And what does an unfunded commitment mean? In the current context, it can only mean that quantitative easing will be used.
When was quantitative easing last introduced? In March / April 2020.
Why was it introduced? To fund the furlough and other schemes required to tackle Covid.
What was the timescale for the introduction of quantitative easing? Days at most.
Would that be possible again if we had a similar crisis? No, because the Office for Budget Responsibility generally reckons it takes ten weeks to report.
So what does this Bill do? It outlaws another emergency use of quantitative easing in the event of a national crisis. People would have to die whilst waiting for the Office for Budget Responsibility to forecast, wildly inaccurately, what the consequences might be so that the use of quantitative easing could be described as ‘costed’.
Seen in this way, this proposed Bill looks to be totally irresponsible because it constrains what the government can do in an emergency.
He’s missed the word “permanent” in the pledge, hasn’t he?
every fiscal event which makes substantial and permanent changes to taxation or spending
QE is an impermanent change. It can be – is being – reversed by QT. QE isn’t covered by the pledge.#
Perceptive, our Spud, very perceptive
“QE is an impermanent change. ”
Given the BoE only play to finally unwind QE (in theory at least) by (IIRC) about 2050, I’d say thats pretty permanent, given it started in 2009, and there were enough ‘crises’ in the following decade or so that they kept adding to it rather than unwinding it. What are the odds that we will get to 2050 without another significant economic crisis that requires the BoE to fire up the money printer again?
Face it, QE is now a fundamental element of how Western countries try to keep living beyond their means. Its permanent in that whenever it looks like they’ve run out of money again, they’ll make the money printer go Brrrr! every time. We live in Spuds MMT world now, and the only debate is what the politicians will use the money printer to pay for.
Murphy agrees with you, Jim. His fear is that the OBR will agree with you too, and classify QE as permanent.
The real concern here is the way everything is being handed over to the courts which means future governments will have to spend legislative time changing these laws before they can start governing.
I voted for Brexit because I was fed up with politicians hiding behind the EU and I certainly don’t want them hiding behind judges. We’ve seen where this leads with the Net Zero laws and it isn’t healthy in a democracy.
BiND
we could make judges stand for election…
Unfunded commitment? So, the state pension. Wonder if that’s why he’s so terrified about his personal future.
None of those schemes were required “to tackle Covid”.
They were required to stop the country collapsing into a debt crash during lockdowns. Which were the ineffective and insane repetitive knee jerk reaction to Covid.
He really likes the idea that government should be able to do anything those in power want in an emergency.
Yes, he does seem really keen on something like an Enabling Act. I believe there’s an example from about 1933 when the state was particularly courageous.
“He really likes the idea that government should be able to do anything those in power want in an emergency.”
Isn’t that true anyway? Parliament is sovereign, it can vote whatever it likes.
Jim: «Parliament is sovereign, it can vote whatever it likes.»
Parliament ≠ Government
This is spud melting down over the verdict on JSO https://x.com/tonydowson5/status/1813977738820325426?s=46&t=BCnCaY9KVGUU4KJOvSLsrw
I haven’t stopped laughing since I heard. They should be happy. Five years of reduced climate impact and no travel. Maybe someone can remove the light bulbs from their cells for more savings.
I notice Chris Packham (BBC completely unbiased ‘nature’ presenter) is apoplectic
Strange how JSO never criticised his globetrotting by air, including guided tours for tourists in exotic unspoiled (until he got there) locations
Sustainable travel my arse
Starfish,
There was some greenie on Twitter recently justifying that travel OK as part of their degrowth agenda . Apparently tourism bad, travel good.
He had all the usual stuff, rainbow flags, pronouns etc.
Lions are the only solution. .
Parliament is sovereign, it can vote whatever it likes.
But it can take effect only if a bunch of foreign, unelected, failed lawyers in the ECHR (and elsewhere) agree with it.
@ philip
Elected judges – as in “Who framed Roger Rabbit”?
Elected under Tower Hamlets’ rules?
Living outside Tower Hamlets won’t be enough if one of its residents sues you inTower Hamlets’ courts.
No thanks
@ BiND
I don’t want innocent lions to suffer from food poisoning.