Test
edit: Lads, I'm getting a bit good at this. I just edited a piece of javascript ffs.
Test
edit: Lads, I'm getting a bit good at this. I just edited a piece of javascript ffs.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/...n-tax-receipts
Deficit rises steeply. Bullshit economics is bullshit. Quelle fucking surprise.
How is a surprise fall in income tax receipts evidence of 'bullshit economics'?
Osbourne's policies are supposed to reduce the deficit. He's made predictions to that effect. Not for the first time the predictions are way off, because cuts depress economic activity and therefore lower the tax take (like so).
If the Office For National Statistics is saying the main culprit is the drop in corporation tax than that implies the whole 'tax private business less and they'll spend more' wank doesn't really work, no?Originally Posted by Yevrah
Spending is up for fuck's sake. There are no cuts.
It's the tax take for just one month and there's a quote from an economist (who I don't think is connected with the government) saying that she expects that to be recovered in the next few months.
@ Phonics.That said, we would not read too much into one set of figures, given that the trend had previously improving for several months. Indeed, we expect growth of tax receipts to recover quickly given that the recent strength of the economic recovery should be feeding through
Judging by the state of the M1 the excess has all gone on roadworks, cones and those fucking awful overhanging yellow average speed cameras.
I wasn't actively getting involved in the argument. Just explaining where I figured Henry was coming from. I barely even skimmed the link.
Well I asked the question because I had read the link and had clocked that quote, which isn't consistent with Henry's reasoning.
I was seething all the way down the M1 yesterday. To say the professional Northerners are always moaning about being cut off by shitty rail links you don't hear much about that disgrace.
@Jimmy Floyd - Government spending can rise even if there are cuts. If more people are unemployed for example.
@Yevrah - She did not say that it would be recovered. She said that borrowing will be reduced but at a much slower rate than it was supposed to be.
Or if you're servicing a honking great debt.
She said exactly that you pinko mentalist, I even quoted her saying it for fuck's sake.
Wrong. You're only reading the parts that you want to read, and interpreting them to say something other than what they do.
My bolding.Vicky Redwood, chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said the government was still on track to reduce its anual borrowing, but at a much slower pacer than previously forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
“Borrowing in the first five months of the fiscal year so far is still below where it was at the same point a year ago. But on the face of it, this leaves borrowing for 2015-16 as a whole set to undershoot last year’s borrowing total of £90bn by only £10bn or so, rather than the £20bn drop that the OBR forecast in its July’s budget.
“That said, we would not read too much into one set of figures, given that the trend had previously improving for several months. Indeed, we expect growth of tax receipts to recover quickly given that the recent strength of the economic recovery should be feeding through,” she added.
Growth of tax reciepts will recover. i.e. they'll start growing again.
The rate at which taxes are growing/the deficit is being cut will not. The deficit will be cut "at a much slower pace".
If your take on what she's saying is correct, why has she prefaced her third paragraph with "we would not read too much into one set of figures"? Doesn't sound like she's written off the whole approach to me.
And there's a world of difference between getting a forecast wrong and your whole plan being built on bullshit economics.
Gideon has constantly made it difficult for himself with bollocks forecasts, although I seem to remember the last Labour budgets in 2009/10 assuming four per cent growth until the end of time (and moan about cutting all you like, Europe would have shit that out). What matters is that he's kicked great big holes in the state whilst doing so, and we should all rejoice at that news.
Not reading too much into one result is a standard disclaimer. This however is happening repeatedly with Osbourne's forecasts.
See here for the IMF take.
And here's the long-term trend.
I mean, for fuck sake. Why is anyone still believing this shit?
Didn't he end up revising those plans more recently to say that we were doing better than previously expected? It's surely the nature of five year economic plans, which never work out anywhere ever.
Aren't economic forecasts always complete bollocks? Pretty sure Browm was being slagged in the same way when he was Chancellor. I like a good opportunity to slag off Tories but this doesn't seem like one to me.
Forecast figures are always wrong. Always. Because they're forecasts, and therefore based on assumptions. This means that actual outputs are likely to be different. In five years, I have never looked at aa forecast v actual and found it to be right.
It's fucking daft to have a go on this, unless it's obviously lol e.g. the SNP oil income figures.
Forecasts are not an exact science but usually it's up and down. For the policies to be consistently delivering much worse results than expected causing the long-term plan to need continual revision says that something is terribly wrong.
But let's keep going with it anyway. Because benefit cheats!
I'm inclined to agree with @Henry here. Forecasts are invariably wrong but they shouldn't be wrong by such massive amounts.
It happens with every forecast ever. Forecasts at this level affect markets, thus investment opportunity. If the assumption(s) used can be justified, then it'll present a more positive picture. It's a forecast, for fuck sake.
Is that graph also taking a five year forecast from 2010 and still putting the actuals against the originals, despite the fact it will have been updated five times since it was originally produced?
If so, after getting the first year wrong there wasn't a hope in hell that the following years would fall in line to that original forecast.
Every forecast ever is not an absurd exercise in wishful thinking. If they were then markets would hardly pay attention, would they?
Imagine if Cooper and Co. had stepped down fo Burnham only to get smashed anywayMandelson’s response comes as a Guardian account of the Labour leadership contest – to be published online on Friday morning – discloses:• Supporters of Liz Kendall tried to arrange for her and then shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper to stand aside to give shadow health secretary Andy Burnham a clear run when it became apparent support for Corbyn was surging
• Cooper warned interim leader Harriet Harman that her decision not to oppose the welfare bill was handing Jeremy Corbyn victory and she threatened to quit the shadow cabinet if Harman refused to let Labour MPs vote against the welfare bill
• Supporters of Burnham believe he could have won the contest if he had quit the shadow cabinet over the welfare issue and say the episode was the turning point in his defeat.
• The Kendall team commissioned private YouGov polling as early as late June which showed the party membership opposed austerity and further spending cuts, making the Kendall team realise they were out of the running.
• Labour officials discovered nearly 20% of those joining the party as £3 registered supporters had no record of previously voting Labour.
• Corbyn himself had doubts about whether he would be a successful party leader and his team expected to secure only 20% of the vote at the outset.
Why do you keep posting in a different font?
It's copy pasting the formatting from other websites and I don't know what button it is to undo it.
edit: Found it, it's the red X on the left.
So Jeremy Corkikobyn is a 9/11 denying, conspiracy nutter. There's a surprise.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3mqt9xrLDJeremy Corbyn claimed the 9/11 attacks were 'manipulated' by the West so it could go to war in Afghanistan in an article he wrote 12 years ago, it has emerged today.
The Labour leader made the assertions in a number of written pieces where he criticised Tony Blair and George W Bush for using the September 11 attacks in New York to go to war.
He claims Osama bin Laden was made to look responsible to facilitate their aims and seemed to endorse conspiracy theories about a 'New World Order'.
In the 2003 piece for The Morning Star, he wrote: 'Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months, The Telegraph reports.
'After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
'This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.'
Prior to that, he wrote a series of articles which appear to have endorsed the conspiracy theory about the 'New World Order'.
The revelations come ahead of Mr Corbyn's first Labour conference as leader where a number of MPs are expected to state the party is unelectable under him.
Labour grandee Lord Mandelson has already warned MPs against making an early move to oust Jeremy Corbyn - but insisted the party could not win with the 66-year-old 'loser' in charge.
The former business secretary said the party had 'stuck two fingers up' at the country by choosing Mr Corbyn as leader but, in a leaked memo, he said Mr Corbyn couldn't be replaced until he had shown how unpopular he is at the polls.
The articles, including one for 'Labour Briefing' in 1991, Mr Corbyn wrote that the Gulf War was a 'curtain raiser' for the New World Order, stating at the rich and powerful and 'white and western' could maintain economic order with the 'free use of all the weapons'.
Furthermore, in Socialist Campaign Group News the same year, he wrote: 'The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.'
Mr Corbyn stormed to victory in the Labour leadership contest with 60 per cent of the vote, despite being unknown outside Westminster.
But the nation's first impression of the 66-year-old is far from positive in an IpsosMORI poll.
Mr Corbyn was on minus 3 per cent, with 33 per cent satisfied with the way he is doing his job and 36 per cent dissatisfied.
Corbyn is always going to sink himself because he has written and said so much shit that he can't deny.
You can moderate your views and principles all you want, but when there's a body of evidence showing you're a nutter (relatively speaking) then there's not much you can do.
One suspects "the left" will reject the hard lesson they're going to get from this experience.
He's going to let members and supporters decide policy. :wedge:
What's the longest period a consecutive government has had in power? I suspect that particular record is going to be demolished.
'Jeremy' has never had to take responsibility for anything, and he seemingly never wants to.
Is he on the ropes?
Sounds like a right nutter.
Also, I note that Labour have signed up to the Tory 'financial charter' requiring budget surpluses by the end of this parliament.
That'll go down well.
The Whigs were in power for 40+ years at one point, although in those days parties weren't really the same as they are now, as there wasn't ideology so much, and also the voting franchise was about four people, all of whom owned a county. If my very shit knowledge of the period is right, everyone who was anyone went over to the Whigs because everyone hated the Tories for bankrupting us at the start of the Seven Years' War.
In these times 13 years is the longest there has been. EDIT: What am I saying, 17 between '79 and '97.
I actually think it's the Thatcher / Major stint. 1979 - 1997. Aye, Jimmy's got it.
I'd like to see the actual articles rather than Daily Mail propaganda, which is suspiciously free from actual quotes, and uses terms such as "seemed to".
I saw the various TV interviews 'Corbs' did over the weekend and he was loving every minute of it. He's not going to divert from his principles and the media are having a hard time coming to terms with that.
Fucking idiocy. That's about the worst thing they could do.
My parents have switched from The Times to The Telegraph that has made very entertaining weekend reading on Corbyn. The formula seems to be 'Headline that makes Corbyn sound like a nutter' then 6 paragraphs of their reading of a 10 word quote that's buried somewhere in paragraph 8 that seems to largely make sense. It's properly, properly pants shitting stuff. What a terrible newspaper.
It's terrible now isn't it?
Labour said they will 'live within our means', but they still intend to make up any shortfalls with imaginary tax gaps and by rinsing whole sectors of the economy to death, so they haven't really signed up to Gideon's scheme (well, they have in reality, since their revenue streams don't exist; but they're still arguing against it for now).
Even if the content doesn't bother you the layout is fucked. Every newspaper is about 4 sections. It was okay when you had Businness and Sport in one as you got used to it but you've got Motoring in a spread between the News and Gardening. It's impossible to find anything apart from endless advertorial magazines. Load of shit. I complained but apparently the Times is too expensive these days.
The Times is even worse. They are all fucked because they're a) not economically viable and b) run by mental sharks.
I think I heard The Times makes a profit now with it's paywall/Russia+China paying them for advertising.
The website used to have the best blog section going. Now it's like a cross between Breitbart and a lifestyle guide for rich women.
The highlight is when a 16 page pullout about 'Amazing Azerbaijan' or the like drops onto the table.
Won't apologise for slavery because 'it happened ages ago'
Wants country to do trade deal with Britain over China because 'we used to own you ages ago, remember?'
Doesn't seem the strongest game of diplomacy I've ever heard.
That seems a very fair and balanced conclusion you've come to.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
