81k tests probably enough for all but the most pedantic critics...so that will be the whole of the press pack.
That was yesterday's test number too - also Scotland should provide tests also on a pro rata basis which it won't.
If Scotland was testing at the same rate as EW they'd be running at about 7,000/day - Sturgeon's target is half that, and daily delivery sometimes a third of that target.
Sorry how can there be 6,000 new cases after six weeks of well observed lockdown?????
That's a physical impossibility isnt it????
Who are these people going about infecting each other???
The answer is there in your question.
"well observed lockdown?????"
It's a weak lockdown that some are increasingly flouting. That suggests why. Also, my belief is that it is far more prevalent as an airborne virus and that is affecting closely knit accommodation.
Good effort by Boris today - but he is still struggling a bit and will probably only reappear on 7 May for the lockdown review.
We know we are getting the plan next week. Unlikely to be much change for 11 May, numbers appear to be moving in right direction so hopefully more substantive relaxation 1 June (ie + 3 weeks), including more social interaction and more businesses operating.
Sorry how can there be 6,000 new cases after six weeks of well observed lockdown?????
That's a physical impossibility isnt it????
Who are these people going about infecting each other???
We're just picking up a lot more of them with much increased testing - same as Germany early on seemingly had a lot of cases and we didn't, it was mostly just a difference in testing. The actual % testing positive has fallen off a cliff in the last week though, down from something like 40% to a touch over 10% now.
Infection models still have us at around 13k or so new infections per day, down from ~80k a month ago, so cases 6k sounds about right. That was the same ratio Germany had when they first hit these test numbers.
"Chris Patten urges UK to investigate origins of coronavirus in China Ex-Hong Kong governor also says China is ‘turning screws’ on city during pandemic"
Good questions from the public. Very good questions.
Intra UK tourism isn't a good question. Let's find out about people coming in and how the government is going to make sure it isn't a continual new source of infection.
Good questions from the public. Very good questions.
Well, certainly raised a couple of issues that barely been mentioned by the journalists as they waste all their questions on asking when the lockdown will end.
I suspect Boris's style is (within reason) to always say the questioner is correct - to make them feel good - even if his answer is somewhat to the contrary.
Sorry how can there be 6,000 new cases after six weeks of well observed lockdown?????
That's a physical impossibility isnt it????
Who are these people going about infecting each other???
The answer is there in your question.
"well observed lockdown?????"
It's a weak lockdown that some are increasingly flouting. That suggests why. Also, my belief is that it is far more prevalent as an airborne virus and that is affecting closely knit accommodation.
Ironically, that may mean lockdown is making things worse in these specific circumstances. As ever, more research is needed.
Good questions from the public. Very good questions.
Intra UK tourism isn't a good question. Let's find out about people coming in and how the government is going to make sure it isn't a continual new source of infection.
Disagree, it is a good question since we're going to have lots of it when restrictions are lifted. International tourism needs to be asked about too mind.
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.
Indeed - but its burden - in terms of interest rates - was manageable when Osborne took over in 2010. Just as the impact of the Covid 19 virus can be treated as a 'one off' , many would say that the same was true of the GFC in 2008 . Moreover, the deficit was already declining by 2010 and it can be argued that the deflationary impact of Osborne's austerity was to delay the continued improvement in the Public Finances.
It was not manageable when we had the deficit we had, interest rates were going up for nations that didn't bring those down and countries were going bust.
How was that manageable?
There was not upward pressure on UK interest rates when Darling left office - indeed Base Rate had already fallen to 0.5%.
The government doesn't borrow at Base Rate!
10 Year Bond Yield on the date of the 2010 General Election: 3.808 10 Year Bond Yield today: 0.208
Which is cheaper 3.808 or 0.208?
I am well aware of that. The point is that there was no upward pressure on UK interest rates at the time - despite the political uncertainty. The Deficit had already peaked and was due to fall further without Osborne's austerity measures. I have seen no suggestion that interest rates would have climbed had Darling remained Chancellor.
There wasn't too much upwards pressure because the markets could see the incoming government was serious about sorting it out.
Had Darling remained Chancellor it would have gone up further as it did in other struggling European nations. We don't need to guess that we can see it.
Thanks to the hardwork of Osborne we are in a much healthier position with a much smaller deficit going into this crisis than we had in 2010. Which is part of the reason why the yield is so low now.
Rates fell from the start of the crisis to 2010 even as we borrowed incredible amounts. They are rock bottom now even though we have more debt than before and our deficit is going to be massive.
Your thesis doesn't stack up.
Instead, I think it's just that during a crisis people want to buy safe govt bonds. UK govt bonds are safe because we have our own currency.
Good questions from the public. Very good questions.
Intra UK tourism isn't a good question. Let's find out about people coming in and how the government is going to make sure it isn't a continual new source of infection.
Disagree, it is a good question since we're going to have lots of it when restrictions are lifted. International tourism needs to be asked about too mind.
I just don't think it's that urgent, international travel is a much more pressing case.
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?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Ignoring the fact he couldn't choose (ii) would make it easier to bring the deficit back under control.
Historically an average deficit under 2.5 to 3% over the long term was considered acceptable because GDP growth and inflation would keep debt to GDP under control then. The problem with Brown is he hubristically thought boom and bust was broken which is why he was arrogantly running a 2.8% deficit so he had no room left to go when the recession came.
Let us imagine that this recession permanetly wipes out 5% of our tax base. In case (i) that means blowing the deficit out to 7.8% but in case (ii) it means blowing the deficit out to 6.2%. To bring the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (i) means spending cuts or tax rises of 4.8% - to brink the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (ii) means spending cuts or tax rises of 3.2%
Case (i) needs 50% more tax rises or spending cuts than case (ii) does.
That's without considering compound maths which we should all know the imporatance of by now.
You are ignoring debt again when we have just finally agreed that it matters. It matters because we must not run up "unsustainable" debt. What is unsustainable as a number? We don't know. Nobody does. But what we do know is that 85% of GDP is closer to unsustainable than 40% is. Of course it is. It's more than double.
OK. So we either start with 85% debt and have to tackle (over time) a 1.2% annual addition to it. Or we start with 40% debt and have to tackle an opening 2.8% annual addition to it. Which scenario is the more comfortable in terms of our objective of staying below a level of cumulative debt which is unsustainable?
When contemplating this, please try to forget about Gordon Brown. He is not relevant.
Good questions from the public. Very good questions.
Intra UK tourism isn't a good question. Let's find out about people coming in and how the government is going to make sure it isn't a continual new source of infection.
Disagree, it is a good question since we're going to have lots of it when restrictions are lifted. International tourism needs to be asked about too mind.
I just don't think it's that urgent, international travel is a much more pressing case.
Maybe one of these so called journalists will ask it.
Good questions from the public. Very good questions.
Intra UK tourism isn't a good question. Let's find out about people coming in and how the government is going to make sure it isn't a continual new source of infection.
Disagree, it is a good question since we're going to have lots of it when restrictions are lifted. International tourism needs to be asked about too mind.
I just don't think it's that urgent, international travel is a much more pressing case.
There's probably more risk from domestic than international as it stands.
Mr. Eadric, aren't we roughly average for deaths per million for most comparable nations?
And don't we count almost every death that could feasibly be down to COVID-19 as being so, whereas other nations have tighter definitions? And our our figures include only hospital deaths, not care home deaths.
Comparison are difficult. The only measure I've seen that has us worst is the Ed Conway graph which has a bloody weird measure.
Good questions from the public. Very good questions.
Yes. But Boris misunderstood one of them. Not like him. He is struggling.
Indeed. Good he is back but he wouldn't be 100% under the circumstances.
I suppose it is churlish of me to wish we had a PM at 100% at this time you know what with the global pandemic an' all.
No, but your anger at a PM not being present when ill or not being 100% suggests we are supposed to bring in a brand new PM, without any known public backing and unclear who would be best placed to command a parliamentary majority in those circumstances, whenever a PM drops below 100% fitness in a crisis, given you don't believe deputizing is sufficient. What I cannot figure out is how this rapid changing of PMs in a crisis, with it being entirely unclear who would fill the role, is supposed to lead to clearer more effective decision making.
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?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Ignoring the fact he couldn't choose (ii) would make it easier to bring the deficit back under control.
Historically an average deficit under 2.5 to 3% over the long term was considered acceptable because GDP growth and inflation would keep debt to GDP under control then. The problem with Brown is he hubristically thought boom and bust was broken which is why he was arrogantly running a 2.8% deficit so he had no room left to go when the recession came.
Let us imagine that this recession permanetly wipes out 5% of our tax base. In case (i) that means blowing the deficit out to 7.8% but in case (ii) it means blowing the deficit out to 6.2%. To bring the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (i) means spending cuts or tax rises of 4.8% - to brink the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (ii) means spending cuts or tax rises of 3.2%
Case (i) needs 50% more tax rises or spending cuts than case (ii) does.
That's without considering compound maths which we should all know the imporatance of by now.
You are ignoring debt again when we have just finally agreed that it matters. It matters because we must not run up "unsustainable" debt. What is unsustainable as a number? We don't know. Nobody does. But what we do know is that 85% of GDP is closer to unsustainable than 40% is. Of course it is. It's more than double.
OK. So we either start with 85% debt and have to tackle (over time) a 1.2% annual addition to it. Or we start with 40% debt and have to tackle an opening 2.8% annual addition to it. Which scenario is the more comfortable in terms of our objective of staying below a level of cumulative debt which is unsustainable?
When contemplating this, please try to forget about Gordon Brown. He is not relevant.
There is no debt figure that is unsustainable per se. Records of UK debt go past 250% of GDP without a default.
In what way is the UK doing "very well" especially when "compared to many other countries"?
Asking for 66 million friends
We're doing relatively well for a country with both a very large total population and a very high population density. Every other country in Europe either has a lower total population or a lower population density (or both).
Sorry how can there be 6,000 new cases after six weeks of well observed lockdown?????
That's a physical impossibility isnt it????
Who are these people going about infecting each other???
Is it not due to higher levels of testing?
Well yes. I'd imagine the mild +ve cases will perhaps now isolate more than otherwise might have done too. Should help R.
It's good because all of those 6000 people can be told to stay isolated at home or isolated in hospital, previously we were catching just half of them and 3000 would stay in contact with others and inadvertently infect them. The next step of the strategy is to bring in all of the people those 6000 gave been on contact with over the last 14 days and have them tested as well.
Sorry how can there be 6,000 new cases after six weeks of well observed lockdown?????
That's a physical impossibility isnt it????
Who are these people going about infecting each other???
No. For obvious reasons.
Rt isn't 0. People are still going around. Just fewer than before.
I don't know why Nerys and contrarian keep highlighting this because it's also the flaw in their "Why don't just the vulnerable people isolate?". Because isolation isn't perfect. A vulnerable person is in much more danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it.
Sorry how can there be 6,000 new cases after six weeks of well observed lockdown?????
That's a physical impossibility isnt it????
Who are these people going about infecting each other???
No. For obvious reasons.
Rt isn't 0. People are still going around. Just fewer than before.
I don't know why Nerys and contrarian keep highlighting this because it's also the flaw in their "Why don't just the vulnerable people isolate?". Because isolation isn't perfect. A vulnerable person is in much more danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it.
Eh ?
A vulnerable person is in much more danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it.
Ooh Chris getting a bit defensive. But why not learn on the job?
Chris is nearly as culpable as Boris
I have noticed him get all defensive when people point out our relative poor performance, before.
Whilst ever the "Actually we are an international exemplar in our response" attitude as stated by his Deputy is present. We aren't going to learn from actual International exemplar like Germany S Korea and NZ
Sorry how can there be 6,000 new cases after six weeks of well observed lockdown?????
That's a physical impossibility isnt it????
Who are these people going about infecting each other???
No. For obvious reasons.
Rt isn't 0. People are still going around. Just fewer than before.
I don't know why Nerys and contrarian keep highlighting this because it's also the flaw in their "Why don't just the vulnerable people isolate?". Because isolation isn't perfect. A vulnerable person is in much more danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it.
Eh ?
Should be "A vulnerable person is in much less danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it".
In what way is the UK doing "very well" especially when "compared to many other countries"?
Asking for 66 million friends
We're doing relatively well for a country with both a very large total population and a very high population density. Every other country in Europe either has a lower total population or a lower population density (or both).
Russia and Germany and monaco also fit into the classification " Every other country in Europe either has a lower total population or a lower population density (or both)."
Good questions from the public. Very good questions.
Intra UK tourism isn't a good question. Let's find out about people coming in and how the government is going to make sure it isn't a continual new source of infection.
Disagree, it is a good question since we're going to have lots of it when restrictions are lifted. International tourism needs to be asked about too mind.
I just don't think it's that urgent, international travel is a much more pressing case.
For a UK tourism business any customers are potentially good news.
Sorry how can there be 6,000 new cases after six weeks of well observed lockdown?????
That's a physical impossibility isnt it????
Who are these people going about infecting each other???
No. For obvious reasons.
Rt isn't 0. People are still going around. Just fewer than before.
I don't know why Nerys and contrarian keep highlighting this because it's also the flaw in their "Why don't just the vulnerable people isolate?". Because isolation isn't perfect. A vulnerable person is in much more danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it.
Eh ?
Should be "A vulnerable person is in much less danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it".
Well that's logical but not what he's saying. Perhaps it's a typo or a counterintuitive statement, am not sure though.
Good questions from the public. Very good questions.
Intra UK tourism isn't a good question. Let's find out about people coming in and how the government is going to make sure it isn't a continual new source of infection.
Disagree, it is a good question since we're going to have lots of it when restrictions are lifted. International tourism needs to be asked about too mind.
I just don't think it's that urgent, international travel is a much more pressing case.
For a UK tourism business any customers are potentially good news.
Indeed, domestic tourism is probably going to be the best available for a while and hopefully internal travel within the UK won't be too bad soon, especially if there is a track and trace strategy up and running. I think we'll need capacity for 200k tests per day to really make it work though.
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?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Scenario 2. Any day.
I didn't ask you! You're meant to be explaining why property taxes can't work because they reduce the value of the property.
But I must duck out for a haircut now. Wife is waving scissors at me.
It's quite simple really, assets hold value based on their returns, make the returns negative and the asset value drops, usually quite significantly.
The value of an asset does indeed depend on expected returns. So if an annual tax is levied on a property - where before there was no such tax - it's value will indeed fall.
But the question was - why does this mean that the tax will not raise lots of money for HMRC?
My paediatric colleagues seem to be finding the Kawasaki like syndrome in children perhaps isn't very rare either.
But according to Contrarian that is irrelevant because "The number of people who have died in hospital from Corona with no pre-existing condition is 250 from age 0-60. Even for 0-80 its under 750. Out of 20,000."
Sorry how can there be 6,000 new cases after six weeks of well observed lockdown?????
That's a physical impossibility isnt it????
Who are these people going about infecting each other???
No. For obvious reasons.
Rt isn't 0. People are still going around. Just fewer than before.
I don't know why Nerys and contrarian keep highlighting this because it's also the flaw in their "Why don't just the vulnerable people isolate?". Because isolation isn't perfect. A vulnerable person is in much more danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it.
Eh ?
A vulnerable person is in much more danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it.
Are you sure ?
Yes. Its like herd immunity when you can't get a vaccine for medical reasons - if you are vulnerable then the fewer other people passing the virus on the less risk you are in.
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?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Scenario 2. Any day.
I didn't ask you! You're meant to be explaining why property taxes can't work because they reduce the value of the property.
But I must duck out for a haircut now. Wife is waving scissors at me.
It's quite simple really, assets hold value based on their returns, make the returns negative and the asset value drops, usually quite significantly.
The value of an asset does indeed depend on expected returns. So if an annual tax is levied on a property - where before there was no such tax - it's value will indeed fall.
But the question was - why does this mean that the tax will not raise lots of money for HMRC?
They are informative. They tell us that national population density figures are misleading. Most people live in areas that are much more densely populated than the national figure. I think this is especially true of GB and the Netherlands.
Striking how Scotland is effectively the central belt, between two wildernesses.
And the coastal fringe NE-about to Inverness. Wales is just the opposite.
Very nice maps.
Love that Paris pop density is a model of the Eiffel Tower.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52471298
"well observed lockdown?????"
It's a weak lockdown that some are increasingly flouting. That suggests why. Also, my belief is that it is far more prevalent as an airborne virus and that is affecting closely knit accommodation.
We know we are getting the plan next week. Unlikely to be much change for 11 May, numbers appear to be moving in right direction so hopefully more substantive relaxation 1 June (ie + 3 weeks), including more social interaction and more businesses operating.
Not pubs for a while!
Active cases: 101.551 including 1.694 (-101) in ICU
Deaths + 285 (total: 27.967)
Healed/discharged +4693 (total: 75.945)
Tests: 1.979.217 (+68.456)
New cases: +1.872
People ignoring the rules.
People going to the shops.
People going to work.
People going for exercise.
We're just picking up a lot more of them with much increased testing - same as Germany early on seemingly had a lot of cases and we didn't, it was mostly just a difference in testing. The actual % testing positive has fallen off a cliff in the last week though, down from something like 40% to a touch over 10% now.
Infection models still have us at around 13k or so new infections per day, down from ~80k a month ago, so cases 6k sounds about right. That was the same ratio Germany had when they first hit these test numbers.
Ex-Hong Kong governor also says China is ‘turning screws’ on city during pandemic"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/30/chris-patten-urges-uk-investigate-coronavirus-origins-china
The leadership campaign is on hold for a year.
Grrrrr!!!
Your thesis doesn't stack up.
Instead, I think it's just that during a crisis people want to buy safe govt bonds. UK govt bonds are safe because we have our own currency.
OK. So we either start with 85% debt and have to tackle (over time) a 1.2% annual addition to it. Or we start with 40% debt and have to tackle an opening 2.8% annual addition to it. Which scenario is the more comfortable in terms of our objective of staying below a level of cumulative debt which is unsustainable?
When contemplating this, please try to forget about Gordon Brown. He is not relevant.
I think it might be more than a coincidence!
And don't we count almost every death that could feasibly be down to COVID-19 as being so, whereas other nations have tighter definitions? And our our figures include only hospital deaths, not care home deaths.
Comparison are difficult. The only measure I've seen that has us worst is the Ed Conway graph which has a bloody weird measure.
It is the deficit that determines sustainability.
International comparisons are not helpful
Funny we never heard that when we were clustered with others rather than the top of the shit outcomes (European) league.
Rt isn't 0. People are still going around. Just fewer than before.
I suspect UK won't be doing well on that one either.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/30/coronavirus-scientists-caution-against-reopening-schools
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/30/coronavirus-deaths-how-does-britain-compare-with-other-countries
A vulnerable person is in much more danger trying to isolate in a region where few people have the disease than where many people have it.
Are you sure ?
I have noticed him get all defensive when people point out our relative poor performance, before.
Whilst ever the "Actually we are an international exemplar in our response" attitude as stated by his Deputy is present. We aren't going to learn from actual International exemplar like Germany S Korea and NZ
You really do have to cut Boris and other leaders around the world some slack when there is so much uncertainty about this virus.
Definitely recovering.
But the question was - why does this mean that the tax will not raise lots of money for HMRC?
"The number of people who have died in hospital from Corona with no pre-existing condition is 250 from age 0-60. Even for 0-80 its under 750. Out of 20,000."
Its unrealistic to expect people not to make ongoing comparisons until the excess deaths data is available
https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1255899702085722113?s=20
<2% of the total.
France and Italy are finding it too.
https://twitter.com/PrachiSrivas/status/1255898319727009792?s=09
https://twitter.com/thegarance/status/1255891218581594116?s=19
It is thought to be an inflammatory response triggered by viral infection.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1255899328377507842?s=20
Scotch tape is so called because the original design skimped on adhesive over the full width - was seen as parsimonious.