[toronto353]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Because it comes down to trust and the ability to make a reasoned judgement based on the evidence before me. If I cannot read it, then I cannot make those judgements and I am cast out of the game. The only person I would trust to be reasonable in presenting the information in layman's terms is jesusandtequila and he's not going to want to do it for every single bill. You haven't yet convinced me of the need of a budget other than your petty attempts to get one over on paperclip.

Well it isn't petty at all. We've always planned to do a budget since day one of this Government. We are talking about the budget not every other Bill, but the main budget. If J&T is willing to check the budget prior to it being put out to ensure that the summaries are correct, then what's wrong with that. We have only done a budget once. Why not do it again?

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by toronto353)
Well it isn't petty at all. We've always planned to do a budget since day one of this Government. We are talking about the budget not every other Bill, but the main budget. If J&T is willing to check the budget prior to it being put out to ensure that the summaries are correct, then what's wrong with that. We have only done a budget once. Why not do it again?

Why not do it again? Because it was a monumental waste of time the first time around, not to mention the fact it was necessary to have at least an economics A Level to grasp it. I'm sorry, toronto, I know we've been getting on rather better lately but I fundamentally disagree with you on this notion of a budget and I find it quite galling that someone who is often banging on about making the House more open and accessible would seek to institute something that would wipe out all the efforts to bring that about. We all know why the Right are so insistent on having a budget and it's not about adding an extra quality of realism to the House. It's about implying an intellectual superiority to those on the left who, for whatever reason, have abjured maths from a relatively young age.

[toronto353]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Why not do it again? Because it was a monumental waste of time the first time around, not to mention the fact it was necessary to have at least an economics A Level to grasp it. I'm sorry, toronto, I know we've been getting on rather better lately but I fundamentally disagree with you on this notion of a budget and I find it quite galling that someone who is often banging on about making the House more open and accessible would seek to institute something that would wipe out all the efforts to bring that about. We all know why the Right are so insistent on having a budget and it's not about adding an extra quality of realism to the House. It's about implying an intellectual superiority to those on the left who, for whatever reason, have abjured maths from a relatively young age.

I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this one. If it goes wrong, I'll hold my hands up and admit that I was wrong, but we should at least try it again, but tackle it from less of an A level economics perspective.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by toronto353)
I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this one. If it goes wrong, I'll hold my hands up and admit that I was wrong, but we should at least try it again, but tackle it from less of an A level economics perspective.

That's the problem. You cannot produce a budget for anything less than that.

[toronto353]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
That's the problem. You cannot produce a budget for anything less than that.

Well hopefully we'll try to show that it may be possible.

[Rakas21]

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1382888

For those interested, this was the old budget.

Adorno, i can assure that our budget will be layed out in a much simpler way. The budget above does not require more than GCSE Maths, it was simply long winded.

I believe it would be interested to collate all the bills post-GRA which affect our position and motions passed which call for spending as well as announcing some measures.

Fear not, we should not go as far as costing every bill but some bills it is clearly possible for many bills as proved by Stanlas in the housing bill which costed it as fiscal spending of £3.12bn.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Rakas21)
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1382888

For those interested, this was the old budget.

Adorno, i can assure that our budget will be layed out in a much simpler way. The budget above does not require more than GCSE Maths, it was simply long winded.

I believe it would be interested to collate all the bills post-GRA which affect our position and motions passed which call for spending as well as announcing some measures.

Fear not, we should not go as far as costing every bill but some bills it is clearly possible for many bills as proved by Stanlas in the housing bill which costed it as fiscal spending of £3.12bn.

How will you guys go about putting your budget proposals into law? Writing a report is the least important part of the process really. I notice that the 2010 effort was pretty much 'pointless', as there was no finance act after it.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Rakas21)
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1382888

For those interested, this was the old budget.

Aww my beloved Child Poverty Act. That is probably the one bill I'm still proud of.

Adorno, i can assure that our budget will be layed out in a much simpler way. The budget above does not require more than GCSE Maths, it was simply long winded.

Okay, well you know for me GCSE was a decade ago.

[jesusandtequila]

As it stands, I'm opposed to doing a budget also, but on completely different grounds to Adorno. I simply don't think that it's necessary within the framework we have here - at least not in terms of policy proposals. I also struggle to think how we're going to accurately cost things within (excuse the upcoming economics-y term!) a general equilibrium framework. For those who aren't economics-y, sure, we can look at each thing statically, and determine some kind of revenue/spending effect, but when the level of tax affects the tax base and therefore the income which affects the homelessness rate and so spending on x which affects spending on y and thus the deficit spending and so interest rates on bonds and so share prices and so business capital so bank lending and so on and so forth then it's all a big tangled up mess that you're going to struggle with getting any accuracy whatsoever.

To take an example - at what rate do we think the TSR economy is growing, considering the huge smattering of tax changes, especially given that we've devolved some tax rates down to the local level and so they aren't even the same across TSR-land, never mind us knowing what they are. This rate of growth affects the tax base (and thus revenues) of a whole load of other things.

I think our best option is to try to be roughly realistic, and keep Bills roughly cost neutral. We can talk about qualitative effects that changes have (the land value tax replacing taxes on income and consumption will push growth higher), but not in any quantitative manner with any accuracy beyond pure guesswork. We shouldn't fuss too much about the budget and so forth - but we shouldn't pretend that we can spend forever and cut taxes to zero simultaneously. So, if a Bill proposes huge increases in spending, I'd like to see some proposal of how it's going to pay for itself, and likewise for tax cuts. We can be sensible without being fun-sponges.

But, further to that, what's the point in the gov't putting forward a budget when anyone can propose tax changes? The RL point s that it produces a Finance Act, the tax changes to be done by the government with a majority. Likewise much legislation. Here, any Party puts forward legislation so I question the need for formalising the whole thing and giving government any importance whatsoever when it really doesn't have it.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Because it comes down to trust and the ability to make a reasoned judgement based on the evidence before me. If I cannot read it, then I cannot make those judgements and I am cast out of the game. The only person I would trust to be reasonable in presenting the information in layman's terms is jesusandtequila and he's not going to want to do it for every single bill.

- you are too kind sometimes.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
- you are too kind sometimes.

I need book sales like. That's all this is for.

[paperclip]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
As it stands, I'm opposed to doing a budget also, but on completely different grounds to Adorno. I simply don't think that it's necessary within the framework we have here - at least not in terms of policy proposals. I also struggle to think how we're going to accurately cost things within (excuse the upcoming economics-y term!) a general equilibrium framework. For those who aren't economics-y, sure, we can look at each thing statically, and determine some kind of revenue/spending effect, but when the level of tax affects the tax base and therefore the income which affects the homelessness rate and so spending on x which affects spending on y and thus the deficit spending and so interest rates on bonds and so share prices and so business capital so bank lending and so on and so forth then it's all a big tangled up mess that you're going to struggle with getting any accuracy whatsoever.

To take an example - at what rate do we think the TSR economy is growing, considering the huge smattering of tax changes, especially given that we've devolved some tax rates down to the local level and so they aren't even the same across TSR-land, never mind us knowing what they are. This rate of growth affects the tax base (and thus revenues) of a whole load of other things.

I think our best option is to try to be roughly realistic, and keep Bills roughly cost neutral. We can talk about qualitative effects that changes have (the land value tax replacing taxes on income and consumption will push growth higher), but not in any quantitative manner with any accuracy beyond pure guesswork. We shouldn't fuss too much about the budget and so forth - but we shouldn't pretend that we can spend forever and cut taxes to zero simultaneously. So, if a Bill proposes huge increases in spending, I'd like to see some proposal of how it's going to pay for itself, and likewise for tax cuts. We can be sensible without being fun-sponges.

But, further to that, what's the point in the gov't putting forward a budget when anyone can propose tax changes? The RL point s that it produces a Finance Act, the tax changes to be done by the government with a majority. Likewise much legislation. Here, any Party puts forward legislation so I question the need for formalising the whole thing and giving government any importance whatsoever when it really doesn't have it.

A very sensible post. Thank you, dude.

[RoryS]

I understand that Parents want statistics to refer to when choosing a primary or secondary school for their child/children but I don't think this should be funded by the government anymore. I don't think statistics sum up what a school is trying to achieve.

No from me.

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

This has been withdrawn.