politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The day of the husky?
Comments
-
We read the play at school, I still remember us being obsessed with "Hibbert's neuralgia"Foxy said:Off Topic:
I can highly recommend to PB film buffs the new version of Journeys End. The original play in 1928 was alongside All Quiet on the Western Front as a critique of the conduct of WW1, written by a veteran. It is important in understanding the antiwar movement of the Thirties, and why appeasement was a popular policy. Very powerfully acted and directed:
https://youtu.be/tLpyaLNfudY
0 -
The wish is father to the thought.williamglenn said:Adam Boulton thinks a second referendum could be on.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-mays-made-a-hash-of-brexit-and-now-the-door-is-open-to-a-second-referendum-g7vh7lj9d
He should have read David Herdson's piece on why the timing is so tight as to be practically impossible. (Even if there was the will by Corbyn to force the issue - which there isn't.) David's piece contains more political wisdom than Boulton can hope to muster.0 -
The very rich are getting richer much faster than the poor.0
-
Or Blair's discredit from your point of view, Brown did reverse itjustin124 said:
Indeed - and it is greatly to Labour's discredit that it failed to reverse the 1988 higher rate tax cut.HYUFD said:
Over the course of the Thatcher years the top rate of income tax fell from 83% in 1979 to 40% by the time she left office in 1990justin124 said:
But Thatcher had a 60% top rate until 1988.HYUFD said:
Corbyn's proposed 50% top income tax rate is not Blairitestevef said:
Corbyn should have the guts to draw up a Corbynista manifesto in 2022, and not hide behind Blairite tax pledges and slogans.HYUFD said:
Like the 1983 manifesto Corbyn will also be committed to keeping the UK out of the EU/EEC too.The_Taxman said:I tend to agree that politics has ground to a halt.
The puzzling thing is how left wing Labour are at the moment and still doing alright in the polls. I think a lot of people like me forget that for Labour, the party platform has to take on policies in obscure subject areas to follow through the political narrative they wish to paint. It is ideologically driven and so the pacifism of the left is not just confined to defence policy but encompasses banning the sales of weapons, ammunition and military vehicles. Some of these ideas tend to be repellent to more centrist free minded voters or Tories.
I do wonder if Corbyn will produce a manifesto in 2022 like the 1983 version, though much derided by opponents. Corbyn could claim after all that the electorate were enthused by his previous offering in 2017 and a more left wing manifesto might engender real change. The UK has elected left-wing governments in the past in 1945, 1950 and 1974, so without a split on the left it is a possibility of it happening again.
Of course in 1950 and October 1974 Labour only won with tiny majorities of 5 and 3 respectively.0 -
as one ofothe 1%, I have seen my own taxes up recently.RobD said:
But the graph in the Telegraph shows a constant rise in the share paid for by the 1%. That cannot be explained by inequality, since it has been decreasing for the past decade.Foxy said:
It is recently, but still up on the Seventies.RobD said:
Except inequality is going down:Foxy said:
Isn't that because the 1% are much wealthier hence paying more tax? just a reflection of increased inequality?John_M said:
Hold your nose and read this Telegraph article.DecrepitJohnL said:
Are there figures on this mobility? A genuine question because the top rate has been up and down a bit over the past decade so has anyone bothered to count how many top payers emigrated and came back?MarqueeMark said:
Labour are going to be surprised at just how mobile the richest 5% of taxpayers are..... Then it will be down to the 95% to make up the shortfall. Broken pledge right there.stevef said:Never mind hamsters rights Mr Corbyn -although I am very much in favour of hamsters rights.
Its time for Corbyn to stop treating voters on the tax issue as if they are as dumb as hamsters.
Corbyn has a long shopping list of spending plans. He wants to roll back spending to the days before Thatcher.
Yet at the election he
Pre Thatcher spending at Post Thatcher tax rates.
Who does Mr Corbyn think he is fooling?
Instead of posing and preening as a red blooded socialist, he should put his mouth where his money is and stop hiding behind Blairite promises on tax.
He wants the NHS to be properly funded, he wants good social care, a pay rise for all public sector workers, nationalisation of public utilities, a national education service, an end to tuition fees, more spending on welfare..................................That will cost a lot.
This cannot be paid for by 95% paying no extra income tax or NI, and the rich and companies paying less than under Thatcher.
Time for Corbyn and McDonnell to be honest on tax. If you want to turn back the clock to before Thatcher on spending, you have to turn back the clock on taxes too.
Anything else is a lie.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/tax-burden-wealthy-has-trebled-since-1970s-telegraph-analysis/
The pips have not yet squeaked.
https://goo.gl/yvBRDJ
Worth noting though that in the daysdof the 83% rate, there were lots of generous allowances. There has been a big shift to indirect taxes over the years.0 -
For a month!HYUFD said:
Or Blair's discredit from your point of view, Brown did reverse itjustin124 said:
Indeed - and it is greatly to Labour's discredit that it failed to reverse the 1988 higher rate tax cut.HYUFD said:
Over the course of the Thatcher years the top rate of income tax fell from 83% in 1979 to 40% by the time she left office in 1990justin124 said:
But Thatcher had a 60% top rate until 1988.HYUFD said:
Corbyn's proposed 50% top income tax rate is not Blairitestevef said:
Corbyn should have the guts to draw up a Corbynista manifesto in 2022, and not hide behind Blairite tax pledges and slogans.HYUFD said:
Like the 1983 manifesto Corbyn will also be committed to keeping the UK out of the EU/EEC too.The_Taxman said:I tend to agree that politics has ground to a halt.
The puzzling thing is how left wing Labour are at the moment and still doing alright in the polls. I think a lot of people like me forget that for Labour, the party platform has to take on policies in obscure subject areas to follow through the political narrative they wish to paint. It is ideologically driven and so the pacifism of the left is not just confined to defence policy but encompasses banning the sales of weapons, ammunition and military vehicles. Some of these ideas tend to be repellent to more centrist free minded voters or Tories.
I do wonder if Corbyn will produce a manifesto in 2022 like the 1983 version, though much derided by opponents. Corbyn could claim after all that the electorate were enthused by his previous offering in 2017 and a more left wing manifesto might engender real change. The UK has elected left-wing governments in the past in 1945, 1950 and 1974, so without a split on the left it is a possibility of it happening again.
Of course in 1950 and October 1974 Labour only won with tiny majorities of 5 and 3 respectively.0 -
Whereas the line showing the % of income "earned" by the 1% does show increasing inequality.RobD said:
But the graph in the Telegraph shows a constant rise in the share paid for by the 1%. That cannot be explained by inequality, since it has been decreasing for the past decade.Foxy said:
It is recently, but still up on the Seventies.RobD said:
Except inequality is going down:Foxy said:
Isn't that because the 1% are much wealthier hence paying more tax? just a reflection of increased inequality?John_M said:
Hold your nose and read this Telegraph article.DecrepitJohnL said:
Are there figures on this mobility? A genuine question because the top rate has been up and down a bit over the past decade so has anyone bothered to count how many top payers emigrated and came back?MarqueeMark said:
Labour are going to be surprised at just how mobile the richest 5% of taxpayers are..... Then it will be down to the 95% to make up the shortfall. Broken pledge right there.stevef said:Never mind hamsters rights Mr Corbyn -although I am very much in favour of hamsters rights.
Its time for Corbyn to stop treating voters on the tax issue as if they are as dumb as hamsters.
Corbyn has a long shopping list of spending plans. He wants to roll back spending to the days before Thatcher.
Yet at the election he claims this can be done with 95% of the population paying no more income tax or NI, with the top rate of income tax up only to Gordon Brown 2010 levels, lower than under Thatcher, and with Corporation Tax only at the level under Gordon Brown.
Pre Thatcher spending at Post Thatcher tax rates.
Who does Mr Corbyn think he is fooling?
Instead of posing and preening as a red blooded socialist, he should put his mouth where his money is and stop hiding behind Blairite promises on tax.
He wants the NHS to be properly funded, he wants good social care, a pay rise for all public sector workers, nationalisation of public utilities, a national education service, an end to tuition fees, more spending on welfare..................................That will cost a lot.
This cannot be paid for by 95% paying no extra income tax or NI, and the rich and companies paying less than under Thatcher.
Time for Corbyn and McDonnell to be honest on tax. If you want to turn back the clock to before Thatcher on spending, you have to turn back the clock on taxes too.
Anything else is a lie.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/tax-burden-wealthy-has-trebled-since-1970s-telegraph-analysis/
The pips have not yet squeaked.
https://goo.gl/yvBRDJ0 -
He's a caricature, he'll accuse you of being Corbynista bullies trying to silence him next.williamglenn said:
Steve is supposedly a Blairite ultra-Brexiteer who hates Corbyn. I have my doubts he's a real person.NickPalmer said:
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?stevef said:Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.0 -
I have him on ignore.NickPalmer said:
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?stevef said:Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.0 -
R C Sherriff also wrote the screenplays for (amongst many others) The Invisible Man, The Four Feathers, Goodbye Mister Chips - and The Dambusters.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We read the play at school, I still remember us being obsessed with "Hibbert's neuralgia"Foxy said:Off Topic:
I can highly recommend to PB film buffs the new version of Journeys End. The original play in 1928 was alongside All Quiet on the Western Front as a critique of the conduct of WW1, written by a veteran. It is important in understanding the antiwar movement of the Thirties, and why appeasement was a popular policy. Very powerfully acted and directed:
https://youtu.be/tLpyaLNfudY
He was quite a dashing looking chap:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/R._C._Sherriff.jpg0 -
Brown did not retore the higher rate to 60%!HYUFD said:
Or Blair's discredit from your point of view, Brown did reverse itjustin124 said:
Indeed - and it is greatly to Labour's discredit that it failed to reverse the 1988 higher rate tax cut.HYUFD said:
Over the course of the Thatcher years the top rate of income tax fell from 83% in 1979 to 40% by the time she left office in 1990justin124 said:
But Thatcher had a 60% top rate until 1988.HYUFD said:
Corbyn's proposed 50% top income tax rate is not Blairitestevef said:
Corbyn should have the guts to draw up a Corbynista manifesto in 2022, and not hide behind Blairite tax pledges and slogans.HYUFD said:
Like the 1983 manifesto Corbyn will also be committed to keeping the UK out of the EU/EEC too.The_Taxman said:I tend to agree that politics has ground to a halt.
The puzzling thing is how left wing Labour are at the moment and still doing alright in the polls. I think a lot of people like me forget that for Labour, the party platform has to take on policies in obscure subject areas to follow through the political narrative they wish to paint. It is ideologically driven and so the pacifism of the left is not just confined to defence policy but encompasses banning the sales of weapons, ammunition and military vehicles. Some of these ideas tend to be repellent to more centrist free minded voters or Tories.
I do wonder if Corbyn will produce a manifesto in 2022 like the 1983 version, though much derided by opponents. Corbyn could claim after all that the electorate were enthused by his previous offering in 2017 and a more left wing manifesto might engender real change. The UK has elected left-wing governments in the past in 1945, 1950 and 1974, so without a split on the left it is a possibility of it happening again.
Of course in 1950 and October 1974 Labour only won with tiny majorities of 5 and 3 respectively.0 -
Mr. Freggles, such divergence increases inequality, but poverty may decline at the same time. Poverty matters more.0
-
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.0 -
+1NickPalmer said:
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?stevef said:Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.0 -
Well, put it another way: the OBR think we at least six years more until a surplus. On Wednesday it will look rather more like two or three...SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.0 -
Closed mind, poor politics.bigjohnowls said:
I have him on ignore.NickPalmer said:
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?stevef said:Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.0 -
I am not an economist, but from my POV, I have yet to see a proposal from any main party that would fix it.SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.0 -
You Corbynistas dont like criticism of Corbyn -we all know that. He is the Messiah. Corbynistas like to bully on the internet to silence critics, but they arent going to bully me. This is a political website and Corbyn is supposedly Leader of the Opposition. People are entitled to raise legitimate questions about a political leader in the same way as people are entitled to criticise May, Johnson and Brexit.Barnesian said:
+1NickPalmer said:
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?stevef said:Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
Now where was I?
Yes how is Corbyn going to pay for his spending? Do you have any answers?0 -
Pretty sure Barnesian is a Liberal.stevef said:
You Corbynistas dont like criticism of Corbyn -we all know that.Barnesian said:
+1NickPalmer said:
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?stevef said:Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
0 -
Haha stevef, you boring prannet.0
-
Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...0 -
I know* hookers who don't go down as easy or as often as Dele Alli.
*I don't really.0 -
If we add "helping people with vets bills" to Corbyn's already long spending programme, how is is Corbyn going to pay for it without putting up tax for ordinary people?
Perhaps Corbynistas instead of behaving in their usual "Corbyn is King and we mustn't criticise him in any way" sterotype, can explain?
You're gonna have to explain sometime.
0 -
For a lifelong Labour voter he sure ain't keen on anyone in Labour...TheJezziah said:Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...0 -
You are Corbynista bullies trying to silence me. LOLTheJezziah said:
He's a caricature, he'll accuse you of being Corbynista bullies trying to silence him next.williamglenn said:
Steve is supposedly a Blairite ultra-Brexiteer who hates Corbyn. I have my doubts he's a real person.NickPalmer said:
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?stevef said:Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.0 -
Dr. Foxy, lots of long term Labour supporters aren't delighted with the current leadership.0
-
Cheats never prosper. Delighted for Rochdale.TheScreamingEagles said:I know* hookers who don't go down as easy or as often as Dele Alli.
*I don't really.0 -
What are Spurs doing?0
-
Yeah but we didnt support the IRA bombing campaign or threaten to lynch a female politician.TheJezziah said:Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...0 -
I think Corbynistas think I should be lynched for daring to criticise Jeremy Corbyn.
Nevertheless the questions about Corbyn will keep coming........
0 -
He has his own unique vision for what true Labour is and condemns all those who don't conform, in this way he's worse than some of the more zealous Corbynistas.Foxy said:
For a lifelong Labour voter he sure ain't keen on anyone in Labour...TheJezziah said:Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...0 -
Perhaps I should be lynched.TheJezziah said:
He has his own unique vision for what true Labour is and condemns all those who don't conform, in this way he's worse than some of the more zealous Corbynistas.Foxy said:
For a lifelong Labour voter he sure ain't keen on anyone in Labour...TheJezziah said:Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...0 -
SeanT definitely does though....TheScreamingEagles said:I know* hookers who don't go down as easy or as often as Dele Alli.
*I don't really.0 -
You are too hard on him. Pointing out that Corbyn is a complete and utter horp is like cunnilingus - dark and lonely work, but someone's got to do it.TheJezziah said:Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...
As for the threader, a one-word response: Blondi.0 -
Corbynistas: the more you tell lies about us, the more we will tell the truth about you.0 -
Aww, poor dog, not his fault his master was a nutter. Along the lines of what I hinted in my post though. To some people even more than the environmentalism is the perception as someone kind to animals, it would probably help colour my view a bit.Ishmael_Z said:
As for the threader, a one-word response: Blondi.TheJezziah said:Right on cue... you are all Corbynista's bullying him to try and silence him... exactly like I said.
I promise stevef isn't some account run by me to make Corbyn critics look bad...0 -
Not these days.....maybe.FrancisUrquhart said:
SeanT definitely does though....TheScreamingEagles said:I know* hookers who don't go down as easy or as often as Dele Alli.
*I don't really.0 -
Maybe the Czechs have the answers....?stevef said:
I think Corbynistas think I should be lynched for daring to criticise Jeremy Corbyn.
Nevertheless the questions about Corbyn will keep coming........0 -
Dont be so hard on yourselfJosiasJessop said:
Closed mind, poor politics.bigjohnowls said:
I have him on ignore.NickPalmer said:
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?stevef said:Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.0 -
My opinion of Anna Soubry, MP has just gone up tenfold.0
-
You are Billericay Dickie - and I claim my folding picture of the Queen....JWisemann said:Haha stevef, you boring prannet.
0 -
I was actually referring to BJO ignoring you, and not your fine self.stevef said:
Dont be so hard on yourselfJosiasJessop said:
Closed mind, poor politics.bigjohnowls said:
I have him on ignore.NickPalmer said:
Is there any subject on the planet that we can have a thread about which doesn't lead you to harangue us about Corbyn? I mean, I like him, and I think he'd be a good PM, but I don't see the point of saying so on every thread. You've an absolute right to the opposite view, but the same applies. Diminishing returns and all that?stevef said:Corbynistas don't want to talk about tax except to tell us that no one except those wearing top hats, pantomime capes, and gold watches will pay more.
They want to talk about kittens and hamsters instead...............
Eventually, Corbyn and his pigs from Animal Farm are going to have to explain how you pay for pre Thatcher state spending with post Thatcher levels of taxation.
I'm willing to pay more income tax, why isnt Corbyn willing to admit that he will put it up to pay for those great socialist projects?
The People are entitled to know.
0 -
I've just been on her Twitter, and she has a picture of Bennerley Viaduct at the top of her page. She must be a top woman to have that engineering masterpiece in such a prominent position.RoyalBlue said:
Why? She’s now openly calling for a second referendum despite being elected on a manifesto to implement Brexit.stevef said:My opinion of Anna Soubry, MP has just gone up tenfold.
0 -
(I think it was @HYUFD, but I could be wrong.)viewcode said:EYECATCHER SO I CAN FIND THIS LATER
@YBarddCwsc, @Sandpit, you make bloody good points on the previous thread, but I don't know the solution.
Over the past five years my freelance jobs have taken a rather weird step regarding predictions and their measurement, and I have the scars on my back to tell you that models used to predict future events are rarely assessed by modellers for accuracy against the actual outcome[1], and that non-modelling-based predictions are discarded and forgotten as soon as the event occurs, with the predictor cherry-picking the correct ones to burnish his rep (Roger Bootle is a case in point, although he only stands out because Capital Economics made such an arse of predicting house prices in the Noughties: I think all predictors do this and it's not fair to single out him).
We only spot the weirdness because opinion-poll data is easily available. But in most other cases it is not. For example, tell me what Deutsche Bank predictions were in 2004 for the pound in 2005? Pantheon Macroeconomic's predictions for growth in 2014? Moody Analytics's predictions in December 2015 of the 2016 POTUS election? Ladbroke's odds on April 1st on a Conservative victory in March? This stuff is subscription only or listed on dynamic websites that change from moment-to-moment and is ('scuse my French) fucking difficult to capture.
Somebody on here (it might be @Philip_Thompson, but my memory is poor) insists that betting odds on Reagan and Bush the Elder being nominated as GOP Potus candidate were good predictors of the outcome. But I need sources to believe that and he does not provide them (he may be working from memory), which leaves me tearing my hair out in frustration.
Have you read Superforecasting?
It's excellent and well worth a read.0 -
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.0 -
There are some votes to be won.Richard_Tyndall said:Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
Indeed it might be that "radical centre" to which someone asked: is that not a contradiction in terms?
Things like plastic bag levies, bottle deposit schemes - and work on electric cars as well as the electricity that powers them. Not in truth left/right issues - even if the far left has historically found an angle to exploit green issues for statist gain.0 -
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.0 -
It wasn't me.rcs1000 said:
(I think it was @HYUFD, but I could be wrong.)viewcode said:EYECATCHER SO I CAN FIND THIS LATER
@YBarddCwsc, @Sandpit, you make bloody good points on the previous thread, but I don't know the solution.
Over the past five years my freelance jobs have taken a rather weird step regarding predictions and their measurement, and I have the scars on my back to tell you that models used to predict future events are rarely assessed by modellers for accuracy against the actual outcome[1], and that non-modelling-based predictions are discarded and forgotten as soon as the event occurs, with the predictor cherry-picking the correct ones to burnish his rep (Roger Bootle is a case in point, although he only stands out because Capital Economics made such an arse of predicting house prices in the Noughties: I think all predictors do this and it's not fair to single out him).
We only spot the weirdness because opinion-poll data is easily available. But in most other cases it is not. For example, tell me what Deutsche Bank predictions were in 2004 for the pound in 2005? Pantheon Macroeconomic's predictions for growth in 2014? Moody Analytics's predictions in December 2015 of the 2016 POTUS election? Ladbroke's odds on April 1st on a Conservative victory in March? This stuff is subscription only or listed on dynamic websites that change from moment-to-moment and is ('scuse my French) fucking difficult to capture.
Somebody on here (it might be @Philip_Thompson, but my memory is poor) insists that betting odds on Reagan and Bush the Elder being nominated as GOP Potus candidate were good predictors of the outcome. But I need sources to believe that and he does not provide them (he may be working from memory), which leaves me tearing my hair out in frustration.
Have you read Superforecasting?
It's excellent and well worth a read.0 -
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.0 -
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.Richard_Tyndall said:Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.0 -
Controversial opinion, but perhaps they are the best.SandyRentool said:
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
Of course the NHS stands out: a deeply flawed institution, but one that now handles exponentially more patients, more visits, more drugs and longer life expectancies than ever before.0 -
I used to go to school near the Giltbrook Viaduct - the Forty Bridges. Sadly had to be demolished to upgrade the A610.JosiasJessop said:
I've just been on her Twitter, and she has a picture of Bennerley Viaduct at the top of her page. She must be a top woman to have that engineering masterpiece in such a prominent position.RoyalBlue said:
Why? She’s now openly calling for a second referendum despite being elected on a manifesto to implement Brexit.stevef said:My opinion of Anna Soubry, MP has just gone up tenfold.
0 -
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.SandyRentool said:
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.0 -
I a sure my discussion with Sandy will give you the opportunity to return to our traditional sparringRecidivist said:
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.Richard_Tyndall said:Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings. 0 -
Day of the husky (voice)?stevef said:My opinion of Anna Soubry, MP has just gone up tenfold.
0 -
Every society in human history that has consumed wealth faster than creating it has fallen. Every single one. No exceptions. This cannot go on.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.0 -
There is, however, plenty of money that currently isn't available because it is salted away by the super wealthy in their offshore tax havens. Mine this rich seam and we could have 10 in a class in every school, single hospital rooms for every patient and free social care for all.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.SandyRentool said:
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.0 -
Bad news for Trump opponents: his approval rating is now as high as 41.4%, not far below the 46% he got at the election.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/0 -
As Brexit has so far gone pretty much as I expected it to go, I don't blame Theresa May for it going badly. If anything she is getting to delay the inevitable.The_Taxman said:
Well, Bolton is correct that the PM has made a mess of negotiating Brexit. I don't think many people in opinion polls rate her so far in her efforts to get a deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Boulton, the Sky presenter whose every interview is anti Brexit and cannot even attempt to be even handed. Ably supported by Faisal Islamwilliamglenn said:Adam Boulton thinks a second referendum could be on.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-mays-made-a-hash-of-brexit-and-now-the-door-is-open-to-a-second-referendum-g7vh7lj9d
Not going to happen
My thoughts beyond Brexit is do we really want someone so useless representing our interests in any other trade deals assuming the UK can get anywhere in trying to initiate them?
Personally, I don't think another referendum is a good idea as they get hijacked by issues only tangentially connected to the main question. I also think they are too divisive and spread hatred in those people that are less civilised. However, some people might be wanting a second referendum to settle this question once and for all.
Far from taking back control we seem to have NO control at all.0 -
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
0 -
I'm amazed that there are 41 Americans who still approve of Trump never mind 41% of the electorate.AndyJS said:Bad news for Trump opponents: his approval rating is now as high as 41.4%, not far below the 46% he got at the election.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
0 -
Though the lowest share of the vote any re elected US President has got in the last 50 years was the 49.2% Bill Clinton got in 1996AndyJS said:Bad news for Trump opponents: his approval rating is now as high as 41.4%, not far below the 46% he got at the election.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/0 -
It leads to some grim thoughts, but like others I have to agree.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.0 -
We must be the nation's favourite team the way we wish to share the joy of playing at Wembley with so many lower league teams.... AFC Wimbledon, Newport and now Rochdale.Charles said:What are Spurs doing?
There's no replays in the QF so we won't be able to offer that service to Sheffield sadly (if they beat Swansea)0 -
If you doubled the wages of all civil servants you would have more expensive public services but not necessarily better.SandyRentool said:
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
So long as one side of the debate is focus on inputs rather than outputs it’s difficult to have a pragmatic conversation0 -
You mean he's polling at a level where he would lose in a crushing landslide?AndyJS said:Bad news for Trump opponents: his approval rating is now as high as 41.4%, not far below the 46% he got at the election.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/0 -
I agree. Perhaps we could come up with a convenient term for those who salt money away off shore to avoid their obligations to society. I know! How about “citizens of nowhere”SandyRentool said:
There is, however, plenty of money that currently isn't available because it is salted away by the super wealthy in their offshore tax havens. Mine this rich seam and we could have 10 in a class in every school, single hospital rooms for every patient and free social care for all.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.SandyRentool said:
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.0 -
He is polling at the level Bob Dole got in 1996 when he got 159 EC votes to Clinton's 379 and Dole had Perot to contend with as well as Bill ClintonAlistair said:
You mean he's polling at a level where he would lose in a crushing landslide?AndyJS said:Bad news for Trump opponents: his approval rating is now as high as 41.4%, not far below the 46% he got at the election.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/0 -
Agree, he genuinely appears to want to confuse right thing wherever he goes. Given he also delivers successful outcomes, he's pretty unique amongst modern politicians.Recidivist said:
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.Richard_Tyndall said:Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
He'd probably be a brilliant PM, the best candidate of any of the current lot in parliament of any party, based upon his abilities to make things happen.
We do live in strange times. It could happen.
0 -
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
0 -
Come on Charles this isn't fair - disagreeing with one of my posts and then agreeing with the next!Charles said:
I agree. Perhaps we could come up with a convenient term for those who salt money away off shore to avoid their obligations to society. I know! How about “citizens of nowhere”SandyRentool said:
There is, however, plenty of money that currently isn't available because it is salted away by the super wealthy in their offshore tax havens. Mine this rich seam and we could have 10 in a class in every school, single hospital rooms for every patient and free social care for all.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.SandyRentool said:
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.
0 -
Fair and balanced, inn’tSandyRentool said:
Come on Charles this isn't fair - disagreeing with one of my posts and then agreeing with the next!Charles said:
I agree. Perhaps we could come up with a convenient term for those who salt money away off shore to avoid their obligations to society. I know! How about “citizens of nowhere”SandyRentool said:
There is, however, plenty of money that currently isn't available because it is salted away by the super wealthy in their offshore tax havens. Mine this rich seam and we could have 10 in a class in every school, single hospital rooms for every patient and free social care for all.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.SandyRentool said:
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.0 -
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.0 -
The corporation tax rise takes in 13 billion (maybe).MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
That is petty cash when you consider an extra 30 billion a year is needed for the NHS aand Social Care alone, and of course another 8 billion or so to scap tuition fees and hand large sums to the wealthy students0 -
Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brains-for-brexit-top-academics-and-thinkers-put-the-case-for-leave-d7pzdhb2s
0 -
+1CarlottaVance said:Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brains-for-brexit-top-academics-and-thinkers-put-the-case-for-leave-d7pzdhb2s0 -
We probably do have the best health and education services we've ever had. Perhaps criminal justice, too.SandyRentool said:
As a society we've never been wealthier. Therefore is it really too much to ask to expect the best public services we have ever had?Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)SandyRentool said:
We've got low unemployment, low inflation and sustained economic growth and yet we still have to borrow tens of billions each year to make ends meet. The current economic system is broken.TheWhiteRabbit said:Big day for the public finances on Wednesday. The ONS will report on government borrowing in January, which is the month with the biggest tax receipts - and frequently a surplus, even where the year as a whole has a substantial deficit.
The state of play is a cutting of the deficit of £6.6 billion to £50.0 billion in the 9 months of the fiscal year so far. The OBR not so long ago thought we would see borrowing rise by an increase of £3.9 billion across the year - so if we tread even on Wednesday, they could be £10bn wrong.
If things go right for the government in the next three months, it is not unreasonably to think we could hit the £37-38bn mark, which was in fact, exactly what the OBR originally forecasted two years ago.0 -
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.0 -
And goodbye to electionIshmael_Z said:
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.0 -
Yes, there is that.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And goodbye to electionIshmael_Z said:
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.0 -
Ah, Nigel 'the case for colonialism' Biggar. Not sure if that'll do much to support the Brexity crie de coeur that Empire nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Afore ye know it they'll be getting the other Nigel on board to prove Brexit isn't about immigration, xenophobia and racism.CarlottaVance said:Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brains-for-brexit-top-academics-and-thinkers-put-the-case-for-leave-d7pzdhb2s0 -
You think 41% is a long way from 46% in mid-term? Its a 90% retention rate.Alistair said:
You mean he's polling at a level where he would lose in a crushing landslide?AndyJS said:Bad news for Trump opponents: his approval rating is now as high as 41.4%, not far below the 46% he got at the election.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/0 -
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.Ishmael_Z said:
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/timeseries/gmbb/ott
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.0 -
You'll be pleased to know he thinks that Scotland would probably continue to be a democracy without Westminster's guiding hand.Theuniondivvie said:
Ah, Nigel 'the case for colonialism' Biggar. Not sure if that'll do much to support the Brexity crie de coeur that Empire nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Afore ye know it they'll be getting the other Nigel on board to prove Brexit isn't about immigration, xenophobia and racism.CarlottaVance said:Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brains-for-brexit-top-academics-and-thinkers-put-the-case-for-leave-d7pzdhb2s
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/uk-as-a-national-state/
Of course, if Scotland or Wales were to secede from the Union, or if Northern Ireland were to be absorbed into its southern neighbour, they would most probably continue to maintain the liberal democratic political institutions and customs that the British had developed together.0 -
Even Jed Bartlett was sub-40% in his first term....AndyJS said:
You think 41% is a long way from 46% in mid-term? Its a 90% retention rate.Alistair said:
You mean he's polling at a level where he would lose in a crushing landslide?AndyJS said:Bad news for Trump opponents: his approval rating is now as high as 41.4%, not far below the 46% he got at the election.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/0 -
Actually Antarctic ice fell to an all time low in 2017 reversing a couple of decades of increase in a single year. The reasons are not clear.hunchman said:
Never mind that we've had global cooling over the past few years, record snow amounts in lots of places in the Northern Hemisphere over the past winter and many cold records broken. Antarctic ice at record extents since measurements began (funny how we don't hear about that!). Arctic ice recovering significantly since 2012 - according to Al Gore it was all going to be gone by now - oh dear! And we should have a good blast of the beast from the east in place by next weekend.Metatron said:And climate sceptics are being left homeless.....come back UKIP the only party who have questioned whether the whole `man made global warming` is a scam.
An enlightened government would be preparing the population for the oncoming grand solar minimum in 2024 and mini ice age conditions to come, which are going to threaten global food supplies. There's as much chance of this happening under any government in the UK as Barnet winning the premiership by 2030.
Follow the money and see that our current government collects in the order of £45,000 million from CO2 based taxes, on a completely false prospectus. What a crazy world we live in.0 -
Another goodbye election moment, too.another_richard said:
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.Ishmael_Z said:
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because the State is trying to do too much with a finite amount of money. We can no longer live within our means as a country and so the only way to make it work is to borrow. It is not the economic system that is broken, it is the political and social system. And nothing we can do will fix the economics until we understand we cannot have all this free stuff provided by the state for no cost. (A cost that in reality most are rightly unwilling to pay)
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/timeseries/gmbb/ott
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.
Foreign holidays now seen as almost a basic British right...0 -
Unpopular as it may seem if people can afford to spend that much on foreign holidays they can instead afford to spend more on health and education and social care for their elderly relatives, whether through tax or directly.another_richard said:
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.Ishmael_Z said:
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/timeseries/gmbb/ott
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.
But suggesting it seems to be the equivalent of proposing the slaughter of the first born.
People want to have low taxation, excellent public services and to spend all their free money on goodies for themselves rather than take - at a time when, even after the financial crisis, we are richer than our parents and grandparents - some more financial responsibility for their own lives.
Neither the Tories nor Labour nor the Lib Dems are willing to point this out to the public. All of them compete to pretend that the public can have more for less or something for nothing or that there is a group of rich people over there to pay for everything. They may as well point towards the end of the next rainbow.
Also @stodge's post down thread is excellent.0 -
People don't want it pointed out to them.Cyclefree said:
Unpopular as it may seem if people can afford to spend that much on foreign holidays they can instead afford to spend more on health and education and social care for their elderly relatives, whether through tax or directly.another_richard said:
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.Ishmael_Z said:
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/timeseries/gmbb/ott
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.
But suggesting it seems to be the equivalent of proposing the slaughter of the first born.
People want to have low taxation, excellent public services and to spend all their free money on goodies for themselves rather than take - at a time when, even after the financial crisis, we are richer than our parents and grandparents - some more financial responsibility for their own lives.
Neither the Tories nor Labour nor the Lib Dems are willing to point this out to the public. All of them compete to pretend that the public can have more for less or something for nothing or that there is a group of rich people over there to pay for everything. They may as well point towards the end of the next rainbow.
Also @stodge's post down thread is excellent.0 -
What has Gove made happen?saddo said:
Agree, he genuinely appears to want to confuse right thing wherever he goes. Given he also delivers successful outcomes, he's pretty unique amongst modern politicians.Recidivist said:
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.Richard_Tyndall said:Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
He'd probably be a brilliant PM, the best candidate of any of the current lot in parliament of any party, based upon his abilities to make things happen.
We do live in strange times. It could happen.0 -
Comforting that we can depend on our Britishness to save us from the regressive brutishness that bubbles in our Celtic hearts.williamglenn said:
You'll be pleased to know he thinks that Scotland would probably continue to be a democracy without Westminster's guiding hand.Theuniondivvie said:
Ah, Nigel 'the case for colonialism' Biggar. Not sure if that'll do much to support the Brexity crie de coeur that Empire nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Afore ye know it they'll be getting the other Nigel on board to prove Brexit isn't about immigration, xenophobia and racism.CarlottaVance said:Brexit supporters are overeducated toffs who dream of ruling the waves and biffing Johnny Foreigner. Or they are racist proles too dim to see through the lies of the Brexit campaign. Either way, they have one thing in common — they are all, every one of them, as thick as the slowest-witted plant in your garden.
That link between low IQ and a Brexit vote is now an entrenched ideology among many, if not most, remainers. You hear it at dinner parties, you see it on television, you read it in frothing newspaper columns and you can detect it in the fear of professional or private exposure among many “leave” voters.
But, from today, Brexiteers can come out of the closet and hold their heads high. They will know that they have the support of Nigel Biggar, professor of theology at Oxford; Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6; David Abulafia, professor of history at Cambridge; and Sir Noel Malcolm of All Souls, Oxford. In fact, they will have the support of 37 of the brightest people — both from the left and the right — in the land. And soon there will be many more of them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brains-for-brexit-top-academics-and-thinkers-put-the-case-for-leave-d7pzdhb2s
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/uk-as-a-national-state/
Of course, if Scotland or Wales were to secede from the Union, or if Northern Ireland were to be absorbed into its southern neighbour, they would most probably continue to maintain the liberal democratic political institutions and customs that the British had developed together.0 -
He ended Boris's bid to be PM. For that alone he deserves beatification.FF43 said:
What has Gove made happen?saddo said:
Agree, he genuinely appears to want to confuse right thing wherever he goes. Given he also delivers successful outcomes, he's pretty unique amongst modern politicians.Recidivist said:
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.Richard_Tyndall said:Whilst I agree with the general thrust of Nick's header piece, I would say that I think he is seriously misjudging Gove if he think this is just being done for party political reasons.
As at Justice, Give seems to have come in with the aim of genuinely trying to understand the issues associated with his brief and trying to deal with some of those in a non party political manner. I still don't think there are (unfortunately) many votes to be won from soil depletion or insecticide controls. Just as there weren't many to be won - and potentially were quite a few to be lost - from prison reform and moving from punishment to rehabilitation.
But Gove has taken on these issues because he seems to have an old fashioned notion that ministers should actually try to run the country and deal with issues rather than just looking for the political gain from their postings.
He'd probably be a brilliant PM, the best candidate of any of the current lot in parliament of any party, based upon his abilities to make things happen.
We do live in strange times. It could happen.0 -
How much of the financial problems of the public services in particular and country as a whole is that the extra wealth created gets 'eaten up' by extra costs:
' When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £15 billion at today’s value). For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion. '
https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx
As Corelli Barnett writes in https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Victory-British-Dreams-Realities/dp/0330346393/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518988997&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=corelli+barnett+the+lost+victory :
' " Any expansion in one part of the National Health Service must in future be met by economies or, if necessary, by contraction in others. " Budget statement by the Labour Chancellor, Stafford Cripps, in March 1950, limiting expenditure on the NHS in 1950-51 to a total three times higher than Bevan's original estimate of the annual cost. '0 -
Indeed. Well they can stop bloody complaining then. People spend, spend, spend on all sorts of luxuries and moan when asked to contribute to the essentials. The sense of entitlement amongst all groups is, frankly, mind-boggling.Sean_F said:
People don't want it pointed out to them.Cyclefree said:
Unpopular as it may seem if people can afford to spend that much on foreign holidays they can instead afford to spend more on health and education and social care for their elderly relatives, whether through tax or directly.another_richard said:
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.Ishmael_Z said:
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/timeseries/gmbb/ott
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.
But suggesting it seems to be the equivalent of proposing the slaughter of the first born.
People want to have low taxation, excellent public services and to spend all their free money on goodies for themselves rather than take - at a time when, even after the financial crisis, we are richer than our parents and grandparents - some more financial responsibility for their own lives.
Neither the Tories nor Labour nor the Lib Dems are willing to point this out to the public. All of them compete to pretend that the public can have more for less or something for nothing or that there is a group of rich people over there to pay for everything. They may as well point towards the end of the next rainbow.
Also @stodge's post down thread is excellent.
0 -
We seem to have given ourselves the right to a permanent tourism deficit to go with our permanent trade deficit.Mortimer said:
Another goodbye election moment, too.another_richard said:
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.Ishmael_Z said:
Assume £100 pw unvatted groceries for 40 m people, 20% vat on that gets you 40 bn p.a.. Abolish the aid budget on top of that and you're over half way, and that's before we get onto children's clothes.MarqueeMark said:
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.Foxy said:
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:stodge said:
It's not a difficult case to argue and I'm sure many would agree with your argument.
The problem comes with the solution(s) - one would be tax increases on a considerable scale. Returning to say 30p in the £ basic rate tax and at the same point ruthlessly clamping down on loopholes and avoidance would seem one possibility.
Another would be to ask serious questions about what the State should be doing and whether it needs to do everything it does and whether there are alternative models of service delivery out there for education, social care, refuse collection and the like. Encouraging a far greater individual and collective sense of fiscal self-responsibility would seem the right path but that change in economic culture would have to be backed by appropriate and well-judged portions of carrot and stick to get people thinking about their long-term financial futures and perhaps thinking more about the services they want and use.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/964924676924497920
Ultimately, via tax or direct expenditure, the money has to come from Britons pockets, and the nature of these things is that those most in need cannot pay directly as they are poor and/or old.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/timeseries/gmbb/ott
A 100% tax on that expenditure would bring in quite a bit, be progressive and reduce the balance of payments deficit.
Foreign holidays now seen as almost a basic British right...0
