Ian Blackford is making a valid point but he could have done with not wasting a question on a rather silly gotcha.
It's a setup to pointing out that statutory sickpay in Ireland is more than twice that of the UK. It's not really a question. Johnson didn't have a good (or relevant) response to that point.
given UK is at bottom of every table against developed world it is hardly any surprise
Sounds like he’s serious about fiscal rules - not going to go above a 3% deficit throughout this parliament and to ensure headline debt is falling again by the end.
Any borrowing numbers or claims he says today are relatively meaningless.
Forthcoming budgets post-virus may be different.
True but the mood music is “I am not another Gordon Brown.”
He’s not going to be irresponsible with the public finances.
He's hardly going to come out and say that he's a grasshopper rather than an ant. Doesn't mean that he's telling the truth.
Gordon Brown was endlessly going on about prudence. A successor chancellor who has opened up the spigot is going to try to look responsible, even as he raids the earnings of future generations.
He was but he was constantly breaking his own rules.
Sunak is being very clear here that he isn’t going to do that.
God give me chastity, but not yet.
It’s an emergency budget. You said do yourself.
Gordon Brown made a habit of it with every budget from 2002 onwards.
I will be happy to revise my view in 2022-2023 if I’m wrong.
What absolutely nobody is considering is that Corona might be contained quite quickly, and that the authorities will have conducted a massive stimulus program on what is fundamantally a pretty robust global economy.
Which wouldn;t make it a winter, but a blazing summer.
Coronavirus can be contained quite quickly, but at significant economic cost.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You do this. And (congratulations!) Coronavirus cases drop to a few tens a day.
You then loosen up those restrictions... and Coronavirus comes roaring back. Because the way you stop it spreading by restricting human interaction (and economic activity).
And this is why all governments will end up choosing essentially the same strategy until a virus or cure is discovered: quarantine until case numbers decline markedly... loosen restrictions, and allow the case load to rise again... when it reaches a certain level... quarantine again.
This avoids health services getting overwhelmed. It minimises deaths. It's all good, except it's a bummer for the economy. Now, we can deal with this. The UK government (unlike the US one) is not running a big deficit. We implement measures to make sure that people don't lose their homes or their businesses over the period, and to encourage firms to keep staff on rather than letting them go. (And for the record, I think our government is doing a good job here.) But it still won't be much fun.
It’s funny, you see the language used by critics of trans rights and it is eerily similar to that which was used by critics of gay rights a few decades ago.
Won’t someone please think of the children.
Looks completely different to me, depending upon what you mean by "trans rights"?
If you mean people like women's rights activists including some notable names on this site the arguments look nothing like "please think of the children"
The "trans people in women's changing rooms" chat is identical to "why Lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms" chat back in the day.
It's word for word.
It’s a question of balancing rights between women and trans women
Changing rooms are not particularly significant.
Refuges matter.
womens rights should not be trashed by a vocal minority group
It’s funny, you see the language used by critics of trans rights and it is eerily similar to that which was used by critics of gay rights a few decades ago.
Won’t someone please think of the children.
Looks completely different to me, depending upon what you mean by "trans rights"?
If you mean people like women's rights activists including some notable names on this site the arguments look nothing like "please think of the children"
The "trans people in women's changing rooms" chat is identical to "why Lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms" chat back in the day.
It's word for word.
It’s a question of balancing rights between women and trans women
Changing rooms are not particularly significant.
Refuges matter.
And refuges can exclude trans women. They are specifically allowed to.
What absolutely nobody is considering is that Corona might be contained quite quickly, and that the authorities will have conducted a massive stimulus program on what is fundamantally a pretty robust global economy.
Which wouldn;t make it a winter, but a blazing summer.
Coronavirus can be contained quite quickly, but at significant economic cost.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You do this. And (congratulations!) Coronavirus cases drop to a few tens a day.
You then loosen up those restrictions... and Coronavirus comes roaring back. Because the way you stop it spreading by restricting human interaction (and economic activity).
And this is why all governments will end up choosing essentially the same strategy until a virus or cure is discovered: quarantine until case numbers decline markedly... loosen restrictions, and allow the case load to rise again... when it reaches a certain level... quarantine again.
This avoids health services getting overwhelmed. It minimises deaths. It's all good, except it's a bummer for the economy. Now, we can deal with this. The UK government (unlike the US one) is not running a big deficit. We implement measures to make sure that people don't lose their homes or their businesses over the period, and to encourage firms to keep staff on rather than letting them go. (And for the record, I think our government is doing a good job here.) But it still won't be much fun.
The biggest risk to sentiment is that people think the quarantine is intended to defeat the virus, whereas the truth is that an epidemic is expected as soon as the quarantine is lifted. Authorities simply hope that this epidemic will be more manageable than the one we would have had.
Folks who have spent a fortnight indoors watching Netflix aren’t prepared for the renewed epidemic that will follow their quarantine being lifted.
Sounds like he’s serious about fiscal rules - not going to go above a 3% deficit throughout this parliament and to ensure headline debt is falling again by the end.
Any borrowing numbers or claims he says today are relatively meaningless.
Forthcoming budgets post-virus may be different.
True but the mood music is “I am not another Gordon Brown.”
He’s not going to be irresponsible with the public finances.
He's hardly going to come out and say that he's a grasshopper rather than an ant. Doesn't mean that he's telling the truth.
Gordon Brown was endlessly going on about prudence. A successor chancellor who has opened up the spigot is going to try to look responsible, even as he raids the earnings of future generations.
He was but he was constantly breaking his own rules.
Sunak is being very clear here that he isn’t going to do that.
God give me chastity, but not yet.
It’s an emergency budget. You said do yourself.
Gordon Brown made a habit of it with every budget from 2002 onwards.
I will be happy to revise my view in 2022-2023 if I’m wrong.
You have this naive idea that Rishi Sunak will still be Chancellor if he doesn't do what Boris Johnson wants. This is a government that will be spunking money all the way to the next election.
What absolutely nobody is considering is that Corona might be contained quite quickly, and that the authorities will have conducted a massive stimulus program on what is fundamantally a pretty robust global economy.
Which wouldn;t make it a winter, but a blazing summer.
Coronavirus can be contained quite quickly, but at significant economic cost.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You do this. And (congratulations!) Coronavirus cases drop to a few tens a day.
You then loosen up those restrictions... and Coronavirus comes roaring back. Because the way you stop it spreading by restricting human interaction (and economic activity).
And this is why all governments will end up choosing essentially the same strategy until a virus or cure is discovered: quarantine until case numbers decline markedly... loosen restrictions, and allow the case load to rise again... when it reaches a certain level... quarantine again.
This avoids health services getting overwhelmed. It minimises deaths. It's all good, except it's a bummer for the economy. Now, we can deal with this. The UK government (unlike the US one) is not running a big deficit. We implement measures to make sure that people don't lose their homes or their businesses over the period, and to encourage firms to keep staff on rather than letting them go. (And for the record, I think our government is doing a good job here.) But it still won't be much fun.
The biggest risk to sentiment is that people think the quarantine is intended to defeat the virus, whereas the truth is that an epidemic is expected as soon as the quarantine is lifted. Authorities simply hope that this epidemic will be more manageable than the one we would have had.
Folks who have spent a fortnight indoors watching Netflix aren’t prepared for the renewed epidemic that will follow their quarantine being lifted.
Well I think it will also be hoped that it gives some breathing round to try and a) build up capacity in the system and b) that best practice / helpful drug regime have been found, so that then people do start appearing you don't get a meltdown of the system and more people can be saved.
I can confirm that Portcullis House was still packed yesterday. And still plenty of handshakes from MPs.
And as I said the day before, the Houses of Parliament still seemed to have masses of young people wandering around the place in groups. Not all of which were British, by the sound of them. Maybe the time to curtail those at least?
If only to protect the young.
Sorry to repeat what I said downthread, but purely from a risk management point of view, looking not just at likelihood but the severity of consequences, it would make sense to apply stricter rules (compared to what the general public are being advised to do) around MPs and particularly the Cabinet. We have quite a lot of older MPs, MPs seem to mix a lot with each other and with other senior figures which looks like a ripe situation for spreading viruses (and indeed virus spreading among the elite seems to have happened in Iran, France, Italy...) and this would not be an ideal time for senior leadership (not just politicos but the top end of the civil service) being sent home to self-isolate, let alone ending up in hospital.
The fact that even fairly simple measures don't seem to be being taken makes me wonder whether separate risk assessments for our top tier of government are not being undertaken? Or if they are, whether the risk has been deemed to be very low, e.g. because community transmission is considered highly unlikely?
No, it’s because they know already that the virus can’t be stopped. The purpose of the isolation and the rest is now delay, to buy time and spread the load on the NHS. They will want to make an exception for themselves, give their “key” role and the difficulty of going into isolation, and one small group won’t make that much difference on the global impact on health services.
The challenge they are going to have is persuading people to do one thing whilst doing something different themselves,
It's true that measures for the general population are largely designed with transmission reduction to "flatten the curve" in mind. But from a risk management perspective, it's rational to apply different measures to different groups depending on their probability of exposure, how bad it would be if they caught the virus, who they could spread it to etc. Suggesting healthcare workers don masks but the rest of us don't is a classic example.
Given how we've seen the virus circulate around the elite of Iran, France and Italy, taking additional steps to prevent it incapacitating our political leadership, civil service chiefs and top advisers would seem pretty sensible to me. MPs press a lot of flesh, which makes them unusually likely to contract the disease, and have contact with a lot of senior people, so can do unusually high levels of damage if they spread it.
Aside from the questionable wisdom of hundreds of MPs sitting cheek by jowl, might they consider cutting down on handshakes, meetings with community groups, and having hundreds of people touring the Palace of Westminster? It might even be rational (as some suggest downthread, but I think it's unlikely to be happening) for MPs and Cabinet members especially to follow a different testing protocol.
It’s funny, you see the language used by critics of trans rights and it is eerily similar to that which was used by critics of gay rights a few decades ago.
Won’t someone please think of the children.
Looks completely different to me, depending upon what you mean by "trans rights"?
If you mean people like women's rights activists including some notable names on this site the arguments look nothing like "please think of the children"
The "trans people in women's changing rooms" chat is identical to "why Lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms" chat back in the day.
It's word for word.
That 'lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms' is a straw man if ever there was one. I never heard anyone express such an argument. Why? because lesbians are indistiguishable biologically from other women for a start.
Trans people have penises in many cases, right?
He is talking through a hole in his arse, just utter crap
Here's something I hadn't thought of before. (Regarding the US, not the UK budget.)
The US is running a big budget deficit - 5% of GDP. In the post WW2 world, that's a number that has only been reached about five times. Three times during the Global Financial Crisis, once in the early 80s recession, and once when the US faced the trifecta of the Vietnam War, the first oil shock and the cost of putting a man on the moon.
The US was running this deficit when - how to put this - the sun was shining and economic growth was reasonable. How big could the deficit get with the economic slowdown associate with the Coronavirus? 10%? More?
Now, it may well be that deficits don't matter any more (see Japan). But it may also be that this conclusively marks the point at which any pretence of fiscal prudence is abandoned by the countries of the world. This marks the point at which monetisation of debt - i.e. printing money to pay bills - becomes de rigeur for every country.
If (print and) deficit spend becomes universal, then it can only end with money becoming devalued. The political pressure will always be to spend that extra dollar/euro/pound and to get that economy moving. (Vroom vroom.)
Basically: if you own 30 Year Treasuries yielding a massive... 1.2%... then you might be in for a very nasty shock at some point.
So buy Gold and Index Linked Bonds. Which has been a sensible position for any investor for some time.
Meanwhile Rishi ensures that we can continue drowning our sorrows in wine, beer and spirits.
Sounds like he’s serious about fiscal rules - not going to go above a 3% deficit throughout this parliament and to ensure headline debt is falling again by the end.
Any borrowing numbers or claims he says today are relatively meaningless.
Forthcoming budgets post-virus may be different.
True but the mood music is “I am not another Gordon Brown.”
He’s not going to be irresponsible with the public finances.
He's hardly going to come out and say that he's a grasshopper rather than an ant. Doesn't mean that he's telling the truth.
Gordon Brown was endlessly going on about prudence. A successor chancellor who has opened up the spigot is going to try to look responsible, even as he raids the earnings of future generations.
He was but he was constantly breaking his own rules.
Sunak is being very clear here that he isn’t going to do that.
God give me chastity, but not yet.
It’s an emergency budget. You said do yourself.
Gordon Brown made a habit of it with every budget from 2002 onwards.
I will be happy to revise my view in 2022-2023 if I’m wrong.
You have this naive idea that Rishi Sunak will still be Chancellor if he doesn't do what Boris Johnson wants. This is a government that will be spunking money all the way to the next election.
Better than spunking it on benefits as your lot would do
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You might think so but my Amazon purchase history for the last 2 weeks indicates that these measures *increase* aggregate demand.
It’s funny, you see the language used by critics of trans rights and it is eerily similar to that which was used by critics of gay rights a few decades ago.
Won’t someone please think of the children.
Looks completely different to me, depending upon what you mean by "trans rights"?
If you mean people like women's rights activists including some notable names on this site the arguments look nothing like "please think of the children"
The "trans people in women's changing rooms" chat is identical to "why Lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms" chat back in the day.
It's word for word.
That 'lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms' is a straw man if ever there was one. I never heard anyone express such an argument. Why? because lesbians are indistiguishable biologically from other women for a start.
Trans people have penises in many cases, right?
He is talking through a hole in his arse, just utter crap
Last year the family of a lesbian had to sue to stop her being excluded at school
It makes sense. As he said in the speech electricity is more carbon-friendly than gas but government's have been taxing electricity more than gas - while imploring people to replace boilers with electricity-based alternatives.
If government is to be serious about green issues then we should be looking soon to start getting taxes on electricity DOWN and taxes on alternatives up as switching fuels from gas or petrol to windfarm electricity is far greener.
... 4. What women object to is having some men, some of whom claim to be trans, telling women what womanhood means and seeking to deny the realities of female experiences, as if womanhood is simply something that you can assert and has no objective reality. 5. They also object to them shouting down and bullying women who ask that their views and experiences and concerns be listened to and taken into account. For centuries women have had men telling them how to behave, what they can or can’t do, what being a “lady” or “femininity” means. Now we’re being told what even being a woman means. No. just no. We have a voice and we want to be listened to too. ...
I agree with all the other points. On these two, my own strategy is to ignore the shouters. As you say, I have my own voice too.
Exactly. And I agree with you that what is often forgotten is the pain which trans people suffer - largely it seems to me because (1) there is little effective care for them; and (2) too many activists are more interested in fighting an ideological battle rather than getting practical help.
I would like (1) to be addressed but, as I know from family experience, medical and other help for the young in relation to this and similar issue is very patchy indeed. And it causes real distress to those affected. Rectifying that is where we should be concentrating our energies, IMO.
Well I think it will also be hoped that it gives some breathing round to try and a) build up capacity in the system and b) that best practice / helpful drug regime have been found, so that then people do start appearing you don't get a meltdown of the system and more people can be saved.
Absolutely. It also resets the clock by (say) six weeks. So you drop to 10 cases a day... and then it takes six to eight weeks to increase five fold to 320 to 640 a day... and then you reimplement it.
As we'll get continually better at treating it (and an increasing proportion of the country get immunity), you would think each iteration would be less severe. And, of course, summer comes and slows the virus down too.
It's a sensible way of managing it, which minimises deaths and results in only modest economic downside.
Of course, in the US, they're completely unaware there's a problem, and will leave it far later before implementing a quarantine, which will have to be that much more severe because they left it longer, resulting in many more deaths and much greater economic impact.
Sounds like he’s serious about fiscal rules - not going to go above a 3% deficit throughout this parliament and to ensure headline debt is falling again by the end.
Any borrowing numbers or claims he says today are relatively meaningless.
Forthcoming budgets post-virus may be different.
True but the mood music is “I am not another Gordon Brown.”
He’s not going to be irresponsible with the public finances.
He's hardly going to come out and say that he's a grasshopper rather than an ant. Doesn't mean that he's telling the truth.
Gordon Brown was endlessly going on about prudence. A successor chancellor who has opened up the spigot is going to try to look responsible, even as he raids the earnings of future generations.
He was but he was constantly breaking his own rules.
Sunak is being very clear here that he isn’t going to do that.
God give me chastity, but not yet.
It’s an emergency budget. You said do yourself.
Gordon Brown made a habit of it with every budget from 2002 onwards.
I will be happy to revise my view in 2022-2023 if I’m wrong.
You have this naive idea that Rishi Sunak will still be Chancellor if he doesn't do what Boris Johnson wants. This is a government that will be spunking money all the way to the next election.
Your argument works both ways though.
If that’s true then Boris must have signed off on this budget, which commits to sensible fiscal rules over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Business rates abolished for cinemas, restaurants and music venues for one year
Fantastic news!
Hopefully its made permanent. Business rates should be abolished and replaced with something else.
He has said there will be a full review of the business rates system later in the year
Good. Business rates are outdated and need to be abolished as they are. The idea that physical buildings should be taxed but Amazon shouldn't be doesn't belong in the 21st century.
Theyve been talking of reviewing it for years. Hopefully something will come of it
This is getting pitiful now. This is the sort of speech I would have made had I been telephoned late last night and told I was appointed emergency Chancellor.
Close your eyes and imagine that Corbyn actually won.
The horror! Thank gosh that didn't happen and we're hearing what we are and not that. Wall to wall nationalisations would be what we'd be hearing today if it was up to Labour.
This government is cutting taxes on businesses to help them survive, Labour wanted the thwack up taxes on business but would no doubt have seen businesses going out of business as a good excuse to nationalise them.
What absolutely nobody is considering is that Corona might be contained quite quickly, and that the authorities will have conducted a massive stimulus program on what is fundamantally a pretty robust global economy.
Which wouldn;t make it a winter, but a blazing summer.
Coronavirus can be contained quite quickly, but at significant economic cost.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You do this. And (congratulations!) Coronavirus cases drop to a few tens a day.
You then loosen up those restrictions... and Coronavirus comes roaring back. Because the way you stop it spreading by restricting human interaction (and economic activity).
And this is why all governments will end up choosing essentially the same strategy until a virus or cure is discovered: quarantine until case numbers decline markedly... loosen restrictions, and allow the case load to rise again... when it reaches a certain level... quarantine again.
This avoids health services getting overwhelmed. It minimises deaths. It's all good, except it's a bummer for the economy. Now, we can deal with this. The UK government (unlike the US one) is not running a big deficit. We implement measures to make sure that people don't lose their homes or their businesses over the period, and to encourage firms to keep staff on rather than letting them go. (And for the record, I think our government is doing a good job here.) But it still won't be much fun.
The biggest risk to sentiment is that people think the quarantine is intended to defeat the virus, whereas the truth is that an epidemic is expected as soon as the quarantine is lifted. Authorities simply hope that this epidemic will be more manageable than the one we would have had.
Folks who have spent a fortnight indoors watching Netflix aren’t prepared for the renewed epidemic that will follow their quarantine being lifted.
What, no, there's no *quarantine*. He's not talking about China. The word was "encourage". We still go to the shops, but we avoid crowds. We sometimes go out to eat, likewise. But we don't go to live events (loads of infections from one in Osaka) or gyms (OK, who am I kidding, I never did) and I only go to see the client in Tokyo if I really need to, instead of every week.
We seem to have got the thing under control (tentatively) by doing this, and the internet is full of wonders. Why would we stop?
PS. Quarantine is what the British will have after a few weeks of congratulating themselves about how much panicking they're not doing.
Sunak has just won Boris the next election. It's impossible for any opposition to make political headway against this type of budget - absolutely impossible.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You might think so but my Amazon purchase history for the last 2 weeks indicates that these measures *increase* aggregate demand.
Also the Northern hemisphere summer is coming.....and the virus apparently cannot survive in hot weather?
Sunak is taking all sorts of political risks here. His "everything is awesome" approach might get easy applause from the folks behind him today, but might be rather reckless in retrospect.
Live (politically) for today, it might be all you get, I guess?
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You might think so but my Amazon purchase history for the last 2 weeks indicates that these measures *increase* aggregate demand.
OK... so it's good for Amazon, for delivery people, and terrible for the trade balance...
What absolutely nobody is considering is that Corona might be contained quite quickly, and that the authorities will have conducted a massive stimulus program on what is fundamantally a pretty robust global economy.
Which wouldn;t make it a winter, but a blazing summer.
Coronavirus can be contained quite quickly, but at significant economic cost.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You do this. And (congratulations!) Coronavirus cases drop to a few tens a day.
You then loosen up those restrictions... and Coronavirus comes roaring back. Because the way you stop it spreading by restricting human interaction (and economic activity).
And this is why all governments will end up choosing essentially the same strategy until a virus or cure is discovered: quarantine until case numbers decline markedly... loosen restrictions, and allow the case load to rise again... when it reaches a certain level... quarantine again.
This avoids health services getting overwhelmed. It minimises deaths. It's all good, except it's a bummer for the economy. Now, we can deal with this. The UK government (unlike the US one) is not running a big deficit. We implement measures to make sure that people don't lose their homes or their businesses over the period, and to encourage firms to keep staff on rather than letting them go. (And for the record, I think our government is doing a good job here.) But it still won't be much fun.
The biggest risk to sentiment is that people think the quarantine is intended to defeat the virus, whereas the truth is that an epidemic is expected as soon as the quarantine is lifted. Authorities simply hope that this epidemic will be more manageable than the one we would have had.
Folks who have spent a fortnight indoors watching Netflix aren’t prepared for the renewed epidemic that will follow their quarantine being lifted.
What, no, there's no *quarantine*. He's not talking about China. The word was "encourage". We still go to the shops, but we avoid crowds. We sometimes go out to eat, likewise. But we don't go to live events (loads of infections from one in Osaka) or gyms (OK, who am I kidding, I never did) and I only go to see the client in Tokyo if I really need to, instead of every week.
We seem to have got the thing under control (tentatively) by doing this, and the internet is full of wonders. Why would we stop?
PS. Quarantine is what the British will have after a few weeks of congratulating themselves about how much panicking they're not doing.
The UK will be facing an Italian style decision within a few weeks
Sunak is taking all sorts of political risks here. His "everything is awesome" approach might get easy applause from the folks behind him today, but might be rather reckless in retrospect.
Live (politically) for today, it might be all you get, I guess?
Many Budgets look shit a day or two afterwards. We shall see.
Sunak has just won Boris the next election. It's impossible for any opposition to make political headway against this type of budget - absolutely impossible.
Oh lord.
I mean, even if it was the greatest budget in the history of the multi-verse there are 4.5+ years until the next general election. If you haven't already realised it, events have a habit of biting in the arse.
Sunak is taking all sorts of political risks here. His "everything is awesome" approach might get easy applause from the folks behind him today, but might be rather reckless in retrospect.
Live (politically) for today, it might be all you get, I guess?
Many Budgets look shit a day or two afterwards. We shall see.
Lets hope it is just the budget and not those delivering it are feeling shit in a few days.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You might think so but my Amazon purchase history for the last 2 weeks indicates that these measures *increase* aggregate demand.
Also the Northern hemisphere summer is coming.....and the virus apparently cannot survive in hot weather?
That seems to be unambiguously not true, since there have been outbreaks in plenty of hot places. But it might help somewhat, whether because it's bad for the virus or because it's good for your immune system.
Sunak has just won Boris the next election. It's impossible for any opposition to make political headway against this type of budget - absolutely impossible.
It's four and a bit years until the next election. I think it's a bit early to start popping champagne corks.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You might think so but my Amazon purchase history for the last 2 weeks indicates that these measures *increase* aggregate demand.
Also the Northern hemisphere summer is coming.....and the virus apparently cannot survive in hot weather?
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You might think so but my Amazon purchase history for the last 2 weeks indicates that these measures *increase* aggregate demand.
Also the Northern hemisphere summer is coming.....and the virus apparently cannot survive in hot weather?
That seems to be unambiguously not true, since there have been outbreaks in plenty of hot places. But it might help somewhat, whether because it's bad for the virus or because it's good for your immune system.
I think most of Austrlia's cases are imported from China / Italy, with some isolated spread in an OAP home.
What absolutely nobody is considering is that Corona might be contained quite quickly, and that the authorities will have conducted a massive stimulus program on what is fundamantally a pretty robust global economy.
Which wouldn;t make it a winter, but a blazing summer.
Coronavirus can be contained quite quickly, but at significant economic cost.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You do this. And (congratulations!) Coronavirus cases drop to a few tens a day.
You then loosen up those restrictions... and Coronavirus comes roaring back. Because the way you stop it spreading by restricting human interaction (and economic activity).
And this is why all governments will end up choosing essentially the same strategy until a virus or cure is discovered: quarantine until case numbers decline markedly... loosen restrictions, and allow the case load to rise again... when it reaches a certain level... quarantine again.
This avoids health services getting overwhelmed. It minimises deaths. It's all good, except it's a bummer for the economy. Now, we can deal with this. The UK government (unlike the US one) is not running a big deficit. We implement measures to make sure that people don't lose their homes or their businesses over the period, and to encourage firms to keep staff on rather than letting them go. (And for the record, I think our government is doing a good job here.) But it still won't be much fun.
The biggest risk to sentiment is that people think the quarantine is intended to defeat the virus, whereas the truth is that an epidemic is expected as soon as the quarantine is lifted. Authorities simply hope that this epidemic will be more manageable than the one we would have had.
Folks who have spent a fortnight indoors watching Netflix aren’t prepared for the renewed epidemic that will follow their quarantine being lifted.
What, no, there's no *quarantine*. He's not talking about China. The word was "encourage". We still go to the shops, but we avoid crowds. We sometimes go out to eat, likewise. But we don't go to live events (loads of infections from one in Osaka) or gyms (OK, who am I kidding, I never did) and I only go to see the client in Tokyo if I really need to, instead of every week.
We seem to have got the thing under control (tentatively) by doing this, and the internet is full of wonders. Why would we stop?
PS. Quarantine is what the British will have after a few weeks of congratulating themselves about how much panicking they're not doing.
The UK will be facing an Italian style decision within a few weeks
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You might think so but my Amazon purchase history for the last 2 weeks indicates that these measures *increase* aggregate demand.
Also the Northern hemisphere summer is coming.....and the virus apparently cannot survive in hot weather?
It's been pretty warm in LA in the last couple of weeks (mid-20s), and we're seeing a reasonable number of cases. So while summer probably slows transmission (sufficient UV light kills viruses, and people spend more time outdoors), I don't think it stops it.
This is a stunning budget. It will set the agenda for the Parliament, not the next year. How it is compatible with the fiscal rules is a complete mystery to me. There must be some major clawbacks somewhere.
Comments
Gordon Brown made a habit of it with every budget from 2002 onwards.
I will be happy to revise my view in 2022-2023 if I’m wrong.
Simply, you encourage people not to go out - to sporting events, bars, cinemas, restaraunts, theatres, concerts. To not travel on public transport, as far as possible. To work from home if they can. To avoid going shopping on a Saturday.
Basically, a whole bunch of measures that depress aggregate demand.
You do this. And (congratulations!) Coronavirus cases drop to a few tens a day.
You then loosen up those restrictions... and Coronavirus comes roaring back. Because the way you stop it spreading by restricting human interaction (and economic activity).
And this is why all governments will end up choosing essentially the same strategy until a virus or cure is discovered: quarantine until case numbers decline markedly... loosen restrictions, and allow the case load to rise again... when it reaches a certain level... quarantine again.
This avoids health services getting overwhelmed. It minimises deaths. It's all good, except it's a bummer for the economy. Now, we can deal with this. The UK government (unlike the US one) is not running a big deficit. We implement measures to make sure that people don't lose their homes or their businesses over the period, and to encourage firms to keep staff on rather than letting them go. (And for the record, I think our government is doing a good job here.) But it still won't be much fun.
I appreciate the irony that I am also basically doing the same.
Folks who have spent a fortnight indoors watching Netflix aren’t prepared for the renewed epidemic that will follow their quarantine being lifted.
Given how we've seen the virus circulate around the elite of Iran, France and Italy, taking additional steps to prevent it incapacitating our political leadership, civil service chiefs and top advisers would seem pretty sensible to me. MPs press a lot of flesh, which makes them unusually likely to contract the disease, and have contact with a lot of senior people, so can do unusually high levels of damage if they spread it.
Aside from the questionable wisdom of hundreds of MPs sitting cheek by jowl, might they consider cutting down on handshakes, meetings with community groups, and having hundreds of people touring the Palace of Westminster? It might even be rational (as some suggest downthread, but I think it's unlikely to be happening) for MPs and Cabinet members especially to follow a different testing protocol.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GvO77Q1O49d0m4lQdBNdus3H8wdf3s-vLPE8c4cntsI/edit#gid=0
Looks like it's over. So what Sunak is doing god only knows.
https://www.laweekly.com/lesbian-in-the-locker-room/
I presume that’s #classicdom
If government is to be serious about green issues then we should be looking soon to start getting taxes on electricity DOWN and taxes on alternatives up as switching fuels from gas or petrol to windfarm electricity is far greener.
14 deaths, 49 recoveries isn't exactly great news.
Also, France is in NW Europe. I notice that you've shifted away from tracking Switzerland, after they recorded 4 deaths.
I would like (1) to be addressed but, as I know from family experience, medical and other help for the young in relation to this and similar issue is very patchy indeed. And it causes real distress to those affected. Rectifying that is where we should be concentrating our energies, IMO.
As we'll get continually better at treating it (and an increasing proportion of the country get immunity), you would think each iteration would be less severe. And, of course, summer comes and slows the virus down too.
It's a sensible way of managing it, which minimises deaths and results in only modest economic downside.
Of course, in the US, they're completely unaware there's a problem, and will leave it far later before implementing a quarantine, which will have to be that much more severe because they left it longer, resulting in many more deaths and much greater economic impact.
He does look a bit rough....
If that’s true then Boris must have signed off on this budget, which commits to sensible fiscal rules over the lifetime of this Parliament.
This government is cutting taxes on businesses to help them survive, Labour wanted the thwack up taxes on business but would no doubt have seen businesses going out of business as a good excuse to nationalise them.
Very significant spending commitment.
We seem to have got the thing under control (tentatively) by doing this, and the internet is full of wonders. Why would we stop?
PS. Quarantine is what the British will have after a few weeks of congratulating themselves about how much panicking they're not doing.
I mean, even if it was the greatest budget in the history of the multi-verse there are 4.5+ years until the next general election. If you haven't already realised it, events have a habit of biting in the arse.
It’s not exactly a proven technology.
But can HYUFD drop him off some broth.
Reminds me so much of 1992, for obvious reasons, except that this crisis is likely to be 1000x worse.
People should be guaranteed their full salary.
Difficult one that.