True. Although it might also be determined by sector/type of product, in which case 98% of traders might equally be a lot less than 98% of trade. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Economists always hide a lot behind the ceteris paribus principle but I think that the idea that you can discourage or encourage certain behaviours by improving or reducing the net return through taxation is obvious enough. Governments do need to be aware of the implications of tax increases or decreases on behaviour. A simple example is the way that the real cost of duties was allowed to drop resulting in higher spirits consumption with adverse health consequences.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
And they are.
In fact if you work in the Treasury you probably spend a good deal of your time predicting the outcomes of putative taxation changes but the connection between those calculations and Laffer's simplistic theory would be remote to the point of non-existence.
As in most economics the principle is sound, the practical difficult and it changes over time. I am not sure that we are fundamentally disagreeing.
What I find interesting about our current position is that there was an assumption that we got "punished" for "excessive" borrowing with longer term bond rates rising making it more expensive to borrow in the future reducing future growth. What we have seen over the last decade, and especially over the last year, is that we in fact had far more leeway in that respect than we could have ever imagined. The reality is that sovereign governments are essentially an oligarchy who can control the market far more than was contemplated by being the only game in town.
Did this make the fairly light austerity of George Osborne wrong? Would we have grown faster with more debt without a significant penalty? I honestly don't know the answer but this year creates many challenges to fiscal hawks and sound money proponents (of which I generally am one).
I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.
I would call it the Laffer Syndrome. Sometimes cutting taxes results in increased tax take; sometimes it doesn't. No one has explained satisfactorily why.
So why does the left always want to raise taxes?
Because it`s not all about tax-take - as I said earlier.
But it's always proposed as a way to pay for something, so framed as being entirely about the revenue - this 1% tax rise will raise precisely 5% of the revenue from the previous 20% tax. In every single Labour manifesto I have ever seen.
Yes, I get you, the LP never says "we want to spend more money on X and to pay for it we will spend less money on Y".
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
Interesting snippet from Alex Norris, shadow health minister, on Sky news. Discussing Gavin Williamsons silly comments about the UK being better than everyone else, and was given on open goal to pile on. He declined to criticise and instead gave a clear patriotic optimistic answer, far more measured and realistic than Williamson, but avoiding the trap of sounding unpatriotic.
Under Corbyn, or probably any Labour leader since Blair, the open goal to mock Williamson would have been taken, which would have been misunderstood by many as mocking the UK.
Little things like this are the way to chip away at a govt that has nothing but fake patriotism and culture wars to offer the country.
Except that nothing could be more fake than Labour's patriotism - the Corbyn years dropped the veil and let us know what they really think, as if it weren't obvious before. Voters can smell when a party and leadership doesn't actually like the country they seek to lead, which is why Blair has been their only majority-winner in the last 46 years.
What utter rubbish. The fact that Corbyn still lived in a personal world where the Soviet Union was king doesn't mean he spoke for everyone else in the Labour Party, or people minded not to vote for a Boris Johnson Government.
I was a member of the Labour Party until Corbyn, and I consider myself a patriot. I suspect I would have been more content to lay down my life for this country than, for example, Boris Johnson. His patriotic duty seems to begin and end with what is best for Boris Johnson.
I just want to randomly observe that Trump got lower than Romney's vote share. Again.
With not major 3rd party voting this time around.
I don't think Trump was that popular.
Trump got 46.8% of the vote which was the fourth highest voteshare for a GOP candidate in the last 30 years after the 47.2% Romney got in 2012 and the 47.9% Bush got in 2000 and the 50.7% Bush got in 2004.
Trump has also got 232 EC votes which was still higher than the 206 EC votes Romney got in 2012.
So basically Trump was the best candidate the GOP have had after the Bushes since Reagan in terms of the EC, though Romney is the best in terms of the popular vote, though of course only the former counts in electing the President
So what you are saying is out of the last 6 presidential elections where Trump wasn't a candidate he got a worse vote share than the Republican candidate in 3 of them and a better vote share than the Republican candidate in 3 of them (2 of those featured Ross Perot 1992 and 1996). Not sure why you are stopping at 1992 - maybe because Trump got a worse vote share than the R candidate in the five elections before 1992.
Or to put it another way, in elections without a 3rd party candidate getting more than 8% of the vote, Trump got a lower vote share in both his attempts than every Republican presidential candidate since 1964, apart from McCain in 2008.
Still 46.8% is really shocking for such a totally unfit person.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Economists always hide a lot behind the ceteris paribus principle but I think that the idea that you can discourage or encourage certain behaviours by improving or reducing the net return through taxation is obvious enough. Governments do need to be aware of the implications of tax increases or decreases on behaviour. A simple example is the way that the real cost of duties was allowed to drop resulting in higher spirits consumption with adverse health consequences.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
And they are.
In fact if you work in the Treasury you probably spend a good deal of your time predicting the outcomes of putative taxation changes but the connection between those calculations and Laffer's simplistic theory would be remote to the point of non-existence.
As in most economics the principle is sound, the practical difficult and it changes over time. I am not sure that we are fundamentally disagreeing.
What I find interesting about our current position is that there was an assumption that we got "punished" for "excessive" borrowing with longer term bond rates rising making it more expensive to borrow in the future reducing future growth. What we have seen over the last decade, and especially over the last year, is that we in fact had far more leeway in that respect than we could have ever imagined. The reality is that sovereign governments are essentially an oligarchy who can control the market far more than was contemplated by being the only game in town.
Did this make the fairly light austerity of George Osborne wrong? Would we have grown faster with more debt without a significant penalty? I honestly don't know the answer but this year creates many challenges to fiscal hawks and sound money proponents (of which I generally am one).
I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.
Maybe, but would you agree with me that the evidence is more mixed and less convincing than we once assumed?
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
I would call it the Laffer Syndrome. Sometimes cutting taxes results in increased tax take; sometimes it doesn't. No one has explained satisfactorily why.
So why does the left always want to raise taxes?
Because it`s not all about tax-take - as I said earlier.
But it's always proposed as a way to pay for something, so framed as being entirely about the revenue - this 1% tax rise will raise precisely 5% of the revenue from the previous 20% tax. In every single Labour manifesto I have ever seen.
Yes, I get you, the LP never says "we want to spend more money on X and to pay for it we will spend less money on Y".
They never say "we're going to increase spending and we're going to increase taxes on people we don't like even though it might well decrease tax revenue so we'll have to borrow even more to pay for the spending and the vindictive tax rise", which might be more historically accurate.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
This is exactly what I was wondering about yesterday - some kind of scenario where Boris can say " Look ! I've won the freedom to diverge," but conditional in fact on the conditions being terminated at any time if the other party doesn't like it. It could be enough to give him what looks like a procedural gain on paper, rather than in reality.
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.
It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.
I just want to randomly observe that Trump got lower than Romney's vote share. Again.
With not major 3rd party voting this time around.
I don't think Trump was that popular.
Trump got 46.8% of the vote which was the fourth highest voteshare for a GOP candidate in the last 30 years after the 47.2% Romney got in 2012 and the 47.9% Bush got in 2000 and the 50.7% Bush got in 2004.
Trump has also got 232 EC votes which was still higher than the 206 EC votes Romney got in 2012.
So basically Trump was the best candidate the GOP have had after the Bushes since Reagan in terms of the EC, though Romney is the best in terms of the popular vote, though of course only the former counts in electing the President
So what you are saying is out of the last 6 presidential elections where Trump wasn't a candidate he got a worse vote share than the Republican candidate in 3 of them and a better vote share than the Republican candidate in 3 of them (2 of those featured Ross Perot 1992 and 1996). Not sure why you are stopping at 1992 - maybe because Trump got a worse vote share than the R candidate in the five elections before 1992.
Or to put it another way, in elections without a 3rd party candidate getting more than 8% of the vote, Trump got a lower vote share in both his attempts than every Republican presidential candidate since 1964, apart from McCain in 2008.
Still 46.8% is really shocking for such a totally unfit person.
OK if you want to go back to elections post WW2 then 46.8% is a higher popular voteshare than Dewey got in 1948, higher than Stevenson got in 1952 and 1956, higher than Goldwater got in 1964, higher than Humphrey and Nixon got in 1968, higher than McGovern got in 1972, higher than Carter got in 1980, higher than Mondale got in 1984, higher than Dukakis got in 1988, higher than Bush and Clinton got in 1992, higher than Dole got in 1996 and higher than McCain got in 2008 and of course higher than Trump himself got first time round in 2016.
It may not have been brilliant but 46.8% of the popular vote is at least around average for a Presidential candidate if not fractionally better
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
The Laffer Curve’s argument - that cutting tax rates can increase the total tax take - is true, but is only persuasive if increasing tax take is your only objective. Those that dislike it are arguing from other things, such as principle and fairness and redistribution etc.
For a start, it's not a curve; there is no defined mathematical relationship between change in tax rates and tax take. I doubt any such thing is discoverable. What is lowest possible tax rate to raise the maximum overall revenue ? Proponents of the "curve' have never made much effort to answer that question. Work I've seen suggests it might be somewhere around 50% - but no one has really provided any convincing figure.
While it's true (and pretty bloody obvious) that efforts towards tax avoidance will increase as tax rates go up, the implications for total tax take are complicated, and depend on a lot of stuff other than just tax rates.
HMRC did that work when Osborne was Chancellor and concluded around 45-47%
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Economists always hide a lot behind the ceteris paribus principle but I think that the idea that you can discourage or encourage certain behaviours by improving or reducing the net return through taxation is obvious enough. Governments do need to be aware of the implications of tax increases or decreases on behaviour. A simple example is the way that the real cost of duties was allowed to drop resulting in higher spirits consumption with adverse health consequences.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
And they are.
In fact if you work in the Treasury you probably spend a good deal of your time predicting the outcomes of putative taxation changes but the connection between those calculations and Laffer's simplistic theory would be remote to the point of non-existence.
As in most economics the principle is sound, the practical difficult and it changes over time. I am not sure that we are fundamentally disagreeing.
What I find interesting about our current position is that there was an assumption that we got "punished" for "excessive" borrowing with longer term bond rates rising making it more expensive to borrow in the future reducing future growth. What we have seen over the last decade, and especially over the last year, is that we in fact had far more leeway in that respect than we could have ever imagined. The reality is that sovereign governments are essentially an oligarchy who can control the market far more than was contemplated by being the only game in town.
Did this make the fairly light austerity of George Osborne wrong? Would we have grown faster with more debt without a significant penalty? I honestly don't know the answer but this year creates many challenges to fiscal hawks and sound money proponents (of which I generally am one).
I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.
Maybe, but would you agree with me that the evidence is more mixed and less convincing than we once assumed?
No. If we look back in time over the past century we can see time and again what happens when the deficit and debt gets out of control. Not just to third world nations like Venezuela and Zimbabwe or pre-war nations like Germany but even only a decade ago in Greece etc
Being dovish on this is the easy soporific answer. It allows people to make no tough choices, to try and get whatever they want without paying for it and eternal vigilance is needed against that because that way lies catastrophic system failure.
Finally there always needs to be ammunition in the tank available for when crisis hits - whether it be the financial crisis or Covid19 or as-yet-unforseen-future-problem27.
What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.
It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.
Boris was confident today and Starmer is just not cutting it
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer is focused on winning back the Red Wall sensibly, he knows voting against a Deal as Corbyn did would be suicide with them, he will of course oppose No Deal
Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
True. Although it might also be determined by sector/type of product, in which case 98% of traders might equally be a lot less than 98% of trade. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
It depends how you define traders. It could include an awful lot of self-employed people, for example, who currently do, say, building work cross-border.
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
There is no such thing as no deal. You are so off message Philip. You should pay more attention to brexit.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'
Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.
True. Although it might also be determined by sector/type of product, in which case 98% of traders might equally be a lot less than 98% of trade. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
It depends how you define traders. It could include an awful lot of self-employed people, for example, who currently do, say, building work cross-border.
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
This might be the biggest call he makes as LOTO and he's getting it wrong.
He must abstain.
Don't let Johnson be able to say that 'You Voted For This' when the economy totally tanks.
It is constantly pointed on here and elsewhere that the Tories voted for the Iraq war. No-one cares. The key point is that it happened under a Labour government.
Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
Is this news the reason for the surge in the pound today
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".
Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
It is the best news on Brexit we have had so far, it is remarkable that so little is being made of it.
Goes to prove the IMB has done its job. Shouldn't have taken four years to get the EU to compromise but there we go, we are where we are now. Hopefully that means over the next week they're willing to do so on other issues too.
If good sensible solutions like Trusted Trader schemes are adopted going forwards then we can put this behind us and move forward as friendly neighbours.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'
Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.
Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).
Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
I agree. A trusted trader scheme is probably more important than a free trade deal in many ways. Tariffs are a fairly straightforward fixed cost. The delays that might arise from customs checks etc create far more uncertainty. If Boris came back with this for rUK but without an overarching deal it might not be the worst result.
True. Although it might also be determined by sector/type of product, in which case 98% of traders might equally be a lot less than 98% of trade. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
It depends how you define traders. It could include an awful lot of self-employed people, for example, who currently do, say, building work cross-border.
Does it matter?
It matters to them, for sure. I am not sure that it reads across to a wider deal because if it did it would essentially mean freedom of movement in many business areas, such as building and any number of services.
Did this make the fairly light austerity of George Osborne wrong? Would we have grown faster with more debt without a significant penalty? I honestly don't know the answer but this year creates many challenges to fiscal hawks and sound money proponents (of which I generally am one).
*Doffs hat* to someone who is prepared to reconsider an opinion based on subsequent evidence!
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'
Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.
Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).
For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".
No idea how Rees Mogg becomes PM but sometimes you have to decide, and in a vote of this importance abstaining is not an option
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Its comprise when the EU moves, caved in when the UK does ;-)
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Economists always hide a lot behind the ceteris paribus principle but I think that the idea that you can discourage or encourage certain behaviours by improving or reducing the net return through taxation is obvious enough. Governments do need to be aware of the implications of tax increases or decreases on behaviour. A simple example is the way that the real cost of duties was allowed to drop resulting in higher spirits consumption with adverse health consequences.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
And they are.
In fact if you work in the Treasury you probably spend a good deal of your time predicting the outcomes of putative taxation changes but the connection between those calculations and Laffer's simplistic theory would be remote to the point of non-existence.
As in most economics the principle is sound, the practical difficult and it changes over time. I am not sure that we are fundamentally disagreeing.
What I find interesting about our current position is that there was an assumption that we got "punished" for "excessive" borrowing with longer term bond rates rising making it more expensive to borrow in the future reducing future growth. What we have seen over the last decade, and especially over the last year, is that we in fact had far more leeway in that respect than we could have ever imagined. The reality is that sovereign governments are essentially an oligarchy who can control the market far more than was contemplated by being the only game in town.
Did this make the fairly light austerity of George Osborne wrong? Would we have grown faster with more debt without a significant penalty? I honestly don't know the answer but this year creates many challenges to fiscal hawks and sound money proponents (of which I generally am one).
I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.
Maybe, but would you agree with me that the evidence is more mixed and less convincing than we once assumed?
I'm not sure I understand how this is working either. It does feel a bit like we've flown a plane into 'coffin corner' conditions where everything is apparently stable but in reality there is very little room for manoeuvre without triggering a fatal stall or an overspeed.
Without inflation the debt won't disappear, and yet with any inflation the interest rates will kill us.
What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.
It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.
You are deluded. Johnson is shit at PMQs as he is shit at just about everything other than gulling the supremely gullible. He will "win" the odd one perhaps, but mainly by default. I am not a Labour supporter, but a QC versus a blustering bullshitting polemicist will rarely play out well for the latter. Boris Johnson was the wrong leader (he has no leadership skills) for the Tories. Only the totally foolish would ever thing now the evidence is there that it was a good choice. He needs to go for the good of his party and the country
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'
Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.
Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).
For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.
I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".
No idea how Rees Mogg becomes PM but sometimes you have to decide, and in a vote of this importance abstaining is not an option
Because Johnson will have sold the ERG down the river. They will demand Johnson's two-faced head!
Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
It is the best news on Brexit we have had so far, it is remarkable that so little is being made of it.
Goes to prove the IMB has done its job. Shouldn't have taken four years to get the EU to compromise but there we go, we are where we are now. Hopefully that means over the next week they're willing to do so on other issues too.
If good sensible solutions like Trusted Trader schemes are adopted going forwards then we can put this behind us and move forward as friendly neighbours.
" Shouldn't have taken four years to get the EU to compromise" Doesn't it take two to compromise?
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer is focused on winning back the Red Wall sensibly, he knows voting against a Deal as Corbyn did would be suicide with them, he will of course oppose No Deal
Having the virulently anti-EU Corbyn as leader at the very moment of Brexit was a disaster for Labour - any sizeable political benefits they could have got were made impossible by his malign presence. Sir Keir probably wants Brexit done and dusted almost as much as Boris and the Tories; it's a political dead end for him.
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'
Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.
Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).
For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.
I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?
Surely Chris Croesus Huhne gets that role in the panto for as long as he wants it?
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".
No idea how Rees Mogg becomes PM but sometimes you have to decide, and in a vote of this importance abstaining is not an option
Because Johnson will have sold the ERG down the river. They will demand Johnson's two-faced head!
2/3 of Tory MPs even voted for May's Deal at MV1, the ERG probably do not have the votes to get one of their own into the final 2 of a leadership race let alone topple Boris if he gets a Deal
Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
It is the best news on Brexit we have had so far, it is remarkable that so little is being made of it.
Goes to prove the IMB has done its job. Shouldn't have taken four years to get the EU to compromise but there we go, we are where we are now. Hopefully that means over the next week they're willing to do so on other issues too.
If good sensible solutions like Trusted Trader schemes are adopted going forwards then we can put this behind us and move forward as friendly neighbours.
" Shouldn't have taken four years to get the EU to compromise" Doesn't it take two to compromise?
Of course it does.
Given the compromise (trusted trader scheme) is something we have repeatedly suggested for four years now though - and they rejected for four years as undermining their Single Market, I think its fair to say that the EU were the obstinate ones who have now moved.
What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.
It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.
You are deluded. Johnson is shit at PMQs as he is shit at just about everything other than gulling the supremely gullible. He will "win" the odd one perhaps, but mainly by default. I am not a Labour supporter, but a QC versus a blustering bullshitting polemicist will rarely play out well for the latter. Boris Johnson was the wrong leader (he has no leadership skills) for the Tories. Only the totally foolish would ever thing now the evidence is there that it was a good choice. He needs to go for the good of his party and the country
Yesterday's poll showed that Boris outperforms Starmer in public opinion in most fields and is only 1% less on the question of lying
I am not enamoured by Boris but he is not going anywhere soon
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'
Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.
Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).
For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.
I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?
Well there was a post of mine that I never thought would generate a discussion. What a site this is. Such knowledge about such a wide range of topics. I had to look up what it meant.
I just want to randomly observe that Trump got lower than Romney's vote share. Again.
With not major 3rd party voting this time around.
I don't think Trump was that popular.
Trump got 46.8% of the vote which was the fourth highest voteshare for a GOP candidate in the last 30 years after the 47.2% Romney got in 2012 and the 47.9% Bush got in 2000 and the 50.7% Bush got in 2004.
Trump has also got 232 EC votes which was still higher than the 206 EC votes Romney got in 2012.
So basically Trump was the best candidate the GOP have had after the Bushes since Reagan in terms of the EC, though Romney is the best in terms of the popular vote, though of course only the former counts in electing the President
So what you are saying is out of the last 6 presidential elections where Trump wasn't a candidate he got a worse vote share than the Republican candidate in 3 of them and a better vote share than the Republican candidate in 3 of them (2 of those featured Ross Perot 1992 and 1996). Not sure why you are stopping at 1992 - maybe because Trump got a worse vote share than the R candidate in the five elections before 1992.
Or to put it another way, in elections without a 3rd party candidate getting more than 8% of the vote, Trump got a lower vote share in both his attempts than every Republican presidential candidate since 1964, apart from McCain in 2008.
Still 46.8% is really shocking for such a totally unfit person.
OK if you want to go back to elections post WW2 then 46.8% is a higher popular voteshare than Dewey got in 1948, higher than Stevenson got in 1952 and 1956, higher than Goldwater got in 1964, higher than Humphrey and Nixon got in 1968, higher than McGovern got in 1972, higher than Carter got in 1980, higher than Mondale got in 1984, higher than Dukakis got in 1988, higher than Bush and Clinton got in 1992, higher than Dole got in 1996 and higher than McCain got in 2008 and of course higher than Trump himself got first time round in 2016.
It may not have been brilliant but 46.8% of the popular vote is at least around average for a Presidential candidate if not fractionally better
It boils down to, he’s a great campaigner, shit at governing?
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.
One imagines that one of the UK concessions was dropping the IMB clauses.
Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
Is that the same as Trustatrader.com ? Need a drain unblocking? Call Bozo the Clown and he will make some silly quip and tell you that fast running shit will be "great" and "world class" when he just wills it to be that way. You will give him one star and ask for your money back which you will not get.
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'
Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.
Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).
For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.
I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?
Surely Chris Croesus Huhne gets that role in the panto for as long as he wants it?
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".
Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal and still looking like diehard Remainers to the Red Wall but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.
They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.
Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.
One imagines that one of the UK concessions was dropping the IMB clauses.
Well indeed, but since the IMB clauses were only put in for the eventuality there was no agreement, then it was a concession we would always be granting in an agreement.
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".
No idea how Rees Mogg becomes PM but sometimes you have to decide, and in a vote of this importance abstaining is not an option
Because Johnson will have sold the ERG down the river. They will demand Johnson's two-faced head!
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.
On the import of chilled processed meat into the U.K?
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer is focused on winning back the Red Wall sensibly, he knows voting against a Deal as Corbyn did would be suicide with them, he will of course oppose No Deal
There is no such thing as no deal. It’s gone, deleted, rewound and cut out, it doesn’t exist. Because the number of times no deal was called a failure by Boris himsself , it’s been rebranded our Australian Brexit deal.
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer is focused on winning back the Red Wall sensibly, he knows voting against a Deal as Corbyn did would be suicide with them, he will of course oppose No Deal
Having the virulently anti-EU Corbyn as leader at the very moment of Brexit was a disaster for Labour - any sizeable political benefits they could have got were made impossible by his malign presence. Sir Keir probably wants Brexit done and dusted almost as much as Boris and the Tories; it's a political dead end for him.
That's fine, but what does he want to get it over to do exactly?
He's been LOTO for months and I'm still not entirely sure.
Is Labour under him about spending lots of other people's money? There's none left and won't be for many years to come. Is it about kneeling for things he didn't do and being woke? That won't win back the formerly Red Wall. Is it just about running the country more competently than the Conservatives? That's probably his best bet, but it has obvious risks...
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.
It's tough to see how Ireland getting everything it wanted as being a cave-in. The UK has accepted a customs border in the Irish Sea and a part of UK territory remaining subject to CJEU jurisdiction in order to preserve the integrity of the Single Market. For the EU26, the rest is detail; it only actually matters to Ireland. Clearly there is compromise, which is great, but it is the kind that you see when the two sides are not equally matched. As others have said, the real big deal would be if a trusted trader scheme was created for the mainland/EU26. I suspect that is much more problematic though, because of the issues it raises around services and freedom of movement.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
I don't think that's right. The concept of the Laffer Curve, if used correctly, is a valuable one.
The key point is that the inflection point (beyond which increasing tax rates is counter-productive) depends on the circumstances. In particular, how easy/acceptable is it for taxpayers to modify their behaviour? If it's extremely easy - for example if they can very easily and legally buy an alternative version of a product to avoid a Sales Tax or VAT, or buy it in a different jurisdiction - then the counter-productive rate might kick in at a very low number. If, as in the example you give, the cost and hassle of shifting is considerable and has other downsides, it's going to kick in at a highish number (although over time you might lose tax at the margin as people slowly adapt their behaviour, or simply don't bring their wealth here in the first place).
The facts that the Laffer Curve shape depends on all the circumstances, including anti-avoidance measures and possible changes in behaviour, and that it is hard to measure, don't invalidate the concept. They just mean you need to apply a modicum of sense in using the concept.
Laffer is fine as a SOTBO that sometimes if you hike tax rates you'll get less revenue due to behavioural changes. So, ok, make sure you consider this aspect when looking at hiking taxes. Great. Thanks Mr Laffer. The problem however comes when it is described as a "curve" with predictive powers. This seeks to imbue it with an aura of science and statistical gravitas that it does not have and is not even close to having. In the hands of the wrong sort of people (which broadly speaking are those who speak of it in this pseudo-scientific way) it thus becomes mumbo jumbo, becomes the Having a Laffer curve.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.
I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.
What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.
It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.
Boris was confident today and Starmer is just not cutting it
I haven't seen it, but perhaps Starmer having a bad day. Bozo is shit on his feet, but every dog has his day. I wouldn't get too excited, much as you might hope he is good, let me let you into a not very secret secret: Johnson is not up to the job, and though Starmer may have a bad day he is massively more Primeministerial than Johnson, but then so is just about anyone.
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".
Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it
Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?
Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.
That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'
Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.
Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).
For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.
I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?
Surely Chris Croesus Huhne gets that role in the panto for as long as he wants it?
Is there an allusion I am missing, please?
He was known as Chris "Creases" Huhne after the trouser press on expenses fun. Then it was later revealed that he owned a million second homes, so the adaption from "rich as Croesus" to "rich as Creases" was born. I always think of him now when I read about Croesus
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.
I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.
Sounds as if Gove has done an excellent job in these negotiations
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.
I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.
Good - I think everyone is happy that the Irish border issue has been put to bed.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
I don't think that's right. The concept of the Laffer Curve, if used correctly, is a valuable one.
The key point is that the inflection point (beyond which increasing tax rates is counter-productive) depends on the circumstances. In particular, how easy/acceptable is it for taxpayers to modify their behaviour? If it's extremely easy - for example if they can very easily and legally buy an alternative version of a product to avoid a Sales Tax or VAT, or buy it in a different jurisdiction - then the counter-productive rate might kick in at a very low number. If, as in the example you give, the cost and hassle of shifting is considerable and has other downsides, it's going to kick in at a highish number (although over time you might lose tax at the margin as people slowly adapt their behaviour, or simply don't bring their wealth here in the first place).
The facts that the Laffer Curve shape depends on all the circumstances, including anti-avoidance measures and possible changes in behaviour, and that it is hard to measure, don't invalidate the concept. They just mean you need to apply a modicum of sense in using the concept.
Laffer is fine as a SOTBO that sometimes if you hike tax rates you'll get less revenue due to behavioural changes. So, ok, make sure you consider this aspect when looking at hiking taxes. Great. Thanks Mr Laffer. The problem however comes when it is described as a "curve" with predictive powers. This seeks to imbue it with an aura of science and statistical gravitas that it does not have and is not even close to having. In the hands of the wrong sort of people (which broadly speaking are those who speak of it in this pseudo-scientific way) it thus becomes mumbo jumbo, becomes the Having a Laffer curve.
Oh quite. Those who call economics the 'dismal science' are wrong; it may be dismal, but it's not science.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Economists always hide a lot behind the ceteris paribus principle but I think that the idea that you can discourage or encourage certain behaviours by improving or reducing the net return through taxation is obvious enough. Governments do need to be aware of the implications of tax increases or decreases on behaviour. A simple example is the way that the real cost of duties was allowed to drop resulting in higher spirits consumption with adverse health consequences.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
And they are.
In fact if you work in the Treasury you probably spend a good deal of your time predicting the outcomes of putative taxation changes but the connection between those calculations and Laffer's simplistic theory would be remote to the point of non-existence.
As in most economics the principle is sound, the practical difficult and it changes over time. I am not sure that we are fundamentally disagreeing.
What I find interesting about our current position is that there was an assumption that we got "punished" for "excessive" borrowing with longer term bond rates rising making it more expensive to borrow in the future reducing future growth. What we have seen over the last decade, and especially over the last year, is that we in fact had far more leeway in that respect than we could have ever imagined. The reality is that sovereign governments are essentially an oligarchy who can control the market far more than was contemplated by being the only game in town.
Did this make the fairly light austerity of George Osborne wrong? Would we have grown faster with more debt without a significant penalty? I honestly don't know the answer but this year creates many challenges to fiscal hawks and sound money proponents (of which I generally am one).
I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.
Maybe, but would you agree with me that the evidence is more mixed and less convincing than we once assumed?
No. If we look back in time over the past century we can see time and again what happens when the deficit and debt gets out of control. Not just to third world nations like Venezuela and Zimbabwe or pre-war nations like Germany but even only a decade ago in Greece etc
Being dovish on this is the easy soporific answer. It allows people to make no tough choices, to try and get whatever they want without paying for it and eternal vigilance is needed against that because that way lies catastrophic system failure.
Finally there always needs to be ammunition in the tank available for when crisis hits - whether it be the financial crisis or Covid19 or as-yet-unforseen-future-problem27.
This is why the Laffer curve discussion brought this to mind. It is obvious at the extremes that these things are true but it is less obvious that they apply short of the extremes. And borrowing enough money to fight a medium sized war is pretty extreme by any normal standard. I am also nervous about the QE policies. Twice now we have used quite a lot of QE to get ourselves out of a hole. The cost of doing so is...not obvious. Is it one of these things that will be ok until it isn't? Maybe.
What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.
It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.
Boris was confident today and Starmer is just not cutting it
I haven't seen it, but perhaps Starmer having a bad day. Bozo is shit on his feet, but every dog has his day. I wouldn't get too excited, much as you might hope he is good, let me let you into a not very secret secret: Johnson is not up to the job, and though Starmer may have a bad day he is massively more Primeministerial than Johnson, but then so is just about anyone.
You are obviously very anti Boris and many consider he is not the PM for these times
Notwithstanding he does seem to have considerable support and I cannot see him going anywhere soon
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.
They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.
Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.
I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.
Sounds as if Gove has done an excellent job in these negotiations
Contrasted with May's tenure this current government is remarkably quietly competent at getting on with things.
Special credit with Brexit for both Gove and Truss who have in the past twelve months achieved far more than was achieved by their predecessors in years.
What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.
It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.
Boris was confident today and Starmer is just not cutting it
I haven't seen it, but perhaps Starmer having a bad day. Bozo is shit on his feet, but every dog has his day. I wouldn't get too excited, much as you might hope he is good, let me let you into a not very secret secret: Johnson is not up to the job, and though Starmer may have a bad day he is massively more Primeministerial than Johnson, but then so is just about anyone.
Do you misunderstand what the role of a Prime Minister is? The great ones, Churchill, Thatcher, Boris, talked up the nations resolve, built morale, from the people up. Even Blair in his conference speeches talked up the great opportunity’s for UK of globalisation, ignoring the issues with globalisation. At what time do you imagine Starmer able to do any of that?
What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.
It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.
Boris was confident today and Starmer is just not cutting it
In Johnson's mind he has just invented three Covid vaccines and is about to sign off a world beating trade deal with the EU. Of course his tail is up.
Starmer on the other hand understands he is about to sell out over Brexit. Over this issue he knows his credibility is shot and he should rightly hang his head in shame.
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".
Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it
Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.
They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.
Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.
Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest
Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.
Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".
Labour will likely abstain if we get a Deal, so they do not oppose it leading to No Deal but Boris owns it and gets it through only via Tory votes while facing a significant rebellion from the ERG who join the DUP, the SNP, the LDs, the SDLP, Plaid and Lucas in voting against it
Hasn't Sir Keir Plonker already confirmed he will whip his MPs to support Johnson's world beating trade deal, whatever it may be?
No, he has just said he will act in the national interest, if that means abstaining so be it from his point of view
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?
The ERG and the DUP
The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.
But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.
Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.
They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.
Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.
Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
You may be living in hope Max but I'm not holding my breath.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Economists always hide a lot behind the ceteris paribus principle but I think that the idea that you can discourage or encourage certain behaviours by improving or reducing the net return through taxation is obvious enough. Governments do need to be aware of the implications of tax increases or decreases on behaviour. A simple example is the way that the real cost of duties was allowed to drop resulting in higher spirits consumption with adverse health consequences.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
And they are.
In fact if you work in the Treasury you probably spend a good deal of your time predicting the outcomes of putative taxation changes but the connection between those calculations and Laffer's simplistic theory would be remote to the point of non-existence.
As in most economics the principle is sound, the practical difficult and it changes over time. I am not sure that we are fundamentally disagreeing.
What I find interesting about our current position is that there was an assumption that we got "punished" for "excessive" borrowing with longer term bond rates rising making it more expensive to borrow in the future reducing future growth. What we have seen over the last decade, and especially over the last year, is that we in fact had far more leeway in that respect than we could have ever imagined. The reality is that sovereign governments are essentially an oligarchy who can control the market far more than was contemplated by being the only game in town.
Did this make the fairly light austerity of George Osborne wrong? Would we have grown faster with more debt without a significant penalty? I honestly don't know the answer but this year creates many challenges to fiscal hawks and sound money proponents (of which I generally am one).
I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.
Maybe, but would you agree with me that the evidence is more mixed and less convincing than we once assumed?
No. If we look back in time over the past century we can see time and again what happens when the deficit and debt gets out of control. Not just to third world nations like Venezuela and Zimbabwe or pre-war nations like Germany but even only a decade ago in Greece etc
Being dovish on this is the easy soporific answer. It allows people to make no tough choices, to try and get whatever they want without paying for it and eternal vigilance is needed against that because that way lies catastrophic system failure.
Finally there always needs to be ammunition in the tank available for when crisis hits - whether it be the financial crisis or Covid19 or as-yet-unforseen-future-problem27.
This is why the Laffer curve discussion brought this to mind. It is obvious at the extremes that these things are true but it is less obvious that they apply short of the extremes. And borrowing enough money to fight a medium sized war is pretty extreme by any normal standard. I am also nervous about the QE policies. Twice now we have used quite a lot of QE to get ourselves out of a hole. The cost of doing so is...not obvious. Is it one of these things that will be ok until it isn't? Maybe.
Yes I think so.
It is only when it is not OK that suddenly it becomes bad but it can very rapidly escalate from OK to horrendous with little warning in-between.
Good, but there's still the level playing field and non-regression to sort out. The fish is doable. But if the lpf isn't sorted Macron will wave us "goodbye and thanks for the fish".
Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
The UK ‘gave in’ on the NI protocol to get this concession.
Comments
I was a member of the Labour Party until Corbyn, and I consider myself a patriot. I suspect I would have been more content to lay down my life for this country than, for example, Boris Johnson. His patriotic duty seems to begin and end with what is best for Boris Johnson.
Or to put it another way, in elections without a 3rd party candidate getting more than 8% of the vote, Trump got a lower vote share in both his attempts than every Republican presidential candidate since 1964, apart from McCain in 2008.
Still 46.8% is really shocking for such a totally unfit person.
Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.
Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence
It may not have been brilliant but 46.8% of the popular vote is at least around average for a Presidential candidate if not fractionally better
He must abstain.
Don't let Johnson be able to say that 'You Voted For This' when the economy totally tanks.
Being dovish on this is the easy soporific answer. It allows people to make no tough choices, to try and get whatever they want without paying for it and eternal vigilance is needed against that because that way lies catastrophic system failure.
Finally there always needs to be ammunition in the tank available for when crisis hits - whether it be the financial crisis or Covid19 or as-yet-unforseen-future-problem27.
More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.
It’s a Canada deal, or an Australian style deal.
Goes to prove the IMB has done its job. Shouldn't have taken four years to get the EU to compromise but there we go, we are where we are now. Hopefully that means over the next week they're willing to do so on other issues too.
If good sensible solutions like Trusted Trader schemes are adopted going forwards then we can put this behind us and move forward as friendly neighbours.
Without inflation the debt won't disappear, and yet with any inflation the interest rates will kill us.
Break international rules and get the EU to need to compromise and agree to ... trusted trader schemes ...
Exactly what has happened. Hopefully the free trade agreement also mentioned is the next element to arrive.
Doesn't it take two to compromise?
Given the compromise (trusted trader scheme) is something we have repeatedly suggested for four years now though - and they rejected for four years as undermining their Single Market, I think its fair to say that the EU were the obstinate ones who have now moved.
You may disagree but I'd be curious why.
I am not enamoured by Boris but he is not going anywhere soon
Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.
Get on message.
He's been LOTO for months and I'm still not entirely sure.
Is Labour under him about spending lots of other people's money? There's none left and won't be for many years to come.
Is it about kneeling for things he didn't do and being woke? That won't win back the formerly Red Wall.
Is it just about running the country more competently than the Conservatives? That's probably his best bet, but it has obvious risks...
Notwithstanding he does seem to have considerable support and I cannot see him going anywhere soon
“There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”
Special credit with Brexit for both Gove and Truss who have in the past twelve months achieved far more than was achieved by their predecessors in years.
Starmer on the other hand understands he is about to sell out over Brexit. Over this issue he knows his credibility is shot and he should rightly hang his head in shame.
It is only when it is not OK that suddenly it becomes bad but it can very rapidly escalate from OK to horrendous with little warning in-between.
The fish is doable. But if the lpf isn't sorted Macron will wave us "goodbye and thanks for the fish".