Osborne to ban high earners ( £60k plus ) from council housing. Allegedly 1.69 million houses to be freed up.
No, I think that is the Mail giving the wrong impression. "1.69million Number of families on council house waiting lists who could benefit if high earners were evicted". That's the total pool of people on the waiting list, some of whom would benefit, is it not?
Even so, it's wrong of Osborne to propose banning the well-off from social housing as one of the 'hard choices'. It's not a hard choice, it's a painless no-brainer.
Hey guys, stop worrying about the deficit. As UKIP has stated on the website, we're going to have a Sovereign Wealth Fund!
And has already been pointed out to you, if the Tories are to be believed then the deficit will have gone by the time the Shale Gas industry is in a position to provide the funds for that Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Of course if you believe that we will not get rid of the deficit in the next decade or so then you might have a point. Depends how much you believe the Chancellor.
Is there not £1.5trn of debt to be repaid first? I think that might take a while, probably 2 generations.
I don;t see how chucking high earners out of council houses saves money, because those who replace them will surely pay the same rents (and may not be as good for the money).
So let me get this pearl of a UKIP policy right - they want to use government borrowing (we still have a massive debt ,deficit or not deficit) to buy up private assets ?
I don;t see how chucking high earners out of council houses saves money, because those who replace them will surely pay the same rents (and may not be as good for the money).
No, the well-off should pay for their own housing at normal commercial rents. Those on the waiting list for council housing are being subsidised through housing benefit, at an exorbitant cost, and often in crowded accomodation.
Hey guys, stop worrying about the deficit. As UKIP has stated on the website, we're going to have a Sovereign Wealth Fund!
And has already been pointed out to you, if the Tories are to be believed then the deficit will have gone by the time the Shale Gas industry is in a position to provide the funds for that Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Of course if you believe that we will not get rid of the deficit in the next decade or so then you might have a point. Depends how much you believe the Chancellor.
Getting rid of the deficit is sufficiently plausible for it to be officially forecast by the OBR to have happened by 2020.
Of course, implementing the forecast plan will require self-discipline and some luck (avoidance of external shocks) but the fact that it is now an official "central" forecast means that it is as likely as not to happen on schedule.
The structural deficit (balancing which is the primary fiscal mandate) depends on a correct calculation of the "output gap" in the economy. This calculation has its base in economic theory rather than objective measurement and the validity of its output remains arguable at best. It is even 'impossible' to validate the calculated output retrospectively.
All the same, public sector net borrowing and a net cash requirement both in suprlus should be sufficient evidence of 'deficit elimination' and progress towards debt reduction. Both are forecast by the OBR to happen by the end of the next parliamentary term.
So the road map has been agreed. We just need to follow the agreed path!
So let me get this pearl of a UKIP policy right - they want to use government borrowing (we still have a massive debt ,deficit or not deficit) to buy up private assets ?
Jesus Christ!!
Renationalising everything (Power, trains, Post) is very popular though (~68% for, ~ 25% against) off the top of my head.
UKIP's sums don't need to add up as they (Even on a great day) won't be anywhere near Gov't. It is the electoral perk the Lib Dems enjoyed till recently.
Osborne to ban high earners ( £60k plus ) from council housing. Allegedly 1.69 million houses to be freed up.
No, I think that is the Mail giving the wrong impression. "1.69million Number of families on council house waiting lists who could benefit if high earners were evicted". That's the total pool of people on the waiting list, some of whom would benefit, is it not?
Even so, it's wrong of Osborne to propose banning the well-off from social housing as one of the 'hard choices'. It's not a hard choice, it's a painless no-brainer.
tbh Richard I haven't a clue if it's 1.69 million in houses or 1.69 million families waiting for houses but either way it's certainly a no brainer to get people who can afford housing to move out and free up accommodation for those who can't. Why should Frank Dobson have a council house ?
On the other hand we can stand by for a caterwailing session of epic proportions as the child benefit drama is replayed. " my two neighbours earn £50k apiece and have a council mansion, while I earn £60k and am getting kicked out " etc.. plus £60k in London may be smaller beer. Where's Bobajob when we need him ?
So let me get this pearl of a UKIP policy right - they want to use government borrowing (we still have a massive debt ,deficit or not deficit) to buy up private assets ?
Jesus Christ!!
I had understood the UKIP plan to be to run a surplus and contribute to a national wealth fund with that surplus. Agree that a wealth fund makes no sense whatever for any country running a deficit.
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
So let me get this pearl of a UKIP policy right - they want to use government borrowing (we still have a massive debt ,deficit or not deficit) to buy up private assets ?
Jesus Christ!!
Renationalising everything (Power, trains, Post) is very popular though (~68% for, ~ 25% against) off the top of my head.
UKIP's sums don't need to add up as they (Even on a great day) won't be anywhere near Gov't. It is the electoral perk the Lib Dems enjoyed till recently.
I don't think the kippers can remember what they promised yesterday.
I would go on to explain why but forebear for fear of the wrath of Old Weathercock.
So let me get this pearl of a UKIP policy right - they want to use government borrowing (we still have a massive debt ,deficit or not deficit) to buy up private assets ?
Jesus Christ!!
I had understood the UKIP plan to be to run a surplus and contribute to a national wealth fund with that surplus. Agree that a wealth fund makes no sense whatever for any country running a deficit.
But running a surplus or deficit is only a indicator of whether the national debt is increasing or decreasing . It is still there and still massive - Are UKIP seriously proposing to buy up private assets from effective government borrowing (ie the debt)? Are they really that thick that they do not realise that a sovereign wealth fund is just a fancy trendy name for state nationalisation?
A hundred and thirty quid for a pair of plimsolls! You are mad and if you can afford such extravagance then you aren't paying enough tax. Stuff the bankers, the Country needs a lawyers tax, not on hard-working junior criminal law barristers obviously, but on chiselling solicitors - thieves and leeches.
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
Comres poll in September showed that the bedroom tax is far from popular , 59% wanted it scrapped .
A hundred and thirty quid for a pair of plimsolls! You are mad and if you can afford such extravagance then you aren't paying enough tax. Stuff the bankers, the Country needs a lawyers tax, not on hard-working junior criminal law barristers obviously, but on chiselling solicitors - thieves and leeches.
I have large feet, and am limited to the footwear available to me, so that's not even close to the most expensive piece of footwear I've ever owned.
And yes it is true that they say about men with big feet, we have big shoes.
So let me get this pearl of a UKIP policy right - they want to use government borrowing (we still have a massive debt ,deficit or not deficit) to buy up private assets ?
Jesus Christ!!
I had understood the UKIP plan to be to run a surplus and contribute to a national wealth fund with that surplus. Agree that a wealth fund makes no sense whatever for any country running a deficit.
But running a surplus or deficit is only a indicator of whether the national debt is increasing or decreasing . It is still there and still massive - Are UKIP seriously proposing to buy up private assets from effective government borrowing (ie the debt)? Are they really that thick that they do not realise that a sovereign wealth fund is just a fancy trendy name for state nationalisation?
Quite possibly! Many commentators confuse deficits (flow of new debt) with debt (outstanding stock of debt). If the UK achieves a surplus we could choose to pay down the extant stock of debt. We know exactly what that debt's servicing costs are and so would know exactly what the yield on such a strategy would be. If the yield was low it would actually make a better investment choice to invest surplus cash in a higher yielding asset. The country's NET debt (liabilities AND ASSETS) would fall faster. The risk is, of course, reliably identifying an asset class that yields more. MUCH safer to pay down the debt first. (Pay off your mortgage before buying shares, etc)
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
Comres poll in September showed that the bedroom tax is far from popular , 59% wanted it scrapped .
A bedroom tax would be unpopular.
If the housing benefit changes were so appalling, why was there no outcry when the Labour government changed it for private-sector housing?
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
Comres poll in September showed that the bedroom tax is far from popular , 59% wanted it scrapped .
But....."the right to buy" (at a nice discount usually) is a cornerstone of the blessed Margret's legacy. Do you intend that at some future date it will be means tested?
So let me get this pearl of a UKIP policy right - they want to use government borrowing (we still have a massive debt ,deficit or not deficit) to buy up private assets ?
Jesus Christ!!
I had understood the UKIP plan to be to run a surplus and contribute to a national wealth fund with that surplus. Agree that a wealth fund makes no sense whatever for any country running a deficit.
But running a surplus or deficit is only a indicator of whether the national debt is increasing or decreasing . It is still there and still massive - Are UKIP seriously proposing to buy up private assets from effective government borrowing (ie the debt)? Are they really that thick that they do not realise that a sovereign wealth fund is just a fancy trendy name for state nationalisation?
Quite possibly! Many commentators confuse deficits (flow of new debt) with debt (outstanding stock of debt). If the UK achieves a surplus we could choose to pay down the extant stock of debt. We know exactly what that debt's servicing costs are and so would know exactly what the yield on such a strategy would be. If the yield was low it would actually make a better investment choice to invest surplus cash in a higher yielding asset. The country's NET debt (liabilities AND ASSETS) would fall faster. The risk is, of course, reliably identifying an asset class that yields more. MUCH safer to pay down the debt first. (Pay off your mortgage before buying shares, etc)
Plus, it is fundamentally dangerous to have the government getting involved with the capital allocation process in a country- too much opportunity for crony capitalism. Which is why most SWFs will not invest in their home markets.
I'm not sure borrowing British pounds to but shares in German or Chinese companies is a sensible use of government money, when we have debts equivalent to 100% of GDP.
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
Comres poll in September showed that the bedroom tax is far from popular , 59% wanted it scrapped .
A bedroom tax would be unpopular.
If the housing benefit changes were so appalling, why was there no outcry when the Labour government changed it for private-sector housing?
Maybe because the Labour changes did not apply to existing tenants.
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
Comres poll in September showed that the bedroom tax is far from popular , 59% wanted it scrapped .
A bedroom tax would be unpopular.
If the housing benefit changes were so appalling, why was there no outcry when the Labour government changed it for private-sector housing?
Semantics does not change the validity of my quoting that poll .
But running a surplus or deficit is only a indicator of whether the national debt is increasing or decreasing . It is still there and still massive - Are UKIP seriously proposing to buy up private assets from effective government borrowing (ie the debt)? Are they really that thick that they do not realise that a sovereign wealth fund is just a fancy trendy name for state nationalisation?
Quite possibly! Many commentators confuse deficits (flow of new debt) with debt (outstanding stock of debt). If the UK achieves a surplus we could choose to pay down the extant stock of debt. We know exactly what that debt's servicing costs are and so would know exactly what the yield on such a strategy would be. If the yield was low it would actually make a better investment choice to invest surplus cash in a higher yielding asset. The country's NET debt (liabilities AND ASSETS) would fall faster. The risk is, of course, reliably identifying an asset class that yields more. MUCH safer to pay down the debt first. (Pay off your mortgage before buying shares, etc)
Well its one thing for an individual or company to be confident (arrogant?) enough to think they can borrow and then invest that borrowing to get a higher return. Its another thing for a supposedly free market party to suggest the state does likewise. I can understand the intellectual argument if a communist prposed such a scheme but fear that UKIP are not up to understanding economics if they think they can say they are free market with this rubbish
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
Comres poll in September showed that the bedroom tax is far from popular , 59% wanted it scrapped .
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
Comres poll in September showed that the bedroom tax is far from popular , 59% wanted it scrapped .
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
Where do you live in the country? Around us its treated as an unfair joke as it victimises people who can't move because the smaller properties just don't exist.
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
Comres poll in September showed that the bedroom tax is far from popular , 59% wanted it scrapped .
A bedroom tax would be unpopular.
If the housing benefit changes were so appalling, why was there no outcry when the Labour government changed it for private-sector housing?
Semantics does not change the validity of my quoting that poll .
Not just semantics. It turns out that the Labour and Tory bedroom taxes are very different beasts. You can see why the Tories would want to claim otherwise but they must know that they are being, ahem, ever so slightly economical with the verite:
So let me get this pearl of a UKIP policy right - they want to use government borrowing (we still have a massive debt ,deficit or not deficit) to buy up private assets ?
Jesus Christ!!
I had understood the UKIP plan to be to run a surplus and contribute to a national wealth fund with that surplus. Agree that a wealth fund makes no sense whatever for any country running a deficit.
But running a surplus or deficit is only a indicator of whether the national debt is increasing or decreasing . It is still there and still massive - Are UKIP seriously proposing to buy up private assets from effective government borrowing (ie the debt)? Are they really that thick that they do not realise that a sovereign wealth fund is just a fancy trendy name for state nationalisation?
Quite possibly! Many commentators confuse deficits (flow of new debt) with debt (outstanding stock of debt). If the UK achieves a surplus we could choose to pay down the extant stock of debt. We know exactly what that debt's servicing costs are and so would know exactly what the yield on such a strategy would be. If the yield was low it would actually make a better investment choice to invest surplus cash in a higher yielding asset. The country's NET debt (liabilities AND ASSETS) would fall faster. The risk is, of course, reliably identifying an asset class that yields more. MUCH safer to pay down the debt first. (Pay off your mortgage before buying shares, etc)
Plus, it is fundamentally dangerous to have the government getting involved with the capital allocation process in a country- too much opportunity for crony capitalism. Which is why most SWFs will not invest in their home markets.
I'm not sure borrowing British pounds to but shares in German or Chinese companies is a sensible use of government money, when we have debts equivalent to 100% of GDP.
If the return is over the borrowing rate then surely it is ?
FPT. I see all the lying Tories ran away when challenged on their arithmetic skills.
running with the latest howler from the no camp on its Yougov commissioned poll. 29% want the status quo, 30% want Independence and 32% want more powers. Lying Tories manage to get 29% support for NO to be equal to 70%, LOL, surprise surprise it is neck and neck and the majority of the Don't Knows want more powers.
I am sure it has been noticed that the question asks 3 options whereas the referendum is for 2 options, too ... if the No campaign are playing around like that, they could be doing sums to base 8 for all we know, without bothering to tell us!
If anyone is rich enough to buy their present home at a discount, they will, and after the usual period, either sell it and pocket the difference, or hand it on as an inheritance. Financial reasons are probably not the major motivator of not exercising a right to buy. The policy will not free up housing for the "needy" but rather further reduce the councils housing stock, and is therefore merely am exercise in governmental "gum bumping"
(Oh, and sorry you feel so tetchy, I thought left leaning posters were also entitled to a little banter......how wrong can one be?)
Nice of you to say so, Mr. LP. and it feels nice to be back among friends too. As Mr. Socrates said on here the other evening, the reason why I eschewed the site seems to have gone.
Now who was it that I had a bet with the the Scots Indy referendum would not happen? I might need to dust off my cheque book.
Ah Ha. Particularly glad to see you back. Please don't delurk and (worse) into penury, but 'twas I (from wager registered with PtP September 4 2011). The 50 quid will, I promise, go to an exceptionally noble cause!
Mike S will have my contact details.
Pleasure to do business with you, sir. How is the ferocious feline?
If the return is over the borrowing rate then surely it is ?
That way leads communism - when the state thinks it is a better allocator of capital than individuals. But you know that already, which is why you added the smiley :-)
Yes, I'm having great difficulty in organising my fellow PB Tories around the principles of collective socialism. Cant think why.
Click on HL's name anywhere on the thread and that will bring you through to a page with a "message" button on it. Click on that to send him a message. He'll have to click on his own name later to go through to a page to read it.
Yes, I'm having great difficulty in organising my fellow PB Tories around the principles of collective socialism. Cant think why.
Click on HL's name anywhere on the thread and that will bring you through to a page with a "message" button on it. Click on that to send him a message. He'll have to click on his own name later to go through to a page to read it.
Fiendishly complicated but a thrilling new adventure. I may be some time.
Yes, it's times like this when we treasure tim, isn't it.
One of the many obvious problems with investing in a sovereign wealth fund when you are up to your neck in debt is that the lenders may not be terribly convinced you are serious about paying it back.
To put it simply if the UK were to be running a sensible surplus of £50bn a year it is likely to find rolling over matured debt easy at low rates.
If this money is being wisely invested elsewhere on the planet and is subject to risk the cost of rolling over that debt will, all other things being equal, be higher. So the return would have to be better than both the current rate of interest but also the additional risk cost that would be added to our existing mountain of debt.
UKIP are simply joining the queue of parties who refuse to acknowledge that this country is broke. It does not make them worse than most of the others. It probably makes them better than Labour who would just spend it and then another £50bn for good measure.
"But members of Merkel's CDU have also been stirring the populist debate, with European Parliamentarian Elmar Brok suggesting on Friday that immigrants be forced to have their fingerprints taken to prevent welfare fraud."
Yes, because that's what we really want, the Germans fingerprinting Roma and putting their details on a database. What could possibly go wrong?
"UKIP are pleased to announce the appointment of Patrick O’Flynn as the party’s new Director of Communications.
Patrick will leave his job at The Daily Express newspaper as Chief Political Commentator in February to help oversee UKIP's campaign for the 2014 European and UK local elections."
One night in Paris. Where do you go for a top class, non-poncey dinner?
How much do you want to spend, and where are you staying?
Staying in Saint Germain. It's a work night, so nothing too flash. A good brasserie-style thing is what I'm after. I have no idea about prices in Paris as I have not been there for years, but I'm guessing it's more expensive than London.
"But members of Merkel's CDU have also been stirring the populist debate, with European Parliamentarian Elmar Brok suggesting on Friday that immigrants be forced to have their fingerprints taken to prevent welfare fraud."
Yes, because that's what we really want, the Germans fingerprinting Roma and putting their details on a database. What could possibly go wrong?
The Germans have history on their side with this one.
Sounds good, but then again so did the bedroom tax
The spare rooms subsidy is still extremely popular with the public. Don't let the bleating lefties foolyyou into thinking it isn't. The reason they have such a vehement reaction to it is they know it is a strong vote winner in 2015 and it isn't something they can match.
What planet do you live on , certainly anything but popular in Scotland, apart from maybe a handful of Tories.
One night in Paris. Where do you go for a top class, non-poncey dinner?
How much do you want to spend, and where are you staying?
Staying in Saint Germain. It's a work night, so nothing too flash. A good brasserie-style thing is what I'm after. I have no idea about prices in Paris as I have not been there for years, but I'm guessing it's more expensive than London.
No, it's not more expensive than London, although of course some places are very expensive. In St Germain you've got plenty of choice. There's the very fancy and pricey Helene Darroze, but for something more modest, how about this one:
One night in Paris. Where do you go for a top class, non-poncey dinner?
How much do you want to spend, and where are you staying?
Staying in Saint Germain. It's a work night, so nothing too flash. A good brasserie-style thing is what I'm after. I have no idea about prices in Paris as I have not been there for years, but I'm guessing it's more expensive than London.
Don't stay in an hotel. It is so vulgar. Buy a local villa.
The one I recommend was commissioned by Henri II and built for the head gardener of Château-Neuf de Saint Germain en Laye.
It is now know as Le Pavillon Sully.
Good views, a fine dining room and a terraced garden in which to walk when enjoying a post-prandial Monte Criso No 2.
One night in Paris. Where do you go for a top class, non-poncey dinner?
How much do you want to spend, and where are you staying?
Staying in Saint Germain. It's a work night, so nothing too flash. A good brasserie-style thing is what I'm after. I have no idea about prices in Paris as I have not been there for years, but I'm guessing it's more expensive than London.
Le Petit Zinc on Rue Saint Benoit was excellent and fairly low-key last time I was there. That may well have been 7 or 8 years back, though.
One night in Paris. Where do you go for a top class, non-poncey dinner?
How much do you want to spend, and where are you staying?
Staying in Saint Germain. It's a work night, so nothing too flash. A good brasserie-style thing is what I'm after. I have no idea about prices in Paris as I have not been there for years, but I'm guessing it's more expensive than London.
No, it's not more expensive than London, although of course some places are very expensive. In St Germain you've got plenty of choice. There's the very fancy and pricey Helene Darroze, but for something more modest, how about this one:
One night in Paris. Where do you go for a top class, non-poncey dinner?
How much do you want to spend, and where are you staying?
Staying in Saint Germain. It's a work night, so nothing too flash. A good brasserie-style thing is what I'm after. I have no idea about prices in Paris as I have not been there for years, but I'm guessing it's more expensive than London.
Don't stay in an hotel. It is so vulgar. Buy a local villa.
The one I recommend was commissioned by Henri II and built for the head gardener of Château-Neuf de Saint Germain en Laye.
It is now know as Le Pavillon Sully.
Good views, a fine dining room and a terraced garden in which to walk when enjoying a post-prandial Monte Criso No 2.
Any recommendations <£120/night in Tokyo and Tapei for somewhere central with wifi and reasonably international breakfast? (Last time my Tapeh hotel was on the fifth floor of a block with seedy vendors downstairs, and the Tokyo hotel only had miso soup for breakfast). I'm not fussy - something like an Ibis would be fine - but if there's anywhere people recommend that'd be nice...?
Hey guys, stop worrying about the deficit. As UKIP has stated on the website, we're going to have a Sovereign Wealth Fund!
And has already been pointed out to you, if the Tories are to be believed then the deficit will have gone by the time the Shale Gas industry is in a position to provide the funds for that Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Of course if you believe that we will not get rid of the deficit in the next decade or so then you might have a point. Depends how much you believe the Chancellor.
Hang on a minute , isn't a Sovereign Wealth fund all about a state buying up private assets? Why is such nationalisation a flagship policy of a supposedly free market party like UKIP? IT just shows UKIP will say anything to keep popularist
Nope. As it is run in Norway it is about using the tax receipts from the oil industry to build up an investment fund which is a safety net for the future once the oil money runs out. In Norway it is also a way of limiting government spending.
Personally I am not a fan. I would rather the money was used to reduced the tax burden on individuals but I was simply pointing out the inconsistency in Robert's position as I see it.
The Norway Oil Fund owns 1% of all the shares in the world.
Hey guys, stop worrying about the deficit. As UKIP has stated on the website, we're going to have a Sovereign Wealth Fund!
And has already been pointed out to you, if the Tories are to be believed then the deficit will have gone by the time the Shale Gas industry is in a position to provide the funds for that Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Of course if you believe that we will not get rid of the deficit in the next decade or so then you might have a point. Depends how much you believe the Chancellor.
Is there not £1.5trn of debt to be repaid first? I think that might take a while, probably 2 generations.
Robert made a specific reference to the deficit and I answered that. Personally I don't think a wealth fund is the way to go but Robert's arguments are superficial to say the least.
Hey guys, stop worrying about the deficit. As UKIP has stated on the website, we're going to have a Sovereign Wealth Fund!
And has already been pointed out to you, if the Tories are to be believed then the deficit will have gone by the time the Shale Gas industry is in a position to provide the funds for that Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Of course if you believe that we will not get rid of the deficit in the next decade or so then you might have a point. Depends how much you believe the Chancellor.
Firstly, deficit is not the same as debt. Countries with SWFs like Norway, Kuwait, Singapore and Abu Dhabi have negligible levels of government debt. (Norway's is highest at 28% or so of GDP.) We'll be north of 100% by the time that the deficit is eliminated. Do you really think the priority is buying shares rather than paying down the national debt?
Secondly, even taking incredibly optimistic assumptions (30% of UK gas consumption, a $2/mcf tax) the amounts raised would not create any meaningful SWF.
Thirdly, governments (even UKIP ones) have a tendency to spend more money than they plan to.
If UKIP policy was "after the financial situation of the country has improved, and we have reduced the national debt to the level it was before the mismanagement of the Labour and Conservative administrations of the last decade, we will consider the creation of a SWF" then it would be sensible. But it would also be an aspiration for 2035, not 2020.
Furthermore, that there are pages devoted to the SWF, and to gay marriage on the UKIP website, but not one devoted to education or the tax and benefits system suggests - at the very least - some bizarre priorities.
I would be wary of judging party policy based on websites. If that is the case then all the Lib Dems have to say is that they have put £2.5 billion into education for the poorest pupils. Not one word about falling standards and the catastrophic slide down the international league tables for British education. Apparently for the Lib Dems it is okay for everyone to get a cr*p education as long as everyone gets the same cr*p education.
So let me get this pearl of a UKIP policy right - they want to use government borrowing (we still have a massive debt ,deficit or not deficit) to buy up private assets ?
Jesus Christ!!
I had understood the UKIP plan to be to run a surplus and contribute to a national wealth fund with that surplus. Agree that a wealth fund makes no sense whatever for any country running a deficit.
But running a surplus or deficit is only a indicator of whether the national debt is increasing or decreasing . It is still there and still massive - Are UKIP seriously proposing to buy up private assets from effective government borrowing (ie the debt)? Are they really that thick that they do not realise that a sovereign wealth fund is just a fancy trendy name for state nationalisation?
No it isn't. Every time you make that claim you just look stupid. Investing in the stock markets in the way Norway does is nothing like Nationalisation. I suggest you go and actually look at what the Oil Fund does as clearly you have no idea at the moment.
Fascinating footnote from the Ashcroft poll largely missed. Given the choice between another Coalition and a Tory majority 55% of voters prefer a Coalition. Given today's comments by Osborne, Clegg and Montgomerie if the Tories fall short again of a majority but are the largest party a Coalition would again be on the cards given the economic uncertainty still present, what that would do to the Tory and LD parties is fascinating? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/james-kirkup/10552381/What-must-Cameron-do-to-win.html
I'm not sure what Tebbit is specifically talking about but the Commission has always had the power to issue Regulations, which are directly and immediately applicable in law.
One night in Paris. Where do you go for a top class, non-poncey dinner?
How much do you want to spend, and where are you staying?
Staying in Saint Germain. It's a work night, so nothing too flash. A good brasserie-style thing is what I'm after. I have no idea about prices in Paris as I have not been there for years, but I'm guessing it's more expensive than London.
No, it's not more expensive than London, although of course some places are very expensive. In St Germain you've got plenty of choice. There's the very fancy and pricey Helene Darroze, but for something more modest, how about this one:
Talking of quite nice hotels, I have just been told that on my upcoming trip to Thailand (I leave tomorrow), I will be spending several nights at the Mandarin Oriental, as a freebie.
Talking of quite nice hotels, I have just been told that on my upcoming trip to Thailand (I leave tomorrow), I will be spending several nights at the Mandarin Oriental, as a freebie.
Many moons ago I stayed at what was then regarded as "the best hotel in the world" - the staff all knew you by name.....which struck me as distinctly creepy.....
With his lopsided grin, easy manner and tousled hair Tristram ‘Hereditary’ Hunt, did his duty impeccably, providing public school leadership to his dogged, working class party this afternoon in the Commons. He treated the sortie with the casual grace of a subaltern in vicarage garden, and ignored the terrible casualties around him.
Disdaining the enemy’s firepower, he went elegantly over the top to launch his deadly question – how many Free Schools had been approved against official advice?
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
Fascinating footnote from the Ashcroft poll largely missed. Given the choice between another Coalition and a Tory majority 55% of voters prefer a Coalition. Given today's comments by Osborne, Clegg and Montgomerie if the Tories fall short again of a majority but are the largest party a Coalition would again be on the cards given the economic uncertainty still present, what that would do to the Tory and LD parties is fascinating? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/james-kirkup/10552381/What-must-Cameron-do-to-win.html
When you look at the party breaks. Labour and Libdems prefer coalition to a Tory government and Tories (79%) and UKIP (66%) prefer a Conservative Majority Government to coalition. Go figure.
Consequently it is reasonable to assume that another Coalition could do severe internal damage to the Tory party if not see them ridding themselves of Cameron or even splitting in two?
No it isn't. Every time you make that claim you just look stupid. Investing in the stock markets in the way Norway does is nothing like Nationalisation. I suggest you go and actually look at what the Oil Fund does as clearly you have no idea at the moment.
Come on Richard, you know as well as I do that there's no comparison between Norway and the UK as regards SWFs.
Let's start with the obvious: SWFs typically exist in small countries where a natural resources boom would result in a hideously dysfunctional local economy if excess profits weren't squiralled away. Norway has has 5 million people in it, and is Europe's biggest oil producer - extracting about 2m barrels a day. If all the money from that was allowed to slosh around the local economy, it would be $200m / day for a population of 5 million - that's $40/day in oil revenues alone. It would result in an even more insanely strong currency, and it would result in pretty much all non-petroleum activities being hammered by the strength of the Krona. (This is the so-called Dutch Disease.)
My criticism of UKIP having a SWF policy is simply that it is an absurd aspiration which you would not even consider until the national debt was at a level below - say - 35% of GDP. Given we're not even going to balance the budget before 2020 (although I think this may be unduly pessimistic), this is a policy for 2035.
That it is one of the seven policies listed on the UKIP web page under 'policy forum' is a joke. And if the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives had it as one of their seven published policies, then you would be (correctly) ripping the piss. It is only because you are suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance that you even attempt to defend it.
One night in Paris. Where do you go for a top class, non-poncey dinner?
How much do you want to spend, and where are you staying?
Staying in Saint Germain. It's a work night, so nothing too flash. A good brasserie-style thing is what I'm after. I have no idea about prices in Paris as I have not been there for years, but I'm guessing it's more expensive than London.
Don't stay in an hotel. It is so vulgar. Buy a local villa.
The one I recommend was commissioned by Henri II and built for the head gardener of Château-Neuf de Saint Germain en Laye.
It is now know as Le Pavillon Sully.
Good views, a fine dining room and a terraced garden in which to walk when enjoying a post-prandial Monte Criso No 2.
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
Have you any idea what the norm is for such a deal? It would be worth your while trying to find out? Furthermore, if you are going to negotiate I wouldn't ask for a review but set out a schedule of how you would like to see the deal change once that level of profit has been reached and let them haggle over it if they want.
The point is once you are signed up without having already negotiated any future changes in the deal to conclusion there is no guarantee that you would get satisfaction. How would a 'review' work? Who would be the arbitrator of the review? What happens if they just refuse any change but you are still tied into the original agreement?
Basically its best to get everything agreed up front if you can. Then everyone knows where they stand and there are no doubts. Particularly as it sounds to me that you are not 100% happy with the initial profit split?
No it isn't. Every time you make that claim you just look stupid. Investing in the stock markets in the way Norway does is nothing like Nationalisation. I suggest you go and actually look at what the Oil Fund does as clearly you have no idea at the moment.
My criticism of UKIP having a SWF policy is simply that it is an absurd aspiration which you would not even consider until the national debt was at a level below - say - 35% of GDP. Given we're not even going to balance the budget before 2020 (although I think this may be unduly pessimistic), this is a policy for 2035.
That it is one of the seven policies listed on the UKIP web page under 'policy forum' is a joke.
Think of it as a sweetener to help sell fracking as a good thing to the public. I believe the government have a policy of cash being given to the local community when a new fracking site opens.
With his lopsided grin, easy manner and tousled hair Tristram ‘Hereditary’ Hunt, did his duty impeccably, providing public school leadership to his dogged, working class party this afternoon in the Commons. He treated the sortie with the casual grace of a subaltern in vicarage garden, and ignored the terrible casualties around him.
Disdaining the enemy’s firepower, he went elegantly over the top to launch his deadly question – how many Free Schools had been approved against official advice?
I believe the guardian is looking for a new sketch writer. If talent has anything at all to do with it this is a no brainer. Simon Carr is simply the best in the business at the current time.
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
Goodness gracious! A betting post on here, these days?? I'd almost forgotten that was supposedly the reason for this site's existence. Never mind, I'm sure 'Britain's most read Hotel blog' has a popular, albeit discrete, appeal.
Comments
So I bought these instead.
http://www.jdsports.co.uk/product/nike-air-max-2014/127933/
Even so, it's wrong of Osborne to propose banning the well-off from social housing as one of the 'hard choices'. It's not a hard choice, it's a painless no-brainer.
I don;t see how chucking high earners out of council houses saves money, because those who replace them will surely pay the same rents (and may not be as good for the money).
Jesus Christ!!
Will be comedy gold if the removal men come to him ;D
Of course, implementing the forecast plan will require self-discipline and some luck (avoidance of external shocks) but the fact that it is now an official "central" forecast means that it is as likely as not to happen on schedule.
The structural deficit (balancing which is the primary fiscal mandate) depends on a correct calculation of the "output gap" in the economy. This calculation has its base in economic theory rather than objective measurement and the validity of its output remains arguable at best. It is even 'impossible' to validate the calculated output retrospectively.
All the same, public sector net borrowing and a net cash requirement both in suprlus should be sufficient evidence of 'deficit elimination' and progress towards debt reduction. Both are forecast by the OBR to happen by the end of the next parliamentary term.
So the road map has been agreed. We just need to follow the agreed path!
UKIP's sums don't need to add up as they (Even on a great day) won't be anywhere near Gov't. It is the electoral perk the Lib Dems enjoyed till recently.
On the other hand we can stand by for a caterwailing session of epic proportions as the child benefit drama is replayed. " my two neighbours earn £50k apiece and have a council mansion, while I earn £60k and am getting kicked out " etc.. plus £60k in London may be smaller beer. Where's Bobajob when we need him ?
Indeed. Funny how Shelter has been silent on this as a solution to the '80,000 homeless kids' in temporary accommodation.
In fact 60 grand looks well high. They could cut it to 45,000.
I would go on to explain why but forebear for fear of the wrath of Old Weathercock.
BBC's Sherlock attacks Boris Johnson as ‘dithering’ and ‘self-interested’
A fake newspaper shown during BBC One drama Sherlock included an article mocking the Mayor of London’s ‘hair-brained’ plans
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10552826/BBCs-Sherlock-attacks-Boris-Johnson-as-dithering-and-self-interested.html
Because the mortgage they would need to buy the council house would cost much more than the rent?
Do you mean the "right to buy scheme" is a financial disaster for those who participate?
And yes it is true that they say about men with big feet, we have big shoes.
No, because people who apply for right to buy have not, and will never be, offered a council house.
They only have the options of renting commercially or buying a home.
Those are the only options that wealthy people in council houses should have. Council houses should be for the very needy.
If the housing benefit changes were so appalling, why was there no outcry when the Labour government changed it for private-sector housing?
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/dwp-poll-finds-public-opinion-split-on-bedroom-tax/6529427.article
Popular until the sob story is found.
But....."the right to buy" (at a nice discount usually) is a cornerstone of the blessed Margret's legacy. Do you intend that at some future date it will be means tested?
I'm not sure borrowing British pounds to but shares in German or Chinese companies is a sensible use of government money, when we have debts equivalent to 100% of GDP.
Quite possibly! Many commentators confuse deficits (flow of new debt) with debt (outstanding stock of debt). If the UK achieves a surplus we could choose to pay down the extant stock of debt. We know exactly what that debt's servicing costs are and so would know exactly what the yield on such a strategy would be. If the yield was low it would actually make a better investment choice to invest surplus cash in a higher yielding asset. The country's NET debt (liabilities AND ASSETS) would fall faster. The risk is, of course, reliably identifying an asset class that yields more. MUCH safer to pay down the debt first. (Pay off your mortgage before buying shares, etc)
Well its one thing for an individual or company to be confident (arrogant?) enough to think they can borrow and then invest that borrowing to get a higher return. Its another thing for a supposedly free market party to suggest the state does likewise. I can understand the intellectual argument if a communist prposed such a scheme but fear that UKIP are not up to understanding economics if they think they can say they are free market with this rubbish
http://notpaying.tumblr.com/post/55537295011/how-the-bedroom-tax-differs-from-the-local-housing
If wealthy council tenants want to buy their homes, rather than get chucked out to make way for more deserving cases, that is up to them.
You simply asked why they don't already do that given the discounts available and I came up with a possible reason.
Faced with eviction to make way for the genuinely needy, some may indeed opt to buy. I wonder what Bob Crow will do.
" I wonder what Bob Crow will do. "
It's the razor sharp insights of people like you that makes PB such a joy.
I've had just about enough of your nit picking and insults matey. What;'s your view of the policy Smarmeron?
do you think labour or the libs should go into bat for high earning people in council houses?
Come on sunbeam, lets hear what you think instead of your b*llocks little questions and insults.
Financial reasons are probably not the major motivator of not exercising a right to buy.
The policy will not free up housing for the "needy" but rather further reduce the councils housing stock, and is therefore merely am exercise in governmental "gum bumping"
(Oh, and sorry you feel so tetchy, I thought left leaning posters were also entitled to a little banter......how wrong can one be?)
Mike S will have my contact details.
Pleasure to do business with you, sir. How is the ferocious feline?
I trust the PB Tory cocktail fund will be credited with the usual percentage of these winnings. 100%!
Ooo, er. vanilla private massage (sic) function. Sounds naughty but nice...how does it work?
Yes, I'm having great difficulty in organising my fellow PB Tories around the principles of collective socialism. Cant think why.
Click on HL's name anywhere on the thread and that will bring you through to a page with a "message" button on it. Click on that to send him a message. He'll have to click on his own name later to go through to a page to read it.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/coalition-conflict-merkel-tries-to-defuse-poverty-immigration-debate-a-941737.html
Yes, it's times like this when we treasure tim, isn't it.
To put it simply if the UK were to be running a sensible surplus of £50bn a year it is likely to find rolling over matured debt easy at low rates.
If this money is being wisely invested elsewhere on the planet and is subject to risk the cost of rolling over that debt will, all other things being equal, be higher. So the return would have to be better than both the current rate of interest but also the additional risk cost that would be added to our existing mountain of debt.
UKIP are simply joining the queue of parties who refuse to acknowledge that this country is broke. It does not make them worse than most of the others. It probably makes them better than Labour who would just spend it and then another £50bn for good measure.
"But members of Merkel's CDU have also been stirring the populist debate, with European Parliamentarian Elmar Brok suggesting on Friday that immigrants be forced to have their fingerprints taken to prevent welfare fraud."
Yes, because that's what we really want, the Germans fingerprinting Roma and putting their details on a database. What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g187147-d719214-Reviews-Le_Petit_Prince_de_Paris-Paris_Ile_de_France.html
The one I recommend was commissioned by Henri II and built for the head gardener of Château-Neuf de Saint Germain en Laye.
It is now know as Le Pavillon Sully.
Good views, a fine dining room and a terraced garden in which to walk when enjoying a post-prandial Monte Criso No 2.
What more could a socialist want?
See here: http://bit.ly/1aBf8Xh [Click on the main picture for a slide show]
But then again noone may hhave a clue.
Got greens on the main 3 and the field so best to not tinker any more with the book.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBCs-dirty-little-secret-lands-it-in-a-new-scandal.html
Personally I am not a fan. I would rather the money was used to reduced the tax burden on individuals but I was simply pointing out the inconsistency in Robert's position as I see it.
The Norway Oil Fund owns 1% of all the shares in the world.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100253115/europe-has-stolen-the-rights-we-won-at-magna-carta-lets-fight-to-reclaim-them/
When did this happen?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25631561
He hasn't had much luck with World Cups
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/james-kirkup/10552381/What-must-Cameron-do-to-win.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25620824
I'm not sure what Tebbit is specifically talking about but the Commission has always had the power to issue Regulations, which are directly and immediately applicable in law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g187147-d895817-Reviews-L_estrapade-Paris_Ile_de_France.html
Had dinner in the Noël Coward suite once with my boss, while lodged in more modest accommodation in the hotel.
http://www.mandarinoriental.com/bangkok/accommodation/heritage-authors-suite/
Gnabry is no worse than Walcott IMO.. but cant rely on what we have left in the CF dept now, esp as Bendtner is inj
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ex-goldman-guru-jim-oneill-says-mints-are-new-brics-1431171
“Serious health issues have recently arisen in our family, and under the circumstances, I have decided to discontinue my campaign. My children and their futures were the motivation for our campaign and their health and well-being will always be my overriding priority,” Cheney said in a statement.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/liz-cheney-drops-out-of-wyoming-senate-race-citing-health-concerns-in-her-family/article/2541609
Disdaining the enemy’s firepower, he went elegantly over the top to launch his deadly question – how many Free Schools had been approved against official advice?
The answer: “None.” Bang, one leg taken off.
http://order-order.com/2014/01/06/sketch-play-up-play-up-and-play-the-game/
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
;-)
Consequently it is reasonable to assume that another Coalition could do severe internal damage to the Tory party if not see them ridding themselves of Cameron or even splitting in two?
Let's start with the obvious: SWFs typically exist in small countries where a natural resources boom would result in a hideously dysfunctional local economy if excess profits weren't squiralled away. Norway has has 5 million people in it, and is Europe's biggest oil producer - extracting about 2m barrels a day. If all the money from that was allowed to slosh around the local economy, it would be $200m / day for a population of 5 million - that's $40/day in oil revenues alone. It would result in an even more insanely strong currency, and it would result in pretty much all non-petroleum activities being hammered by the strength of the Krona. (This is the so-called Dutch Disease.)
My criticism of UKIP having a SWF policy is simply that it is an absurd aspiration which you would not even consider until the national debt was at a level below - say - 35% of GDP. Given we're not even going to balance the budget before 2020 (although I think this may be unduly pessimistic), this is a policy for 2035.
That it is one of the seven policies listed on the UKIP web page under 'policy forum' is a joke. And if the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives had it as one of their seven published policies, then you would be (correctly) ripping the piss. It is only because you are suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance that you even attempt to defend it.
The point is once you are signed up without having already negotiated any future changes in the deal to conclusion there is no guarantee that you would get satisfaction. How would a 'review' work? Who would be the arbitrator of the review? What happens if they just refuse any change but you are still tied into the original agreement?
Basically its best to get everything agreed up front if you can. Then everyone knows where they stand and there are no doubts. Particularly as it sounds to me that you are not 100% happy with the initial profit split?
I'd almost forgotten that was supposedly the reason for this site's existence.
Never mind, I'm sure 'Britain's most read Hotel blog' has a popular, albeit discrete, appeal.