Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Footing the bill. The challenges for freespending politicians

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited October 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Footing the bill. The challenges for freespending politicians

I like big buts and I cannot lie.  If I am presented with a rosy apple, I look for the worm.  If I’m covered with dark clouds, I look for the silver lining.  I’m that guy who likes to say “I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that”.  I’m unapologetic: it usually is more complicated than that.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • First
  • ...and McDonnell is seriously dangerous.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,009

    ...and McDonnell is seriously dangerous.

    Amen brother
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,157
    edited October 9
    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,637
    Pulpstar said:

    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.

    Pass a law, I imagine...
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,157
    (Reposted from previous thread)

    German industry warned that Europe risks sinking into chaos and trade will collapse if U.K. and European Union leaders fail to resolve their differences on the future of Britain’s relationship with the bloc, stepping up pressure amid a final push for a deal.

    “The next EU summit in two weeks must bring a breakthrough in the talks,” Joachim Lang, managing director of Germany’s powerful BDI industrial lobby, said Tuesday at a press conference in Berlin. “Otherwise, Europe is in danger of sliding into a disorderly Brexit. The result would be a massive crisis.”

    The fallout of a no-deal Brexit could cause German exports to the U.K. to tumble as much as 57 percent as tariffs and customs barriers impede trade, the IW economic institute in Cologne said in a study published Tuesday. Industries that would be particularly hard hit include logistics, autos, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, according to the BDI.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/german-industry-warns-of-massive-crisis-from-no-deal-brexit

    In 2017, the value of imports to the UK from Germany totalled £84bn, compared to just £37bn of exports from the UK to Germany. Germany's trade surplus with the UK of £47bn was the second largest surplus with any country in the world, just £3bn behind that with the USA of £50bn.

    If leaving on WTO terms really would lead to significant barriers to future trade, the BDI should be worried. The question is, has May the nous to recognise this weakness of the other side's position, and see that the Holy Roman Emperor has no clothes, regardless of all the claims so far to the contrary.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,580
    Pulpstar said:

    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.

    Day 1 capital controls

    Day 2 requirement that you repay the tax incentives you received to save with interest

    Day 3 a social levy of 10% of the value of the remaining pot to contribute to the pensions of those less fortunate that you

  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 646

    (Reposted from previous thread)

    German industry warned that Europe risks sinking into chaos and trade will collapse if U.K. and European Union leaders fail to resolve their differences on the future of Britain’s relationship with the bloc, stepping up pressure amid a final push for a deal.

    “The next EU summit in two weeks must bring a breakthrough in the talks,” Joachim Lang, managing director of Germany’s powerful BDI industrial lobby, said Tuesday at a press conference in Berlin. “Otherwise, Europe is in danger of sliding into a disorderly Brexit. The result would be a massive crisis.”

    The fallout of a no-deal Brexit could cause German exports to the U.K. to tumble as much as 57 percent as tariffs and customs barriers impede trade, the IW economic institute in Cologne said in a study published Tuesday. Industries that would be particularly hard hit include logistics, autos, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, according to the BDI.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/german-industry-warns-of-massive-crisis-from-no-deal-brexit

    In 2017, the value of imports to the UK from Germany totalled £84bn, compared to just £37bn of exports from the UK to Germany. Germany's trade surplus with the UK of £47bn was the second largest surplus with any country in the world, just £3bn behind that with the USA of £50bn.

    If leaving on WTO terms really would lead to significant barriers to future trade, the BDI should be worried. The question is, has May the nous to recognise this weakness of the other side's position, and see that the Holy Roman Emperor has no clothes, regardless of all the claims so far to the contrary.
    The ERG understand it.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,471
    Alastair has ignored the boundaries of London in some of this analysis. I would guess that quite a few CEOs of major companies headquartered in London live in counties surrounding Greater London. What does that do to his arguments about the political balance of London?

    Am opinion poll that included people who worked in London,.but commuted in from outside as well as London residents, would look very different.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,605
    Alastair mssed a trick with this one! This thread should have been called "THE FEAR OF ALL SUMS" :lol:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,776
    If McDonnell embraces Venezeulan economics, he'll soon be able to use the newly printed trillion pound note.....
  • reaches for his ramipril....
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,897

    Alastair has ignored the boundaries of London in some of this analysis. I would guess that quite a few CEOs of major companies headquartered in London live in counties surrounding Greater London. What does that do to his arguments about the political balance of London?

    Am opinion poll that included people who worked in London,.but commuted in from outside as well as London residents, would look very different.

    Alistair also ignored the rather obvious point that the property wealth of London is by and large not owned by Londoners.

    "If property taxes are to be considered, the properties in ten London boroughs are worth more than all the properties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined."

    The owners do not even reside in the UK, in many cases.

    Taxes in London could be targeted on the owners of wealthy property easily enough.

    Of course, we'll have to put with lots of bleating from luvvies like Joan Bakewell that she is not rich just because she owns a 5 million pound property in Hampstead. But, I think John McDonnell will know how to deal with her sort.

    I think owners of wealthy property and second home owners will be one of the early targets
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,408
    This is very similar to the points I was making the other day. Even although we have our deficit down to an acceptable level our debt ratios are massively worse than they were in 2007. This is a major drain on public expenditure going forward (and would be even more so should QE ever be unwound so that interest was again payable on the substantial volume of debt held by the BoE). At the same time we have loaded the next generation up with debt in respect of their largely useless degrees (useless to the extent they don't actually improve earning capacity) and denied them access to the "free" capital of house appreciation. They are really stuffed.

    Maintaining demand and growth in the face of such a scenario is going to be incredibly difficult and the pressure on governments to do some of our "saving" for us by running surpluses will be severe. The outcome is that we will face a series of increasingly difficult decisions about spending priorities and, I suspect, more intergenerational tension. The consequences of Brown's incompetence aggravating what was always going to be a day of reckoning for an economy thriving on easy credit and trade deficits will be felt for decades yet.

    Is it hopeless? Not necessarily but we really need to start finding some genies and magic lamps. A massive increase in productivity on the back of AI or a new and ultra cheap form of fuel or spectacular breakthroughs in old age medicine reducing dependency, it really is a hail Mary pass time.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,447
    edited October 9

    In 2017, the value of imports to the UK from Germany totalled £84bn, compared to just £37bn of exports from the UK to Germany. Germany's trade surplus with the UK of £47bn was the second largest surplus with any country in the world, just £3bn behind that with the USA of £50bn.

    If leaving on WTO terms really would lead to significant barriers to future trade, the BDI should be worried. The question is, has May the nous to recognise this weakness of the other side's position, and see that the Holy Roman Emperor has no clothes, regardless of all the claims so far to the contrary.

    (and to @ralpmach)

    To quote Mr Meeks, it's a bit more complicated than that.

    Imagine for a second that Germany exported oil - and only oil - to the UK, while the UK exported a mix of products. In the event that a physical barrier to trade between the UK and Germany was implemented (say a wall), then who would be worse off? Well, us. Because oil is fundamentally fungible: if you can't sell it to the UK, well, someone else will buy it.

    Now, let's use a real world example. The UK's biggest export product is cars. But we have only a limited domestic automotive supply chain. We don't make airbags, tyres, automotive semis, etc.

    If that wall was erected, it would affect our car industry more than their's. They would need to find alternative markets for those Mercedes, but demand in - say - Russia is price elastic. They'd be poorer, sure, because they'd need to sell at a slightly lower price to sell incremental units, but it's not like there's no demand for their cars. In the incredibly implausible wall scenario, we would need to find new suppliers for all the bits that make up a car.

    Fixating on bilateral trade balances is fundamentally misleading. We would be at least as stuffed, and probably rather more stuffed, by a No Deal scenario.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715

    Alastair has ignored the boundaries of London in some of this analysis. I would guess that quite a few CEOs of major companies headquartered in London live in counties surrounding Greater London. What does that do to his arguments about the political balance of London?

    Am opinion poll that included people who worked in London,.but commuted in from outside as well as London residents, would look very different.

    Yes, when accounting GDP as London vs the rUK, we do need to allow for London commuters being essential for that GDP, but also that profits are often banked where company HQ is, rather than over the entire nation where they are earned. Then there is the issue that many Londoners are not from London at all, being sucked in from Wales or the Midlands as much as Bangladesh, before moving back out of the Smoke when they come to their senses later in life. For many, being a Londoner is just a phase of growing up.

    Nonetheless there is a certain economic gradient, and not a little irony in Tory voting coastal towns voting to pick the pockets of industrious Labour voting workers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,408
    rcs1000 said:

    In 2017, the value of imports to the UK from Germany totalled £84bn, compared to just £37bn of exports from the UK to Germany. Germany's trade surplus with the UK of £47bn was the second largest surplus with any country in the world, just £3bn behind that with the USA of £50bn.

    If leaving on WTO terms really would lead to significant barriers to future trade, the BDI should be worried. The question is, has May the nous to recognise this weakness of the other side's position, and see that the Holy Roman Emperor has no clothes, regardless of all the claims so far to the contrary.

    (and to @ralpmach)

    To quote Mr Meeks, it's a bit more complicated than that.

    Imagine for a second that Germany exported oil - and only oil - to the UK, while the UK exported a mix of products. In the event that a physical barrier to trade between the UK and Germany was implemented (say a wall), then who would be worse off? Well, us. Because oil is fundamentally fungible: if you can't sell it to the UK, well, someone else will buy it.

    Now, let's use a real world example. The UK's biggest export product is cars. But we have only a limited domestic automotive supply chain. We don't make airbags, tyres, automotive semis, etc.

    If that wall was erected, it would affect our car industry more than their's. They would need to find alternative markets for those Mercedes, but demand in - say - Russia is price elastic. They'd be poorer, sure, because they'd need to sell at a slightly lower price to sell incremental units, but it's not like there's no demand for their cars. In the incredibly implausible wall scenario, we would need to find new suppliers for all the bits that make up a car.

    Fixating on bilateral trade balances is fundamentally misleading. We would be at least as stuffed, and probably rather more stuffed, by a No Deal scenario.
    I agree with all of that but it would be wrong to say that the consequences for Germany would not be damaging, especially at a time where their industrial output is already falling quite sharply. It really is time our politicians on both sides of the channel stopped messing about.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In 2017, the value of imports to the UK from Germany totalled £84bn, compared to just £37bn of exports from the UK to Germany. Germany's trade surplus with the UK of £47bn was the second largest surplus with any country in the world, just £3bn behind that with the USA of £50bn.

    If leaving on WTO terms really would lead to significant barriers to future trade, the BDI should be worried. The question is, has May the nous to recognise this weakness of the other side's position, and see that the Holy Roman Emperor has no clothes, regardless of all the claims so far to the contrary.

    (and to @ralpmach)

    To quote Mr Meeks, it's a bit more complicated than that.

    Imagine for a second that Germany exported oil - and only oil - to the UK, while the UK exported a mix of products. In the event that a physical barrier to trade between the UK and Germany was implemented (say a wall), then who would be worse off? Well, us. Because oil is fundamentally fungible: if you can't sell it to the UK, well, someone else will buy it.

    Now, let's use a real world example. The UK's biggest export product is cars. But we have only a limited domestic automotive supply chain. We don't make airbags, tyres, automotive semis, etc.

    If that wall was erected, it would affect our car industry more than their's. They would need to find alternative markets for those Mercedes, but demand in - say - Russia is price elastic. They'd be poorer, sure, because they'd need to sell at a slightly lower price to sell incremental units, but it's not like there's no demand for their cars. In the incredibly implausible wall scenario, we would need to find new suppliers for all the bits that make up a car.

    Fixating on bilateral trade balances is fundamentally misleading. We would be at least as stuffed, and probably rather more stuffed, by a No Deal scenario.
    I agree with all of that but it would be wrong to say that the consequences for Germany would not be damaging, especially at a time where their industrial output is already falling quite sharply. It really is time our politicians on both sides of the channel stopped messing about.
    Though on the other hand a UK/Germany trade war may take upward pressure off the Euro, and be the saving of the southern Eurozone. Its an ill wind that blows no good :)
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 887
    As someone who never had a problem with Labour tacking a bit to the left of Miliband, but not foreign policy guff, this would be the domestic step too far.

    Fuck me, pensions nationalisation sounds absolutely petrifying. That trillion will be gone on extra spending before the term is out. And then what?

    And the cooling effect of that suction on equity markets. Well - it'll help with other nationalisation I suppose.

    Tacking left was all well and good but, comrades, we were only meant to blow the bloody doors off.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,851
    Disagree with your comment about defence. It's Labour that can't cut spending on HMF. Just as the Cons can't cut health spending.

    The public instinctively thinks defence is safe with the Cons and the NHS is safe with Lab. So each has free rein to cut as much as they want.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 646
    rcs1000 said:

    In 2017, the value of imports to the UK from Germany totalled £84bn, compared to just £37bn of exports from the UK to Germany. Germany's trade surplus with the UK of £47bn was the second largest surplus with any country in the world, just £3bn behind that with the USA of £50bn.

    If leaving on WTO terms really would lead to significant barriers to future trade, the BDI should be worried. The question is, has May the nous to recognise this weakness of the other side's position, and see that the Holy Roman Emperor has no clothes, regardless of all the claims so far to the contrary.

    (and to @ralpmach)

    To quote Mr Meeks, it's a bit more complicated than that.

    Imagine for a second that Germany exported oil - and only oil - to the UK, while the UK exported a mix of products. In the event that a physical barrier to trade between the UK and Germany was implemented (say a wall), then who would be worse off? Well, us. Because oil is fundamentally fungible: if you can't sell it to the UK, well, someone else will buy it.

    Now, let's use a real world example. The UK's biggest export product is cars. But we have only a limited domestic automotive supply chain. We don't make airbags, tyres, automotive semis, etc.

    If that wall was erected, it would affect our car industry more than their's. They would need to find alternative markets for those Mercedes, but demand in - say - Russia is price elastic. They'd be poorer, sure, because they'd need to sell at a slightly lower price to sell incremental units, but it's not like there's no demand for their cars. In the incredibly implausible wall scenario, we would need to find new suppliers for all the bits that make up a car.

    Fixating on bilateral trade balances is fundamentally misleading. We would be at least as stuffed, and probably rather more stuffed, by a No Deal scenario.
    The whole question is how much of the supply chain has moved here or will move here.
    You are less optimistic than me, but I think a lot has moved here and is till moving here, despite brexit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,408
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In 2017, the value of imports to the UK from Germany totalled £84bn, compared to just £37bn of exports from the UK to Germany. Germany's trade surplus with the UK of £47bn was the second largest surplus with any country in the world, just £3bn behind that with the USA of £50bn.

    If leaving on WTO terms really would lead to significant barriers to future trade, the BDI should be worried. The question is, has May the nous to recognise this weakness of the other side's position, and see that the Holy Roman Emperor has no clothes, regardless of all the claims so far to the contrary.

    (and to @ralpmach)

    To quote Mr Meeks, it's a bit more complicated than that.

    Imagine for a second that Germany exported oil - and only oil - to the UK, while the UK exported a mix of products. In the event that a physical barrier to trade between the UK and Germany was implemented (say a wall), then who would be worse off? Well, us. Because oil is fundamentally fungible: if you can't sell it to the UK, well, someone else will buy it.

    Now, let's use a real world example. The UK's biggest export product is cars. But we have only a limited domestic automotive supply chain. We don't make airbags, tyres, automotive semis, etc.

    If that wall was erected, it would affect our car industry more than their's. They would need to find alternative markets for those Mercedes, but demand in - say - Russia is price elastic. They'd be poorer, sure, because they'd need to sell at a slightly lower price to sell incremental units, but it's not like there's no demand for their cars. In the incredibly implausible wall scenario, we would need to find new suppliers for all the bits that make up a car.

    Fixating on bilateral trade balances is fundamentally misleading. We would be at least as stuffed, and probably rather more stuffed, by a No Deal scenario.
    I agree with all of that but it would be wrong to say that the consequences for Germany would not be damaging, especially at a time where their industrial output is already falling quite sharply. It really is time our politicians on both sides of the channel stopped messing about.
    Though on the other hand a UK/Germany trade war may take upward pressure off the Euro, and be the saving of the southern Eurozone. Its an ill wind that blows no good :)
    The southern EZ requires a significant increase in German domestic demand, not a significant fall. And frankly I would have a lot more confidence in the BoE taking effective remedial action than those clowns in charge of the ECB. The Bank's warning to them today about their failures to address financial services issues showed how little grasp they have of the realities they think they are dealing with.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,331

    (Reposted from previous thread)

    German industry warned that Europe risks sinking into chaos and trade will collapse if U.K. and European Union leaders fail to resolve their differences on the future of Britain’s relationship with the bloc, stepping up pressure amid a final push for a deal.

    “The next EU summit in two weeks must bring a breakthrough in the talks,” Joachim Lang, managing director of Germany’s powerful BDI industrial lobby, said Tuesday at a press conference in Berlin. “Otherwise, Europe is in danger of sliding into a disorderly Brexit. The result would be a massive crisis.”

    The fallout of a no-deal Brexit could cause German exports to the U.K. to tumble as much as 57 percent as tariffs and customs barriers impede trade, the IW economic institute in Cologne said in a study published Tuesday. Industries that would be particularly hard hit include logistics, autos, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, according to the BDI.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/german-industry-warns-of-massive-crisis-from-no-deal-brexit

    In 2017, the value of imports to the UK from Germany totalled £84bn, compared to just £37bn of exports from the UK to Germany. Germany's trade surplus with the UK of £47bn was the second largest surplus with any country in the world, just £3bn behind that with the USA of £50bn.

    If leaving on WTO terms really would lead to significant barriers to future trade, the BDI should be worried. The question is, has May the nous to recognise this weakness of the other side's position, and see that the Holy Roman Emperor has no clothes, regardless of all the claims so far to the contrary.
    Sometimes it's worth listening to what people say because the reasons they give for doing things really are the reasons for doing those things. German manufacturers want a deal with the UK, but not at the expense of undermining the Single Market. The UK market is valuable and it's worth getting good access to it. But the Single Market is the unique asset that keeps them going.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,364
    Looks more like the Tory's focus groups like the Labour Party's ideas, if they are shown in a blind test, which is why they are so busy er! borrowing them. The problem the Tories have is whether anyone believes them any more...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,220
    "Rachel Sylvester

    Identity politics is killing off healthy debate
    Universities are on the front line in a culture war that stifles disagreement and is threatening liberal democracy"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/identity-politics-is-killing-off-healthy-debate-82kgkqr86
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715
    AndyJS said:

    "Rachel Sylvester

    Identity politics is killing off healthy debate
    Universities are on the front line in a culture war that stifles disagreement and is threatening liberal democracy"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/identity-politics-is-killing-off-healthy-debate-82kgkqr86

    Yeah, but nationalisim is identity politics. Its all about us vs them, and a very narrow definition of us.
  • DavidL said:

    This is very similar to the points I was making the other day. Even although we have our deficit down to an acceptable level our debt ratios are massively worse than they were in 2007. This is a major drain on public expenditure going forward (and would be even more so should QE ever be unwound so that interest was again payable on the substantial volume of debt held by the BoE). At the same time we have loaded the next generation up with debt in respect of their largely useless degrees (useless to the extent they don't actually improve earning capacity) and denied them access to the "free" capital of house appreciation. They are really stuffed.

    Maintaining demand and growth in the face of such a scenario is going to be incredibly difficult and the pressure on governments to do some of our "saving" for us by running surpluses will be severe. The outcome is that we will face a series of increasingly difficult decisions about spending priorities and, I suspect, more intergenerational tension. The consequences of Brown's incompetence aggravating what was always going to be a day of reckoning for an economy thriving on easy credit and trade deficits will be felt for decades yet.

    Is it hopeless? Not necessarily but we really need to start finding some genies and magic lamps. A massive increase in productivity on the back of AI or a new and ultra cheap form of fuel or spectacular breakthroughs in old age medicine reducing dependency, it really is a hail Mary pass time.

    Or computers tell us when we should kill the elderly and burn them as fuel?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,220
    Foxy said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Rachel Sylvester

    Identity politics is killing off healthy debate
    Universities are on the front line in a culture war that stifles disagreement and is threatening liberal democracy"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/identity-politics-is-killing-off-healthy-debate-82kgkqr86

    Yeah, but nationalisim is identity politics. Its all about us vs them, and a very narrow definition of us.
    I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,717

    DavidL said:

    This is very similar to the points I was making the other day. Even although we have our deficit down to an acceptable level our debt ratios are massively worse than they were in 2007. This is a major drain on public expenditure going forward (and would be even more so should QE ever be unwound so that interest was again payable on the substantial volume of debt held by the BoE). At the same time we have loaded the next generation up with debt in respect of their largely useless degrees (useless to the extent they don't actually improve earning capacity) and denied them access to the "free" capital of house appreciation. They are really stuffed.

    Maintaining demand and growth in the face of such a scenario is going to be incredibly difficult and the pressure on governments to do some of our "saving" for us by running surpluses will be severe. The outcome is that we will face a series of increasingly difficult decisions about spending priorities and, I suspect, more intergenerational tension. The consequences of Brown's incompetence aggravating what was always going to be a day of reckoning for an economy thriving on easy credit and trade deficits will be felt for decades yet.

    Is it hopeless? Not necessarily but we really need to start finding some genies and magic lamps. A massive increase in productivity on the back of AI or a new and ultra cheap form of fuel or spectacular breakthroughs in old age medicine reducing dependency, it really is a hail Mary pass time.

    Or computers tell us when we should kill the elderly and burn them as fuel?
    And people claim there are no simple answers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 46,202
    AndyJS said:

    Foxy said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Rachel Sylvester

    Identity politics is killing off healthy debate
    Universities are on the front line in a culture war that stifles disagreement and is threatening liberal democracy"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/identity-politics-is-killing-off-healthy-debate-82kgkqr86

    Yeah, but nationalisim is identity politics. Its all about us vs them, and a very narrow definition of us.
    I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
    Finland is in the Eurozone
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,159
    AndyJS said:

    I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.

    You mean don't look to the United Kingdom as a model and don't want to become a country called Scandinavia?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,717
    Pro_Rata said:

    As someone who never had a problem with Labour tacking a bit to the left of Miliband, but not foreign policy guff, this would be the domestic step too far.

    Fuck me, pensions nationalisation sounds absolutely petrifying. That trillion will be gone on extra spending before the term is out. And then what?

    And the cooling effect of that suction on equity markets. Well - it'll help with other nationalisation I suppose.

    Tacking left was all well and good but, comrades, we were only meant to blow the bloody doors off.

    I don't tend to have a very scientific approach when it comes to nationalising things, I haven't put enough time or thought into actually thinking about the pros and cons despite the many no doubt very useful contributions on either side by the PB faithful, but some things just kind of feel like they make sense or at least would be ok being nationalised - water, rail, that sort of thing - but on the same gut feel basis pensions nationalisation provokes an instinctive 'hold up a minute' reaction from me.

    It may be a tougher sell than other plans. Though as is noted, it would be a problem for another government another day.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,159

    AndyJS said:

    I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.

    You mean don't look to the United Kingdom as a model and don't want to become a country called Scandinavia?
    *They* don't look...
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,656
    edited October 9
    The government already has unfunded pensions for civil servants which are not normally included in the £1.5 trillion debt. Probably they should be added to government debt.

    Governments can never forget those who they need to finance the debt. My pension would be moved offshore rather than the government requisition it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715
    AndyJS said:

    Foxy said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Rachel Sylvester

    Identity politics is killing off healthy debate
    Universities are on the front line in a culture war that stifles disagreement and is threatening liberal democracy"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/identity-politics-is-killing-off-healthy-debate-82kgkqr86

    Yeah, but nationalisim is identity politics. Its all about us vs them, and a very narrow definition of us.
    I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
    Nationalism is the very definition of identity politics. It is based on defining an in group and an out group, generally by ethnic means, but more recently about values, and demanding absolute rule over a defined geographic space that may, or may not be fairly congruent with the ethnic group.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,656
    kle4 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    As someone who never had a problem with Labour tacking a bit to the left of Miliband, but not foreign policy guff, this would be the domestic step too far.

    Fuck me, pensions nationalisation sounds absolutely petrifying. That trillion will be gone on extra spending before the term is out. And then what?

    And the cooling effect of that suction on equity markets. Well - it'll help with other nationalisation I suppose.

    Tacking left was all well and good but, comrades, we were only meant to blow the bloody doors off.

    I don't tend to have a very scientific approach when it comes to nationalising things, I haven't put enough time or thought into actually thinking about the pros and cons despite the many no doubt very useful contributions on either side by the PB faithful, but some things just kind of feel like they make sense or at least would be ok being nationalised - water, rail, that sort of thing - but on the same gut feel basis pensions nationalisation provokes an instinctive 'hold up a minute' reaction from me.

    It may be a tougher sell than other plans. Though as is noted, it would be a problem for another government another day.
    Nationalised industries are starved of investment ny all governments because education, hospitals and defence get priority.


    Hence when BT was nationalised it took three months or more to have a telephone installed.

    British Airways had to buy planes from where the government directed it rather than the best planes for its customers and routes.

    There was a lack of investment in old utility infrastructure like electricity, water and gas.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,717

    kle4 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    As someone who never had a problem with Labour tacking a bit to the left of Miliband, but not foreign policy guff, this would be the domestic step too far.

    Fuck me, pensions nationalisation sounds absolutely petrifying. That trillion will be gone on extra spending before the term is out. And then what?

    And the cooling effect of that suction on equity markets. Well - it'll help with other nationalisation I suppose.

    Tacking left was all well and good but, comrades, we were only meant to blow the bloody doors off.

    I don't tend to have a very scientific approach when it comes to nationalising things, I haven't put enough time or thought into actually thinking about the pros and cons despite the many no doubt very useful contributions on either side by the PB faithful, but some things just kind of feel like they make sense or at least would be ok being nationalised - water, rail, that sort of thing - but on the same gut feel basis pensions nationalisation provokes an instinctive 'hold up a minute' reaction from me.

    It may be a tougher sell than other plans. Though as is noted, it would be a problem for another government another day.
    Nationalised industries are starved of investment ny all governments because education, hospitals and defence get priority.


    Hence when BT was nationalised it took three months or more to have a telephone installed.

    British Airways had to buy planes from where the government directed it rather than the best planes for its customers and routes.

    There was a lack of investment in old utility infrastructure like electricity, water and gas.
    So I've heard, but in many areas it remains popular, whereas pensions may be less so.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,157
    Oooh Sir, sir - Does pension nationalisation mean 2/3 final salary for all :D ?!
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,656
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    As someone who never had a problem with Labour tacking a bit to the left of Miliband, but not foreign policy guff, this would be the domestic step too far.

    Fuck me, pensions nationalisation sounds absolutely petrifying. That trillion will be gone on extra spending before the term is out. And then what?

    And the cooling effect of that suction on equity markets. Well - it'll help with other nationalisation I suppose.

    Tacking left was all well and good but, comrades, we were only meant to blow the bloody doors off.

    I don't tend to have a very scientific approach when it comes to nationalising things, I haven't put enough time or thought into actually thinking about the pros and cons despite the many no doubt very useful contributions on either side by the PB faithful, but some things just kind of feel like they make sense or at least would be ok being nationalised - water, rail, that sort of thing - but on the same gut feel basis pensions nationalisation provokes an instinctive 'hold up a minute' reaction from me.

    It may be a tougher sell than other plans. Though as is noted, it would be a problem for another government another day.
    Nationalised industries are starved of investment ny all governments because education, hospitals and defence get priority.


    Hence when BT was nationalised it took three months or more to have a telephone installed.

    British Airways had to buy planes from where the government directed it rather than the best planes for its customers and routes.

    There was a lack of investment in old utility infrastructure like electricity, water and gas.
    So I've heard, but in many areas it remains popular, whereas pensions may be less so.

    They weren't popular when they were nationalised.

    Badly run, particularly lack of investment because (understandable) low priority for government funds.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,656
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Foxy said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Rachel Sylvester

    Identity politics is killing off healthy debate
    Universities are on the front line in a culture war that stifles disagreement and is threatening liberal democracy"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/identity-politics-is-killing-off-healthy-debate-82kgkqr86

    Yeah, but nationalisim is identity politics. Its all about us vs them, and a very narrow definition of us.
    I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
    Finland is in the Eurozone
    And Norway and Iceland are not in the EU. And Greenland left the EU.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,656
    AndyJS said:

    Foxy said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Rachel Sylvester

    Identity politics is killing off healthy debate
    Universities are on the front line in a culture war that stifles disagreement and is threatening liberal democracy"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/identity-politics-is-killing-off-healthy-debate-82kgkqr86

    Yeah, but nationalisim is identity politics. Its all about us vs them, and a very narrow definition of us.
    I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
    Also The Channel Isles, Isles of Man and the UK all get along well even though only one of them is in the EU at present.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,080
    Interesting. I suppose there is a nice irony in a future Labour government copying a past Labour MP (one Robert Maxwell) in seizing peoples’ pensions to pay for current spending.

    What would happen to those who are about to take or already taking their pension? Presumably the government would have to honour those promises?

  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,656
    Pulpstar said:

    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.

    The government would sell the investments in you pension, spend the money, and take on the responsibility to pay your pension in the future from increased taxation at that time. Your pension would be unfunded, like civil servants pensions.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,447

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    As someone who never had a problem with Labour tacking a bit to the left of Miliband, but not foreign policy guff, this would be the domestic step too far.

    Fuck me, pensions nationalisation sounds absolutely petrifying. That trillion will be gone on extra spending before the term is out. And then what?

    And the cooling effect of that suction on equity markets. Well - it'll help with other nationalisation I suppose.

    Tacking left was all well and good but, comrades, we were only meant to blow the bloody doors off.

    I don't tend to have a very scientific approach when it comes to nationalising things, I haven't put enough time or thought into actually thinking about the pros and cons despite the many no doubt very useful contributions on either side by the PB faithful, but some things just kind of feel like they make sense or at least would be ok being nationalised - water, rail, that sort of thing - but on the same gut feel basis pensions nationalisation provokes an instinctive 'hold up a minute' reaction from me.

    It may be a tougher sell than other plans. Though as is noted, it would be a problem for another government another day.
    Nationalised industries are starved of investment ny all governments because education, hospitals and defence get priority.


    Hence when BT was nationalised it took three months or more to have a telephone installed.

    British Airways had to buy planes from where the government directed it rather than the best planes for its customers and routes.

    There was a lack of investment in old utility infrastructure like electricity, water and gas.
    So I've heard, but in many areas it remains popular, whereas pensions may be less so.

    They weren't popular when they were nationalised.

    Badly run, particularly lack of investment because (understandable) low priority for government funds.
    +1
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,447

    AndyJS said:

    Foxy said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Rachel Sylvester

    Identity politics is killing off healthy debate
    Universities are on the front line in a culture war that stifles disagreement and is threatening liberal democracy"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/identity-politics-is-killing-off-healthy-debate-82kgkqr86

    Yeah, but nationalisim is identity politics. Its all about us vs them, and a very narrow definition of us.
    I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
    Also The Channel Isles, Isles of Man and the UK all get along well even though only one of them is in the EU at present.
    Although the Channel Islands don't always get on with each other.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 387
    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,447

    Pulpstar said:

    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.

    The government would sell the investments in you pension, spend the money, and take on the responsibility to pay your pension in the future from increased taxation at that time. Your pension would be unfunded, like civil servants pensions.
    Are all civil servant pensions unfunded?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,314
    edited October 9

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    As someone who never had a problem with Labour tacking a bit to the left of Miliband, but not foreign policy guff, this would be the domestic step too far.

    Tacking left was all well and good but, comrades, we were only meant to blow the bloody doors off.

    I don't tend to have a very scientific approach when it comes to nationalising things, I haven't put enough time or thought into actually thinking about the pros and cons despite the many no doubt very useful contributions on either side by the PB faithful, but some things just kind of feel like they make sense or at least would be ok being nationalised - water, rail, that sort of thing - but on the same gut feel basis pensions nationalisation provokes an instinctive 'hold up a minute' reaction from me.

    It may be a tougher sell than other plans. Though as is noted, it would be a problem for another government another day.
    Nationalised industries are starved of investment ny all governments because education, hospitals and defence get priority.


    Hence when BT was nationalised it took three months or more to have a telephone installed.

    British Airways had to buy planes from where the government directed it rather than the best planes for its customers and routes.

    There was a lack of investment in old utility infrastructure like electricity, water and gas.
    So I've heard, but in many areas it remains popular, whereas pensions may be less so.

    They weren't popular when they were nationalised.

    Badly run, particularly lack of investment because (understandable) low priority for government funds.
    Nationalised utilities should be able to borrow in the markets against their assets like any other business and not compete for government funds. So should Local Authorities be able to borrow against their assets to build social housing. Other countries including the US do that.

    The problem is the iron grip of the Treasury and the inclusion of Local Authority debt in the National debt. The Treasury was happy enough to go off balance sheet with PFI and Student loans but won't allow Local Authorities to borrow on their own assets.

    Incidentally debt at 85% of GDP is not a lot. The interest is well covered by taxation. Public companies carry far more as a proportion eg GSK has debt of £24b serviced by operating profit of £4.4b. The average UK mortgage is £123K. The average UK income is £27K.

    People say debt is 85% of GDP and purse their lips. Without context it is meaningless.

    EDIT: There is no suggestion anywhere that the UK government would "nationalise" pensions (except by Alastair) so don't get your knickers in a twist.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,656
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.

    The government would sell the investments in you pension, spend the money, and take on the responsibility to pay your pension in the future from increased taxation at that time. Your pension would be unfunded, like civil servants pensions.
    Are all civil servant pensions unfunded?
    It would seem so, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446835 which says

    "Is the scheme funded or unfunded?
    Unfunded. It is paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund."

    However, it seems there are some money purchase options for staff.

    Civil servants includes governments departments but also other public bodies.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,447

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.

    The government would sell the investments in you pension, spend the money, and take on the responsibility to pay your pension in the future from increased taxation at that time. Your pension would be unfunded, like civil servants pensions.
    Are all civil servant pensions unfunded?
    It would seem so, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446835 which says

    "Is the scheme funded or unfunded?
    Unfunded. It is paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund."

    However, it seems there are some money purchase options for staff.

    Civil servants includes governments departments but also other public bodies.
    I know that (at least some of) the university lecturers' pensions are funded, because I once pitched for an investment management mandate with them.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,656
    edited October 9
    Pulpstar said:

    Oooh Sir, sir - Does pension nationalisation mean 2/3 final salary for all :D ?!

    Maybe - but what would your final salary be in a nationalised industry setting your salary "in the national interest" ? And how high would income tax be to pay all the pension liabilities coming due?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,314
    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    As someone who never had a problem with Labour tacking a bit to the left of Miliband, but not foreign policy guff, this would be the domestic step too far.

    Tacking left was all well and good but, comrades, we were only meant to blow the bloody doors off.



    It may be a tougher sell than other plans. Though as is noted, it would be a problem for another government another day.
    Nationalised industries are starved of investment ny all governments because education, hospitals and defence get priority.


    Hence when BT was nationalised it took three months or more to have a telephone installed.

    British Airways had to buy planes from where the government directed it rather than the best planes for its customers and routes.

    There was a lack of investment in old utility infrastructure like electricity, water and gas.
    So I've heard, but in many areas it remains popular, whereas pensions may be less so.

    They weren't popular when they were nationalised.

    Badly run, particularly lack of investment because (understandable) low priority for government funds.
    Nationalised utilities should be able to borrow in the markets against their assets like any other business and not compete for government funds. So should Local Authorities be able to borrow against their assets to build social housing. Other countries including the US do that.

    The problem is the iron grip of the Treasury and the inclusion of Local Authority debt in the National debt. The Treasury was happy enough to go off balance sheet with PFI and Student loans but won't allow Local Authorities to borrow on their own assets.

    Incidentally debt at 85% of GDP is not a lot. The interest is well covered by taxation. Public companies carry far more as a proportion eg GSK has debt of £24b serviced by operating profit of £4.4b. The average UK mortgage is £123K. The average UK income is £27K.

    People say debt is 85% of GDP and purse their lips. Without context it is meaningless.

    EDIT: There is no suggestion anywhere that the UK government would "nationalise" pensions (except by Alastair) so don't get your knickers in a twist.
    ... and someone called Ann Pettifor!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,220
    edited October 9
    It seems like about 1 in 55 people being phoned are answering and giving a voting intention in Texas and Tennessee:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-txsen-2.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,447
    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Nationalised industries are starved of investment ny all governments because education, hospitals and defence get priority.


    Hence when BT was nationalised it took three months or more to have a telephone installed.

    British Airways had to buy planes from where the government directed it rather than the best planes for its customers and routes.

    There was a lack of investment in old utility infrastructure like electricity, water and gas.

    So I've heard, but in many areas it remains popular, whereas pensions may be less so.

    They weren't popular when they were nationalised.

    Badly run, particularly lack of investment because (understandable) low priority for government funds.
    Nationalised utilities should be able to borrow in the markets against their assets like any other business and not compete for government funds. So should Local Authorities be able to borrow against their assets to build social housing. Other countries including the US do that.

    The problem is the iron grip of the Treasury and the inclusion of Local Authority debt in the National debt. The Treasury was happy enough to go off balance sheet with PFI and Student loans but won't allow Local Authorities to borrow on their own assets.

    Incidentally debt at 85% of GDP is not a lot. The interest is well covered by taxation. Public companies carry far more as a proportion eg GSK has debt of £24b serviced by operating profit of £4.4b. The average UK mortgage is £123K. The average UK income is £27K.

    People say debt is 85% of GDP and purse their lips. Without context it is meaningless.

    EDIT: There is no suggestion anywhere that the UK government would "nationalise" pensions (except by Alastair) so don't get your knickers in a twist.
    The truth is that BT was very badly run as a public company. It faced no competition, and there were no consequences to management for offering a terrible service. It was also protected by legislation: until Mercury (owned by C&W) came along, it was illegal to compete with BT in offering long distance calls in the UK.

    The others I know less about. But I think it's very hard to have publicly owned companies in competitive markets.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,192

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    I note with a raised eyebrow comments from the MoD to the effect that R09/PoW (the second carrier) will "concentrate" on amphibious/rotary wing ops. So they are giving up on both carriers having fixed wing strike.

    This is probably driven by both a desire to save money (the MoD will always step over a pound to pick up a penny) and lack of pilots. The privatised MFTS training system has completely fallen apart with a recent course failing to produce a single pilot of the requisite standard for the Typhoon OCU. So now as we are paying to send pilots to the European JJPT in Texas.

    You can't trust the tories on defence.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,714

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    No. We've been cheeseparing defence for decades. You can't fight a war by comparing receipts.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,585
    Dura_Ace said:

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    I note with a raised eyebrow comments from the MoD to the effect that R09/PoW (the second carrier) will "concentrate" on amphibious/rotary wing ops. So they are giving up on both carriers having fixed wing strike.

    This is probably driven by both a desire to save money (the MoD will always step over a pound to pick up a penny) and lack of pilots. The privatised MFTS training system has completely fallen apart with a recent course failing to produce a single pilot of the requisite standard for the Typhoon OCU. So now as we are paying to send pilots to the European JJPT in Texas.

    You can't trust the tories on defence.
    Privatising training has always seemed insane to me. It’s not like there’s a large market of private companies ready and able to train people to fly combat aircraft. You’d have thought the top commanders of the RAF would recognise that training air crew is core to their organisation, and not something to be contracted out to save trivial sums.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,282
    edited October 10

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.

    The government would sell the investments in you pension, spend the money, and take on the responsibility to pay your pension in the future from increased taxation at that time. Your pension would be unfunded, like civil servants pensions.
    Are all civil servant pensions unfunded?
    It would seem so, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446835 which says

    "Is the scheme funded or unfunded?
    Unfunded. It is paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund."

    However, it seems there are some money purchase options for staff.

    Civil servants includes governments departments but also other public bodies.
    Most public sector pensions are unfunded - police officers, civil servants, firefighters, NHS staff, the armed forces and teachers. It is estimated there are £1.3 trillion of unfunded future public sector pension liabilities that the taxpayer is down for - as none of the employer or employee contributions are ring fenced and invested so pensions are paid out on a pay as you go basis.

    There are some funded public sector schemes where the assets are ring fenced and invested - notably the local government staff scheme - so there is an invested pot of cash from which pensions are paid out.

    Transport for London operates a private sector funded scheme which is outside government control - and they still have a final salary scheme rather than the standard career average, low contributions, get pension upratings by RPI not CPI like the rest of the public and private sector and staff can retire without deductions at 60 rather than state pension age (and as early as 50 with deductions). And in order to change the scheme members have to vote to approve it - the Mayor or TfL management cannot alter the terms. Its funded by public sector money - but its a private scheme. Did the tube unions negotiate a mega deal or what!
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,192
    edited October 10
    RoyalBlue said:




    Privatising training has always seemed insane to me. It’s not like there’s a large market of private companies ready and able to train people to fly combat aircraft. You’d have thought the top commanders of the RAF would recognise that training air crew is core to their organisation, and not something to be contracted out to save trivial sums.

    You only get to be a "top commander" in the RAF by saving money in this or next year's budget. No fucks are given for future capability.

    It was only possible to establish MFTS by asset stripping the RAF and RN of QFIs and moving them to the private sector. Now that seam of experienced personnel has been exhausted it's going to be impossible to sustain.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,447
    brendan16 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.

    The government would sell the investments in you pension, spend the money, and take on the responsibility to pay your pension in the future from increased taxation at that time. Your pension would be unfunded, like civil servants pensions.
    Are all civil servant pensions unfunded?
    It would seem so, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446835 which says

    "Is the scheme funded or unfunded?
    Unfunded. It is paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund."

    However, it seems there are some money purchase options for staff.

    Civil servants includes governments departments but also other public bodies.
    Most public sector pensions are unfunded - police officers, civil servants, firefighters, NHS staff, the armed forces and teachers. It is estimated there are £1.3 trillion of unfunded future public sector pension liabilities that the taxpayer is down for - as none of the employer or employee contributions are ring fenced and invested so pensions are paid out on a pay as you go basis.

    There are some funded public sector schemes where the assets are ring fenced and invested - notably the local government staff scheme - so there is an invested pot of cash from which pensions are paid out.

    Transport for London operates a private sector funded scheme which is outside government control - and they still have a final salary scheme rather than the standard career average, low contributions, get pension upratings by RPI not CPI like the rest of the public and private sector and staff can retire without deductions at 60 rather than state pension age (and as early as 50 with deductions). And in order to change the scheme members have to vote to approve it - the Mayor or TfL management cannot alter the terms. Its funded by public sector money - but its a private scheme. Did the tube unions negotiate a mega deal or what!
    I used to manage some of the TfL pension money, and they were a genuinely excellent client.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,645
    I've also been pondering the tax changes a future Labour govt might make.
    For pensions, I think limiting/reducing higher rate relief in some way is likely.

    Something like 40bn/year of which almost half goes to higher earners. In a nice case of unintended consequences, this would actually increase under Corbynite income tax rises for the wealthy.

    Richard Murphy, previously very close to Corbyn, has previously questioned whether the relief is needed at all.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,471
    Pulpstar said:

    Oooh Sir, sir - Does pension nationalisation mean 2/3 final salary for all :D ?!

    That was my thought. There's lots of ways in which Pension Nationalisation can be made to sound good, because the Government would be writing cheques for a future Government to pay. Silly buggers.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,899

    twitter.com/chrisgiles_/status/1049845300553076736?s=21

    Lucky for us then that post-Brexit we will be rescued by all these international trade deals from countries gasping to send us all their goods and money..... :/
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,899
    viewcode said:

    You can't fight a war by comparing receipts.

    It appears that in Whitehall, that is exactly how you fight wars ;)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,220
    The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHS they are not getting the funding they need. Labour, at least, understands this. What it proposes is sub-optimal, to put it mildly, but what are the other offers? Our recovery from the crash has been anaemic - to the extent that few can actually feel it’s happened. With Brexit approaching, the short-term outlook, at the very least, looks tough. The current holding pattern is not sustainable. The very wealthy - people and businesses - should realise paying a bit more in tax on money they can never hope to spend is actually in their own best interests. Most won’t, though; so somewhere further down the line decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,580
    edited October 10

    The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHS they are not getting the funding they need. Labour, at least, understands this. What it proposes is sub-optimal, to put it mildly, but what are the other offers? Our recovery from the crash has been anaemic - to the extent that few can actually feel it’s happened. With Brexit approaching, the short-term outlook, at the very least, looks tough. The current holding pattern is not sustainable. The very wealthy - people and businesses - should realise paying a bit more in tax on money they can never hope to spend is actually in their own best interests. Most won’t, though; so somewhere further down the line decisions will be made for them that harm them more.

    The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences

    A few examples:

    Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them

    Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively

    Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes

    Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing

    It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal

    * I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,580
    I’m guessing she voted Remain

    Mealy mouthed self justificatory bullshit
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,591
    I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?

    I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,747
    Unsuepeising since shes propping up Corbyn
  • The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...

    The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.

    We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.

    And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,591
    On topic, can I just say thanks for making me nervous about my private pension now?

    All suggestions for what I can do to protect and offshore it gratefully received :-)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,591
    Dura_Ace said:

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    I note with a raised eyebrow comments from the MoD to the effect that R09/PoW (the second carrier) will "concentrate" on amphibious/rotary wing ops. So they are giving up on both carriers having fixed wing strike.

    This is probably driven by both a desire to save money (the MoD will always step over a pound to pick up a penny) and lack of pilots. The privatised MFTS training system has completely fallen apart with a recent course failing to produce a single pilot of the requisite standard for the Typhoon OCU. So now as we are paying to send pilots to the European JJPT in Texas.

    You can't trust the tories on defence.
    Can we trust Corbyn?

    The Tories were good on defence in the early-mid 80s, but haven’t been so since. They gave up the ghost from 1957-1965 too but some of that needed to be done. It was too high as a % of GDP.

    Attlee did well from c.1950-1951 too. Since the early 90s, all Government’s have been poor. The best SDR was in 1998 but it was never funded properly.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,747

    The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...

    The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.

    We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.

    And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...

    The Tories have had to borrow money because of Browns mismanagement of the economy. Never forget that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,591

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    That’s remarkably complacent.

    Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.

    We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,695

    The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...

    The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.

    We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.

    And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...

    Can I just point out that Academies were a Labour idea, and that they were introduced precisely because under the Local Authority system Heads not only had no autonomy but were losing money hand over fist to local council budgets?

    It is true that they were less effective than GM schools, and less disastrous than academy chains have been, but it was Labour who was scalping the public sector here (especially when their grotesque PFI - again, admittedly, originally a Tory idea - is factored in).

    As for borrowing to invest, fine, but again it was Labour that borrowed from 2003 to 2007 to finance current account spending because with a majority of 167 they were obviously far too scared of losing the next election to raise taxes.

    Moreover, I and I am sure most people would be rather less concerned about McDonnell's figures if (a) they weren't patently fraudulent and (b) we were sure the money wouldn't be channelled to their fat cat mates in the increasingly irrelevant unions.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,591
    rcs1000 said:

    brendan16 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Question - How would the Gov't go about errm "nationalising" my (very) modest Aegon pot ?
    It's entirely in stocks (Both home and abroad) right now.

    The government would sell the investments in you pension, spend the money, and take on the responsibility to pay your pension in the future from increased taxation at that time. Your pension would be unfunded, like civil servants pensions.
    Are all civil servant pensions unfunded?
    It would seem so, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446835 which says

    "Is the scheme funded or unfunded?
    Unfunded. It is paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund."

    However, it seems there are some money purchase options for staff.

    Civil servants includes governments departments but also other public bodies.
    Most public sector pensions are unfunded - police officers, civil servants, firefighters, NHS staff, the armed forces and teachers. It is estimated there are £1.3 trillion of unfunded future public sector pension liabilities that the taxpayer is down for - as none of the employer or employee contributions are ring fenced and invested so pensions are paid out on a pay as you go basis.

    There are some funded public sector schemes where the assets are ring fenced and invested - notably the local government staff scheme - so there is an invested pot of cash from which pensions are paid out.

    Transport for London operates a private sector funded scheme which is outside government control - and they still have a final salary scheme rather than the standard career average, low contributions, get pension upratings by RPI not CPI like the rest of the public and private sector and staff can retire without deductions at 60 rather than state pension age (and as early as 50 with deductions). And in order to change the scheme members have to vote to approve it - the Mayor or TfL management cannot alter the terms. Its funded by public sector money - but its a private scheme. Did the tube unions negotiate a mega deal or what!
    I used to manage some of the TfL pension money, and they were a genuinely excellent client.
    No-one I know in TfL (in their late 30s and looking for the next step up) is even thinking of resigning or taking another job for precisely that reason.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,220
    Charles said:

    The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.

    The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences

    A few examples:

    Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them

    Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively

    Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes

    Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing

    It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal

    * I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.

    It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.

    Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.



  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,695
    Maybe we need a new currency unit - 0.01p. And charge that in tax for every search engine request.

    We could even give it a new name - the Googlewhack.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,717

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    That’s remarkably complacent.

    Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.

    We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
    Not enough votes in that. So long as general people don't fear it is in a state of collapse, correctly or not, the money will go elsewhere.

    The perception of legendarily poor defence procurement doesn't help. Probably the only thing with a comparable perception is inflated, usually poorly working, IT systems.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,108

    Charles said:

    The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.

    The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences

    A few examples:

    Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them

    Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively

    Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes

    Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing

    It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal

    * I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.

    It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.

    Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.



    It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,408
    AndyJS said:

    It seems like about 1 in 55 people being phoned are answering and giving a voting intention in Texas and Tennessee:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-txsen-2.html

    That whole exercise has given insights into polling that are really useful. The incredibly low response rate, the differential response rate by age (1/140 of those under 29 responded), the distortions that this causes in the sample (too old, too white, too politically engaged as they say themselves) and their attempts to offset that. Its been fascinating.

    Looks like Cruz is going to win fairly comfortably though.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,591
    Being positive for a second, firstly we still have Hammond in the Treasury who’s exceptionally dry and deadly serious about running a budget surplus by 2025. Secondly, it’s good news if debt is now peaking as a % of GDP, and falling. Provided we don’t go crazy (big if) it’s stable.

    In the longer term, I agree with David that we’re basically looking to solve our demographic challenges with AI and new technology and medicines. We could perhaps have a more flexibly attitude to lifelong education and retirement too.

    Mass immigration of bulk low-skilled labour is never going to be a politically acceptable answer. Only targeted high skills that commands public support.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,717
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.

    The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences

    A few examples:

    Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them

    Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively

    Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes

    Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing

    It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal

    * I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.

    It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.

    Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.



    It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
    Perhaps, though do you think we'd actually be addressing were brexit not occurring? The fundamentals of why such issues don't get resolved remain either way unfortunately.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,108

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    That’s remarkably complacent.

    Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.

    We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
    Not sure how a ship is much use against today’s threats, otherwise I agree. So long as it’s procured in the UK, this spending can have a positive effect. There would be no Silicon Valley without defence spending.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,591
    kle4 said:

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    That’s remarkably complacent.

    Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.

    We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
    Not enough votes in that. So long as general people don't fear it is in a state of collapse, correctly or not, the money will go elsewhere.

    The perception of legendarily poor defence procurement doesn't help. Probably the only thing with a comparable perception is inflated, usually poorly working, IT systems.
    Not that I want to fall into Godwin so early in the morning but had we followed that approach in the 1930s we wouldn’t have started rearming until very late in 1938, or even 1939. Which would have been too late. It’s one reason the BEF got such a kicking in Flanders in 1940 as it is.

    It’s for politicians to help shape public opinion as well as respond to it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,717

    Being positive for a second, firstly we still have Hammond in the Treasury who’s exceptionally dry and deadly serious about running a budget surplus by 2025.

    Really? He'll bow to the pressure or in any case may well go when May does, and I bet the gov was serious about previous targets.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,108
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.

    The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences

    A few examples:

    Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them

    Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively

    Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes

    Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing

    It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal

    * I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.

    .



    It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
    Perhaps, though do you think we'd actually be addressing were brexit not occurring? The fundamentals of why such issues don't get resolved remain either way unfortunately.
    We’re not good at long term consequences and govts tend to suffer when they try to fix them, but all the hot air breathed over Brexit is undoubtedly an opportunity cost.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,591

    The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...

    The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.

    We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.

    And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...

    What practical steps do you think a Labour adminstration should have taken post GE2010 where we were spending £5 for every £4 received in taxes, and overspending by £120+ billion per year?

    Let’s take it as read that your suggestion that we let doctors be doctors might not quite cut it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,717

    kle4 said:

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    That’s remarkably complacent.

    Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.

    We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
    Not enough votes in that. So long as general people don't fear it is in a state of collapse, correctly or not, the money will go elsewhere.

    The perception of legendarily poor defence procurement doesn't help. Probably the only thing with a comparable perception is inflated, usually poorly working, IT systems.
    It’s for politicians to help shape public opinion as well as respond to it.
    That is true enough. But I think parties only have so much energy they are willing to spend on trying to do so, and I certainly don't get the impression either side cares to do so with sustained increases on defence.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,695
    Jonathan said:

    It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.

    We have been neglecting a great many problems (housing and power generation being only the two most obvious) for years if not decades. What was the last government to risk serious unpopularity by taking tough calls? Certainly Blair never did - except over Iraq, which ironically was the one time he should have bowed to pressure!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,717
    DavidL said:

    AndyJS said:

    It seems like about 1 in 55 people being phoned are answering and giving a voting intention in Texas and Tennessee:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-txsen-2.html

    That whole exercise has given insights into polling that are really useful. The incredibly low response rate, the differential response rate by age (1/140 of those under 29 responded), the distortions that this causes in the sample (too old, too white, too politically engaged as they say themselves) and their attempts to offset that. Its been fascinating.

    Looks like Cruz is going to win fairly comfortably though.
    Darn it. Knew some things were too good to be true.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,591
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.

    That’s remarkably complacent.

    Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.

    We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
    Not enough votes in that. So long as general people don't fear it is in a state of collapse, correctly or not, the money will go elsewhere.

    The perception of legendarily poor defence procurement doesn't help. Probably the only thing with a comparable perception is inflated, usually poorly working, IT systems.
    It’s for politicians to help shape public opinion as well as respond to it.
    That is true enough. But I think parties only have so much energy they are willing to spend on trying to do so, and I certainly don't get the impression either side cares to do so with sustained increases on defence.
    I think those on the select committee and those who are ex-forces, or journalists very close to the ex-forces, are doing a cracking job.

    I’m yet to see the cabinet respond, however.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,717
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.

    The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences

    A few examples:

    Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them

    Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively

    Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes

    Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing

    It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal

    * I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.

    .



    It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
    Perhaps, though do you think we'd actually be addressing were brexit not occurring? The fundamentals of why such issues don't get resolved remain either way unfortunately.
    We’re not good at long term consequences and govts tend to suffer when they try to fix them, but all the hot air breathed over Brexit is undoubtedly an opportunity cost.
    Probably.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,525
    Good morning, everyone.

    Sounds like a bloody terrible idea. Will probably be Labour policy before too long. Can't let the filthy kulaks have *two* cows. What could justify such bourgeois greed?
This discussion has been closed.