Ed Balls daunted by prospect of being chancellor
Discussion
santona1937 said:
but until the state stops subsidising low wages th UK will never know the true market rate, At the moment the market rate is artificially low.
Similarly, the state keeps property rents artificially high by subsidising people who can't pay. Its all gone bonkers. People without jobs living in places which people with jobs cannot afford.Ozzie Osmond said:
santona1937 said:
but until the state stops subsidising low wages th UK will never know the true market rate, At the moment the market rate is artificially low.
Similarly, the state keeps property rents artificially high by subsidising people who can't pay. Its all gone bonkers. People without jobs living in places which people with jobs cannot afford.As for wages, they have been massively driven down by globalisation. For better or worse we are an open market which means that our wages will tend towards global averages. We can top up the incomes of the poor with state benefits or we can let the market rule completely but I doubt wages would rise much before jobs were destroyed. I reckon the poor would just get much poorer as they are in the rest of the world. Of course, we could introduce tarrifs to protect domestic employment but that would probably cause some heads to explode in the City.
supersingle said:
I agree about the distortion in the housing market. Without housing benefit rents would be much lower, as would house prices. That might give ordinary working folk a chance to buy their own home whilst simultaneously stiffing the slum landlords. Win win.
Aside from the point Edney Spheres won't touch house prices except to make them go up as he wishes to woo the middle classes, the likely correction in the housing market would push a lot of people into negative equity and probably sink quite a few highly leveraged types; this would cause a prolonged dip in the economy, which has only just started moving again and is absurdly dependent on the construction biz, and builders won't build if they can't make money doing so.hidetheelephants said:
supersingle said:
I agree about the distortion in the housing market. Without housing benefit rents would be much lower, as would house prices. That might give ordinary working folk a chance to buy their own home whilst simultaneously stiffing the slum landlords. Win win.
Aside from the point Edney Spheres won't touch house prices except to make them go up as he wishes to woo the middle classes, the likely correction in the housing market would push a lot of people into negative equity and probably sink quite a few highly leveraged types; this would cause a prolonged dip in the economy, which has only just started moving again and is absurdly dependent on the construction biz, and builders won't build if they can't make money doing so.
very kind humour for an unpleasant incompetent politician. Edney's still searching for Plan B
turbobloke said:
98elise said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
You do have to wonder what's wrong with the conservatives.
"Dear public sector workers.
Next year your standard of living will decrease because we are going to make sure your earnings do not keep up with inflation. But don't worry, the bankers will still be getting their bonuses - even in the loss-making bank which you are lucky enough to own.
Vote for us!!
Lots of Love
Dave"
Thats an odd post. Are public sector workers tied into bank workers bonuses in some way? Are public sector workers banned from moving into the banking industry if they wanted those bonuses?"Dear public sector workers.
Next year your standard of living will decrease because we are going to make sure your earnings do not keep up with inflation. But don't worry, the bankers will still be getting their bonuses - even in the loss-making bank which you are lucky enough to own.
Vote for us!!
Lots of Love
Dave"
Seems like the standard moan about it not being fair that somone made better choices, or has done better. Its a free world, move on, do something else, better yourself......just don't sit there and moan about it if you've done nothing to better yourself.
Dan Hannan said:
The 50p rate was scrapped clumsily. I never liked it – I want taxes to be as low, as flat and as simple as possible – but it didn’t occur to me that the Chancellor would cut the top rate in isolation rather than as a Lawson-style simplification and lowering of rates for everyone. Presentationally, we can all agree, that was a disaster. But does it follow that the country wants vengeance more than it wants growth? That people will accept being worse off provided the rich suffer more badly? If Ed Balls is right about us, we are assuredly not the nation we were.
Note that this is a purely punitive 50% rate - no extra money raised. (http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/28/majority-support-50p-tax/)
I'm not sure what is "moral" about taxing people more.
DJRC said:
Wages massively driven down by globalisation? Eh...come again?
Which wages? Of what?
prioWhich wages? Of what?
production operatives etc ?
If the cost of production and shipping the finished product is less than the cost of shipping the raw material and producing close to to consumption then big business is going to take the option that gives them the most profit ...
if you have the confidence to move as much as possible to the low cost location ( production, packing, inspection and re-work) all you need in the UK is sufficient holding warehousing - which you can pay for per pallet per day via a 3PL
DJRC said:
Wages massively driven down by globalisation? Eh...come again?
Which wages? Of what?
I guess we know you live on a different planet so need to be patient, but do please try to keep up with what's been happening in UK since about 2008. It's called negative real wage growth. See also: negative real interest rates for savers. Which wages? Of what?
mph1977 said:
DJRC said:
Wages massively driven down by globalisation? Eh...come again?
Which wages? Of what?
prioWhich wages? Of what?
production operatives etc ?
If the cost of production and shipping the finished product is less than the cost of shipping the raw material and producing close to to consumption then big business is going to take the option that gives them the most profit ...
if you have the confidence to move as much as possible to the low cost location ( production, packing, inspection and re-work) all you need in the UK is sufficient holding warehousing - which you can pay for per pallet per day via a 3PL
Wtf is a "production operative" ?? You mean a factory worker? Shop floor bog standard bod? Or do you mean someone skilled? A CNC miller , etc?
Bear in mind here lad that Im an engineer, Ive seen and spent more time on a factory shop floor than you've spent w
king. Ive got a fair idea of what the pay is and pay rises over the last decade and a half or so to give us some reference points and baseline.So you think you can talk nice intellectual economics on a theoretical level which is all spiffing, etc...I can talk facts, figures and experience. Where would you like to start?
Ooops. I forgot to mention I can throw in the same for other countries in Europe, with direct experience. Including that cost of living, real wages stuff Ozzie was talking about. Now I know Ozzie has jack s
t experience of this, as he has consistently demonstrated that what he knows about working/wages/costs of Europe relative to the UK Kermit the Frog could write on Miss Piggy's snout, but how about you?DJRC said:
mph1977 said:
DJRC said:
Wages massively driven down by globalisation? Eh...come again?
Which wages? Of what?
prioWhich wages? Of what?
production operatives etc ?
If the cost of production and shipping the finished product is less than the cost of shipping the raw material and producing close to to consumption then big business is going to take the option that gives them the most profit ...
if you have the confidence to move as much as possible to the low cost location ( production, packing, inspection and re-work) all you need in the UK is sufficient holding warehousing - which you can pay for per pallet per day via a 3PL
Wtf is a "production operative" ?? You mean a factory worker? Shop floor bog standard bod? Or do you mean someone skilled? A CNC miller , etc?
Bear in mind here lad that Im an engineer, Ive seen and spent more time on a factory shop floor than you've spent w
king. Ive got a fair idea of what the pay is and pay rises over the last decade and a half or so to give us some reference points and baseline.So you think you can talk nice intellectual economics on a theoretical level which is all spiffing, etc...I can talk facts, figures and experience. Where would you like to start?
Ooops. I forgot to mention I can throw in the same for other countries in Europe, with direct experience. Including that cost of living, real wages stuff Ozzie was talking about. Now I know Ozzie has jack s
t experience of this, as he has consistently demonstrated that what he knows about working/wages/costs of Europe relative to the UK Kermit the Frog could write on Miss Piggy's snout, but how about you?Google: An Examination of Falling Real Wages ONS
Balls is promising to balance the books and be 'fiscally responsible' if Labour win back power next year. Does anyone believe him?
Guardian said:
Ed Balls has sought to reassure voters that Labour can be trusted with public finances by announcing plans to allow the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to check future governments’ spending commitments are affordable.
The shadow chancellor said he would bring forward legislation to impose tough fiscal rules on governments in the first year after their election that the spending watchdog would monitor independently.
“In our manifesto there will be no proposals for any new spending paid for by additional borrowing,” he told a debate on the economy at Labour’s party conference in Manchester.
“No spending commitments without saying where the money is coming from, because we will not make promises we cannot keep and cannot afford.”
Rival parties would also see their spending commitments run through the OBR wringer so that every tax and spending measure was independently audited, he said.
Balls also reiterated his commitment to stick with the coalition’s current spending plans.
In a distinct toughening of his rules for spending in a new parliament, Balls said he would not make any new manifesto commitments funded by extra borrowing.
His strategy, however, gives him room for manoeuvre because it allows the timing of a budget surplus to be dictated to some extent by the state of the economic revival.
Balls had earlier announced a 1% cap on child benefit for two years – a cut in real terms – and a reduction of 5% in ministerial pay followed a pay freeze until the end of the parliament to illustrate his willingness to get tough and claw back funds.
He said that taxes on the wealthy rather than extra borrowing would pay for policy initiatives, including a mansion tax on homes worth £2m and more rising in line with average house prices.
The reinstatement of the 50p tax rate and the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance for the wealthiest 5% of pensioners will also give him some room to redirect spending, while a £3bn married person’s allowance planned by the Conservatives would fund a 10p starting rate of income tax.
Balls said Labour needed to be fiscally responsible to convince the British public it could be trusted with the exchequer.
“At a time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low, when even after deep spending cuts and tax rises for working people our deficit is still high, this is our task.
“Not to flinch from the tough decisions we must make, but to show the country that there is a better way forward.”
He was booed when he said Labour would be forced to continue raising the retirement age as life expectancy increased to prevent the social security budget from getting out of control, but he received a standing ovation when he said his plan was for “the many and not the few, fixing the economy for everyone”.
John Cridland, the head of the CBI, said it was a solid speech that showed Labour was putting together the building blocks of a strategy for government. He praised Balls for agreeing to expand airport capacity in the south-east, but added: “I would like him to say more about education and how it will improve competitiveness.”
The CBI has also voiced its dismay at Labour’s promise to raise the minimum wage to £8 an hour by the end of the next parliament, which Balls repeated in his conference speech.
A former CBI boss, Lord Digby Jones, had earlier said Labour should be careful not to embark on a “flight to populism” when it comes to business policy.
Jones, a former Labour trade minister, said who last year spoke at Ukip’s annual conference, said Ed Miliband was failing to win over business leaders.
He said of the Labour leader: “I would like to see them actually standing up and saying ‘we get it’. I’d like to hear Ed Miliband make a speech that says without a thriving business community in the UK there will be no tax receipt and therefore you will have no public sector and no jobs. We get that, we understand it, we would like business to meet us halfway with better behaviour … but we do understand that [business] is important. And therefore we will stimulate investment by lower taxation.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/22/ed-balls-spending-watchdog-vetting-government-spending-plansThe shadow chancellor said he would bring forward legislation to impose tough fiscal rules on governments in the first year after their election that the spending watchdog would monitor independently.
“In our manifesto there will be no proposals for any new spending paid for by additional borrowing,” he told a debate on the economy at Labour’s party conference in Manchester.
“No spending commitments without saying where the money is coming from, because we will not make promises we cannot keep and cannot afford.”
Rival parties would also see their spending commitments run through the OBR wringer so that every tax and spending measure was independently audited, he said.
Balls also reiterated his commitment to stick with the coalition’s current spending plans.
In a distinct toughening of his rules for spending in a new parliament, Balls said he would not make any new manifesto commitments funded by extra borrowing.
His strategy, however, gives him room for manoeuvre because it allows the timing of a budget surplus to be dictated to some extent by the state of the economic revival.
Balls had earlier announced a 1% cap on child benefit for two years – a cut in real terms – and a reduction of 5% in ministerial pay followed a pay freeze until the end of the parliament to illustrate his willingness to get tough and claw back funds.
He said that taxes on the wealthy rather than extra borrowing would pay for policy initiatives, including a mansion tax on homes worth £2m and more rising in line with average house prices.
The reinstatement of the 50p tax rate and the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance for the wealthiest 5% of pensioners will also give him some room to redirect spending, while a £3bn married person’s allowance planned by the Conservatives would fund a 10p starting rate of income tax.
Balls said Labour needed to be fiscally responsible to convince the British public it could be trusted with the exchequer.
“At a time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low, when even after deep spending cuts and tax rises for working people our deficit is still high, this is our task.
“Not to flinch from the tough decisions we must make, but to show the country that there is a better way forward.”
He was booed when he said Labour would be forced to continue raising the retirement age as life expectancy increased to prevent the social security budget from getting out of control, but he received a standing ovation when he said his plan was for “the many and not the few, fixing the economy for everyone”.
John Cridland, the head of the CBI, said it was a solid speech that showed Labour was putting together the building blocks of a strategy for government. He praised Balls for agreeing to expand airport capacity in the south-east, but added: “I would like him to say more about education and how it will improve competitiveness.”
The CBI has also voiced its dismay at Labour’s promise to raise the minimum wage to £8 an hour by the end of the next parliament, which Balls repeated in his conference speech.
A former CBI boss, Lord Digby Jones, had earlier said Labour should be careful not to embark on a “flight to populism” when it comes to business policy.
Jones, a former Labour trade minister, said who last year spoke at Ukip’s annual conference, said Ed Miliband was failing to win over business leaders.
He said of the Labour leader: “I would like to see them actually standing up and saying ‘we get it’. I’d like to hear Ed Miliband make a speech that says without a thriving business community in the UK there will be no tax receipt and therefore you will have no public sector and no jobs. We get that, we understand it, we would like business to meet us halfway with better behaviour … but we do understand that [business] is important. And therefore we will stimulate investment by lower taxation.”
Edited by BlackLabel on Monday 22 September 20:38
MXJON said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
You do have to wonder what's wrong with the conservatives.
"Dear public sector workers.
Next year your standard of living will decrease because we are going to make sure your earnings do not keep up with inflation. But don't worry, the bankers will still be getting their bonuses - even in the loss-making bank which you are lucky enough to own.
Vote for us!!
Lots of Love
Dave"
This thread's about Ed Balls, one of the hapless chimps that destroyed the economy, not the Conservatives who have turned it round and begun to clear up the inherited problems."Dear public sector workers.
Next year your standard of living will decrease because we are going to make sure your earnings do not keep up with inflation. But don't worry, the bankers will still be getting their bonuses - even in the loss-making bank which you are lucky enough to own.
Vote for us!!
Lots of Love
Dave"
Ozzie, as an obvious critic of the Tories, perhaps you could tell me a few reasons why you think Ed Balls is the man for the job of chancellor.
Or are you just going to talk s
t, like Balls does.hidetheelephants said:
BlackLabel said:
Balls is promising to balance the books and be 'be fiscally responsible' if Labour win back power next year. Does anyone believe him?
Not many I think, even dyed in the wool labourists think he's a .On R4 this morning he stated the policies he was introducing would give a £400m upside over a term of govt ... The deficit is predicted to be £85billion maybe.
So £0.4billion is the best thing you can launch in the last party conf pre a UK election.
Aside from that no one likes the £0.10 tax band make it tax free instead even better taking millions out of taxation altogether.
£0.50 tax band shameful to even consider it, didn't work last time proved to fail now trying to buy votes.
Not willing to give England only votes on devolved policies .... Why scared the Sovereign will of England will not vote the way Labour wants... Hmmm
So £0.4billion is the best thing you can launch in the last party conf pre a UK election.
Aside from that no one likes the £0.10 tax band make it tax free instead even better taking millions out of taxation altogether.
£0.50 tax band shameful to even consider it, didn't work last time proved to fail now trying to buy votes.
Not willing to give England only votes on devolved policies .... Why scared the Sovereign will of England will not vote the way Labour wants... Hmmm
Guardian said:
“ we will not make promises we cannot keep and cannot afford.”
Excellent- why didn't they do that last time?Guardian said:
His strategy, however, gives him room for manoeuvre because it allows the timing of a budget surplus to be dictated to some extent by the state of the economic revival.
This reminds me of Gordon Brown as chancellor- he not only decided when an economic cycle began & ended for his 'golden rule', he also managed to change the start date five years after he originally said it happened.Guardian said:
He said that taxes on the wealthy rather than extra borrowing would pay for policy initiatives, including a mansion tax on homes worth £2m and more rising in line with average house prices.
Envy taxes- we're back on home ground now.Guardian said:
a £3bn married person’s allowance planned by the Conservatives would fund a 10p starting rate of income tax.
If anyone knows how this works, could they please explain it to me? Surely an allowance costs tax money rather than generates it?Guardian said:
Balls said Labour needed to be fiscally responsible to convince the British public it could be trusted with the exchequer.
That particular boat sailed many years ago.I like the way Labour are claiming credit for being willing to continue the policies of the hated Tories.
mph1977 said:
Public sector pay stuff is based o nthe fact that the pay reform under Labour for the public sector was driven by the unions - in the NHS pay reform was sorely needed as there were dozens of paty review bodies and sets of pay scales replaced with Agenda for Change for the majority of staff
Consider a mental health trust in the north west of England, once it catered for 2 adjacent towns and one city in that region but now (while covering the same area) is named after a compass direction of a geographical area in that region (subtle, eh? ).Before "Agenda For Change", Occupational Therapists in that NHS Trust were all on Band 5 no matter their location; post-"Agenda For Change" the staff in the city were elevated to Band 6 while the other staff (in the adjacent "large town" areas) remained on Band 5. The same NHS Trust, different pay scales in different areas within it... Is the work so much harder in the city so as to justify this pay rise? (From the mouth of the O/Ts involved, no it wasn't. The pay rise was apparently to retain staff due to low motivation...
)More marked/noticeable changes occured in local government around this time... An example:
Bin Emptying Operatives were all paid around £16k p.a. (plus bonuses etc? I would expect so, but standardised between LAs as well?) in the North West before this time.
After the "wage exercise" the "Bin Men" in the LA where I was employed at the time saw their wages drop to £14k p.a. basic, whereas "Bin Men" in the adjacent LA saw their wages rise to £20k p.a. basic...
Much disenchantment
.A more random example of public sector shenanigans:
When I started as a LA Housing Repairs Clerk, I was paid Scale 2/3 (£11k to £15k back in 1998). I was basically "front of house" for the Housing office, dealing with all enquiries from Housing Repairs to Rent as well as Antisocial Behaviour and goodness knows what else
. I think we managed to sneak up to Scale 3 at some point...Our Housing repairs function was TUPEd over to an ALMO - their existing "front of house" staff (almost all new to the "business", perhaps only one or two TUPEd over from the LA
) were on Scale 4 and (of course I'm going to say this! 
) they didn't have to use as large a skillset or have such specialised knowledge as us in Housing Repairs (and most of us used to do their job plus Housing Repairs as well - they didn't deal with Housing repairs at all). I left the Housing Repairs guff in 2008 (with no regrets 
), and I believe my former colleagues remain on Scale 3 - but then they always were the poor relation, it was all bocks!Divide and conquer, eh?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff