Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
Not if the £130 billion is on top of the quantitative easing...
I don't believe it is.
The Quantitatively Eased debt is still accounted for as debt within the national figures and still counted as borrowing. Hence referring to "real" debt that the media very, very rarely does.
As I understand the Bank of England buys the government's debts (via buying gilts in the open market). The UK Government still has debt. The Bank has the gilts. The Bank is not the UK Government.
What they do with the gilts in the medium term is anyone's guess.
Indeed hence the polite fiction that the debt is still there and the Bank is not printing money to write off the government's debt.
In the real world though the government owns the Bank (even if it operates independently) and doesn't pay any interest to the Bank so even if its not a debt that has officially been written off to all intents and purposes it really has been.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
That’s great news for anyone looking to extend rather than move, and great news for the building trade. Not so good for the professional NIMBYs though, nor for stamp duty revenues.
On the specific HMO point, does setting up an HMO not require a change of use permission?
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
I don't actually have any problem with people being allowed to extend their homes (provided it's not in a conservation area or National Park). By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
I fear the news about the vaccine has been over-hyped. Even if it is genuinely good news, it's surely unlikely that it will be available by Christmas, and it's by no means unusual for die-effects to become evident after widespread use. Sorry to be such a dismal Jimmy, but experience of medicines over 40+ years leads one to be cautious.
I have to agree. Without the hype, the news is that it has passed phase 1 trials which means only that it doesn't immediately kill people stone dead. The overtones of "all over by Christmas" seem to be lost on the headline writers.
"Die-effects" = side-effects presumably, though it comes to the same thing.
Perhaps so, but data from human trials was published for four different vaccines yesterday, and all showed the production of neutralising antibodies and T cells.
It’s not going to be over by Christmas, but the strong prospect of effective vaccines is there. In the meantime, the widespread use of masks would ensure the least disruption to our lives.
That sounds about right. Phase 1 trials are no big deal - pharma is littered with drugs that passed that stage and never made it to market because they didn't work or produced significant side-effects later. But the parallel progress is impressive, and the chance that there will be improved treatment by, say, early next year and a vaccine that works for many people by the end of 2021 looks quite promising.
Caution and masks remain essential for the time being, as you say.
In many ways the inhaled interferon announcement sounds even more important. There is real progress in therapeutics too.
A vaccine is essential though before hospitals and primary care can function normally again. The slow productivity from PPE and social distancing has more than halved productivity.
The interferon result looks very interesting indeed; only a small trial, though, so it's just possible the result is a statistical anomaly. Sill, it will be a great deal easier and quicker to run a larger trial with it than a vaccine trial, so we should know one way or another very soon.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
I don't actually have any problem with people being allowed to extend their homes (provided it's not in a conservation area or National Park). By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
Indeed.
More likely I'd have thought 'flippers' might seek to buy run down properties, renovate and extend it to add value then resell it . . . but I'd imagine the BTL 3% surcharge in Stamp Duty has probably removed much of the value of flipping homes.
The Chinese vaccine seems not to work for quite a few older people - it uses a human adenovirus as a vector, which some people's immune system will already have resistance to (which is why the Oxford vaccine uses a chimpanzee virus).
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
I don't actually have any problem with people being allowed to extend their homes (provided it's not in a conservation area or National Park). By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
Indeed.
More likely I'd have thought 'flippers' might seek to buy run down properties, renovate and extend it to add value then resell it . . . but I'd imagine the BTL 3% surcharge in Stamp Duty has probably removed much of the value of flipping homes.
If its a "stupid idea", how come so many BTL are doing it then? There are whole streets in my nearest town where just about every house has been changed from owner occupiers to BLT HMO in last decade or so.
Letting them throw up two stories is just pouring petrol on the fire imho.
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Does the government wish to get everyone working from offices again? This seems to be the wish of some backbenchers and some in the media but the government and the PM seem to be clear their only priority is getting people back to work safely not getting back to offices. If back to work means working from home so be it.
And why shouldn't that be the case. Some businesses will never return to their offices and that could improve efficiency . . . great!
They were making plenty of noise last week about reviving the economy in London by getting everyone back to offices.
I agree that there’s no way commuting is coming back on the scale it was before - businesses have realised that remote working technology is now good enough to allow teams to meet in person for a few days a month and work remotely the rest of the time.
What that does mean, is there’s going to be several years’ worth of change happen very quickly, which is going to be bad news for London’s sandwich shops but good news for local high streets. And great news for the environment, a point that very few people seem to be making.
I don't think it is that straightforward. Only a minority - 1/3? 1/4? - of workers say they want to carry on home working, most people don't live in flats/houses big enough for one, let alone 2, people to run a home office there, employers are getting an easy ride atm because they still have the office space for a-few-days-a-month meetings, and so on. And the social effects of the increased isolation are not obviously beneficial - if you work 9-5 in an office at least 75% of your daily social interactions are with coworkers unless you are also a full on party animal, and what's to replace those?
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
There’s a huge difference between borrowing in the depths of a recession and pandemic, and still borrowing at the height of the boom. The alternative to massive borrowing now, is several million unemployed and the economy totally broken.
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Not at all.
There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.
The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.
During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.
For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
I don't actually have any problem with people being allowed to extend their homes (provided it's not in a conservation area or National Park). By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
Indeed.
More likely I'd have thought 'flippers' might seek to buy run down properties, renovate and extend it to add value then resell it . . . but I'd imagine the BTL 3% surcharge in Stamp Duty has probably removed much of the value of flipping homes.
If its a "stupid idea", how come so many BTL are doing it then? There are whole streets in my nearest town where just about every house has been changed from owner occupiers to BLT HMO in last decade or so.
Letting them throw up two stories is just pouring petrol on the fire imho.
It’s much better to let the market decide these things, than an overbearing planning system which seeks to constrict housing supply and drive up prices.
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I believe polling already suggests around 85% would get vaccinated. I suspect it would be higher than that for a proven effective vaccine, once people realised that meant a return to normal life without restrictions.
85% is more than enough for herd immunity anyway.
About enough, I think Not more. We've got plenty of people who are accustomed to giving injections; the trick will be ensuring that everyone's covered. We might just be going back to ID cards.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
I don't actually have any problem with people being allowed to extend their homes (provided it's not in a conservation area or National Park). By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
Indeed.
More likely I'd have thought 'flippers' might seek to buy run down properties, renovate and extend it to add value then resell it . . . but I'd imagine the BTL 3% surcharge in Stamp Duty has probably removed much of the value of flipping homes.
If its a "stupid idea", how come so many BTL are doing it then? There are whole streets in my nearest town where just about every house has been changed from owner occupiers to BLT HMO in last decade or so.
Letting them throw up two stories is just pouring petrol on the fire imho.
I for one never said it was a stupid idea, but the situation has changed over the last decade. A decade ago the 3% stamp duty surcharge etc didn't exist . . . and the point was being made that if more people are working from home now they'd have less reason to all cram into an HMO closer to the work in areas where there's a shortage of homes - that wasn't the case over the last decade.
But frankly if people are going to build HMOs (and some will either way as there will always be some demand for it) then being able to "throw up two stories" seems to me to make the situation better not worse. The worst thing about HMOs is poor quality ones with a lack of space. If you can add two extra stories you can make decent HMOs with a decent amount of space . . . which will crowd out slum landlords who are trying to make a killing on tiny abusive spaces.
So how many public sector jobs will go to finance the wonderful pay rises announced today? Without funding one persons pay rise is somebodies job lost.
Does the government wish to get everyone working from offices again? This seems to be the wish of some backbenchers and some in the media but the government and the PM seem to be clear their only priority is getting people back to work safely not getting back to offices. If back to work means working from home so be it.
And why shouldn't that be the case. Some businesses will never return to their offices and that could improve efficiency . . . great!
They were making plenty of noise last week about reviving the economy in London by getting everyone back to offices.
I agree that there’s no way commuting is coming back on the scale it was before - businesses have realised that remote working technology is now good enough to allow teams to meet in person for a few days a month and work remotely the rest of the time.
What that does mean, is there’s going to be several years’ worth of change happen very quickly, which is going to be bad news for London’s sandwich shops but good news for local high streets. And great news for the environment, a point that very few people seem to be making.
I don't think it is that straightforward. Only a minority - 1/3? 1/4? - of workers say they want to carry on home working, most people don't live in flats/houses big enough for one, let alone 2, people to run a home office there, employers are getting an easy ride atm because they still have the office space for a-few-days-a-month meetings, and so on. And the social effects of the increased isolation are not obviously beneficial - if you work 9-5 in an office at least 75% of your daily social interactions are with coworkers unless you are also a full on party animal, and what's to replace those?
Where are you getting this 1/3 to 1/4 figure from. I only know one person who wants to go back to his office out of about 10 office workers
Does the government wish to get everyone working from offices again? This seems to be the wish of some backbenchers and some in the media but the government and the PM seem to be clear their only priority is getting people back to work safely not getting back to offices. If back to work means working from home so be it.
And why shouldn't that be the case. Some businesses will never return to their offices and that could improve efficiency . . . great!
They were making plenty of noise last week about reviving the economy in London by getting everyone back to offices.
I agree that there’s no way commuting is coming back on the scale it was before - businesses have realised that remote working technology is now good enough to allow teams to meet in person for a few days a month and work remotely the rest of the time.
What that does mean, is there’s going to be several years’ worth of change happen very quickly, which is going to be bad news for London’s sandwich shops but good news for local high streets. And great news for the environment, a point that very few people seem to be making.
I don't think it is that straightforward. Only a minority - 1/3? 1/4? - of workers say they want to carry on home working, most people don't live in flats/houses big enough for one, let alone 2, people to run a home office there, employers are getting an easy ride atm because they still have the office space for a-few-days-a-month meetings, and so on. And the social effects of the increased isolation are not obviously beneficial - if you work 9-5 in an office at least 75% of your daily social interactions are with coworkers unless you are also a full on party animal, and what's to replace those?
Might we not see more satellite offices in previously commuter towns, such as Colchester, linked electronically.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
I don't actually have any problem with people being allowed to extend their homes (provided it's not in a conservation area or National Park). By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
Indeed.
More likely I'd have thought 'flippers' might seek to buy run down properties, renovate and extend it to add value then resell it . . . but I'd imagine the BTL 3% surcharge in Stamp Duty has probably removed much of the value of flipping homes.
If its a "stupid idea", how come so many BTL are doing it then? There are whole streets in my nearest town where just about every house has been changed from owner occupiers to BLT HMO in last decade or so.
Letting them throw up two stories is just pouring petrol on the fire imho.
I for one never said it was a stupid idea, but the situation has changed over the last decade. A decade ago the 3% stamp duty surcharge etc didn't exist . . . and the point was being made that if more people are working from home now they'd have less reason to all cram into an HMO closer to the work in areas where there's a shortage of homes - that wasn't the case over the last decade.
But frankly if people are going to build HMOs (and some will either way as there will always be some demand for it) then being able to "throw up two stories" seems to me to make the situation better not worse. The worst thing about HMOs is poor quality ones with a lack of space. If you can add two extra stories you can make decent HMOs with a decent amount of space . . . which will crowd out slum landlords who are trying to make a killing on tiny abusive spaces.
Or, alternatively, there will simply be two more floors of ‘abusive spaces’.
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I believe polling already suggests around 85% would get vaccinated. I suspect it would be higher than that for a proven effective vaccine, once people realised that meant a return to normal life without restrictions.
85% is more than enough for herd immunity anyway.
About enough, I think Not more. We've got plenty of people who are accustomed to giving injections; the trick will be ensuring that everyone's covered. We might just be going back to ID cards.
Surely some Covid-19 vaccine certificae is going to be needed?
Airlines and cruise companies at the very least are likely to require evidence of vaccination before you board - that will push up vaccination rates.
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Not at all.
There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.
The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.
During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.
For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
What level of borrowing do you think is ok in normal times? Presumably more than 2.6% of GDP (2019) but less than 2.9% (2007)? What criteria do you use to arrive at this Thompson Rule? (What role does the fact that net debt was 34% of GDP in 2007 and 80% in 2019 play in your calculations?)
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
The problems that a vaccine solves is that we no longer need lockdown and people no longer need to suffer and die. Hardly irrelevant. Letting the virus run its course (unlike every other deadly virus ever) would be monumentally stupid. So tell me what problems will it create?
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
I don't actually have any problem with people being allowed to extend their homes (provided it's not in a conservation area or National Park). By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
Indeed.
More likely I'd have thought 'flippers' might seek to buy run down properties, renovate and extend it to add value then resell it . . . but I'd imagine the BTL 3% surcharge in Stamp Duty has probably removed much of the value of flipping homes.
If its a "stupid idea", how come so many BTL are doing it then? There are whole streets in my nearest town where just about every house has been changed from owner occupiers to BLT HMO in last decade or so.
Letting them throw up two stories is just pouring petrol on the fire imho.
I for one never said it was a stupid idea, but the situation has changed over the last decade. A decade ago the 3% stamp duty surcharge etc didn't exist . . . and the point was being made that if more people are working from home now they'd have less reason to all cram into an HMO closer to the work in areas where there's a shortage of homes - that wasn't the case over the last decade.
But frankly if people are going to build HMOs (and some will either way as there will always be some demand for it) then being able to "throw up two stories" seems to me to make the situation better not worse. The worst thing about HMOs is poor quality ones with a lack of space. If you can add two extra stories you can make decent HMOs with a decent amount of space . . . which will crowd out slum landlords who are trying to make a killing on tiny abusive spaces.
Or, alternatively, there will simply be two more floors of ‘abusive spaces’.
Well the old planning system did nothing to prevent that and was simply a boon to NIMBYs wanting to protect their house value.
I'd rather trust the free market to take care of it . . . in a free market competition will crowd out terrible quality bad actors as they lose their demand.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
"Let them eat cake" bias. 15% of people live in flats. The majority of houses are so small they might as well be flats and do not offer the option of extending the conservatory out over the croquet lawn. For a working couple you need two lots of office space so you have to extend the conservatory twice.
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I believe polling already suggests around 85% would get vaccinated. I suspect it would be higher than that for a proven effective vaccine, once people realised that meant a return to normal life without restrictions.
85% is more than enough for herd immunity anyway.
About enough, I think Not more. We've got plenty of people who are accustomed to giving injections; the trick will be ensuring that everyone's covered. We might just be going back to ID cards.
Surely some Covid-19 vaccine certificae is going to be needed?
Airlines and cruise companies at the very least are likely to require evidence of vaccination before you board - that will push up vaccination rates.
Very good point. ID card with vaccination data. Electronically readable.
That is all of those Shadsy lists at less than 100/1 and is posted because I too have a botox-free bladder and as a reminder of the perceived ranking of the likely candidates.
Because I'm incredibly generous, I'll offer 25/1 on Michelle Obama, or any other member of the Obama family.
The Chinese vaccine seems not to work for quite a few older people - it uses a human adenovirus as a vector, which some people's immune system will already have resistance to (which is why the Oxford vaccine uses a chimpanzee virus).
Whether it offers the over 55s direct protection or not, would it nonetheless mean that the under 55 population would loose the ability to spread the virus? If so it would create the conditions for the virus to quickly die out as its reproductive capability is massively suppressed.
So how many public sector jobs will go to finance the wonderful pay rises announced today? Without funding one persons pay rise is somebodies job lost.
The old Gordon Brown trick. ‘We will give teachers, nurses, doctors x hundred billion in pay rises.’
‘Where’s the money?’
‘Find it yourselves, losers.’
That was why income tax fell slightly and council taxes ballooned under Labour.
On this one, I have all sorts of questions. First of all, it is interesting to note on teacher pay (where I take a totally impartial view, of course 😉) that the figure of ‘up to 3.1%’ matches precisely none of the figures the DfE consulted on in January. The figures are here https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-2020-teacher-pay-proposals-rise-will-cost-schools-455m-plus-6-more-findings/ but the TL:DR version is that even the least generous version had increases of up to 6.27% for some grades, declining as you go up the pay scale.
That means that if this story is correct this is announcing a lower pay settlement than previously intended, so it is rather neat piece of spin to put this out as a raise.
The other problem of course is that while we speak loosely about ‘public sector’ it doesn’t really exist in its classic form any more. Most of the staff in question work for one form or another of subcontractor - e.g. Academy chains. They have substantial control over pay. They may decline to add this increase on as an economy measure. For local authority schools - still the majority of primary schools, of course - this may mean a hike in council tax to cover it.
A further thought that occurs to me is that no mention is made of pensions. Pensions are a big, big problem in the public sector. Employer contributions in the TPS for example have skyrocketed by 48% in the last year alone. How is the increase in contributions to be funded? Or perhaps this pay increase could be clawed back via higher pension employer contributions? Wouldn’t put it past the Treasury to cheat like that.
So the devil will be in the detail and the detail is notably lacking. But my instinctive answer is this is probably a less generous settlement than initially planned (admittedly for good and understandable reasons).
If I had to prick a pin in a list which may cause trouble, I would wonder how local government workers are going to take this. Their pay is poor by public sector standards, their pensions are less secure, and the stupidity of the government in having yet another drive towards hare-brained unitary authorities that nobody wants and never work is going to see a lot of pressure put on them.
The BBC can save a load of money by dispensing with their standard “comedy” line up and providing a few more interviews with Nathalie Loiseau as on Today this morning.
During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.
Being responsible can involve borrowing even when you're not in a crisis, providing the interest rate is lower than the social discount rate, as it is at the moment.
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Not at all.
There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.
The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.
During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.
For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
What level of borrowing do you think is ok in normal times? Presumably more than 2.6% of GDP (2019) but less than 2.9% (2007)? What criteria do you use to arrive at this Thompson Rule? (What role does the fact that net debt was 34% of GDP in 2007 and 80% in 2019 play in your calculations?)
Not sure where you're getting 2.6% from, the final pre-recession, pre-pandemic economic year had a deficit of 1.2% (2019) not 2.6%.
As a rule of thumb borrowing in normal times depends upon the economic cycle but we should aim for it to be less than the year before during period of growth with an aim to bring the deficit to zero and keep it around zero. The delta, the change in the deficit is what matters most.
Looking at the last 3 recessions we had in reverse order. A deficit of 1.2% of GDP following a decade of annual reductions in the deficit from a peak of over 10%. A deficit of 2.6% of GDP following five years of growth after the deficit had been a surplus. A budget surplus when the recession hit.
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Not at all.
There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.
The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.
During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.
For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
Ah yes, I well remember all those siren voices calling out the excessive government spending in 2006/7... Or maybe not.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
I don't actually have any problem with people being allowed to extend their homes (provided it's not in a conservation area or National Park). By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
Indeed.
More likely I'd have thought 'flippers' might seek to buy run down properties, renovate and extend it to add value then resell it . . . but I'd imagine the BTL 3% surcharge in Stamp Duty has probably removed much of the value of flipping homes.
If its a "stupid idea", how come so many BTL are doing it then? There are whole streets in my nearest town where just about every house has been changed from owner occupiers to BLT HMO in last decade or so.
Letting them throw up two stories is just pouring petrol on the fire imho.
I for one never said it was a stupid idea, but the situation has changed over the last decade. A decade ago the 3% stamp duty surcharge etc didn't exist . . . and the point was being made that if more people are working from home now they'd have less reason to all cram into an HMO closer to the work in areas where there's a shortage of homes - that wasn't the case over the last decade.
But frankly if people are going to build HMOs (and some will either way as there will always be some demand for it) then being able to "throw up two stories" seems to me to make the situation better not worse. The worst thing about HMOs is poor quality ones with a lack of space. If you can add two extra stories you can make decent HMOs with a decent amount of space . . . which will crowd out slum landlords who are trying to make a killing on tiny abusive spaces.
Or, alternatively, there will simply be two more floors of ‘abusive spaces’.
Well the old planning system did nothing to prevent that and was simply a boon to NIMBYs wanting to protect their house value.
I'd rather trust the free market to take care of it . . . in a free market competition will crowd out terrible quality bad actors as they lose their demand.
No. Watch the planning system close up and you will see it does a tremendous amount of good, and avoids a significant degree of harm.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
"Let them eat cake" bias. 15% of people live in flats. The majority of houses are so small they might as well be flats and do not offer the option of extending the conservatory out over the croquet lawn. For a working couple you need two lots of office space so you have to extend the conservatory twice.
You need an office to work?
I'm currently working on my kitchen table. Or should be, I should probably log off. Have fun everyone!
The Chinese vaccine seems not to work for quite a few older people - it uses a human adenovirus as a vector, which some people's immune system will already have resistance to (which is why the Oxford vaccine uses a chimpanzee virus).
Whether it offers the over 55s direct protection or not, would it nonetheless mean that the under 55 population would loose the ability to spread the virus? If so it would create the conditions for the virus to quickly die out as its reproductive capability is massively suppressed.
You may want to read up on the Oxford vaccine as I'm sure I read there that it was possible with the oxford vaccine to actually still shred the disease (so pass it to others) the vaccine just ensured your antibodies know how to fight it before it makes you properly ill.
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Not at all.
There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.
The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.
During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.
For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
Ah yes, I well remember all those siren voices calling out the excessive government spending in 2006/7... Or maybe not.
Yes it was literally in the 2005 manifesto that lost the Tories the election. I was personally saying to my friends (I wasn't on this site yet) that I was worried about the deficit and it was that which made me vote Tory for the first time ever despite not liking Howard or "are you thinking what I'm thinking?" to which my answer otherwise was: No.
(I'm in my thirties it was only my second election).
The Chinese vaccine seems not to work for quite a few older people - it uses a human adenovirus as a vector, which some people's immune system will already have resistance to (which is why the Oxford vaccine uses a chimpanzee virus).
Whether it offers the over 55s direct protection or not, would it nonetheless mean that the under 55 population would loose the ability to spread the virus? If so it would create the conditions for the virus to quickly die out as its reproductive capability is massively suppressed.
You may want to read up on the Oxford vaccine as I'm sure I read there that it was possible with the oxford vaccine to actually still shred the disease (so pass it to others) the vaccine just ensured your antibodies know how to fight it before it makes you properly ill.
I think what happened there was that if you “challenge” a monkey with a large amount of virus up its nose then you can detect some virus in a nasal swab later. It is not clear if this is new virus or just the remains of the original dose.
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Not at all.
There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.
The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.
During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.
For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
What level of borrowing do you think is ok in normal times? Presumably more than 2.6% of GDP (2019) but less than 2.9% (2007)? What criteria do you use to arrive at this Thompson Rule? (What role does the fact that net debt was 34% of GDP in 2007 and 80% in 2019 play in your calculations?)
Not sure where you're getting 2.6% from, the final pre-recession, pre-pandemic economic year had a deficit of 1.2% (2019) not 2.6%.
As a rule of thumb borrowing in normal times depends upon the economic cycle but we should aim for it to be less than the year before during period of growth with an aim to bring the deficit to zero and keep it around zero. The delta, the change in the deficit is what matters most.
Looking at the last 3 recessions we had in reverse order. A deficit of 1.2% of GDP following a decade of annual reductions in the deficit from a peak of over 10%. A deficit of 2.6% of GDP following five years of growth after the deficit had been a surplus. A budget surplus when the recession hit.
Spot the odd one out.
2.6% is the OBR's number for PSNB for FY19/20. Where do you get 1.2% from? That looks like the primary balance number (excluding debt payments). The primary deficit was 1.2% in 2019 and also 1.2% in 2007. Your thesis that borrowing was out of control in 2007 but responsible in 2019 is hard to sustain with reference to the data.
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Be fair - when the consistent line has been "fix the roof while the Sun is shining," it's hard to throw it at people when it's very obviously pissing it down in a one-in-a-century cloudburst.
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.
What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish. The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
Not at all.
There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.
The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.
During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.
For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
What level of borrowing do you think is ok in normal times? Presumably more than 2.6% of GDP (2019) but less than 2.9% (2007)? What criteria do you use to arrive at this Thompson Rule? (What role does the fact that net debt was 34% of GDP in 2007 and 80% in 2019 play in your calculations?)
Not sure where you're getting 2.6% from, the final pre-recession, pre-pandemic economic year had a deficit of 1.2% (2019) not 2.6%.
As a rule of thumb borrowing in normal times depends upon the economic cycle but we should aim for it to be less than the year before during period of growth with an aim to bring the deficit to zero and keep it around zero. The delta, the change in the deficit is what matters most.
Looking at the last 3 recessions we had in reverse order. A deficit of 1.2% of GDP following a decade of annual reductions in the deficit from a peak of over 10%. A deficit of 2.6% of GDP following five years of growth after the deficit had been a surplus. A budget surplus when the recession hit.
Spot the odd one out.
2.6% is the OBR's number for PSNB for FY19/20. Where do you get 1.2% from? That looks like the primary balance number (excluding debt payments). The primary deficit was 1.2% in 2019 and also 1.2% in 2007. Your thesis that borrowing was out of control in 2007 but responsible in 2019 is hard to sustain with reference to the data.
You said 2019 so why are you using 2020 data, the recession had already begun in 2020? You can't use data from during the recession and claim it is before the recession.
The final full economic year before the recession hit was FY18/19.
Vanity face masks. Like individually designed tee shirts. Someone's probably already thought of it.
Not scalable and no barriers to entry
Would be a nice little cottage business but not investable
Indeed, a good temporary sideline for those who already have a print shop doing T-shirts and greetings cards, or want to make a few bucks from Etsy in their spare time, but something for which demand could dry up in a few months so not worth capital investment.
The Chinese vaccine seems not to work for quite a few older people - it uses a human adenovirus as a vector, which some people's immune system will already have resistance to (which is why the Oxford vaccine uses a chimpanzee virus).
Whether it offers the over 55s direct protection or not, would it nonetheless mean that the under 55 population would loose the ability to spread the virus? If so it would create the conditions for the virus to quickly die out as its reproductive capability is massively suppressed.
You may want to read up on the Oxford vaccine as I'm sure I read there that it was possible with the oxford vaccine to actually still shred the disease (so pass it to others) the vaccine just ensured your antibodies know how to fight it before it makes you properly ill.
It might be - but the continuing-to-shed the disease only happened when they got macaque monkeys to basically snort purified virus. It's also possible that the swabs showing virus particles could simply have been left over snorted virus particles.
Huge EU news overnight. A triumph for Merkel and, especially, Macron. From a Brexit perspective, the EU27 have once again shown they can work effectively together and compromise to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. But it will also mean they will be under less pressure to reach a deal that does not fit their overall objectives. Once again, those in the UK predicting the EU’s fragmentation and failure have been proved wrong. I guess we’ll never understand what drives it and just how strong the will is for it to succeed.
The costs for the north go up, just to maintain the status quo.
It’s good for the EU, and fiscal transfers are essential for an OCA, but it’s not an unalloyed positive.
The UK would have been on the hook for Eur60bn of that (half grants, half loans that may or may not be repaid). The EU politician this morning was selling the repayment as being by increasing tariffs on imports so “other people are paying” rather than acknowledging that tariffs are a cost for the end consumer.
The Chinese vaccine seems not to work for quite a few older people - it uses a human adenovirus as a vector, which some people's immune system will already have resistance to (which is why the Oxford vaccine uses a chimpanzee virus).
Whether it offers the over 55s direct protection or not, would it nonetheless mean that the under 55 population would loose the ability to spread the virus? If so it would create the conditions for the virus to quickly die out as its reproductive capability is massively suppressed.
Indeed. From our selfish point of view, it's not massively important, as we won't be depending on the Chinese vaccine.
What was interesting is that the results, where it does work, seem similar to other human trial results (neutralising antibodies; T cell response). And the lack of response in older people (more likely to have already encountered the virus being used as a vector) seems to have occurred as predicted before the trial.
All of which tends to encourage me in thinking that scientists have a pretty good idea of what they're doing with the vaccines.
Huge EU news overnight. A triumph for Merkel and, especially, Macron. From a Brexit perspective, the EU27 have once again shown they can work effectively together and compromise to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. But it will also mean they will be under less pressure to reach a deal that does not fit their overall objectives. Once again, those in the UK predicting the EU’s fragmentation and failure have been proved wrong. I guess we’ll never understand what drives it and just how strong the will is for it to succeed.
The costs for the north go up, just to maintain the status quo.
It’s good for the EU, and fiscal transfers are essential for an OCA, but it’s not an unalloyed positive.
The UK would have been on the hook for Eur60bn of that (half grants, half loans that may or may not be repaid). The EU politician this morning was selling the repayment as being by increasing tariffs on imports so “other people are paying” rather than acknowledging that tariffs are a cost for the end consumer.
That’s quite a lot of money.
If they’re going to increase tariffs to pay for it that is very bad news for us.
So how many public sector jobs will go to finance the wonderful pay rises announced today? Without funding one persons pay rise is somebodies job lost.
The old Gordon Brown trick. ‘We will give teachers, nurses, doctors x hundred billion in pay rises.’
‘Where’s the money?’
‘Find it yourselves, losers.’
That was why income tax fell slightly and council taxes ballooned under Labour.
On this one, I have all sorts of questions. First of all, it is interesting to note on teacher pay (where I take a totally impartial view, of course 😉) that the figure of ‘up to 3.1%’ matches precisely none of the figures the DfE consulted on in January. The figures are here https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-2020-teacher-pay-proposals-rise-will-cost-schools-455m-plus-6-more-findings/ but the TL:DR version is that even the least generous version had increases of up to 6.27% for some grades, declining as you go up the pay scale.
That means that if this story is correct this is announcing a lower pay settlement than previously intended, so it is rather neat piece of spin to put this out as a raise.
The other problem of course is that while we speak loosely about ‘public sector’ it doesn’t really exist in its classic form any more. Most of the staff in question work for one form or another of subcontractor - e.g. Academy chains. They have substantial control over pay. They may decline to add this increase on as an economy measure. For local authority schools - still the majority of primary schools, of course - this may mean a hike in council tax to cover it.
A further thought that occurs to me is that no mention is made of pensions. Pensions are a big, big problem in the public sector. Employer contributions in the TPS for example have skyrocketed by 48% in the last year alone. How is the increase in contributions to be funded? Or perhaps this pay increase could be clawed back via higher pension employer contributions? Wouldn’t put it past the Treasury to cheat like that.
So the devil will be in the detail and the detail is notably lacking. But my instinctive answer is this is probably a less generous settlement than initially planned (admittedly for good and understandable reasons).
If I had to prick a pin in a list which may cause trouble, I would wonder how local government workers are going to take this. Their pay is poor by public sector standards, their pensions are less secure, and the stupidity of the government in having yet another drive towards hare-brained unitary authorities that nobody wants and never work is going to see a lot of pressure put on them.
I was wondering about the effect on public sector pensions. I have an interest, of course.
The issue of care workers has already been raised, I think. Unless 'Something is Done' we are going to have an almighty crash in the care sector in the next couple of years.
Huge EU news overnight. A triumph for Merkel and, especially, Macron. From a Brexit perspective, the EU27 have once again shown they can work effectively together and compromise to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. But it will also mean they will be under less pressure to reach a deal that does not fit their overall objectives. Once again, those in the UK predicting the EU’s fragmentation and failure have been proved wrong. I guess we’ll never understand what drives it and just how strong the will is for it to succeed.
The costs for the north go up, just to maintain the status quo.
It’s good for the EU, and fiscal transfers are essential for an OCA, but it’s not an unalloyed positive.
The UK would have been on the hook for Eur60bn of that (half grants, half loans that may or may not be repaid). The EU politician this morning was selling the repayment as being by increasing tariffs on imports so “other people are paying” rather than acknowledging that tariffs are a cost for the end consumer.
That’s quite a lot of money.
If they’re going to increase tariffs to pay for it that is very bad news for us.
Not if we negotiate zero-tariff, zero-quota access.
On this EU rescue fund thing, one country can stop it.
"Michel also watered down his initial proposal for holding up the disbursement of funds both where there are concerns over either a lack of promised economic reform or the state of the rule of law in a country.
Where there are fears that reforms are not being implemented by member states in receipt of money, any one EU leader can halt the disbursement to allow the European council of the 27 heads of state and government to “exhaustively” debate the situation."
Hmmm. That feature is either a time bomb or a dead letter.
First I'd heard of that story. Reading the excerpt that is disgusting, remove the whip while that gets investigated.
Since it relates in effect to his conduct as an MP, I would agree. I think if those sort of allegations were made against a Civil Servant, for example, they would probably be suspended while an investigation was carried out.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
"Let them eat cake" bias. 15% of people live in flats. The majority of houses are so small they might as well be flats and do not offer the option of extending the conservatory out over the croquet lawn. For a working couple you need two lots of office space so you have to extend the conservatory twice.
I agree with you. Posters on here are not typical. Especially in the cities, people's living spaces are not suitable for permanent home working, and it's a struggle for many young people earning at or below the average wage. They can't afford to move, or to extend (not that this is an option with most flats or city terraces). Many people live in shared houses. This is not just about well-paid office jobs, it's also about the millions who work in low-p[aid office jobs, such as call centres and admin jobs, who struggle to work at home.
Huge EU news overnight. A triumph for Merkel and, especially, Macron. From a Brexit perspective, the EU27 have once again shown they can work effectively together and compromise to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. But it will also mean they will be under less pressure to reach a deal that does not fit their overall objectives. Once again, those in the UK predicting the EU’s fragmentation and failure have been proved wrong. I guess we’ll never understand what drives it and just how strong the will is for it to succeed.
The costs for the north go up, just to maintain the status quo.
It’s good for the EU, and fiscal transfers are essential for an OCA, but it’s not an unalloyed positive.
The UK would have been on the hook for Eur60bn of that (half grants, half loans that may or may not be repaid). The EU politician this morning was selling the repayment as being by increasing tariffs on imports so “other people are paying” rather than acknowledging that tariffs are a cost for the end consumer.
That’s quite a lot of money.
If they’re going to increase tariffs to pay for it that is very bad news for us.
Not if we negotiate zero-tariff, zero-quota access.
The likely cost of that probably just went up, too.
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
On this EU rescue fund thing, one country can stop it.
"Michel also watered down his initial proposal for holding up the disbursement of funds both where there are concerns over either a lack of promised economic reform or the state of the rule of law in a country.
Where there are fears that reforms are not being implemented by member states in receipt of money, any one EU leader can halt the disbursement to allow the European council of the 27 heads of state and government to “exhaustively” debate the situation."
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I suspect that enough will take this one
Especially the vulnerable who have been shielding and are used to taking the flu vaccine.
If any anti-vaxxers want to refuse it then let Darwin take care of them.
Huge EU news overnight. A triumph for Merkel and, especially, Macron. From a Brexit perspective, the EU27 have once again shown they can work effectively together and compromise to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. But it will also mean they will be under less pressure to reach a deal that does not fit their overall objectives. Once again, those in the UK predicting the EU’s fragmentation and failure have been proved wrong. I guess we’ll never understand what drives it and just how strong the will is for it to succeed.
The costs for the north go up, just to maintain the status quo.
It’s good for the EU, and fiscal transfers are essential for an OCA, but it’s not an unalloyed positive.
The UK would have been on the hook for Eur60bn of that (half grants, half loans that may or may not be repaid). The EU politician this morning was selling the repayment as being by increasing tariffs on imports so “other people are paying” rather than acknowledging that tariffs are a cost for the end consumer.
That’s quite a lot of money.
If they’re going to increase tariffs to pay for it that is very bad news for us.
Not if we negotiate zero-tariff, zero-quota access.
But it’s becoming very clear we won’t be able to. The conditions the EU are setting for that are not ones Johnson can agree without upsetting his backbenchers.
Since he agreed to customs checks from Northern Ireland, that’s saying quite something.
I fear the news about the vaccine has been over-hyped. Even if it is genuinely good news, it's surely unlikely that it will be available by Christmas, and it's by no means unusual for die-effects to become evident after widespread use. Sorry to be such a dismal Jimmy, but experience of medicines over 40+ years leads one to be cautious.
I have to agree. Without the hype, the news is that it has passed phase 1 trials which means only that it doesn't immediately kill people stone dead. The overtones of "all over by Christmas" seem to be lost on the headline writers.
"Die-effects" = side-effects presumably, though it comes to the same thing.
Perhaps so, but data from human trials was published for four different vaccines yesterday, and all showed the production of neutralising antibodies and T cells.
It’s not going to be over by Christmas, but the strong prospect of effective vaccines is there. In the meantime, the widespread use of masks would ensure the least disruption to our lives.
That sounds about right. Phase 1 trials are no big deal - pharma is littered with drugs that passed that stage and never made it to market because they didn't work or produced significant side-effects later. But the parallel progress is impressive, and the chance that there will be improved treatment by, say, early next year and a vaccine that works for many people by the end of 2021 looks quite promising.
Caution and masks remain essential for the time being, as you say.
If the BBC is right there are three vaccines in phase 3 trials now.
Technically i think they are phase 2/3. It’s an accelerated approval approach but not as rigorous as separate trials
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I suspect that enough will take this one
Especially the vulnerable who have been shielding and are used to taking the flu vaccine.
If any anti-vaxxers want to refuse it then let Darwin take care of them.
*Visualises Victorian naturalist with weapon of mass destruction*
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I suspect that enough will take this one
Especially the vulnerable who have been shielding and are used to taking the flu vaccine.
If any anti-vaxxers want to refuse it then let Darwin take care of them.
The anti-vaxxers will wake up when airlines and immigration offices worldwide start insisting on vaccination certificates. I predict this starts to happen within a few months of vaccines becoming available.
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
Just like smallpox
Diseases can have massive impacts.
For example smallpox probably killed the Earl of Bedford in May 1641. If he had survived (or if the Earl of Warwick had died instead) our history could have been very different
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
Not if the £130 billion is on top of the quantitative easing...
I don't believe it is.
The Quantitatively Eased debt is still accounted for as debt within the national figures and still counted as borrowing. Hence referring to "real" debt that the media very, very rarely does.
That’s deliberate though. The stated intention of the BofE is to sell back into the market in due course thereby sterilising the increase in money supply.
You may have noticed the wiggle room in that sentence.
So how many public sector jobs will go to finance the wonderful pay rises announced today? Without funding one persons pay rise is somebodies job lost.
The old Gordon Brown trick. ‘We will give teachers, nurses, doctors x hundred billion in pay rises.’
‘Where’s the money?’
‘Find it yourselves, losers.’
That was why income tax fell slightly and council taxes ballooned under Labour.
On this one, I have all sorts of questions. First of all, it is interesting to note on teacher pay (where I take a totally impartial view, of course 😉) that the figure of ‘up to 3.1%’ matches precisely none of the figures the DfE consulted on in January. The figures are here https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-2020-teacher-pay-proposals-rise-will-cost-schools-455m-plus-6-more-findings/ but the TL:DR version is that even the least generous version had increases of up to 6.27% for some grades, declining as you go up the pay scale.
That means that if this story is correct this is announcing a lower pay settlement than previously intended, so it is rather neat piece of spin to put this out as a raise.
The other problem of course is that while we speak loosely about ‘public sector’ it doesn’t really exist in its classic form any more. Most of the staff in question work for one form or another of subcontractor - e.g. Academy chains. They have substantial control over pay. They may decline to add this increase on as an economy measure. For local authority schools - still the majority of primary schools, of course - this may mean a hike in council tax to cover it.
A further thought that occurs to me is that no mention is made of pensions. Pensions are a big, big problem in the public sector. Employer contributions in the TPS for example have skyrocketed by 48% in the last year alone. How is the increase in contributions to be funded? Or perhaps this pay increase could be clawed back via higher pension employer contributions? Wouldn’t put it past the Treasury to cheat like that.
So the devil will be in the detail and the detail is notably lacking. But my instinctive answer is this is probably a less generous settlement than initially planned (admittedly for good and understandable reasons).
If I had to prick a pin in a list which may cause trouble, I would wonder how local government workers are going to take this. Their pay is poor by public sector standards, their pensions are less secure, and the stupidity of the government in having yet another drive towards hare-brained unitary authorities that nobody wants and never work is going to see a lot of pressure put on them.
Is the TPS still final salary (or average salary) linked?
I am aware that is not on the "taxpayer credit card" like some others and is more standalone, but it is not my area.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
I don't actually have any problem with people being allowed to extend their homes (provided it's not in a conservation area or National Park). By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
Indeed.
More likely I'd have thought 'flippers' might seek to buy run down properties, renovate and extend it to add value then resell it . . . but I'd imagine the BTL 3% surcharge in Stamp Duty has probably removed much of the value of flipping homes.
If its a "stupid idea", how come so many BTL are doing it then? There are whole streets in my nearest town where just about every house has been changed from owner occupiers to BLT HMO in last decade or so.
Letting them throw up two stories is just pouring petrol on the fire imho.
I for one never said it was a stupid idea, but the situation has changed over the last decade. A decade ago the 3% stamp duty surcharge etc didn't exist . . . and the point was being made that if more people are working from home now they'd have less reason to all cram into an HMO closer to the work in areas where there's a shortage of homes - that wasn't the case over the last decade.
But frankly if people are going to build HMOs (and some will either way as there will always be some demand for it) then being able to "throw up two stories" seems to me to make the situation better not worse. The worst thing about HMOs is poor quality ones with a lack of space. If you can add two extra stories you can make decent HMOs with a decent amount of space . . . which will crowd out slum landlords who are trying to make a killing on tiny abusive spaces.
Or, alternatively, there will simply be two more floors of ‘abusive spaces’.
Well the old planning system did nothing to prevent that and was simply a boon to NIMBYs wanting to protect their house value.
I'd rather trust the free market to take care of it . . . in a free market competition will crowd out terrible quality bad actors as they lose their demand.
We do, though, have to take into account externalities, and that is what the planning process is intended to achieve. The level to which it succeeds in this is variable.
The provision of essential infrastructure (Section 106/CIL requirements and contributions), whether the wider local road system can cope with the level of traffic induced or whether it needs to be upgraded, the environmental effects, sprawling out down ribbon developments (which has a significant negative effect on everyone if it's unrestricted), overlooking existing houses and crowding them (one thing forbidden is building bedroom windows too close to those of another house to look straight in, for example), preservation of Areas of Natural Beauty, not building on areas earmarked for major national infrastructure, caution over building on flood plains and so on - are external to the direct system as it stands.
I think the existing system is badly flawed and prone to armwrestling between NIMBYs on one hand and profiteering/ignoring requirements by certain (not all!) developers on the other hand. But straight abolition would throw the baby out with the bathwater and be as unhelpful overall as letting the current system continue unchanged.
SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract of children and adults with early acute COVID-19 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.17.20155333v1 The role of children in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We analysed viral load at the time of diagnosis in 53 children vs. 352 adults with COVID-19 in the first 5 days post symptom onset. No significant differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads were seen between children and adults.
@Coach Vaccines were and are the solution to smallpox, measles, rubella, hepatitis B. If an effective vaccine is developed for the sars-cov-2 virus why would it not be the solution ?
So how many public sector jobs will go to finance the wonderful pay rises announced today? Without funding one persons pay rise is somebodies job lost.
The old Gordon Brown trick. ‘We will give teachers, nurses, doctors x hundred billion in pay rises.’
‘Where’s the money?’
‘Find it yourselves, losers.’
That was why income tax fell slightly and council taxes ballooned under Labour.
On this one, I have all sorts of questions. First of all, it is interesting to note on teacher pay (where I take a totally impartial view, of course 😉) that the figure of ‘up to 3.1%’ matches precisely none of the figures the DfE consulted on in January. The figures are here https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-2020-teacher-pay-proposals-rise-will-cost-schools-455m-plus-6-more-findings/ but the TL:DR version is that even the least generous version had increases of up to 6.27% for some grades, declining as you go up the pay scale.
That means that if this story is correct this is announcing a lower pay settlement than previously intended, so it is rather neat piece of spin to put this out as a raise.
The other problem of course is that while we speak loosely about ‘public sector’ it doesn’t really exist in its classic form any more. Most of the staff in question work for one form or another of subcontractor - e.g. Academy chains. They have substantial control over pay. They may decline to add this increase on as an economy measure. For local authority schools - still the majority of primary schools, of course - this may mean a hike in council tax to cover it.
A further thought that occurs to me is that no mention is made of pensions. Pensions are a big, big problem in the public sector. Employer contributions in the TPS for example have skyrocketed by 48% in the last year alone. How is the increase in contributions to be funded? Or perhaps this pay increase could be clawed back via higher pension employer contributions? Wouldn’t put it past the Treasury to cheat like that.
So the devil will be in the detail and the detail is notably lacking. But my instinctive answer is this is probably a less generous settlement than initially planned (admittedly for good and understandable reasons).
If I had to prick a pin in a list which may cause trouble, I would wonder how local government workers are going to take this. Their pay is poor by public sector standards, their pensions are less secure, and the stupidity of the government in having yet another drive towards hare-brained unitary authorities that nobody wants and never work is going to see a lot of pressure put on them.
I thought the Local Government Pension Scheme was a good one ?
Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
Not if the £130 billion is on top of the quantitative easing...
I don't believe it is.
The Quantitatively Eased debt is still accounted for as debt within the national figures and still counted as borrowing. Hence referring to "real" debt that the media very, very rarely does.
That’s deliberate though. The stated intention of the BofE is to sell back into the market in due course thereby sterilising the increase in money supply.
You may have noticed the wiggle room in that sentence.
Well indeed, hence my calling it a polite fiction.
I think everyone knows that the BoE is not going to add over £700 billion in real borrowing and its associated interest payments back on to the market. They could, but they won't.
Not to forget that prior to doing that the first thing the Bank should be trying to do is getting interest rates off the floor.
So how many public sector jobs will go to finance the wonderful pay rises announced today? Without funding one persons pay rise is somebodies job lost.
The old Gordon Brown trick. ‘We will give teachers, nurses, doctors x hundred billion in pay rises.’
‘Where’s the money?’
‘Find it yourselves, losers.’
That was why income tax fell slightly and council taxes ballooned under Labour.
On this one, I have all sorts of questions. First of all, it is interesting to note on teacher pay (where I take a totally impartial view, of course 😉) that the figure of ‘up to 3.1%’ matches precisely none of the figures the DfE consulted on in January. The figures are here https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-2020-teacher-pay-proposals-rise-will-cost-schools-455m-plus-6-more-findings/ but the TL:DR version is that even the least generous version had increases of up to 6.27% for some grades, declining as you go up the pay scale.
That means that if this story is correct this is announcing a lower pay settlement than previously intended, so it is rather neat piece of spin to put this out as a raise.
The other problem of course is that while we speak loosely about ‘public sector’ it doesn’t really exist in its classic form any more. Most of the staff in question work for one form or another of subcontractor - e.g. Academy chains. They have substantial control over pay. They may decline to add this increase on as an economy measure. For local authority schools - still the majority of primary schools, of course - this may mean a hike in council tax to cover it.
A further thought that occurs to me is that no mention is made of pensions. Pensions are a big, big problem in the public sector. Employer contributions in the TPS for example have skyrocketed by 48% in the last year alone. How is the increase in contributions to be funded? Or perhaps this pay increase could be clawed back via higher pension employer contributions? Wouldn’t put it past the Treasury to cheat like that.
So the devil will be in the detail and the detail is notably lacking. But my instinctive answer is this is probably a less generous settlement than initially planned (admittedly for good and understandable reasons).
If I had to prick a pin in a list which may cause trouble, I would wonder how local government workers are going to take this. Their pay is poor by public sector standards, their pensions are less secure, and the stupidity of the government in having yet another drive towards hare-brained unitary authorities that nobody wants and never work is going to see a lot of pressure put on them.
Is the TPS still final salary (or average salary) linked?
I am aware that is not on the "taxpayer credit card" like some others and is more standalone, but it is not my area.
Defined contribution, so in effect a career average.
So how many public sector jobs will go to finance the wonderful pay rises announced today? Without funding one persons pay rise is somebodies job lost.
The old Gordon Brown trick. ‘We will give teachers, nurses, doctors x hundred billion in pay rises.’
‘Where’s the money?’
‘Find it yourselves, losers.’
That was why income tax fell slightly and council taxes ballooned under Labour.
On this one, I have all sorts of questions. First of all, it is interesting to note on teacher pay (where I take a totally impartial view, of course 😉) that the figure of ‘up to 3.1%’ matches precisely none of the figures the DfE consulted on in January. The figures are here https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-2020-teacher-pay-proposals-rise-will-cost-schools-455m-plus-6-more-findings/ but the TL:DR version is that even the least generous version had increases of up to 6.27% for some grades, declining as you go up the pay scale.
That means that if this story is correct this is announcing a lower pay settlement than previously intended, so it is rather neat piece of spin to put this out as a raise.
The other problem of course is that while we speak loosely about ‘public sector’ it doesn’t really exist in its classic form any more. Most of the staff in question work for one form or another of subcontractor - e.g. Academy chains. They have substantial control over pay. They may decline to add this increase on as an economy measure. For local authority schools - still the majority of primary schools, of course - this may mean a hike in council tax to cover it.
A further thought that occurs to me is that no mention is made of pensions. Pensions are a big, big problem in the public sector. Employer contributions in the TPS for example have skyrocketed by 48% in the last year alone. How is the increase in contributions to be funded? Or perhaps this pay increase could be clawed back via higher pension employer contributions? Wouldn’t put it past the Treasury to cheat like that.
So the devil will be in the detail and the detail is notably lacking. But my instinctive answer is this is probably a less generous settlement than initially planned (admittedly for good and understandable reasons).
If I had to prick a pin in a list which may cause trouble, I would wonder how local government workers are going to take this. Their pay is poor by public sector standards, their pensions are less secure, and the stupidity of the government in having yet another drive towards hare-brained unitary authorities that nobody wants and never work is going to see a lot of pressure put on them.
I thought the Local Government Pension Scheme was a good one ?
Huge EU news overnight. A triumph for Merkel and, especially, Macron. From a Brexit perspective, the EU27 have once again shown they can work effectively together and compromise to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. But it will also mean they will be under less pressure to reach a deal that does not fit their overall objectives. Once again, those in the UK predicting the EU’s fragmentation and failure have been proved wrong. I guess we’ll never understand what drives it and just how strong the will is for it to succeed.
The costs for the north go up, just to maintain the status quo.
It’s good for the EU, and fiscal transfers are essential for an OCA, but it’s not an unalloyed positive.
The UK would have been on the hook for Eur60bn of that (half grants, half loans that may or may not be repaid). The EU politician this morning was selling the repayment as being by increasing tariffs on imports so “other people are paying” rather than acknowledging that tariffs are a cost for the end consumer.
That’s quite a lot of money.
Trump pulled the same trick with tariffs on imports and even when some companies complained that it meant they were closing because the imported final goods were subject to lower tariffs that didn't do anything. At the end of the day people just don't stop to examine what is actually happening.
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I suspect that enough will take this one
Especially the vulnerable who have been shielding and are used to taking the flu vaccine.
If any anti-vaxxers want to refuse it then let Darwin take care of them.
I am shielding at the moment and ironically the same thing which means I have to shield is also the reason I’ve been told not to have a flu vaccine. I’ve got what I hope is my last round of treatment this week and I’ll ask about it, but it would be pretty frustrating not to be able to be vaccinated.
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I suspect that enough will take this one
Especially the vulnerable who have been shielding and are used to taking the flu vaccine.
If any anti-vaxxers want to refuse it then let Darwin take care of them.
I am shielding at the moment and ironically the same thing which means I have to shield is also the reason I’ve been told not to have a flu vaccine. I’ve got what I hope is my last round of treatment this week and I’ll ask about it, but it would be pretty frustrating not to be able to be vaccinated.
Well this is why everyone who can be vaccinated ought to be, so we can get the herd immunity for people like yourself
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I suspect that enough will take this one
I certainly will. Looking forward to it.
It will be on a sugar lump, I imagine, rather than a needle?
Huge EU news overnight. A triumph for Merkel and, especially, Macron. From a Brexit perspective, the EU27 have once again shown they can work effectively together and compromise to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. But it will also mean they will be under less pressure to reach a deal that does not fit their overall objectives. Once again, those in the UK predicting the EU’s fragmentation and failure have been proved wrong. I guess we’ll never understand what drives it and just how strong the will is for it to succeed.
The costs for the north go up, just to maintain the status quo.
It’s good for the EU, and fiscal transfers are essential for an OCA, but it’s not an unalloyed positive.
The UK would have been on the hook for Eur60bn of that (half grants, half loans that may or may not be repaid). The EU politician this morning was selling the repayment as being by increasing tariffs on imports so “other people are paying” rather than acknowledging that tariffs are a cost for the end consumer.
That’s quite a lot of money.
If they’re going to increase tariffs to pay for it that is very bad news for us.
Not if we negotiate zero-tariff, zero-quota access.
But it’s beco n very clear we won’t be able to. The conditions the EU are setting for that are not ones Johnson can agree without upsetting his backbenchers.
Since he agreed to customs checks from Northern Ireland, that’s saying quite something.
We will see.
At the start the EU were demanding far more than we'd ever agree to but that is how negotiations start not how they end. They may as well demand the earth at the start to see what we will agree to, if we took up their first offer then they would kick themselves for not asking for enough!
The reality is that the EU have a humongous trade surplus with the UK. So it is 100% in their interests to keep zero tariff, zero quotas going regardless of what they were saying two months ago.
The fact that the UK were the party to suggest we keep tariffs if the EU weren't willing to compromise and the fact that Barnier wanted that ruling out immediately demonstrates the reality that the EU do want tariff free access every bit as much as we do.
Finally the most important factor to note is how little there is to note right now. Face to face talks have been going on for weeks and we've heard next to nothing from them. That to me is a very good sign as their being quiet means that serious negotiations are taking place. If serious negotiations weren't taking place then both parties would be on the media shouting their demands as they were before the face to face talks began.
I fully expect a compromise deal to be agreed and that compromise won't look like either what the UK nor the EU were asking for before talks began . . . but that is the nature of compromise.
Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.
I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.
They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.
Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
"Let them eat cake" bias. 15% of people live in flats. The majority of houses are so small they might as well be flats and do not offer the option of extending the conservatory out over the croquet lawn. For a working couple you need two lots of office space so you have to extend the conservatory twice.
I agree with you. Posters on here are not typical. Especially in the cities, people's living spaces are not suitable for permanent home working, and it's a struggle for many young people earning at or below the average wage. They can't afford to move, or to extend (not that this is an option with most flats or city terraces). Many people live in shared houses. This is not just about well-paid office jobs, it's also about the millions who work in low-p[aid office jobs, such as call centres and admin jobs, who struggle to work at home.
Any restrictions will depend on neighbours being on their toes, and how the evaluation of Amenity under the PA process compares to that for a Planning Application - it is likely to be done by the same staff.
It's actually going to be particularly difficult for LLs owning property next door to developments because notifications are only sent to neighbours with a short time to respond (it's bad enough with existing Planning App notifications), and Ts will not pass on notices in that time.
The "two storey" extensions one looks like a relatively small change to Permitted Development, which is currently limited to one storey extensions. Presumably Permitted Development restrictions on overlooking gardens etc will continue to be in place.
There's every chance a vaccine will create as many problems as it solves, unless its compulsory for everybody (which is impossible to monitor) its largely irrelevant.
Like every other virus ever this just has to run its course as it already is. I appreciate that gets the scaredy cats in a tizz but its reality.
I don't think that as an elderly man who is mildly asthmatic I could fairly be described as a 'scaredy-cat'. I'm very worried by the prospect of the virus.
However, as one who, at a local level was involved with school vaccination campaigns..... meningitis etc ....... I do wonder about the way a mass vaccination campaign will be conducted, if Hancock gets anywhere near it!
Its nothing to do with Hancock, who is useless. Lots of people will refuse the vaccine, others just won't bother.
My point is that the vaccine itself will not be the solution
I suspect that enough will take this one
Especially the vulnerable who have been shielding and are used to taking the flu vaccine.
If any anti-vaxxers want to refuse it then let Darwin take care of them.
I am shielding at the moment and ironically the same thing which means I have to shield is also the reason I’ve been told not to have a flu vaccine. I’ve got what I hope is my last round of treatment this week and I’ll ask about it, but it would be pretty frustrating not to be able to be vaccinated.
Well this is why everyone who can be vaccinated ought to be, so we can get the herd immunity for people like yourself
Does open the door to the problem of someone who can’t be vaccinated (chemo?) not being able to do a wide range of things like travel to see family let alone go on holiday. Also travel insurance requirements especially now EHIC is going. There will be other problems I’ve not even thought of yet
Comments
In the real world though the government owns the Bank (even if it operates independently) and doesn't pay any interest to the Bank so even if its not a debt that has officially been written off to all intents and purposes it really has been.
On the specific HMO point, does setting up an HMO not require a change of use permission?
The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future
In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
By the looks of it the rules aren't as bad as they could have.
My comment was aimed at the stupid idea that BTLers will be buying the properties and expanding them into HMOs - taking over and converting an old office block would be a far cheaper way of doing it..
Sill, it will be a great deal easier and quicker to run a larger trial with it than a vaccine trial, so we should know one way or another very soon.
More likely I'd have thought 'flippers' might seek to buy run down properties, renovate and extend it to add value then resell it . . . but I'd imagine the BTL 3% surcharge in Stamp Duty has probably removed much of the value of flipping homes.
I'm surprised Julian has any friends left (and suspect Vivienne has never met him).
https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1285228667115839488
Letting them throw up two stories is just pouring petrol on the fire imho.
There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.
The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.
During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.
For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
We've got plenty of people who are accustomed to giving injections; the trick will be ensuring that everyone's covered.
We might just be going back to ID cards.
But frankly if people are going to build HMOs (and some will either way as there will always be some demand for it) then being able to "throw up two stories" seems to me to make the situation better not worse. The worst thing about HMOs is poor quality ones with a lack of space. If you can add two extra stories you can make decent HMOs with a decent amount of space . . . which will crowd out slum landlords who are trying to make a killing on tiny abusive spaces.
Airlines and cruise companies at the very least are likely to require evidence of vaccination before you board - that will push up vaccination rates.
Letting the virus run its course (unlike every other deadly virus ever) would be monumentally stupid.
So tell me what problems will it create?
I'd rather trust the free market to take care of it . . . in a free market competition will crowd out terrible quality bad actors as they lose their demand.
You are a market maker, right?
‘Where’s the money?’
‘Find it yourselves, losers.’
That was why income tax fell slightly and council taxes ballooned under Labour.
On this one, I have all sorts of questions. First of all, it is interesting to note on teacher pay (where I take a totally impartial view, of course 😉) that the figure of ‘up to 3.1%’ matches precisely none of the figures the DfE consulted on in January. The figures are here https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-2020-teacher-pay-proposals-rise-will-cost-schools-455m-plus-6-more-findings/ but the TL:DR version is that even the least generous version had increases of up to 6.27% for some grades, declining as you go up the pay scale.
That means that if this story is correct this is announcing a lower pay settlement than previously intended, so it is rather neat piece of spin to put this out as a raise.
The other problem of course is that while we speak loosely about ‘public sector’ it doesn’t really exist in its classic form any more. Most of the staff in question work for one form or another of subcontractor - e.g. Academy chains. They have substantial control over pay. They may decline to add this increase on as an economy measure. For local authority schools - still the majority of primary schools, of course - this may mean a hike in council tax to cover it.
A further thought that occurs to me is that no mention is made of pensions. Pensions are a big, big problem in the public sector. Employer contributions in the TPS for example have skyrocketed by 48% in the last year alone. How is the increase in contributions to be funded? Or perhaps this pay increase could be clawed back via higher pension employer contributions? Wouldn’t put it past the Treasury to cheat like that.
So the devil will be in the detail and the detail is notably lacking. But my instinctive answer is this is probably a less generous settlement than initially planned (admittedly for good and understandable reasons).
If I had to prick a pin in a list which may cause trouble, I would wonder how local government workers are going to take this. Their pay is poor by public sector standards, their pensions are less secure, and the stupidity of the government in having yet another drive towards hare-brained unitary authorities that nobody wants and never work is going to see a lot of pressure put on them.
As a rule of thumb borrowing in normal times depends upon the economic cycle but we should aim for it to be less than the year before during period of growth with an aim to bring the deficit to zero and keep it around zero. The delta, the change in the deficit is what matters most.
Looking at the last 3 recessions we had in reverse order.
A deficit of 1.2% of GDP following a decade of annual reductions in the deficit from a peak of over 10%.
A deficit of 2.6% of GDP following five years of growth after the deficit had been a surplus.
A budget surplus when the recession hit.
Spot the odd one out.
I'm currently working on my kitchen table. Or should be, I should probably log off. Have fun everyone!
(I'm in my thirties it was only my second election).
Would be a nice little cottage business but not investable
The final full economic year before the recession hit was FY18/19.
It's also possible that the swabs showing virus particles could simply have been left over snorted virus particles.
It’s good for the EU, and fiscal transfers are essential for an OCA, but it’s not an unalloyed positive.
The UK would have been on the hook for Eur60bn of that (half grants, half loans that may or may not be repaid). The EU politician this morning was selling the repayment as being by increasing tariffs on imports so “other people are paying” rather than acknowledging that tariffs are a cost for the end consumer.
That’s quite a lot of money.
From our selfish point of view, it's not massively important, as we won't be depending on the Chinese vaccine.
What was interesting is that the results, where it does work, seem similar to other human trial results (neutralising antibodies; T cell response). And the lack of response in older people (more likely to have already encountered the virus being used as a vector) seems to have occurred as predicted before the trial.
All of which tends to encourage me in thinking that scientists have a pretty good idea of what they're doing with the vaccines.
The issue of care workers has already been raised, I think. Unless 'Something is Done' we are going to have an almighty crash in the care sector in the next couple of years.
"Michel also watered down his initial proposal for holding up the disbursement of funds both where there are concerns over either a lack of promised economic reform or the state of the rule of law in a country.
Where there are fears that reforms are not being implemented by member states in receipt of money, any one EU leader can halt the disbursement to allow the European council of the 27 heads of state and government to “exhaustively” debate the situation."
Hmmm. That feature is either a time bomb or a dead letter.
If any anti-vaxxers want to refuse it then let Darwin take care of them.
Since he agreed to customs checks from Northern Ireland, that’s saying quite something.
For example smallpox probably killed the Earl of Bedford in May 1641. If he had survived (or if the Earl of Warwick had died instead) our history could have been very different
Very unacceptable in 2020 for "position of power and responsibility" safeguarding reasons, and also most would say for age.
Basically the BofE buys bonds from the market by printing money at the same time as the government is selling bonds to the market
You may have noticed the wiggle room in that sentence.
I am aware that is not on the "taxpayer credit card" like some others and is more standalone, but it is not my area.
The provision of essential infrastructure (Section 106/CIL requirements and contributions), whether the wider local road system can cope with the level of traffic induced or whether it needs to be upgraded, the environmental effects, sprawling out down ribbon developments (which has a significant negative effect on everyone if it's unrestricted), overlooking existing houses and crowding them (one thing forbidden is building bedroom windows too close to those of another house to look straight in, for example), preservation of Areas of Natural Beauty, not building on areas earmarked for major national infrastructure, caution over building on flood plains and so on - are external to the direct system as it stands.
I think the existing system is badly flawed and prone to armwrestling between NIMBYs on one hand and profiteering/ignoring requirements by certain (not all!) developers on the other hand. But straight abolition would throw the baby out with the bathwater and be as unhelpful overall as letting the current system continue unchanged.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.17.20155333v1
The role of children in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We analysed viral load at the time of diagnosis in 53 children vs. 352 adults with COVID-19 in the first 5 days post symptom onset. No significant differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads were seen between children and adults.
I think everyone knows that the BoE is not going to add over £700 billion in real borrowing and its associated interest payments back on to the market. They could, but they won't.
Not to forget that prior to doing that the first thing the Bank should be trying to do is getting interest rates off the floor.
And it is still underwritten by the taxpayer.
Have a good morning.
I’ve got what I hope is my last round of treatment this week and I’ll ask about it, but it would be pretty frustrating not to be able to be vaccinated.
It will be on a sugar lump, I imagine, rather than a needle?
At the start the EU were demanding far more than we'd ever agree to but that is how negotiations start not how they end. They may as well demand the earth at the start to see what we will agree to, if we took up their first offer then they would kick themselves for not asking for enough!
The reality is that the EU have a humongous trade surplus with the UK. So it is 100% in their interests to keep zero tariff, zero quotas going regardless of what they were saying two months ago.
The fact that the UK were the party to suggest we keep tariffs if the EU weren't willing to compromise and the fact that Barnier wanted that ruling out immediately demonstrates the reality that the EU do want tariff free access every bit as much as we do.
Finally the most important factor to note is how little there is to note right now. Face to face talks have been going on for weeks and we've heard next to nothing from them. That to me is a very good sign as their being quiet means that serious negotiations are taking place. If serious negotiations weren't taking place then both parties would be on the media shouting their demands as they were before the face to face talks began.
I fully expect a compromise deal to be agreed and that compromise won't look like either what the UK nor the EU were asking for before talks began . . . but that is the nature of compromise.
Any restrictions will depend on neighbours being on their toes, and how the evaluation of Amenity under the PA process compares to that for a Planning Application - it is likely to be done by the same staff.
It's actually going to be particularly difficult for LLs owning property next door to developments because notifications are only sent to neighbours with a short time to respond (it's bad enough with existing Planning App notifications), and Ts will not pass on notices in that time.
The "two storey" extensions one looks like a relatively small change to Permitted Development, which is currently limited to one storey extensions. Presumably Permitted Development restrictions on overlooking gardens etc will continue to be in place.