If one of the two major parties is hijacked by a far-right or far-left insurgency who can capitalise on an unpopular incumbent or political rival at the right time then it can easily happen. Just look at the US.
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (253 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Hunt has paid for tax cuts with unrealistic spending cuts which create huge problems for next chancellor, IFS says
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has released its full assessment of the autumn statement. In his summary, Paul Johnson, the IFS director, says Jeremy Hunt’s tax cuts are “paid for by planned real cuts in public service spending” which are not credible. He says this means Hunt has left a huge problem for whoever is chancellor after the next election. He explains:
The net result is that Mr Hunt is, by the narrowest of tiny margins, still on course to meet his (poorly designed) fiscal rule that debt as a fraction of national income should be falling in the last year of the forecast period. In reality debt is set to be just about flat at around 93 per cent of national income over the whole period. And that is on the basis of a series of questionable, if not plain implausible, assumptions. It assumes that many aspects of day to day public service spending will be cut. It assumes a substantial real cut in public investment spending. It assumes that rates of fuel duties will rise year on year with inflation – which they have not done in more than a decade and they surely will not do next April. It assumes that the constant roll over of “temporary” business rates cuts will stop. It assumes, of course, that the economy doesn’t suffer any negative shocks.
Like his predecessors Mr Hunt has taken a modest improvement in the public finance forecasts and spent most of it. He has spent up front and told us he will meet his targets largely by unspecified fiscal restraint at some point in the future. What he will do in March if the OBR downgrades its forecasts we do not know. Any such downgrading would leave him with a big headache. More importantly he or his successor is going to have the mother and father of a headache when it comes to making the tough decisions implied by this statement in a year or two’s time.
And here is Johnson’s conclusion.
The fiscal forecasts have not in any real sense got better. Debt is not declining over time. Taxes are still heading to record levels. Spending is also due to stay high by historic standards, not least because of high debt interest payments. But those payments plus pressures on health and pension spending mean current plans are for some pretty serious cuts across other areas of public spending. How did Mr Hunt afford tax cuts when real economic forecasts got no better? He banked additional revenue from higher inflation, and pencilled in harsher cuts to public spending.
I’m not sure I’d want to be the chancellor inheriting this fiscal situation in a year’s time.
Labour are fooked if they get in to power.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has released its full assessment of the autumn statement. In his summary, Paul Johnson, the IFS director, says Jeremy Hunt’s tax cuts are “paid for by planned real cuts in public service spending” which are not credible. He says this means Hunt has left a huge problem for whoever is chancellor after the next election. He explains:
The net result is that Mr Hunt is, by the narrowest of tiny margins, still on course to meet his (poorly designed) fiscal rule that debt as a fraction of national income should be falling in the last year of the forecast period. In reality debt is set to be just about flat at around 93 per cent of national income over the whole period. And that is on the basis of a series of questionable, if not plain implausible, assumptions. It assumes that many aspects of day to day public service spending will be cut. It assumes a substantial real cut in public investment spending. It assumes that rates of fuel duties will rise year on year with inflation – which they have not done in more than a decade and they surely will not do next April. It assumes that the constant roll over of “temporary” business rates cuts will stop. It assumes, of course, that the economy doesn’t suffer any negative shocks.
Like his predecessors Mr Hunt has taken a modest improvement in the public finance forecasts and spent most of it. He has spent up front and told us he will meet his targets largely by unspecified fiscal restraint at some point in the future. What he will do in March if the OBR downgrades its forecasts we do not know. Any such downgrading would leave him with a big headache. More importantly he or his successor is going to have the mother and father of a headache when it comes to making the tough decisions implied by this statement in a year or two’s time.
And here is Johnson’s conclusion.
The fiscal forecasts have not in any real sense got better. Debt is not declining over time. Taxes are still heading to record levels. Spending is also due to stay high by historic standards, not least because of high debt interest payments. But those payments plus pressures on health and pension spending mean current plans are for some pretty serious cuts across other areas of public spending. How did Mr Hunt afford tax cuts when real economic forecasts got no better? He banked additional revenue from higher inflation, and pencilled in harsher cuts to public spending.
I’m not sure I’d want to be the chancellor inheriting this fiscal situation in a year’s time.
Labour are fooked if they get in to power.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No fan of Tories but wheeling out austerity cheerleaders the IFS is counter productive. They speak in the exact government as household terms that see the country in the utter state it is in.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
This is the gross figure:
www.statista.com
Not sure what the net figure is.
I guess you could do a 'new houses per head of population' type calculation to show the rate, recent years look very poor given the rate of population growth.
This is partly down to the cartel behaviours of the big housebuilders, who control supply to keep prices up. It certainly shows though that local authority capacity was not replaced post right to buy.
Number of houses built in the UK 1949-2023, by tenure | Statista
Most of the houses completed in the UK in the past years were built by the private sector, making up the great majority of homes completed in 2020.
www.statista.com
Not sure what the net figure is.
I guess you could do a 'new houses per head of population' type calculation to show the rate, recent years look very poor given the rate of population growth.
This is partly down to the cartel behaviours of the big housebuilders, who control supply to keep prices up. It certainly shows though that local authority capacity was not replaced post right to buy.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It will never happen here. The generally is very centrist and appoints centrist governments
Johnson isn’t a far right politician - essentially a liberal as was Cameron
The election system by default stops this and is one of its successes as to gain any form of power you have to appeal to people who naturally lean either to the right or left
In a PR system you’d get more votes for minor parties and extreme representation
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Wait until Braverman's leader of the opposition.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
She is a fantasist with a minority of support in the parliamentary party - she’s a fringe character with an overblown sense of her own importance and support
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Well I hope you're right, but I have a sneaking fear she'll get enough to stand and go through. The one saving grace is that the Tories at least only submit the top two to their members for election, but there's enough ruthless cynicism there in the hunt for jobs. See how they all piled behind Truss after all!
I find your certainty quite surprising given that you’ve previously suggested that actual terrorists could be viable candidates to lead one of the top two parties.
When a tiny minority of oddball primary voters are given the right to pick party leaders (or in the last two cases, the Prime Minister!), and when anti-incumbency is one of the strongest forces in modern politics, the odds for extremists to suddenly rise to the top seem alarmingly high and I don’t see how FPTP inherently stops that.
Here’s your quote:
As for the Netherlands, I certainly find the unabashed Islamophobia of Wilder’s policies galling to say the least. Do you?
What a shambles. These are crazy numbers. If anyone thinks that we can keep absorbing 1.3m additional people into the country every two years, where public services are already at breaking point and housing is in short supply, they’re mad.
The Tories were done anyway, even more so now. We’ve had a Home Secretary focussed solely on the ‘stop the boats’ nonsense when we appear to have no control at all over the ‘legal’ numbers.
Just looked at the breakdown and student numbers appear to be x2-x3 2019 (pre covid) figures. This years figure includes 100k student dependents ! Work as reason is x4 2019 figures. what’s going on…have we just stopped working or studying in this country ?!
| eason for Immigration | Work | Study | Family | Humanitarian routes | Other | Asylum | Total |
| YE June 19 | 89,000 | 126,000 | 65,000 | 6,000 | 22,000 | 39,000 | 347,000 |
| YE June 20 | 80,000 | 124,000 | 68,000 | 4,000 | 17,000 | 38,000 | 331,000 |
| YE June 21 | 95,000 | 137,000 | 66,000 | 9,000 | 26,000 | 36,000 | 368,000 |
| YE June 22 | 198,000 | 320,000 | 61,000 | 157,000 | 37,000 | 75,000 | 848,000 |
| YE June 23 | 322,000 | 378,000 | 70,000 | 83,000 | 25,000 | 90,000 | 968,000 |
You also said you would vote for him to be the next PM, hence my confusion as to why you’re so sure that extremists could never win support in this country.
Did you miss my question about Wilders’ policies re: Islam btw? What are your thoughts?
She's very well supported by Conservative party members.
Yes.
While her approval rating across the country has declined it has at the same time risen sharply amongst party members.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What a shambles. These are crazy numbers. If anyone thinks that we can keep absorbing 1.3m additional people into the country every two years, where public services are already at breaking point and housing is in short supply, they’re mad.
The Tories were done anyway, even more so now. We’ve had a Home Secretary focussed solely on the ‘stop the boats’ nonsense when we appear to have no control at all over the ‘legal’ numbers.
Just looked at the breakdown and student numbers appear to be x2-x3 2019 (pre covid) figures. This years figure includes 100k student dependents ! Work as reason is x4 2019 figures. what’s going on…have we just stopped working or studying in this country ?!
eason for Immigration Work Study Family Humanitarian routes Other Asylum Total YE June 19 89,000 126,000 65,000 6,000 22,000 39,000 347,000 YE June 20 80,000 124,000 68,000 4,000 17,000 38,000 331,000 YE June 21 95,000 137,000 66,000 9,000 26,000 36,000 368,000 YE June 22 198,000 320,000 61,000 157,000 37,000 75,000 848,000 YE June 23 322,000 378,000 70,000 83,000 25,000 90,000 968,000
Public services are only at breaking point because your favoured party slashed their budgets. Young immigrants are no great burden on public services in any case, they are more likely to even worth within them.
The study numbers will include lots of people that are net contributors to the UK economy.
What do you think the right level of immigration is?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think it’s fair to say that any party membership capable of voting Truss leader is more than capable of voting Braverman leader. It’s not exactly a membership with a track record in common sense. And after the next GE the parliamentary party may have little choice but to put her forward in a member’s vote. If that happens there’s every chance that she’ll be the next leader of the Conservative Party.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
she got eliminated at stage two last time
She put in her lot behind sunak didn't she.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I thought truss but she lost and she’d lose again to Bedenock from that side of the party
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
To be fair the parliamentary tory party will look different after the next election, I guess who they nominate depends on who keeps their seats and what wing of the party the remaining tories are from.