments were painful viewing, but imho the real reputational damage came from seeing how stunningly fiscally innumerate he is, especially on his own policies
There is a thread by Adam Langleben on Twitter about an anti-semitic member of his local party which is worth reading. The content is pretty unpleasant. For some reason I cannot post it. Labour really ought - if serious - to be coming down on this like a ton of bricks. At a bare minimum it is simply too slow and ineffective.
The issue is not whether Corbyn is himself anti-semitic but whether he is capable of the leadership necessary to stop these sorts of people joining, behaving like this and of getting rid of them when they come to light. That is the issue. And so far he seems quite incapable of doing so - and, at worst, unwilling.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
As I seem to recall, a few threads ago someone said that antisemitism in Labour was limited to just a few people. Well then that would make it easy to deal with: just kick the bu**ers out.
Trouble is, if Corbyn loses too many votes by his, umm, flexible attitudes towards Brexit and antisemitism we may get the shallow games playing "showman" (thanks Beibheirli_C) Boris.
Potentially damaging for Labour but I wonder if Johnson going on last is a bit of a tactical error, as it is what people will remember - assuming he does a bad job of course, maybe he will wow all of us.
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
Trouble is, although next to no one understands QE, a lot of people are vaguely aware that since the financial crisis there’s been ongoing jiggerypokery that somehow creates money. And the world hasn’t ended nor the roof fallen in. QE makes it much easier for politicians to get away with promising unlimited spending.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Now that there is auto enrolment? A heck of a lot more than ten years ago.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Lots and lots of "self employed people" whose earnings are a combination of salary and dividends from their own limited companies. And lots of pensioners who rely on dividends to supplement their pensions.
Can any Corbynites explain how the investments will be repaid at the maturity of their nationalisation bonds? Or does it not matter to you people?
I'm not a Corbynite, and I don't support nationalisation, but this is an ill-framed criticism.
At the end of the bond period, the government will continue to own the utility in question, and will roll-over the bonds, as it does with principally the whole of the government loan book.
New bonds are issued approximately every fortnight.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
A very large number have dividends added to their pension pots and together with others it will be very high
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Lots and lots of "self employed people" whose earnings are a combination of salary and dividends from their own limited companies. And lots of pensioners who rely on dividends to supplement their pensions.
It's never felt right to me that unearned income is taxed at a lower overall rate than earned income.
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
Trouble is, although next to no one understands QE, a lot of people are vaguely aware that since the financial crisis there’s been ongoing jiggerypokery that somehow creates money. And the world hasn’t ended nor the roof fallen in. QE makes it much easier for politicians to get away with promising unlimited spending.
There is something to be said for a few years of double digit inflation. It is historically the way that house prices return to baseline.
Potentially damaging for Labour but I wonder if Johnson going on last is a bit of a tactical error, as it is what people will remember - assuming he does a bad job of course, maybe he will wow all of us.
I doubt he will wow us all.
He is easily floored, just like when he was launching the manifesto, and the journalist asked a simple question about the Tories changing their Twitter @ to fact check uk.
There is a thread by Adam Langleben on Twitter about an anti-semitic member of his local party which is worth reading. The content is pretty unpleasant. For some reason I cannot post it. Labour really ought - if serious - to be coming down on this like a ton of bricks. At a bare minimum it is simply too slow and ineffective.
The issue is not whether Corbyn is himself anti-semitic but whether he is capable of the leadership necessary to stop these sorts of people joining, behaving like this and of getting rid of them when they come to light. That is the issue. And so far he seems quite incapable of doing so - and, at worst, unwilling.
The voters don't care. Apart from the Jewish ones, but there aren't enough of them for Labour to be that bothered.
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
Trouble is, although next to no one understands QE, a lot of people are vaguely aware that since the financial crisis there’s been ongoing jiggerypokery that somehow creates money. And the world hasn’t ended nor the roof fallen in. QE makes it much easier for politicians to get away with promising unlimited spending.
People need to know that it's really perverse financial jiggery-pokery that will be pretending to pay for the proposed Labour nationalisations.
Curse of the new thread: this is what Boris reduced the terror of politicos, Jeremy Paxman, to.
An interesting watch with seven years distance. Boris saying he is going to be Paxman's campaign manager to be next PM - and Paxo's exasperation about being sidetracked - is quite wonderful.
@DavidL It's true, that's how the employment statistics have the unemployment rate at an all time low despite the nominal number increasing by almost 50% in 2.5 years. But I have no doubt that the economy is worse than in 2017 and it's a drag for the Government, figures for production, business and consumer confidence are lower than last time, the number of unemployed is an extra drag.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Lots and lots of "self employed people" whose earnings are a combination of salary and dividends from their own limited companies. And lots of pensioners who rely on dividends to supplement their pensions.
It's never felt right to me that unearned income is taxed at a lower overall rate than earned income.
That's because it accounts for the tax being paid by the company making the dividends, as dividends are made out of taxed income.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Lots and lots of "self employed people" whose earnings are a combination of salary and dividends from their own limited companies. And lots of pensioners who rely on dividends to supplement their pensions.
It's never felt right to me that unearned income is taxed at a lower overall rate than earned income.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Most pensioners? And so, in time, most people.
Really? Do you meant directly or indirectly through their private pensions?
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
We had this discussion on the previous thread . Of course it’s borrowing but most of the public don’t know that . There’s no need to shout we get the message.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Most pensioners? And so, in time, most people.
Really? Do you meant directly or indirectly through their private pensions?
There is a thread by Adam Langleben on Twitter about an anti-semitic member of his local party which is worth reading. The content is pretty unpleasant. For some reason I cannot post it. Labour really ought - if serious - to be coming down on this like a ton of bricks. At a bare minimum it is simply too slow and ineffective.
The issue is not whether Corbyn is himself anti-semitic but whether he is capable of the leadership necessary to stop these sorts of people joining, behaving like this and of getting rid of them when they come to light. That is the issue. And so far he seems quite incapable of doing so - and, at worst, unwilling.
Trouble is, the miscreants are overwhelmingly "his people".
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Lots and lots of "self employed people" whose earnings are a combination of salary and dividends from their own limited companies. And lots of pensioners who rely on dividends to supplement their pensions.
It's never felt right to me that unearned income is taxed at a lower overall rate than earned income.
Dividends are not unearned for the self employeds I described. It's entirely right that the income is paid as dividends because the income is uncertain, not regular and the reward for risk taking on the part of these people. Corbyn is hammering them, and many of them earn much less than £80,000 per annum.
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
We had this discussion on the previous thread . Of course it’s borrowing but most of the public don’t know that . There’s no need to shout we get the message.
And you're ok with that? Who are you expecting to repay it?
Finally caught up with @afneil’s Corbyn interview after a long night on a train. The antisemitism and foreign policy segments were painful viewing, but imho the real reputational damage came from seeing how stunningly fiscally innumerate he is, especially on his own policies
PBS editorial standards somewhat lacking in this post.
Corbyn may very well have tanked with Neil, but a bunch of dodgy tweets (including Leave.Eu FFS) and a ripped off clip somewhat undermines the point.
Leave EU? Weren't they last seen screeching that Boris had 'surrendered to a kraut' after Angela outmanoeuvred him over some Brexit matter or other? Their intervention can only garner sympathy for Jezza, which perhaps is what they want.
Interesting theme from Canterbury students. Pro Labour, anti Corbyn. Fascinating.
My daughter goes Liverpool uni and a lot of her fellow students are going for Boris not because they think he’s great but because of Corbyn (although I think the scouse students are prob still corbyn 😀)
Potentially damaging for Labour but I wonder if Johnson going on last is a bit of a tactical error, as it is what people will remember - assuming he does a bad job of course, maybe he will wow all of us.
I expect Boris to take a pummelling but he has a lot more gravitas and bluster and may not be quite as damaged as Corbyn has been tonight.
The car crash is headlining all the papers including the guardian and will continue tomorrow and be ever present as he dodges journalists demanding he apologises. Beth Rigby of Sky said he was delayed for his own speech today by crowds chanting racist at him
Potentially damaging for Labour but I wonder if Johnson going on last is a bit of a tactical error, as it is what people will remember - assuming he does a bad job of course, maybe he will wow all of us.
Tactical? I'm assuming the running order was supplied by the BBC?
Everyone does know that bonds have to pay the interest and then repay the initial investment, right?
Not always, I think some War Loan was irredeemable.
The genie is out of the bottle here. Not only did QE result in printing money to buy bonds, even in the Osborne era the "profit" the Bank of England made was declared to its owners (the government) and counted as revenue.
This is a bad line for Conservatives to focus on, it just invites "if we can print £375bn to bail out bankers, why can't we find £58bn for widows and orphans / women who have paid in all their lives".
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
Trouble is, although next to no one understands QE, a lot of people are vaguely aware that since the financial crisis there’s been ongoing jiggerypokery that somehow creates money. And the world hasn’t ended nor the roof fallen in. QE makes it much easier for politicians to get away with promising unlimited spending.
There is something to be said for a few years of double digit inflation. It is historically the way that house prices return to baseline.
@DavidL It's true, that's how the employment statistics have the unemployment rate at an all time low despite the nominal number increasing by almost 50% in 2.5 years. But I have no doubt that the economy is worse than in 2017 and it's a drag for the Government, figures for production, business and consumer confidence are lower than last time, the number of unemployed is an extra drag.
Have you been able to reconcile that with the ONS figures which show the absolute number falling?
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
Trouble is, although next to no one understands QE, a lot of people are vaguely aware that since the financial crisis there’s been ongoing jiggerypokery that somehow creates money. And the world hasn’t ended nor the roof fallen in. QE makes it much easier for politicians to get away with promising unlimited spending.
There is something to be said for a few years of double digit inflation. It is historically the way that house prices return to baseline.
Would doubtless be accompanied by mass unemployment and very high interest rates. Lower house prices are useless if people still can't afford to buy the homes, or food for that matter. And a lot of the existing mortgage holders are being ruined and ending up living in cardboard boxes under bridges.
Potentially damaging for Labour but I wonder if Johnson going on last is a bit of a tactical error, as it is what people will remember - assuming he does a bad job of course, maybe he will wow all of us.
I expect Boris to take a pummelling but he has a lot more gravitas and bluster and may not be quite as damaged as Corbyn has been tonight.
The car crash is headlining all the papers including the guardian and will continue tomorrow and be ever present as he dodges journalists demanding he apologises. Beth Rigby of Sky said he was delayed for his own speech today by crowds chanting racist at him
I think you are allowing what you wish for to colour your predictions Big_G. Boris has a number of qualities - gravitas is certainly not one of them. I suspect tonight's interview will be forgotten by Friday (I may be wrong but things move fast during a GE campaign).
On the subject of dividends, Corbyn wants all of us to own the companies we work for so that dividends flow back to "the workers". Is he taxing them in the workers' hands?
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
Trouble is, although next to no one understands QE, a lot of people are vaguely aware that since the financial crisis there’s been ongoing jiggerypokery that somehow creates money. And the world hasn’t ended nor the roof fallen in. QE makes it much easier for politicians to get away with promising unlimited spending.
There is something to be said for a few years of double digit inflation. It is historically the way that house prices return to baseline.
So it was hoped at the outset. Instead, QE has driven asset prices ever upwards whilst barely impacting on ‘ordinary’ inflation at all.
Can any Corbynites explain how the investments will be repaid at the maturity of their nationalisation bonds? Or does it not matter to you people?
I'm not a Corbynite, and I don't support nationalisation, but this is an ill-framed criticism.
At the end of the bond period, the government will continue to own the utility in question, and will roll-over the bonds, as it does with principally the whole of the government loan book.
New bonds are issued approximately every fortnight.
Potentially damaging for Labour but I wonder if Johnson going on last is a bit of a tactical error, as it is what people will remember - assuming he does a bad job of course, maybe he will wow all of us.
I expect Boris to take a pummelling but he has a lot more gravitas and bluster and may not be quite as damaged as Corbyn has been tonight.
The car crash is headlining all the papers including the guardian and will continue tomorrow and be ever present as he dodges journalists demanding he apologises. Beth Rigby of Sky said he was delayed for his own speech today by crowds chanting racist at him
Bozo has the gravitas of a marshmallow. Look at the idiot he made of himself as FS, FFS. And bluster won’t get him very far with Neil.
@DavidL It's true, that's how the employment statistics have the unemployment rate at an all time low despite the nominal number increasing by almost 50% in 2.5 years. But I have no doubt that the economy is worse than in 2017 and it's a drag for the Government, figures for production, business and consumer confidence are lower than last time, the number of unemployed is an extra drag.
The economy has grown since 2017 and the government deficit has fallen but there is no doubt that we have probably seen the best of the UK employment miracle. Things have very much plateaued in the last few quarters as continuing uncertainty about Brexit has delayed investment. There are signs that the government deficit is also starting to increase again which is a concern because our debt/GDP ratio is still dangerously high.
Absolutely none of these issues, which are likely to trouble the next government, would be made better by Corbyn's absurd plans. They would be multiple times worse. The deficit would soar, investment would collapse, unemployment would rise sharply and borrowing would become more expensive as our credit rating deteriorated with horrendous consequences for current spending as existing debt was rolled over at greater cost. Anyone who is serious about protecting public services simply cannot vote Labour. Oh for the days when the likes of Ed Balls was in charge of the finances. Then we had a credible choice.
@TheWhiteRabbit Their statistics claim to be from the Office of National Statistics. This is what they write in their latest report: "The number of unemployed persons in The United Kingdom increased to 1218 Thousand in October of 2019 from 1185 Thousand in September of 2019. Unemployed Persons in the United Kingdom averaged 1515.55 Thousand from 1971 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 3090 Thousand in July of 1986 and a record low of 422.60 Thousand in December of 1973. source: Office for National Statistics" You can send an email to tradingeconomics asking them why their published number is different.
@DavidL It's true, that's how the employment statistics have the unemployment rate at an all time low despite the nominal number increasing by almost 50% in 2.5 years. But I have no doubt that the economy is worse than in 2017 and it's a drag for the Government, figures for production, business and consumer confidence are lower than last time, the number of unemployed is an extra drag.
There was an interesting report a couple of weeks back explaining the high employment rates but lack of feel good factor and depressed consumer confidence. Quite though provoking.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Most pensioners? And so, in time, most people.
Really? Do you meant directly or indirectly through their private pensions?
About 20% of households hold some shares but the majority of them have only a few (probably ex privatisation shares I would guess) and trade them rarely.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
@DavidL It's true, that's how the employment statistics have the unemployment rate at an all time low despite the nominal number increasing by almost 50% in 2.5 years. But I have no doubt that the economy is worse than in 2017 and it's a drag for the Government, figures for production, business and consumer confidence are lower than last time, the number of unemployed is an extra drag.
Have you been able to reconcile that with the ONS figures which show the absolute number falling?
I think Speedy might be looking at data on people who are claiming a specific type of government benefit IIRC the claimant count rather than the number who are unemployed.
Can any Corbynites explain how the investments will be repaid at the maturity of their nationalisation bonds? Or does it not matter to you people?
Ooh please sir, please sir may I be allowed to answer? It doesn't matter a tuppeny fuck. No one who is thinking of voting Lab will care where or how he got his figures, or indeed if, as he demonstrated this evening, he was pulling them out of his arse. They care that his heart is in the right place and that he is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The rest is details. Billions, quillions, kabillions. Who cares?
Everyone does know that bonds have to pay the interest and then repay the initial investment, right?
Not always, I think some War Loan was irredeemable.
The genie is out of the bottle here. Not only did QE result in printing money to buy bonds, even in the Osborne era the "profit" the Bank of England made was declared to its owners (the government) and counted as revenue.
This is a bad line for Conservatives to focus on, it just invites "if we can print £375bn to bail out bankers, why can't we find £58bn for widows and orphans / women who have paid in all their lives".
Corbyn, McDonnell and their devoted followers really ought to admit how much they're planning to increase government borrowing by. I know they won't and so it needs pointing out as often as possible.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Most pensioners? And so, in time, most people.
Really? Do you meant directly or indirectly through their private pensions?
About 20% of households hold some shares but the majority of them have only a few (probably ex privatisation shares I would guess) and trade them rarely.
Sounds right. Dividends are a minority interest, even more so than IHT.
Curse of the new thread: this is what Boris reduced the terror of politicos, Jeremy Paxman, to.
An interesting watch with seven years distance. Boris saying he is going to be Paxman's campaign manager to be next PM - and Paxo's exasperation about being sidetracked - is quite wonderful.
Comes across as two posh journalists having a love-in. Boris was seen as something of a harmless novelty back then: something to be prodded and chuckled at. Hopefully AN has more professional pride and won't demonstrate such a dereliction of duty.
Can any Corbynites explain how the investments will be repaid at the maturity of their nationalisation bonds? Or does it not matter to you people?
Ooh please sir, please sir may I be allowed to answer? It doesn't matter a tuppeny fuck. No one who is thinking of voting Lab will care where or how he got his figures, or indeed if, as he demonstrated this evening, he was pulling them out of his arse. They care that his heart is in the right place and that he is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The rest is details. Billions, quillions, kabillions. Who cares?
Anyone with any sense cares. I'm not surprised Corbynites don't.
@DavidL It's true, that's how the employment statistics have the unemployment rate at an all time low despite the nominal number increasing by almost 50% in 2.5 years. But I have no doubt that the economy is worse than in 2017 and it's a drag for the Government, figures for production, business and consumer confidence are lower than last time, the number of unemployed is an extra drag.
Have you been able to reconcile that with the ONS figures which show the absolute number falling?
I think Speedy might be looking at data on people who are claiming a specific type of government benefit IIRC the claimant count rather than the number who are unemployed.
Just in case anyone here didn't get it from the last thread (and no apology for the shouting) GOVERNMENT BONDS ARE BORROWING. Do any Corbynites want to disagree?
Trouble is, although next to no one understands QE, a lot of people are vaguely aware that since the financial crisis there’s been ongoing jiggerypokery that somehow creates money. And the world hasn’t ended nor the roof fallen in. QE makes it much easier for politicians to get away with promising unlimited spending.
There is something to be said for a few years of double digit inflation. It is historically the way that house prices return to baseline.
Would doubtless be accompanied by mass unemployment and very high interest rates. Lower house prices are useless if people still can't afford to buy the homes, or food for that matter. And a lot of the existing mortgage holders are being ruined and ending up living in cardboard boxes under bridges.
Apart from that it'll be wonderful.
I am not making a case for high inflation and high interest rates. I remember being screwed by them with my first mortgage in the nineties, but the era of rock bottom rates has to end. It was quite painful for a few years, but it did bring down house prices and wipe out negative equity after the Eighties house price boom.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
@DavidL I agree that a Corbyn government would be a disaster, but not on borrowing costs. In theory the only limit for a sovereign government's deficit is the printing press , value of it's currency, and inflation. But as Japan and America has showed in today's world there is no limit to deficits, even Greece has had negative intererst rates this year.
Can any Corbynites explain how the investments will be repaid at the maturity of their nationalisation bonds? Or does it not matter to you people?
Ooh please sir, please sir may I be allowed to answer? It doesn't matter a tuppeny fuck. No one who is thinking of voting Lab will care where or how he got his figures, or indeed if, as he demonstrated this evening, he was pulling them out of his arse. They care that his heart is in the right place and that he is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The rest is details. Billions, quillions, kabillions. Who cares?
Anyone with any sense cares. I'm not surprised Corbynites don't.
After the financial crisis and QE, people aren’t frightened of illions any more.
This is the third or fourth time I've seen somebody mention the shy Labour effect - do people think it's a real phenomenon? I can't imagine a shy Tory effect this time around.
I believe it. Corbyn is pretty darn bad, hence why the polling goes down so much between elections, then people return to Labour to beat the Tories (and overall he is better in a campaign, so people can fool themselves that he will be ok), which explains why the party polling recovers, but his drag on the vote persists enough that they will out perform the polls again.
Potentially damaging for Labour but I wonder if Johnson going on last is a bit of a tactical error, as it is what people will remember - assuming he does a bad job of course, maybe he will wow all of us.
I expect Boris to take a pummelling but he has a lot more gravitas and bluster and may not be quite as damaged as Corbyn has been tonight.
The car crash is headlining all the papers including the guardian and will continue tomorrow and be ever present as he dodges journalists demanding he apologises. Beth Rigby of Sky said he was delayed for his own speech today by crowds chanting racist at him
Bozo has the gravitas of a marshmallow. Look at the idiot he made of himself as FS, FFS. And bluster won’t get him very far with Neil.
His only hope is that because he always looks pretty bad in interviews/debates etc, that when he looks bad against Neil it won't be that different from usual. That's the thing about Corbyn - he is usually so mellow of manner that when he does cast off the friendly grandpa schtick and gets pissy and petulant it is quite memorable. I'd be hard pressed to recall one crap Johnson performance from another, since they are always good and bad in the same way - bluster and waffle, entertaining at best, annoying at worst.
Can any Corbynites explain how the investments will be repaid at the maturity of their nationalisation bonds? Or does it not matter to you people?
Ooh please sir, please sir may I be allowed to answer? It doesn't matter a tuppeny fuck. No one who is thinking of voting Lab will care where or how he got his figures, or indeed if, as he demonstrated this evening, he was pulling them out of his arse. They care that his heart is in the right place and that he is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The rest is details. Billions, quillions, kabillions. Who cares?
Anyone with any sense cares. I'm not surprised Corbynites don't.
After the financial crisis and QE, people aren’t frightened of illions any more.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Most pensioners? And so, in time, most people.
Really? Do you meant directly or indirectly through their private pensions?
About 20% of households hold some shares but the majority of them have only a few (probably ex privatisation shares I would guess) and trade them rarely.
Sounds right. Dividends are a minority interest, even more so than IHT.
I don’t think that link considers pensions. The reality is that almost anyone without access to a final salary pension has exposure to the market and would be affected by changes to dividend taxation etc. They won’t realise this though.
Still chuckling at BigG’s suggestion that Boris has gravitas. Boris clearly has and exploits a seductive charm for various manipulative ends, but he is yet to achieve gravitas.
Quite. Boris does have appeal, but seriousness, solemnity, dignity, these are not part of them. Honestly I don't think he would suggest he has gravitas, it's his ability to connect, however superficially, his charm, that are his strengths.
Still chuckling at BigG’s suggestion that Boris has gravitas.
Boris clearly has and exploits a seductive charm for various manipulative ends, but he is yet to achieve gravitas.
Those PB Tories pointing pitifully at voters returning to Labour despite Corbyn might do well to look in the collective mirror and observe Big G cheerleading for someone he has spent the entire year condemning.
We are never going to get better or even different politics if people won’t vote for it.
This is the third or fourth time I've seen somebody mention the shy Labour effect - do people think it's a real phenomenon? I can't imagine a shy Tory effect this time around.
I believe it. Corbyn is pretty darn bad, hence why the polling goes down so much between elections, then people return to Labour to beat the Tories (and overall he is better in a campaign, so people can fool themselves that he will be ok), which explains why the party polling recovers, but his drag on the vote persists enough that they will out perform the polls again.
Potentially damaging for Labour but I wonder if Johnson going on last is a bit of a tactical error, as it is what people will remember - assuming he does a bad job of course, maybe he will wow all of us.
I expect Boris to take a pummelling but he has a lot more gravitas and bluster and may not be quite as damaged as Corbyn has been tonight.
The car crash is headlining all the papers including the guardian and will continue tomorrow and be ever present as he dodges journalists demanding he apologises. Beth Rigby of Sky said he was delayed for his own speech today by crowds chanting racist at him
Bozo has the gravitas of a marshmallow. Look at the idiot he made of himself as FS, FFS. And bluster won’t get him very far with Neil.
His only hope is that because he always looks pretty bad in interviews/debates etc, that when he looks bad against Neil it won't be that different from usual. That's the thing about Corbyn - he is usually so mellow of manner that when he does cast off the friendly grandpa schtick and gets pissy and petulant it is quite memorable. I'd be hard pressed to recall one crap Johnson performance from another, since they are always good and bad in the same way - bluster and waffle, entertaining at best, annoying at worst.
Corbyn draws energy from an anti-Tory, anti-Establishment sentiment. Shrewder minds might pause before delighting too much from Corbyns troubles with Neil tonight, they might just be what he needs.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
I was under the impression that EC underestimated potential regional effects such as LDs doing well in London and the SE. But in any event the seat outcome is perfectly plausible.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
Potentially damaging for Labour but I wonder if Johnson going on last is a bit of a tactical error, as it is what people will remember - assuming he does a bad job of course, maybe he will wow all of us.
I expect Boris to take a pummelling but he has a lot more gravitas and bluster and may not be quite as damaged as Corbyn has been tonight.
The car crash is headlining all the papers including the guardian and will continue tomorrow and be ever present as he dodges journalists demanding he apologises. Beth Rigby of Sky said he was delayed for his own speech today by crowds chanting racist at him
I think you are allowing what you wish for to colour your predictions Big_G. Boris has a number of qualities - gravitas is certainly not one of them. I suspect tonight's interview will be forgotten by Friday (I may be wrong but things move fast during a GE campaign).
Sorry if I gave the impression if I think Boris will have an easy ride and he will not
However, it is look away time for Corbyn supporters and I very much doubt this will blow over quickly
It has been suggested the chief rabbi timed this intervention to inflict maximum damage to Corbyn and I think that may be correct
@DavidL It's true, that's how the employment statistics have the unemployment rate at an all time low despite the nominal number increasing by almost 50% in 2.5 years. But I have no doubt that the economy is worse than in 2017 and it's a drag for the Government, figures for production, business and consumer confidence are lower than last time, the number of unemployed is an extra drag.
There was an interesting report a couple of weeks back explaining the high employment rates but lack of feel good factor and depressed consumer confidence. Quite though provoking.
Can any Corbynites explain how the investments will be repaid at the maturity of their nationalisation bonds? Or does it not matter to you people?
Ooh please sir, please sir may I be allowed to answer? It doesn't matter a tuppeny fuck. No one who is thinking of voting Lab will care where or how he got his figures, or indeed if, as he demonstrated this evening, he was pulling them out of his arse. They care that his heart is in the right place and that he is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The rest is details. Billions, quillions, kabillions. Who cares?
Anyone with any sense cares. I'm not surprised Corbynites don't.
After the financial crisis and QE, people aren’t frightened of illions any more.
Comments
I can’t imagine it going terribly well for him with Neil. It will take stern stuff to get through it unscathed.
He’s got to avoid the usual tactic of squirming around a question and confront it head on. Neil does his research and he’ll disdainfully attack him if he doesnt, as we saw with Corbyn. I’m not sure Boris is capable of doing that though. So it might be best to stock up on popcorn.
I would have voted for Corbyn's Labour if it wasn't for Brexit.
I don't trust that he has the strength or the will of mind after the Brexit situation, he is easily swayed by bad people who take advantage of his politeness.He is a man who shows his age unlike last time.
However I have no doubt that people would have voted for a Harry Perkins populist, after all Farage, Corbyn and Boris are populists of different flavours.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsc/unem
In percentage terms unemployment is at its lowest since 1974:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms
The profit margin on the railways is around 3%-4%, at best (it was the former in a paper I read yesterday). Even if you take out the howwible howwible executives pay the margin barely shifts due to scale which means they will be wiped in two years max, then fares rise and we are back at the start.
Finally caught up with @afneil’s Corbyn interview after a long night on a train. The antisemitism and foreign policy segments were painful viewing, but imho the real reputational damage came from seeing how stunningly fiscally innumerate he is, especially on his own policies
The issue is not whether Corbyn is himself anti-semitic but whether he is capable of the leadership necessary to stop these sorts of people joining, behaving like this and of getting rid of them when they come to light. That is the issue. And so far he seems quite incapable of doing so - and, at worst, unwilling.
And to be fair they will both probably be right.
At the end of the bond period, the government will continue to own the utility in question, and will roll-over the bonds, as it does with principally the whole of the government loan book.
New bonds are issued approximately every fortnight.
https://www.dmo.gov.uk/data/pdfdatareport?reportCode=D5D
He is easily floored, just like when he was launching the manifesto, and the journalist asked a simple question about the Tories changing their Twitter @ to fact check uk.
And gets angry far too easily
It's true, that's how the employment statistics have the unemployment rate at an all time low despite the nominal number increasing by almost 50% in 2.5 years.
But I have no doubt that the economy is worse than in 2017 and it's a drag for the Government, figures for production, business and consumer confidence are lower than last time, the number of unemployed is an extra drag.
The car crash is headlining all the papers including the guardian and will continue tomorrow and be ever present as he dodges journalists demanding he apologises. Beth Rigby of Sky said he was delayed for his own speech today by crowds chanting racist at him
A valiant effort, but I expect there will be some counterpoint from Owen bloody Jones in due course.
This is a bad line for Conservatives to focus on, it just invites "if we can print £375bn to bail out bankers, why can't we find £58bn for widows and orphans / women who have paid in all their lives".
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsc/unem
Apart from that it'll be wonderful.
Boris has a number of qualities - gravitas is certainly not one of them.
I suspect tonight's interview will be forgotten by Friday (I may be wrong but things move fast during a GE campaign).
Bozo has the gravitas of a marshmallow. Look at the idiot he made of himself as FS, FFS. And bluster won’t get him very far with Neil.
Absolutely none of these issues, which are likely to trouble the next government, would be made better by Corbyn's absurd plans. They would be multiple times worse. The deficit would soar, investment would collapse, unemployment would rise sharply and borrowing would become more expensive as our credit rating deteriorated with horrendous consequences for current spending as existing debt was rolled over at greater cost. Anyone who is serious about protecting public services simply cannot vote Labour. Oh for the days when the likes of Ed Balls was in charge of the finances. Then we had a credible choice.
Their statistics claim to be from the Office of National Statistics.
This is what they write in their latest report:
"The number of unemployed persons in The United Kingdom increased to 1218 Thousand in October of 2019 from 1185 Thousand in September of 2019. Unemployed Persons in the United Kingdom averaged 1515.55 Thousand from 1971 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 3090 Thousand in July of 1986 and a record low of 422.60 Thousand in December of 1973. source: Office for National Statistics"
You can send an email to tradingeconomics asking them why their published number is different.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1196134828305010690?s=19
Defn: Dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner.
Antonyms: see Boris Johnson.
About 20% of households hold some shares but the majority of them have only a few (probably ex privatisation shares I would guess) and trade them rarely.
I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split).
In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped.
What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat?
Could be an interesting outcome.
But that interview is off the scale. Incredible.
It doesn't matter a tuppeny fuck. No one who is thinking of voting Lab will care where or how he got his figures, or indeed if, as he demonstrated this evening, he was pulling them out of his arse.
They care that his heart is in the right place and that he is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
The rest is details. Billions, quillions, kabillions. Who cares?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/outofworkbenefits/timeseries/bcja/unem
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
Boris clearly has and exploits a seductive charm for various manipulative ends, but he is yet to achieve gravitas.
I agree that a Corbyn government would be a disaster, but not on borrowing costs.
In theory the only limit for a sovereign government's deficit is the printing press , value of it's currency, and inflation.
But as Japan and America has showed in today's world there is no limit to deficits, even Greece has had negative intererst rates this year.
Leaving this for CorrectHorseBattery:
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's the thing about Corbyn - he is usually so mellow of manner that when he does cast off the friendly grandpa schtick and gets pissy and petulant it is quite memorable.
I'd be hard pressed to recall one crap Johnson performance from another, since they are always good and bad in the same way - bluster and waffle, entertaining at best, annoying at worst.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1199456553226719232/photo/1
We are never going to get better or even different politics if people won’t vote for it.
However, it is look away time for Corbyn supporters and I very much doubt this will blow over quickly
It has been suggested the chief rabbi timed this intervention to inflict maximum damage to Corbyn and I think that may be correct
A lot of people are doing very nicely and this exposes the frustrated expectations of those that aren't.
Debt and housing affordability are key factors.