As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
First, just detailing the scale of cuts will give Tory supporters pause. Second, if CCHQ were daft enough to rely on Morris Dancer's old news video of Corbyn calling for cuts decades ago, then that will simply shift the debate Labour's way.
The government's record on Defence is dismal, but Labour would need a different kind of leader, to turn this to advantage.
I wonder if there were be political and / or economic consequences of Germany's football failing.
I'm not sure that rising consumption in the UK is a particularly good thing, given we are number two of the G20 in terms of consumption (66.3%) as % of GDP.
It's the British disease*. We export more (great), but then we spend more than all of the increase.
* A disease that didn't exist before Gordon Brown and George Osborne.
I agree but GDP is the economic god these days not wealth creation.
And people spending money makes people politically happier and it will be closely correlated with employment and job losses.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
I have historically supported defence cuts, but that is very dangerous now with the US apparently in hoc to Russia.
We certainly need a review urgently, with the premise that we can no longer rely on the US. They are highly likely gone from Western Europe under Trump, perhaps within months if he does a deal with Putin.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
I wonder if there were be political and / or economic consequences of Germany's football failing.
I'm not sure that rising consumption in the UK is a particularly good thing, given we are number two of the G20 in terms of consumption (66.3%) as % of GDP.
It's the British disease*. We export more (great), but then we spend more than all of the increase.
* A disease that didn't exist before Gordon Brown and George Osborne.
I agree but GDP is the economic god these days not wealth creation.
And people spending money makes people politically happier and it will be closely correlated with employment and job losses.
My post-Brexit Goldilocks scenario is for production to rise at 3% p.a., while consumption increases at 2%, for about five years, which would bring savings rates into line with long-term averages.
My fear is that the government will be so scared of a recession, that it will do anything to maintain consumption levels, and will continue to unbalance the UK economy.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
I have historically supported defence cuts, but that is very dangerous now with the US apparently in hoc to Russia.
We certainly need a review urgently, with the premise that we can no longer rely on the US. They are highly likely gone from Western Europe under Trump, perhaps within months if he does a deal with Putin.
We are in very uncharted waters.
Merkel could do a deal with Trump instead.
Paying the USA whatever Germany's 'missing' NATO contribution since say 9/11 has been would amount to a very nice number.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
That is why Labour should attack the Conservatives on defence and the Tories should have attacked Labour's failings on the NHS. As Bush's election guru Karl Rove said: attack your opponent's strengths.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
If I said "pay less tax" I meant to be more specific and say "pay tax at a lower rate" (I think I said that, as an example, charge zero tax on 100mpg average consumption drivers (conveniently me! ) and increase it exponentially so crazies driving proudly at 16mpg have to pay at least double what I pay at the pumps). I think this would encourage more sensible driving, and make efficient cars much more popular.
I wonder if there were be political and / or economic consequences of Germany's football failing.
I'm not sure that rising consumption in the UK is a particularly good thing, given we are number two of the G20 in terms of consumption (66.3%) as % of GDP.
It's the British disease*. We export more (great), but then we spend more than all of the increase.
* A disease that didn't exist before Gordon Brown and George Osborne.
I agree but GDP is the economic god these days not wealth creation.
And people spending money makes people politically happier and it will be closely correlated with employment and job losses.
My post-Brexit Goldilocks scenario is for production to rise at 3% p.a., while consumption increases at 2%, for about five years, which would bring savings rates into line with long-term averages.
My fear is that the government will be so scared of a recession, that it will do anything to maintain consumption levels, and will continue to unbalance the UK economy.
I wonder if there were be political and / or economic consequences of Germany's football failing.
I'm not sure that rising consumption in the UK is a particularly good thing, given we are number two of the G20 in terms of consumption (66.3%) as % of GDP.
It's the British disease*. We export more (great), but then we spend more than all of the increase.
* A disease that didn't exist before Gordon Brown and George Osborne.
I agree but GDP is the economic god these days not wealth creation.
And people spending money makes people politically happier and it will be closely correlated with employment and job losses.
given that our population rose 1% last year and inflation (CPI) is running at 2.3% that isn't actually that much.
Equally I hate GDP as a statistic - it doesn't actually tell you anything unless you know look at per capita details. When you do things look far less rosy than the top level figure seems....
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
I wonder if there were be political and / or economic consequences of Germany's football failing.
I'm not sure that rising consumption in the UK is a particularly good thing, given we are number two of the G20 in terms of consumption (66.3%) as % of GDP.
It's the British disease*. We export more (great), but then we spend more than all of the increase.
* A disease that didn't exist before Gordon Brown and George Osborne.
I agree but GDP is the economic god these days not wealth creation.
And people spending money makes people politically happier and it will be closely correlated with employment and job losses.
My post-Brexit Goldilocks scenario is for production to rise at 3% p.a., while consumption increases at 2%, for about five years, which would bring savings rates into line with long-term averages.
My fear is that the government will be so scared of a recession, that it will do anything to maintain consumption levels, and will continue to unbalance the UK economy.
Right now, fear is winning out.
I'm pleasantly surprised that it would only take five years - I was expecting more of a 10-20 year timescale being required.
What effect would your scenario have on the trade and current account balances ?
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
It has been suggested that well-intentioned traffic calming measures can increase pollution by increasing fuel consumption as cars are slowed to speeds below the engine's optimum. Whether it is significant ...
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
I have historically supported defence cuts, but that is very dangerous now with the US apparently in hoc to Russia.
We certainly need a review urgently, with the premise that we can no longer rely on the US. They are highly likely gone from Western Europe under Trump, perhaps within months if he does a deal with Putin.
We are in very uncharted waters.
Merkel could do a deal with Trump instead.
Paying the USA whatever Germany's 'missing' NATO contribution since say 9/11 has been would amount to a very nice number.
No country would ever do that. I could see Germany announcing a major rearmaments package - which would result in all of those Euros being spend in Germany. I'm just not sure I'd be cheering if Germany started building out its armed forces.
Edit to add: I think the 2% rule only dates from the mid 2000s, but I might be wrong.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
I have historically supported defence cuts, but that is very dangerous now with the US apparently in hoc to Russia.
I'm with Alastair - we need to decide what the purpose of defence is. If it's to protect the nation, that's one thing. But are we really more 'safe' than say Spain despite (I assume) having a much more powerful military? If the idea is to be able to invade/threaten to invade Middle Eastern countries - then that's another thing.
I wonder if there were be political and / or economic consequences of Germany's football failing.
I'm not sure that rising consumption in the UK is a particularly good thing, given we are number two of the G20 in terms of consumption (66.3%) as % of GDP.
It's the British disease*. We export more (great), but then we spend more than all of the increase.
* A disease that didn't exist before Gordon Brown and George Osborne.
I agree but GDP is the economic god these days not wealth creation.
And people spending money makes people politically happier and it will be closely correlated with employment and job losses.
My post-Brexit Goldilocks scenario is for production to rise at 3% p.a., while consumption increases at 2%, for about five years, which would bring savings rates into line with long-term averages.
My fear is that the government will be so scared of a recession, that it will do anything to maintain consumption levels, and will continue to unbalance the UK economy.
Right now, fear is winning out.
I'm pleasantly surprised that it would only take five years - I was expecting more of a 10-20 year timescale being required.
What effect would your scenario have on the trade and current account balances ?
Positive ones
We could do it in five years, and sensibly, if the UK government was not so scared of rebalancing the economy. However, there are a number of headwinds, such as demographics, that we need to be aware of. Spain closed a 10% current account deficit in three years. I'd like to do it in a less painful way, and that shouldn't be impossible. I would suggest we concentrate more on helping businesses produce in the UK, and less on helping consumers spend in the UK.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
I have historically supported defence cuts, but that is very dangerous now with the US apparently in hoc to Russia.
I'm with Alastair - we need to decide what the purpose of defence is. If it's to protect the nation, that's one thing. But are we really more 'safe' than say Spain despite (I assume) having a much more powerful military? If the idea is to be able to invade/threaten to invade Middle Eastern countries - then that's another thing.
Impossible to ascertain because, as has been discussed on here previously, the perception of the UK's defence capabilities is different for just about each person.
Here's a (my) working list for example:
No foreign interventions for reasons that are only tenuously connected with a threat to the UK*. Able to participate in isolated humanitarian operations. Able to engage in force level deployments where there is a clear national interest involved*. Contributing to NATO/EU peacekeeping missions. Having forces sufficient to enact MACP. Having forces sufficient to maintain the integrity and safety of our internal borders if necessary (eg. NI).
*difficult to determine, short of threat to our borders from a hostile force.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
I have historically supported defence cuts, but that is very dangerous now with the US apparently in hoc to Russia.
We certainly need a review urgently, with the premise that we can no longer rely on the US. They are highly likely gone from Western Europe under Trump, perhaps within months if he does a deal with Putin.
We are in very uncharted waters.
Merkel could do a deal with Trump instead.
Paying the USA whatever Germany's 'missing' NATO contribution since say 9/11 has been would amount to a very nice number.
No country would ever do that. I could see Germany announcing a major rearmaments package - which would result in all of those Euros being spend in Germany. I'm just not sure I'd be cheering if Germany started building out its armed forces.
Edit to add: I think the 2% rule only dates from the mid 2000s, but I might be wrong.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
I have historically supported defence cuts, but that is very dangerous now with the US apparently in hoc to Russia.
We certainly need a review urgently, with the premise that we can no longer rely on the US. They are highly likely gone from Western Europe under Trump, perhaps within months if he does a deal with Putin.
We are in very uncharted waters.
Merkel could do a deal with Trump instead.
Paying the USA whatever Germany's 'missing' NATO contribution since say 9/11 has been would amount to a very nice number.
No country would ever do that. I could see Germany announcing a major rearmaments package - which would result in all of those Euros being spend in Germany. I'm just not sure I'd be cheering if Germany started building out its armed forces.
Edit to add: I think the 2% rule only dates from the mid 2000s, but I might be wrong.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
If I said "pay less tax" I meant to be more specific and say "pay tax at a lower rate" (I think I said that, as an example, charge zero tax on 100mpg average consumption drivers (conveniently me! ) and increase it exponentially so crazies driving proudly at 16mpg have to pay at least double what I pay at the pumps). I think this would encourage more sensible driving, and make efficient cars much more popular.
How on Earth would you do that without massively intrusive and/or expensive measures? I suppose you could rely on self-reporting ("I do 100 mpg", "So do I", "I do 100 mpg and so does my wife!"), or in mounting a black box in each and every car and allowing the State to carry out surveillance on every one for every single drive. Which, as well as being very expensive, is a level of state surveillance I'm really not comfortable with - especially for such minimal benefit. If someone rags their car at 16 mpg, as well as paying more for servicing (due to stressing the components), they're already paying far more than before. The existing tax method fufills the Pigouvian tax way of doing things (tax on externalities) - people get taxed effectively on the amount of carbon dioxide and other exhaust elements they dump into the atmosphere.
I wonder if there were be political and / or economic consequences of Germany's football failing.
I'm not sure that rising consumption in the UK is a particularly good thing, given we are number two of the G20 in terms of consumption (66.3%) as % of GDP.
It's the British disease*. We export more (great), but then we spend more than all of the increase.
* A disease that didn't exist before Gordon Brown and George Osborne.
I agree but GDP is the economic god these days not wealth creation.
And people spending money makes people politically happier and it will be closely correlated with employment and job losses.
My post-Brexit Goldilocks scenario is for production to rise at 3% p.a., while consumption increases at 2%, for about five years, which would bring savings rates into line with long-term averages.
My fear is that the government will be so scared of a recession, that it will do anything to maintain consumption levels, and will continue to unbalance the UK economy.
Right now, fear is winning out.
I'm pleasantly surprised that it would only take five years - I was expecting more of a 10-20 year timescale being required.
What effect would your scenario have on the trade and current account balances ?
Positive ones
We could do it in five years, and sensibly, if the UK government was not so scared of rebalancing the economy. However, there are a number of headwinds, such as demographics, that we need to be aware of. Spain closed a 10% current account deficit in three years. I'd like to do it in a less painful way, and that shouldn't be impossible. I would suggest we concentrate more on helping businesses produce in the UK, and less on helping consumers spend in the UK.
There are a lot more voters connected to wealth consumption than there are to wealth creation.
And British people think setting up the NHS was a greater national achievement than the industrial revolution.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Charisma amplifies the underlying substance. It is not enough in and of itself.
That's why Boris struggles. Underneath, there is not all that much there. That's not to say he isn't bright. He is. It's that the way he frames the world and the only thing he really wants to achieve is the the greater glory of Boris. Ultimately, that's not very appealing. He thinks he's Churchill the PM, where in reality he has more in common with the dog,
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Which is weird when you think about it. The price for CO2 must be going through the roof at the moment. Why on earth have producers not got back online as quickly as possible to take advantage?
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
mpg, not mph
Quite like the idea of avoiding tax by exceeding the speed limit, though...
Impossible to ascertain because, as has been discussed on here previously, the perception of the UK's defence capabilities is different for just about each person.
Here's a (my) working list for example:
No foreign interventions for reasons that are only tenuously connected with a threat to the UK*. Able to participate in isolated humanitarian operations. Able to engage in force level deployments where there is a clear national interest involved*. Contributing to NATO/EU peacekeeping missions. Having forces sufficient to enact MACP. Having forces sufficient to maintain the integrity and safety of our internal borders if necessary (eg. NI).
*difficult to determine, short of threat to our borders from a hostile force.
I agree that informed people have different ideas on defence. But I think the uninformed public like me might have relatively similar views. We definitely don't want to be invaded, very sceptical on invading other countries, and then a bit left over for peacekeeping/humanitarian operations/rescue missions/whatever else.
This stuff about projecting power sounds nice, but not convinced it's really worth it.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
Ah, of course - thanks.
Incidentally, isn't it weird that nobody buys petrol in gallons, and most younger people would struggle to say how much a gallon is or how many gallons would fill their tank, yet mpg is the standard consumption figure.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
mpg, not mph
Quite like the idea of avoiding tax by exceeding the speed limit, though...
It would have saved me so much money and in points/fines and extra insurance.
You want to know what real stress is?
Driving for 11 months whilst on 9 points.
In those days I was driving circa 25,000 miles a year.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
mpg, not mph
Quite like the idea of avoiding tax by exceeding the speed limit, though...
It would have saved me so much money and in points/fines and extra insurance.
You want to know what real stress is?
Driving for 11 months whilst on 9 points.
In those days I was driving circa 25,000 miles a year.
Just a tip, if your on a smart motorway, the speeding cameras are much more strict if there's a speed limit than if not. I've seen a lot of flashes on the other side when there's a limit, but not many at all if it's open at 70.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
I have historically supported defence cuts, but that is very dangerous now with the US apparently in hoc to Russia.
I'm with Alastair - we need to decide what the purpose of defence is. If it's to protect the nation, that's one thing. But are we really more 'safe' than say Spain despite (I assume) having a much more powerful military? If the idea is to be able to invade/threaten to invade Middle Eastern countries - then that's another thing.
Impossible to ascertain because, as has been discussed on here previously, the perception of the UK's defence capabilities is different for just about each person.
Here's a (my) working list for example:
No foreign interventions for reasons that are only tenuously connected with a threat to the UK*. Able to participate in isolated humanitarian operations. Able to engage in force level deployments where there is a clear national interest involved*. Contributing to NATO/EU peacekeeping missions. Having forces sufficient to enact MACP. Having forces sufficient to maintain the integrity and safety of our internal borders if necessary (eg. NI).
*difficult to determine, short of threat to our borders from a hostile force.
Conspicuously missing from that list is what the requirement might be for the basic defence of the UK....
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Don't forget the 200 generals and the ceremonial soldiers for the tourists.
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.
I have historically supported defence cuts, but that is very dangerous now with the US apparently in hoc to Russia.
I'm with Alastair - we need to decide what the purpose of defence is. If it's to protect the nation, that's one thing. But are we really more 'safe' than say Spain despite (I assume) having a much more powerful military? If the idea is to be able to invade/threaten to invade Middle Eastern countries - then that's another thing.
Impossible to ascertain because, as has been discussed on here previously, the perception of the UK's defence capabilities is different for just about each person.
Here's a (my) working list for example:
No foreign interventions for reasons that are only tenuously connected with a threat to the UK*. Able to participate in isolated humanitarian operations. Able to engage in force level deployments where there is a clear national interest involved*. Contributing to NATO/EU peacekeeping missions. Having forces sufficient to enact MACP. Having forces sufficient to maintain the integrity and safety of our internal borders if necessary (eg. NI).
*difficult to determine, short of threat to our borders from a hostile force.
Conspicuously missing from that list is what the requirement might be for the basic defence of the UK....
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
Ah, of course - thanks.
Incidentally, isn't it weird that nobody buys petrol in gallons, and most younger people would struggle to say how much a gallon is or how many gallons would fill their tank, yet mpg is the standard consumption figure.
And to make things even more confusing, the most common metric version of fuel economy is presented as an inverse, litres per 100km, where of course a smaller number is better.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Have you added Raheem Sterling's goalscoring record for England to your new football interest ?
And thanks for that picture I never realised that British soldiers fought using similar equipment and horses now as they did 200 years ago.
They are wearing breastplates which might have saved millions of lives if soldiers had worn them in the First World War trenches. Unfortunately, kevlar had not been invented -- possibly because our top scientists were off dying in those same trenches: it wasn't just poets.
Ironically, Fritz Haber who invented ammonia and thus bubbles in beer which we have been discussing, also invented chemical warfare in the Great War.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
mpg, not mph
Quite like the idea of avoiding tax by exceeding the speed limit, though...
It would have saved me so much money and in points/fines and extra insurance.
You want to know what real stress is?
Driving for 11 months whilst on 9 points.
In those days I was driving circa 25,000 miles a year.
If its different perhaps you could provide some data on it and likewise on the number of Admirals and Air Marshals.
Irrespective of what they are you know I'm right - the British Army would struggle to form a full sized division for all those generals to command.
From last December
Britain’s army is getting stronger because it has nearly halved the number of generals, the head of the armed forces has said.
Responding to criticism that the army is top-heavy, General Sir Nick Carter said that the total number of starred officers — brigadiers and generals — had been reduced by nearly 40 per cent, from 141 to 85, during the past five years.
Over the same period, he said, the proportion of generals to troops had improved to about 1 to 2,400, and the number of two-star headquarters staff had fallen from nine to five.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
Ah, of course - thanks.
Incidentally, isn't it weird that nobody buys petrol in gallons, and most younger people would struggle to say how much a gallon is or how many gallons would fill their tank, yet mpg is the standard consumption figure.
That's not really as weird as that the consumption figure is in distance per volume, rather than volume per distance.
The latter makes it much easier to work out how much it will cost you to drive a certain distance, and how much you will save by improving your fuel economy. The former creates a non-linear scale so that a difference of 8mpg between 25mpg and 33mpg is much more consequential than between 50mpg and 58mpg.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
Ah, of course - thanks.
Incidentally, isn't it weird that nobody buys petrol in gallons, and most younger people would struggle to say how much a gallon is or how many gallons would fill their tank, yet mpg is the standard consumption figure.
Confusingly, the metric figure is given in litres per 100km, which is conceptually different.
If its different perhaps you could provide some data on it and likewise on the number of Admirals and Air Marshals.
Irrespective of what they are you know I'm right - the British Army would struggle to form a full sized division for all those generals to command.
From last December
Britain’s army is getting stronger because it has nearly halved the number of generals, the head of the armed forces has said.
Responding to criticism that the army is top-heavy, General Sir Nick Carter said that the total number of starred officers — brigadiers and generals — had been reduced by nearly 40 per cent, from 141 to 85, during the past five years.
Over the same period, he said, the proportion of generals to troops had improved to about 1 to 2,400, and the number of two-star headquarters staff had fallen from nine to five.
No foreign interventions for reasons that are only tenuously connected with a threat to the UK*. Able to participate in isolated humanitarian operations. Able to engage in force level deployments where there is a clear national interest involved*. Contributing to NATO/EU peacekeeping missions. Having forces sufficient to enact MACP. Having forces sufficient to maintain the integrity and safety of our internal borders if necessary (eg. NI).
*difficult to determine, short of threat to our borders from a hostile force.
Conspicuously missing from that list is what the requirement might be for the basic defence of the UK....
No. 3?
'When...' ? Surely it is always is the national interest to provide for the defence of the nation. And this is only the third item in a working list ??
I think you need to go back to first principles, and consider what are the priorities.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
Ah, of course - thanks.
Incidentally, isn't it weird that nobody buys petrol in gallons, and most younger people would struggle to say how much a gallon is or how many gallons would fill their tank, yet mpg is the standard consumption figure.
What it shows is that it does not matter. Horseracing still uses furlongs but all the punter needs to know is that six furlongs is further than five but not as far as seven. It is the same with mpg. Imperial measures are generally better for human measurements and metric (or SI) for science. It was a mistake to confuse those categories.
I was at the European Patent Office in The Hague yesterday. It employs people from 35 different European countries. I spoke to some from France, Switzerland, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands and Italy. I was surprised at just how much glee Germany's exit from the World Cup had produced. It's not just us, it seems!
On Tuesday evening I've got tickets to see England v India in the first t20 at Old Trafford.
This coincides with Colombia v England.
What is a boy to do?
Go to the cricket and watch Columbia-England on your phone ?
Tried that last time, when 26,000 people are all using their mobiles in a small area congestion and speed become an issue when you're trying so stream stuff.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
Ah, of course - thanks.
Incidentally, isn't it weird that nobody buys petrol in gallons, and most younger people would struggle to say how much a gallon is or how many gallons would fill their tank, yet mpg is the standard consumption figure.
I don't know how big my tank is, I haven't filled it since I was in Spain last year and I was enjoying the cheap fuel to much to notice how many litres I put in. I always let my tank run to just beyond where the computer says I have 0 miles left in the tank, and then put 20 litres in (or about 4.4g), so I'm never carrying much excess fuel. I then aim to do 400 miles on each 'fill' which is just over 90mpg.
My way for working out the kmpl to mpg conversion is times 7, double twice, divide by 10. So for my target 32kmpl times 7 (224) double twice (448, 896) divide by 10 (89.6) is a pretty good guesstimate
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
If I said "pay less tax" I meant to be more specific and say "pay tax at a lower rate" (I think I said that, as an example, charge zero tax on 100mpg average consumption drivers (conveniently me! ) and increase it exponentially so crazies driving proudly at 16mpg have to pay at least double what I pay at the pumps). I think this would encourage more sensible driving, and make efficient cars much more popular.
There's a very easy way to move towards that, and that's to reinstate the fuel duty escalator.
It is insane that, in an age of climate change, Government policy is to repeatedly freeze fuel duty, but to increase train fares by RPI every year.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
Ah, of course - thanks.
Incidentally, isn't it weird that nobody buys petrol in gallons, and most younger people would struggle to say how much a gallon is or how many gallons would fill their tank, yet mpg is the standard consumption figure.
That's not really as weird as that the consumption figure is in distance per volume, rather than volume per distance.
The latter makes it much easier to work out how much it will cost you to drive a certain distance, and how much you will save by improving your fuel economy. The former creates a non-linear scale so that a difference of 8mpg between 25mpg and 33mpg is much more consequential than between 50mpg and 58mpg.
Fuel consumption is an inverse area. It is the (inverse of the) surface area of the end of the cylinder of fuel that you use if the length is how far you've driven
No foreign interventions for reasons that are only tenuously connected with a threat to the UK*. Able to participate in isolated humanitarian operations. Able to engage in force level deployments where there is a clear national interest involved*. Contributing to NATO/EU peacekeeping missions. Having forces sufficient to enact MACP. Having forces sufficient to maintain the integrity and safety of our internal borders if necessary (eg. NI).
*difficult to determine, short of threat to our borders from a hostile force.
Conspicuously missing from that list is what the requirement might be for the basic defence of the UK....
No. 3?
'When...' ? Surely it is always is the national interest to provide for the defence of the nation. And this is only the third item in a working list ??
I think you need to go back to first principles, and consider what are the priorities.
well it was written down at random and I suppose uppermost in my mind (I drew it up a couple of days ago) was that PB was discussing Blair and the Iraq intervention.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
It's miles per gallon - ie, how economically you drive. If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg. If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
Ah, of course - thanks.
Incidentally, isn't it weird that nobody buys petrol in gallons, and most younger people would struggle to say how much a gallon is or how many gallons would fill their tank, yet mpg is the standard consumption figure.
And to make things even more confusing, the most common metric version of fuel economy is presented as an inverse, litres per 100km, where of course a smaller number is better.
One thing that always irritated me in Germany was their expression of rainfall as a volume (litres) per unit area (square meter). Why not simply as a depth (in millimetres), analogous to our use of inches? It has the same numerical value and is arguably easier to visualise.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
If I said "pay less tax" I meant to be more specific and say "pay tax at a lower rate" (I think I said that, as an example, charge zero tax on 100mpg average consumption drivers (conveniently me! ) and increase it exponentially so crazies driving proudly at 16mpg have to pay at least double what I pay at the pumps). I think this would encourage more sensible driving, and make efficient cars much more popular.
How on Earth would you do that without massively intrusive and/or expensive measures? I suppose you could rely on self-reporting ("I do 100 mpg", "So do I", "I do 100 mpg and so does my wife!"), or in mounting a black box in each and every car and allowing the State to carry out surveillance on every one for every single drive. Which, as well as being very expensive, is a level of state surveillance I'm really not comfortable with - especially for such minimal benefit. If someone rags their car at 16 mpg, as well as paying more for servicing (due to stressing the components), they're already paying far more than before. The existing tax method fufills the Pigouvian tax way of doing things (tax on externalities) - people get taxed effectively on the amount of carbon dioxide and other exhaust elements they dump into the atmosphere.
People choose the option of a blackbox to reduce insurance bills. Why not have an optional blackbox to reduce fuel bills for good drivers of efficient cars. If you're so scared of the state following you, dump your mobile phone and pay full whack for your fuel with the boy racers.
I was at the European Patent Office in The Hague yesterday. It employs people from 35 different European countries. I spoke to some from France, Switzerland, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands and Italy. I was surprised at just how much glee Germany's exit from the World Cup had produced. It's not just us, it seems!
There were even articles on US news sites celebrating the loss. Schadenfreude is clearly a global phenomenon...
I only just read the previous thread on Target2 and the video by Robert Smithson. I believe that his analysis was wrong in many ways, but typical of the financial industry viewpoint that Target2 is simply an interbank settlement mechanism and does not reflect any deeper problem.
If people are genuinely interested a far better and more informed explanation was been produced by City University London http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/19674/ (coincidentally my alma mater).
This documents points out two things that the video did not pick up - firstly, in fact the Target2 system is a de-facto mechanism for fiscal transfer from Germany to Southern Europe and that it is, in fact, reflective of the trade imbalance because Target2 transfers are financing a large chunk of Germany's exports.
Secondly, the conclusion by Smithson that a breakup of the Eurozone would not affect Target2 was, to put it mildly, unconvincing. In fact, if Italy defaults on their Target2 debt the German central bank picks up a 'real' liability for the same amount as this is owed by the Bundesbank to the German commercial banks. Therefore the German taxpayer is in fact completely financially exposed for these debts, which is of course in violation of EU treaties and the German constitution, not that this matters much in EU-land.
Surely it is only a final transfer if defaults do occur ?
I am in bed, but for every Euro owed to the Bundesbank through Target2, there is an additional (capital flight) Euro owned by a peripheral Eurozone entity sitting in a German bank account.
The whole lot could be sterilized if the Bundesbank revalued Italian holdings in Commerzbank accounts to New Lira.
(Which would require primary legislation. But given Italy leaving the Eurozone would take at least a week, that should not be beyond the wit of man.)
You should read the paper I linked. It does not work like that. The Bundesbank actually owe all the Target2 balances to the German commercial banks - see pages 52 and 53 of the paper. And what you are suggesting, which is the compulsory theft of Euros in depositors accounts in Germany and replacement with a less valuable asset, is so obviously illegal that even the ECJ might blush.
I only just read the previous thread on Target2 and the video by Robert Smithson. I believe that his analysis was wrong in many ways, but typical of the financial industry viewpoint that Target2 is simply an interbank settlement mechanism and does not reflect any deeper problem.
If people are genuinely interested a far better and more informed explanation was been produced by City University London http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/19674/ (coincidentally my alma mater).
This documents points out two things that the video did not pick up - firstly, in fact the Target2 system is a de-facto mechanism for fiscal transfer from Germany to Southern Europe and that it is, in fact, reflective of the trade imbalance because Target2 transfers are financing a large chunk of Germany's exports.
Secondly, the conclusion by Smithson that a breakup of the Eurozone would not affect Target2 was, to put it mildly, unconvincing. In fact, if Italy defaults on their Target2 debt the German central bank picks up a 'real' liability for the same amount as this is owed by the Bundesbank to the German commercial banks. Therefore the German taxpayer is in fact completely financially exposed for these debts, which is of course in violation of EU treaties and the German constitution, not that this matters much in EU-land.
Surely it is only a final transfer if defaults do occur ?
I am in bed, but for every Euro owed to the Bundesbank through Target2, there is an additional (capital flight) Euro owned by a peripheral Eurozone entity sitting in a German bank account.
The whole lot could be sterilized if the Bundesbank revalued Italian holdings in Commerzbank accounts to New Lira.
(Which would require primary legislation. But given Italy leaving the Eurozone would take at least a week, that should not be beyond the wit of man.)
You should read the paper I linked. It does not work like that. The Bundesbank actually owe all the Target2 balances to the German commercial banks - see pages 52 and 53 of the paper. And what you are suggesting, which is the compulsory theft of Euros in depositors accounts in Germany and replacement with a less valuable asset, is so obviously illegal that even the ECJ might blush.
Almost nothing is illegal that is properly legislated for. The principle of enforced removal of assets by the state is well established: it's called tax.
I was at the European Patent Office in The Hague yesterday. It employs people from 35 different European countries. I spoke to some from France, Switzerland, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands and Italy. I was surprised at just how much glee Germany's exit from the World Cup had produced. It's not just us, it seems!
There were even articles on US news sites celebrating the loss. Schadenfreude is clearly a global phenomenon...
Just as well the Germans have a word for taking delight in the misfortune of others...
Comments
And people spending money makes people politically happier and it will be closely correlated with employment and job losses.
We are in very uncharted waters.
If you can cover 100 miles on just one gallon of petrol (very rare), you are doing 100 mpg.
If each gallon gets you 50 miles, it's 50 mpg (which is still very good). And so on.
My fear is that the government will be so scared of a recession, that it will do anything to maintain consumption levels, and will continue to unbalance the UK economy.
Right now, fear is winning out.
Paying the USA whatever Germany's 'missing' NATO contribution since say 9/11 has been would amount to a very nice number.
Equally I hate GDP as a statistic - it doesn't actually tell you anything unless you know look at per capita details. When you do things look far less rosy than the top level figure seems....
Can anyone explain why we've suddenly got a shortage of CO2? It's passed me by how this "crisis" has suddenly happened?
Twat.
Tell us what those funny round shiny things are on these peoples' chests.
What effect would your scenario have on the trade and current account balances ?
Edit to add: I think the 2% rule only dates from the mid 2000s, but I might be wrong.
If it's to protect the nation, that's one thing. But are we really more 'safe' than say Spain despite (I assume) having a much more powerful military? If the idea is to be able to invade/threaten to invade Middle Eastern countries - then that's another thing.
Mr Morris - Indeed!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44613652
We could do it in five years, and sensibly, if the UK government was not so scared of rebalancing the economy. However, there are a number of headwinds, such as demographics, that we need to be aware of. Spain closed a 10% current account deficit in three years. I'd like to do it in a less painful way, and that shouldn't be impossible. I would suggest we concentrate more on helping businesses produce in the UK, and less on helping consumers spend in the UK.
Here's a (my) working list for example:
No foreign interventions for reasons that are only tenuously connected with a threat to the UK*.
Able to participate in isolated humanitarian operations.
Able to engage in force level deployments where there is a clear national interest involved*.
Contributing to NATO/EU peacekeeping missions.
Having forces sufficient to enact MACP.
Having forces sufficient to maintain the integrity and safety of our internal borders if necessary (eg. NI).
*difficult to determine, short of threat to our borders from a hostile force.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-france-military-dassault-avi/dassault-eyes-lead-role-in-new-european-fighter-jet-project-ceo-idUKKBN1HK0RR
Have you added Raheem Sterling's goalscoring record for England to your new football interest ?
And thanks for that picture I never realised that British soldiers fought using similar equipment and horses now as they did 200 years ago.
And British people think setting up the NHS was a greater national achievement than the industrial revolution.
May be wet. Likely be dry for at least some of the session, though.
That's why Boris struggles. Underneath, there is not all that much there. That's not to say he isn't bright. He is. It's that the way he frames the world and the only thing he really wants to achieve is the the greater glory of Boris. Ultimately, that's not very appealing. He thinks he's Churchill the PM, where in reality he has more in common with the dog,
Good grammar is important kids.
While our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq were not unqualified triumphs.
And the British army has received further cuts since then.
This stuff about projecting power sounds nice, but not convinced it's really worth it.
Incidentally, isn't it weird that nobody buys petrol in gallons, and most younger people would struggle to say how much a gallon is or how many gallons would fill their tank, yet mpg is the standard consumption figure.
You want to know what real stress is?
Driving for 11 months whilst on 9 points.
In those days I was driving circa 25,000 miles a year.
If its different perhaps you could provide some data on it and likewise on the number of Admirals and Air Marshals.
Irrespective of what they are you know I'm right - the British Army would struggle to form a full sized division for all those generals to command.
Ironically, Fritz Haber who invented ammonia and thus bubbles in beer which we have been discussing, also invented chemical warfare in the Great War.
Britain’s army is getting stronger because it has nearly halved the number of generals, the head of the armed forces has said.
Responding to criticism that the army is top-heavy, General Sir Nick Carter said that the total number of starred officers — brigadiers and generals — had been reduced by nearly 40 per cent, from 141 to 85, during the past five years.
Over the same period, he said, the proportion of generals to troops had improved to about 1 to 2,400, and the number of two-star headquarters staff had fallen from nine to five.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-heavy-british-army-halves-number-of-generals-j9sj6b2kp
The latter makes it much easier to work out how much it will cost you to drive a certain distance, and how much you will save by improving your fuel economy. The former creates a non-linear scale so that a difference of 8mpg between 25mpg and 33mpg is much more consequential than between 50mpg and 58mpg.
On Tuesday evening I've got tickets to see England v India in the first t20 at Old Trafford.
This coincides with Colombia v England.
What is a boy to do?
As I remember from what I've read here the number of admirals now exceeds the Yes Prime Minister joke.
Surely it is always is the national interest to provide for the defence of the nation.
And this is only the third item in a working list ??
I think you need to go back to first principles, and consider what are the priorities.
My way for working out the kmpl to mpg conversion is times 7, double twice, divide by 10. So for my target 32kmpl times 7 (224) double twice (448, 896) divide by 10 (89.6) is a pretty good guesstimate
They revised away one construction recession last quarter and they revised away another one now.
Overall it looks like construction output increased by over 7% in 2017:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/l2n8/qna
It is insane that, in an age of climate change, Government policy is to repeatedly freeze fuel duty, but to increase train fares by RPI every year.
Although not having James in their team will be help for us.
Germany's position regarding migration and the single currency does not seem to be winning them many friends at the moment.
Of course, they have also, until very recently, had a fantastic World Cup record, so there's probably a very large element of the upset at play too.
Schadenfreude is clearly a global phenomenon...
NEW THREAD