Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
There is a lot of tax options hidden away in the consultations to be announced on the 23rd..
However given the way the Tories continually box themselves in in their manifestos there was very little Rishi could actually do in the budget that would keep the wheels spinning.
I suspect the hope is that the Super Deduction will encourage enough investment that our productivity (so return on investment) improves significantly.
There's always been a school of thought that pushes up CT coupled with very generous investment tax breaks, it looks like we're trying to see how it works for the next two years. The idea is that a company funnels it's cash into capital investment which then leads to share price growth and allows investors to profit take at 20% rather than paying dividend taxes which are much higher. In addition capital investment by companies has a much more positive effect on jobs, productivity and wage growth than dividends so any loss in tax revenue for companies not paying CT or individuals paying less CGT than they would in dividend tax is made up for higher revenue in income tax, NI and VAT as people have more money for discretionary spending.
I've always said this is the model we should be following and frankly we could live with a permanent CT rate of 25% or even 30% if a 100% deduction for investment was made permanent. Unfortunately that's not what's happening, it's the opposite, we're raising CT and removing the deduction at the same time, it's a real recipe for disaster.
Yes, I think Sunak will always go for the flashy solutions that get good headlines rather than for the long-term solution that makes sense.
Unfortunately, as Blair showed, you can go along way in our soundbite culture with that approach. Especially when you have the plausible sharp-suited Goldman Sachs manner about you.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
Completely agree. I haven’t crunched the numbers, unlike you, but common sense tells me this doesn’t add up. We’re going to end up with a high tax, low growth economy. The worst of all worlds
My only hope is that Sunak knows this and this budget was just to soothe the frowns of our creditors. And he intends to amend things later
THE HAGUE — AstraZeneca subcontractor Halix has not sent any Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine doses to the U.K. after the EU implemented export controls, Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton said Wednesday.....
Some confusion remains over whether the plant is actually producing doses for the EU. It hasn't been approved to make drug substance in the EU, according to the company's conditional marketing authorization from the EMA, updated most recently on February 18.
Officials with knowledge of the U.K.-AstraZeneca contract say Halix has long been part of the U.K. supply chain, and note that it agreed last April to make the vaccine with the University of Oxford. It later announced another deal with AstraZeneca in December. Furthermore, the British government sent a team to the plant in November to help boost manufacturing there, Kate Bingham, the former chair of the U.K. vaccine task force, told European media in February.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
I don't often agree with my Cardiff University colleague, but that is how I see it too.
The forthcoming economic disaster looks inevitable to me. In fairness to Sunak, there was little he could do to offset eye-watering debt. Might as well just rack up more eye-watering borrowing and pretend it will go away. If Sunak can continue that until the next election he can probably ensure another term.
From someone from the centre-left I am unusually fearful of the unsustainable levels of debt, against imaginary growth predictions.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
The issue was that they were advertising that the mask would stop you getting the virus, and there had been some legitimate studies showing that this didn't work very well unless they were used in a controlled setting. So in that sense the ban was correct.
When Van Tam et al were missing was that wearing a mask stops other people getting it from you.
Perhaps if they'd paid more attention to Japan the mess could have been avoided, assuming there was actually sufficient supply at the time.
In reality, the ads weren't misleading at all. And setting that aside, government advice actively discouraged their use early on. Based on nothing very much at all.
If you look back to that time, there was actually quite a large body of evidence which suggested that masks might be useful; I posted quite a bit of it on here.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
I don't often agree with my Cardiff University colleague, but that is how I see it too.
The forthcoming economic disaster looks inevitable to me. In fairness to Sunak, there was little he could do to offset eye-watering debt. Might as well just rack up more eye-watering borrowing and pretend it will go away. If Sunak can continue that until the next election he can probably ensure another term.
From someone from the centre-left I am unusually fearful of the unsustainable levels of debt, against imaginary growth predictions.
Perhaps I am a fiscal Tory after all.
Isn’t there an old Pb rule: any budget which gets an instantly good reaction turns out to be a disaster? Hm
Some people seem to have a much more vocal and visceral dislike of Meghan & Harry than they do of Prince Andrew, who as far as I know is still taking money from the public purse.
Weird and irrational.
Probably a function of expectations and disappointment, and how far the mighty have fallen.
Many thought Andrew was always an arse - what I think of him is unthinkable - but although he damaged the institution with his actions, and was unapologetic about it due to his stupidity and pomposity, he has now gone quietly and isn't now trying to blame the victim card and further undermine it.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
There is a lot of tax options hidden away in the consultations to be announced on the 23rd..
However given the way the Tories continually box themselves in in their manifestos there was very little Rishi could actually do in the budget that would keep the wheels spinning.
I suspect the hope is that the Super Deduction will encourage enough investment that our productivity (so return on investment) improves significantly.
There's always been a school of thought that pushes up CT coupled with very generous investment tax breaks, it looks like we're trying to see how it works for the next two years. The idea is that a company funnels it's cash into capital investment which then leads to share price growth and allows investors to profit take at 20% rather than paying dividend taxes which are much higher. In addition capital investment by companies has a much more positive effect on jobs, productivity and wage growth than dividends so any loss in tax revenue for companies not paying CT or individuals paying less CGT than they would in dividend tax is made up for higher revenue in income tax, NI and VAT as people have more money for discretionary spending.
I've always said this is the model we should be following and frankly we could live with a permanent CT rate of 25% or even 30% if a 100% deduction for investment was made permanent. Unfortunately that's not what's happening, it's the opposite, we're raising CT and removing the deduction at the same time, it's a real recipe for disaster.
This appears to be written in Elvish and I understand none of it.
So my question is: Why do you think the RS did it? Short term exigency? Erroneous judgment? Something to do with having the bone density of a nightingale?
I think it was a political manoeuvre to make life difficult for Labour.
They introduce the big tax rise on everyone paying income tax, but balance that politically with a large tax rise on business (in the future).
Then they will hope that they are able at some future point to drop the planned corporation tax rise in response to better than expected tax receipts, or some such excuse.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
I don't often agree with my Cardiff University colleague, but that is how I see it too.
The forthcoming economic disaster looks inevitable to me. In fairness to Sunak, there was little he could do to offset eye-watering debt. Might as well just rack up more eye-watering borrowing and pretend it will go away. If Sunak can continue that until the next election he can probably ensure another term.
From someone from the centre-left I am unusually fearful of the unsustainable levels of debt, against imaginary growth predictions.
Perhaps I am a fiscal Tory after all.
Isn’t there an old Pb rule: any budget which gets an instantly good reaction turns out to be a disaster? Hm
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
And how much evidence was there for the efficacy of either either handwashing or keeping 2m apart ? Which were both promoted as if it were hard science.
Bottom line is that both of those things, along with wearing masks, were sensible precautions whose absolute effectiveness wasn't known at the time.
It will be interesting to see if the government hold their nerve on removing the universal credit uplift, because it is nailed on the leader of the opposition, Marcus Rashford and the Rocnation Party are going to be all over this with their slick PR operation, and I bet they ask why not just tax millonaires more, like they are doing to companies, to pay for it.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
There is a lot of tax options hidden away in the consultations to be announced on the 23rd..
However given the way the Tories continually box themselves in in their manifestos there was very little Rishi could actually do in the budget that would keep the wheels spinning.
I suspect the hope is that the Super Deduction will encourage enough investment that our productivity (so return on investment) improves significantly.
There's always been a school of thought that pushes up CT coupled with very generous investment tax breaks, it looks like we're trying to see how it works for the next two years. The idea is that a company funnels it's cash into capital investment which then leads to share price growth and allows investors to profit take at 20% rather than paying dividend taxes which are much higher. In addition capital investment by companies has a much more positive effect on jobs, productivity and wage growth than dividends so any loss in tax revenue for companies not paying CT or individuals paying less CGT than they would in dividend tax is made up for higher revenue in income tax, NI and VAT as people have more money for discretionary spending.
I've always said this is the model we should be following and frankly we could live with a permanent CT rate of 25% or even 30% if a 100% deduction for investment was made permanent. Unfortunately that's not what's happening, it's the opposite, we're raising CT and removing the deduction at the same time, it's a real recipe for disaster.
Yes, I think Sunak will always go for the flashy solutions that get good headlines rather than for the long-term solution that makes sense.
Unfortunately, as Blair showed, you can go along way in our soundbite culture with that approach. Especially when you have the plausible sharp-suited Goldman Sachs manner about you.
I think he has a real opportunity over the next year or so to "assess" how the superdeduction is playing out and then make it permanent at 100% in 2023, but it should be announced in the 2022 budget so that companies can plan out investment timeframes rather than rush it all in 2022 and then starve investment budgets for the next few years to make up for it.
Unfortunately I don't think he's up for the fight to make a probable £15-20bn annual tax break for corporations permanent even though the economic multiplier on it will be gigantic, the PR hit for his ambitions to be PM would be too big.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
There is a lot of tax options hidden away in the consultations to be announced on the 23rd..
However given the way the Tories continually box themselves in in their manifestos there was very little Rishi could actually do in the budget that would keep the wheels spinning.
I suspect the hope is that the Super Deduction will encourage enough investment that our productivity (so return on investment) improves significantly.
There's always been a school of thought that pushes up CT coupled with very generous investment tax breaks, it looks like we're trying to see how it works for the next two years. The idea is that a company funnels it's cash into capital investment which then leads to share price growth and allows investors to profit take at 20% rather than paying dividend taxes which are much higher. In addition capital investment by companies has a much more positive effect on jobs, productivity and wage growth than dividends so any loss in tax revenue for companies not paying CT or individuals paying less CGT than they would in dividend tax is made up for higher revenue in income tax, NI and VAT as people have more money for discretionary spending.
I've always said this is the model we should be following and frankly we could live with a permanent CT rate of 25% or even 30% if a 100% deduction for investment was made permanent. Unfortunately that's not what's happening, it's the opposite, we're raising CT and removing the deduction at the same time, it's a real recipe for disaster.
Is it?
You've given school for thought that you think the two together are a good idea but surely putting a 2 year time limit [for now] on the 130% deduction means that companies will be incentivised to actually act within the next 2 years, rather than spending years deliberating over whether to invest or what to do so.
If this works then presumably Sunak is leaving himself room in a year or two to say that the investment protocol was a great success so it is being continued, whether for another time limited period or indefinitely?
If its 2 years (for now) to get people moving then in autumn next year when the next but one budget is announced its announced that it will continue at a 100% rate permanently then would this combination work for you?
The issue was that they were advertising that the mask would stop you getting the virus, and there had been some legitimate studies showing that this didn't work very well unless they were used in a controlled setting. So in that sense the ban was correct.
When Van Tam et al were missing was that wearing a mask stops other people getting it from you.
Perhaps if they'd paid more attention to Japan the mess could have been avoided, assuming there was actually sufficient supply at the time.
In reality, the ads weren't misleading at all. And setting that aside, government advice actively discouraged their use early on. Based on nothing very much at all.
If you look back to that time, there was actually quite a large body of evidence which suggested that masks might be useful; I posted quite a bit of it on here.
You didn’t even need scientific evidence (tho I agree it was out there). You just had to ask why China - which had seen the horrors of Wuhan - was jailing people for not wearing masks. You just had to ask why everyone in Hong Kong and Singapore was wearing a mask.
And you just had to make the simple mental leap: by realising that masks - almost any mask, even a bandana - mostly protect others, not you. But if we all do it we are all protected
When they come to write the final history of the UK’s collapse into 3rd world status, and civil strife, this basic failure by our ‘top scientists’ deserves a long footnote
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Yes; his mother was killed by the press in his eyes.
It will be interesting to see if the government hold their nerve on removing the universal credit uplift, because it is nailed on the leader of the opposition, Marcus Rashford and the Rocnation Party are going to be all over this with their slick PR operation, and I bet they ask why not just tax millonaires more, like they are doing to companies, to pay for it.
I doubt Marcus Rashford, EPL footballer, wants the government to ‘tax millionaires more’
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
There is a lot of tax options hidden away in the consultations to be announced on the 23rd..
However given the way the Tories continually box themselves in in their manifestos there was very little Rishi could actually do in the budget that would keep the wheels spinning.
I suspect the hope is that the Super Deduction will encourage enough investment that our productivity (so return on investment) improves significantly.
There's always been a school of thought that pushes up CT coupled with very generous investment tax breaks, it looks like we're trying to see how it works for the next two years. The idea is that a company funnels it's cash into capital investment which then leads to share price growth and allows investors to profit take at 20% rather than paying dividend taxes which are much higher. In addition capital investment by companies has a much more positive effect on jobs, productivity and wage growth than dividends so any loss in tax revenue for companies not paying CT or individuals paying less CGT than they would in dividend tax is made up for higher revenue in income tax, NI and VAT as people have more money for discretionary spending.
I've always said this is the model we should be following and frankly we could live with a permanent CT rate of 25% or even 30% if a 100% deduction for investment was made permanent. Unfortunately that's not what's happening, it's the opposite, we're raising CT and removing the deduction at the same time, it's a real recipe for disaster.
Is it?
You've given school for thought that you think the two together are a good idea but surely putting a 2 year time limit [for now] on the 130% deduction means that companies will be incentivised to actually act within the next 2 years, rather than spending years deliberating over whether to invest or what to do so.
If this works then presumably Sunak is leaving himself room in a year or two to say that the investment protocol was a great success so it is being continued, whether for another time limited period or indefinitely?
If its 2 years (for now) to get people moving then in autumn next year when the next but one budget is announced its announced that it will continue at a 100% rate permanently then would this combination work for you?
As I just said, there is time to fix this and in next year's budget a permanent 100% deduction would be very welcome, I'm just not sure that Rishi is up for the fight because the optics of giving companies a permanent £15-20bn annual tax cut would be horrible, especially while putting taxes up on "working families" or something like that.
It will be interesting to see if the government hold their nerve on removing the universal credit uplift, because it is nailed on the leader of the opposition, Marcus Rashford and the Rocnation Party are going to be all over this with their slick PR operation, and I bet they ask why not just tax millonaires more, like they are doing to companies, to pay for it.
I doubt Marcus Rashford, EPL footballer, wants the government to ‘tax millionaires more’
But its a brilliant PR move...he (well RocNation) knows the government can't, as would break their promise not to rise IC bands, so the team can claim well I'm prepared to pay for it, why isn't millionaire Sunak and the other out of touch uber rich in government.
The Rocnation team won't quite spin it as politically as that, but I bet that is along the lines of the PR war.
It will be something like, I am very lucky in life, I am comfortable, I can afford to pay a few pounds more a week in tax to ensure UC remains higher and we don't have starving kids, I think it is the responsibility of all those fortunate enough to still be comfortable after covie to help out.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
Budgets are largely theatre and often bear limited resemblance to what actually happens in practice. Yesterday will make little difference to the Tories prospects in 2024.
I do wonder just what the next election will be fought on. Labour seem to have dropped their radicalism and the Cons having done the one thing they were elected to do - Brexit - have become rather pointless. We hear much about the War on Woke but this is an essentially trivial matter and surely cannot bear the weight of being placed front and centre. The pandemic dwarfs everything right now but soon it will be over apart from the economic response and there's no great gap between the parties on that. Neither are going to prioritize repairing the public finances. So we could be looking at one of those "narcissism of small differences" elections where the driving force of the parties is purely to win power rather than what they plan to do with it. Who does this favour? Probably Labour but I really don't know. I do know it's less than inspiring.
Earlier in the pandemic, I remember some of us on here saying the otherwise-perplexing differences in death rates - eg rich elderly Japan doing well, likewise poor young Vietnam - might largely be down to obesity. Japan and Vietnam are two of the thinnest countries in the world, few have died. America, probably the fattest, has the biggest death toll of all. Britain is almost as fat, and here we are.
“About 2.2 million of the 2.5 million deaths from Covid were in countries with high levels of overweight people, says the report from the World Obesity Federation. Countries such as the UK, US and Italy, where more than 50% of adults are overweight, have the biggest proportions of deaths linked to coronavirus”
This might, incidentally, partly explain the elevated death rates in some BAME communities, which have an even worse weight problem
This should also put to bed, forever, the idea you can be fat and still healthy. We all need to eat fish and salad
You were not on this board "Earlier in the pandemic". You joined in December. Unless you have another identity...
I did. Earlier on I self-identified as a fit healthy man. Now, I fear, like so many, after months of lockdown, I am a bit of a fattie
But it is coming off. I hope
Conversely it's the one thing I score on. I eat and drink too much. I smoke. I'm sedentary. I'm knocking on. I have a tense neurotic personality. But I'm slim. Bit of a clothes horse in fact. Wouldn't look out of place on the catwalk.
Me too (this one has a certain Glasgow vibe if you're familiar with Billy Connolly's ouevre).
- Love the trousers, I'd definitely wear them, but not sure about that jacket.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
Budgets are largely theatre and often bear limited resemblance to what actually happens in practice. Yesterday will make little difference to the Tories prospects in 2024.
I do wonder just what the next election will be fought on. Labour seem to have dropped their radicalism and the Cons having done the one thing they were elected to do - Brexit - have become rather pointless. We hear much about the War on Woke but this is an essentially trivial matter and surely cannot bear the weight of being placed front and centre. The pandemic dwarfs everything right now but soon it will be over apart from the economic response and there's no great gap between the parties on that. Neither are going to prioritize repairing the public finances. So we could be looking at one of those "narcissism of small differences" elections where the driving force of the parties is purely to win power rather than what they plan to do with it. Who does this favour? Probably Labour but I really don't know. I do know it's less than inspiring.
If uninspiring politics will save us from damaging egotistical incompetent twats like Johnson, Corbyn and Rees-Mogg, (to name but a few) then I am all in favour of being uninspired.
I'm surprised its not more. I feel pretty good about my folks vaccine status, plus I had my first shot over three weeks ago. Should be minimal risk meeting them now. Despite dire gov warnings.
Yes. The household mixing rules have become of very limited interest now. They are not policed and I bet many people are making decisions based on personal risk assessment. In fact tbh I consider "lockdown" a misnomer for where we are. We are not locked down. In many ways we never were and we certainly aren't now. So long as there are no nasty variant surprises the pandemic feels over in the UK. Not saying it is, just that it feels that way to me. And post the April 12th reopening of shops etc I predict most people will feel the same. We'll be over Covid. Will we miss it? Probably not.
This lockdown certainly isn't like the others. The only things missing are thee non-essential shops, the pubs and other entertainments. The sheer number of cars on the road during the day in my town is astonishing. Certainly people are not 'staying home'. And yet currently, with the vaccine's help, we are getting there.
It does make me wonder where everyone is going given that nothing except supermarkets are supposed to be open.
Garden centres.
Are garden centres open?!
Sadly yes. Wor Lass, 2-weeks post first jab, visited our local outlet last week. Guess who has to dig all the holes?
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Yes; his mother was killed by the press in his eyes.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Yes; his mother was killed by the press in his eyes.
Which was only in part true. She was killed by an employee of Fayed who was a drink driver and her foolishness in not wearing a seatbelt.
The BBC are not covering themselves in glory today.
On a day when they could have led with the budget, the first minister of Scotland being accused of perjury, a global pandemic, schools being sent back with impossible safety measures, an academy chain going bust and all hell breaking loose in and over Northern Ireland...
...they led with the Duchess of Sussex giving an interview.
I sometimes wonder if they want to keep the licence fee.
Royals = big press. Even the publicly funded bits cannot help themselves.
Honestly the whole thing is just a nonsense - clearly there have been leaks against Harry and Meghan in recent days no doubt because of their interview, but equally clearly you cant expect a great deal of sympathy when your whole deal appears to be complaining about media attention and royal status whilst making use of both of those things.
If you are happier out of it, fine. If you have takes to tell, just do it already not this orchestrated media game of hints and clips and build up. That just makes it look like it's not important to them. And the rest of the royals can remember that playing things with a straight bat is preferable - just ignore it, as getting engaged will only rebound.
Meghan & Harry don't count as Royals anymore. She is the new Mrs Simpson - irrelevant.
Except that they are trying to leverage off something they have walked away from, and are not happy with the consequences of their chosen course of action.
She is stirring the pot for her own reasons. It won't end well.
And after the disgusting way they've both been treated, why shouldn't they?
Good for them.
Whatever. I don't buy your narrative.
Fishing in things you say you have left is never a good idea.
If you are leaving something behind you ... leave it behind you.
So they can be abused, treated like shit and are just supposed to take it and not speak about their own lives?
They're free people, free to make their own choices and do whatever they damn please. They don't owe the UK media or the monarchy anything. After the way they've been treated they absolutely can and should do whatever they want.
Their lives, their choice.
They essentially have the Hobson's choice of:
1. Letting the gutter media (it used to be gutter press) say what it likes about them.
2. Trying to set the record straight, using the media to do so, and then being accused of being rank hypocrites for not taking it all lying down.
All this about completely overhauling their lives, giving up all privileges and royal funding, and breaking irretrievably with their family in an effort to escape scrutiny, only to still find themselves still being pursued relentlessly.
They stir it up themselves with there ever more bizarre money grasping schemes. They are loaded , why not just live in their 10 Million , 30 bathroom mansion and get the adulation of the LA nutjob luvvies instead of wanting the whole world to gush over them. A more odious pair I have yet to see.
Ian Brady and Myra Hindley say hi!
OK, and if you includes the West's and limit to UK , 3rd worst.
Top five maybe. Epstein and Maxwell, Trump and Melania...oh wait top six, Tony and Cherie...oh wait Gove and Vine...oh wait (and here's one for you Malc, Nippy and Peter.
OK, I was talking complete bollox even if a couple of yours were USA.
I respect them more than the rest of the family.
You'd rather they were still here getting paid by taxpayers? Seriously is that your preference?
They've renounced the taxpayer money and are making their own instead. Good for them!
I would like to see the back of all the parasites. He will have gone with a shedload of previously hoarded public cash in any case. Making money by trashing your granny is not edifying.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
I don't often agree with my Cardiff University colleague, but that is how I see it too.
The forthcoming economic disaster looks inevitable to me. In fairness to Sunak, there was little he could do to offset eye-watering debt. Might as well just rack up more eye-watering borrowing and pretend it will go away. If Sunak can continue that until the next election he can probably ensure another term.
From someone from the centre-left I am unusually fearful of the unsustainable levels of debt, against imaginary growth predictions.
Perhaps I am a fiscal Tory after all.
Isn’t there an old Pb rule: any budget which gets an instantly good reaction turns out to be a disaster? Hm
Earlier in the pandemic, I remember some of us on here saying the otherwise-perplexing differences in death rates - eg rich elderly Japan doing well, likewise poor young Vietnam - might largely be down to obesity. Japan and Vietnam are two of the thinnest countries in the world, few have died. America, probably the fattest, has the biggest death toll of all. Britain is almost as fat, and here we are.
“About 2.2 million of the 2.5 million deaths from Covid were in countries with high levels of overweight people, says the report from the World Obesity Federation. Countries such as the UK, US and Italy, where more than 50% of adults are overweight, have the biggest proportions of deaths linked to coronavirus”
This might, incidentally, partly explain the elevated death rates in some BAME communities, which have an even worse weight problem
This should also put to bed, forever, the idea you can be fat and still healthy. We all need to eat fish and salad
You were not on this board "Earlier in the pandemic". You joined in December. Unless you have another identity...
I did. Earlier on I self-identified as a fit healthy man. Now, I fear, like so many, after months of lockdown, I am a bit of a fattie
But it is coming off. I hope
Conversely it's the one thing I score on. I eat and drink too much. I smoke. I'm sedentary. I'm knocking on. I have a tense neurotic personality. But I'm slim. Bit of a clothes horse in fact. Wouldn't look out of place on the catwalk.
Me too (this one has a certain Glasgow vibe if you're familiar with Billy Connolly's ouevre).
- Love the trousers, I'd definitely wear them, but not sure about that jacket.
Keep wearing the bike clips if you have had a bad curry the night before?
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
I don't often agree with my Cardiff University colleague, but that is how I see it too.
The forthcoming economic disaster looks inevitable to me. In fairness to Sunak, there was little he could do to offset eye-watering debt. Might as well just rack up more eye-watering borrowing and pretend it will go away. If Sunak can continue that until the next election he can probably ensure another term.
From someone from the centre-left I am unusually fearful of the unsustainable levels of debt, against imaginary growth predictions.
Perhaps I am a fiscal Tory after all.
I'm not an economist, but to mark the Test Match, this looks like Sunak being trapped in a corridor of uncertainty to me. Unsure whether to splurge or scrimp. The US (and, one imagines) the Eurozone look set to borrow enormous amounts of money at negligible interest rates to do a huge ongoing stimulus of the economy. Sunak has gone for a (not cheap) time-limited tax perk for businesses to invest. That might bring activity forward, but will it be enough to change the ongoing attitudes to investment? Seems unlikely. And pre-announcing a big rise in CT? It makes him look responsible, but wouldn't businesses just make medium term plans accordingly?
The other thing the budget reminds me of is the attempts some pupils make to solve equations when they know the answer they are aiming for. There is some massive contortion (usually about a third of the way down) once it's clear that their answer isn't going to work out. And by magic, they get the right final answer. But it's mostly nonsense. Some of the assumptions- especially on spending- needed to make this Budget work look similarly heroic and insane.
But unless you can boil that down to a Three Word Slogan, it probably works politically. For now.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
I don't often agree with my Cardiff University colleague, but that is how I see it too.
The forthcoming economic disaster looks inevitable to me. In fairness to Sunak, there was little he could do to offset eye-watering debt. Might as well just rack up more eye-watering borrowing and pretend it will go away. If Sunak can continue that until the next election he can probably ensure another term.
From someone from the centre-left I am unusually fearful of the unsustainable levels of debt, against imaginary growth predictions.
Perhaps I am a fiscal Tory after all.
There's lots he could have done to offset the deficit without harming economic activity much, in particular raising taxes like VAT that don't, or cutting useless spending. But he's chosen the lazy, easy option for short-term popularity, as he did with his Coronavirus support measures. And it'll work because people haven't seen though him yet.
The issue was that they were advertising that the mask would stop you getting the virus, and there had been some legitimate studies showing that this didn't work very well unless they were used in a controlled setting. So in that sense the ban was correct.
When Van Tam et al were missing was that wearing a mask stops other people getting it from you.
Perhaps if they'd paid more attention to Japan the mess could have been avoided, assuming there was actually sufficient supply at the time.
In reality, the ads weren't misleading at all. And setting that aside, government advice actively discouraged their use early on. Based on nothing very much at all.
If you look back to that time, there was actually quite a large body of evidence which suggested that masks might be useful; I posted quite a bit of it on here.
Most of the masks sold then lacked (and still lack) evidence of protection of the wearer. It's an unsubstantiated claim and should not be in advertising and, if permitted, there would have been the potential for people to buy a mask feel safe and carry on exactly as normal.
Advising against mask wearing was clearly a mistake. We don't know yet exactly how protective masks are, but there's some observational evidence and plenty of logic to suggest that they help, particularly in protecting others. Advising people not to was a mistake, but it should be viewed in the context of fomites being seen as the likely major transmission vector early on. If that had been the case (it appears not to be) then masks would have been less effective and the risks from touching masks and putting them on your face would have been bigger.
There were plenty of mistakes made early on. Given what we know now, home working should absolutely have been pushed hard much earlier. So should avoiding meeting indoors and ensuring ventilation. Mask wearing too, but I can understand the hesitancy to endorse it early on. Warning against it was a mistake, as there was also no good evidence for that.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
There is a lot of tax options hidden away in the consultations to be announced on the 23rd..
However given the way the Tories continually box themselves in in their manifestos there was very little Rishi could actually do in the budget that would keep the wheels spinning.
I suspect the hope is that the Super Deduction will encourage enough investment that our productivity (so return on investment) improves significantly.
There's always been a school of thought that pushes up CT coupled with very generous investment tax breaks, it looks like we're trying to see how it works for the next two years. The idea is that a company funnels it's cash into capital investment which then leads to share price growth and allows investors to profit take at 20% rather than paying dividend taxes which are much higher. In addition capital investment by companies has a much more positive effect on jobs, productivity and wage growth than dividends so any loss in tax revenue for companies not paying CT or individuals paying less CGT than they would in dividend tax is made up for higher revenue in income tax, NI and VAT as people have more money for discretionary spending.
I've always said this is the model we should be following and frankly we could live with a permanent CT rate of 25% or even 30% if a 100% deduction for investment was made permanent. Unfortunately that's not what's happening, it's the opposite, we're raising CT and removing the deduction at the same time, it's a real recipe for disaster.
Yes, I think Sunak will always go for the flashy solutions that get good headlines rather than for the long-term solution that makes sense.
Unfortunately, as Blair showed, you can go along way in our soundbite culture with that approach. Especially when you have the plausible sharp-suited Goldman Sachs manner about you.
I think he has a real opportunity over the next year or so to "assess" how the superdeduction is playing out and then make it permanent at 100% in 2023, but it should be announced in the 2022 budget so that companies can plan out investment timeframes rather than rush it all in 2022 and then starve investment budgets for the next few years to make up for it.
Unfortunately I don't think he's up for the fight to make a probable £15-20bn annual tax break for corporations permanent even though the economic multiplier on it will be gigantic, the PR hit for his ambitions to be PM would be too big.
I'm not so sure - firstly because you want investment now and announcing an extension is 2022 will cut back that investment, so best not to reveal it too early.
Secondly its possible that tax rise announcements can be staggered in a way that people won't put 2 and 2 together quickly enough, we've seen that multiple times in the past.
Earlier in the pandemic, I remember some of us on here saying the otherwise-perplexing differences in death rates - eg rich elderly Japan doing well, likewise poor young Vietnam - might largely be down to obesity. Japan and Vietnam are two of the thinnest countries in the world, few have died. America, probably the fattest, has the biggest death toll of all. Britain is almost as fat, and here we are.
“About 2.2 million of the 2.5 million deaths from Covid were in countries with high levels of overweight people, says the report from the World Obesity Federation. Countries such as the UK, US and Italy, where more than 50% of adults are overweight, have the biggest proportions of deaths linked to coronavirus”
This might, incidentally, partly explain the elevated death rates in some BAME communities, which have an even worse weight problem
This should also put to bed, forever, the idea you can be fat and still healthy. We all need to eat fish and salad
You were not on this board "Earlier in the pandemic". You joined in December. Unless you have another identity...
I did. Earlier on I self-identified as a fit healthy man. Now, I fear, like so many, after months of lockdown, I am a bit of a fattie
But it is coming off. I hope
Conversely it's the one thing I score on. I eat and drink too much. I smoke. I'm sedentary. I'm knocking on. I have a tense neurotic personality. But I'm slim. Bit of a clothes horse in fact. Wouldn't look out of place on the catwalk.
Me too (this one has a certain Glasgow vibe if you're familiar with Billy Connolly's ouevre).
- Love the trousers, I'd definitely wear them, but not sure about that jacket.
Great for parties but imagine trying to get in a train or ride a bike ...
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
There is a lot of tax options hidden away in the consultations to be announced on the 23rd..
However given the way the Tories continually box themselves in in their manifestos there was very little Rishi could actually do in the budget that would keep the wheels spinning.
I suspect the hope is that the Super Deduction will encourage enough investment that our productivity (so return on investment) improves significantly.
There's always been a school of thought that pushes up CT coupled with very generous investment tax breaks, it looks like we're trying to see how it works for the next two years. The idea is that a company funnels it's cash into capital investment which then leads to share price growth and allows investors to profit take at 20% rather than paying dividend taxes which are much higher. In addition capital investment by companies has a much more positive effect on jobs, productivity and wage growth than dividends so any loss in tax revenue for companies not paying CT or individuals paying less CGT than they would in dividend tax is made up for higher revenue in income tax, NI and VAT as people have more money for discretionary spending.
I've always said this is the model we should be following and frankly we could live with a permanent CT rate of 25% or even 30% if a 100% deduction for investment was made permanent. Unfortunately that's not what's happening, it's the opposite, we're raising CT and removing the deduction at the same time, it's a real recipe for disaster.
Is it?
You've given school for thought that you think the two together are a good idea but surely putting a 2 year time limit [for now] on the 130% deduction means that companies will be incentivised to actually act within the next 2 years, rather than spending years deliberating over whether to invest or what to do so.
If this works then presumably Sunak is leaving himself room in a year or two to say that the investment protocol was a great success so it is being continued, whether for another time limited period or indefinitely?
If its 2 years (for now) to get people moving then in autumn next year when the next but one budget is announced its announced that it will continue at a 100% rate permanently then would this combination work for you?
As I just said, there is time to fix this and in next year's budget a permanent 100% deduction would be very welcome, I'm just not sure that Rishi is up for the fight because the optics of giving companies a permanent £15-20bn annual tax cut would be horrible, especially while putting taxes up on "working families" or something like that.
We'll see, I hope he is. Especially since he's already made a move in this direction then politically saying it is a great success to be made permanent is boosting his own success.
Politically too I think people view tax breaks on investment as different to tax breaks for business profits. Its a simpler sell to say investment means more jobs etc
What did you think of the OBR's growth projections? They seem really weak as far as I was concerned; especially if a lot of investment is unlocked over the next two years then just 4% growth this year and just 1.6% in 2023 seems puny. I'd have expected at least 2% in 2023 under the circumstances which potentially could help 'pay' for making the investment tax break permanent.
Cunning move by Biden. "Scotch whiskey", eh? There's no such thing, I believe, only Irish. So they've given us nothing and we've presumably given something in return
The issue was that they were advertising that the mask would stop you getting the virus, and there had been some legitimate studies showing that this didn't work very well unless they were used in a controlled setting. So in that sense the ban was correct.
When Van Tam et al were missing was that wearing a mask stops other people getting it from you.
Perhaps if they'd paid more attention to Japan the mess could have been avoided, assuming there was actually sufficient supply at the time.
In reality, the ads weren't misleading at all. And setting that aside, government advice actively discouraged their use early on. Based on nothing very much at all.
If you look back to that time, there was actually quite a large body of evidence which suggested that masks might be useful; I posted quite a bit of it on here.
Most of the masks sold then lacked (and still lack) evidence of protection of the wearer. It's an unsubstantiated claim and should not be in advertising and, if permitted, there would have been the potential for people to buy a mask feel safe and carry on exactly as normal....
Set against that the messaging that masks didn't work. Which remained a problem long after government changed its mind.
I think we're broadly in agreement, though. Ventilation (or HEPA filters on air handling systems) barely got a mention until much later on.
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
And how much evidence was there for the efficacy of either either handwashing or keeping 2m apart ? Which were both promoted as if it were hard science.
Bottom line is that both of those things, along with wearing masks, were sensible precautions whose absolute effectiveness wasn't known at the time.
Really? No prior hard evidence that suggests handwashing prevents spread of disease? I thought that had been more-or-less proven at least as far back as Typhoid Mary I(albeit that was bacteria rather than viruses).
Anyway, that's not the point. You can't try and make money off a product you're implying is definitively proven to work, when all you can actually say is it sounds like a sensible precaution.
The issue was that they were advertising that the mask would stop you getting the virus, and there had been some legitimate studies showing that this didn't work very well unless they were used in a controlled setting. So in that sense the ban was correct.
When Van Tam et al were missing was that wearing a mask stops other people getting it from you.
Perhaps if they'd paid more attention to Japan the mess could have been avoided, assuming there was actually sufficient supply at the time.
In reality, the ads weren't misleading at all. And setting that aside, government advice actively discouraged their use early on. Based on nothing very much at all.
If you look back to that time, there was actually quite a large body of evidence which suggested that masks might be useful; I posted quite a bit of it on here.
Most of the masks sold then lacked (and still lack) evidence of protection of the wearer. It's an unsubstantiated claim and should not be in advertising and, if permitted, there would have been the potential for people to buy a mask feel safe and carry on exactly as normal....
Set against that the messaging that masks didn't work. Which remained a problem long after government changed its mind.
Yep, the message was wrong. It should have been much more nuanced: evidence is not clear, they may help a bit, but there are also these potential downsides. Hard to do nuanced though, see e.g. lockdown restrictions.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
Budgets are largely theatre and often bear limited resemblance to what actually happens in practice. Yesterday will make little difference to the Tories prospects in 2024.
I do wonder just what the next election will be fought on. Labour seem to have dropped their radicalism and the Cons having done the one thing they were elected to do - Brexit - have become rather pointless. We hear much about the War on Woke but this is an essentially trivial matter and surely cannot bear the weight of being placed front and centre. The pandemic dwarfs everything right now but soon it will be over apart from the economic response and there's no great gap between the parties on that. Neither are going to prioritize repairing the public finances. So we could be looking at one of those "narcissism of small differences" elections where the driving force of the parties is purely to win power rather than what they plan to do with it. Who does this favour? Probably Labour but I really don't know. I do know it's less than inspiring.
If uninspiring politics will save us from damaging egotistical incompetent twats like Johnson, Corbyn and Rees-Mogg, (to name but a few) then I am all in favour of being uninspired.
There is that. Bland is not the worst thing in the world. But I like some ideological bite. For me, on election night, there should be a large section of the public feeling genuinely excited about the prospect of winning and just as genuinely nauseous at the thought of the other side winning. I just prefer that climate. I also think corruption and grift and the shallow obsession with ego and personalities is more likely when politics becomes more about being than doing.
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
No. You’re wrong. Go back and google, they genuinely thought masks were worse than useless because they hasn’t grasped THAT basic fact - as mentioned below - that you wear a mask to protect others
And of course they protect you, as well, if you have a proper FFP2 or above
Jenny Harries, one of the top boffins, actually said THIS:
‘Wearing a face mask to protect from the coronavirus could actually increase the risk of becoming infected, England’s deputy chief medical officer has warned.‘
The stupid twats hadn’t looked at Asia and wondered why they were all wearing masks? These are supposedly top scientists. They made a fundamental howling error which cost many lives. They should be sacked and driven from public life
Oh, calm down. This is what Jenny Harries actually said:
What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won't wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven't cleaned.
This is pretty accurate, in my view, and she didn't even mention the legions of chin-mask wearers. To the best of my knowledge, there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness of wearing masks improperly. It's likely that it's still a net positive, but I don't think we can safely say it's a huge one.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
There is a lot of tax options hidden away in the consultations to be announced on the 23rd..
However given the way the Tories continually box themselves in in their manifestos there was very little Rishi could actually do in the budget that would keep the wheels spinning.
I suspect the hope is that the Super Deduction will encourage enough investment that our productivity (so return on investment) improves significantly.
There's always been a school of thought that pushes up CT coupled with very generous investment tax breaks, it looks like we're trying to see how it works for the next two years. The idea is that a company funnels it's cash into capital investment which then leads to share price growth and allows investors to profit take at 20% rather than paying dividend taxes which are much higher. In addition capital investment by companies has a much more positive effect on jobs, productivity and wage growth than dividends so any loss in tax revenue for companies not paying CT or individuals paying less CGT than they would in dividend tax is made up for higher revenue in income tax, NI and VAT as people have more money for discretionary spending.
I've always said this is the model we should be following and frankly we could live with a permanent CT rate of 25% or even 30% if a 100% deduction for investment was made permanent. Unfortunately that's not what's happening, it's the opposite, we're raising CT and removing the deduction at the same time, it's a real recipe for disaster.
Is it?
You've given school for thought that you think the two together are a good idea but surely putting a 2 year time limit [for now] on the 130% deduction means that companies will be incentivised to actually act within the next 2 years, rather than spending years deliberating over whether to invest or what to do so.
If this works then presumably Sunak is leaving himself room in a year or two to say that the investment protocol was a great success so it is being continued, whether for another time limited period or indefinitely?
If its 2 years (for now) to get people moving then in autumn next year when the next but one budget is announced its announced that it will continue at a 100% rate permanently then would this combination work for you?
As I just said, there is time to fix this and in next year's budget a permanent 100% deduction would be very welcome, I'm just not sure that Rishi is up for the fight because the optics of giving companies a permanent £15-20bn annual tax cut would be horrible, especially while putting taxes up on "working families" or something like that.
We'll see, I hope he is. Especially since he's already made a move in this direction then politically saying it is a great success to be made permanent is boosting his own success.
Politically too I think people view tax breaks on investment as different to tax breaks for business profits. Its a simpler sell to say investment means more jobs etc
What did you think of the OBR's growth projections? They seem really weak as far as I was concerned; especially if a lot of investment is unlocked over the next two years then just 4% growth this year and just 1.6% in 2023 seems puny. I'd have expected at least 2% in 2023 under the circumstances which potentially could help 'pay' for making the investment tax break permanent.
2023 is rubbish because "Gross capital formation" (read investment) is weak, the path Rishi has set us on is for a high tax, low yield economy that looks a lot more like France than he would like to admit.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
There is a lot of tax options hidden away in the consultations to be announced on the 23rd..
However given the way the Tories continually box themselves in in their manifestos there was very little Rishi could actually do in the budget that would keep the wheels spinning.
I suspect the hope is that the Super Deduction will encourage enough investment that our productivity (so return on investment) improves significantly.
There's always been a school of thought that pushes up CT coupled with very generous investment tax breaks, it looks like we're trying to see how it works for the next two years. The idea is that a company funnels it's cash into capital investment which then leads to share price growth and allows investors to profit take at 20% rather than paying dividend taxes which are much higher. In addition capital investment by companies has a much more positive effect on jobs, productivity and wage growth than dividends so any loss in tax revenue for companies not paying CT or individuals paying less CGT than they would in dividend tax is made up for higher revenue in income tax, NI and VAT as people have more money for discretionary spending.
I've always said this is the model we should be following and frankly we could live with a permanent CT rate of 25% or even 30% if a 100% deduction for investment was made permanent. Unfortunately that's not what's happening, it's the opposite, we're raising CT and removing the deduction at the same time, it's a real recipe for disaster.
Is it?
You've given school for thought that you think the two together are a good idea but surely putting a 2 year time limit [for now] on the 130% deduction means that companies will be incentivised to actually act within the next 2 years, rather than spending years deliberating over whether to invest or what to do so.
If this works then presumably Sunak is leaving himself room in a year or two to say that the investment protocol was a great success so it is being continued, whether for another time limited period or indefinitely?
If its 2 years (for now) to get people moving then in autumn next year when the next but one budget is announced its announced that it will continue at a 100% rate permanently then would this combination work for you?
As I just said, there is time to fix this and in next year's budget a permanent 100% deduction would be very welcome, I'm just not sure that Rishi is up for the fight because the optics of giving companies a permanent £15-20bn annual tax cut would be horrible, especially while putting taxes up on "working families" or something like that.
We'll see, I hope he is. Especially since he's already made a move in this direction then politically saying it is a great success to be made permanent is boosting his own success.
Politically too I think people view tax breaks on investment as different to tax breaks for business profits. Its a simpler sell to say investment means more jobs etc
What did you think of the OBR's growth projections? They seem really weak as far as I was concerned; especially if a lot of investment is unlocked over the next two years then just 4% growth this year and just 1.6% in 2023 seems puny. I'd have expected at least 2% in 2023 under the circumstances which potentially could help 'pay' for making the investment tax break permanent.
2023 is rubbish because "Gross capital formation" (read investment) is weak, the path Rishi has set us on is for a high tax, low yield economy that looks a lot more like France than he would like to admit.
Unless the investment break works this year and next year, gets made permanent, then next year's budget gives faster growth projections.
I've always said that the 2m rule is a load of bollocks when it comes to being indoors. Plenty of modelling and real case data shows how the virus spreads around a room or other confined space.
Hence the only time I "Ate Out to Help Out" last summer involved sitting at an outside table.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Yes; his mother was killed by the press in his eyes.
That's the press. Not the Royal Family.
Is it possible that Harry now believes that the Royal Family are not inculpable for that event? Not so much the conspiracy theories that it was an outright hit, but that to some extent they did less than they could have to protect her from the paparazzi?
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
And how much evidence was there for the efficacy of either either handwashing or keeping 2m apart ? Which were both promoted as if it were hard science.
Bottom line is that both of those things, along with wearing masks, were sensible precautions whose absolute effectiveness wasn't known at the time.
Really? No prior hard evidence that suggests handwashing prevents spread of disease? I thought that had been more-or-less proven at least as far back as Typhoid Mary I(albeit that was bacteria rather than viruses).
No, I said there was no quantitive evidence of its efficacy in preventing Covid infections. We're now pretty certain that far more infections result from inhalation of airborne virus than by touch.
...and driver’s cabs. Looks like the driverless tube of PB tories’ wet dreams is still a pipe dream.
Sadly.
Although in 10 years we can put a mannequin in the cab. They'll do more work, be more effective and be a hell of a lot cheaper than what we have to put up with at the moment.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
...and driver’s cabs. Looks like the driverless tube of PB tories’ wet dreams is still a pipe dream.
Sadly.
Although in 10 years we can put a mannequin in the cab. They'll do more work, be more effective and be a hell of a lot cheaper than what we have to put up with at the moment.
I think we’re at peak-Rishi in the betting markets.
Good timing for a long-term lay, IMO
I agree. He's a crazy price.
That's what people were saying about Boris during the leadership campaign before the MP votes.
1/3rd chance of being our next PM seems about right to my gut. But the value has gone compared to 250/1.
I agree. It used to be that Conservatives always picked the non-obvious candidate (Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Cameron). But that's no longer necessarily the case. (Howard deliberately omitted because there was only one candidate.)
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
And how much evidence was there for the efficacy of either either handwashing or keeping 2m apart ? Which were both promoted as if it were hard science.
Bottom line is that both of those things, along with wearing masks, were sensible precautions whose absolute effectiveness wasn't known at the time.
Really? No prior hard evidence that suggests handwashing prevents spread of disease? I thought that had been more-or-less proven at least as far back as Typhoid Mary I(albeit that was bacteria rather than viruses).
No, I said there was no quantitive evidence of its efficacy in preventing Covid infections. We're now pretty certain that far more infections result from inhalation of airborne virus than by touch.
Yes, I always do the sanitizer in shops but it's not so much for fear of Covid, it's more that I like the cold slippery feeling as it goes on and how it rapidly dries. Plus the smell. I can see me carrying on with this habit even after the pandemic is long over.
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
No. You’re wrong. Go back and google, they genuinely thought masks were worse than useless because they hasn’t grasped THAT basic fact - as mentioned below - that you wear a mask to protect others
And of course they protect you, as well, if you have a proper FFP2 or above
Jenny Harries, one of the top boffins, actually said THIS:
‘Wearing a face mask to protect from the coronavirus could actually increase the risk of becoming infected, England’s deputy chief medical officer has warned.‘
The stupid twats hadn’t looked at Asia and wondered why they were all wearing masks? These are supposedly top scientists. They made a fundamental howling error which cost many lives. They should be sacked and driven from public life
Oh, calm down. This is what Jenny Harries actually said:
What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won't wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven't cleaned.
This is pretty accurate, in my view, and she didn't even mention the legions of chin-mask wearers. To the best of my knowledge, there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness of wearing masks improperly. It's likely that it's still a net positive, but I don't think we can safely say it's a huge one.
Jonathan Van Tam. April 4 2020. Ramming home the anti-mask message
He actually claims to have a “professor friend in Hong Kong, who agrees that masks are useless”. That would be Hong Kong, where they all wear masks?
Coronavirus: 'We do not recommend face masks for general wearing'
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
Budgets are largely theatre and often bear limited resemblance to what actually happens in practice. Yesterday will make little difference to the Tories prospects in 2024.
I do wonder just what the next election will be fought on. Labour seem to have dropped their radicalism and the Cons having done the one thing they were elected to do - Brexit - have become rather pointless. We hear much about the War on Woke but this is an essentially trivial matter and surely cannot bear the weight of being placed front and centre. The pandemic dwarfs everything right now but soon it will be over apart from the economic response and there's no great gap between the parties on that. Neither are going to prioritize repairing the public finances. So we could be looking at one of those "narcissism of small differences" elections where the driving force of the parties is purely to win power rather than what they plan to do with it. Who does this favour? Probably Labour but I really don't know. I do know it's less than inspiring.
If uninspiring politics will save us from damaging egotistical incompetent twats like Johnson, Corbyn and Rees-Mogg, (to name but a few) then I am all in favour of being uninspired.
There is that. Bland is not the worst thing in the world. But I like some ideological bite. For me, on election night, there should be a large section of the public feeling genuinely excited about the prospect of winning and just as genuinely nauseous at the thought of the other side winning. I just prefer that climate. I also think corruption and grift and the shallow obsession with ego and personalities is more likely when politics becomes more about being than doing.
I tend to agree with you, but didn't you feel 'genuinely excited' in 1997 when Blair won, despite his victory not containing much ideological bite? I certainly did: it was such a relief after waiting since 1979. Like you, I'd like Labour to be more radical, but any prospect of victory under a reasonably redistributive manifesto would suffice - better than more Tory years.
Shame we can't build some trains in Yorkshire that are used to replace the antediluvian trains we have rattling around (and frequently stopped due to general decrepitude) on Yorkshire's railways.
It's almost like Boris didn't think through the amount of GB to NI trade when he came up with his "fix" for the border issue.
Najh , the posh boys from the South Varadkar and Coveney- who have little understanding of the North - decided to play fast and loose with the sleeping dog. To line up their shot a doing well remunerated Brussels non-jobs they decided to use NI as a hostage. Now it's all coming apart they will leg it off to big salary land and leave others to sort out their shit.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Yes; his mother was killed by the press in his eyes.
That's the press. Not the Royal Family.
Is it possible that Harry now believes that the Royal Family are not inculpable for that event? Not so much the conspiracy theories that it was an outright hit, but that to some extent they did less than they could have to protect her from the paparazzi?
Who knows. He's estranged now from his brother now - no-one disputes that.
I'm inclined to believe he still hasn't processed his terrible grief over what was a horrific and tragic event.
The public had a part to play in making that worse. They effectively pressured the boys to stoically march behind the coffin throughout London whilst random people who'd never even met her (or him) wailed and weeped at a very vulnerable 13-year old boy.
The Queen was vociferously criticised at the time, but she was right: the boys would have been far better protected by staying privately with the family at Balmoral.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Yes; his mother was killed by the press in his eyes.
I think we’re at peak-Rishi in the betting markets.
Good timing for a long-term lay, IMO
I agree. He's a crazy price.
That's what people were saying about Boris during the leadership campaign before the MP votes.
1/3rd chance of being our next PM seems about right to my gut. But the value has gone compared to 250/1.
It depends if you think Johnson will be going before the GE. I don't. So I prefer Starmer at 5 to Sunak at 3.3. Once it becomes clear it's Johnson v Starmer, that 5 will be more like 3.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
Shame we can't build some trains in Yorkshire that are used to replace the antediluvian trains we have rattling around (and frequently stopped due to general decrepitude) on Yorkshire's railways.
The pacers have gone - what's left that's in need of replacement - last train I went on was one of the new Transpennine Express ones which was rather nice.
The European parliament has postponed setting a date for ratifying the trade and security deal with Britain after Boris Johnson was accused of breaking international law for a second time over Northern Ireland.
Comments
Unfortunately, as Blair showed, you can go along way in our soundbite culture with that approach. Especially when you have the plausible sharp-suited Goldman Sachs manner about you.
My only hope is that Sunak knows this and this budget was just to soothe the frowns of our creditors. And he intends to amend things later
It is a slender hope, however
https://twitter.com/thierrybreton/status/1367191487679762441?s=21
The forthcoming economic disaster looks inevitable to me. In fairness to Sunak, there was little he could do to offset eye-watering debt. Might as well just rack up more eye-watering borrowing and pretend it will go away. If Sunak can continue that until the next election he can probably ensure another term.
From someone from the centre-left I am unusually fearful of the unsustainable levels of debt, against imaginary growth predictions.
Perhaps I am a fiscal Tory after all.
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
And setting that aside, government advice actively discouraged their use early on. Based on nothing very much at all.
If you look back to that time, there was actually quite a large body of evidence which suggested that masks might be useful; I posted quite a bit of it on here.
Many thought Andrew was always an arse - what I think of him is unthinkable - but although he damaged the institution with his actions, and was unapologetic about it due to his stupidity and pomposity, he has now gone quietly and isn't now trying to blame the victim card and further undermine it.
They introduce the big tax rise on everyone paying income tax, but balance that politically with a large tax rise on business (in the future).
Then they will hope that they are able at some future point to drop the planned corporation tax rise in response to better than expected tax receipts, or some such excuse.
Which were both promoted as if it were hard science.
Bottom line is that both of those things, along with wearing masks, were sensible precautions whose absolute effectiveness wasn't known at the time.
Unfortunately I don't think he's up for the fight to make a probable £15-20bn annual tax break for corporations permanent even though the economic multiplier on it will be gigantic, the PR hit for his ambitions to be PM would be too big.
You've given school for thought that you think the two together are a good idea but surely putting a 2 year time limit [for now] on the 130% deduction means that companies will be incentivised to actually act within the next 2 years, rather than spending years deliberating over whether to invest or what to do so.
If this works then presumably Sunak is leaving himself room in a year or two to say that the investment protocol was a great success so it is being continued, whether for another time limited period or indefinitely?
If its 2 years (for now) to get people moving then in autumn next year when the next but one budget is announced its announced that it will continue at a 100% rate permanently then would this combination work for you?
Trolll
And you just had to make the simple mental leap: by realising that masks - almost any mask, even a bandana - mostly protect others, not you. But if we all do it we are all protected
When they come to write the final history of the UK’s collapse into 3rd world status, and civil strife, this basic failure by our ‘top scientists’ deserves a long footnote
The Rocnation team won't quite spin it as politically as that, but I bet that is along the lines of the PR war.
It will be something like, I am very lucky in life, I am comfortable, I can afford to pay a few pounds more a week in tax to ensure UC remains higher and we don't have starving kids, I think it is the responsibility of all those fortunate enough to still be comfortable after covie to help out.
https://twitter.com/dw_politics/status/1367444070755422208?s=20
The other thing the budget reminds me of is the attempts some pupils make to solve equations when they know the answer they are aiming for. There is some massive contortion (usually about a third of the way down) once it's clear that their answer isn't going to work out. And by magic, they get the right final answer. But it's mostly nonsense. Some of the assumptions- especially on spending- needed to make this Budget work look similarly heroic and insane.
But unless you can boil that down to a Three Word Slogan, it probably works politically. For now.
Advising against mask wearing was clearly a mistake. We don't know yet exactly how protective masks are, but there's some observational evidence and plenty of logic to suggest that they help, particularly in protecting others. Advising people not to was a mistake, but it should be viewed in the context of fomites being seen as the likely major transmission vector early on. If that had been the case (it appears not to be) then masks would have been less effective and the risks from touching masks and putting them on your face would have been bigger.
There were plenty of mistakes made early on. Given what we know now, home working should absolutely have been pushed hard much earlier. So should avoiding meeting indoors and ensuring ventilation. Mask wearing too, but I can understand the hesitancy to endorse it early on. Warning against it was a mistake, as there was also no good evidence for that.
Secondly its possible that tax rise announcements can be staggered in a way that people won't put 2 and 2 together quickly enough, we've seen that multiple times in the past.
Politically too I think people view tax breaks on investment as different to tax breaks for business profits. Its a simpler sell to say investment means more jobs etc
What did you think of the OBR's growth projections? They seem really weak as far as I was concerned; especially if a lot of investment is unlocked over the next two years then just 4% growth this year and just 1.6% in 2023 seems puny. I'd have expected at least 2% in 2023 under the circumstances which potentially could help 'pay' for making the investment tax break permanent.
Which remained a problem long after government changed its mind.
I think we're broadly in agreement, though.
Ventilation (or HEPA filters on air handling systems) barely got a mention until much later on.
Anyway, that's not the point. You can't try and make money off a product you're implying is definitively proven to work, when all you can actually say is it sounds like a sensible precaution.
Good timing for a long-term lay, IMO
What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won't wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven't cleaned.
This is pretty accurate, in my view, and she didn't even mention the legions of chin-mask wearers. To the best of my knowledge, there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness of wearing masks improperly. It's likely that it's still a net positive, but I don't think we can safely say it's a huge one.
That's my hope at least. Pure wishful thinking.
Hence the only time I "Ate Out to Help Out" last summer involved sitting at an outside table.
Oh well.
We're now pretty certain that far more infections result from inhalation of airborne virus than by touch.
Although in 10 years we can put a mannequin in the cab. They'll do more work, be more effective and be a hell of a lot cheaper than what we have to put up with at the moment.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
1/3rd chance of being our next PM seems about right to my gut. But the value has gone compared to 250/1.
He actually claims to have a “professor friend in Hong Kong, who agrees that masks are useless”. That would be Hong Kong, where they all wear masks?
Coronavirus: 'We do not recommend face masks for general wearing'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52153145
He didn’t grasp the fact that masks protect others, he didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission. He should go.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
But it will get sorted.
I'm inclined to believe he still hasn't processed his terrible grief over what was a horrific and tragic event.
The public had a part to play in making that worse. They effectively pressured the boys to stoically march behind the coffin throughout London whilst random people who'd never even met her (or him) wailed and weeped at a very vulnerable 13-year old boy.
The Queen was vociferously criticised at the time, but she was right: the boys would have been far better protected by staying privately with the family at Balmoral.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/uks-plan-to-extend-brexit-grace-period-infuriates-irish-and-eu-officials