Merged Now What?

[ceptimus]

Yeah compared to a forecast that was astronomically high, the still increasing debt was smaller.

But the debt is still getting bigger all the time. The rate at which the debt increases is the deficit - and that has never been negative in recent years.

 

[Lothian]

Sounds like you may be replying to someone who doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit.

I was talking about debts relative to GDP. It is trivial to show how that is independent of whether or not there's a deficit and how both deficits and surpluses could give either a rise or fall in the debt to GDP ratio. That said I understand why you are confused. PM me if you want an explanation.

 

[Francesca R]

Except he actually said that in cash terms
"Compared to the forecast, the actual level of our national debt in cash is £9 billion lower."

Yes--it is lower in cash terms than the (cash terms) forecast.

Still not lower in cash terms than the previous actual in cash terms.

 

[Francesca R]

I was talking about debts relative to GDP.

And you said this debt would come out higher than the Tories inherited. But the Tories never said otherwise. It is the deficit they said they would eliminate.

 

[Lothian]

And you said this debt would come out higher than the Tories inherited. But the Tories never said otherwise. It is the deficit they said they would eliminate.

I was going back to the coalition and specifically the 'there is no money' note. At that time they criticised the debt saying labour should have paid it all off when the going was good. They pointed out that as a percentage of GDP it was at its highest level since anyone could remember. It is that same criticism I am saying will be able to be thrown back after 10 years of Tory rule. (note I consider the coalition effectively a Tory rule. The lib influence appears minimal)

 

[CapelDodger]

Which he had said he would do.

I think you'll find he was a tad more circumspect than that. It's instinctive for people like Osborne.

Since then he wants to cut corporation tax, and I don't think any other ideas have emerged.

The abandonment of the deficit target (elimination by the end of this government) is new, and qualifies as an "immediate response", which I think is what he said would be necessary. Another budget in the autumn will still be an emergency budget.

So he has gone from a promise to contract fiscal policy "to fill a black hole" to expanding it because the economy will be negatively impacted by Brexit. Which was the same expectation as before it is not as if the expected impact is any different; but the Osborne-Cameron policy prescription was reversed in a matter of weeks.

Again, I think you'll find that Osborne presented an illustrative package of tax rises and spending cuts worth £30bn, not a set of proposals.

I think it is an act of extreme charity to call that a change or even a U-turn, and not a lie.

I call it sophistry. That was a core subject in Osborne's entire education.

Extreme inconsistent charity at that, since one does not see it being similarly extended to the leave campaign.

The Leave campaign went straight past sophistry to bare-faced porkies. There's no equivalence.

 

[Francesca R]

At that time they criticised the debt saying labour should have paid it all off when the going was good.

Did they? I'm pretty sure nobody said anything so daft. They probably said Labour should not have still been printing deficits after many years of growth (like in 2007). You do appear to confuse debt with deficits.

I thought your reply could be "Oh god, what a crime. I humbly beg your forgiveness for such an heinous oversight."

(It's OK)

 

[Lothian]

Did they? I'm pretty sure nobody said anything so daft. They probably said Labour should not have still been printing deficits after many years of growth (like in 2007). You do appear to confuse debt with deficit

Apparently It is amusing that MikeG even struggles to use my name now, it is 'the poster quoted'. My favourite though was when he called me a poo chucker. I think the irony sailed straight over his head on that one.

 

[Lothian]

How would you lobby the latter, since you cannot vote him out of office.

Pen and paper or an email perhaps. As I have explained before it is the same as if I wanted to lobby the UK home Secretary.
I can't vote the commissioner out of office neither can I vote the defence minister out of office. I can only vote for my MP. Both the commissioner and the defense minister are decided by the party with the most votes. Everytime there is a change of Government the defence minister and commissioner changes.

 

[Corsair 115]

I can't vote the commissioner out of office neither can I vote the defence minister out of office. I can only vote for my MP.

But it is those MPs who propose legislation, then debate it, then either pass it or reject it. That, it seems to me, is a key point in all this.

Both the commissioner and the defense minister are decided by the party with the most votes. Everytime there is a change of Government the defence minister and commissioner changes.

Yes, because the government changes, and those posts are typically filled from the ranks of the members elected during an election. Those ministers enact government policy. That government policy is determined by the elected members of that government, not by an unelected commission. Again, that is a key distinction that seems important.

 

[Darat]

Yes--it is lower in cash terms than the (cash terms) forecast.

Still not lower in cash terms than the previous actual in cash terms.

Problem is of course that Osbourne deliberately phrases this in a way that he knows will be misunderstood by the folk who don't pay that much attention they will have heard "lower debt".

 

[Lothian]

But it is those MPs who propose legislation, then debate it, then either pass it or reject it. That, it seems to me, is a key point in all this.


Yes, because the government changes, and those posts are typically filled from the ranks of the members elected during an election. Those ministers enact government policy. That government policy is determined by the elected members of that government, not by an unelected commission. Again, that is a key distinction that seems important.

In both cases bills* come from the Government through the Minister or commissioner to be voted on by MPs or MEPs. The commissioner is chosen by the elected Government. So are ministers of state. We don't vote for the commissioner neither do we vote directly for ministers. Don't forget that the UK Government has appointed as ministers people from outside the House of commons, unelected people who are not MPs set policy in the UK. We currently have 7 ministers who are not MPs and whom have been selected by the Government.
As said. The UK is less democratic than the EU.


*there are some private members bills but these are in the minority.

 

[MikeG]

Problem is of course that Osbourne deliberately phrases this in a way that he knows will be misunderstood by the folk who don't pay that much attention they will have heard "lower debt".

Deeply frustrating habit, that, started by Gordon Brown in 1997.

 

[MikeG]

But it is those MPs who propose legislation, then debate it, then either pass it or reject it. That, it seems to me, is a key point in all this.





Yes, because the government changes, and those posts are typically filled from the ranks of the members elected during an election. Those ministers enact government policy. That government policy is determined by the elected members of that government, not by an unelected commission. Again, that is a key distinction that seems important.

Not only that, but because there is a cabinet and shadow cabinet at the time of a national election, one has a fairly good idea of who the cabinet ministers will be. I doubt anyone has ever had any idea who an incoming government would nominate as an EU commissioner.

 

[McHrozni]

Not only that, but because there is a cabinet and shadow cabinet at the time of a national election, one has a fairly good idea of who the cabinet ministers will be. I doubt anyone has ever had any idea who an incoming government would nominate as an EU commissioner.

So the fact you're ignorant of a government policy regarding the EU means the EU is undemocratic?

Oh my, what a curious double standard. Are you sure it's not just desperate grasping at straws to find something - anything - that would justify your position?

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

So the fact you're ignorant of a government policy regarding the EU means the EU is undemocratic?

Oh my, what a curious double standard. Are you sure it's not just desperate grasping at straws to find something - anything - that would justify your position?

McHrozni

tbh it's not that unusual. A lot of people were complaining prior to the referendum that the EU was undemocratic because they had no idea who their MEP was - of course they probably didn't know who their MP was either but that's different for *reasons*

 

[MikeG]

tbh it's not that unusual. A lot of people were complaining prior to the referendum that the EU was undemocratic because they had no idea who their MEP was - of course they probably didn't know who their MP was either but that's different for *reasons*

I have 7. I can only name 2, and I'm very interested in politics. You have 4, so your task is much easier. So yes, not being able to name your MEPs, plural, is likely to be for very different reasons than not being able to name your MP.

 

[McHrozni]

tbh it's not that unusual. A lot of people were complaining prior to the referendum that the EU was undemocratic because they had no idea who their MEP was - of course they probably didn't know who their MP was either but that's different for *reasons*

Yeah, that's depressingly true. One of the greatest arguments against democracy is a ten minute talk with the average voter. Certainly direct democracy - so commonly assumed to be more democratic than representative democracy - would truly be miserable failure, for another century at least.

The conundrum UK is in now is rather painful. It's fairly clear the rest of EU has started to work on it's plans to pry away as much a British finance and other economy as possible, whereas the UK doesn't even know what kind of a deal it ultimately wants and is unlikely to get to an agreement on it anytime soon.

Accession to the EU (of UK or otherwise) wasn't decided by one referendum, it was decided by several elections, rounds of negotiations, many deals, and the public therefore knew what they were getting themselves into. It was first decided what was going to happen if the country joins, and then whether this should happen or not. This Brexit thing on the other hand is the exact opposite, it was first decided to leave the EU, and the UK is only now starting to realize the possible implications of that.

McHrozni

 

[GlennB]

Deeply frustrating habit, that, started by Gordon Brown in 1997.

I'd be surprised if that were literally true. Clarke, Lamont, Lawson, Howe, Healey and all avoided 'giving favorable impressions' on that subject by a naughty choice of words?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

tbh it's not that unusual. A lot of people were complaining prior to the referendum that the EU was undemocratic because they had no idea who their MEP was - of course they probably didn't know who their MP was either but that's different for *reasons*

I'm not 100% sure I could name my MP to be honest. I don't think I can even reliably name my constituency. Partly it's because I have a councillor, an MSP, an MP, and some MEP types to worry about and partly it reflects my lack of interest to find out but more importantly I think it actually reflects the complete lack of impact my MP has on my life or actually on policy decisions. The very undemocracy that people were complaining about in the EU.

My MP goes to Westminster as a member of a minority party and has no impact on government policy whatsoever. Even my MSP who is a member of the government pretty much only fills a chair to vote for what the party and the relevant minister has decided is the right policy.

One other thing I notice is how few of the cabinet and shadow cabinet I actually know these days because they are mostly non-entity politicians with no real public profile.

In a lineup I could probably identify Cameron, Clegg, Osbourne, Corbyn and a few of the Scottish MPs and MEPs and thanks to the referendum campaign and subsequent party shenanigans I now know a few more names like Leadsom and Eagle but I'm not sure I could name the defence minister right now if asked and certainly not the shadow defence minister.