UK General Election 2017 - 8 June

[Henry]

Wait. Having declared that he wouldn't respond any further, it seems that you did.

It has, as I've outlined about eight times now. I honestly don't understand how you can be so dense as to deny that 44.4 is a bigger number than 36.6

No such denial was made and you're being very slippery. The £36.6 billion figure is from 2009-2010 and obviously not what I'm including when I talk about 2010-2016.
The relevant figures are as follows.

2010-11: £43 billion
2011-12: £43 billion
2012-13: £40 billion
2013-14: £40 billion
2014-15: £43 billion
2015-16: £44 billion

That's statistically flat. There was no increase in that period.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...2016_FINAL.pdf

Of course, one might have expected an increase as the economy was still recovering from recession. But as the IFS argues, even that didn't happen since the rate cut led to lower revenues that otherwise expected. So trying to interpret flatlining reciepts during a period of economic recovery as vindication for the Laffer Curve is just ludicrous.
It's actually worthy of a Marxist - rigid adherence to simplistic models in the face of whatever evidence exists.
(Contrary to what you might think, I detest Marxism for this very reason. Many neoliberals started off as Marxists before switching sides.)

[GS]

I'm afraid this comes back to you not understanding the difference between financial year and calendar year, what should be considered "base year" for comparative analysis, and time lag in the payment of CT across different financial (not calendar) years.

[Lewis]

By the way, if the Tories did get through their proposed internet bill and what happened with Smiffy last week happened, this site would be shut down and one or more of us would have been under arrest. As he claims he reported posts from here to the Police and they could take the view that it was harassing the mentally ill. At the moment they don't have the power to do that unless you explicitly stated his full name, address and threatened to murder him.

It's an absolute nightmare of a law before you even get to the other stuff.

He's banned now so whatever.

[Henry]

It certainly does come back to you wanting to bog the discussion down in irrelevant minutiae and accountancy jargon as a get-out from addressing the economics.

[phonics]

Was talking about the election to a friend last night, I reminded him he needed to re-register at the new address. He'd completely forgot. Told me he was voting Tory 2 minutes later. Fucked it.

[GS]

It certainly does come back to you wanting to bog the discussion down in accountancy jargon as a get-out from addressing the economics.

No, it really doesn't. '2010' does not mean FY11. If you're analysing the conservative record, you don't do it from FY11. You do it from FY10, being the last financial year under Labour and owing to the emergency budget Osborne presented in June 2010 which cut headline rates and thus already effective for most of FY11.

You do it because payment regimes mean that large companies are paying half their estimated tax burden in their own financial year owing to the quarterly payment system, and small companies have nine months grace after the end of their accounting period - so the effect with large companies was immediate in the payment schemes.

A better measure, frankly, is liabilities incurred in the year. The latest available data is for 2014/15. Total liabilities in FY10 were 38.4bn versus 43.7bn in FY15. Excluding offshore as being due to global trends in the oil market, it was 32.9bn versus 41.2bn.

You simply can't discuss it without some recourse to accounting jargon, and understanding liability versus payment, payment schedules, periods of impact, and periods of accounting relative to the tax year.

If you want to discuss the mitigating reasons why a tax cut led to an increase up to FY16, fine. If you want to complain that there was some flat lining during the period under discussion before further increase was noted through compensating volume of taxable profit, fine.

What you can't do is set an arbitrary start date for the discussion of the Tory record, use incorrect terminology to refer to those years, deny the relevance of the onshore/offshore segmentation, and then try and pretend that the introduction of additional detail and analyses is, somehow, changing the subject. What you also can't do is deny the data is fundamentally showing what it shows.

I don't blame you for not being up to speed on the intricacies of the tax system, because I can't imagine it's particularly interesting to non-accountants, but you are literally wasting your time here.

I note again, as I did at the beginning of the discussion, that I don't favour cliff edge decreases. Volume can't replace lost revenue overnight. However, this has been a moderate, staged decrease over the medium term which has generated activity and thus compensating volume.

[Yevrah]

I've booked the Friday morning off.

Just deciding on the snacks.

[phonics]

lol

[7om]

Just read the summary of the Conservative manifesto and feel disappointed they've decided to include students in the immigration numbers. It's something I was really hoping they wouldn't do and they've also specifically come out and said they expect foreign students to leave unless they can match even higher requirements. The standards for getting a visa after graduation were ridiculous before so it's pretty sad that they're basically going to push skilled kids that they've spent years educating straight out the door.

It's a shame, because I've seen the US system and it's very easy for foreign students to stay here after graduation.

[Henry]

'2010' does not mean FY11.

Nor did I claim that it did. It was a shorthand reference to a part of the graph from 2010-2015 which is statistically flat, and which I present again.
There was no reason for you to seize on the figures for financial year 2010 other than to sidetrack things.

If you're analysing the conservative record, you don't do it from FY11. You do it from FY10, being the last financial year under Labour and owing to the emergency budget Osborne presented in June 2010 which cut headline rates and thus already effective for most of FY11.

You'd like that, since it again ignores the recession/recovery dynamic. Why not compare it to the long-term trend, or the pre-recession figure? Why cherry-pick the one year that there'd been a sudden drop, which you'd expect to be followed by an increase? Are you actually claiming that there'd have been no economic recovery if it wasn't for the corporate tax cut?

this has been a moderate, staged decrease over the medium term which has generated activity and thus compensating volume.

This is a significant climb-down, and it's still unsubstantiated.
Your claim was not "compensating volume". Your claim was an increase in revenue due to investment.
Nevertheless, the IFS don't agree that this happened. They state that there were lower revenues than otherwise would have been taken. Why?
And where's your evidence that there was extra investment due to the cut at all? When was the investment and why were revenues flat throughout the staged decreases?

These questions have been open for several posts now, but all I'm getting is irrelevancy of various kinds.

EDIT: Oh wait, missed this.

there was some flat lining during the period under discussion before further increase was noted through compensating volume of taxable profit

We established right at the start that there were one-off effects responsible for the increase in 2016 and that business investment decreased that year. Now you're back to pretending this fits within your model of increased investment.
Jesus.

[Lewis]

This Twitter campaign to ring your nan and gently explain to her why she should vote Labour is lol. The SEETHE when the landslide comes is going to break records.

[GS]

Henry - your 2016 is FY17 i.e. not FY16. So no, that's a factual misrepresentation AGAIN. FY10 is the base because it had no Conservative stewardship / Tory policy implemented at all, AGAIN. This isn't fucking difficult. Are you honestly not grasping this?

My claim was increased revenue through volume of taxable profit generated, this being the obvious end result of investment to begin with. Otherwise why on earth would anybody invest anything for growth. This is so basic that it shouldn't require being spelt out.

This is really going to have to finish here, because there's only so many times that such things can be pointed out.

[7om]

This Henry - GS argument is still going? Fucking hell

[GS]

This Henry - GS argument is still going? Fucking hell

He can't understand the basics of tax years, and what applies when.

[Henry]

Henry - your 2016 is FY17 i.e. not FY16. So no, that's a factual misrepresentation AGAIN. FY10 is the base because it had no Conservative stewardship / Tory policy implemented at all, AGAIN. This isn't fucking difficult. Are you honestly not grasping this?

The way this works is not that you declare things, for others to "grasp". I explained why that ought not to be the base several times now. There. Was. A. Recession.
And once again, I'm not interested in what financial year it was. There was no increase due to extra business investment in that year, and you've failed to produce evidence of it for any other year either.

My claim was increased revenue through volume of taxable profit generated, this being the obvious end result of investment to begin with. Otherwise why on earth would anybody invest anything for growth. This is so basic that it shouldn't require being spelt out.

It's "basic" according to the idiotic model that you're determined to hold to. In the real world, what appears to have happened is that rates were cut and extra cash was collected by shareholders at the expense of the exchequer. Who the fuck knows what they did with it? Probably bought themselves some more yachts.

[Baz]

This is so basic that it shouldn't require being spelt out.
...
This is really going to have to finish here, because there's only so many times that such things can be pointed out.

[GS]

It must be seriously depressing if you live in Glasgow.

[Henry]

I've just seen it an four of the five points in the UKIP party political broadcast are designed to appeal to racists.

[GS]

View Tweet

Progressive.

[Lewis]

lol at the 'but universality' arguments in the replies. Flat tax then lads yeah?

[Lewis]

Elsewhere:



Have you seen the news recently mates?

[John]

Is that Vince Cable looking incredibly pleased with his photoshopping?

[Shindig]

Vince 'The Power' Cable is literally the only way my brain can process that man's name.

[Disco]

Is that Vince Cable looking incredibly pleased with his photoshopping?

Also shown are the four and a half Lib Dem voters left in the country.

[GS]

Vince got into a dreadful muddle on the idea of a second referendum the other night. I actually quite like him, so it's a shame to see it.

[GS]

lol at the 'but universality' arguments in the replies. Flat tax then lads yeah?

The Huffington Post has focus groups which suggest that Lab/Con swing voters are fully behind means testing the fuel payment and school meals, and also think that free tuition is bollocks.

250 seat majority.

[Lewis]

The professional (middle class) left are probably more out of touch with their supposed base on benefits/welfare than they are on immigration. They could pander to what they perceive as racism as they really had to, but the idea that working class people don't consider a universal welfare state the be all and end all seems to cause them serious discomfort.

[GS]

It's because they patronise them, and think that their base's goal in life should be to be more like them.

[GS]

Wobble weekend just in time for the postal votes.

It's perfect timing, because it makes the "he really could win" argument appear credible.

[Magic]

Corbz taking the stage at a Libertines gig.

[Lewis]

'I know you came here tonight to watch a group torn apart by its idiotic leader and trading on former glories, but in three weeks time...'

[Lewis]

https://andrewgilliganblog.wordpress...-the-document/

lol

[GS]

Returning again to the question as to why people like Boydy and Henry would support the party knowing that IRA supporters would be running the government.

[GS]

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/05/20...ge/#more-21610

It'll be interesting to see how many of these "big names" the Tories manage to take out. I'd be surprised if the social care policy, which unless it's explained in detail sounds like a bastard's trick, doesn't allow Labour to turn the conversation. Then again, the Tories can always turn it back to 'Brexit, mate' so let's see.

[GS]

View Tweet

Seriously, why doesn't she just join one of the other parties?

[Boydy]

Returning again to the question as to why people like Boydy and Henry would support the party knowing that IRA supporters would be running the government.

I've voted for Sinn Fein in the past. I love the RA.

[Magic]

Hail hail. Corbyn in.

[GS]

Boydy voting for the IRA is a surprise, if nothing else. At least the mask of moderation has slipped.

[Henry]

Well, returning to that question, we're apparently okay with the supporters of Saudi Arabia and the Iraq War running the government. I have more of a problem with that.

[GS]

Of course you do, because criticism of the IRA can only be entertained when equivalence is established with the British state.

It's a repugnant stance, frankly.

[Kikó]

Add Myanmar and Turkey to the list of shame.

[Henry]

Not equivalence. The destruction of Iraq was a crime on a scale far surpassing anything ever even attempted by the IRA.

[Lewis]

True, and everyone associated with that should probably be killed; but, in terms of looking to run a country, a record of having undermined its territorial integrity is worse than simply being a dickhead.

[GS]

True, and everyone associated with that should probably be killed; but, in terms of looking to run a country, a record of having undermined its territorial integrity is worse than simply being a dickhead.

Precisely.

[GS]

Meanwhile in Scotland, the leaders' debate was on this evening. Nicola Sturgeon was BLASTED by a nurse for her NHS pay policy, and was evidently uncomfortable. The drones aren't comfortable when the Supreme Leader is publicly challenged, and since summary execution isn't possible until after independence, they set about trying to vilify the audience member.

They accused her of being a Tory councillor's wife, and ergo a plant. They basically made it up, and ended up having to backpedal furiously after the Beeb confirmed it was a lie.

True tinfoil hat territory, yet they're still going to get 40% of the vote minimum. Free battered Mars Bars for everyone.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Meanwhile in Scotland, the leaders' debate was on this evening. Nicola Sturgeon was BLASTED by a nurse for her NHS pay policy, and was evidently uncomfortable. The drones aren't comfortable when the Supreme Leader is publicly challenged, and since summary execution isn't possible until after independence, they set about trying to vilify the audience member.

They accused her of being a Tory councillor's wife, and ergo a plant. They basically made it up, and ended up having to backpedal furiously after the Beeb confirmed it was a lie.

True tinfoil hat territory, yet they're still going to get 40% of the vote minimum. Free battered Mars Bars for everyone.

They're looking like proper bellends here. Mass character assassination attempt all over twitter.

Amazing how quickly people will share a meme believing everything at face value to suit their BBC conspiracy narrative.

[GS]

That's how the SNP operate. They're a contemptible band of utter cunts. I'm amazed more people in Scotland can't see through it.

[Lewis]

I think I only joined Twitter after the last election, but the sheer level of impotent rage floating around is just baffling. The referendum SEETHE was all concentrated on the bus, and there was lolling at PROJECT FEAR to be had, but everyone is just lashing out in all directions at everyone.

[GS]

It's an echo chamber. They did some analysis recently (fuck knows how) that suggested that the popular vote, based on Twitter, would see Labour with a ten point lead. It means these people think their message is getting through (alright, Henry, mate) whilst all the old people who aren't on Twitter have a turnout of about 180% and all vote Tory.

It's great in the aftermath of electoral defeat, because it's just a load of deeply upset leftists retweeting each other about the impending nuclear holocaust.

[Henry]

I don't use Twitter.