I agree with Mike on this. I cannot see how this will not negatively impact on the Gov't.
"The worrying one for Team Boris is the growing percentage who think that action was taken too late – something that is currently reinforced by the death toll position for the UK."
Even with Black Wednesday the full negative opinion rating did not feed through for many months afterwards: a long, steady, slide. I think the same may occur here so that the full political impact on the Conservatives' standing will not be seen until well into next year.
With regard to the statistics, Excess Mortality is by far the surest way of seeing the true impact of this virus. Thus:
As I said yesterday, I think this is where we're at for the next 2 weeks or so. The infection rate for the past two weeks has been fairly constant.
We aren't going anywhere fast, that is for certain. Mr Spoons ain't having his pubs open for starters.
While the headline infection rate has been constant, those tested in hospital (the most serious) has been consistently declining over the past two weeks (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ - third chart from the bottom). Given this, a steady decline rather than plateau is perhaps more reasonable.
The rate of decline looks stable (at the moment), not a long tail -
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
Well what do you expect, every Labour Government since WW2 has increased the top rate of income tax and every Tory government since Heath has cut the top rate of income tax? Osborne also took the lowest earners out of income tax too of course
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
The value of assets in this country is in housing, if you attach a value tax the value goes down drastically. Your tax raises not a lot of money.
I agree with Mike on this. I cannot see how this will not negatively impact on the Gov't.
"The worrying one for Team Boris is the growing percentage who think that action was taken too late – something that is currently reinforced by the death toll position for the UK."
Even with Black Wednesday the full negative opinion rating did not feed through for many months afterwards: a long, steady, slide. I think the same may occur here so that the full political impact on the Conservatives' standing will not be seen until well into next year.
With regard to the statistics, Excess Mortality is by far the surest way of seeing the true impact of this virus. Thus:
Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.
The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.
So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?
Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?
Yes. For 100 parents/grandparents you'd be looking at a 2 kilometre queue.
Well stagger pick up times then. It's not rocket science, is it?
Always complaining. Our death rate is comparable to the Netherlands, better than in France, Italy or Spain. So not that bad.
By what measure? I'm a little sceptical about the numbers and about comparability. But a widely reported figure for France is 24k on a 66 million population, with the UK on 26k on 67 million - so comparable (France slightly lower). And for Netherlands it's under 5k on 17 million (so they have a somewhat lower rate than either us or France). Spain and Italy have higher rates - but not by a great margin. And what of the countries you haven't mentioned?
As I say, I'm wary about the stats generally at this stage, but it does seem to be the case at the moment that it's a lot easier to make a case we're doing relatively poorly rather than relatively well looking at the available data.
On Mike's last paragraph: Sir Keir is simultaneously complaining that the government acted too late (conveniently omitting to mention that Labour didn't call for earlier action), and saying we should be beginning to relax the lockdown. Whilst this might be good if cynical politics, the combination of the two positions cannot make sense.
On the polling, the media's wall-to-wall whinging is no doubt having some effect - again, whinging informed hugely by hindsight. Still, any fool can say 'we should have acted earlier'. There is always something you could have done earlier. For example, in 2009, the government could have included PPE stockpiling in its pandemic planning, as was recommended at the time. Isn't hindsight wonderful?
... and if Sweden’s approach turns out to have worked well for them, Sir Keir will no doubt ask Boris why he didn’t stick to the ‘herd immunity’ plan
Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.
The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.
So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?
By imposing sensible measures to ensure that doesn't happen ...is how.
OK go on then. What are they? What sensible measures ensure that hundreds of parents and grandparents don't mingle in a limited space?
Staggered shift classes with different pick-up slots would be a simple example. As I said upthread we're not going back to before for a good long while yet. That doesn't mean we do nothing. A nother option would be half classes in the mornings and afternoons. I'm sure there are better minds than mine which can cme up with a system. Maybe, dare I suggest it, parents consider changing their habits could help make everyone a little safer.
Staggered shifts is OK in theory. But what if you have 3 kids? Each starting and finishing at different times? Or even at different schools? You wouldn't be able to hold down a full time job. And where does child 1 go while you go back to pick up 2 or 3? At home alone or back to school? Most likely hang out with you at the school gates waiting. Of course there are always the grandparents to help out... All solutions are more complicated the closer you look
Those thinking that ‘opening’ schools is an economic issue are barking up the wrong tree. It would free very few parents at any one time. My suggestion would be to allow the next stage of something like small shops to open and that any employees that they are added to the key workers list. Schools would then add those children to the existing ones in school.
It also isn’t about education. Only schools with little or no online learning would benefit, Splitting online and live teaching would reduce the efficacy of both. We’ve already been told by management that we need to do one or the other, otherwise we would be diluting teaching way too much.
Not many historical deaths in todays figures. Not crunching the numbers properly, but it look like probably running at ~400 deaths a day now.
I guess by this time next week it might be ~300 a day....and weeks of this long tail of low 100s of deaths every day.
Surely it is ceasing to be a tail so, in a week or so, it will be reflective of the level of lockdown we have.
Not sure what you mean. If you reduce transmission rate below 1 (which the lockdown appears to have done) the number of deaths should continue to reduce, albeit fairly gradually, even compared with the date on which just about all deaths are of people infected during lockdown. They wouldn't just plateau. So it would look very much like a tail or petering out (albeit one vulnerable to the transmission rate rising above 1 again).
That is predicated on the country being homogenous. As it is, we have numerous different groups. Some have a transmission rate below one but others, such as hospitals, care homes, maybe others like transport workers, may have a rate of above one. That would suggest that pockets would remain and so a constant death rate is maintained.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
The public record shows that the tax paid by the highest earners increased substantially which was the major cause of deficit reduction. When George talked about those with the broadest shoulders having to carry the load that was no more than the truth. Public spending was constrained but overall grew each year in real terms. There was also a much, much more aggressive searching for and accounting of overseas assets including new treaties with Switzerland. In focusing on wealth taxes you are painting a highly distorted picture.
But the fundamental problem he had to deal with was the loss of £100bn of taxes from financial services/banks. This did not recover quickly (in fact it still hasn't) which meant that spending and tax had to be brought into line at a new level. This is what is relevant for present purposes. If we permanently lose a large chunk of our tax paying economy because of the virus public spending and taxes will need to be brought into line again. If it is a short term hit with a strong bounce back much less action will be required.
I agree with Mike on this. I cannot see how this will not negatively impact on the Gov't.
"The worrying one for Team Boris is the growing percentage who think that action was taken too late – something that is currently reinforced by the death toll position for the UK."
Even with Black Wednesday the full negative opinion rating did not feed through for many months afterwards: a long, steady, slide. I think the same may occur here so that the full political impact on the Conservatives' standing will not be seen until well into next year.
With regard to the statistics, Excess Mortality is by far the surest way of seeing the true impact of this virus. Thus:
That particular chart has been discussed before. It's one way of looking at excess mortality and has some plus points, but in many ways it's an odd one - it shows (simplistically) how unusual the degree of variation in mortality in this pandemic is for each country. If a country has greater variation in normal times then it would do better in this chart for the same volume of excess deaths.
That means that chaotic countries with poor health and welfare systems (and therefore greater variation in deaths generally for every infectious disease/famine) or those exposed to more extremes of hot and cold weather generally might get a smaller covid-19 peak on this measure than a much more stable country with the same proportion of excess deaths.
Mortality as a ratio to (say) previous five years is more useful, I think. Although even that makes countries that have generally higher mortality look better.
No you have it backwards that is not why we worry about a deficit. We worry about a deficit because it means we are spending more than we are taking which is unsustainable, plus it leaves no headroom for changes if something goes wrong like happened in 2008.
Paying interest at 3% of our government expenditure is sustainable. Spending 4 pounds for every 3 pounds the government raises is not.
Correct. You would have thought that in April 2020, of all the periods in history, people would finally have managed to get their heads round the concept of exponential growth, but when it comes to government finances those on the left still don't seem to have managed it.
I agree with Mike on this. I cannot see how this will not negatively impact on the Gov't.
"The worrying one for Team Boris is the growing percentage who think that action was taken too late – something that is currently reinforced by the death toll position for the UK."
Even with Black Wednesday the full negative opinion rating did not feed through for many months afterwards: a long, steady, slide. I think the same may occur here so that the full political impact on the Conservatives' standing will not be seen until well into next year.
With regard to the statistics, Excess Mortality is by far the surest way of seeing the true impact of this virus. Thus:
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
What was the 50p top income tax rate Brown and Darling introduced but a tax hike on the better off? It raised little money and hit growth and investment so Osborne correctly cut it to 45p once the Coalition got in to government
Well @DavidL says it raised plenty from him. And I believe him.
But more seriously and generally - the bigger need is for a tax on wealth.
I think it's coming. Just a pity John McDonnell isn't at number 11 because at least he would enjoy it. And if you enjoy your work you are likely to be better at it.
I agree with Mike on this. I cannot see how this will not negatively impact on the Gov't.
"The worrying one for Team Boris is the growing percentage who think that action was taken too late – something that is currently reinforced by the death toll position for the UK."
Even with Black Wednesday the full negative opinion rating did not feed through for many months afterwards: a long, steady, slide. I think the same may occur here so that the full political impact on the Conservatives' standing will not be seen until well into next year.
With regard to the statistics, Excess Mortality is by far the surest way of seeing the true impact of this virus. Thus:
Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.
Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.
It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.
According to today’s reports La Scala is planning to reopen in September with a performance of Verdi’s Requiem. I’m assuming that the orchestra and choir aren’t going to be singing and playing 2 metres apart. Nor that the audience will be sitting 2 metres apart.
So maybe ask the Italians whether they have some research showing that opening your mouth and expelling air to make a beautiful sound is not a vector for transmission. Because if this is feasible then pretty much anything else is, frankly.
I seem to recall a pretty horrific infection story from the US based around a Baptist choir.
By what measure? I'm a little sceptical about the numbers and about comparability.
Rightly! You have some countries counting hospital deaths only, vs others including everything in all locations, including even suspected covid deaths (eg Belgium). The difference means doubling the death count in some cases (eg Netherlands, probably Italy).
I agree with Mike on this. I cannot see how this will not negatively impact on the Gov't.
"The worrying one for Team Boris is the growing percentage who think that action was taken too late – something that is currently reinforced by the death toll position for the UK."
Even with Black Wednesday the full negative opinion rating did not feed through for many months afterwards: a long, steady, slide. I think the same may occur here so that the full political impact on the Conservatives' standing will not be seen until well into next year.
With regard to the statistics, Excess Mortality is by far the surest way of seeing the true impact of this virus. Thus:
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
The public record shows that the tax paid by the highest earners increased substantially which was the major cause of deficit reduction. When George talked about those with the broadest shoulders having to carry the load that was no more than the truth. Public spending was constrained but overall grew each year in real terms. There was also a much, much more aggressive searching for and accounting of overseas assets including new treaties with Switzerland. In focusing on wealth taxes you are painting a highly distorted picture.
But the fundamental problem he had to deal with was the loss of £100bn of taxes from financial services/banks. This did not recover quickly (in fact it still hasn't) which meant that spending and tax had to be brought into line at a new level. This is what is relevant for present purposes. If we permanently lose a large chunk of our tax paying economy because of the virus public spending and taxes will need to be brought into line again. If it is a short term hit with a strong bounce back much less action will be required.
But the Debt Interest arising from a higher deficit was very manageable - and was always well below what faced Chamberlain as Chancellor during the National Government back in the 1930s.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
decades and decades of experience tells us that essentially debt doesn't matter - provided the interest on it can be paid - as a lot of modern UK government debt is owed to the Bank of England it is east to imagine it is a problem that can be kicked into some very long grass indeed.
If the level of debt doesn't matter why does the size of the deficit matter?
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
What was the 50p top income tax rate Brown and Darling introduced but a tax hike on the better off? It raised little money and hit growth and investment so Osborne correctly cut it to 45p once the Coalition got in to government
Well @DavidL says it raised plenty from him. And I believe him.
But more seriously and generally - the bigger need is for a tax on wealth.
I think it's coming. Just a pity John McDonnell isn't at number 11 because at least he would enjoy it. And if you enjoy your work you are likely to be better at it.
It may come from Labour, it is certainly not coming from the Tories
It looks pretty plausible, and if it is correct, then sitting in the audience at an opera, play, classical concert, or in the cinema, would be low risk. Performing in the orchestra: perhaps medium risk. Being in the choir on stage: high risk.
This is precisely the kind of distinction government scientists need to understand better.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
Also on the public record was the howling about how awful it was for Army and RAF senior officers to have to pay more tax just because they were sent to Scotland by the MoD. In fact there was talk of it being paid for them by MoD. What I never saw was any sympathy for junior ranks having to pay more taxes and prescription fees because they were sent to England (not sure of situations in Wales & NI) by the MoD.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
The public record shows that the tax paid by the highest earners increased substantially which was the major cause of deficit reduction. When George talked about those with the broadest shoulders having to carry the load that was no more than the truth. Public spending was constrained but overall grew each year in real terms. There was also a much, much more aggressive searching for and accounting of overseas assets including new treaties with Switzerland. In focusing on wealth taxes you are painting a highly distorted picture.
But the fundamental problem he had to deal with was the loss of £100bn of taxes from financial services/banks. This did not recover quickly (in fact it still hasn't) which meant that spending and tax had to be brought into line at a new level. This is what is relevant for present purposes. If we permanently lose a large chunk of our tax paying economy because of the virus public spending and taxes will need to be brought into line again. If it is a short term hit with a strong bounce back much less action will be required.
When George talked about those with the broadest shoulders having to carry the load that was no more than the truth.
or maybe it was just the maths.
when the bulk of the population had no wage growth but the top 10% were pumping their pay up it's inevitable they will pay a greater slice of the taxes.
I agree with Mike on this. I cannot see how this will not negatively impact on the Gov't.
"The worrying one for Team Boris is the growing percentage who think that action was taken too late – something that is currently reinforced by the death toll position for the UK."
Even with Black Wednesday the full negative opinion rating did not feed through for many months afterwards: a long, steady, slide. I think the same may occur here so that the full political impact on the Conservatives' standing will not be seen until well into next year.
With regard to the statistics, Excess Mortality is by far the surest way of seeing the true impact of this virus. Thus:
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
decades and decades of experience tells us that essentially debt doesn't matter - provided the interest on it can be paid - as a lot of modern UK government debt is owed to the Bank of England it is east to imagine it is a problem that can be kicked into some very long grass indeed.
If the level of debt doesn't matter why does the size of the deficit matter?
The key number is actually the net cash requirement because that is the amount of money that the government has to borrow from the markets. It is vulnerable to a change in sentiment in respect of that money and may have to pay a higher price for it than it wants. The net cash requirement is essentially made up of the deficit plus the rolled over debt. The deficit is important for this but so is the total quantum of debt because the more you owe the more will become payable in any particular year. Since 2010 we have reduced the need to borrow for current spending to nil but we still borrow for capital spending. We also need to borrow any sum repayable that year unless the gilts in question belong to the BoE. So deficits and debt both matter.
Not to disparage your concern, but I do wonder about the accuracy of the piece if they couldn't even get Aikenhead's name correct. He is VERY famous - if for the wrong reasons - in Scottish intellectual and legal history.
I agree with Mike on this. I cannot see how this will not negatively impact on the Gov't.
"The worrying one for Team Boris is the growing percentage who think that action was taken too late – something that is currently reinforced by the death toll position for the UK."
Even with Black Wednesday the full negative opinion rating did not feed through for many months afterwards: a long, steady, slide. I think the same may occur here so that the full political impact on the Conservatives' standing will not be seen until well into next year.
With regard to the statistics, Excess Mortality is by far the surest way of seeing the true impact of this virus. Thus:
Just look at Spain, how can their curve be so radically lower than ours?
This is Z-score, not actual numbers.
I think some parts of Europe had a big spike a couple of winters ago, so we'll be deviating more from the standard deviation.
It doesn't show what the twitterstorm thinks it shows.
If you like, I can create a graph where the Y axis uses a function of the number of religious minorities murdered by chubby neo-nazis in khaki shorts.... to prove whatever you want.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
The public record shows that the tax paid by the highest earners increased substantially which was the major cause of deficit reduction. When George talked about those with the broadest shoulders having to carry the load that was no more than the truth. Public spending was constrained but overall grew each year in real terms. There was also a much, much more aggressive searching for and accounting of overseas assets including new treaties with Switzerland. In focusing on wealth taxes you are painting a highly distorted picture.
But the fundamental problem he had to deal with was the loss of £100bn of taxes from financial services/banks. This did not recover quickly (in fact it still hasn't) which meant that spending and tax had to be brought into line at a new level. This is what is relevant for present purposes. If we permanently lose a large chunk of our tax paying economy because of the virus public spending and taxes will need to be brought into line again. If it is a short term hit with a strong bounce back much less action will be required.
But the Debt Interest arising from a higher deficit was very manageable - and was always well below what faced Chamberlain as Chancellor during the National Government back in the 1930s.
Yes, but debt needs to be rolled over so it affects the net cash requirement.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
The value of assets in this country is in housing, if you attach a value tax the value goes down drastically. Your tax raises not a lot of money.
Well I didn't float specifics so there isn't really a "my tax".
But what is your general point - that taxes on assets cannot raise much because it reduces the value of the assets?
If true, that rules out wealth taxes - which would be a real body blow so I think we need to hear a little more.
Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.
The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.
So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?
Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?
Yes. For 100 parents/grandparents you'd be looking at a 2 kilometre queue.
Well stagger pick up times then. It's not rocket science, is it?
By how long per year do you stagger it? And when children have siblings a year or a couple of years apart what do the parents/grandparents and children do?
It looks pretty plausible, and if it is correct, then sitting in the audience at an opera, play, classical concert, or in the cinema, would be low risk. Performing in the orchestra: perhaps medium risk. Being in the choir on stage: high risk.
This is precisely the kind of distinction government scientists need to understand better.
I think some parts of Europe had a big spike a couple of winters ago, so we'll be deviating more from the standard deviation.
It doesn't show what the twitterstorm thinks it shows.
It's a completely demented graph. One to file in the bin.
I do think it has some utility, as a measure of how extreme covid-19 feels in a country in terms of deaths compared to 'normal' years, but as a measure of how well a country is performing, it is indeed pretty rubbish.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
Well what do you expect, every Labour Government since WW2 has increased the top rate of income tax and every Tory government since Heath has cut the top rate of income tax? Osborne also took the lowest earners out of income tax too of course
Yes, he did more or less what I would expect a Tory Chancellor to do.
But I'm hoping for better from the fragrant Sunak.
And no jury trials for the foreseeable future. It's actually very scary prospect.
I think we will see jury trials shortly, possibly with a reduced jury of 7. The Scottish government has accepted that High Court trials will not proceed without them and there is pressure from victims to get restarted. But a statutory presumption of malicious intent is a truly horrible idea.
That's not just a statement about BAs operations, that's also a statement that BA thinks other airlines won't ne around to take their LHR slots back up again.
That's not just a statement about BAs operations, that's also a statement that BA thinks other airlines won't ne around to take their LHR slots back up again.
They think Virign is fucked.
Kinda solves the Heathrow runway issue for the foreseeable too.
That's not just a statement about BAs operations, that's also a statement that BA thinks other airlines won't ne around to take their LHR slots back up again.
They think Virign is fucked.
Good spot, British Airways must reckon they're the king of the ashes. What have you got Branson, what cards are you going to play.
I think some parts of Europe had a big spike a couple of winters ago, so we'll be deviating more from the standard deviation.
It doesn't show what the twitterstorm thinks it shows.
It's a completely demented graph. One to file in the bin.
I do think it has some utility, as a measure of how extreme covid-19 feels in a country in terms of deaths compared to 'normal' years, but as a measure of how well a country is performing, it is indeed pretty rubbish.
I'm not even sure it has that much utility. It would be distorted, for example, for a country where deaths are especially concentrated in winter months.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.
Well he most certainly did impose harsh cuts which impacted the poor. And there was no serious attempt to tax the wealth (assets) of the affluent. Labour raised top rate income tax. He cut it. And the big picture choice was to load most of the pain onto public spending.
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
Well what do you expect, every Labour Government since WW2 has increased the top rate of income tax and every Tory government since Heath has cut the top rate of income tax? Osborne also took the lowest earners out of income tax too of course
Yes, he did more or less what I would expect a Tory Chancellor to do.
But I'm hoping for better from the fragrant Sunak.
You would be better off putting your hope in Anneliese Dodds, Sunak is a Tory Chancellor like any other
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
decades and decades of experience tells us that essentially debt doesn't matter - provided the interest on it can be paid - as a lot of modern UK government debt is owed to the Bank of England it is east to imagine it is a problem that can be kicked into some very long grass indeed.
If the level of debt doesn't matter why does the size of the deficit matter?
Deficit matters because you need to find someone to lend it to you at a reasonable rate. Debt needs refinancing from time to time, but much more gradually.
And lenders care about your deficit far more than your debt when deciding to lend. If you ask for a loan on the basis that you want to invest in a home extension or even deal with a one-off disaster for example, but you can cover the repayments, that's a hell of a lot easier than borrowing because your spending consistently exceeds your income. In the latter situation, the lender is quite rightly concerned they will end up carrying the can - at the very least they will make you pay an amount that reflects their high risk.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
decades and decades of experience tells us that essentially debt doesn't matter - provided the interest on it can be paid - as a lot of modern UK government debt is owed to the Bank of England it is east to imagine it is a problem that can be kicked into some very long grass indeed.
If the level of debt doesn't matter why does the size of the deficit matter?
The level of debt matters but much, much less. Its out of our hands, is from the past and without a deficit or surplus it is stable, unchanging and isn't especially relevant on a day to day basis except for as interest payments (which appear within the budget surplus/deficit)
The deficit matters far more because it is what is afforded now and what is changing for the future. It triggers exponential growth when it changes and it also matters because if we can't afford our budget now then there becomes the risk of default on the debt so when the old debt is rolled over the interest demanded can become higher thus worsening our debt.
I think some parts of Europe had a big spike a couple of winters ago, so we'll be deviating more from the standard deviation.
It doesn't show what the twitterstorm thinks it shows.
It's a completely demented graph. One to file in the bin.
I do think it has some utility, as a measure of how extreme covid-19 feels in a country in terms of deaths compared to 'normal' years, but as a measure of how well a country is performing, it is indeed pretty rubbish.
I'm not even sure it has that much utility. It would be distorted, for example, for a country where deaths are especially concentrated in winter months.
Oh, is it on monthly (or finer) variation? I'd assumed only on yearly variation (haven't actually read the explanation of exactly how it was done, if there was one). In that case I retract my earlier comment and agree it's completely useless
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked... in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
Everything is always a choice and as that was true last time, so it is true this time.
It is possible to cut government spending. It would be harder than last time, but you could do it by deciding that the government was going to stop doing things. We could stop subsidising farming. We could stop providing international aid. We could stop funding universities. We could stop paying for a nuclear deterrence. We could cut the state pension. We could cut public sector pay.
I'm not advocating any of these measures, and some of them will be more unpopular than others - maybe none of them are popular enough to be politically possible - but they're still choices.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
decades and decades of experience tells us that essentially debt doesn't matter - provided the interest on it can be paid - as a lot of modern UK government debt is owed to the Bank of England it is east to imagine it is a problem that can be kicked into some very long grass indeed.
If the level of debt doesn't matter why does the size of the deficit matter?
Because if you look after the deficit, the debt will look after itself. If you don't look after the deficit, you can do very little to control the debt.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
No you have it backwards that is not why we worry about a deficit. We worry about a deficit because it means we are spending more than we are taking which is unsustainable, plus it leaves no headroom for changes if something goes wrong like happened in 2008.
Paying interest at 3% of our government expenditure is sustainable. Spending 4 pounds for every 3 pounds the government raises is not.
Come on Philip. Thinking cap.
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
That's not just a statement about BAs operations, that's also a statement that BA thinks other airlines won't ne around to take their LHR slots back up again.
They think Virign is fucked.
Good spot, British Airways must reckon they're the king of the ashes. What have you got Branson, what cards are you going to play.
How is Iberia looking. Have to remember that BA isn't flying solo anymore.
It looks pretty plausible, and if it is correct, then sitting in the audience at an opera, play, classical concert, or in the cinema, would be low risk. Performing in the orchestra: perhaps medium risk. Being in the choir on stage: high risk.
This is precisely the kind of distinction government scientists need to understand better.
That's not just a statement about BAs operations, that's also a statement that BA thinks other airlines won't ne around to take their LHR slots back up again.
They think Virign is fucked.
The tricky bit is whether this collapse in air travel is going to be a 5 year, 10 year or 20 year thing. If it is 5 years then it is irrelevant to the third runway debate but if it is longer term then the assumptions on which the runway was proposed need to be re-examined. Personally I would be astonished if there was 50% of the flights in 2020 that there were in 2019 but I would be less confident about longer term affects.
That's not just a statement about BAs operations, that's also a statement that BA thinks other airlines won't ne around to take their LHR slots back up again.
They think Virign is fucked.
Kinda solves the Heathrow runway issue for the foreseeable too.
Successive governments' long-grass kicking of the heathrow issue now looks masterful
Seriously though, don't you think that in five years (say, maybe much sooner) flights will be back where they were? Just with (some) different airlines? There will be a lot of cheap aeroplanes on offer and cheap spare capacity at airports making airline startups an attractive proposition, I guess.
Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.
The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.
So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?
Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?
Yes. For 100 parents/grandparents you'd be looking at a 2 kilometre queue.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
decades and decades of experience tells us that essentially debt doesn't matter - provided the interest on it can be paid - as a lot of modern UK government debt is owed to the Bank of England it is east to imagine it is a problem that can be kicked into some very long grass indeed.
If the level of debt doesn't matter why does the size of the deficit matter?
Because if you look after the deficit, the debt will look after itself. If you don't look after the deficit, you can do very little to control the debt.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
No you have it backwards that is not why we worry about a deficit. We worry about a deficit because it means we are spending more than we are taking which is unsustainable, plus it leaves no headroom for changes if something goes wrong like happened in 2008.
Paying interest at 3% of our government expenditure is sustainable. Spending 4 pounds for every 3 pounds the government raises is not.
Come on Philip. Thinking cap.
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
*Facepalm*
An unsustainable deficit can indeed lead to unstainable debt, but how does stable debt without a deficit and with low interest lead to unsustainable debt?
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
decades and decades of experience tells us that essentially debt doesn't matter - provided the interest on it can be paid - as a lot of modern UK government debt is owed to the Bank of England it is east to imagine it is a problem that can be kicked into some very long grass indeed.
If the level of debt doesn't matter why does the size of the deficit matter?
Because if you look after the deficit, the debt will look after itself. If you don't look after the deficit, you can do very little to control the debt.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
No you have it backwards that is not why we worry about a deficit. We worry about a deficit because it means we are spending more than we are taking which is unsustainable, plus it leaves no headroom for changes if something goes wrong like happened in 2008.
Paying interest at 3% of our government expenditure is sustainable. Spending 4 pounds for every 3 pounds the government raises is not.
Come on Philip. Thinking cap.
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
*Facepalm*
An unsustainable deficit can indeed lead to unstainable debt, but how does stable debt without a deficit and with low interest lead to unsustainable debt?
It could if the economy is shrinking. This is not just an academic point. Italy is going from a very high debt level to a completely unsustainable one right now because their economy is shrinking.
Delusional. Team sport is over. Finished. Done. Forever. The last (legal) game of cricket in England was played last year.
Don't be silly. The likes of football have the money to test all the players and staff on a regular basis, and 20 something super fit individuals have more chance of dying from contracting something nasty off the hooker they are tapping during lockdown than playing a match.
Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.
But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.
Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.
What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.
No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.
The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.
Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.
We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.
What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.
Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.
So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?
Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.
decades and decades of experience tells us that essentially debt doesn't matter - provided the interest on it can be paid - as a lot of modern UK government debt is owed to the Bank of England it is east to imagine it is a problem that can be kicked into some very long grass indeed.
If the level of debt doesn't matter why does the size of the deficit matter?
Deficit matters because you need to find someone to lend it to you at a reasonable rate. Debt needs refinancing from time to time, but much more gradually.
And lenders care about your deficit far more than your debt when deciding to lend. If you ask for a loan on the basis that you want to invest in a home extension or even deal with a one-off disaster for example, but you can cover the repayments, that's a hell of a lot easier than borrowing because your spending consistently exceeds your income. In the latter situation, the lender is quite rightly concerned they will end up carrying the can - at the very least they will make you pay an amount that reflects their high risk.
Or to generalize it since there are a multitude of scenarios -
Both your (net) asset and income position matter as a private borrower. Both debt and deficit matter as a government borrower. Lenders will emphasize one over the other, or the other over the one, depending on circumstances.
I like what Paton is doing, and he certainly makes two very good points, that the daily data has a high variance (his approach smoothes this out) and a lag. I also like the clear message that hopsital covid deaths are definately decreasing. What I don't understand is why he is sticking with the NHS data, when the government has moved over to all covid deaths. Worldometers has updated their data retrospectively so that there wasn't a massive spike in the graph for yesterday.
Comments
"The worrying one for Team Boris is the growing percentage who think that action was taken too late – something that is currently reinforced by the death toll position for the UK."
Even with Black Wednesday the full negative opinion rating did not feed through for many months afterwards: a long, steady, slide. I think the same may occur here so that the full political impact on the Conservatives' standing will not be seen until well into next year.
With regard to the statistics, Excess Mortality is by far the surest way of seeing the true impact of this virus. Thus:
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1255147479466565636?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1255833004183818243?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1255833006260072449?s=20
Not seeing much nonsense there, David. I'm seeing the truth. It's all on the public record.
As I say, I'm wary about the stats generally at this stage, but it does seem to be the case at the moment that it's a lot easier to make a case we're doing relatively poorly rather than relatively well looking at the available data.
It also isn’t about education. Only schools with little or no online learning would benefit, Splitting online and live teaching would reduce the efficacy of both. We’ve already been told by management that we need to do one or the other, otherwise we would be diluting teaching way too much.
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1255849160194117634?s=20
But the fundamental problem he had to deal with was the loss of £100bn of taxes from financial services/banks. This did not recover quickly (in fact it still hasn't) which meant that spending and tax had to be brought into line at a new level. This is what is relevant for present purposes. If we permanently lose a large chunk of our tax paying economy because of the virus public spending and taxes will need to be brought into line again. If it is a short term hit with a strong bounce back much less action will be required.
That means that chaotic countries with poor health and welfare systems (and therefore greater variation in deaths generally for every infectious disease/famine) or those exposed to more extremes of hot and cold weather generally might get a smaller covid-19 peak on this measure than a much more stable country with the same proportion of excess deaths.
Mortality as a ratio to (say) previous five years is more useful, I think. Although even that makes countries that have generally higher mortality look better.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1255850559371915266/photo/1
But more seriously and generally - the bigger need is for a tax on wealth.
I think it's coming. Just a pity John McDonnell isn't at number 11 because at least he would enjoy it. And if you enjoy your work you are likely to be better at it.
For now the best we have is the FT count, but it's about a couple of weeks out of date: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1255533872042967040
https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1255784036603224071
https://quillette.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-superspreader-events-in-28-countries-critical-patterns-and-lessons/
It looks pretty plausible, and if it is correct, then sitting in the audience at an opera, play, classical concert, or in the cinema, would be low risk. Performing in the orchestra: perhaps medium risk. Being in the choir on stage: high risk.
This is precisely the kind of distinction government scientists need to understand better.
or maybe it was just the maths.
when the bulk of the population had no wage growth but the top 10% were pumping their pay up it's inevitable they will pay a greater slice of the taxes.
I think some parts of Europe had a big spike a couple of winters ago, so we'll be deviating more from the standard deviation.
It doesn't show what the twitterstorm thinks it shows.
https://twitter.com/samisam147/status/1255586676367405065?s=20
But what is your general point - that taxes on assets cannot raise much because it reduces the value of the assets?
If true, that rules out wealth taxes - which would be a real body blow so I think we need to hear a little more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6s6YKlTpfw
Yep. Ed Conway is the economics editor - how could he get something this basic wrong? Careless? Clickbait?
But then, twitter rewards that sort of clickbaitery, so there's not much incentive for old-fashioned journalistic standards there.
But I'm hoping for better from the fragrant Sunak.
Mr. Gate, any chance you could get someone else to cut it, or shave it?
I don't know if they are just lazy and not doing the required research or warped by their own biases that they miss obvious stuff.
And yet even after weeks of this, if you log onto the likes of the BBC website, you will still see them publishing utter horseshit charts.
They think Virign is fucked.
And lenders care about your deficit far more than your debt when deciding to lend. If you ask for a loan on the basis that you want to invest in a home extension or even deal with a one-off disaster for example, but you can cover the repayments, that's a hell of a lot easier than borrowing because your spending consistently exceeds your income. In the latter situation, the lender is quite rightly concerned they will end up carrying the can - at the very least they will make you pay an amount that reflects their high risk.
IF that continues, we'd be at a quarter of the peak by VE Day. And an eighth of the peak by the end of the first week in June.
Definitely good news
The deficit matters far more because it is what is afforded now and what is changing for the future. It triggers exponential growth when it changes and it also matters because if we can't afford our budget now then there becomes the risk of default on the debt so when the old debt is rolled over the interest demanded can become higher thus worsening our debt.
It is possible to cut government spending. It would be harder than last time, but you could do it by deciding that the government was going to stop doing things. We could stop subsidising farming. We could stop providing international aid. We could stop funding universities. We could stop paying for a nuclear deterrence. We could cut the state pension. We could cut public sector pay.
I'm not advocating any of these measures, and some of them will be more unpopular than others - maybe none of them are popular enough to be politically possible - but they're still choices.
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1255852000497078275?s=20
https://twitter.com/thehundred/status/1255845055857922053?s=20
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
End of times stuff.
Seriously though, don't you think that in five years (say, maybe much sooner) flights will be back where they were? Just with (some) different airlines? There will be a lot of cheap aeroplanes on offer and cheap spare capacity at airports making airline startups an attractive proposition, I guess.
An unsustainable deficit can indeed lead to unstainable debt, but how does stable debt without a deficit and with low interest lead to unsustainable debt?
Players could also be tested before they take the field as testing expands
Both your (net) asset and income position matter as a private borrower. Both debt and deficit matter as a government borrower. Lenders will emphasize one over the other, or the other over the one, depending on circumstances.
This is basic and uncontroversial.