I would absolutely love a by-election in Porstmouth South. That is something that would get my juices running. The result would be in doubt right till the end - great for betting.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
Yep. I have Labour supporting friends who last week were slamming the Tories for "making their media friends" at Channel 4 (no shit!) show poverty porn in its Benefits Street programme. "The Tories love taking the piss out of people who can't get jobs, blah blah".
And today those same people are slamming the Tories for "forcing people to take crap jobs" in order to massage the unemployment figures.
Notwithstanding the teeming prejudice or that they are wrong on both counts, it is enlightening to see their philosophy about the poor working classes. They see only the money. They don't appear to get that having a job is about more than money. It leads to a less soulless existence. It brings satisfaction. It gets you out of the mundanity of being stuck at home watching telly. It gets you out meeting different people. It's just - in my view - better for you to be poor but working than poor but not working.
Or maybe they do get it but they just fecking hate the Tories so much they want to blame them for everything.
Some of that is true. But there are also thousands of underpaid jobs that also lead to a soulless existence. Not all low paid work is unrewarding, however.
Interestingly, across all the data we have since polling was fixed in the mid 90s, the average swing TO the Government from this point in the parliament to the election is.....
drum roll...
0.8%
Current monthly polling average, main Govt Party 32, Opposition 38.
Applying the average "swingback" to that gives a result of, ooh, about 32, 38.
Or a Labour majority of around 70, if you prefer.
That is a very interesting and important post - a thread on it perhaps @MikeSmithson?
I would absolutely love a by-election in Porstmouth South. That is something that would get my juices running. The result would be in doubt right till the end - great for betting.
I'll never forget the excitement in your voice when I rang you to tell you Chris Huhne had pleaded guilty.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
If you say so. I'll just wait for the polling crossover, nevermind the fact it didn't happen at all when the GDP stats started surging and after the supposed "triumph" of the autumn statement, despite Tories' expectations.
We're all waiting for the inevitable crossover. What a pathetic opposition Labour have been, you should be romping ahead rather than nervously looking over your shoulder at this point in the mid-term.
Even leaving aside the flawed "swingback" theory, can 4 years on from an election even really be described as "mid-term", especially since the Conservatives are by common consent already in full campaigning mode?
We are more than 75% of the way through the term. When do we cease to be in midterm by Moniker's reckoning I wonder?
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
And you plan to vote Labour.
Hello from Madrid! I thought I would write about what all the companies here are saying about the nascent Spanish recovery (spoiler: it's real, but there are some serious potential political issues that could derail it), but have decided not to.
Instead, I thought I'd divide voters up into four quadrants:
Historically, the Conservatives have been SCEF. The Labour Party, by contrast, was SLEC. (Under Blair, and in particular under home secretaries Blunkett and Straw, the Labour Party moved towards the SC axis, and I think that was a crucial part of their success.) The Liberal in their original guise were also SLEC, but under the Orange Bookers moved to being SLEF.
Under David Cameron's leadership, the Conservatives moved into the SLEF space previously occupied by the (Orange Book) Liberals. (And, slightly ironically, by the pre-2010 UKIP, which was very much an SLEF party.)
Farage has now moved UKIP into the SCEF space previously occupied by the Conservative Party. He has also made some distinctly SCEC noises; I think a UKIP government would have a much more muscular industrial policy, for example.
The big question is... how big are the various boxes?
Well, I would suggest that the smallest box is the SLEF one occupied by myself, Richard Tyndall and AveryLP. Perhaps 20% of the population fall into it. (I think that the number of people who believe in free market has declined over the course of the financial crisis, diminishing the size of the box.)
I think the LibDem position is particularly tenuous right now, because have the party was EF and half was EC - and the EC ones have f*cked off to Labour.
I also think Farage is right that the SC angle is currently under served.
However it is also very naive to think the Conservatives can move back to the SCEF without losing some of the SL voters back to the LibDems.
I broadly agree, where I'd quibble is I don't think it's emphasised enough how much parties are themselves pretty broad coalitions of different factions, and more of a spectrum view (see political compass for a popular and well-known look at this).
But I suspect you knew that and were just summarising (on the fall of the Liberal party in the 20s I remain in firm disagreement with you however :P)
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
If you say so. I'll just wait for the polling crossover, nevermind the fact it didn't happen at all when the GDP stats started surging and after the supposed "triumph" of the autumn statement, despite Tories' expectations.
We're all waiting for the inevitable crossover. What a pathetic opposition Labour have been, you should be romping ahead rather than nervously looking over your shoulder at this point in the mid-term.
Even leaving aside the flawed "swingback" theory, can 4 years on from an election even really be described as "mid-term", especially since the Conservatives are by common consent already in full campaigning mode?
We are more than 75% of the way through the term. When do we cease to be in midterm by Moniker's reckoning I wonder?
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
If you say so. I'll just wait for the polling crossover, nevermind the fact it didn't happen at all when the GDP stats started surging and after the supposed "triumph" of the autumn statement, despite Tories' expectations.
We're all waiting for the inevitable crossover. What a pathetic opposition Labour have been, you should be romping ahead rather than nervously looking over your shoulder at this point in the mid-term.
Even leaving aside the flawed "swingback" theory, can 4 years on from an election even really be described as "mid-term", especially since the Conservatives are by common consent already in full campaigning mode?
We are more than 75% of the way through the term. When do we cease to be in midterm by Moniker's reckoning I wonder?
I note your Labouriste grasp of basic arithmetic. Mid-term will end this May.
Interestingly, across all the data we have since polling was fixed in the mid 90s, the average swing TO the Government from this point in the parliament to the election is.....
drum roll...
0.8%
Current monthly polling average, main Govt Party 32, Opposition 38.
Applying the average "swingback" to that gives a result of, ooh, about 32, 38.
Or a Labour majority of around 70, if you prefer.
That is a very interesting and important post - a thread on it perhaps @MikeSmithson?
I'd like to see his figures, because I have differing figures.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
Yep. I have Labour supporting friends who last week were slamming the Tories for "making their media friends" at Channel 4 (no shit!) show poverty porn in its Benefits Street programme. "The Tories love taking the piss out of people who can't get jobs, blah blah".
And today those same people are slamming the Tories for "forcing people to take crap jobs" in order to massage the unemployment figures.
Notwithstanding the teeming prejudice or that they are wrong on both counts, it is enlightening to see their philosophy about the poor working classes. They see only the money. They don't appear to get that having a job is about more than money. It leads to a less soulless existence. It brings satisfaction. It gets you out of the mundanity of being stuck at home watching telly. It gets you out meeting different people. It's just - in my view - better for you to be poor but working than poor but not working.
Or maybe they do get it but they just fecking hate the Tories so much they want to blame them for everything.
You are absolutely right, Fenster.
Getting the long-term unemployed and young NEETs into work is a moral as much as an economic imperative.
That a post Thatcher conservative government is delivering world beating economic growth is not a surprise. That the recovery is being led by record employment and the by highest quarterly falls in unemployment for 17 years is. It is one of life's little ironies.
Cameron, not Miliband, is the true heir to Macmillan's and Disraeli's brand of "One Nation" conservatism.
It is a calm, gentlemanly and competent business. More rugby than soccer.
Of course there are some people who do not believe the figures. Some people are just in denial.
There are 160 000 people though who have moved off out of work benefits, and will instead be paying tax. Seeing those deductions on the payslip, and seeing someone else still in bed while they are off for work does often transfom their perspective on the issues of tax and benefits.
As the jobs are mostly in the private sector, this tends to alter perspectives on govt spending.
Surely that's basing the assumption that the reduction has come from the long-term unemployed, as opposed to those who were fairly recently employed and hence won't have their perspective transformed.
(And the history of unemployment statistics, dating back to Thatcher at the least is very, creative).
Of course there are some people who do not believe the figures. Some people are just in denial.
There are 160 000 people though who have moved off out of work benefits, and will instead be paying tax. Seeing those deductions on the payslip, and seeing someone else still in bed while they are off for work does often transfom their perspective on the issues of tax and benefits.
As the jobs are mostly in the private sector, this tends to alter perspectives on govt spending.
Surely that's basing the assumption that the reduction has come from the long-term unemployed, as opposed to those who were fairly recently employed and hence won't have their perspective transformed.
(And the history of unemployment statistics, dating back to Thatcher at the least is very, creative).
I think people lost faith in government statistics during the New Labour occupation. Osborne seems to have re-introduced honesty.
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
And you plan to vote Labour.
I think the LibDem position is particularly tenuous right now, because have the party was EF and half was EC - and the EC ones have f*cked off to Labour.
I also think Farage is right that the SC angle is currently under served.
However it is also very naive to think the Conservatives can move back to the SCEF without losing some of the SL voters back to the LibDems.
And the LibDem EF have stayed with them, thus leaving a paltry number to go to the Tories. There are few voters for the Tories to lose in this way, but I reckon over 50% of UKIP support falls into the SC category.
I wouldn't say the SC angle is underserved, but rather not served at all. There is nothing Cameron can do about it, he has come out as a social liberal and there is no going back.
When Cameron first announced same-sex "marriage", the Omnishambles budget followed soon afterwards, so I couldn't separate which caused the collapse in Tory poll ratings.
Well, a far amount of time has elapsed since then and UKIP haven't reverted back to the Others pile and their support seems solid despite gaffes too numerous to mention and an improving economy.
It seems that I'm not the only right-winger who can't stand the Cameroons.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
Yep. I have Labour supporting friends who last week were slamming the Tories for "making their media friends" at Channel 4 (no shit!) show poverty porn in its Benefits Street programme. "The Tories love taking the piss out of people who can't get jobs, blah blah".
And today those same people are slamming the Tories for "forcing people to take crap jobs" in order to massage the unemployment figures.
Notwithstanding the teeming prejudice or that they are wrong on both counts, it is enlightening to see their philosophy about the poor working classes. They see only the money. They don't appear to get that having a job is about more than money. It leads to a less soulless existence. It brings satisfaction. It gets you out of the mundanity of being stuck at home watching telly. It gets you out meeting different people. It's just - in my view - better for you to be poor but working than poor but not working.
Or maybe they do get it but they just fecking hate the Tories so much they want to blame them for everything.
You are absolutely right, Fenster.
Getting the long-term unemployed and young NEETs into work is a moral as much as an economic imperative.
That a post Thatcher conservative government is delivering world beating economic growth is not a surprise. That the recovery is being led by record employment and the by highest quarterly falls in unemployment for 17 years is. It is one of life's little ironies.
Cameron, not Miliband, is the true heir to Macmillan's and Disraeli's brand of "One Nation" conservatism.
It is a calm, gentlemanly and competent business. More rugby than soccer.
And much to be welcomed.
When you say record employment, is that the record of more people are alive today to be employed, or some other more impressive record?
I'm in rough agreement, at the same time under-employment is a thing.
Alas I'm back to being a NEET now. Will do my best to improve the employment figures soon.
Of course there are some people who do not believe the figures. Some people are just in denial.
There are 160 000 people though who have moved off out of work benefits, and will instead be paying tax. Seeing those deductions on the payslip, and seeing someone else still in bed while they are off for work does often transfom their perspective on the issues of tax and benefits.
As the jobs are mostly in the private sector, this tends to alter perspectives on govt spending.
Surely that's basing the assumption that the reduction has come from the long-term unemployed, as opposed to those who were fairly recently employed and hence won't have their perspective transformed.
(And the history of unemployment statistics, dating back to Thatcher at the least is very, creative).
I think people lost faith in government statistics during the New Labour occupation. Osborne seems to have re-introduced honesty.
Iirc under Thatcher + Major there were something like 26 changes in the counting of unemployment statistics, one made them worse, 25 improved them (that's roughly right). Unemployment statistics cam much more to the fore at the time and so they began being massaged more (and so it's continued).
A number of economic historians have attempted to model a consistent measure of unemployment over the period, which is difficult given the changes of how the data was collected.
I think in Hugo Young's biography of her he recounts an anecdote of her having the employment statistics totted up in front of her and essentially demanding they be improved.
I expect that a lot of the fall is in the sort term unemployed, these people are usually the first to get back to work. Any employer wants people with recent relevant experience. Indeed it is easier to get a job if you have one already. Nontheless the short term unemployed are more likely to be from a swing voting demographic.
Some of the difference may well be the off-record economy going legit. Thatt may be happening because of changes in policing of benefits, but also a higherr income tax threshold; but emerging from the underground economy to the legitamate one is a good thing, and probably also associated with a rightward voting shift.
Of course there are some people who do not believe the figures. Some people are just in denial.
There are 160 000 people though who have moved off out of work benefits, and will instead be paying tax. Seeing those deductions on the payslip, and seeing someone else still in bed while they are off for work does often transfom their perspective on the issues of tax and benefits.
As the jobs are mostly in the private sector, this tends to alter perspectives on govt spending.
Surely that's basing the assumption that the reduction has come from the long-term unemployed, as opposed to those who were fairly recently employed and hence won't have their perspective transformed.
(And the history of unemployment statistics, dating back to Thatcher at the least is very, creative).
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
And you plan to vote Labour.
Worth seeing the Cameroons humiliated at the cost of a one-term Labour Government.
Yes bollocks to the impact on the country as long as that bloke who doesn't give believers in sky pixies the respect you feel they deserve, gets humiliated.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
...
You are absolutely right, Fenster.
Getting the long-term unemployed and young NEETs into work is a moral as much as an economic imperative.
That a post Thatcher conservative government is delivering world beating economic growth is not a surprise. That the recovery is being led by record employment and the by highest quarterly falls in unemployment for 17 years is. It is one of life's little ironies.
Cameron, not Miliband, is the true heir to Macmillan's and Disraeli's brand of "One Nation" conservatism.
It is a calm, gentlemanly and competent business. More rugby than soccer.
And much to be welcomed.
When you say record employment, is that the record of more people are alive today to be employed, or some other more impressive record?
I'm in rough agreement, at the same time under-employment is a thing.
Alas I'm back to being a NEET now. Will do my best to improve the employment figures soon.
Yes it is a simple and absolute record rather than a proportional one. Only the peaks of 1974 (73.4%) and 2005 (73.1%, but oh what folly!) exceed the current ratio of 72.1%. Although, given the economy's position in the post-recessionary cycle there is a strong probability that this government will deliver a ratio record too.
You are right on under-employment and low productivity and these need working on for the recovery to maintain its momentum.
I do hope you have left Tesco call-centre behind, corporeal! Maybe it is time for you to head for the big smoke?
Oi! There are plenty of believers in various faiths who are untroubled by gay marriage. In part the disproportionate interest in homosexuality by both Anglican and Catholic clergy reflects the large numbers of open or repressed gay clergy in both organisations. Jesus spoke on manythings in the gospels, but not on homosexuality. He clearly did not feel it a priority in His message. Indeed the gospels are harder on sanctimonious hypocritical priests than almost any other group.
You may have gathered that I am a Nonconformist Protestant!
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
And you plan to vote Labour.
Worth seeing the Cameroons humiliated at the cost of a one-term Labour Government.
Yes bollocks to the impact on the country as long as that bloke who doesn't give believers in sky pixies the respect you feel they deserve, gets humiliated.
I expect that a lot of the fall is in the sort term unemployed, these people are usually the first to get back to work. Any employer wants people with recent relevant experience. Indeed it is easier to get a job if you have one already. Nontheless the short term unemployed are more likely to be from a swing voting demographic.
Some of the difference may well be the off-record economy going legit. Thatt may be happening because of changes in policing of benefits, but also a higherr income tax threshold; but emerging from the underground economy to the legitamate one is a good thing, and probably also associated with a rightward voting shift.
Of course there are some people who do not believe the figures. Some people are just in denial.
There are 160 000 people though who have moved off out of work benefits, and will instead be paying tax. Seeing those deductions on the payslip, and seeing someone else still in bed while they are off for work does often transfom their perspective on the issues of tax and benefits.
As the jobs are mostly in the private sector, this tends to alter perspectives on govt spending.
Surely that's basing the assumption that the reduction has come from the long-term unemployed, as opposed to those who were fairly recently employed and hence won't have their perspective transformed.
(And the history of unemployment statistics, dating back to Thatcher at the least is very, creative).
Dr Sox
The MPC minutes state that most of the fall in unemployment in the three months to October had come from falls in medium and long-term unemployment.
I haven't dug deep into the ONS bulletin to find the figures, but I am sure we can take the BoE at their word.
That is indeed reassuring, but perhaps supports my contention that at least some of my second paragraph is true. Conversely some of the EU countries increases may well be people quitting the open economy for a hidden one. Certainly the number of restraunts and shops who wanted a cash payment and no reciept when I was in Corfu last year would suggest so!
Apologies for the poor spelling, I cannot find my reading glasses!
I expect that a lot of the fall is in the sort term unemployed, these people are usually the first to get back to work. Any employer wants people with recent relevant experience. Indeed it is easier to get a job if you have one already. Nontheless the short term unemployed are more likely to be from a swing voting demographic.
Some of the difference may well be the off-record economy going legit. Thatt may be happening because of changes in policing of benefits, but also a higherr income tax threshold; but emerging from the underground economy to the legitamate one is a good thing, and probably also associated with a rightward voting shift.
Of course there are some people who do not believe the figures. Some people are just in denial.
There are 160 000 people though who have moved off out of work benefits, and will instead be paying tax. Seeing those deductions on the payslip, and seeing someone else still in bed while they are off for work does often transfom their perspective on the issues of tax and benefits.
As the jobs are mostly in the private sector, this tends to alter perspectives on govt spending.
Surely that's basing the assumption that the reduction has come from the long-term unemployed, as opposed to those who were fairly recently employed and hence won't have their perspective transformed.
(And the history of unemployment statistics, dating back to Thatcher at the least is very, creative).
Dr Sox
The MPC minutes state that most of the fall in unemployment in the three months to October had come from falls in medium and long-term unemployment.
I haven't dug deep into the ONS bulletin to find the figures, but I am sure we can take the BoE at their word.
That is indeed reassuring, but perhaps supports my contention that at least some of my second paragraph is true. Conversely some of the EU countries increases may well be people quitting the open economy for a hidden one. Certainly the number of restraunts and shops who wanted a cash payment and no reciept when I was in Corfu last year would suggest so!
Apologies for the poor spelling, I cannot find my reading glasses!
I expect that a lot of the fall is in the sort term unemployed, these people are usually the first to get back to work. Any employer wants people with recent relevant experience. Indeed it is easier to get a job if you have one already. Nontheless the short term unemployed are more likely to be from a swing voting demographic.
Some of the difference may well be the off-record economy going legit. Thatt may be happening because of changes in policing of benefits, but also a higherr income tax threshold; but emerging from the underground economy to the legitamate one is a good thing, and probably also associated with a rightward voting shift.
Of course there are some people who do not believe the figures. Some people are just in denial.
There are 160 000 people though who have moved off out of work benefits, and will instead be paying tax. Seeing those deductions on the payslip, and seeing someone else still in bed while they are off for work does often transfom their perspective on the issues of tax and benefits.
As the jobs are mostly in the private sector, this tends to alter perspectives on govt spending.
Surely that's basing the assumption that the reduction has come from the long-term unemployed, as opposed to those who were fairly recently employed and hence won't have their perspective transformed.
(And the history of unemployment statistics, dating back to Thatcher at the least is very, creative).
Dr Sox
The MPC minutes state that most of the fall in unemployment in the three months to October had come from falls in medium and long-term unemployment.
I haven't dug deep into the ONS bulletin to find the figures, but I am sure we can take the BoE at their word.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example ywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
Yep. I have Labour supporting friends who last week were slamming the Tories for "making their media friends" at Channel 4 (no shit!) show poverty porn in its Benefits Street programme. "The Tories love taking the piss out of people who can't get jobs, blah blah".
And today those same people are slamming the Tories for "forcing people to take crap jobs" in order to massage the unemployment figures.
Or maybe they do get it but they just fecking hate the Tories so much they want to blame them for everything.
You are absolutely right, Fenster.
Getting the long-term unemployed and young NEETs into work is a moral as much as an economic imperative.
That a post Thatcher conservative government is delivering world beating economic growth is not a surprise. That the recovery is being led by record employment and the by highest quarterly falls in unemployment for 17 years is. It is one of life's little ironies.
Cameron, not Miliband, is the true heir to Macmillan's and Disraeli's brand of "One Nation" conservatism.
It is a calm, gentlemanly and competent business. More rugby than soccer.
And much to be welcomed.
Yet more tosh Mr Pole. Next you'll be claiming Osborne knows what he's doing.;
I've just become the first punter on the Betfair Wythenshawe market laying a bet on UKIP of £120 at 8.2. It's cost me £864 which is more than covered by my 12/1 bets I've got on the purples with Ladbrokes and PP
Interesting question - If 2015 produces another hung parliament and the Tories have more votes but Labour more seats, will Clegg stick with the Tories as he has promised to go with the party with more votes?
A lot of comments on the jobs numbers today but not much on the public finances.
At first sight the deficit looked a bit better than expected, but the net cash requirement not so good.
Would that be correct?
The net cash requirement includes transactions resulting from non-recurring and exceptional events (e.g. BoE APF transfers, Royal Mail pensions etc). As there were no special cash flows in November the net-cash requirement figure didn't benefit as much as it has done in most previous months this year. Still the cumulative figure tells the story:
The central government net cash requirement for the year to date 2013/14 was £63.4 billion, £25.5 billion lower than the same period in 2012/13, when it was £88.9 billion.
On PSNB ex (the headline borrowing figure) it came in at £12.1bn in December some £2.1 billlion below December 2012 and well below market expectations of £14 billion.
The OBR, after noting that cumulative borrowing to be £4.8 bn lower in the first nine months of this f/y , against their year end forecast (December EFO) of £3.7 bn, commented as follows:
To match the December EFO forecast, borrowing in the remaining three months of the year would need to be £1.2 billion higher than in the same period last year. The year-to-date position reflects:
• growth in central government accrued receipts so far in 2013-14 of 6.6 per cent, well ahead of the 4.6 per cent forecast for the full financial year. However, this reflects the timing of APF transfers. Excluding these transfers and the Swiss capital tax, receipts growth of 3.3 per cent is close to the full year forecast of 3.4 per cent; and
• growth in central government current spending so far in 2013-14 of 1.4 per cent, compared with a full year forecast of 1.9 per cent. However, this comparison is being affected by differences in the monthly profile of certain spending lines. In particular, the timing for payments of central government current grants to local authorities is now lagging behind the timing a year ago, so that more grants are expected to be paid in the final quarter
Robert Chote outlines a number of arguments for his December forecast turning out to be accurate, but this sounds very much like the pleading of least likely outcomes. The more likely outcome is that full year expenditure will overshoot and expenditure undershoot OBR forecasts by a reasonable margin leading to a much higher reduction in borrowing for the full year than was forecast by the OBR as recently as December.
Continued growth into Q1 2014 at or close to mid 2012 levels will be needed though, so we still need to see a good Q4 2013 GDP figure next Tuesday.
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
And you plan to vote Labour.
Worth seeing the Cameroons humiliated at the cost of a one-term Labour Government.
Yes bollocks to the impact on the country as long as that bloke who doesn't give believers in sky pixies the respect you feel they deserve, gets humiliated.
My, I have touched a nerve.
Who'd have thought that voting Labour is tantamount to being unpatriotic? Well, at least I'll have plenty of company in voting that way in 2015. Is Ed Milliband that bad?
And your post is exactly why people absolutely hate Cameroons:
1. The idea that they "own" the voter - and get extremely upset when they do something as provocative as .... vote for HM's Official Opposition.
2. The abusive and offensive name-calling of people they are trying to entice back to vote them. We saw a good example of this at PM's Questions today.
3. The view that anyone who doesn't subscribe to views common in Islington and the BBC is somehow beyond the pale and unworthy of any political representation or voice whatsoever.
Oi! There are plenty of believers in various faiths who are untroubled by gay marriage.
I have always wondered why believers seem to be against marriage for people who do not believe in their faith. Why should the UK state not recognise civil marriages between gay people? All that Catholics and Anglicans and other believers have to do is to not marry anyone of the same sex themselves.
''Continued growth into Q1 2014 at or close to mid 2012 levels will be needed though, so we still need to see a good Q4 2013 GDP figure next Tuesday. ''
Thanks Avery. Your analysis is way better than anything else I read on this topic.
Interestingly, across all the data we have since polling was fixed in the mid 90s, the average swing TO the Government from this point in the parliament to the election is.....
drum roll...
0.8%
Current monthly polling average, main Govt Party 32, Opposition 38.
Applying the average "swingback" to that gives a result of, ooh, about 32, 38.
Or a Labour majority of around 70, if you prefer.
However, on a later post, you have changed to 0.9% [ ok, no big deal ! ]
But doesn't that imply, about 33, 37 !
I think that is too good to be true for Labour. I am still of the opinion of about 35 each. Maybe, even the Tories marginally shading Labour.
But, in terms of seats, Labour will be ahead by about 20. 300 - 280 is still my forecast.
Oi! There are plenty of believers in various faiths who are untroubled by gay marriage.
I have always wondered why believers seem to be against marriage for people who do not believe in their faith. Why should the UK state not recognise civil marriages between gay people? All that Catholics and Anglicans and other believers have to do is to not marry anyone of the same sex themselves.
I'm afraid we are all living in the same society, my friend, and if that society is damaged we all suffer.
This society needs new members and that means heterosexual couples. It is right that such couples are privileged with special status.
Comments
But not if they don't.
But I suspect you knew that and were just summarising (on the fall of the Liberal party in the 20s I remain in firm disagreement with you however :P)
In fact, why doesn't David Cameron simply hand the keys to number 10 to ed tomorrow...?
Getting the long-term unemployed and young NEETs into work is a moral as much as an economic imperative.
That a post Thatcher conservative government is delivering world beating economic growth is not a surprise. That the recovery is being led by record employment and the by highest quarterly falls in unemployment for 17 years is. It is one of life's little ironies.
Cameron, not Miliband, is the true heir to Macmillan's and Disraeli's brand of "One Nation" conservatism.
It is a calm, gentlemanly and competent business. More rugby than soccer.
And much to be welcomed.
(And the history of unemployment statistics, dating back to Thatcher at the least is very, creative).
I wouldn't say the SC angle is underserved, but rather not served at all. There is nothing Cameron can do about it, he has come out as a social liberal and there is no going back.
When Cameron first announced same-sex "marriage", the Omnishambles budget followed soon afterwards, so I couldn't separate which caused the collapse in Tory poll ratings.
Well, a far amount of time has elapsed since then and UKIP haven't reverted back to the Others pile and their support seems solid despite gaffes too numerous to mention and an improving economy.
It seems that I'm not the only right-winger who can't stand the Cameroons.
Ipswich has been selected as the fourth of the thirteen "JackW Dozen" constituencies. It joins Broxtowe, Watford and Northampton North.
Ipswich 2010 GE Result :
Con .. 18,371 .. 39.1% .. +8.0 .. Ben Gummer
Lab .. 16,292 .. 34.7% .. -8.2 .. Chris Mole
LDem .. 8,556 .. 18.2% .. -2.9 .. Mark Dyson
Conservative Gain .. Maj 2,079
When you say record employment, is that the record of more people are alive today to be employed, or some other more impressive record?
I'm in rough agreement, at the same time under-employment is a thing.
Alas I'm back to being a NEET now. Will do my best to improve the employment figures soon.
A number of economic historians have attempted to model a consistent measure of unemployment over the period, which is difficult given the changes of how the data was collected.
I think in Hugo Young's biography of her he recounts an anecdote of her having the employment statistics totted up in front of her and essentially demanding they be improved.
Some of the difference may well be the off-record economy going legit. Thatt may be happening because of changes in policing of benefits, but also a higherr income tax threshold; but emerging from the underground economy to the legitamate one is a good thing, and probably also associated with a rightward voting shift.
You are right on under-employment and low productivity and these need working on for the recovery to maintain its momentum.
I do hope you have left Tesco call-centre behind, corporeal! Maybe it is time for you to head for the big smoke?
At first sight the deficit looked a bit better than expected, but the net cash requirement not so good.
Would that be correct?
You may have gathered that I am a Nonconformist Protestant!
The MPC minutes state that most of the fall in unemployment in the three months to October had come from falls in medium and long-term unemployment.
I haven't dug deep into the ONS bulletin to find the figures, but I am sure we can take the BoE at their word.
A surprising and very reassuring statement.
:huhne-pryce-defence-failure...:
Apologies for the poor spelling, I cannot find my reading glasses!
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/rand-paul-is-the-2016-republican-frontrunner/283258/
One for the Kippers:
http://t.co/B8UC64Ixlz
Philistine. The liquid lunch is one of this nation's great instiutions, no-one can do it like us. Hang your head in shame.
Interesting choice! How do you see Ipswich going? Labour have been doing well in local elections there since 2010.
'Some of that is true. But there are also thousands of underpaid jobs that also lead to a soulless existence.'
And of course they didn't exist before 2010 & it's all going to change in Ed's Alice in Wonderland.
So I'm now all green in the by-election.
The central government net cash requirement for the year to date 2013/14 was £63.4 billion, £25.5 billion lower than the same period in 2012/13, when it was £88.9 billion.
On PSNB ex (the headline borrowing figure) it came in at £12.1bn in December some £2.1 billlion below December 2012 and well below market expectations of £14 billion.
The OBR, after noting that cumulative borrowing to be £4.8 bn lower in the first nine months of this f/y , against their year end forecast (December EFO) of £3.7 bn, commented as follows:
To match the December EFO forecast, borrowing in the remaining three months of the year would need to be £1.2 billion higher than in the same period last year. The year-to-date position reflects:
• growth in central government accrued receipts so far in 2013-14 of 6.6 per cent, well ahead of the 4.6 per cent forecast for the full financial year. However, this reflects the timing of APF transfers. Excluding these transfers and the Swiss capital tax, receipts growth of 3.3 per cent is close to the full year forecast of 3.4 per cent; and
• growth in central government current spending so far in 2013-14 of 1.4 per cent, compared with a full year forecast of 1.9 per cent. However, this comparison is being affected by differences in the monthly profile of certain spending lines. In particular, the timing for payments of central government current grants to local authorities is now lagging behind the timing a year ago, so that more grants are expected to be paid in the final quarter
Robert Chote outlines a number of arguments for his December forecast turning out to be accurate, but this sounds very much like the pleading of least likely outcomes. The more likely outcome is that full year expenditure will overshoot and expenditure undershoot OBR forecasts by a reasonable margin leading to a much higher reduction in borrowing for the full year than was forecast by the OBR as recently as December.
Continued growth into Q1 2014 at or close to mid 2012 levels will be needed though, so we still need to see a good Q4 2013 GDP figure next Tuesday.
•Hillary Clinton 65% {66%} [61%] (65%)
•Joe Biden 8% {8%} [11%] (13%)
•Elizabeth Warren 7% {7%} [7%]
•Andrew Cuomo 3% {3%} [2%] (4%)
•Howard Dean 2% {1%}
•Martin O’Malley 1% {0%} [0%] (1%)
•Brian Schweitzer 1% {1%}
•Don’t know 13% {12%} [15%] (14%)
General Election
•Hillary Clinton (D) 46% (41%) {42%} [49%] (46%) [45%]
•Chris Christie (R) 38% (42%) {43%} [36%] (40%) [37%]
•Hillary Clinton (D) 49% (48%) {49%} [53%] (50%) {49%}
•Rand Paul (R) 39% (41%) {40%} [36%] (38%) {41%}
•Hillary Clinton (D) 49% (48%) {48%}
•Jeb Bush (R) 38% (39%) {40%}
•Hillary Clinton (D) 50% (50%) {51%} [54%]
•Ted Cruz (R) 35% (37%) {36%} [31%]
Who'd have thought that voting Labour is tantamount to being unpatriotic? Well, at least I'll have plenty of company in voting that way in 2015. Is Ed Milliband that bad?
And your post is exactly why people absolutely hate Cameroons:
1. The idea that they "own" the voter - and get extremely upset when they do something as provocative as .... vote for HM's Official Opposition.
2. The abusive and offensive name-calling of people they are trying to entice back to vote them. We saw a good example of this at PM's Questions today.
3. The view that anyone who doesn't subscribe to views common in Islington and the BBC is somehow beyond the pale and unworthy of any political representation or voice whatsoever.
Gosh, I'm going to enjoy election night 2015.
Ouch for Christie!
Thanks Avery. Your analysis is way better than anything else I read on this topic.
And its interactive.
top banana.
But doesn't that imply, about 33, 37 !
I think that is too good to be true for Labour. I am still of the opinion of about 35 each. Maybe, even the Tories marginally shading Labour.
But, in terms of seats, Labour will be ahead by about 20. 300 - 280 is still my forecast.
This society needs new members and that means heterosexual couples. It is right that such couples are privileged with special status.