Politics Thread!

[pogo]

The problem with the Green's policies though is they are unaffordable. At least that's what it looked like at the last election, the last time they had to write a manifesto:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 623197.stm

But critics accuse them of living in "fantasyland" by unveiling a list of promises as long as their arm which will have to be paid for by tax increases - never a vote winner.

When challenged on the figures, Ms Lucas introduced the party's economic expert - the former Whitehall civil servant, Brian Heatley - to answer the tricky questions. He said that the majority, in fact 87%, of people - would be better-off under a Green budget.

That means the remaining richest 13% would have to pay - largely through increased taxes - by the introduction of a 50p tax rate for those earning over £100,000 (it is currently over £150,000), no limit on National Insurance contributions and clamping down on tax avoidance. They also have the bankers in their sights - they would introduce a permanent tax on bonuses.

But it is unlikely the small percentage of the country's richest would shoulder all of the burden for the increased spending - inevitably the majority of people would end up paying. They say they would increase environmental taxes to try to change people's behaviour - that means re-introducing the fuel price escalator and cutting subsidies for air travel.

It is not just green taxes - remember the recent outrage at plans to increase the duty on cider? - well, they plan to increase duty on alcohol and cigarettes by 50% in order to raise revenue for the NHS.

And I don't think the BBC does enough to criticise their plans (there was little interest in them at the time as the Greens were not going to win the election). The problem with tax rises is they rarely raise what's expected as people change their behaviour. We know how that happened with the 50% tax hike. It's easy to see how it would happen with duties. People would drive less and drive more economical cars. Some people would smoke and drink less while smuggling would dramatically expand. Making flying more expensive would just mean less people fly and act as a drag on an economy as foreign tourists stayed away. Essentially their manifesto was unaffordable and uncosted.

[merman]

You mean, unaffordable compared to the Tories racking up £549 billion in new borrowing since 2010?

[pogo]

All three main parties were committed to cutting spending and/or raising taxes at the last election. None were promising to instead massively raise spending, paid for by entirely unrealistic revenues.

But no-one was predicting the deficit would be eliminated and we'd be in surplus by 2010. You seem disappointed in this – would you rather the current government had been so aggressive in its cuts that government spending was fully funded by 2010? That would certainly have been possible but the damage to the economy, health, education, pensions, etc. would have been immense. Are you seriously suggesting that would have been a better course than the one the government followed?

[VNVObit]

All three main parties were committed to cutting spending and/or raising taxes at the last election. None were promising to instead massively raise spending, paid for by entirely unrealistic revenues.

But no-one was predicting the deficit would be eliminated and we'd be in surplus by 2010. You seem disappointed in this – would you rather the current government had been so aggressive in its cuts that government spending was fully funded by 2010? That would certainly have been possible but the damage to the economy, health, education, pensions, etc. would have been immense. Are you seriously suggesting that would have been a better course than the one the government followed?

2015, they were only elected in 2010. And yes George promised to eliminate the deficit by end of this fiscal year (14/15) and be in surplus in 15/16

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03 ... 84223.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 28526.html

[pogo]

To have no net borrowing since 2010 we'd have to have eliminated the deficit then. Or be running a massive surplus now to counteract the massive deficit the government inherited. No government promised that, and it would have been very damaging to try and achieve it.

Yes, the recovery's fallen far short of their predictions, but they were everyone else's predictions too. Everyone expected the economy to recover quickly, as the pound plummeting in 2009 made our exports much more competitive. We had our banking crisis early which made for a deeper recession but also meant with the bank rescue, the BoE's interest rate policy and QE, everything was in place for a recovery. In addition the quick action of the government, then led by Gordon Brown, was seen as a model for other countries to follow.

The problem is they didn't all follow. The US did: they too had their banking crisis early, have slashed interest rates, and introduced QE. But the Eurozone hasn't. Except for Ireland they let their banking crisis fester, and are still poking and prodding to see which banks are weakest but not truly exposing the fragility of many of them. Interest rates were cut too slowly and even raised mid-crisis; only now five years too late are they pursuing a truly aggressive interest rate policy. And most damagingly QE still hasn't happened.

So the Eurozone is mired in recession. Or another way to put it it's had a double dip recession and is on the way to a third dip, though really it never escaped recession. Europe is our main export market so our exports have been largely flat, not growing as you'd expect with the pound falling. Without them the economy didn't recover as expected, and it took another 2-3 years for a recovery led by domestic consumption and investment to start.

[merman]

All three main parties were committed to cutting spending and/or raising taxes at the last election. None were promising to instead massively raise spending, paid for by entirely unrealistic revenues.

But no-one was predicting the deficit would be eliminated and we'd be in surplus by 2010. You seem disappointed in this – would you rather the current government had been so aggressive in its cuts that government spending was fully funded by 2010? That would certainly have been possible but the damage to the economy, health, education, pensions, etc. would have been immense. Are you seriously suggesting that would have been a better course than the one the government followed?

The current Government has made disastrous CHOICES, raised indirect taxation and still made huge cuts - but because of the privatisation and commercialisation of Government services the cost of providing those weakened services has been bankrolled by billions in borrowing.

Osborne repeatedly said he would clear the deficit by 2015, now he "promises" to cut taxes before the books are back in the black. Utterly irresponsible.

The Greens at least stuck by their environmental principles. "The greenest Government ever" has one of the poorest records on environmental policies.

[pogo]

New EU migrants add £5bn to UK, report says

It's sort of obvious, if you've lots of young workers coming here to work then often going home after, they're going to contribute far more to the economy than they cost it, but it's nice to put a number on it.

And this is only one class of immigrant. Immigrants from the rest of the EU are probably similar. Most legal immigrants from outside the EU are overwhelmingly contributors to the economy as they're either on work visas, so have no choice but to work, typically in a high-paying job that pays lots of tax, before leaving at the end of their contract, or student visas who have to pay for everything and prop up our higher education sector with billions of pounds of foreign money.

People who come here to settle from outside the EU are different as they do eventually cost the UK money, but as British citizens, i.e. the same as the rest of us. They are a cross-section of society – dependant relatives of British citizens – so of all ages and backgrounds, and don't I think either cost more or less than existing citizens but the same. The only exception is until they gain citizenship they are excluded from collecting any benefits, so are not here as benefit tourists and are more likely to be working if of working age.

The only ones who are a significant burden on the state are illegal immigrants, because of the cost of intercepting them, investigating them and deporting them. But the laws already in theory exclude them from the country. If we want less of them to arrive we need to invest more in border controls, such as in Calais either by basing even more UK people over there or paying the French even more to do it for us. Or we could just trash our economy, like France, so people queue at our borders trying to flee.

[pogo]

EU 'benefit tourism' court ruling is common sense, says Cameron

Snigger. The problem with this is 'benefit tourism' simply doesn't exist, at least not here. There may be some corners of the EU with generous welfare systems that draw people to them, but not the UK. People come here to work first and foremost. There may be a few who then fall on hard times and look for help but not many. Most from the EU just go back.

One big benefit of the free movement of people is people can come and go as they please. If you place restrictions on people they still come one way or another, then don't leave. So the immigrants that are the biggest drain on our resources by far are those here illegally who often can't work, but don't leave voluntarily as they won't be able to return.

So e.g. the graph (source) shows net immigration to the UK. The pink line is EU citizens. It shot up a decade ago the EU gained new members, but fell by half in 2008, partly as people returned to their country of origin as the recession hit.



so if we were only counting EU immigrants, which seem to be the ones the govt. is obsessing over at the moment, then their target of halving net immigration was achieved in 2008. Problem is they set a goal of about halving net immigration. And while fewer EU citizens have been coming here fewer British ones, the cyan line, have been leaving (presumably due to what's happening elsewhere in Europe).

The govt could achieve their goals easily if they tackled the other group, non-EU immigrants. Problem is they already face a very hard, restrictive regime, far worse than even a few years ago, which is doing serious damage to the economy by keeping away fee-paying students and skilled workers. It would be insane to make it any harder for them – it should be relaxed.

So they're left making up problems such as 'benefit tourism', knowing full well that anything they do won't make a jot of difference. Perhaps then they'll realise it's a lost cause and give up, and switch to the much more sensible strategy of having a sane immigration policy and explaining to e.g. voters how immigrants overwhelmingly benefit the UK so we should not obsess over some arbitrary numerical target.

[merman]

Cameron and Theresa May made a serious tactical mistake, not giving MPs the promised vote on the EU Arrest Warrant.

The good news is that the UK remains part of it. The bad news is the mini Tory revolt and Labour promising a debate on the issue next week, just in time to make a difference at the by-election.

[pogo]

You think anything would be gained over the govt. having a vote which was a foregone conclusion? There are more pressing things for this parliament to concern itself with. Not more pressing things for the Labour opposition though, who are instead wasting a debate on this.

Just as the Tories overtake Labour in the opinion polls, and Miliband becomes the most unpopular Labour leader for 20 years (possibly longer as that's as far as the polls go). Even 58% of Labour supporters are unhappy with him.

Conservatives have three-point lead over Labour in new poll

And now UKIP are being taken a little more seriously people have been filling in the gaps on their polices based on the pronouncements of their leader.

What Nigel Farage really thinks – video

The highlight is his desire for an insurance-based health system, i.e. the system in the US. Hard to see him winning that argument either with voters or in debates. i.e. once UKIP stop being a single issue protest party the wheels could fall off their bandwagon very quickly.

[Darkflame]

The problem with the Green's policies though is they are unaffordable. At least that's what it looked like at the last election, the last time they had to write a manifesto:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 623197.stm

But critics accuse them of living in "fantasyland" by unveiling a list of promises as long as their arm which will have to be paid for by tax increases - never a vote winner.

When challenged on the figures, Ms Lucas introduced the party's economic expert - the former Whitehall civil servant, Brian Heatley - to answer the tricky questions. He said that the majority, in fact 87%, of people - would be better-off under a Green budget.

That means the remaining richest 13% would have to pay - largely through increased taxes - by the introduction of a 50p tax rate for those earning over £100,000 (it is currently over £150,000), no limit on National Insurance contributions and clamping down on tax avoidance. They also have the bankers in their sights - they would introduce a permanent tax on bonuses.

But it is unlikely the small percentage of the country's richest would shoulder all of the burden for the increased spending - inevitably the majority of people would end up paying. They say they would increase environmental taxes to try to change people's behaviour - that means re-introducing the fuel price escalator and cutting subsidies for air travel.

It is not just green taxes - remember the recent outrage at plans to increase the duty on cider? - well, they plan to increase duty on alcohol and cigarettes by 50% in order to raise revenue for the NHS.

And I don't think the BBC does enough to criticise their plans (there was little interest in them at the time as the Greens were not going to win the election). The problem with tax rises is they rarely raise what's expected as people change their behaviour. We know how that happened with the 50% tax hike. It's easy to see how it would happen with duties. People would drive less and drive more economical cars. Some people would smoke and drink less while smuggling would dramatically expand. Making flying more expensive would just mean less people fly and act as a drag on an economy as foreign tourists stayed away. Essentially their manifesto was unaffordable and uncosted.

Rather then giving subs to air-travel all over, couldn't you tax per citizen leaving? (so incoming travel Holiday travel is not effected).
For that matter do we get more money from people that travel here then we lose money from people traveling elsewhere? If I stay a few weeks somewhere else the UK loses money the same as if someone foreign chooses not to stay a few weeks in the UK.


Also, not seeing issues with "people using economical cars" and "people smoking and drinking less". Sure, revenue doesn't increase proportionately, but it also means the negative effects of the older cars and other vices go down. Do we earn or lose from drinkers health wise?

That means the remaining richest 13% would have to pay - largely through increased taxes - by the introduction of a 50p tax rate for those earning over £100,000 (it is currently over £150,000), no limit on National Insurance contributions and clamping down on tax avoidance. They also have the bankers in their sights - they would introduce a permanent tax on bonuses.

Not having a problem on that either.
Id like too see a tiny fee per-transaction too. Stop this stock market millions-of-trades a second hour crap.

[pogo]

Rather then giving subs to air-travel all over, couldn't you tax per citizen leaving? (so incoming travel Holiday travel is not effected).
For that matter do we get more money from people that travel here then we lose money from people traveling elsewhere? If I stay a few weeks somewhere else the UK loses money the same as if someone foreign chooses not to stay a few weeks in the UK.

Also, not seeing issues with "people using economical cars" and "people smoking and drinking less". Sure, revenue doesn't increase proportionately, but it also means the negative effects of the older cars and other vices go down. Do we earn or lose from drinkers health wise?

Not having a problem on that either.
Id like too see a tiny fee per-transaction too. Stop this stock market millions-of-trades a second hour crap.

Sure, green taxes have green effects. So e.g. if a govt. raised air passenger duties or petrol taxes significantly then we'd have less flying, less driving, more economical cars. But that means they'd raise less revenue. And that's before you take into account the secondary effects of the costs on the economy, such as prices rising because of higher freight costs (most things reaching us by road and air), tax falling elsewhere because of lost economic activity.

Smokers and drinkers its less obvious, except to some extent smokers save money by mostly dying early in their 50s, 60s, not lasting decades longer as its older people who cost the NHS the most.

So there's nothing wrong with the Greens having a green agenda. But it won't raise money it will mostly cost money. Some things will cost more than others. There are good arguments for having clear long term policies like the fuel price escalator so people have time to adapt (as many did driving more economical cars) limiting the disruption to the economy.

As for a per-transaction tax the eurozone look likely to introduce one, so we'll see first hand what the impact is. Many think the effect will be negative, due to lost economic activity which just shifts to areas unaffected by the tax (unless you can get a global agreement on tax, but that seems very unlikely). There's also evidence it will make volatility worse, so increasing the chance of crisis which have an economic cost and a cost to taxpayers. But we'll see.

[merman]

The real problem with the fuel escalator?

Prices don't come down as fast as they go up. Witness the current low price of crude and the very small percentage reduction in prices at the pump (some of which is down to the supermarket price war).

There is also the long-term problem of using fuel duty to fill holes in the Government's budget, rather than spending it on roads/transport. An integrated transport policy such as the Greens have proposed in the past (greater investment in public transport being at the heart of it) makes more sense.

[pogo]

The reason prices haven't come down with the oil price is the oil price is in US$, and the pound is worth 30% less in dollar terms than the last time oil was at this level. When we imported inflation due to the pound falling higher oil costs had a lot to do with that. If firms were colluding to keep prices high we'd know about it, and the govt. would use its significant powers to investigate. The govt. is now planning what to do with the £1bn plus windfall from banks, fined for their part in forex market manipulation. It would be happy to see the same happen to petrol firms if there were justification for it, for both the money and political benefit.

As for hypothecating duty revenue that never happens. The govt. doesn't use air passenger duty to subsidies airports. it doesn't use tobacco and alcohol duty to subsidies those activities. Sure revenues offset some of the costs of caring for e.g. smokers with lung cancer but there's no direct relationship. And if we had a truly effective fuel price escalator that actually reduced the number of cars on the road then we'd need to spend less on roads - e.g. no more widening schemes to deal with congestion if it goes away as people drive less.

There's an argument for spending more on public transport, so as driving becomes too expensive people can still get about. But again there's no direct relationship between that and duty: spending should match the need for it, not any particular revenue source. And anyway a truly effective fuel escalator might bring in little or no revenue as the rise in prices is offset by the fall in numbers travelling, as well as by other measures such as more people driving fuel efficient and green vehicles which would become much more attractive.

[Dio]

The reason prices haven't come down with the oil price is the oil price is in US$, and the pound is worth 30% less in dollar terms than the last time oil was at this level.

The last time it was at this price it was a brief, 1-year blip. The price level has been roughly the same since that blip ended, for the last five years, although one might discern a gradual acceleration in the data. So prices now, even taking the change in the £ into account, should be at least as low as 2011 and probably less than 2008-9.