|
Post by wannabee on Jul 26, 2024 12:34:32 GMT
Chancellor to reveal a £20 billion shortfall in public finances. A carefully choreographed preparing of the ground for tax rises in the autumn which they promised they would not make. Financial Black Holes are about as complex as Einstein's Schwarzschild Singularities (Black Holes) if people don't understand their construction. Even when discussing the Universe Einstein later rejected their physical existence. So too when measuring the UK Economies Black Holes they too should be treated with the same level of scepticism I'm quite sure Rachel Reeves would like to dampen expectation in the general public but it doesn't wash in economic circles The "apparent" Black Hole very much depends on how you count the Beanz over a five year Government Term and the existing Fiscal Rules which have changed 9 times since they were first introduced in 1997 The Black Hole is calculated by OBR using forecast for Government Spending, Economy Growth and Debt Interest Assumptions. If any of those equations change the Black Hole suddenly becomes a Surplus. For the last 14 years we have had Monetarist Chancellor's who used Austerity to curb Government spending as a means to control the Economy and abide by self imposed Fiscal Rules. Austerity is a flawed Economic tool and is counterproductive because it stagnates the Economy What Reeves is attempting to do is to stimulate the Economy through Public and Private Investment to increase productivity, profits (not a nasty word) grow which generate more Taxes to spend on Public Services There seems to be a certain hysteria and expectation that 3 weeks into a Labour Administration everything will be turned around and on the other hand the doubters are waiting for the Gotcha moment to say, I told you so. It's not helped of course when Bellends like Streeting make crass comments.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 12:50:41 GMT
Coming for our freedom of speech now. This government is becoming more authoritarian by the day
Apologies to use a cesspit as a source. Unfortunately not reported in our main stream media as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 26, 2024 12:57:36 GMT
Chancellor to reveal a £20 billion shortfall in public finances. A carefully choreographed preparing of the ground for tax rises in the autumn which they promised they would not make. This is weird because everytime Sunak mentioned a shortfall in their budget and likely tax rises in the election debates we were told he was lying and desperate. But it seems that the lies actually were from labour if this is true. It isn't The alleged £20Bn Black Hole is entirely different to what Sunak was disengenuoslly saying. See my reply to Gods Sunak's claim was that under Labour Manifesto it would add £38Bn spending to Public Services which would add £2000 extra Taxes to every household .... over 4 years He further claimed that these figures were verified by Treasury, they weren't. In fact before Sunak made the comment he and other Ministers were told by Treasury not to say that they were calculated by Treasury. When Sunak did say it on ITV debate James Bowler Treasury Permanent Secretary wrote to both Sunak and the Labour Party expressing his displeasure and dissociating Treasury from Sunak's made up numbers So yes Sunak did lie, shock horror.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 13:01:42 GMT
This is weird because everytime Sunak mentioned a shortfall in their budget and likely tax rises in the election debates we were told he was lying and desperate. But it seems that the lies actually were from labour if this is true. It isn't The alleged £20Bn Black Hole is entirely different to what Sunak was disengenuoslly saying. See my reply to Gods Sunak's claim was that under Labour Manifesto it would add £38Bn spending to Public Services which would add £2000 extra Taxes to every household .... over 4 years He further claimed that these figures were verified by Treasury, they weren't. In fact before Sunak made the comment he and other Ministers were told by Treasury not to say that they were calculated by Treasury. When Sunak did say it on ITV debate James Bowler Treasury Permanent Secretary wrote to both Sunak and the Labour Party expressing his displeasure and dissociating Treasury from Sunak's made up numbers So yes Sunak did lie, shock horror. How come the leader of the SNP party seemed to be aware of this Blackhole in the build up to the election, pretty much quoting the exact figure being reported today. But it's taken labour and Reeves by "complete surprise"? It appears like everyone bar Labour and our main stream media knew about this. Sunak may have "lied" about the taxes. But he was emphasing that Labour's manifesto wasn't honest and not taking into account this 20 billion which everyone else knew off. And that there would need to be some sort of tax increases to cover it.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 26, 2024 13:18:55 GMT
It isn't The alleged £20Bn Black Hole is entirely different to what Sunak was disengenuoslly saying. See my reply to Gods Sunak's claim was that under Labour Manifesto it would add £38Bn spending to Public Services which would add £2000 extra Taxes to every household .... over 4 years He further claimed that these figures were verified by Treasury, they weren't. In fact before Sunak made the comment he and other Ministers were told by Treasury not to say that they were calculated by Treasury. When Sunak did say it on ITV debate James Bowler Treasury Permanent Secretary wrote to both Sunak and the Labour Party expressing his displeasure and dissociating Treasury from Sunak's made up numbers So yes Sunak did lie, shock horror. How come the leader of the SNP party seemed to be aware of this Blackhole in the build up to the election, pretty much quoting the exact figure being reported today. But it's taken labour and Reeves by "complete surprise"? It appears like everyone bar Labour and our main stream media knew about this. Sunak may have "lied" about the taxes. But he was emphasing that Labour's manifesto wasn't honest and not taking into account this 20 billion which everyone else knew off. And that there would need to be some sort of tax increases to cover it. And here's what the IFS thought of the Green manifesto , were they lying too? ifs.org.uk/articles/green-party-manifesto-reaction
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 13:21:55 GMT
How come the leader of the SNP party seemed to be aware of this Blackhole in the build up to the election, pretty much quoting the exact figure being reported today. But it's taken labour and Reeves by "complete surprise"? It appears like everyone bar Labour and our main stream media knew about this. Sunak may have "lied" about the taxes. But he was emphasing that Labour's manifesto wasn't honest and not taking into account this 20 billion which everyone else knew off. And that there would need to be some sort of tax increases to cover it. And here's what the IFS thought of the Green manifesto , were they lying too? ifs.org.uk/articles/green-party-manifesto-reactionNice whataboutery but we are talking about the government in power here. No opinions on labour?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 26, 2024 14:04:47 GMT
It isn't The alleged £20Bn Black Hole is entirely different to what Sunak was disengenuoslly saying. See my reply to Gods Sunak's claim was that under Labour Manifesto it would add £38Bn spending to Public Services which would add £2000 extra Taxes to every household .... over 4 years He further claimed that these figures were verified by Treasury, they weren't. In fact before Sunak made the comment he and other Ministers were told by Treasury not to say that they were calculated by Treasury. When Sunak did say it on ITV debate James Bowler Treasury Permanent Secretary wrote to both Sunak and the Labour Party expressing his displeasure and dissociating Treasury from Sunak's made up numbers So yes Sunak did lie, shock horror. How come the leader of the SNP party seemed to be aware of this Blackhole in the build up to the election, pretty much quoting the exact figure being reported today. But it's taken labour and Reeves by "complete surprise"? It appears like everyone bar Labour and our main stream media knew about this. Sunak may have "lied" about the taxes. But he was emphasing that Labour's manifesto wasn't honest and not taking into account this 20 billion which everyone else knew off. And that there would need to be some sort of tax increases to cover it.
With respect that is complete nonsense Salopstick expressed it perfectly, accurately, beautifully and succinctly when he said this "The extra money the government needs to find to meet self-imposed targets around debt in the future has been labelled the "black hole"."im not saying there is no money there but they make it look like its £20bn missing"I won't repeat everything in my reply to Gods but you can create a Black Hole or a Surplus simply by altering Growth Projections, Government Spending or Debt Interest Rates. It's a FORECAST it's not real. Sunack said nothing about Holes Black or otherwise, in fact it was the last thing he wanted to talk about because it was his/Hunts Budget which created this apparent Black Hole in 2027/8 based on current OBR assumptions. When Sunak criticised Labour's Manifesto (entirely different thing to this infamous Black Hole) the Conservatives simply reworked Labour's Tax and spending Manifesto Plans using different assumptions and calculated a £38Bn shortfall leading to a crude calculation of £2000 Tax on each household over 4 years. Neither the Black Hole or Sunak's Bullshit exist Back in the Real World Rachel Reeves will make Political Choices of how to stimulate the Economy with Capital Expenditure and her Tax and Spending Plans. Let's wait until she does eh
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 26, 2024 14:30:27 GMT
Nice whataboutery but we are talking about the government in power here. No opinions on labour? Sorry I thought we are talking about what was being said during the election campaign. So I believed the IFS when they said there was a hole in the plans of Labour, The Tories, ,Lib Dems , Greens and Reform, with the latter two seeing their spokespeople lying on a whole different level when talking about their fiscal plans.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 26, 2024 14:36:10 GMT
Chancellor to reveal a £20 billion shortfall in public finances. A carefully choreographed preparing of the ground for tax rises in the autumn which they promised they would not make. Financial Black Holes are about as complex as Einstein's Schwarzschild Singularities (Black Holes) if people don't understand their construction. Even when discussing the Universe Einstein later rejected their physical existence. So too when measuring the UK Economies Black Holes they too should be treated with the same level of scepticism I'm quite sure Rachel Reeves would like to dampen expectation in the general public but it doesn't wash in economic circles The "apparent" Black Hole very much depends on how you count the Beanz over a five year Government Term and the existing Fiscal Rules which have changed 9 times since they were first introduced in 1997 The Black Hole is calculated by OBR using forecast for Government Spending, Economy Growth and Debt Interest Assumptions. If any of those equations change the Black Hole suddenly becomes a Surplus. For the last 14 years we have had Monetarist Chancellor's who used Austerity to curb Government spending as a means to control the Economy and abide by self imposed Fiscal Rules. Austerity is a flawed Economic tool and is counterproductive because it stagnates the Economy What Reeves is attempting to do is to stimulate the Economy through Public and Private Investment to increase productivity, profits (not a nasty word) grow which generate more Taxes to spend on Public Services There seems to be a certain hysteria and expectation that 3 weeks into a Labour Administration everything will be turned around and on the other hand the doubters are waiting for the Gotcha moment to say, I told you so. It's not helped of course when Bellends like Streeting make crass comments. Good post. I'm not entirely with you on 'austerity' though. As it is the cost of servicing our national debt is nearly 5% of our GDP. Or equal to our entire spend on education and defence put together. It just isn't a great idea to mortgage our children's future by racking up trillions of pounds of debt. IMHO
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 14:59:23 GMT
How come the leader of the SNP party seemed to be aware of this Blackhole in the build up to the election, pretty much quoting the exact figure being reported today. But it's taken labour and Reeves by "complete surprise"? It appears like everyone bar Labour and our main stream media knew about this. Sunak may have "lied" about the taxes. But he was emphasing that Labour's manifesto wasn't honest and not taking into account this 20 billion which everyone else knew off. And that there would need to be some sort of tax increases to cover it.
With respect that is complete nonsense Salopstick expressed it perfectly, accurately, beautifully and succinctly when he said this "The extra money the government needs to find to meet self-imposed targets around debt in the future has been labelled the "black hole"."im not saying there is no money there but they make it look like its £20bn missing"I won't repeat everything in my reply to Gods but you can create a Black Hole or a Surplus simply by altering Growth Projections, Government Spending or Debt Interest Rates. It's a FORECAST it's not real. Sunack said nothing about Holes Black or otherwise, in fact it was the last thing he wanted to talk about because it was his/Hunts Budget which created this apparent Black Hole in 2027/8 based on current OBR assumptions. When Sunak criticised Labour's Manifesto (entirely different thing to this infamous Black Hole) the Conservatives simply reworked Labour's Tax and spending Manifesto Plans using different assumptions and calculated a £38Bn shortfall leading to a crude calculation of £2000 Tax on each household over 4 years. Neither the Black Hole or Sunak's Bullshit exist Back in the Real World Rachel Reeves will make Political Choices of how to stimulate the Economy with Capital Expenditure and her Tax and Spending Plans. Let's wait until she does eh You're correct that salopstick summed it up perfectly. And you're also correct that by changing fiscal rules that the sum of the blackhole may differ. But Labour many times have made it clear that they intend to follow the same fiscal rules as the conservative party. And thus this blackhole is very much real and Labour, like everyone else, were aware of it during the election when they said multiple times they won't be raising taxes.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 15:22:17 GMT
Nice whataboutery but we are talking about the government in power here. No opinions on labour? Sorry I thought we are talking about what was being said during the election campaign. So I believed the IFS when they said there was a hole in the plans of Labour, The Tories, ,Lib Dems , Greens and Reform, with the latter two seeing their spokespeople lying on a whole different level when talking about their fiscal plans. Labour ran a manifesto on "change" but everything points to quite the opposite and they were also heavily criticised by the IFS. Director of IFS in the build up to the election. “This is a manifesto that promises a dizzying number of reviews and strategies to tackle some of the challenges facing the country... And Labour’s manifesto offers no indication that there is a plan for where the money would come from to finance this.” “Yes, growth could surprise on the upside... But if it doesn’t – and it hasn’t tended to in recent years – then either we will get those cuts, or the fiscal targets will be fudged, or taxes will rise.”
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 15:39:50 GMT
Two cheeks of the same arse.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 26, 2024 15:50:34 GMT
Sorry I thought we are talking about what was being said during the election campaign. So I believed the IFS when they said there was a hole in the plans of Labour, The Tories, ,Lib Dems , Greens and Reform, with the latter two seeing their spokespeople lying on a whole different level when talking about their fiscal plans. Labour ran a manifesto on "change" but everything points to quite the opposite and they were also heavily criticised by the IFS. Director of IFS in the build up to the election. “This is a manifesto that promises a dizzying number of reviews and strategies to tackle some of the challenges facing the country... And Labour’s manifesto offers no indication that there is a plan for where the money would come from to finance this.” “Yes, growth could surprise on the upside... But if it doesn’t – and it hasn’t tended to in recent years – then either we will get those cuts, or the fiscal targets will be fudged, or taxes will rise.” Yes, as I said before, I knew very well what the IFS were saying and I believed them . I also know what they were saying about the other parties (not sure about SNP) and what was on offer was very much a five-cheeked arsehole, with Reform and the Greens having the biggest boils.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 15:50:39 GMT
More privatisation of national infrastructure?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 15:58:50 GMT
Nice whataboutery but we are talking about the government in power here. No opinions on labour? Sorry I thought we are talking about what was being said during the election campaign. So I believed the IFS when they said there was a hole in the plans of Labour, The Tories, ,Lib Dems , Greens and Reform, with the latter two seeing their spokespeople lying on a whole different level when talking about their fiscal plans. The conversations never been specifically about what was said in an election, it was about the 20 billion black hole labour have to fill due to the fiscal rules they've decided to follow. I notice you mentioned Reform in your reply. Don't worry I'm not now going to only specifically talk about Reform and pretend the conversation is specifically about them. Why you've seemingly got the hump over this and are on a scatter gun attack of whataboutery on every other party I do not know. Labour are the government. Not lib dem, not tory, not Reform, not green. Sounding very like some of our regular visitors to the Tory thread who would spend alot of time talking about what if's of other parties rather than the one governing.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 26, 2024 16:22:15 GMT
Two cheeks of the same arse. Why was no one reading his lips for fucks sake?
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 26, 2024 16:43:46 GMT
Sorry I thought we are talking about what was being said during the election campaign. So I believed the IFS when they said there was a hole in the plans of Labour, The Tories, ,Lib Dems , Greens and Reform, with the latter two seeing their spokespeople lying on a whole different level when talking about their fiscal plans. The conversations never been specifically about what was said in an election, You were the one posting footage from the election campaign, and making multiple reference to what Labour knew when they were defending their fiscal plan during the campaign ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/cj7bsBj2jOTuEAUVaPt5.gif) .
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 26, 2024 18:48:42 GMT
You're correct that salopstick summed it up perfectly. And you're also correct that by changing fiscal rules that the sum of the blackhole may differ. But Labour many times have made it clear that they intend to follow the same fiscal rules as the conservative party. And thus this blackhole is very much real and Labour, like everyone else, were aware of it during the election when they said multiple times they won't be raising taxes. You must not have been paying attention then because they said no such thing They said they would not increase Taxes on "Working People" specifically Income Tax, National Insurance and VAT. That doesn't include CGT, Inheritance Tax etc which I fully expect them to increase in October Budget I also never said changing the Fiscal Rules made the sum of the Black Hole different. I said you can create a Black Hole or a Surplus simply by altering Growth Projections, Government Spending or Debt Interest Rates. It's a FORECAST it's not real.
Having spent most of my working life preparing/approving Multi Million/Billion £ Bugets is that the day after they are published they are out of date as actual circumstances change The main Fiscal Rules, which have changed 3 times during the lifetime of the last Parliament most recently in February 2023 are: Government borrowing to not exceed 3% of GDP in the fifth year.
And Government debt to be falling, as a % of GDP, in the fifth year.They are Rolling Targets They are reasonable targets because as Gods points out current Governments shouldn't burden future Generations by excessive borrowing This "apparent" Black Hole identified by IFS is if all Tax and Spend policies outlined in Jeremy Hunt Buget in November 2023 and GDP increased as Forecast there would be an £18Bn funding gap in year 2027/28 if Fiscal Rules were maintained i.e. No increase in Borrowing compared to GDP and would result in cuts to Unprotected Departments This is based on Tax and Spend Political Choices made by the Conservative Government They are not the Tax and Spend Political Choises Rachel Reeves will make in October
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 18:57:37 GMT
Wannabe we can go all night back and forth on this.
Let's wait and see how it plays out. I foresee austerity, you seem to think otherwise?
Neoliberalism. The gift which keeps given.
And come next election, when the disproportionally platformed Reform are on our screens, and continue to get more and more TV time. And when people say Lab/Tory are all the same and look at 20 odd years of austerity, and they want a change or a difference.
That's when we can circle back to centrist delivering right wing populism. Something which our media, who drool over Reform, will be very happy to present as the alternative.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 26, 2024 19:14:46 GMT
Wannabe we can go all night back and forth on this. Let's wai t and see how it plays out. I foresee austerity, you seem to think otherwise? Neoliberalism. The gift which keeps given. And come next election, when the disproportionally platformed Reform are on our screens, and continue to get more and more TV time. And when people say Lab/Tory are all the same and look at 20 odd years of austerity, and they want a change or a difference. That's when we can circle back to centrist delivering right wing populism. Something which our media, who drool over Reform, will be very happy to present as the alternative. I said this many hours ago but you kept searching for non existent Black Holes
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 20:37:45 GMT
Coming for our freedom of speech now. This government is becoming more authoritarian by the day Apologies to use a cesspit as a source. Unfortunately not reported in our main stream media as of yet. Surprised this hasn't garnered much attention in the thread. Presume people are supportive of this?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2024 20:54:52 GMT
Coming for our freedom of speech now. This government is becoming more authoritarian by the day Apologies to use a cesspit as a source. Unfortunately not reported in our main stream media as of yet. Surprised this hasn't garnered much attention in the thread. Presume people are supportive of this? It’s not really about freedom of speech though, is it? It’s about Universities being forced to spend more money on hiring random administrators whose express purpose is to show that freedom of speech is guaranteed and if they don’t, then they get sanctions. What a massive waste of money. As if University’s need even more admin staff.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 26, 2024 23:19:07 GMT
Surprised this hasn't garnered much attention in the thread. Presume people are supportive of this? It’s not really about freedom of speech though, is it? It’s about Universities being forced to spend more money on hiring random administrators whose express purpose is to show that freedom of speech is guaranteed and if they don’t, then they get sanctions. What a massive waste of money. As if University’s need even more admin staff. I think it's a divisive one mate and appreciate that you may welcome it as a cost saving. For instance we could read the statement from the Russel Group unis and believe its a good decision which are universities are supportive of and won't impede on freedom of speech - russellgroup.ac.uk/news/freedom-of-speechWe can also then go onto read the gov guidance - educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/07/26/free-speech-act-what-you-need-to-know/"...potentially damaging to student welfare... there is widespread concern about the negative impact of the Act from vulnerable groups. For example, there are fears that the legislation could protect those using hate speech on campuses, and that it could also push providers to overlook the safety and well-being of minority groups, including Jewish students." What the act actually entails: I find it strange that the reasoning seems to make out the act damages student welfare when it actually offers them alot more protections. I can't help but feel either that the only minority group which gets name dropped being Jewish that it's likely directly in response to university tent protests and other demonstrations in relation to Palestine. As someone who believes in freedom of speech, I'm not sure I support this change. The NDA part going also concerns me too especially if it's as big a problem as implied. Some may support it as a cost saving exercise, some may see it as a loss of freedoms. Benefits both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2024 1:09:42 GMT
It’s not really about freedom of speech though, is it? It’s about Universities being forced to spend more money on hiring random administrators whose express purpose is to show that freedom of speech is guaranteed and if they don’t, then they get sanctions. What a massive waste of money. As if University’s need even more admin staff. I think it's a divisive one mate and appreciate that you may welcome it as a cost saving. For instance we could read the statement from the Russel Group unis and believe its a good decision which are universities are supportive of and won't impede on freedom of speech - russellgroup.ac.uk/news/freedom-of-speechWe can also then go onto read the gov guidance - educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/07/26/free-speech-act-what-you-need-to-know/"...potentially damaging to student welfare... there is widespread concern about the negative impact of the Act from vulnerable groups. For example, there are fears that the legislation could protect those using hate speech on campuses, and that it could also push providers to overlook the safety and well-being of minority groups, including Jewish students." What the act actually entails: I find it strange that the reasoning seems to make out the act damages student welfare when it actually offers them alot more protections. I can't help but feel either that the only minority group which gets name dropped being Jewish that it's likely directly in response to university tent protests and other demonstrations in relation to Palestine. As someone who believes in freedom of speech, I'm not sure I support this change. The NDA part going also concerns me too especially if it's as big a problem as implied. Some may support it as a cost saving exercise, some may see it as a loss of freedoms. Benefits both ways. But the law has yet to have been put into effect, right? So, it’s not a loss of freedom because it’s not taking away anything that currently exists in practice? It’s just business as usual for Universities, which in general, are pretty safe havens for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is protected by article 10 of the human rights act (1998). So, I’m not really sure what the extra legislation was supposed to achieve to be honest apart from make Universities spend more money trying to insulate themselves from the risks of excessive litigation, while simultaneously spending less money, time and effort on educating students.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 27, 2024 1:25:00 GMT
I think it's a divisive one mate and appreciate that you may welcome it as a cost saving. For instance we could read the statement from the Russel Group unis and believe its a good decision which are universities are supportive of and won't impede on freedom of speech - russellgroup.ac.uk/news/freedom-of-speechWe can also then go onto read the gov guidance - educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/07/26/free-speech-act-what-you-need-to-know/"...potentially damaging to student welfare... there is widespread concern about the negative impact of the Act from vulnerable groups. For example, there are fears that the legislation could protect those using hate speech on campuses, and that it could also push providers to overlook the safety and well-being of minority groups, including Jewish students." What the act actually entails: I find it strange that the reasoning seems to make out the act damages student welfare when it actually offers them alot more protections. I can't help but feel either that the only minority group which gets name dropped being Jewish that it's likely directly in response to university tent protests and other demonstrations in relation to Palestine. As someone who believes in freedom of speech, I'm not sure I support this change. The NDA part going also concerns me too especially if it's as big a problem as implied. Some may support it as a cost saving exercise, some may see it as a loss of freedoms. Benefits both ways. But the law has yet to have been put into effect, right? So, it’s not a loss of freedom because it’s not taking away anything that currently exists in practice? It’s just business as usual for Universities, which in general, are pretty safe havens for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is protected by article 10 of the human rights act (1998). So, I’m not really sure what the extra legislation was supposed to achieve to be honest apart from make Universities spend more money trying to insulate themselves from the risks of excessive litigation, while simultaneously spending less money, time and effort on educating students. I concede and on second thought think I agree. Especially given the debt some universities are currently facing. Now let me go find that tinfoil hat of mine again...
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 27, 2024 9:23:18 GMT
You're correct that salopstick summed it up perfectly. And you're also correct that by changing fiscal rules that the sum of the blackhole may differ. But Labour many times have made it clear that they intend to follow the same fiscal rules as the conservative party. And thus this blackhole is very much real and Labour, like everyone else, were aware of it during the election when they said multiple times they won't be raising taxes. You must not have been paying attention then because they said no such thing They said they would not increase Taxes on "Working People" specifically Income Tax, National Insurance and VAT. That doesn't include CGT, Inheritance Tax etc which I fully expect them to increase in October Budget I also never said changing the Fiscal Rules made the sum of the Black Hole different. I said you can create a Black Hole or a Surplus simply by altering Growth Projections, Government Spending or Debt Interest Rates. It's a FORECAST it's not real.
Having spent most of my working life preparing/approving Multi Million/Billion £ Bugets is that the day after they are published they are out of date as actual circumstances change The main Fiscal Rules, which have changed 3 times during the lifetime of the last Parliament most recently in February 2023 are: Government borrowing to not exceed 3% of GDP in the fifth year.
And Government debt to be falling, as a % of GDP, in the fifth year.They are Rolling Targets They are reasonable targets because as Gods points out current Governments shouldn't burden future Generations by excessive borrowing This "apparent" Black Hole identified by IFS is if all Tax and Spend policies outlined in Jeremy Hunt Buget in November 2023 and GDP increased as Forecast there would be an £18Bn funding gap in year 2027/28 if Fiscal Rules were maintained i.e. No increase in Borrowing compared to GDP and would result in cuts to Unprotected Departments This is based on Tax and Spend Political Choices made by the Conservative Government They are not the Tax and Spend Political Choises Rachel Reeves will make in October You are quite correct, financial black holes can be created by how you skew the forecast. But you have been quite happy to argue against Brexit on the basis of forecasts skewed by the Cameron government and others to predict doom and gloom on the basis of false counterfactuals and doppelgangers. The OBR was established to give transparency to government finances and the state of UK finances was quite clear long before the GE: www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c100n7djyr6oConversely the OBR tend to take a very negative view on the UK economic performance and are very cautious in their forecasting. On Brexit they predicted an immediate recession if the country voted leave, a drop in immigration (haha), and no benefits from increased trade with RoW, whereas trade with North America has doubled since 2014. My personal opinion is far more optimistic. Both main parties though chose not to paint a picture of poor finances during their campaigns in case it drove voters to other parties like Reform. Labour are now seeking to follow the previously normal Tory tactics of take the pain now, and then boost the economy just before the next GE. As I have repeatedly posted, now the country is free of EU restraints there is a huge opportunity to start growing the economy faster, as we did after WW2 when the national debt was far worse than it is today. The priority has to be to get the trade deficit back into balance and reduce our dependency on the EU. Labour are right to give growth the priority but we must also take full advantage of our own fossil fuels in the immediate future (I.e. North Sea oil ,gas, Cumbria coal) till we have sufficient renewables and nuclear, which appears they will not be doing. So once again government will probably screw it up whichever party is in power.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jul 27, 2024 9:26:18 GMT
But the law has yet to have been put into effect, right? So, it’s not a loss of freedom because it’s not taking away anything that currently exists in practice? It’s just business as usual for Universities, which in general, are pretty safe havens for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is protected by article 10 of the human rights act (1998). So, I’m not really sure what the extra legislation was supposed to achieve to be honest apart from make Universities spend more money trying to insulate themselves from the risks of excessive litigation, while simultaneously spending less money, time and effort on educating students. I concede and on second thought think I agree. Especially given the debt some universities are currently facing. Now let me go find that tinfoil hat of mine again... Gawa, I'm a bit surprised that this one has got you so concerned. My understanding was that this bill was a bit of red meat for the Conservative base who are convinced that universities are dominated by mad left wing extremists who deplatform anybody they disagree with and treat everything contrary to their beliefs as a hate crime. It's been a theme of the last few years now and part of the culture wars stuff. For example, the National Student Survey has, for the last couple of years, included the question 'During your studies, how free did you feel to express your ideas, opinions, and beliefs'. The reality is that foe the vast majority of students, this simply isn't a concern. Comments on the NSS question, for example, will include bemused Physicists asking why they would want to express opinions or beliefs about Schrodinger's equation. Only a very small percentage of students get involved in student politics. I'm not sure why certain politicians and journalists get so upset about it. Maybe it's because Oxbridge is overrepresented amongst their number, where things like the Oxford Union are a more significant part of university life? Maybe it's because journalists and politicians are more likely to have studied Arts and Humanities subjects. Maybe it's because students don't vote Conservative and they're unhappy about that. Anyway, it's a silly cause chasing a non-existent bogeyman in my opinion, and this to me is another example of the grown ups being back in charge. Needless to say, HE is another sector left in a precarious state by the previous Government, and Labour have a lot of work to do to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 27, 2024 11:10:07 GMT
You must not have been paying attention then because they said no such thing They said they would not increase Taxes on "Working People" specifically Income Tax, National Insurance and VAT. That doesn't include CGT, Inheritance Tax etc which I fully expect them to increase in October Budget I also never said changing the Fiscal Rules made the sum of the Black Hole different. I said you can create a Black Hole or a Surplus simply by altering Growth Projections, Government Spending or Debt Interest Rates. It's a FORECAST it's not real.
Having spent most of my working life preparing/approving Multi Million/Billion £ Bugets is that the day after they are published they are out of date as actual circumstances change The main Fiscal Rules, which have changed 3 times during the lifetime of the last Parliament most recently in February 2023 are: Government borrowing to not exceed 3% of GDP in the fifth year.
And Government debt to be falling, as a % of GDP, in the fifth year.They are Rolling Targets They are reasonable targets because as Gods points out current Governments shouldn't burden future Generations by excessive borrowing This "apparent" Black Hole identified by IFS is if all Tax and Spend policies outlined in Jeremy Hunt Buget in November 2023 and GDP increased as Forecast there would be an £18Bn funding gap in year 2027/28 if Fiscal Rules were maintained i.e. No increase in Borrowing compared to GDP and would result in cuts to Unprotected Departments This is based on Tax and Spend Political Choices made by the Conservative Government They are not the Tax and Spend Political Choises Rachel Reeves will make in October You are quite correct, financial black holes can be created by how you skew the forecast. But you have been quite happy to argue against Brexit on the basis of forecasts skewed by the Cameron government and others to predict doom and gloom on the basis of false counterfactuals and doppelgangers. The OBR was established to give transparency to government finances and the state of UK finances was quite clear long before the GE: www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c100n7djyr6oConversely the OBR tend to take a very negative view on the UK economic performance and are very cautious in their forecasting. On Brexit they predicted an immediate recession if the country voted leave, a drop in immigration (haha), and no benefits from increased trade with RoW, whereas trade with North America has doubled since 2014. My personal opinion is far more optimistic. Both main parties though chose not to paint a picture of poor finances during their campaigns in case it drove voters to other parties like Reform. Labour are now seeking to follow the previously normal Tory tactics of take the pain now, and then boost the economy just before the next GE. As I have repeatedly posted, now the country is free of EU restraints there is a huge opportunity to start growing the economy faster, as we did after WW2 when the national debt was far worse than it is today. The priority has to be to get the trade deficit back into balance and reduce our dependency on the EU. Labour are right to give growth the priority but we must also take full advantage of our own fossil fuels in the immediate future (I.e. North Sea oil ,gas, Cumbria coal) till we have sufficient renewables and nuclear, which appears they will not be doing. So once again government will probably screw it up whichever party is in power. I may have used Forecast data on Brexit thread once or twice when I first joined the MB but being challenged by you I no longer did. I can recall once of twice pointing out your use of forecasts. The Doppleganger Models were produced by several Economic Academic Institutions which all came to the same conclusion i.e. that Brexit would cause a 4% reduction to GDP than if it remained but your correct of course because as soon as that Model was produced it was outdated due to real world changes. Probably the most significant intended change by Labour Government is to seek Equivalence of Standards between UK and EU in Goods, Agri-Foods and Professional Standards. Furthermore Labour will adopt any new EU upgrade of Standards into UK Law via Secondary Legislation requiring only a Ministers Direction to the Regulator. This is like being in EU without officially being in EU like Norway paying into EU Budget and following all the regulations. This will give Industry, Professional Bodies and Agri-food sectors certainty they don't have duplication and less Red Tape cost which impedes Exports. You can't have confusion of purpose. On the one hand have 2030 net Zero goals, establish GBE and also issue new Oil and Gas Licences which provides no Energy Security but possibly Tax Revenue. In any case the main point is Black Holes are mythical, depending on the Economy's performance, Taxes raised and Debt Borrowed Rachel Reeves will have Political Choices to make how she spends the available cash. It has no relevance to what Political Choices Jeremy Hunt may have made previously as you are so fond of pointing out incoming Governments are not bound by outgoing Governments
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 27, 2024 12:50:45 GMT
You are quite correct, financial black holes can be created by how you skew the forecast. But you have been quite happy to argue against Brexit on the basis of forecasts skewed by the Cameron government and others to predict doom and gloom on the basis of false counterfactuals and doppelgangers. The OBR was established to give transparency to government finances and the state of UK finances was quite clear long before the GE: www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c100n7djyr6oConversely the OBR tend to take a very negative view on the UK economic performance and are very cautious in their forecasting. On Brexit they predicted an immediate recession if the country voted leave, a drop in immigration (haha), and no benefits from increased trade with RoW, whereas trade with North America has doubled since 2014. My personal opinion is far more optimistic. Both main parties though chose not to paint a picture of poor finances during their campaigns in case it drove voters to other parties like Reform. Labour are now seeking to follow the previously normal Tory tactics of take the pain now, and then boost the economy just before the next GE. As I have repeatedly posted, now the country is free of EU restraints there is a huge opportunity to start growing the economy faster, as we did after WW2 when the national debt was far worse than it is today. The priority has to be to get the trade deficit back into balance and reduce our dependency on the EU. Labour are right to give growth the priority but we must also take full advantage of our own fossil fuels in the immediate future (I.e. North Sea oil ,gas, Cumbria coal) till we have sufficient renewables and nuclear, which appears they will not be doing. So once again government will probably screw it up whichever party is in power. I may have used Forecast data on Brexit thread once or twice when I first joined the MB but being challenged by you I no longer did. I can recall once of twice pointing out your use of forecasts. The Doppleganger Models were produced by several Economic Academic Institutions which all came to the same conclusion i.e. that Brexit would cause a 4% reduction to GDP than if it remained but your correct of course because as soon as that Model was produced it was outdated due to real world changes. Probably the most significant intended change by Labour Government is to seek Equivalence of Standards between UK and EU in Goods, Agri-Foods and Professional Standards. Furthermore Labour will adopt any new EU upgrade of Standards into UK Law via Secondary Legislation requiring only a Ministers Direction to the Regulator. This is like being in EU without officially being in EU like Norway paying into EU Budget and following all the regulations. This will give Industry, Professional Bodies and Agri-food sectors certainty they don't have duplication and less Red Tape cost which impedes Exports. You can't have confusion of purpose. On the one hand have 2030 net Zero goals, establish GBE and also issue new Oil and Gas Licences which provides no Energy Security but possibly Tax Revenue. In any case the main point is Black Holes are mythical, depending on the Economy's performance, Taxes raised and Debt Borrowed Rachel Reeves will have Political Choices to make how she spends the available cash. It has no relevance to what Political Choices Jeremy Hunt may have made previously as you are so fond of pointing out incoming Governments are not bound by outgoing Governments I have never had a problem with EU standards per se. In the late 80s and 90s I was highly engaged in implementing EU standards on environment, health, safety, hygiene, employment etc. By the 00s when I was chairing a European committee I was actively involved in setting higher standards and advising a government committee. My concern is who is setting the standards, who they are responsible and accountable to, and why they are setting the standards. In the 90s I became deeply concerned that the UK were slavishly implementing certain standards like CE marking while other countries blatantly ignored them. In the 00s I observed some European countries subsidising their industries while Blair was quite happy to let factory after factory close in the UK, in some cases moving production to Europe. More recently, prior to leaving the EU, the UK government were forced to reintroduce VAT on solar panels by the EU COJ because it contravened the EU rules at the time which were serving the interests of the coal lobby in Europe. (Since reversed. ) Denmark tried to introduce phasing out of i/c cars but were stopped by the Commission as they were dancing to the German car industry tune. I could go on and on, endlessly, I had 30s years experience of the duplicity of the EU. I am happy to have Equivalence provided it is British politician and civil servant held accountable and indeed we are free to introduce higher standards. EU legislation is solely drafted by the EU Commission with the dual intents of protecting EU commerce and moving towards total economic, fiscal, foreign policy, defence, etc. union which is not accountable to any citizens. On fossil fuels the UK imports at least a third of our needs and it is a huge drain on the countries finances and we have sources untapped under our feet. It is going to be decades before they are phased out. Building nuclear power, energy storage, and transmission of electricity takes a long long time. We are subject to fluctuations in world energy prices while countries like US and Canada benefit from them. There will always be a need for oil for plastics, lubricants, and other specialist needs long after its use as a fuel. The steel industry will be using metallurgical coals well into the next century; if there is a reserve under Cumbria we might as well sell it to India instead of them buying it from Russia. I see no conflict. The UK will be consuming fossil fuels for decades to come despite best endeavours. Hands up everyone getting rid of their gas central heating! I generate solar power and feed the grid but I'll be burning gas till I burn out!
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 27, 2024 13:18:49 GMT
I may have used Forecast data on Brexit thread once or twice when I first joined the MB but being challenged by you I no longer did. I can recall once of twice pointing out your use of forecasts. The Doppleganger Models were produced by several Economic Academic Institutions which all came to the same conclusion i.e. that Brexit would cause a 4% reduction to GDP than if it remained but your correct of course because as soon as that Model was produced it was outdated due to real world changes. Probably the most significant intended change by Labour Government is to seek Equivalence of Standards between UK and EU in Goods, Agri-Foods and Professional Standards. Furthermore Labour will adopt any new EU upgrade of Standards into UK Law via Secondary Legislation requiring only a Ministers Direction to the Regulator. This is like being in EU without officially being in EU like Norway paying into EU Budget and following all the regulations. This will give Industry, Professional Bodies and Agri-food sectors certainty they don't have duplication and less Red Tape cost which impedes Exports. You can't have confusion of purpose. On the one hand have 2030 net Zero goals, establish GBE and also issue new Oil and Gas Licences which provides no Energy Security but possibly Tax Revenue. In any case the main point is Black Holes are mythical, depending on the Economy's performance, Taxes raised and Debt Borrowed Rachel Reeves will have Political Choices to make how she spends the available cash. It has no relevance to what Political Choices Jeremy Hunt may have made previously as you are so fond of pointing out incoming Governments are not bound by outgoing Governments I have never had a problem with EU standards per se. In the late 80s and 90s I was highly engaged in implementing EU standards on environment, health, safety, hygiene, employment etc. By the 00s when I was chairing a European committee I was actively involved in setting higher standards and advising a government committee. My concern is who is setting the standards, who they are responsible and accountable to, and why they are setting the standards. In the 90s I became deeply concerned that the UK were slavishly implementing certain standards like CE marking while other countries blatantly ignored them. In the 00s I observed some European countries subsidising their industries while Blair was quite happy to let factory after factory close in the UK, in some cases moving production to Europe. More recently, prior to leaving the EU, the UK government were forced to reintroduce VAT on solar panels by the EU COJ because it contravened the EU rules at the time which were serving the interests of the coal lobby in Europe. (Since reversed. ) Denmark tried to introduce phasing out of i/c cars but were stopped by the Commission as they were dancing to the German car industry tune. I could go on and on, endlessly, I had 30s years experience of the duplicity of the EU. I am happy to have Equivalence provided it is British politician and civil servant held accountable and indeed we are free to introduce higher standards. EU legislation is solely drafted by the EU Commission with the dual intents of protecting EU commerce and moving towards total economic, fiscal, foreign policy, defence, etc. union which is not accountable to any citizens. On fossil fuels the UK imports at least a third of our needs and it is a huge drain on the countries finances and we have sources untapped under our feet. It is going to be decades before they are phased out. Building nuclear power, energy storage, and transmission of electricity takes a long long time. We are subject to fluctuations in world energy prices while countries like US and Canada benefit from them. There will always be a need for oil for plastics, lubricants, and other specialist needs long after its use as a fuel. The steel industry will be using metallurgical coals well into the next century; if there is a reserve under Cumbria we might as well sell it to India instead of them buying it from Russia. I see no conflict. The UK will be consuming fossil fuels for decades to come despite best endeavours. Hands up everyone getting rid of their gas central heating! I generate solar power and feed the grid but I'll be burning gas till I burn out! I doubt the continuous realignment of UK Standards to EU will receive much attention other than by those directly affected as it will be done by a Minister without need of Parliamentary scrutiny. UK Politicians and Civil Servants will have no input into what those Standards are other than to cut and paste into UK Law. Correct UK can introduce higher Standards if it wants to make UK less competitive. We don't have any Energy Sources under our feet, we sold them many years ago. If untapped Oil and g be Gas is explored UK can bid for them on the Spot Market like any other Country
|
|