All the more reason to see how the land lies in November. You can bet your life that even if the purse-strings remain closed, the statement will be scoured for hints at how he might spend the money later this year.
If the numbers are as good as many City economists predict, my hunch is another big slug heading towards the Tories’ manifesto pledge to raise basic and higher rate tax thresholds to £12,500 and £50,000 by 2020. It’s not cheap, because every £100 rise in the personal allowance costs more than £600 million.
But what a Christmas present it would be — not to mention a handy political and economic prop — with Brexit just months away. Over to you, Philip.
Marathons are about more than money
Thousands cheered Mo Farah to victory on the streets of the capital at the weekend in the 13-mile warm-up for the big London Marathon, but the art of long-distance running has also been attracting the attention of the dismal science.
In the latest issue of the Economic Journal, there’s new research looking at how marathon runners respond to prize money pots, studying races over the past three decades. It turns out that the contests with the richest “winner takes all” prize pots don’t necessarily attract the best fields.
While the runner’s chances of competing increase with the average prize on offer, they fall in proportion as more talented rivals join the field.
The authors Ghazala Azmat and Marc Möller say that “talent repels talent to the extent that the contests with the highest prizes do not necessarily attract the most talented competitors”.
In fact, for every high-ability runner in the field an extra $2583 rise in a marathon’s average prize is needed. After all, if you’re only running two or three races a year, you need to choose your battles. Everyone — including marathon runners —responds to incentives.
