| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole 07:40 - Dec 1 with 3985 views | onceablue |
Equates to a surplus of £4.2 billion
Poor old Rachel can’t
Surely she won’t survive this? |  | | |  |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 15:05 - Dec 2 with 487 views | DJR |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 13:21 - Dec 1 by DJR |
It isn't a current surplus, it's a projected surplus, taking into account billions in debt interest payments.
And given OBR forecasts are rarely, if ever, right, trying to sell to the bond markets a £4 billion surplus wouldn't have gone down well.
Indeed, the relatively positive reaction to the Budget by the bond markets is something that the Government is getting no credit for, given gloomy articles in the the right wing media about high bond yields.
Indeed, when it comes to a black hole the right wing media have themselves been projecting £30 billion or more these last few months, and are presumably disappointed things haven't turned out worse.
Of course, the Tories might well have accepted the £4 billion figure had they been in power and on the back of that gone for tax cuts and savage spending cuts to build up a greater surplus but I don't think that would have been the best way forward. [Post edited 1 Dec 13:23]
|
Interesting to read the following from today's Parliamentary hearing which appears to absolve Reeves, and also appears to confirm the points I were trying to make on this thread.
The OBR declined to criticise Rachel Reeves over the speech she gave at the start of November implying that she would need to raise income tax. The Tories have claimed that she lied when she gave the breakfast-time speech in Downing Street on 4 November because she had been told by the OBR that she was likely to meet her fiscal targets, but the speech implied she had a big black hole to fill. Asked about this, Miles told the committee:
"My interpretation was, and others might interpret differently, that the chancellor was saying that this was a very difficult budget and very difficult choices needed to be made.
And I don’t think that that was in itself inconsistent with the final pre-measures assessment we’d be made which, although it showed a very small positive amount of so-called headroom, it was wafer thin." [Post edited 2 Dec 15:45]
|  | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 15:14 - Dec 2 with 447 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 15:05 - Dec 2 by DJR |
Interesting to read the following from today's Parliamentary hearing which appears to absolve Reeves, and also appears to confirm the points I were trying to make on this thread.
The OBR declined to criticise Rachel Reeves over the speech she gave at the start of November implying that she would need to raise income tax. The Tories have claimed that she lied when she gave the breakfast-time speech in Downing Street on 4 November because she had been told by the OBR that she was likely to meet her fiscal targets, but the speech implied she had a big black hole to fill. Asked about this, Miles told the committee:
"My interpretation was, and others might interpret differently, that the chancellor was saying that this was a very difficult budget and very difficult choices needed to be made.
And I don’t think that that was in itself inconsistent with the final pre-measures assessment we’d be made which, although it showed a very small positive amount of so-called headroom, it was wafer thin." [Post edited 2 Dec 15:45]
|
Not a surprise the Tories were lying about the lying, they're the experts after all. |  |
| |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 15:25 - Dec 2 with 420 views | bartyg |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 01:18 - Dec 2 by mellowblue |
enables them to reduce the national debt, though it hasn't happened since the 80's. |
Just a very simplistic answer isn't it. Why do you want to reduce the national debt? What does that personally mean to you, how does that benefit the average citizen?
I'm not saying it's not beneficial to be doing so, but it's barely a priority right now considering the stagnant growth and decline in living standards across the country. |  | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 15:39 - Dec 2 with 392 views | mellowblue |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 15:25 - Dec 2 by bartyg |
Just a very simplistic answer isn't it. Why do you want to reduce the national debt? What does that personally mean to you, how does that benefit the average citizen?
I'm not saying it's not beneficial to be doing so, but it's barely a priority right now considering the stagnant growth and decline in living standards across the country. |
because it is a simple mental deduction I made. Any surplus not spent automatically reduces the National Debt. Just the same as if you don't spend all your wages, your overdraft will go down. Where did I say it was an appropriate idea to do it now. When debt is nearly 3 trillion, repayments of the odd billion does not impact it and the monthly repayment is barely changed. You need to read posts better if you think that I have said that debt reductions are either likely, possible, or required in the current economic climate. | | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 17:43 - Dec 2 with 314 views | DJR |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 15:05 - Dec 2 by DJR |
Interesting to read the following from today's Parliamentary hearing which appears to absolve Reeves, and also appears to confirm the points I were trying to make on this thread.
The OBR declined to criticise Rachel Reeves over the speech she gave at the start of November implying that she would need to raise income tax. The Tories have claimed that she lied when she gave the breakfast-time speech in Downing Street on 4 November because she had been told by the OBR that she was likely to meet her fiscal targets, but the speech implied she had a big black hole to fill. Asked about this, Miles told the committee:
"My interpretation was, and others might interpret differently, that the chancellor was saying that this was a very difficult budget and very difficult choices needed to be made.
And I don’t think that that was in itself inconsistent with the final pre-measures assessment we’d be made which, although it showed a very small positive amount of so-called headroom, it was wafer thin." [Post edited 2 Dec 15:45]
|
This is the BBC headline, but don't expect this to be reported in the right wing media.
"Reeves speech did not mislead on challenges facing UK ahead of Budget, says OBR official"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj0ngnkl2vo | | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 18:45 - Dec 2 with 268 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 15:25 - Dec 2 by bartyg |
Just a very simplistic answer isn't it. Why do you want to reduce the national debt? What does that personally mean to you, how does that benefit the average citizen?
I'm not saying it's not beneficial to be doing so, but it's barely a priority right now considering the stagnant growth and decline in living standards across the country. |
Well for one thing it would mean more money to spend on essential services. We are currently spending more tax on interest than our education system. Just wantonly spending public money isn’t going to generate growth without some long term strategy. Spending £100bn whilst ploughing through ancient woodland so some people can commute into London slightly quicker 8is only going to increase regional inequality.
We’ve just increased state spending as a percentage of GDP to record levels and yet growth has been downgraded. Some investment is good, but all they are doing is plugging holes in spending. Tax burden is at virtually record levels yet public services are worse than ever since we’re paying so much away on debt. Great British Energy was an interesting proposition, which if done properly could have added assets to the UK balance sheet but has been watered down to just subsidising oil majors investment.
Any surplus should be directed to a sovereign wealth fund - take the burden off workers, the whole of society could benefit from the profits of multinationals without trying to chase down taxes in other domiciles. Places like Norway (and Canada with public pensions) are able to use these profits to fund public services. | | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 19:06 - Dec 2 with 252 views | eireblue |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 15:14 - Dec 2 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Not a surprise the Tories were lying about the lying, they're the experts after all. |
What’s a bit concerning, was not the Tories lying, it was some of the indignation of reporters, they were claiming they were misled.
They weren’t.
Seems to me they simple didn’t understand that wanting fiscal headroom of 20B, and only having 4B is a “Blackhole”
Can’t remember which one it was, was claiming RR basically misled them.
I can only remember one news program, showing the historic trend in the fiscal headroom. |  | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 19:21 - Dec 2 with 218 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 19:06 - Dec 2 by eireblue |
What’s a bit concerning, was not the Tories lying, it was some of the indignation of reporters, they were claiming they were misled.
They weren’t.
Seems to me they simple didn’t understand that wanting fiscal headroom of 20B, and only having 4B is a “Blackhole”
Can’t remember which one it was, was claiming RR basically misled them.
I can only remember one news program, showing the historic trend in the fiscal headroom. |
Mason on the BBC maybe? He seemed to completely lose his shizzle over it for some reason. The FT are reporting she’s been too optimistic if anything as the OBR forecast assumptions are unrealistically generous and most of the good news doesn’t come for a few years, so more slippage is more likely than vanishing ‘black holes’. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 20:15 - Dec 2 with 195 views | DJR |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 19:21 - Dec 2 by Swansea_Blue |
Mason on the BBC maybe? He seemed to completely lose his shizzle over it for some reason. The FT are reporting she’s been too optimistic if anything as the OBR forecast assumptions are unrealistically generous and most of the good news doesn’t come for a few years, so more slippage is more likely than vanishing ‘black holes’. |
Beth Rigby also lost it, and got far more angry than I think a supposedly independent journalist should. | | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 16:05 - Dec 3 with 149 views | DJR |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 19:21 - Dec 2 by Swansea_Blue |
Mason on the BBC maybe? He seemed to completely lose his shizzle over it for some reason. The FT are reporting she’s been too optimistic if anything as the OBR forecast assumptions are unrealistically generous and most of the good news doesn’t come for a few years, so more slippage is more likely than vanishing ‘black holes’. |
Leaving aside that the OBR comments got precious little coverage on the broadcast media yesterday (in contrast to the claims about Reeves lying), I came across this comment BTL on the Guardian in a claim about right wing BBC bias.
"Chris Mason on the 10 o’clock news last night tried to justify his feeling of being misled. He just needs to suck it up and accept that all the outrage was wrong and mostly confected. He was obviously being led by the Torygraph and the Tories."
For what is is worth I complained a few years ago on a couple of occasions about right wing BBC bias (or lack of balance) in connection with a couple of news items, but I didn't get anywhere so gave up doing so.
They will write to you in response and say, for example, in response to a claim about a lack of a balanced item to counter the main one, that they broadcasted something at a time when, or in a place where, no one was likely to have heard or seen it. [Post edited 4 Dec 7:54]
| | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 14:51 - Dec 4 with 67 views | DJR |
The right wing media have been running stories claiming Reeves wasn't British girls U14 chess champion. But according to the following this is complete nonsense. What a sick world we live in given that many who consume the right wing media will believe what they are told. The person who made the claim is apparently a fierce critic of Reeves anyway, so presumably has an agenda.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/did-rachel-reeves-overstate-chess-title-5HjdNqN_2/
"But was she really the British girls’ under-14 champion?
The claim, which has appeared in her social media profiles since 2011, has been queried this week after a contemporary said that the champion in 1993, the year in question, was another girl called Emily Howard.
“In reality, she was joint 26th out of 34,” Professor Alex Edmans, who competed a year below Ms Reeves told The Times on Wednesday.
That year, Ms Reeves won a separate, girls-only tournament, the British Women's Chess Association (BWCA) Girls Championship.
“She did share the title of a quite different championship, the British Women's Chess Association Championship,” Professor Edmans told LBC.
“I could run a marathon in London… but I did not run the London Marathon.”
In The Times, he added: “It is clearly defined as the girl who does best in the (mixed gender) British Championship.
“She may well have won titles, but the title of British girls' champion is a specific event.”
However, Malcolm Pein, International Master, Executive Editor Chess Magazine, has said that Ms Reeves is right to claim the title. The competition she did win was open to only girls, whereas the one Professor Edmans refers to was for both boys and girls - the winning female being the highest ranked in the mixed fare.
He said: "The BWCA competition was in my view the only credible girls championship, as it was for girls only, as opposed to being subsumed into the Open British U14 Championships where 90% or so of the players were boys, as was the rather discriminatory practice of the British Chess Federation 30 years ago." [Post edited 4 Dec 15:02]
| | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 16:13 - Dec 4 with 43 views | mellowblue |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 14:51 - Dec 4 by DJR |
The right wing media have been running stories claiming Reeves wasn't British girls U14 chess champion. But according to the following this is complete nonsense. What a sick world we live in given that many who consume the right wing media will believe what they are told. The person who made the claim is apparently a fierce critic of Reeves anyway, so presumably has an agenda.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/did-rachel-reeves-overstate-chess-title-5HjdNqN_2/
"But was she really the British girls’ under-14 champion?
The claim, which has appeared in her social media profiles since 2011, has been queried this week after a contemporary said that the champion in 1993, the year in question, was another girl called Emily Howard.
“In reality, she was joint 26th out of 34,” Professor Alex Edmans, who competed a year below Ms Reeves told The Times on Wednesday.
That year, Ms Reeves won a separate, girls-only tournament, the British Women's Chess Association (BWCA) Girls Championship.
“She did share the title of a quite different championship, the British Women's Chess Association Championship,” Professor Edmans told LBC.
“I could run a marathon in London… but I did not run the London Marathon.”
In The Times, he added: “It is clearly defined as the girl who does best in the (mixed gender) British Championship.
“She may well have won titles, but the title of British girls' champion is a specific event.”
However, Malcolm Pein, International Master, Executive Editor Chess Magazine, has said that Ms Reeves is right to claim the title. The competition she did win was open to only girls, whereas the one Professor Edmans refers to was for both boys and girls - the winning female being the highest ranked in the mixed fare.
He said: "The BWCA competition was in my view the only credible girls championship, as it was for girls only, as opposed to being subsumed into the Open British U14 Championships where 90% or so of the players were boys, as was the rather discriminatory practice of the British Chess Federation 30 years ago." [Post edited 4 Dec 15:02]
|
The BWCA is/was a much, much junior organisation to the jurasdictive organising body British Chess Federation (at the time). Reeves is clearly a very talented chess player, but she cannot claim to be the official British u14 girl chess champion for that year. But she can claim to be u14 BWCA champion for that year but it is impossible to judge the strength of that field. I don't even know if the BWCA even exist now, web search does not bring much up after 2003. Chess devolved to a basis of home countries organising bodies in early 2000s. the officilal British Chess Championsips still exist and are administered by the English Chess Federation now. Storm in a tea cup really as she is clearly talented and can be proud of her title. | | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 16:20 - Dec 4 with 35 views | DJR |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 16:13 - Dec 4 by mellowblue |
The BWCA is/was a much, much junior organisation to the jurasdictive organising body British Chess Federation (at the time). Reeves is clearly a very talented chess player, but she cannot claim to be the official British u14 girl chess champion for that year. But she can claim to be u14 BWCA champion for that year but it is impossible to judge the strength of that field. I don't even know if the BWCA even exist now, web search does not bring much up after 2003. Chess devolved to a basis of home countries organising bodies in early 2000s. the officilal British Chess Championsips still exist and are administered by the English Chess Federation now. Storm in a tea cup really as she is clearly talented and can be proud of her title. |
Do you know as much about chess as this man?
However, Malcolm Pein, International Master, Executive Editor Chess Magazine, has said that Ms Reeves is right to claim the title. The competition she did win was open to only girls, whereas the one Professor Edmans refers to was for both boys and girls - the winning female being the highest ranked in the mixed fare.
He said: "The BWCA competition was in my view the only credible girls championship, as it was for girls only, as opposed to being subsumed into the Open British U14 Championships where 90% or so of the players were boys, as was the rather discriminatory practice of the British Chess Federation 30 years ago."
And if only it were a storm in a teacup, as opposed to further ammunition to bash Reeves. [Post edited 4 Dec 16:22]
| | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 16:28 - Dec 4 with 25 views | mellowblue |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 16:20 - Dec 4 by DJR |
Do you know as much about chess as this man?
However, Malcolm Pein, International Master, Executive Editor Chess Magazine, has said that Ms Reeves is right to claim the title. The competition she did win was open to only girls, whereas the one Professor Edmans refers to was for both boys and girls - the winning female being the highest ranked in the mixed fare.
He said: "The BWCA competition was in my view the only credible girls championship, as it was for girls only, as opposed to being subsumed into the Open British U14 Championships where 90% or so of the players were boys, as was the rather discriminatory practice of the British Chess Federation 30 years ago."
And if only it were a storm in a teacup, as opposed to further ammunition to bash Reeves. [Post edited 4 Dec 16:22]
|
His view clearly carries more weight than mine, but it comes down to what organising body carried the weight of history at that point of time and effectively owned the title . Clearly the BCF at the time should have seperated the girls and the boys as clearly it is not a battle girl against girl and possibly the best girl did not become the highest ranking girl as she might have faced a better male competitor. So it was unfair in it's nature. We can agree to differ. You are very protective of Ms Reeves. Got a crush on her ? | | | |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 16:33 - Dec 4 with 21 views | Radlett_blue |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 11:45 - Dec 1 by bartyg |
What's the benefit of the government running on a surplus anyway?
It's not a savings account. |
Err...then the government can pay back expensive debt & this can be replaced with cheaper debt if the bond markets are convinced that UK public finances are in better shape. |  |
| |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 16:39 - Dec 4 with 16 views | DJR |
| Can anyone explain how a £20 Billion Black hole on 16:28 - Dec 4 by mellowblue |
His view clearly carries more weight than mine, but it comes down to what organising body carried the weight of history at that point of time and effectively owned the title . Clearly the BCF at the time should have seperated the girls and the boys as clearly it is not a battle girl against girl and possibly the best girl did not become the highest ranking girl as she might have faced a better male competitor. So it was unfair in it's nature. We can agree to differ. You are very protective of Ms Reeves. Got a crush on her ? |
Not in the slightest given I resigned from the Labour Party a couple of years ago but I suppose I just believe in the British sense of fair play, something that these days seems like a fond memory.
And I bet you wouldn't be quibbling if your daughter had won it. [Post edited 4 Dec 16:46]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
