Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
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.
But govt. borrowing is largely done via fixed-term bonds. The key interest rate is the prevailing one when they mature. That could be a lot higher, meaning either rolling over at an "irresponsible" rate, or taking the hit to that future year's expenditure by not rolling over.
@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 ?
And polio, rabies, yellow fever, mumps, chicken pox, and more recently, Ebola, rotavirus and HPV.
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.
I am using fiscal year data (April-March) because that is how it is conventionally published. Since the Covid crisis effectively started, in terms of its economic impact, in the last two weeks of March, it had virtually no effect on the public finances in FY19/20. You could say the same for 2008 - although in quarterly terms the recession started in Q2, GDP growth was already negative in March. So your clean comparison would be 2006/07 (2.6%) Vs 2018/19 (1.9%). In terms of primary deficit it's 1% Vs 0.4%. It's hard to make the case that just 0.6 or 0.7% of GDP is the difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy.
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
I my case it is (perhaps ironically) immunotherapy rather than chemo.
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.
Ditto sports venues, music venues, theatres, nightclubs.
"If yer ain't got yer cert, yer a cert not to get in..."
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
Sounds like positive news on both the health and economic fronts at the moment.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
If deaths have truly been "brought forward" then they won't appear twice.. Which in my opinion is why net excess mortality is the best metric. Natural month to month variation is also smoothed.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
If you count the negative "excess" (of which there was also one in Jan-Feb) the excess comes down. At that point it depends how you interpret the figure.
At the moment it is the effect of lockdown, which I would suggest is misleading to count because it is simply delaying some deaths. On the other hand if this flu season is much less deadly that usual (because they have already died from COVID) that would be a very interesting conclusion.
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.
I am using fiscal year data (April-March) because that is how it is conventionally published. Since the Covid crisis effectively started, in terms of its economic impact, in the last two weeks of March, it had virtually no effect on the public finances in FY19/20. You could say the same for 2008 - although in quarterly terms the recession started in Q2, GDP growth was already negative in March. So your clean comparison would be 2006/07 (2.6%) Vs 2018/19 (1.9%). In terms of primary deficit it's 1% Vs 0.4%. It's hard to make the case that just 0.6 or 0.7% of GDP is the difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy.
Yes use economic year data but you need to use the final economic year before the recession began which is measured using quarterly growth figures.
In 2008 it was Q3 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2008/09 and sets 2007/08 as the baseline. In 2020 it was Q1 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2019/20 and sets 2018/19 as the baseline.
Using 2019/20 when the recession had already began in 2019/20 is like using 2008/09.
As for a 0.7% difference is it not hard whatsoever to make the case the that 0.7% is a tremendous difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy. Because we also need to consider where that came from in the years before then.
As I said it is the year on year change in the deficit that matters more than what the deficit is for judging soundness. Brown managed to spend five years pissing away a budget surplus and transform it into a higher deficit than the Tories had going into the next recession coming off a 10% deficit they had inherited.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
If you count the negative "excess" (of which there was also one in Jan-Feb) the excess comes down. At that point it depends how you interpret the figure.
At the moment it is the effect of lockdown, which I would suggest is misleading to count because it is simply delaying some deaths. On the other hand if this flu season is much less deadly that usual (because they have already died from COVID) that would be a very interesting conclusion.
The flu season may also be less deadly if people are still taking precautions against CV19 as fewer people will get flu, I would hope.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
Looking round the world do people still think our Government's handling of Covid-19 has been catastrophic?
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
Looking round the world do people still think our Government's handling of Covid-19 has been catastrophic?
To early to come to a definitive answer if one is ever possible.
As the Tories are no longer either Conservative or Unionist we need a new name for them. English Populists? English Patriots? Something with English as the first word and something hypocritical as the last...
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
I don't think the 'dust' will really have 'cleared' until next spring ? Ditto the economy.
Clearly things have stabilised thanks to the lockdown, and economic activity has picked up as it has been relaxed. What we really don't know is what's going to happen as we go into autumn/winter, and that depends on both government actions, and how people respond to them. And developments on the medical front.
As the Tories are no longer either Conservative or Unionist we need a new name for them. English Populists? English Patriots? Something with English as the first word and something hypocritical as the last...
Since they're the only party that believe in economic liberalism how about Liberals
As the Tories are no longer either Conservative or Unionist we need a new name for them. English Populists? English Patriots? Something with English as the first word and something hypocritical as the last...
As the Tories are no longer either Conservative or Unionist we need a new name for them. English Populists? English Patriots? Something with English as the first word and something hypocritical as the last...
With the possible exception of the Scottish Nationalist Party I can’t think of any UK party that lives up to its name: certainly not Labour or the Liberal Democrats.
She is protesting the fact that Julian Assange is still in prison.
I'm surprised Julian has any friends left (and suspect Vivienne has never met him).
He’s a bail jumper with an outstanding legal process in the works.
What does she expect?
I don't know but there are zero reasons for releasing him until the extradition process is completed after which he should be leaving the country anyway.
I've only skimmed the Russia Report, but so far it looks to be incredibly dull, contains nothing show-stopping that I've spotted, and would only surprise people who have been in a coma since the year 2000.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses". Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
If deaths have truly been "brought forward" then they won't appear twice.. Which in my opinion is why net excess mortality is the best metric. Natural month to month variation is also smoothed.
Undoubtedly some deaths will have been very premature, but the data for weeks 25 to 28 do suggest that we are seeing the shadow of COVID-19. We're at -982 v the five year average; however, we're at -1,880 v the trend for those weeks (i.e. the number of deaths is trending up for this time of year - aging population, I guess).
Of course, this then comes back to the questions of how many people have had it and were those nearer the end of their lives more likely to get it?
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.
Public sector pensions “less secure” that private sector pensions. You ‘aving a laff?
I've only skimmed the Russia Report, but so far it looks to be incredibly dull, contains nothing show-stopping that I've spotted, and would only surprise people who have been in a coma since the year 2000.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses". Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Well there are unlikely to be any dramatic findings if the security services never bothered investigating in the first place, which seems to be what the report suggests.
Wait, I thought it was supposed to have been suppressed by No 10 because of the bombshell revelations in it? Titter.
Indeed. It looks more likely they surpressed it because HMG has been caught napping, unless of course the redactions are interesting, but the rest of the report does not suggest that that is so.
As the Tories are no longer either Conservative or Unionist we need a new name for them. English Populists? English Patriots? Something with English as the first word and something hypocritical as the last...
With the possible exception of the Scottish Nationalist Party I can’t think of any UK party that lives up to its name: certainly not Labour or the Liberal Democrats.
Ulster Unionist Party Brexit Party Sinn Fein
Now admittedly two of these don't have MPs and the third has MPs who don't turn up, but they're all what they say on the tin.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
If deaths have truly been "brought forward" then they won't appear twice.. Which in my opinion is why net excess mortality is the best metric. Natural month to month variation is also smoothed.
If you wait long enough, then you'll ultimately conclude that covid had no effect at all since everybody who caught it would be dead even if they hadn't caught it! That's why I think that total years of life lost to the disease is perhaps a better metric of its seriousness, through obviously harder to calculate.
I'd like to think this might shut up Cadwalladr and her merry band of conspiracy theorists but I'm sure she's frantically trying to find a new angle as we speak.
I've only skimmed the Russia Report, but so far it looks to be incredibly dull, contains nothing show-stopping that I've spotted, and would only surprise people who have been in a coma since the year 2000.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses". Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Well there are unlikely to be any dramatic findings if the security services never bothered investigating in the first place, which seems to be what the report suggests.
And that, presumably, is why the delay was so important. To buy a little bit more time, because it's fairly clear that the next step will be a Russia and the Referendum investigation.
But... really... "I told MPs that I have seen no evidence / Because we didn't show you / And I didn't ask" is such an old chestnut that it was in Yes, Prime Minister.
Who was the minister responsible for MI6 in the period after the referendum, by the way?
I'd like to think this might shut up Cadwalladr and her merry band of conspiracy theorists but I'm sure she's frantically trying to find a new angle as we speak.
There is nothing the report could have said that would have caused them to give up on their conspiracy theories. Without those, they'd have to ask themselves hard questions about why Remain lost, and they'll do anything to avoid that.
I've only skimmed the Russia Report, but so far it looks to be incredibly dull, contains nothing show-stopping that I've spotted, and would only surprise people who have been in a coma since the year 2000.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses". Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Well there are unlikely to be any dramatic findings if the security services never bothered investigating in the first place, which seems to be what the report suggests.
Summary conclusions from the report: (Not sure what *** is)
Most surprising, perhaps, was the extent to which much of the work of the Intelligence Community is focused on ***. We had, at the outset of our Inquiry, believed they would be taking a rather broader view, given that it is clearly acknowledged that the Russians use a whole-of-state approach. • This focus has led us to question who is responsible for broader work against the Russian threat and whether those organisations are sufficiently empowered to tackle a hostile state threat such as Russia. In some instances, we have therefore recommended a shift in responsibilities. In other cases, we have recommended a simplification: there are a number of unnecessarily complicated wiring diagrams that do not provide the clear lines of accountability that are needed. • The clearest requirement for immediate action is for new legislation: the Intelligence Community must be given the tools it needs and be put in the best possible position if it is to tackle this very capable adversary, and this means a new statutory framework to tackle espionage, the illicit financial dealings of the Russian elite and the ‘enablers’ who support this activity. • More broadly, the way forward lies with taking action with our allies; a continuing international consensus is needed against Russian aggressive action. The West is strongest when it acts collectively and that is the way in which we can best attach a cost to Putin’s actions. The UK has shown it can shape the international response, as it did in response to the Salisbury attacks. It must now seek to build on this effort to ensure that momentum is not lost
I've only skimmed the Russia Report, but so far it looks to be incredibly dull, contains nothing show-stopping that I've spotted, and would only surprise people who have been in a coma since the year 2000.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses". Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Well there are unlikely to be any dramatic findings if the security services never bothered investigating in the first place, which seems to be what the report suggests.
And that, presumably, is why the delay was so important. To buy a little bit more time, because it's fairly clear that the next step will be a Russia and the Referendum investigation.
But... really... "I told MPs that I have seen no evidence / Because we didn't show you / And I didn't ask" is such an old chestnut that it was in Yes, Prime Minister.
Who was the minister responsible for MI6 in the period after the referendum, by the way?
Do people really think the referendum was only swayed by Russian interference?
I'd like to think this might shut up Cadwalladr and her merry band of conspiracy theorists but I'm sure she's frantically trying to find a new angle as we speak.
There is nothing the report could have said that would have caused them to give up on their conspiracy theories. Without those, they'd have to ask themselves hard questions about why Remain lost, and they'll do anything to avoid that.
I've only skimmed the Russia Report, but so far it looks to be incredibly dull, contains nothing show-stopping that I've spotted, and would only surprise people who have been in a coma since the year 2000.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses". Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Well there are unlikely to be any dramatic findings if the security services never bothered investigating in the first place, which seems to be what the report suggests.
Summary conclusions from the report: (Not sure what *** is)
Most surprising, perhaps, was the extent to which much of the work of the Intelligence Community is focused on ***. We had, at the outset of our Inquiry, believed they would be taking a rather broader view, given that it is clearly acknowledged that the Russians use a whole-of-state approach. • This focus has led us to question who is responsible for broader work against the Russian threat and whether those organisations are sufficiently empowered to tackle a hostile state threat such as Russia. In some instances, we have therefore recommended a shift in responsibilities. In other cases, we have recommended a simplification: there are a number of unnecessarily complicated wiring diagrams that do not provide the clear lines of accountability that are needed. • The clearest requirement for immediate action is for new legislation: the Intelligence Community must be given the tools it needs and be put in the best possible position if it is to tackle this very capable adversary, and this means a new statutory framework to tackle espionage, the illicit financial dealings of the Russian elite and the ‘enablers’ who support this activity. • More broadly, the way forward lies with taking action with our allies; a continuing international consensus is needed against Russian aggressive action. The West is strongest when it acts collectively and that is the way in which we can best attach a cost to Putin’s actions. The UK has shown it can shape the international response, as it did in response to the Salisbury attacks. It must now seek to build on this effort to ensure that momentum is not lost
Haven't got time to read the report but not surprised there isn't a smoking Brexit gun. People have been propagandised against Europe for a long time. A bit of twiddling from the KGB FSB wasn't going to make that big a difference. Unless it turns out that certain high profile people were Harold Wilson style undercover agents.
I've only skimmed the Russia Report, but so far it looks to be incredibly dull, contains nothing show-stopping that I've spotted, and would only surprise people who have been in a coma since the year 2000.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses". Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Well there are unlikely to be any dramatic findings if the security services never bothered investigating in the first place, which seems to be what the report suggests.
Summary conclusions from the report: (Not sure what *** is)
Most surprising, perhaps, was the extent to which much of the work of the Intelligence Community is focused on ***. We had, at the outset of our Inquiry, believed they would be taking a rather broader view, given that it is clearly acknowledged that the Russians use a whole-of-state approach. • This focus has led us to question who is responsible for broader work against the Russian threat and whether those organisations are sufficiently empowered to tackle a hostile state threat such as Russia. In some instances, we have therefore recommended a shift in responsibilities. In other cases, we have recommended a simplification: there are a number of unnecessarily complicated wiring diagrams that do not provide the clear lines of accountability that are needed. • The clearest requirement for immediate action is for new legislation: the Intelligence Community must be given the tools it needs and be put in the best possible position if it is to tackle this very capable adversary, and this means a new statutory framework to tackle espionage, the illicit financial dealings of the Russian elite and the ‘enablers’ who support this activity. • More broadly, the way forward lies with taking action with our allies; a continuing international consensus is needed against Russian aggressive action. The West is strongest when it acts collectively and that is the way in which we can best attach a cost to Putin’s actions. The UK has shown it can shape the international response, as it did in response to the Salisbury attacks. It must now seek to build on this effort to ensure that momentum is not lost
Probably military, I guess? I.e. we give thought to what the Russians know about our miltiary capabilities, but not the rest of the state
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!
Fine, unless someone else is competing for kitchen table space to eat, work or cook. You are essentially glorying in the fact that your employer has effectively taken over and repurposed your living space.
I've only skimmed the Russia Report, but so far it looks to be incredibly dull, contains nothing show-stopping that I've spotted, and would only surprise people who have been in a coma since the year 2000.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses". Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Well there are unlikely to be any dramatic findings if the security services never bothered investigating in the first place, which seems to be what the report suggests.
And that, presumably, is why the delay was so important. To buy a little bit more time, because it's fairly clear that the next step will be a Russia and the Referendum investigation.
But... really... "I told MPs that I have seen no evidence / Because we didn't show you / And I didn't ask" is such an old chestnut that it was in Yes, Prime Minister.
Who was the minister responsible for MI6 in the period after the referendum, by the way?
Do people really think the referendum was only swayed by Russian interference?
Not at all, though in a narrow result, we will never know. But this also looks like it's about a pretty horrifying lack of curiosity on the government's part.
Haven't got time to read the report but not surprised there isn't a smoking Brexit gun. People have been propagandised against Europe for a long time. A bit of twiddling from the KGB FSB wasn't going to make that big a difference. Unless it turns out that certain high profile people were Harold Wilson style undercover agents.
Apologies for the bad form in commenting on my own comments. Thinking on is the reason for not wanting to publish because they were *worried* there had been Russian dabbling and that might delegitimise their victory? I'm not sure there is anything that could be revealed that would sway the faithful. This is a religion, facts don't matter.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
If deaths have truly been "brought forward" then they won't appear twice.. Which in my opinion is why net excess mortality is the best metric. Natural month to month variation is also smoothed.
If you wait long enough, then you'll ultimately conclude that covid had no effect at all since everybody who caught it would be dead even if they hadn't caught it! That's why I think that total years of life lost to the disease is perhaps a better metric of its seriousness, through obviously harder to calculate.
Well put.
Also as an obese 80 year old with heart disease has a life expectancy of 5 year (from More or Less) it is unlikely that below mortality now is due to the fact that 'you can't die twice' factor as the vast majority of those that died of Covid would not now be dying now of something else. Only a small number would be. I suspect the lower death rate now is due to the change in circumstances brought about by Covid.
As the Tories are no longer either Conservative or Unionist we need a new name for them. English Populists? English Patriots? Something with English as the first word and something hypocritical as the last...
Little Englanders covers it
Yes, worth considering - as that term helped Cameron to deliver Brexit.
But I'd rather think of myself as a Big Englander, Dave.
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.
They are claiming that it’s not tariffs but a “tax” paid on entry to the EU by people who don’t comply with the Paris Accord.
I think we are good on that criteria?
She also muttered something about digital companies that don’t pay their taxes so that may help us
I've only skimmed the Russia Report, but so far it looks to be incredibly dull, contains nothing show-stopping that I've spotted, and would only surprise people who have been in a coma since the year 2000.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses". Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Well there are unlikely to be any dramatic findings if the security services never bothered investigating in the first place, which seems to be what the report suggests.
And that, presumably, is why the delay was so important. To buy a little bit more time, because it's fairly clear that the next step will be a Russia and the Referendum investigation.
But... really... "I told MPs that I have seen no evidence / Because we didn't show you / And I didn't ask" is such an old chestnut that it was in Yes, Prime Minister.
Who was the minister responsible for MI6 in the period after the referendum, by the way?
Do people really think the referendum was only swayed by Russian interference?
From the Report: Case study: the EU referendum There have been widespread public allegations that Russia sought to influence the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. The impact of any such attempts would be difficult – if not impossible – to assess, and we have not sought to do so.
However, it is important to establish whether a hostile state took deliberate action with the aim of influencing a UK democratic process, irrespective of whether it was successful or not.
Open source studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EU stories on RT and Sputnik, and the use of ‘bots’ and ‘trolls’, as evidence of Russian attemptsto influence the process.
We have sought to establish whether there is secret intelligence which supported or built on these studies. In response to our request for written evidence at the outset of the Inquiry, MI5 initially provided just six lines of text. It stated that ***, before referring to academic studies.This was noteworthy in terms of the way it was couched (***) and the reference to open source studies ***. The brevity was also, to us, again, indicative of the extreme caution amongst the intelligence and security Agencies at the thought that they might have any role in relation to the UK’s democratic processes, and particularly one as contentious as the EU referendum.
We repeat that this attitude is illogical; this is about the protection of the process and mechanism from hostile state interference, which should fall to our intelligence and security Agencies.
It's not that they're not taken seriously, it's just that taking the political dimension of interference seriously just before the Brexit date would be far too inconvenient. It's much less challenging to fund and publicise old Russian Tu-95 "Bear" bombers being hounded out of British airspace by plucky British fighters, than it is to investigate the richly fascinating links between the Conservative Friends of Russia and Brexit.
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!
Fine, unless someone else is competing for kitchen table space to eat, work or cook. You are essentially glorying in the fact that your employer has effectively taken over and repurposed your living space.
For some it might be a good trade. If you spend two hours a day commuting (for which no employer I know will pay you) it could easily be worth it.
I speak as someone who is not going to be asked to work from home except in emergencies: teaching from home is not a good substitute for the real thing. I am also fortunate in that my commute is 20 minutes if I walk.
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*
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
If deaths have truly been "brought forward" then they won't appear twice.. Which in my opinion is why net excess mortality is the best metric. Natural month to month variation is also smoothed.
If you wait long enough, then you'll ultimately conclude that covid had no effect at all since everybody who caught it would be dead even if they hadn't caught it! That's why I think that total years of life lost to the disease is perhaps a better metric of its seriousness, through obviously harder to calculate.
Well put.
Also as an obese 80 year old with heart disease has a life expectancy of 5 year (from More or Less) it is unlikely that below mortality now is due to the fact that 'you can't die twice' factor as the vast majority of those that died of Covid would not now be dying now of something else. Only a small number would be. I suspect the lower death rate now is due to the change in circumstances brought about by Covid.
Whoops just realised that could be a few hundred per month. What is the difference between the actual and average deaths per month currently? Was my last post gibberish?
Turns out the likes of @BluestBlue aren’t in the least bit worried that the Government is found to be blasé about Russian interference in the democratic process... unless, that is, they take seriously and implement the report’s recommendations... a register of foreign agents would be a good start.
Wait, I thought it was supposed to have been suppressed by No 10 because of the bombshell revelations in it? Titter.
So why was it not published earlier?
Perhaps because the report makes our security services look rather underwhelming? "Surely Johnny Russian wouldn't be so sneaky as to try to influence the Referendum? No no no.... that was all down to the side of a bus."
It's not that they're not taken seriously, it's just that taking the political dimension of interference seriously just before the Brexit date would be far too inconvenient. It's much less challenging to publicise old Russian Tu-95 "Bear" bombers being hounded out of British airspace by plucky British fighters, than to investigate the clear links between the Conservative Friends of Russia and Brexit.
Even better, we can also send up a newly liveried tanker to refuel the interceptors while keeping the nation safe.
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.
On a long term basis they might (they would be taking cash from investors and cancelling it). But it would be a deliberate policy decision to shrink the money supply
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?
Needle. The gut is a very effective defence mechanism and you’d want to bypass that if you can
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
If deaths have truly been "brought forward" then they won't appear twice.. Which in my opinion is why net excess mortality is the best metric. Natural month to month variation is also smoothed.
If you wait long enough, then you'll ultimately conclude that covid had no effect at all since everybody who caught it would be dead even if they hadn't caught it! That's why I think that total years of life lost to the disease is perhaps a better metric of its seriousness, through obviously harder to calculate.
Well put.
Also as an obese 80 year old with heart disease has a life expectancy of 5 year (from More or Less) it is unlikely that below mortality now is due to the fact that 'you can't die twice' factor as the vast majority of those that died of Covid would not now be dying now of something else. Only a small number would be. I suspect the lower death rate now is due to the change in circumstances brought about by Covid.
Yes, it seems like a major shortcoming of using excess deaths is that it doesn't allow us to distinguish the effect of COVID vs. the effect of our response to COVID. And not just the immediate response- if the lockdown really has led to a lasting shift to more home-working, that will no doubt have an effect too.
How much damage has Corona done to various people?
Talking to a few in my circle who have been on furlough and similar, in what Ed Milliband called the "squeezed middle" - that is say one income around the national average and the other somewhat below - they seem to feel set back by about 2 years if in the private sector. Public sector may be different if full incomes have continued to be paid. Seems to chime with the time to get the economy back out of the hole.
Case in point - 30s couple with kids, still recovering from impact of debts from not being careful in their 20s. Both work in low tech / high brand manufacturing. Him furloughed from a job where a good chunk of income was overtime; her on maternity then furloughed. Just starting back at work.
Still standing, still a modest but reasonable lifestyle, but modest reserves have been absorbed and it is now much closer to the edge with certain extra built up arrears. 12-24 months of normality required to get back to the position from March even with support from creditors.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
If deaths have truly been "brought forward" then they won't appear twice.. Which in my opinion is why net excess mortality is the best metric. Natural month to month variation is also smoothed.
If you wait long enough, then you'll ultimately conclude that covid had no effect at all since everybody who caught it would be dead even if they hadn't caught it! That's why I think that total years of life lost to the disease is perhaps a better metric of its seriousness, through obviously harder to calculate.
Well put.
Also as an obese 80 year old with heart disease has a life expectancy of 5 year (from More or Less) it is unlikely that below mortality now is due to the fact that 'you can't die twice' factor as the vast majority of those that died of Covid would not now be dying now of something else. Only a small number would be. I suspect the lower death rate now is due to the change in circumstances brought about by Covid.
Yes, it seems like a major shortcoming of using excess deaths is that it doesn't allow us to distinguish the effect of COVID vs. the effect of our response to COVID.
Wait, I thought it was supposed to have been suppressed by No 10 because of the bombshell revelations in it? Titter.
So why was it not published earlier?
Perhaps because the report makes our security services look rather underwhelming? "Surely Johnny Russian wouldn't be so sneaky as to try to influence the Referendum? No no no.... that was all down to the side of a bus."
The one thing the report does make clear is that up until quite recently the UK security and intelligence services were very busy dealing with Islamist terrorism, and so the actions of Russia, and similar states, was put on the back-burner. But that has been bleeding obvious to anyone with even half a clue.
If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.
As usual, hypocrisy.
Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.
Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
As the Tories are no longer either Conservative or Unionist we need a new name for them. English Populists? English Patriots? Something with English as the first word and something hypocritical as the last...
Since they're the only party that believe in economic liberalism how about Liberals
Given the Conservatives are increasing spending significantly now and ending free movement from the EU they are certainly not Liberals, indeed at the last general election the IFS said the LDs were 'now the only major party committed to reduce the national debt as a fraction of national income.'
If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.
As usual, hypocrisy.
Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.
Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
I never believed it would do anything of the sort. I think it is more significant than PB Tories give it credit for.
Personally I've never been convinced that it was Russia, it's moronic Brits that delivered Brexit
Wait, I thought it was supposed to have been suppressed by No 10 because of the bombshell revelations in it? Titter.
So why was it not published earlier?
Perhaps because the report makes our security services look rather underwhelming? "Surely Johnny Russian wouldn't be so sneaky as to try to influence the Referendum? No no no.... that was all down to the side of a bus."
The one thing the report does make clear is that up until quite recently the UK security and intelligence services were very busy dealing with Islamist terrorism, and so the actions of Russia, and similar states, was put on the back-burner. But that has been bleeding obvious to anyone with even half a clue.
Consider the Islamist terrorists have been trying to murder us its not entirely unreasonable either.
Wait, I thought it was supposed to have been suppressed by No 10 because of the bombshell revelations in it? Titter.
So why was it not published earlier?
Perhaps because the report makes our security services look rather underwhelming? "Surely Johnny Russian wouldn't be so sneaky as to try to influence the Referendum? No no no.... that was all down to the side of a bus."
The one thing the report does make clear is that up until quite recently the UK security and intelligence services were very busy dealing with Islamist terrorism, and so the actions of Russia, and similar states, was put on the back-burner. But that has been bleeding obvious to anyone with even half a clue.
Yup. Salisbury must have shaken MI5/MI6 to the core.....
Sounds as if we'd be better off putting 'john daniszewski' in lower case as he deserves...
The idea that globally black people are an ethnically homogenous group is absolubtely barking.
I remember it being quite a big deal when the ONS put Black African above Black Caribbean on the 2011 Census questionnaire. The justification being that for the first time ever the former were expected to outnumber the latter.
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.
I am using fiscal year data (April-March) because that is how it is conventionally published. Since the Covid crisis effectively started, in terms of its economic impact, in the last two weeks of March, it had virtually no effect on the public finances in FY19/20. You could say the same for 2008 - although in quarterly terms the recession started in Q2, GDP growth was already negative in March. So your clean comparison would be 2006/07 (2.6%) Vs 2018/19 (1.9%). In terms of primary deficit it's 1% Vs 0.4%. It's hard to make the case that just 0.6 or 0.7% of GDP is the difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy.
Yes use economic year data but you need to use the final economic year before the recession began which is measured using quarterly growth figures.
In 2008 it was Q3 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2008/09 and sets 2007/08 as the baseline. In 2020 it was Q1 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2019/20 and sets 2018/19 as the baseline.
Using 2019/20 when the recession had already began in 2019/20 is like using 2008/09.
As for a 0.7% difference is it not hard whatsoever to make the case the that 0.7% is a tremendous difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy. Because we also need to consider where that came from in the years before then.
As I said it is the year on year change in the deficit that matters more than what the deficit is for judging soundness. Brown managed to spend five years pissing away a budget surplus and transform it into a higher deficit than the Tories had going into the next recession coming off a 10% deficit they had inherited.
The deficit was lower as a % of GDP in both 06/07 and 07/08 than in 96/97, so Brown also reduced the deficit relative to the one he inherited from the Tories. He also reduced debt as a % of GDP over the same period.
If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.
As usual, hypocrisy.
Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.
Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.
As usual, hypocrisy.
Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.
Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
A conspiracy theory suggests an implausible expectation of concerted action, across borders or organisations. When Putin has openly congratulated with an exceptional award the recent British ambassador with extensive links to Aaron Banks, Alexander Yakovenko, on his "good works - it will be a long time before the British rise again" - it's more that the Russian state is openly laughing in Britain's face, as it did with the Salisbury Cathedral tourism video.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
Looking round the world do people still think our Government's handling of Covid-19 has been catastrophic?
"Not catastrophic" - isn't that what they call damning with faint praise?
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.
On a long term basis they might (they would be taking cash from investors and cancelling it). But it would be a deliberate policy decision to shrink the money supply
On a long term basis they might, but equally on a long term basis the Treasury might decide to borrow £700 billion more. Doesn't mean we should include hypothetical potential future borrowing in the figures.
I'm struggling to see why fictional debt that has no interest payments paid on it should be lumped in together with real debt that has real interest payments paid on it.
Its weird because for years governments of various colours have tried to do off-book expenditure like PFI and Student Loans to hide the true state of government spending, whereas here the Bank and Treasury are doing the opposite having on-book debt that is not real debt in any meaningful sense of the word.
The books should be reported honestly. Off book expenditure should be accounted for, while the debt figures should be addressed honestly.
Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.
Looking round the world do people still think our Government's handling of Covid-19 has been catastrophic?
"Not catastrophic" - isn't that what they call damning with faint praise?
“Not catastrophic” counts as a win if you you are a government.
Sounds as if we'd be better off putting 'john daniszewski' in lower case as he deserves...
The idea that globally black people are an ethnically homogenous group is absolubtely barking.
As I understand it, there is actually much more genetic variation among black people than among white people due to whites all being descended from a relatively small number of people that migrated from Africa to Europe during prehistoric times. Mind you, there is, I think, more evidence of Neanderthal interbreeding among European populations, so perhaps I've got that wrong.
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.
I am using fiscal year data (April-March) because that is how it is conventionally published. Since the Covid crisis effectively started, in terms of its economic impact, in the last two weeks of March, it had virtually no effect on the public finances in FY19/20. You could say the same for 2008 - although in quarterly terms the recession started in Q2, GDP growth was already negative in March. So your clean comparison would be 2006/07 (2.6%) Vs 2018/19 (1.9%). In terms of primary deficit it's 1% Vs 0.4%. It's hard to make the case that just 0.6 or 0.7% of GDP is the difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy.
Yes use economic year data but you need to use the final economic year before the recession began which is measured using quarterly growth figures.
In 2008 it was Q3 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2008/09 and sets 2007/08 as the baseline. In 2020 it was Q1 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2019/20 and sets 2018/19 as the baseline.
Using 2019/20 when the recession had already began in 2019/20 is like using 2008/09.
As for a 0.7% difference is it not hard whatsoever to make the case the that 0.7% is a tremendous difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy. Because we also need to consider where that came from in the years before then.
As I said it is the year on year change in the deficit that matters more than what the deficit is for judging soundness. Brown managed to spend five years pissing away a budget surplus and transform it into a higher deficit than the Tories had going into the next recession coming off a 10% deficit they had inherited.
The deficit was lower as a % of GDP in both 06/07 and 07/08 than in 96/97, so Brown also reduced the deficit relative to the one he inherited from the Tories. He also reduced debt as a % of GDP over the same period.
1996/97 was a different stage of the economic cycle than 2007/08 too.
Nobody to my knowledge objects to how Brown dealt with the deficit between 1996/97 to 2001/02. He ran sound finances then and I've never seen any Tories say otherwise. Of course he was largely following Ken Clarke's plans then but that is to his credit that he did.
It is from 2002 onwards that Brown blew the deficit wide open prior to the recession.
If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.
As usual, hypocrisy.
Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.
Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.
Comments
The key interest rate is the prevailing one when they mature.
That could be a lot higher, meaning either rolling over at an "irresponsible" rate,
or taking the hit to that future year's expenditure by not rolling over.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1285496946145267714
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1285503378538336257
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1285503788338552832
"If yer ain't got yer cert, yer a cert not to get in..."
✩░▒▓▆▅▃▂▁𝐒𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐄𝐓 𝐑𝐈𝐁𝐁𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐎𝐅 𝐄𝐗𝐄𝐂𝐏𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌▁▂▃▅▆▓▒░✩
Natural month to month variation is also smoothed.
At the moment it is the effect of lockdown, which I would suggest is misleading to count because it is simply delaying some deaths. On the other hand if this flu season is much less deadly that usual (because they have already died from COVID) that would be a very interesting conclusion.
In 2008 it was Q3 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2008/09 and sets 2007/08 as the baseline.
In 2020 it was Q1 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2019/20 and sets 2018/19 as the baseline.
Using 2019/20 when the recession had already began in 2019/20 is like using 2008/09.
As for a 0.7% difference is it not hard whatsoever to make the case the that 0.7% is a tremendous difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy. Because we also need to consider where that came from in the years before then.
As I said it is the year on year change in the deficit that matters more than what the deficit is for judging soundness. Brown managed to spend five years pissing away a budget surplus and transform it into a higher deficit than the Tories had going into the next recession coming off a 10% deficit they had inherited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=34&v=_0SuZQZGKqo&feature=emb_logo
Also reason #25 why Clinton won't be the Dem nominee should Rice, Demmings, Biden, Harris and Buttigieg fall under a bus.
What does she expect?
Ditto the economy.
Clearly things have stabilised thanks to the lockdown, and economic activity has picked up as it has been relaxed. What we really don't know is what's going to happen as we go into autumn/winter, and that depends on both government actions, and how people respond to them.
And developments on the medical front.
*edit*
These are the "Expert external witnesses".
Professor Anne Applebaum – Institute of Global Affairs
Mr William Browder – Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Movement
Mr Christopher Donnelly CMG TD – Head of the Institute for Statecraft
Mr Edward Lucas – Writer and consultant specialising in European and transatlantic security
Mr Christopher Steele – Director, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
You are probably better off reading the books by Applebaum, Browder, and Lucas than reading this report which appears to be devoid of anything remotely juicy.
Of course, this then comes back to the questions of how many people have had it and were those nearer the end of their lives more likely to get it?
Brexit Party
Sinn Fein
Now admittedly two of these don't have MPs and the third has MPs who don't turn up, but they're all what they say on the tin.
But... really... "I told MPs that I have seen no evidence / Because we didn't show you / And I didn't ask" is such an old chestnut that it was in Yes, Prime Minister.
Who was the minister responsible for MI6 in the period after the referendum, by the way?
Most surprising, perhaps, was the extent to which much of the work of the
Intelligence Community is focused on ***. We had, at the outset of our Inquiry,
believed they would be taking a rather broader view, given that it is clearly
acknowledged that the Russians use a whole-of-state approach.
• This focus has led us to question who is responsible for broader work against the
Russian threat and whether those organisations are sufficiently empowered to tackle
a hostile state threat such as Russia. In some instances, we have therefore
recommended a shift in responsibilities. In other cases, we have recommended a
simplification: there are a number of unnecessarily complicated wiring diagrams that
do not provide the clear lines of accountability that are needed.
• The clearest requirement for immediate action is for new legislation: the Intelligence Community must be given the tools it needs and be put in the best possible position
if it is to tackle this very capable adversary, and this means a new statutory
framework to tackle espionage, the illicit financial dealings of the Russian elite and
the ‘enablers’ who support this activity.
• More broadly, the way forward lies with taking action with our allies; a continuing
international consensus is needed against Russian aggressive action. The West is
strongest when it acts collectively and that is the way in which we can best attach a
cost to Putin’s actions. The UK has shown it can shape the international response,
as it did in response to the Salisbury attacks. It must now seek to build on this effort
to ensure that momentum is not lost
KGBFSB wasn't going to make that big a difference. Unless it turns out that certain high profile people were Harold Wilson style undercover agents.Also as an obese 80 year old with heart disease has a life expectancy of 5 year (from More or Less) it is unlikely that below mortality now is due to the fact that 'you can't die twice' factor as the vast majority of those that died of Covid would not now be dying now of something else. Only a small number would be. I suspect the lower death rate now is due to the change in circumstances brought about by Covid.
But I'd rather think of myself as a Big Englander, Dave.
(Or was it another lot - I haven't been paying attention to this one.)
I think we are good on that criteria?
She also muttered something about digital companies that don’t pay their taxes so that may help us
Case study: the EU referendum
There have been widespread public allegations that Russia sought to influence the
2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. The impact of any such attempts would be difficult – if not impossible – to assess, and we have not sought to do so.
However, it is important to establish whether a hostile state took deliberate action with the aim of influencing a UK democratic process, irrespective of whether it was successful or not.
Open source studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EU
stories on RT and Sputnik, and the use of ‘bots’ and ‘trolls’, as evidence of Russian attemptsto influence the process.
We have sought to establish whether there is secret intelligence
which supported or built on these studies. In response to our request for written evidence at the outset of the Inquiry, MI5 initially provided just six lines of text. It stated that ***, before referring to academic studies.This was noteworthy in terms of the way it was couched (***) and the reference to open source studies ***. The brevity was also, to us, again, indicative of the extreme caution amongst the intelligence and security Agencies at the thought that they might have any role in relation to the UK’s democratic processes, and particularly one as contentious as the EU referendum.
We repeat that this attitude is illogical; this is about the protection of the process and mechanism from hostile state interference, which should fall to our intelligence and security Agencies.
I speak as someone who is not going to be asked to work from home except in emergencies: teaching from home is not a good substitute for the real thing.
I am also fortunate in that my commute is 20 minutes if I walk.
This is a complete abolition of duty
I'm really disappointed because I have a lot of interest in this topic, and there's basically nothing in the report of note.
As usual, hypocrisy.
Talking to a few in my circle who have been on furlough and similar, in what Ed Milliband called the "squeezed middle" - that is say one income around the national average and the other somewhat below - they seem to feel set back by about 2 years if in the private sector. Public sector may be different if full incomes have continued to be paid. Seems to chime with the time to get the economy back out of the hole.
Case in point - 30s couple with kids, still recovering from impact of debts from not being careful in their 20s. Both work in low tech / high brand manufacturing. Him furloughed from a job where a good chunk of income was overtime; her on maternity then furloughed. Just starting back at work.
Still standing, still a modest but reasonable lifestyle, but modest reserves have been absorbed and it is now much closer to the edge with certain extra built up arrears. 12-24 months of normality required to get back to the position from March even with support from creditors.
Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/liberal-democrat-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs
Personally I've never been convinced that it was Russia, it's moronic Brits that delivered Brexit
How is he proposing to determine whether people count as "black" or not. Is there a list of Pantone numbers?
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1285518656970076160?s=20
A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.
I'm struggling to see why fictional debt that has no interest payments paid on it should be lumped in together with real debt that has real interest payments paid on it.
Its weird because for years governments of various colours have tried to do off-book expenditure like PFI and Student Loans to hide the true state of government spending, whereas here the Bank and Treasury are doing the opposite having on-book debt that is not real debt in any meaningful sense of the word.
The books should be reported honestly. Off book expenditure should be accounted for, while the debt figures should be addressed honestly.
Nobody to my knowledge objects to how Brown dealt with the deficit between 1996/97 to 2001/02. He ran sound finances then and I've never seen any Tories say otherwise. Of course he was largely following Ken Clarke's plans then but that is to his credit that he did.
It is from 2002 onwards that Brown blew the deficit wide open prior to the recession.
The Tories were at £800,000 from Russian 'businessmen' in 2018, do you think they're over the million by now?
Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.