Bolitics The New Condem Government

[blandy]

Surely the two of you can manage a more intelligent response than that, can't you?

 

The main argument for membership advanced by pro EU people is the associated trade benefits of the single market. That claim would therefore be tested by a thorough cost benefit analysis. If the intention of membership is instead overtly political i.e. towards a United States of Europe, then that has never been voted on (previous General Elections don't count as apparent benefit of UK membership is invariably advanced in primarily economic terms).

 

If as you seem to suggest the economic argument is 'so 20 years ago' then what is the argument for membership?

Trouble is any cost benefit analysis will be flawed and biased in favour of whichever argument the analyser wishes to support. Unless someone has a set of 100% guarantee crystal balls. The whole idea that CBA can prove anything is silly. The argument is always going to be a philosophical and ideological one not a financial one

 

Sorry Bicks I think that's nonsense.  Of course there are financial implications, it's why there have been arguments about subsidies, the CAP, rebates and so on since the common market was established.

Without putting words in Gareth's mouth, you're comment is tangential to what he's said. He hasn't said financial implications aren't a factor. Of course they are. But they're not the only factor. If you judge anything or everything by purely financial or cost/benefit analysis you just miss a huge part of life. It's obviously tempting for an accountant do thing that way, or for an engineer to look at the machinery.

what is the value of a Rembrandt? is it just how much revenue per annum a museum can charge? Is it just the sum total of the cost of the paint and canvas?

No.

And so with the more complex issue of international treaties and the like. To go back to money, stock markets can rise and fal lon the perception of "tensions" or "harmony" between nations. If Obama and Putin are thought to be getting on, then that's good for business and vice versa. Nut what's the value of an treaty for (say) disarmament between the US and Russia?

WHat's the cost benefit analysis of the EU approach on data protection, or on fisheries, or on working hours, or on human rights, or worker protection, or anything else.

And then who is doing this analysis, and how do you actually account for intangible things like "peace" or it;'s little brother "improved relations"? How does the institute for cost benefit figures actually come to a figure on exactly what better access to (say) french wholesalers for Scottish shortbread bakers is worth?. Answer - they don't know. They guess, or round up some numbers, or make up a figure based on what they read in the papers, or their personal views. You cannot put a CBA against the EU, any more than you can against the Royal family.

You can say it'd be cheaper if they didn't dine on swans every night, or if they spent less on air fares. You can say you don't like the idea of it. But you can't, no-one can, say it's a net gain or loss financially, because basically it's too complex.

You can wish to reduce the cost or think contributing more will be beneficial in the round. But that'll be based on personal views, not incontrovertible facts.

[Risso]

Pete, I never argued against any of those things.  Of course there are intangible benefits that are hard to measure.  Gareth DID say that it's not a financial argument, but it at least in part is.  At the heart of the financial side of things is the idea that nations are better off by not putting barriers to trade in place.   The argument for staying in Europe or not should be based on whether it's considered that as a whole, the good things (financial benefits and intangibles like freedom of movement etc) outweigh the bad things (financial outlay, and loss of sovereignty over certain issues etc).  It's not an easy thing to do by any means, but that's not an excuse for not trying.

[snowychap]

Spending Review explanation 'was woeful', IFS says

 

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has criticised the documentation and explanation of Wednesday's Spending Review as "woeful".

"Publishing such a small amount of information with so little explanation is not an exercise in open government," said IFS director Paul Johnson.

He also expressed surprise that there had been no outcry at news that 144,000 public sector jobs will go in a year.

"We seem to have got used to this level of austerity," he said.

The IFS gave as an example of the lack of information the fact that the Budget had said that Home Office expenditure limits for day-to-day spending would be £7.4bn while the Spending Review said it would be £10.4bn, without any explanation.

It turned out that it was a result of the police grant moving to the Home Office budget from the Local Government budget, but that information was hard to come by.

'Looks tough'

The influential think tank pointed out that the cuts announced in the Spending Review would take the split between spending cuts and tax increases away from the 80% cuts, 20% taxes originally planned, to an 85%,15% split.

Getting back to the 80%, 20% balance would require a £6bn tax increase after the next election, which the IFS pointed out would be close to the average tax rise seen in post-election budgets in recent decades.

It suggested that the £25bn of additional cuts pencilled in for the two years after 2015-16 "looks tough indeed".

One of the debates since the chancellor's speech on Wednesday has been whether investment in infrastructure is going to rise.

The IFS said that public sector net investment would be "broadly flat" over the next four years.

Paul Johnson criticised the decision to freeze council tax again, saying: "However much council tax payers may welcome it this is not a sensible reform."

He pointed out that council tax was the only tax on property and that the longer it was frozen the harder it would be to unfreeze it.

He suggested that the marginalisation of council tax was being introduced without proper announcement or debate.

 

[blandy]

Pete, I never argued against any of those things.  Of course there are intangible benefits that are hard to measure.  Gareth DID say that it's not a financial argument, but it at least in part is.  At the heart of the financial side of things is the idea that nations are better off by not putting barriers to trade in place.   The argument for staying in Europe or not should be based on whether it's considered that as a whole, the good things (financial benefits and intangibles like freedom of movement etc) outweigh the bad things (financial outlay, and loss of sovereignty over certain issues etc).  It's not an easy thing to do by any means, but that's not an excuse for not trying.

Different interpretations, I guess, then. Only G can say what he meant by it. I wouldn't argue you're wrong, what you say is true. And I agree, it's not an easy thing to do, to weight up the pros and cons and reach a universal verdict. I thinkBicks is right when he said

any cost benefit analysis will be flawed and biased in favour of whichever argument the analyser wishes to support. Unless someone has a set of 100% guarantee crystal balls. The whole idea that CBA can prove anything is silly. The argument is always going to be a philosophical and ideological one not a financial one

But that's my outlook. I don't think it can be quantified. Like you say, freedom of movement or whatever else can't be measured in beans. That's the thing that is missing from Jon's initial comment. It's not just about money. If it was, it'd be so simple in comparison.

[Demitri_C]

Well, the point is that he posted a carefully staged photo entirely aimed at getting across the message "I'm just an ordinary guy, like you" and then managed to undermine it completely through using a burger at a price that "ordinary guys" generally don't want to pay. So he's underlined his wealth and remoteness, while attempting to do the exact opposite. A bit like his handling of the economy, then. Do something which has the entirely opposite set of consequences to what you imagined.

I dont get this can't ordinary people buy burgers and chips for £10? I am not the richest bloke but even i can afford to go gourmet burger now and again and your paying over taht price!

[Risso]

Lots of things CAN be measured financially though even if the EU aren't very good at doing it.  Amounts spent between countries, taxes received, benefits paid, subsidy money received and given out, cost of administration etc. I'm not for a second saying that that should be the only basis for deciding if "Europe" is a good thing, but it's part of it.  Surely when you do decide to do anything at all, part of it comes down to whether it's affordable or not, and part of it comes from the utility derived from that course of action.

[Risso]

 

Well, the point is that he posted a carefully staged photo entirely aimed at getting across the message "I'm just an ordinary guy, like you" and then managed to undermine it completely through using a burger at a price that "ordinary guys" generally don't want to pay. So he's underlined his wealth and remoteness, while attempting to do the exact opposite. A bit like his handling of the economy, then. Do something which has the entirely opposite set of consequences to what you imagined.

I dont get this can't ordinary people buy burgers and chips for £10? I am not the richest bloke but even i can afford to go gourmet burger now and again and your paying over taht price!

 

 

Exactly Dem.  I'm not a frequent visitor to McDonalds, but I bet once you've bought a burger, chips and drink there isn't much change out of a tenner.

[tonyh29]

 

...when the EU suddenly refuses to do any business with us

Do many people say that?

 

Real world or VT world ?

[tonyh29]

 

i have seen some stupid stuff written but the front page of that rag the sun today has to be the most ridiculous thing ive seen. so what if he is eating a poxy burger!

 

Well, the point is that he posted a carefully staged photo entirely aimed at getting across the message "I'm just an ordinary guy, like you" and then managed to undermine it completely through using a burger at a price that "ordinary guys" generally don't want to pay. 

 

I'm guessing you don't visit the real world much ?

[snowychap]

Real world or VT world ?

Anywhere, Tony.

[tonyh29]

 

Real world or VT world ?

Anywhere, Tony.

 

Well here on VT from which I was basing my comment it has been stated numerous times in this very thread  ... I won't name names but it wouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to work them out

[drat01]

 

 

Well, the point is that he posted a carefully staged photo entirely aimed at getting across the message "I'm just an ordinary guy, like you" and then managed to undermine it completely through using a burger at a price that "ordinary guys" generally don't want to pay. So he's underlined his wealth and remoteness, while attempting to do the exact opposite. A bit like his handling of the economy, then. Do something which has the entirely opposite set of consequences to what you imagined.

I dont get this can't ordinary people buy burgers and chips for £10? I am not the richest bloke but even i can afford to go gourmet burger now and again and your paying over taht price!

 

 

Exactly Dem.  I'm not a frequent visitor to McDonalds, but I bet once you've bought a burger, chips and drink there isn't much change out of a tenner.

 

 

The replies here sum up exactly the issue.

 

For a lot of people that Osborne affects 10 pounds is a massive amount of money. Osborne is responsible for some of the most vindictive attacks on those sorts of people, he then follows that up at his next round of punitive cuts by trying to show that he is "one of the people". Except he fails miserably because he does that by eating at a burger place that shall we say is not the norm for the man in the street - not many people pay 6.75 just for a burger now do they? The Tory party are run by an ex-marketing twunt, - they fail time after time at marketing ............... a media field day follows

[snowychap]

Well here on VT from which I was basing my comment it has been stated numerous times in this very thread

That leaving the EU would mean that 'the EU suddenly refuses to do any business with us'?

Are you sure?

Edited June 27, 2013 by snowychap

[bickster]

Well, the point is that he posted a carefully staged photo entirely aimed at getting across the message "I'm just an ordinary guy, like you" and then managed to undermine it completely through using a burger at a price that "ordinary guys" generally don't want to pay. So he's underlined his wealth and remoteness, while attempting to do the exact opposite. A bit like his handling of the economy, then. Do something which has the entirely opposite set of consequences to what you imagined.

I dont get this can't ordinary people buy burgers and chips for £10? I am not the richest bloke but even i can afford to go gourmet burger now and again and your paying over taht price!

 

Exactly Dem.  I'm not a frequent visitor to McDonalds, but I bet once you've bought a burger, chips and drink there isn't much change out of a tenner.

About £5.81 change iirc from a Quarterpounder with cheese meal. I still have nightmares about the day I was so hungry I went there. Tbh I visit McD's often but rarely eat. Usual routine is drive through, coffee flavoured drink. Next visit I go in use toilet and drive off. The coffee is drinkable is all I'll say and at 7am its about the only place I can get one with minimum disruption to the work schedule

[bickster]

Lots of things CAN be measured financially though even if the EU aren't very good at doing it.  Amounts spent between countries, taxes received, benefits paid, subsidy money received and given out, cost of administration etc. I'm not for a second saying that that should be the only basis for deciding if "Europe" is a good thing, but it's part of it.  Surely when you do decide to do anything at all, part of it comes down to whether it's affordable or not, and part of it comes from the utility derived from that course of action.

Can you measure continued peace in countries within the EU in terms of finance for example?

In fact can we speculate that a completely federal EU wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq based on a lie?

How much did that cost this country, in fact how much is that continuing to cost the country in terms of support and other associated conflicts?

[tonyh29]

 

Well here on VT from which I was basing my comment it has been stated numerous times in this very thread

That leaving the EU would mean that 'the EU suddenly refuses to do any business with us'?

Are you sure?

 

it's only 447 pages   .. i'm sure it won't take you long to find it

[Risso]

 

Lots of things CAN be measured financially though even if the EU aren't very good at doing it.  Amounts spent between countries, taxes received, benefits paid, subsidy money received and given out, cost of administration etc. I'm not for a second saying that that should be the only basis for deciding if "Europe" is a good thing, but it's part of it.  Surely when you do decide to do anything at all, part of it comes down to whether it's affordable or not, and part of it comes from the utility derived from that course of action.

Can you measure continued peace in countries within the EU in terms of finance for example?

In fact can we speculate that a completely federal EU wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq based on a lie?

How much did that cost this country, in fact how much is that continuing to cost the country in terms of support and other associated conflicts?

 

 

I haven't really got anything to add to what I said above, ie  " I'm not for a second saying that that [finance] should be the only basis for deciding if "Europe" is a good thing, but it's part of it".

[snowychap]

I think you have that the wrong way around, Tony. You have to prove (their) existence.

I'm not mad enough (yet) to try and prove a negative.

[drat01]

 

 

Well here on VT from which I was basing my comment it has been stated numerous times in this very thread

That leaving the EU would mean that 'the EU suddenly refuses to do any business with us'?

Are you sure?

 

it's only 447 pages   .. i'm sure it won't take you long to find it

 

Tony - me thinks you are being somewhat mischievous again, you really should become a Tory councillor at least - but are probably too nice for that (see my facebook share !!) :-)

 

The point re the UK coming out of the EU and lack of trade is a well published one, lack of certain trade conditions will severely impact the UK and make the buyers look to more favourable markets. Somewhat different to what Tony is saying :-)

[Dante_Lockhart]

Today's Sun headline is basically "Man eats burger, what an arsehole"