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.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
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.
£2,500 for each of say 40 million taxpayers. That's a lot of VAT exemptions to abolish to get to £100 billion.
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.
That would be £13 per day of food which seems very high to me.
One area where there is £40bn being spent is overseas holidays:
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.
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.
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.
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.
What has Gove made happen?
He ended Boris's bid to be PM. For that alone he deserves beatification.
Didn't stick the dagger in quite far enough it would appear.
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.
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.
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are spot on here.
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.
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.
What has Gove made happen?
He ended Boris's bid to be PM. For that alone he deserves beatification.
Not sure that qualifies Gove himself to be PM, but I take your point.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe. I observe. Most economists, trade policy experts and foreign policy experts saw the problems. They weren't necessarily Europhiles. There are some exceptions of course.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You'll be pleased to know he thinks that Scotland would probably continue to be a democracy without Westminster's guiding hand.
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.
That’s not what the quote says. It says they will probably keep the current institutional firm of democracy (eg bicameral) not resile from democracy itself.
But why let the truth get in the way of a chance to mock a Leaver, eh?
Will all the posters stating that people should take less foreign holidays please quietly consider where they went on holiday last year and/or where they are planning to go this year, and then inwardly contemplate the difference.
Will all the posters stating that people should take less foreign holidays please quietly consider where they went on holiday last year and/or where they are planning to go this year, and then inwardly contemplate the difference.
Will all the posters stating that people should take less foreign holidays please quietly consider where they went on holiday last year and/or where they are planning to go this year, and then inwardly contemplate the difference.
It's a small miracle that leave voters were able to read and understand the instructions on the ballot paper.
Apparently there were instructions on the ballot paper only visible to Leave voters, given how many different things they "clearly voted for"
And if everyone knew exactly what they were voting for, why can't the Government explain it to anybody, including themselves?
I voted to get the fuck out before it's too late, like I suspect a lot of people did although I have no way of knowing for sure that all leavers felt that degree of urgency.
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.
Never one to let the facts get in the way of his opinions, Daniel Hannan declares that the Good Friday Agreement is failing because Sinn Féin and the DUP have been in a "permanent grand coalition" for 20 years...
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.
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.
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)
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?
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.
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.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.
I don't for a second disagree with making sure everyone pays what they owe. But that only hides a much larger underlying problem of expecting the State to do too much. It is an unsustainable situation. Our safety net - which should be a basic requirement of the state - is being undermined because we now expect the state to provide services that we should provide for ourselves and because politicians see public services and particularly state payments in terms of a bribe to get themselves elected.
It has to change because we can simply not afford it.
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.
Please don't imply that I thought Leavers are stupid. As I've said on here more than once, it's a mistake to think one's opponents are dumb (or, even worse, that you are smarter than they). Many people voted Leave for reasons that were perfectly valid and/or for reasons that were right for them. Although some people voted Leave for reasons that were obviously unrealistic or malevolent, you can't jump from "Some people voted X for Y" to "All people who voted X did so for Y". And even those who did so for unrealistic reasons may simply have had a lower risk threshold than I have (as I've also pointed out, people are lousy when it comes to assessing risk).
Here's an interesting fact: Clive James, liberal icon sans pareil and a credit to both his countries (if you ignore the adultery), voted "Leave". Max Hastings, Conservative archetype and military historian (yes he is and don't argue) voted "Remain". Both had good reasons for doing so. I have shelves filled with both their books and I'm not going to stop buying either one.
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)
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.
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.
Maybe. I observe. Most economists, trade policy experts and foreign policy experts saw the problems. They weren't necessarily Europhiles. There are some exceptions of course.
Your experts seem to fail more than they succeed with their guesses. They'd earn more respect if they labelled them guesses rather than numerous pseudonyms to give them weight with the gullible.
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)
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.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
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.
VAT exemptions are there to protect both the basic essentials and learning from excessive taxation. I do not believe they should be messed with.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
Yes. Indeed we have the best. But the demands are far outstripping the amount of money available to pay for them.
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.
OK, so I exaggerate, but the majority shouldn't have to do without essentials in such a wealthy society.
I don't for a second disagree with making sure everyone pays what they owe. But that only hides a much larger underlying problem of expecting the State to do too much. It is an unsustainable situation. Our safety net - which should be a basic requirement of the state - is being undermined because we now expect the state to provide services that we should provide for ourselves and because politicians see public services and particularly state payments in terms of a bribe to get themselves elected.
It has to change because we can simply not afford it.
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.
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.
Will all the posters stating that people should take less foreign holidays please quietly consider where they went on holiday last year and/or where they are planning to go this year, and then inwardly contemplate the difference.
Will all the posters stating that people should take less foreign holidays please quietly consider where they went on holiday last year and/or where they are planning to go this year, and then inwardly contemplate the difference.
[soapbox mode off]
Soapbox 4 Yorkshire man mode on
I've been on one foreign holiday in 15 years, and no holidays domestically in that time other than visiting relatives. Too extreme in not taking the opportunities of the world undoubtedly, but there's no reason people in general could not take fewer than now
Will all the posters stating that people should take less foreign holidays please quietly consider where they went on holiday last year and/or where they are planning to go this year, and then inwardly contemplate the difference.
[soapbox mode off]
Soapbox 4 Yorkshire man mode on
I've been on one foreign holiday in 15 years, and no holidays domestically in that time other than visiting relatives. Too extreme in not taking the opportunities of the world undoubtedly, but there's no reason people in general could not take fewer than now
BTW, thought you might not have seen that Michael Wignall has left Gidleigh - which is a real shame. He is supposed to be setting up a new place in Yorkshire/Lincs, but no details yet. Will certainly be checking it out when it opens.
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)
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.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
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.
VAT exemptions are there to protect both the basic essentials and learning from excessive taxation. I do not believe they should be messed with.
The Economist article discusses other options, including: doubling council tax (£34 billion), 0.5% land tax (£25 billion), abolishing foreign aid (£14 billion), even a £1000 annual levy on beards (£5 billion, though possibly hipsters might shave!).
It is quite a thoughtful article on closing the fiscal gap.
BTW, thought you might not have seen that Michael Wignall has left Gidleigh - which is a real shame. He is supposed to be setting up a new place in Yorkshire/Lincs, but no details yet. Will certainly be checking it out when it opens.
Yep, saw that. And I am down there for a Times travel piece in April. I am wary and a tad dismayed. I thought Wignall's cooking was absolutely world class. Why has he quit so quickly? Likewise the manager?
Gidleigh in total is being mismanaged. They have problems with planning permission but if they want to remain a top end 5 star hotel (sometimes charging £800 a night) they need a spa, a swimming pool, a proper gym, and many other facilities.
They can no longer rely on that lovely view, moorland walks, and fine (but erratic) cooking, It's a bit sad. I hope they sort it out.
Can any high end hotel survive these days without those standard amenities?
Crickey....the BBC tomorrows front page guy on twitter seems to be having some sort of breakdown.
If he retweets a libel he’s personally liable - hence his caution over the initial Cox story.
That isn't my point. Rather than simply state this fact (and he has in the past decided not to tweet front pages he wasn't comfortable with on a personal level), he has total spat his dummy and now madly retweeting all sort of weirdo accounts who support him like ones that are about banning the sun.
When Nick Sutton did that service, I remember on more than one occasion he didn't tweet a front page and immediately said no it won't be there tonight following legal advice.
Crickey....the BBC tomorrows front page guy on twitter seems to be having some sort of breakdown.
If he retweets a libel he’s personally liable - hence his caution over the initial Cox story.
That isn't my point. Rather than simple state this, he has total spat his dummy and now madly retweeting all sort of weirdo accounts who support him like ones that are about banning the sun.
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.
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.
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?
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.
My taxbill this year is £150,000
You've paid for six seconds of government spending...
Crickey....the BBC tomorrows front page guy on twitter seems to be having some sort of breakdown.
If he retweets a libel he’s personally liable - hence his caution over the initial Cox story.
That isn't my point. Rather than simple state this, he has total spat his dummy and now madly retweeting all sort of weirdo accounts who support him like ones that are about banning the sun.
His "poll" was what I was talking about. It was the sort of thing you expect from a teenager told they have been grounded. Its like soooo totally unfair...
BTW, thought you might not have seen that Michael Wignall has left Gidleigh - which is a real shame. He is supposed to be setting up a new place in Yorkshire/Lincs, but no details yet. Will certainly be checking it out when it opens.
Yep, saw that. And I am down there for a Times travel piece in April. I am wary and a tad dismayed. I thought Wignall's cooking was absolutely world class. Why has he quit so quickly? Likewise the manager?
Gidleigh in total is being mismanaged. They have problems with planning permission but if they want to remain a top end 5 star hotel (sometimes charging £800 a night) they need a spa, a swimming pool, a proper gym, and many other facilities.
They can no longer rely on that lovely view, moorland walks, and fine (but erratic) cooking, It's a bit sad. I hope they sort it out.
We went for lunch on Valetines Day. Hugely disappointed. The owner knew he was off a little before, but not the rest of the staff, it seems. All his staff have stayed - well, they would - until he has a new place. After that, Gidleigh will be in real trouble....
Crickey....the BBC tomorrows front page guy on twitter seems to be having some sort of breakdown.
If he retweets a libel he’s personally liable - hence his caution over the initial Cox story.
That isn't my point. Rather than simple state this, he has total spat his dummy and now madly retweeting all sort of weirdo accounts who support him like ones that are about banning the sun.
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)
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.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
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.
VAT exemptions are there to protect both the basic essentials and learning from excessive taxation. I do not believe they should be messed with.
The Economist article discusses other options, including: doubling council tax (£34 billion), 0.5% land tax (£25 billion), abolishing foreign aid (£14 billion), even a £1000 annual levy on beards (£5 billion, though possibly hipsters might shave!).
It is quite a thoughtful article on closing the fiscal gap.
Clearly not thoughtful at all as they have apparently missed the most blindingly obvious way to close the gap which is to stop spending so much.
New Oxfam cover-up as it censors names in sex scandal memo: Charity finally releases its original report into Haiti shame - but refuses to name the aid workers involved
Glad to see the topic has turned from too many Easyjet holidays to £120 meals.
I can't remember the last time I had a £120 meal. I either cook for myself, or I spend £300 minimum at a restaurant, or I get it free at a 5 star hotel.
On that note, this Thursday I am flying to the Seychelles to review the best new Seychellois hotels for the The Times
At one point they are literally flying me in by private helicopter.
I just thought I'd mention this as it seems very relevant to the thread which is all about saving these really really nice parts of the world where I get to stay for free.
And will Mrs T be accompanying you on this hellish and soulless business trip?
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)
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.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
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.
VAT exemptions are there to protect both the basic essentials and learning from excessive taxation. I do not believe they should be messed with.
The Economist article discusses other options, including: doubling council tax (£34 billion), 0.5% land tax (£25 billion), abolishing foreign aid (£14 billion), even a £1000 annual levy on beards (£5 billion, though possibly hipsters might shave!).
It is quite a thoughtful article on closing the fiscal gap.
Clearly not thoughtful at all as they have apparently missed the most blindingly obvious way to close the gap which is to stop spending so much.
Mmmm - The Tories have been promising to do that for the past 8 years without success.
Glad to see the topic has turned from too many Easyjet holidays to £120 meals.
I can't remember the last time I had a £120 meal. I either cook for myself, or I spend £300 minimum at a restaurant, or I get it free at a 5 star hotel.
On that note, this Thursday I am flying to the Seychelles to review the best new Seychellois hotels for the The Times
At one point they are literally flying me in by private helicopter.
I just thought I'd mention this as it seems very relevant to the thread which is all about saving these really really nice parts of the world where I get to stay for free.
You poor thing. When I was there, they metaphorically flew me in a private helicopter.
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)
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
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
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.
VAT exemptions are there to protect both the basic essentials and learning from excessive taxation. I do not believe they should be messed with.
The Economist article discusses other options, including: doubling council tax (£34 billion), 0.5% land tax (£25 billion), abolishing foreign aid (£14 billion), even a £1000 annual levy on beards (£5 billion, though possibly hipsters might shave!).
It is quite a thoughtful article on closing the fiscal gap.
Clearly not thoughtful at all as they have apparently missed the most blindingly obvious way to close the gap which is to stop spending so much.
Discussed in the second paragraph. The point of the article was to discuss the tax options and to point out that none are palatable if Britain wants good public services. Obviously if we do not care for the quality of public services, then they are cheaper. Politicians on both sides like to pretend that they can do otherwise.
Never one to let the facts get in the way of his opinions, Daniel Hannan declares that the Good Friday Agreement is failing because Sinn Féin and the DUP have been in a "permanent grand coalition" for 20 years...
AIUI the point that there is a grand coalition is broadly true for 2 reasons - firstly, the government system that effectively requires the largest party to govern with the largest party of the other community (so that pretty well guarantees the DUP and SF working together until one of them is replaced in either loyalist or nationalist communities). Secondly, the pork barrel NI politics that means we pay wads of cash to effectively buy off the hard men from starting the nonsense up again. I can't read Hannan's article, but such a coalition of vested interests is a pretty basic failure of politics in my book.
Glad to see the topic has turned from too many Easyjet holidays to £120 meals.
I can't remember the last time I had a £120 meal. I either cook for myself, or I spend £300 minimum at a restaurant, or I get it free at a 5 star hotel.
On that note, this Thursday I am flying to the Seychelles to review the best new Seychellois hotels for the The Times
At one point they are literally flying me in by private helicopter.
I just thought I'd mention this as it seems very relevant to the thread which is all about saving these really really nice parts of the world where I get to stay for free.
Sigh. I think I'd like to be you when I grow up :-)
Glad to see the topic has turned from too many Easyjet holidays to £120 meals.
I can't remember the last time I had a £120 meal. I either cook for myself, or I spend £300 minimum at a restaurant, or I get it free at a 5 star hotel.
On that note, this Thursday I am flying to the Seychelles to review the best new Seychellois hotels for the The Times
At one point they are literally flying me in by private helicopter.
I just thought I'd mention this as it seems very relevant to the thread which is all about saving these really really nice parts of the world where I get to stay for free.
Sigh. I think I'd like to be you when I grow up :-)
Sean has definitely seen the highs and the lows. No pun intended.
AIUI the point that there is a grand coalition is broadly true for 2 reasons - firstly, the government system that effectively requires the largest party to govern with the largest party of the other community (so that pretty well guarantees the DUP and SF working together until one of them is replaced in either loyalist or nationalist communities). Secondly, the pork barrel NI politics that means we pay wads of cash to effectively buy off the hard men from starting the nonsense up again. I can't read Hannan's article, but such a coalition of vested interests is a pretty basic failure of politics in my book.
It's kept the peace for twenty years. That's not a failure of politics, it's a triumph.
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)
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.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
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.
VAT exemptions are there to protect both the basic essentials and learning from excessive taxation. I do not believe they should be messed with.
The Economist article discusses other options, including: doubling council tax (£34 billion), 0.5% land tax (£25 billion), abolishing foreign aid (£14 billion), even a £1000 annual levy on beards (£5 billion, though possibly hipsters might shave!).
It is quite a thoughtful article on closing the fiscal gap.
Clearly not thoughtful at all as they have apparently missed the most blindingly obvious way to close the gap which is to stop spending so much.
Mmmm - The Tories have been promising to do that for the past 8 years without success.
They haven't really tried which is why all this talk of austerity is so dumb.
Glad to see the topic has turned from too many Easyjet holidays to £120 meals.
I can't remember the last time I had a £120 meal. I either cook for myself, or I spend £300 minimum at a restaurant, or I get it free at a 5 star hotel.
On that note, this Thursday I am flying to the Seychelles to review the best new Seychellois hotels for the The Times
At one point they are literally flying me in by private helicopter.
I just thought I'd mention this as it seems very relevant to the thread which is all about saving these really really nice parts of the world where I get to stay for free.
Sigh. I think I'd like to be you when I grow up :-)
AIUI the point that there is a grand coalition is broadly true for 2 reasons - firstly, the government system that effectively requires the largest party to govern with the largest party of the other community (so that pretty well guarantees the DUP and SF working together until one of them is replaced in either loyalist or nationalist communities). Secondly, the pork barrel NI politics that means we pay wads of cash to effectively buy off the hard men from starting the nonsense up again. I can't read Hannan's article, but such a coalition of vested interests is a pretty basic failure of politics in my book.
It's kept the peace for twenty years. That's not a failure of politics, it's a triumph.
Hannan's also forgotten that the DUP campaigned against the Good Friday Agreement, and it wasn't until almost a decade later that Sinn Fein and the DUP ended up sharing power.
Glad to see the topic has turned from too many Easyjet holidays to £120 meals.
I can't remember the last time I had a £120 meal. I either cook for myself, or I spend £300 minimum at a restaurant, or I get it free at a 5 star hotel.
On that note, this Thursday I am flying to the Seychelles to review the best new Seychellois hotels for the The Times
At one point they are literally flying me in by private helicopter.
I just thought I'd mention this as it seems very relevant to the thread which is all about saving these really really nice parts of the world where I get to stay for free.
£20 meal or £300 meal, it all goes to make a turd.
Glad to see the topic has turned from too many Easyjet holidays to £120 meals.
I can't remember the last time I had a £120 meal. I either cook for myself, or I spend £300 minimum at a restaurant, or I get it free at a 5 star hotel.
On that note, this Thursday I am flying to the Seychelles to review the best new Seychellois hotels for the The Times
At one point they are literally flying me in by private helicopter.
I just thought I'd mention this as it seems very relevant to the thread which is all about saving these really really nice parts of the world where I get to stay for free.
You are a talented writer and journalist. I do not begrudge this. Fill yer boots and enjoy! However, I am a full-time carer for a disabled child. My wife works with victims of child sexual abuse I do sometimes irk that a weekend away is seen as an indulgence for us (not by you).which is beyond our means (which it is). But we need it to keep body and soul together. It is not an extravagance but a necessity for us. Of course we could always give up and leave it to the State to provide.
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)
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.
The Economist had a few suggestions on how to raise £100 billion:
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.
VAT exemptions are there to protect both the basic essentials and learning from excessive taxation. I do not believe they should be messed with.
The Economist article discusses other options, including: doubling council tax (£34 billion), 0.5% land tax (£25 billion), abolishing foreign aid (£14 billion), even a £1000 annual levy on beards (£5 billion, though possibly hipsters might shave!).
It is quite a thoughtful article on closing the fiscal gap.
Clearly not thoughtful at all as they have apparently missed the most blindingly obvious way to close the gap which is to stop spending so much.
I read it differently to you: by pointing out how incredibly hard it would be to raise the money without resorting to either highly regressive taxes, or absurd one (beards), they were hinting that maybe the problem is on the spending side of the equation.
AIUI the point that there is a grand coalition is broadly true for 2 reasons - firstly, the government system that effectively requires the largest party to govern with the largest party of the other community (so that pretty well guarantees the DUP and SF working together until one of them is replaced in either loyalist or nationalist communities). Secondly, the pork barrel NI politics that means we pay wads of cash to effectively buy off the hard men from starting the nonsense up again. I can't read Hannan's article, but such a coalition of vested interests is a pretty basic failure of politics in my book.
It's kept the peace for twenty years. That's not a failure of politics, it's a triumph.
Giving money to criminals in the guise of 'community representation' is a success for gangsterism not democratic politics, which is what won out when the ceasefires came into effect. Violence had lost its ability to achieve, yet remarkably its perpetrators got rewarded not just by getting out of prison but by dint of the creation of a whole new class of 'community workers' . I grew up with a few of these virtuous individuals who now get paid handsomely enough for doing fuck all and still having their grip on the communities they sought to dominate via the gun.
It's a small miracle that leave voters were able to read and understand the instructions on the ballot paper.
Apparently there were instructions on the ballot paper only visible to Leave voters, given how many different things they "clearly voted for"
And if everyone knew exactly what they were voting for, why can't the Government explain it to anybody, including themselves?
Perhaps in future general elections they should reproduce the manifesto of every party candidate on the ballot paper so we all knew exactly what we were voting for. It might run to several hundred pages but at least we would know what we were voting for?
As for Government policy - leaving the single market, leaving the customs union, ending freedom of movement and leaving the EU. You know - what was in the Tory manifesto and of course what Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Johnson etc said was what voting Leave would result in.
But maybe it was just those thick, northern, old, bigoted,don't have degrees which are now but weren't always two a penny leave voters who were paying attention in the lead up to 23 June 2016??
Comments
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dhl-apologise-kfc-chicken-shortage-12047682
Which could quickly get political...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/7ydz3p/kfc_closed_last_week_could_any_of_my_colleagues/
https://twitter.com/JBrokenshire/status/965337039473430535?ref_src=twcamp^share|twsrc^m5|twgr^email|twcon^7046|twterm^1
Just what the Brexiteers need.
Oh, wait...
And if everyone knew exactly what they were voting for, why can't the Government explain it to anybody, including themselves?
Edit. Mainly because in arguments against reality, reality usually wins.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/965347813302382593
But why let the truth get in the way of a chance to mock a Leaver, eh?
[soapbox mode on]
Will all the posters stating that people should take less foreign holidays please quietly consider where they went on holiday last year and/or where they are planning to go this year, and then inwardly contemplate the difference.
[soapbox mode off]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/17/jeremy-corbyn-dislikes-country-much-isnt-fit-lead/
It has to change because we can simply not afford it.
Here's an interesting fact: Clive James, liberal icon sans pareil and a credit to both his countries (if you ignore the adultery), voted "Leave". Max Hastings, Conservative archetype and military historian (yes he is and don't argue) voted "Remain". Both had good reasons for doing so. I have shelves filled with both their books and I'm not going to stop buying either one.
[contemplates samurai sword]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjLrFLYGdPM
[replace link to Mishima harikiri with link to Mitchell & Webb sketch because less gross]
I've been on one foreign holiday in 15 years, and no holidays domestically in that time other than visiting relatives. Too extreme in not taking the opportunities of the world undoubtedly, but there's no reason people in general could not take fewer than now
Soapbox off
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC4pBTWqqTg
It is quite a thoughtful article on closing the fiscal gap.
When Nick Sutton did that service, I remember on more than one occasion he didn't tweet a front page and immediately said no it won't be there tonight following legal advice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5406691/Oxfam-accused-cover-sex-scandal-report-release.html
A Russian athlete is suspected of failing a doping test at the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, according to Russian news agency Tass.
Despite Russia being banned from the Games in South Korea, athletes who could prove they are clean could compete under the OAR banner.
Team OAR sent 169 competitors to the event and are the third biggest group behind Canada and the United States.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/winter-olympics/43103451
I think the obvious question to raise here is this proof of being clean....you know....might just be flawed...
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2018-02-16/why-muellers-13-russians-indictment-could-be-very-bad-news-for-trump
However, I am a full-time carer for a disabled child. My wife works with victims of child sexual abuse
I do sometimes irk that a weekend away is seen as an indulgence for us (not by you).which is beyond our means (which it is).
But we need it to keep body and soul together. It is not an extravagance but a necessity for us.
Of course we could always give up and leave it to the State to provide.
As for Government policy - leaving the single market, leaving the customs union, ending freedom of movement and leaving the EU. You know - what was in the Tory manifesto and of course what Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Johnson etc said was what voting Leave would result in.
But maybe it was just those thick, northern, old, bigoted,don't have degrees which are now but weren't always two a penny leave voters who were paying attention in the lead up to 23 June 2016??