your meeting with the Turkish gentleman reminds me of this classic bit of Foreign office correspondence....
"H.M. EMBASSY MOSCOW
Lord Pembroke The Foreign Office London
6th April 1943
My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
(Signed)
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador."
It's even funnier when you realise that most Turks did not have surnames before 1934. Under Ataturk's changes, all families had to choose a surname. And it means that being called 'Kunt' is not a thing relating back hundreds of years, but a choice of your grandfather or great-grandfather ...
It's like people who don't realise what words their child's initials make. I once knew a lad who would not tell us his middle names. We soon discovered it spelt JISM ...
There was a South Korean minister called Lee Bum Suk (sadly, assassinated by North Korea).
There's a Randy Bumgardner, who works at the US embassy in London.
And there was a solicitor who got struck off called Miss Anal Sheikh.
"They [The Conservatives] win elections when they capture the everyday market and new towns as well, plus most of the middle-class suburbs of English cities,"
That sounds like a fair analysis, so how is Cameron going down in those key battlegrounds? Maybe the 2015 election will be unique as will be a case of two potential prime ministers both of whom, for different reasons, are disliked by they key voters. Maybe the old rules on which prediction s are based will not apply and it will come down far more than normal to that moment in the booth with pencil in hand and a decision to be made..
*splutter*
you mean Mr Llama Dave can't take your vote for granted ?
But Miliband Miliband scary scary bogeyman etc.
The Cameroons say you'll have to vote Dave or the world will stop.
No, it won't stop. But Cameron has slowly begun the process of turning the ship of state around. It may be slower than we would have all liked, there may be times it seems to be going adrift, but you can just perceive the bows begining to swing in the right direction.
So you have a choice: carry on with the skipper who has managed to avoid a shipwreck despite some very inclement conditions, or go for the first mate whose cap'n nearly steered us onto the rocks in the first place. Alternatively you can jump overboard and swim after the mermaid (who is, of course, a Mirage) and lose interest in what happens to the ship
Don't worry about Mr. Brooke, Charles.
The Cameroons can by-pass his lack of support by getting Oxford to grant honorary degrees in PPE to alumni of Staffordshire University.
your meeting with the Turkish gentleman reminds me of this classic bit of Foreign office correspondence....
"H.M. EMBASSY MOSCOW
Lord Pembroke The Foreign Office London
6th April 1943
My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
(Signed)
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador."
It's even funnier when you realise that most Turks did not have surnames before 1934. Under Ataturk's changes, all families had to choose a surname. And it means that being called 'Kunt' is not a thing relating back hundreds of years, but a choice of your grandfather or great-grandfather ...
It's like people who don't realise what words their child's initials make. I once knew a lad who would not tell us his middle names. We soon discovered it spelt JISM ...
There was a South Korean minister called Lee Bum Suk (sadly, assassinated by North Korea).
There's a Randy Bumgardner, who works at the US embassy in London.
And there was a solicitor who got struck off called Miss Anal Sheikh.
Not forgetting His Eminence Cardinal Sin of Manila.
"They [The Conservatives] win elections when they capture the everyday market and new towns as well, plus most of the middle-class suburbs of English cities,"
That sounds like a fair analysis, so how is Cameron going down in those key battlegrounds? Maybe the 2015 election will be unique as will be a case of two potential prime ministers both of whom, for different reasons, are disliked by they key voters. Maybe the old rules on which prediction s are based will not apply and it will come down far more than normal to that moment in the booth with pencil in hand and a decision to be made..
*splutter*
you mean Mr Llama Dave can't take your vote for granted ?
But Miliband Miliband scary scary bogeyman etc.
The Cameroons say you'll have to vote Dave or the world will stop.
No, it won't stop. But Cameron has slowly begun the process of turning the ship of state around. It may be slower than we would have all liked, there may be times it seems to be going adrift, but you can just perceive the bows begining to swing in the right direction.
So you have a choice: carry on with the skipper who has managed to avoid a shipwreck despite some very inclement conditions, or go for the first mate whose cap'n nearly steered us onto the rocks in the first place. Alternatively you can jump overboard and swim after the mermaid (who is, of course, a Mirage) and lose interest in what happens to the ship
Don't worry about Mr. Brooke, Charles.
The Cameroons can by-pass his lack of support by getting Oxford to grant honorary degrees in PPE to alumni of Staffordshire University.
We have Warwickshire surrounded.
Mr Pole we have long memories up here in the sticks. I await to see how you are going to charm the voters of North Warwickshire a marginal where you laughed at the difficulties the locals were facing three years back. Piling up votes in Surrey simply means Ed knows where to tax harder.
your meeting with the Turkish gentleman reminds me of this classic bit of Foreign office correspondence....
"H.M. EMBASSY MOSCOW
Lord Pembroke The Foreign Office London
6th April 1943
My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
(Signed)
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador."
It's even funnier when you realise that most Turks did not have surnames before 1934. Under Ataturk's changes, all families had to choose a surname. And it means that being called 'Kunt' is not a thing relating back hundreds of years, but a choice of your grandfather or great-grandfather ...
It's like people who don't realise what words their child's initials make. I once knew a lad who would not tell us his middle names. We soon discovered it spelt JISM ...
There was a South Korean minister called Lee Bum Suk (sadly, assassinated by North Korea).
There's a Randy Bumgardner, who works at the US embassy in London.
And there was a solicitor who got struck off called Miss Anal Sheikh.
Not forgetting His Eminence Cardinal Sin of Manila.
Also not forgetting Archbishop Warlock of Liverpool.
your meeting with the Turkish gentleman reminds me of this classic bit of Foreign office correspondence....
"H.M. EMBASSY MOSCOW
Lord Pembroke The Foreign Office London
6th April 1943
My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
(Signed)
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador."
It's even funnier when you realise that most Turks did not have surnames before 1934. Under Ataturk's changes, all families had to choose a surname. And it means that being called 'Kunt' is not a thing relating back hundreds of years, but a choice of your grandfather or great-grandfather ...
It's like people who don't realise what words their child's initials make. I once knew a lad who would not tell us his middle names. We soon discovered it spelt JISM ...
There was a South Korean minister called Lee Bum Suk (sadly, assassinated by North Korea).
There's a Randy Bumgardner, who works at the US embassy in London.
And there was a solicitor who got struck off called Miss Anal Sheikh.
Not forgetting His Eminence Cardinal Sin of Manila.
Also not forgetting Archbishop Warlock of Liverpool.
your meeting with the Turkish gentleman reminds me of this classic bit of Foreign office correspondence....
"H.M. EMBASSY MOSCOW
Lord Pembroke The Foreign Office London
6th April 1943
My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
(Signed)
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador."
It's even funnier when you realise that most Turks did not have surnames before 1934. Under Ataturk's changes, all families had to choose a surname. And it means that being called 'Kunt' is not a thing relating back hundreds of years, but a choice of your grandfather or great-grandfather ...
It's like people who don't realise what words their child's initials make. I once knew a lad who would not tell us his middle names. We soon discovered it spelt JISM ...
There was a South Korean minister called Lee Bum Suk (sadly, assassinated by North Korea).
There's a Randy Bumgardner, who works at the US embassy in London.
And there was a solicitor who got struck off called Miss Anal Sheikh.
Not forgetting His Eminence Cardinal Sin of Manila.
Also not forgetting Archbishop Warlock of Liverpool.
your meeting with the Turkish gentleman reminds me of this classic bit of Foreign office correspondence....
"H.M. EMBASSY MOSCOW
Lord Pembroke The Foreign Office London
6th April 1943
My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
(Signed)
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador."
It's even funnier when you realise that most Turks did not have surnames before 1934. Under Ataturk's changes, all families had to choose a surname. And it means that being called 'Kunt' is not a thing relating back hundreds of years, but a choice of your grandfather or great-grandfather ...
It's like people who don't realise what words their child's initials make. I once knew a lad who would not tell us his middle names. We soon discovered it spelt JISM ...
There was a South Korean minister called Lee Bum Suk (sadly, assassinated by North Korea).
There's a Randy Bumgardner, who works at the US embassy in London.
And there was a solicitor who got struck off called Miss Anal Sheikh.
Not forgetting His Eminence Cardinal Sin of Manila.
Major Poyntz was a chief inspector at Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. Allegedly he used to write "I have several Major Poyntz to make ..." in unofficial letters.
By all accounts he is/was a top bloke.
As an aside: having railway safety inspected by members of the Corps of Royal Engineers worked very well for many, many years.
When I was China based a few years ago the Finance Director of Shell Hong Kong's secretary rejoiced in the name of Fanny Pong! Genuinely. Dear me.
That could be the same person, conceivably, as the one I knew was also in an oilco.
One of my colleagues used to amuse himself looking up funny ship names in Clarkson's. There was a Korean tanker called the Bum Dong, for example. There was also a Fanny and a Willy. This guy was just longing for the day we needed to transship cargo between the two. He would then be able to instruct the Willy to discharge into the Fanny.
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
"They [The Conservatives] win elections when they capture the everyday market and new towns as well, plus most of the middle-class suburbs of English cities,"
That sounds like a fair analysis, so how is Cameron going down in those key battlegrounds? Maybe the 2015 election will be unique as will be a case of two potential prime ministers both of whom, for different reasons, are disliked by they key voters. Maybe the old rules on which prediction s are based will not apply and it will come down far more than normal to that moment in the booth with pencil in hand and a decision to be made..
*splutter*
you mean Mr Llama Dave can't take your vote for granted ?
But Miliband Miliband scary scary bogeyman etc.
The Cameroons say you'll have to vote Dave or the world will stop.
No, it won't stop. But Cameron has slowly begun the process of turning the ship of state around. It may be slower than we would have all liked, there may be times it seems to be going adrift, but you can just perceive the bows begining to swing in the right direction.
So you have a choice: carry on with the skipper who has managed to avoid a shipwreck despite some very inclement conditions, or go for the first mate whose cap'n nearly steered us onto the rocks in the first place. Alternatively you can jump overboard and swim after the mermaid (who is, of course, a Mirage) and lose interest in what happens to the ship
Don't worry about Mr. Brooke, Charles.
The Cameroons can by-pass his lack of support by getting Oxford to grant honorary degrees in PPE to alumni of Staffordshire University.
We have Warwickshire surrounded.
Mr Pole we have long memories up here in the sticks. I await to see how you are going to charm the voters of North Warwickshire a marginal where you laughed at the difficulties the locals were facing three years back. Piling up votes in Surrey simply means Ed knows where to tax harder.
Mr. Brooke
The West Midlands recovery is well entrenched.
That is why you have even more opportunity to meet George in a yellow hat and blue boiler suit than any resident of the dogging county.
It is the East Midlands where the Tories have problems. That is why I am thinking of becoming a donor to the Greens in the Nottingham marginals.
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
Well it's like I said last week, the Cameroons are relying on being the lesser of two evils, without asking why anyone wants to vote evil in the first place.
"They [The Conservatives] win elections when they capture the everyday market and new towns as well, plus most of the middle-class suburbs of English cities,"
That sounds like a fair analysis, so how is Cameron going down in those key battlegrounds? Maybe the 2015 election will be unique as will be a case of two potential prime ministers both of whom, for different reasons, are disliked by they key voters. Maybe the old rules on which prediction s are based will not apply and it will come down far more than normal to that moment in the booth with pencil in hand and a decision to be made..
*splutter*
you mean Mr Llama Dave can't take your vote for granted ?
But Miliband Miliband scary scary bogeyman etc.
The Cameroons say you'll have to vote Dave or the world will stop.
No, it won' ship
Don't worry about Mr. Brooke, Charles.
The Cameroons can by-pass his lack of support by getting Oxford to grant honorary degrees in PPE to alumni of Staffordshire University.
We have Warwickshire surrounded.
Mr Pole we have long memories up here in the stns Ed knows where to tax harder.
Mr. Brooke
The West Midlands recovery is well entrenched.
That is why you have even more opportunity to meet George in a yellow hat and blue boiler suit than any resident of the dogging county.
It is the East Midlands where the Tories have problems. That is why I am thinking of becoming a donor to the Greens in the Nottingham marginals.
You say that as if you had something to do with it. The WM is emerging from recession despite HMG not because of it.
Well it's like I said last week, the Cameroons are relying on being the lesser of two evils, without asking why anyone wants to vote evil in the first place.
No they're not. They're relying - perhaps wrongly - on the good sense of the British electorate, whom they hope will wish to continue with good government, which addresses multiple deep-rooted problems and which balances the multiple conflicting objectives as it clears up the various problems left by the last lot in very difficult world conditions.
If voters don't want good government, well, they'll get Miliband. Good luck to them.
Well it's like I said last week, the Cameroons are relying on being the lesser of two evils, without asking why anyone wants to vote evil in the first place.
No they're not. They're relying - perhaps wrongly - on the good sense of the British electorate, whom they hope will wish to continue with good government, which addresses multiple deep-rooted problems and which balances the multiple conflicting objectives as it clears up the various problems left by the last lot in very difficult world conditions.
If voters don't want good government, well, they'll get Miliband. Good luck to them.
No they're not. If they were doing that they would have policies which appeal across the UK. Cameron doesn't , he's simply hoping Ed looks more out of touch than he does.
Cameron had a good chance to consolidate his progress and move northwards post 2010, he fluffed it because he couldn't relate to voters outside his heartlands. His inability to understand he needs to have policies which have wider appeal simply means his core voters are going to have their asses taxed off because he can't win an election outright.
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
No they're not. If they were doing that they would have policies which appeal across the UK. Cameron doesn't , he's simply hoping Ed looks more out of touch than he does.
Cameron had a good chance to consolidate his progress and move northwards post 2010, he fluffed it because he couldn't relate to voters outside his heartlands. His inability to understand he needs to have policies which have wider appeal simply means his core voters are going to have their asses taxed off because he can't win an election outright.
This is nonsense. What is Help To Buy if it's not a policy aimed at the areas outside the Cameroon heartlands? Or the increases in personal allowances? Or keeping Council Tax rises down? Or the 'Bedroom Tax' and welfare changes, all designed to help the low-paid, who are stuck in poor housing or trapped in welfare dependency? Or the Gove educational reforms, aimed principally at rescuing the education of the bottom 25% by income?
The entire package is one aimed at the whole country - and working extremely well, given the abysmal starting point and world conditions. That they have made all the progress they have on structural changes, whilst at the same time preventing unemployment from rising, is a really major achievement, benefitting the whole country.
I am afraid you have bought into Labour's Crew & Nantwich-style class prejudice, as have many. Cameron is no more out of touch than Macmillan or Blair was. On the facts as they actually are, based on the measures actually enacted, it's a completely absurd charge.
The increases in Personal Allowance were a LD policy which GO had to be persuaded to adopt. As for the Bedroom Tax, that appears to be having a very negative effect since it seems to be predicated on the belief that there is a pool of smaller accommodation into which people can move and still retain their local family links.
I get exasperated with those on here who think that Cameron is some sort of chump because he did not instantly cut our trade deficit by £5bn a month or eliminate the budget deficit with a snap of his fingers or put everyone back to work and fix our education system and increase efficiency of the health service without any structural changes and increase investment in British industy single handedly and yada yada yada. It really is just silly.
Cameron has to operate in the real world, a world where the tories do not even have a majority despite his seat gains being second only to Blair in 1997 and he depends on the Lib Dems. All of these problems are structural, deeprooted and many even pre-date (although they were inevitably aggravated by) the last Labour government.
Part of believing in the capitalist system and freedom is recognition that the power of governments is limited and that they frequently do more harm than good when they try too hard. None of these gifts were in his control. They are not in any government's control. His government has made progress on almost all fronts, on some more modest than others, despite huge institutional opposition. Moaning everything is not perfect is pure self indulgence.
A few weeks ago, I prepared a series of posts in response to another_richard praising an article by Liam Halligan in the Telegraph.
In my view Halligan's article was flawed because it was based on false assumptions about the status of the economy and the current government's economic policy. These assumptions are almost 'memes' which form the frontlines of debates where divisions are driven more by regional and class prejudice than informed by factual data.
Given this afternoon's debate has shifted back to the ground covered by Halligan in his original article, I will revive my posts.
Halligan's article: Part I
Let's get started with Liam Halligan's comments on GDP growth.
Beyond the headlines, the GDP fine print isn't good. For one thing, the UK's recovery remains extremely imbalanced. Over half this fourth quarter growth was driven by financial and business services, including real estate. Not only are such activities overwhelmingly London-centric, but a bloated financial sector and an overheated housing market were the reason we got in this mess in the first place.
Halligan is referring here to the ONS's release of a preliminary estimate of GDP growth for Q4 2013. The headline figure of 0.7% is the growth of Q4 2013 over the previous quarter, Q3 2013.
To analyse Halligan's comments properly, we need to understand how the ONS calculates its preliminary estimate of GDP growth from output growth figures for each of four headline sectors of the UK economy: Services, Production, Construction and Agriculture. We also need to understand the difference between the "output growth" of a single sector and its (almost always) differing "contribution to GDP growth". Before we can address the question of whether growth is "balanced" or "imbalanced", we must first understand how the ONS applies weights to output growth in order to calculate its GDP growth figure.
So, to the first 'yellow box' which will follow in the next post.
Table 1 A B C D E Output | QoQ GDP | QoQ GDP Share | Growth Growth | Growth Growth % | % % | % % -----------------------|---------------|--------------- Services 77.8 | 1.00 0.78 | 0.32 0.25 Production 15.2 | 1.00 0.15 | 1.64 0.25 Construction 6.3 | 1.00 0.06 | 3.97 0.25 Agriculture 0.7 | 1.00 0.01 | 35.71 0.25 | ----- | ---- | 1.00 | 1.00
Let's look at Table 1 in detail.
Column A states the share of total output accounted for by each of the four main ONS Sectors. These shares are used as weighting factors to calculate the contributions made by growth in each sector to overall GDP growth. The weights are based on known 2010 shares. Column A shows that nearly 80% of UK output is made up of Services, with a further 15% comprised by Production. Construction accounts for just over 6% and Agriculture less than 1%.
Column B is a hypothetical assumption that each of the four sectors grows in a single quarter at the same rate, 1%.
Column C shows the impact of applying the weights to sector growth rates when calculating contributions to growth. If all sectors grow at 1%, total GDP also grows at the same rate, but the contributions made by each sector vary in line with their shares of output. So 1% growtn in Services will deliver 0.78% growth in GDP but, at the bottom end, 1% growth in Agriculture will only contribute 0.01% to GDP growth.
Column E looks at the effects of weighting from another angle. This time the hypothetical assumption is that each sector contributes 0.25% to GDP growth, with overall growth totalling to 1% as before.
Column D calculates the growth rates in each sector which would be required to deliver a 0.25% contribution to growth. It shows that Services would only need to grow at 0.32% to deliver 0.25% GDP growth. At the other end Agriculture would need to grow at over 35% to deliver the same 0.25% of GDP growth. For Production to deliver the same amount of growth as Services would require it to grow at more than five times the rate of the Services Sector. Construction would need to grow at over ten times the rate, and, Agriculture at over an hundred times.
This is all very basic stuff but it is fundamental to understanding whether growth is balanced and, if not, what is required to make growth "more balanced". It also explains why Services making the largest contribution to GDP does not necessarily mean that Services has grown faster than other sectors.
No they're not. If they were doing that they would have policies which appeal across the UK. Cameron doesn't , he's simply hoping Ed looks more out of touch than he does.
Cameron had a good chance to consolidate his progress and move northwards post 2010, he fluffed it because he couldn't relate to voters outside his heartlands. His inability to understand he needs to have policies which have wider appeal simply means his core voters are going to have their asses taxed off because he can't win an election outright.
This is nonsense. What is Help To Buy if it's not a policy aimed at the areas outside the Cameroon heartlands?
A policy designed to help banks (and hence bankers). (It enables them to continue to lend money into a leveraged market with less risk than they would otherwise have)
oo frit about being struck off of the bar is my guess !
When you're being well paid to win cases keeping foreign criminals in Britain, you ain;t going to get much sympathy from Joe Public.
And when you allow people like Cherie Blair and Mike Mansfield to be your poster boys, ditto.
The Criminal Barristers I've met, all appear to have very comfortable lifestyles, large homes, vintage watch collections etc I have zero sympathy for their latest cause.
A few weeks ago, I prepared a series of posts in response to another_richard praising an article by Liam Halligan in the Telegraph.
In my view Halligan's article was flawed because it was based on false assumptions about the status of the economy and the current government's economic policy. These assumptions are almost 'memes' which form the frontlines of debates where divisions are driven more by regional and class prejudice than informed by factual data.
Given this afternoon's debate has shifted back to the ground covered by Halligan in his original article, I will revive my posts.
Halligan's article: Part I
So, to the first 'yellow box' which will follow in the next post.
Whilst I am a great admirer of your yellow boxes this was summarised very well by David SMith in the ST last weekend. His comments can be read here: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/
The nub is:
"By the same token, to say that this recovery relies on consumers alone flies in the face of the facts.
Let us look at the evidence. In the year to the final quarter of 2013, GDP rose by 2.7%. Consumer spending rose by a reasonable 2.4% over that period - slower than overall GDP - and its rise was dwarfed by the increase in overall investment, 8.7%, and business investment, which rose by 8.5%.
Consumers played their part in the recovery. Of the 2.7% rise in GDP, 1.5 percentage points came from consumer spending. Their contribution to growth, just over half, was however smaller than their long-run 62% share of GDP.
Investment, meanwhile, accounted for a percentage point of the GDP rise, and there were also contributions from net trade (exports minus imports) and government spending. If there was a glitch it was that net trade only contributed 0.1 points to the 2.7% growth rate. Much of that, however, reflected an unusually bad third quarter of 2013, when for no obvious reason Britain’s trade lurched into much bigger deficit.
The story of a better-balanced recovery is also in the GDP breakdown by sector. All three of the main sectors of the economy grew over the past year; industrial production by 2.3%, services by 2.7% and construction by 4.3%."
@DavidL - Quite so. Turning things round takes a hell of a long time, especially when you are battling on multiple fronts at a time of financial difficulty.
Governments can wreck things quickly, though, as President Hollande is demonstrating, and as we may find in the next parliament.
Let's look next at the actual figures for GDP growth in Q4 2013 as reported last Tuesday by the ONS.
Table 2 A B C Output | QoQ GDP | Share | Growth Growth | % | % % | -----------------------|---------------| Services 77.8 | 0.8 0.62 | Production 15.2 | 0.7 0.11 | Construction 6.3 | -0.3 -0.02 | Agriculture 0.7 | 0.5 0.00 | | ----- | | 0.70 |
Table 2 shows the weights in action upon real figures. It shows that Services grew by 0.8% in the last quarter of last year and contributed 0.62 of the 0.70% GDP growth. Production grew by nearly the same amount as Services, 0.7%, but, because of the weighting applied, only contributed 0.11% to the overall growth figure. Agriculture's 0.5% growth similarly resulted in no addition to GDP (to two decimal points) and the fall of -0.3% in Construction only knocked 0.02% off the final GDP figure. [Rounding means columns do not always sum accurately].
It is clear Halligan doesn't understand the impact of weighting as he goes on to state:
Manufacturing, meanwhile, grew just 0.1pc from October to December.
This is simply wrong.
Manufacturing is a sub-sector of "Production" and grew at 0.9% over 2013 Q4. Offsetting falls in other sub-sectors of Production caused the overall growth of the sector to be 0.7%. It is the weighting of this 0.7% growth which caused Production's contribution to GDP to be "just 0.1pc". Halligan appears to be muddling "contribution to GDP" with "output growth", and, "Production" with "Manufacturing".
Halligan's misunderstanding is dangerous as it leads him to false conclusions. But this must be left to another post, where we need to dig deeper and look at the sub-sectors.
A policy designed to help banks (and hence bankers). (It enables them to continue to lend money into a leveraged market with less risk than they would otherwise have)
That post is quite brilliantly ignorant! But alas, probably not unusually so.
No they're not. If they were doing that they would have policies which appeal across the UK. Cameron doesn't , he's simply hoping Ed looks more out of touch than he does.
Cameron had a good chance to consolidate his progress and move northwards post 2010, he fluffed it because he couldn't relate to voters outside his heartlands. His inability to understand he needs to have policies which have wider appeal simply means his core voters are going to have their asses taxed off because he can't win an election outright.
This is nonsense. What is Help To Buy if it's not a policy aimed at the areas outside the Cameroon heartlands? Or the increases in personal allowances? Or keeping Council Tax rises down? Or the 'Bedroom Tax' and welfare changes, all designed to help the low-paid, who are stuck in poor housing or trapped in welfare dependency? Or the Gove educational reforms, aimed principally at rescuing the education of the bottom 25% by income?
The entire package is one aimed at the whole country - and working extremely well, given the abysmal starting point and world conditions. That they have made all the progress they have on structural changes, whilst at the same time preventing unemployment from rising, is a really major achievement, benefitting the whole country.
I am afraid you have bought into Labour's Crew & Nantwich-style class prejudice, as have many. Cameron is no more out of touch than Macmillan or Blair was. On the facts as they actually are, based on the measures actually enacted, it's a completely absurd charge.
And what does that means to us up here ? The only decent thing on that list is the increase in personal allowances which is a LD policy not Cameron's. Gove too early to say but could develop.
Were is the push to get manufacturing back on its feet ? We've done it ourselves up here and watched politicians zap in to try and claim the credit. Banks are still non-functional, and protected by Osborne, the tax system remains largely unreformed, there has been no signifcant infrastructure investment bar waffly promises for future years, no sensible parliamentary reforms and the country remains overcentralised. And then there's arch dabbler Osborne.
A few weeks ago, I prepared a series of posts in response to another_richard praising an article by Liam Halligan in the Telegraph.
In my view Halligan's article was flawed because it was based on false assumptions about the status of the economy and the current government's economic policy. These assumptions are almost 'memes' which form the frontlines of debates where divisions are driven more by regional and class prejudice than informed by factual data.
Given this afternoon's debate has shifted back to the ground covered by Halligan in his original article, I will revive my posts.
Halligan's article: Part I
So, to the first 'yellow box' which will follow in the next post.
Whilst I am a great admirer of your yellow boxes this was summarised very well by David SMith in the ST last weekend. His comments can be read here: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/
The nub is:
"By the same token, to say that this recovery relies on consumers alone flies in the face of the facts.
Let us look at the evidence. In the year to the final quarter of 2013, GDP rose by 2.7%. Consumer spending rose by a reasonable 2.4% over that period - slower than overall GDP - and its rise was dwarfed by the increase in overall investment, 8.7%, and business investment, which rose by 8.5%.
Consumers played their part in the recovery. Of the 2.7% rise in GDP, 1.5 percentage points came from consumer spending. Their contribution to growth, just over half, was however smaller than their long-run 62% share of GDP.
Investment, meanwhile, accounted for a percentage point of the GDP rise, and there were also contributions from net trade (exports minus imports) and government spending. If there was a glitch it was that net trade only contributed 0.1 points to the 2.7% growth rate. Much of that, however, reflected an unusually bad third quarter of 2013, when for no obvious reason Britain’s trade lurched into much bigger deficit.
The story of a better-balanced recovery is also in the GDP breakdown by sector. All three of the main sectors of the economy grew over the past year; industrial production by 2.3%, services by 2.7% and construction by 4.3%."
It's pretty shameful how David Cameron is putting the profits of wealthy bankers ahead of standing up for international law and protecting a democracy-aspiring nation from its imperialist aggressor.
I get exasperated with those on here who think that Cameron is some sort of chump because he did not instantly cut our trade deficit by £5bn a month or eliminate the budget deficit with a snap of his fingers or put everyone back to work and fix our education system and increase efficiency of the health service without any structural changes and increase investment in British industy single handedly and yada yada yada. It really is just silly.
Cameron has to operate in the real world, a world where the tories do not even have a majority despite his seat gains being second only to Blair in 1997 and he depends on the Lib Dems. All of these problems are structural, deeprooted and many even pre-date (although they were inevitably aggravated by) the last Labour government.
Part of believing in the capitalist system and freedom is recognition that the power of governments is limited and that they frequently do more harm than good when they try too hard. None of these gifts were in his control. They are not in any government's control. His government has made progress on almost all fronts, on some more modest than others, despite huge institutional opposition. Moaning everything is not perfect is pure self indulgence.
Tosh. Cameron had sufficient time to address reforms the country needed in 2011, 12 and 13. He wasted it on pasties and gay marriage. he squandered his political capital on issues voters didn't care about rather than address those things they did.
A policy designed to help banks (and hence bankers). (It enables them to continue to lend money into a leveraged market with less risk than they would otherwise have)
That post is quite brilliantly ignorant! But alas, probably not unusually so.
OK - I'll bite. Clearly I was being slightly facetious in that I don't think that it was intentionally 'designed' in that manner - but I genuinely don't think that Help to Buy is a positive policy. (If it was restricted to new-build, then I would be less critical) - In what way was my comment 'ignorant'?
Before digging into the sub-sectors let's have some definitions (mostly) from the ONS. It will enable me to shorten the Sector descriptions in the tables.
We'll start with the Production Sector
Production sub-sectors: Mining: Mining and Quarrying [almost all Oil & Gas extraction from North Sea]
Manufacturing: [All factory output of finished and intermediate goods]
Electricity: Electricity; Gas; Steam; Air
Water: Water supply; Sewerage
The sub-sector and sector 'output growth' and 'contribution to GDP growth' figures for all four quarters of 2013 are set out in Table 3.
Table 3 A B C D E F G H I Production Output| Output Growth | Contribution to GDP Output Share| Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 | Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 2013 % | % (QoQ) | % (QoQ) ---------------------|-------------------|----------------------- - Mining 2.3 |-1.5 0.6 2.2 4.5|-0.03 0.01 0.05 0.10 - Manufacturing 10.4 | 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.0| 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.00 - Electricity 1.3 | 2.2 -5.9 -2.9 1.3| 0.03 -0.08 -0.04 0.02 - Water 1.2 | 1.2 4.6 2.6 -0.3| 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.00 ---- |---- ---- ---- ----|----- ----- ----- ----- 15.2 | 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6| 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.12
Column A sets out the weights for the sector. Manufacturing accounts for two thirds or 10.4% of total output. This makes for easy reckoning of the impact of increasing manufacturing output: for every 1% of growth in manufacturing GDP growth will increase by 0.1%.
Columns B-E states the output growth in each quarter of 2013. Noteworthy is that Manufacturing increased by strong percentage in the three last quarters of the year at a rate faster than the increase in the Services Sector over the same period (but still below growth in the Business Services sub-sector). Mining (North Sea Oil & Gas extraction) grew well in the first three quarters slowing the disastrous rate of decline since 2010. Electricity is very volatile: the figures are seasonally adjusted but do not take account of variations from average weather so an unusually cold or warm quarter will affect output figures.
Columns F-I state the contributions made to GDP growth in each quarter. The main point to note is that even large variations in the quarterly output of sub-sectors do not register significantly on the contribution of the sector as a whole to GDP growth. After rounding the GDP contribution is a flat 0.1% for each quarter.
But we need a longer perspective to really put Halligan's conclusions to the test. And that will be subject of Part 5.
No they're not. If they were doing that they would have policies which appeal across the UK. Cameron doesn't , he's simply hoping Ed looks more out of touch than he does.
Cameron had a good chance to consolidate his progress and move northwards post 2010, he fluffed it because he couldn't relate to voters outside his heartlands. His inability to understand he needs to have policies which have wider appeal simply means his core voters are going to have their asses taxed off because he can't win an election outright.
This is nonsense. What is Help To Buy if it's not a policy aimed at the areas outside the Cameroon heartlands? Or the increases in personal allowances? Or keeping Council Tax rises down? Or the 'Bedroom Tax' and welfare changes, all designed to help the low-paid, who are stuck in poor housing or trapped in welfare dependency? Or the Gove educational reforms, aimed principally at rescuing the education of the bottom 25% by income?
The entire package is one aimed at the whole country - and working extremely well, given the abysmal starting point and world conditions. That they have made all the progress they have on structural changes, whilst at the same time preventing unemployment from rising, is a really major achievement, benefitting the whole country.
I am afraid you have bought into Labour's Crew & Nantwich-style class prejudice, as have many. Cameron is no more out of touch than Macmillan or Blair was. On the facts as they actually are, based on the measures actually enacted, it's a completely absurd charge.
And what does that means to us up here ? The only decent thing on that list is the increase in personal allowances which is a LD policy not Cameron's. Gove too early to say but could develop.
Were is the push to get manufacturing back on its feet ? We've done it ourselves up here and watched politicians zap in to try and claim the credit. Banks are still non-functional, and protected by Osborne, the tax system remains largely unreformed, there has been no signifcant infrastructure investment bar waffly promises for future years, no sensible parliamentary reforms and the country remains overcentralised. And then there's arch dabbler Osborne.
Ach, give it up with the banks, will you.
If you want money go and talk to Handelsbanken like any one with any f**king sense does.
No they're not. If they were doing that they would have policies which appeal across the UK. Cameron doesn't , he's simply hoping Ed looks more out of touch than he does.
Cameron had a good chance to consolidate his progress and move northwards post 2010, he fluffed it because he couldn't relate to voters outside his heartlands. His inability to understand he needs to have policies which have wider appeal simply means his core voters are going to have their asses taxed off because he can't win an election outright.
This is nonsense. What is Help To Buy if it's not a policy aimed at the areas outside the Cameroon heartlands? Or the increases in personal allowances? Or keeping Council Tax rises down? Or the 'Bedroom Tax' and welfare changes, all designed to help the low-paid, who are stuck in poor housing or trapped in welfare dependency? Or the Gove educational reforms, aimed principally at rescuing the education of the bottom 25% by income?
The entire package is one aimed at the whole country - and working extremely well, given the abysmal starting point and world conditions. That they have made all the progress they have on structural changes, whilst at the same time preventing unemployment from rising, is a really major achievement, benefitting the whole country.
I am afraid you have bought into Labour's Crew & Nantwich-style class prejudice, as have many. Cameron is no more out of touch than Macmillan or Blair was. On the facts as they actually are, based on the measures actually enacted, it's a completely absurd charge.
And what does that means to us up here ? The only decent thing on that list is the increase in personal allowances which is a LD policy not Cameron's. Gove too early to say but could develop.
Were is the push to get manufacturing back on its feet ? We've done it ourselves up here and watched politicians zap in to try and claim the credit. Banks are still non-functional, and protected by Osborne, the tax system remains largely unreformed, there has been no signifcant infrastructure investment bar waffly promises for future years, no sensible parliamentary reforms and the country remains overcentralised. And then there's arch dabbler Osborne.
Ach, give it up with the banks, will you.
If you want money go and talk to Handelsbanken like any one with any f**king sense does.
It's not about money Charles, anything I've been doing I've sorted out myself some time ago. It's about competition and market structure and what we have at present is a hodge podge.
There is certainly nothing in the 2013 Production output figures to justify the statement by Halligan in his article:
our recovery is far from balanced: and with financial services and real estate roaring, while manufacturing and construction languish, the imbalance is getting worse.
It is the use of the words "roaring" and "languishing" which deceive. Manufacturing last year grew at a reasonable pace and, given trends since the recession, at a rate broadly equal to Services, which should properly be welcomed. Business Services have grown faster but not by an substantial amount. This means any increase in "imbalance" would be so small as to be statistically insignificant.
Once again it appears that Halligan is looking at the GDP contribution figures and not output growth to reach his false conclusions.
Halligan's comment on Construction is particularly disingenuous as it doesn't put the Q4 0.3% decline in output in the context of the whole year or the current trend in Construction output.
Table 3 A B C D E F G H I Construction Output| Output Growth | Contribution to GDP Output Share| Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 | Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 2013 % | % (QoQ) | % (QoQ) ---------------------|-------------------|----------------------- Construction 6.3 |-0.3 2.6 2.6 -0.4|-0.02 0.16 0.16 -0.03 ---- |---- ---- ---- ----|----- ----- ----- -----
Although seasonally adjusted, Construction output is still affected by weather extremes. It is not surprising therefore that the two middle quarters of last year saw strong quarterly growth of 2.6% in output with Q1 & Q4 showing a decline in comparison with their previous quarters. Overall Construction grew by 1.8% over 2013, only 0.1% less than Services.
Another feature of Construction is that falls in output tend to get reversed: once a building project is started it gets finished (except in exceptional recessionary conditions) even if the completion date is delayed. This is unlike, say Hotel accommodation, where falls in occupancy are not easily reversed in later periods. So we can reasonably expect the Q4 fall, attributed by the ONS to adverse weather in November, to lead to higher Q1 2014 output.
This especially applies given recent Construction PMIs from Markit which were at record levels, 62.1 in December and 62.6 in November, suggesting further that the Q4 decline is a strong candidate for future upward revision by the ONS. Markit's first two key points in its December report were:
"Strong output rises recorded in all three broad areas of construction activity" and "Fastest increase in commercial work since August 2007".
It's pretty shameful how David Cameron is putting the profits of wealthy bankers ahead of standing up for international law and protecting a democracy-aspiring nation from its imperialist aggressor.
If you agree with the article, perhaps you can explain how "Britain is ready to bretray the United States" in this matter as the article concludes?
I'm not aware of any treaty that obliges us to do what the Americans want in any situation.
The Mail reports that at least 10 MPs will be called as witnesses.
What if the Speaker were to claim parliamentary privilege when giving evidence? King J may have to be careful to avoid being summoned to the bar of the House to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Parliament...
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
I'm not a toff... we're in trade...
Banking isn't really trade, now is it, Mr.Charles. See The D'Ascoyne Family attitude to the subject.
Were is the push to get manufacturing back on its feet ? We've done it ourselves up here and watched politicians zap in to try and claim the credit. Banks are still non-functional, and protected by Osborne, the tax system remains largely unreformed, there has been no signifcant infrastructure investment bar waffly promises for future years, no sensible parliamentary reforms and the country remains overcentralised. And then there's arch dabbler Osborne.
Dead right that the banks are protected. What it heaven's name do you think would happen if they weren't? Every single one, every one, of your manufacturing companies would have gone bust if the banking system had not been rescued by Darling and Brown; that at least was one thing they got right. Of course that was an emergency operation, but since then, Osborne has completely reformed banking supervision, and our banks now are much better capitalised and operating with a much better safety margin (not all Osborne's doing, admittedly - this is partly EU-wide).
Meanwhile, the tax system has been much reformed - business rates down, corporation tax slashed, capital gains tax reformed so that hedge fund managers pay much more, national insurance rises cancelled. Doing all that, at a time when money is very short, is absolutely remarkable.
I'll grant you that progress on infrastructure investment has been slow. It's politically hugely difficult, though.
But, ultimately, you are absolutely right: politicians can't get manufacturing, or any other sector, back on its feet: only businessmen and women can do that. All politicians can do is exactly what Osborne is doing: get out the way as much as possible, and lower taxes. To see the benefits takes time (it took a decade when Maggie did it so effectively).
As ever DavidL nails it and I think the CoE would be flattered to know he was the barrier to your blue vote @Alanbrooke. Cam had very very little room to manoeuvre. In fact the single biggest fallacy willingly believed by those on the left (where are they all now, btw?) is that the markets would have tolerated anything other than a firm commitment to austerity while the magnitude of the problem was such that to do as you would have wished and to have been harsher would have been greater electoral suicide than this term is perhaps proving to be.
On another note, in Hong Kong there is a very strong fashion brand called Wanko which I always thought was overdue a rebrand.
I get exasperated with those on here who think that Cameron is some sort of chump because he did not instantly cut our trade deficit by £5bn a month or eliminate the budget deficit with a snap of his fingers or put everyone back to work and fix our education system and increase efficiency of the health service without any structural changes and increase investment in British industy single handedly and yada yada yada. It really is just silly.
Cameron has to operate in the real world, a world where the tories do not even have a majority despite his seat gains being second only to Blair in 1997 and he depends on the Lib Dems. All of these problems are structural, deeprooted and many even pre-date (although they were inevitably aggravated by) the last Labour government.
Part of believing in the capitalist system and freedom is recognition that the power of governments is limited and that they frequently do more harm than good when they try too hard. None of these gifts were in his control. They are not in any government's control. His government has made progress on almost all fronts, on some more modest than others, despite huge institutional opposition. Moaning everything is not perfect is pure self indulgence.
Tosh. Cameron had sufficient time to address reforms the country needed in 2011, 12 and 13. He wasted it on pasties and gay marriage. he squandered his political capital on issues voters didn't care about rather than address those things they did.
Spot on, Mr. Brooke. Of course, those issues you mentioned played very well in Cameron's heartlands - Notting Hill and the people he and Samantha like to have round to supper.
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
I'm not a toff... we're in trade...
Banking isn't really trade, now is it, Mr.Charles. See The D'Ascoyne Family attitude to the subject.
Still not going to see 301, but just seen a review which suggests Eva Green's rather splendid, so if/when it visits the TV screen I might watch it then [I rather like villainesses. Livia in I, Claudius is a particular favourite].
No Monaco again, which is good, Canada/Britain/Belgium are all great, no Singapore either (see Monaco), we get the first Russian race (but not the return to Austria, alas), but the late season pair of the US and Brazil are missing, which is a great shame.
We do get the double points season ending Abu Dhabi, though. I tingle at the prospect. [In fairness, Abu Dhabi has been more entertaining lately, but it's still not half the race Interlagos offers].
I get exasperated with those on here who think that Cameron is some sort of chump because he did not instantly cut our trade deficit by £5bn a month or eliminate the budget deficit with a snap of his fingers or put everyone back to work and fix our education system and increase efficiency of the health service without any structural changes and increase investment in British industy single handedly and yada yada yada. It really is just silly.
Cameron has to operate in the real world, a world where the tories do not even have a majority despite his seat gains being second only to Blair in 1997 and he depends on the Lib Dems. All of these problems are structural, deeprooted and many even pre-date (although they were inevitably aggravated by) the last Labour government.
Part of believing in the capitalist system and freedom is recognition that the power of governments is limited and that they frequently do more harm than good when they try too hard. None of these gifts were in his control. They are not in any government's control. His government has made progress on almost all fronts, on some more modest than others, despite huge institutional opposition. Moaning everything is not perfect is pure self indulgence.
Tosh. Cameron had sufficient time to address reforms the country needed in 2011, 12 and 13. He wasted it on pasties and gay marriage. he squandered his political capital on issues voters didn't care about rather than address those things they did.
Nonsense. Pasties and gay marriage had zero impact on any economic policies. You are merely avoiding giving any credit to your political adversaries. Classic kipper and Labour approach to the economy.
As ever DavidL nails it and I think the CoE would be flattered to know he was the barrier to your blue vote @Alanbrooke. Cam had very very little room to manoeuvre. In fact the single biggest fallacy willingly believed by those on the left (where are they all now, btw?) is that the markets would have tolerated anything other than a firm commitment to austerity while the magnitude of the problem was such that to do as you would have wished and to have been harsher would have been greater electoral suicide than this term is perhaps proving to be.
On another note, in Hong Kong there is a very strong fashion brand called Wanko which I always thought was overdue a rebrand.
I've always been a fan of the Japanese energy drink Pocari Sweat...
Were is the push to get manufacturing back on its feet ? We've done it ourselves up here and watched politicians zap in to try and claim the credit. Banks are still non-functional, and protected by Osborne, the tax system remains largely unreformed, there has been no signifcant infrastructure investment bar waffly promises for future years, no sensible parliamentary reforms and the country remains overcentralised. And then there's arch dabbler Osborne.
Dead right that the banks are protected. What it heaven's name do you think would happen if
I'll grant you that progress on infrastructure investment has been slow. It's politically hugely difficult, though.
But, ultimately, you are absolutely right: politicians can't get manufacturing, or any other sector, back on its feet: only businessmen and women can do that. All politicians can do is exactly what Osborne is doing: get out the way as much as possible, and lower taxes. To see the benefits takes time (it took a decade when Maggie did it so effectively).
The banking system was bailed out by the taxpayer and the taxpayer has had little benefit for the privilege. Osborne should have the courage to recognise he isn't going to get his money back and break up RBS to inject more competiton. Ultimately that's one way the nation could possibly see a return. Furthermore if he wants to break out of the moral hazard he's engaged in, being seen to make bankers face the consequences would actually help him elsewhere in the country.
Osbone is a dabbling chancellor and not a refeormer. We will not get a significantly improved tax system until he leaves office.
Infrastructure we'll see if HMG sticks the pace. But there are also a lot of simple improvements which could have been prioritised like the rural broadband programme. Currently we're two years behind schedule in my village.
And yes HMG can't rebalance the economy. As I've said we've been doing it ourselves up here despite the govt. As you rightly point out it took the Thatcher reforms about 10 years to have their full effects, which agrees with what I have posted here over several years that Osborne chickened out of reform in 2011 and wasted a Parliament. The country will have it all to do in the next Parlt or the one after that.
A deal on sharing control of the pound between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK is "unlikely", analysts at the global bank Citigroup have said.
They also said it was "astonishing" the Scottish government did not have a currency union alternative.
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
I'm not a toff... we're in trade...
Banking isn't really trade, now is it, Mr.Charles. See The D'Ascoyne Family attitude to the subject.
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
I'm not a toff... we're in trade...
Banking isn't really trade, now is it, Mr.Charles. See The D'Ascoyne Family attitude to the subject.
Just 'umble shopkeepers, really, M'Llama
Good God, I hope not. Surely the point that differentiates trade from banking (at least of the sort a gentleman might indulge in) is that in the latter one does not need to sell things and one does not make anything (except money of course, but even then only in a genteel way.
Gong back to my orginal point in bringing this matter up. From your average squady's point of view it don't matter of your officer's family originally made their money from land granted by The Conquerer, Sugar and Slaves or Banking. The important thing is that it is old money and he be properly brought up. Then you know where you stand and what you can expect - the grammar school boys are the problem.
I get exasperated with those on here who think that Cameron is some sort of chump because he did not instantly cut our trade deficit by £5bn a month or eliminate the budget deficit with a snap of his fingers or put everyone back to work and fix our education system and increase efficiency of the health service without any structural changes and increase investment in British industy single handedly and yada yada yada. It really is just silly.
Cameron has to operate in the real world, a world where the tories do not even have a majority despite his seat gains being second only to Blair in 1997 and he depends on the Lib Dems. All of these problems are structural, deeprooted and many even pre-date (although they were inevitably aggravated by) the last Labour government.
Part of believing in the capitalist system and freedom is recognition that the power of governments is limited and that they frequently do more harm than good when they try too hard. None of these gifts were in his control. They are not in any government's control. His government has made progress on almost all fronts, on some more modest than others, despite huge institutional opposition. Moaning everything is not perfect is pure self indulgence.
Tosh. Cameron had sufficient time to address reforms the country needed in 2011, 12 and 13. He wasted it on pasties and gay marriage. he squandered his political capital on issues voters didn't care about rather than address those things they did.
Nonsense. Pasties and gay marriage had zero impact on any economic policies. You are merely avoiding giving any credit to your political adversaries. Classic kipper and Labour approach to the economy.
Since I'm neither a kipper or Labour nor see the Conservatives as my adversaries that's not really relevant. The point is simply that Cameron has spent his political capital on things the voters don't care about and which won't help him in future years.
As ever DavidL nails it and I think the CoE would be flattered to know he was the barrier to your blue vote @Alanbrooke. Cam had very very little room to manoeuvre. In fact the single biggest fallacy willingly believed by those on the left (where are they all now, btw?) is that the markets would have tolerated anything other than a firm commitment to austerity while the magnitude of the problem was such that to do as you would have wished and to have been harsher would have been greater electoral suicide than this term is perhaps proving to be.
On another note, in Hong Kong there is a very strong fashion brand called Wanko which I always thought was overdue a rebrand.
I've always been a fan of the Japanese energy drink Pocari Sweat...
Nothing quite like brand names.......
Long ago and far away an American multinational wanted to add to its portfolio of UK brands with a successful dishwashing liquid - then selling successfully in the US.
The UK organisation was a little reluctant, given the name, and suggested a parallel test market using a name already established in the UK market for many years.
And that, dear reader, is why the UK's leading dishwashing liquid is called 'Fairy' and not 'Gay'.......
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
I'm not a toff... we're in trade...
Banking isn't really trade, now is it, Mr.Charles. See The D'Ascoyne Family attitude to the subject.
Just 'umble shopkeepers, really, M'Llama
I thought you were a bunch of Irish Hores ?
They are 22nd or 23rd cousins (the closer Irish connection is my mother's family).
My father's family are goldsmiths (we still have our hallmark, although we don't do too much manufacturing these days)
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
I'm not a toff... we're in trade...
Banking isn't really trade, now is it, Mr.Charles. See The D'Ascoyne Family attitude to the subject.
Just 'umble shopkeepers, really, M'Llama
I thought you were a bunch of Irish Hores ?
They are 22nd or 23rd cousins (the closer Irish connection is my mother's family).
My father's family are goldsmiths (we still have our hallmark, although we don't do too much manufacturing these days)
If you'd like to come to an subcontracting arrangement :-)
Anyone got any views on which are the best value odds at present in the UK GE betting markets for seats which Con, Lab and LD might win respectively at odds of better than evens?
For Con wins, there seem to be quite a few good choices around, but I'm drawn to 9/4 for them to take Torbay with Ladbrokes (Paddy Power are offering only 6/4).
For Lab wins, I don't fancy any of the Con-Lab contests. I agree with OGH that there's better value in backing Lab nationally than the constituencies. But if pushed I would settle for another 9/4 for Lab to finally topple Hughes in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. The London assembly results in the constituency had Labour miles ahead the LDs on both the FPTP and list votes.
For the LDs, I'm not tempted by anything at above evens in the constituency markets. The "predict the seats" market seems better value where you can almost get evens on a combined bet that they will avoid meltdown with a seat outcome will be in range of 31 to 50.
I was asked on the last thread for how I would boost productivity. Some suggestions:
1) Changing the emphasis away from wealth consumption towards wealth creation - wealth creation is inherantly more productive as it has to compete globally whereas wealth consumption is inward looking.
2) Stopping governments of all types from continually increasing the regulatory burden on business. And if governments want to do something they should do it themselves and not pass the responsibility and costs onto others.
3) Increase interest rates. We are told that even a small increase in interest rates might be disasterous for some business and mortgage payers. My response is 'so what' - if people haven't used the last five years to organise their finances properly then they deserve no sympathy. Creative destruction is a fundamental part of capitalism, keeping malinvestment alive through the drug of cheap credit isn't.
4) Stop low skilled immigration - businesses would then have an incentive to invest in new technology and/or improve the skills of their present workforce.
I expect none of my suggestions to be implemented and for productivity in this country to continue to stagnate while that of our competitors steadily rises.
" Cameron likewise has no feel for voters outside the SE "
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
I'm not a toff... we're in trade...
Banking isn't really trade, now is it, Mr.Charles. See The D'Ascoyne Family attitude to the subject.
Just 'umble shopkeepers, really, M'Llama
I thought you were a bunch of Irish Hores ?
They are 22nd or 23rd cousins (the closer Irish connection is my mother's family).
My father's family are goldsmiths (we still have our hallmark, although we don't do too much manufacturing these days)
If you'd like to come to an subcontracting arrangement :-)
We strike a nice piece to give to our customers every 50 years or so to celebrate an anniversary (and to maintain the "active business" required to keep ownership of a hallmark...). But I don't think we really want to outsource.
If you are in the business, though, do you come down to Foster Lane at all? I pop in occasionally for lunch when I get a moment.
FTSE fell to a three-week closing low on Friday as a landmark corporate bond default in China, the world's top metals consumer, hit major mining stocks.
Lingering concerns about the crisis in Ukraine, after Russia's effective seizure of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula, also weighed on the market.
... "The pressure is growing to the downside," said Hantec Markets analyst Richard Perry.
The banking system was bailed out by the taxpayer and the taxpayer has had little benefit for the privilege. Osborne should have the courage to recognise he isn't going to get his money back and break up RBS to inject more competiton. Ultimately that's one way the nation could possibly see a return. Furthermore if he wants to break out of the moral hazard he's engaged in, being seen to make bankers face the consequences would actually help him elsewhere in the country.
Your claims are simply not true, Mr. Brooke.
The bailout of the banking sector (a correct decision by Darling and Brown) has had massive benefit for taxpayers. It contained catastrophic loss to bank shareholders and avoided losses being absorbed by bank customers.
On taxpayer funds deployed to bailout the banks, once the intervention unwinds, there will be a net surplus to the taxpayer, insofar as more cash will be returned than was originally invested. How this stacks up against the 'opportunity cost' of investing such funds elsewhere is debatable but the fact remains that there was no option to invest the funds for better returns in alternative opportunities.
Almost all of the banks except RBS are now returning cash to the taxpayer. RBS will take maybe two to five years to return to the private sector and, though it is unlikely to return surpluses equivalent to the other intervened banks (e.g. Lloyds), it is more likely than not to return more than the original cash invested.
Osborne's primary task with regard to the banking sector was to secure it against a repeat systemic crisis. In other words, to ensure that, in future, if the UK retail banks became insolvent the taxpayer would not have to pick up the tab.
To this end he has undertaken radical reforms to recapitalise the banks, reorganise their supervision and ring fence retail operations from riskier wholesale and investment banking operations. He has achieved this over the course of the last three and a half years and delivered a more robust and safer banking sector faster than almost anywhere else in the world. The UK banks are far ahead of their EU counterparts in capital adequacy
We have argued about competition in the banking sector before. It is a secondary issue to security. The level of competition within a banking sector is driven much less by industry structure than macroeconomic conditions and regulatory environment. The cost of mortgage finance, for example, is driven far more by the BoE base rate, the current need for reserves to be used to recapitalise banks, the availability of lending support from the BoE and Treasury and consumer confidence and demand. You cannot simply create better credit conditions by restructuring a retail banking sector.
This doesn't mean that there should be no banking sector restructuring, and more banks in the market, just that it is very much a secondary priority to the reforms necessarily implemented during this parliamentary term.
We have argued about competition in the banking sector before. It is a secondary issue to security. The level of competition within a banking sector is driven much less by industry structure than macroeconomic conditions and regulatory environment. The cost of mortgage finance, for example, is driven far more by the BoE base rate, the current need for reserves to be used to recapitalise banks, the availability of lending support from the BoE and Treasury and consumer confidence and demand. You cannot simply create better credit conditions by restructuring a retail banking sector.
I'd also add that with Metro, Aldermore, Shawbrook, Handelsbanken, etc you've seen a number of new entrants into the market - plus don't forget Towerbrook's small company financing effort, etc.
It takes time to build out product ranges and geographic presence, but it is happening,
There is certainly nothing in the 2013 Production output figures to justify the statement by Halligan in his article:
our recovery is far from balanced: and with financial services and real estate roaring, while manufacturing and construction languish, the imbalance is getting worse.
It is the use of the words "roaring" and "languishing" which deceive. Manufacturing last year grew at a reasonable pace and, given trends since the recession, at a rate broadly equal to Services, which should properly be welcomed. Business Services have grown faster but not by an substantial amount. This means any increase in "imbalance" would be so small as to be statistically insignificant.
No yellow box for manufacturing output Avery ?
Perhaps because manufacturing output was lower in 2013 than 2012 and for that matter every year since 1993 with the exception of 2009.
And while manufacturing output did grow during the year from its low point in Q1 the 2013Q4 manufacturing output was still lower than in 2010Q4 - whatever happened to the 'March of the Makers' ?
The wider industrial ouput data being even more dismal.
Mr Pole let's not pretend that the bailout was anything less than the nation having a gun held to its head and having no alternative. To claim this as a benefit is simply perverse.
Osborne's actions as you describe them are simply the rest of us being fleeced by either unrealistic interest rates or credit rationing to help banks rebuild their balance sheets. It's hardly a novel view that parts of our banking system serve no social purpose.
On competiton I maintain my argument that competition creates security since nobody is too big to fail and competitive pressure does more to keep bankers clean than supervison - I forget what's this weeks corruption scandal BoE isn't it ?
Finally bar underwriters I doubt anyone will thank Osborne for a privatisation give away. In the stick it will be seen as London v the rest and whatever value he sells the shares for it will be wrong. Assuning of course that it's not Ed doing something completely different.
Anyone got any views on which are the best value odds at present in the UK GE betting markets for seats which Con, Lab and LD might win respectively at odds of better than evens?
For Con wins, there seem to be quite a few good choices around, but I'm drawn to 9/4 for them to take Torbay with Ladbrokes (Paddy Power are offering only 6/4).
For Lab wins, I don't fancy any of the Con-Lab contests. I agree with OGH that there's better value in backing Lab nationally than the constituencies. But if pushed I would settle for another 9/4 for Lab to finally topple Hughes in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. The London assembly results in the constituency had Labour miles ahead the LDs on both the FPTP and list votes.
For the LDs, I'm not tempted by anything at above evens in the constituency markets. The "predict the seats" market seems better value where you can almost get evens on a combined bet that they will avoid meltdown with a seat outcome will be in range of 31 to 50.
Any thoughts?
You are wasting your time talking about betting on politics around here. Most of them haven't a clue.
Anyone got any views on which are the best value odds at present in the UK GE betting markets for seats which Con, Lab and LD might win respectively at odds of better than evens?
For Con wins, there seem to be quite a few good choices around, but I'm drawn to 9/4 for them to take Torbay with Ladbrokes (Paddy Power are offering only 6/4).
For Lab wins, I don't fancy any of the Con-Lab contests. I agree with OGH that there's better value in backing Lab nationally than the constituencies. But if pushed I would settle for another 9/4 for Lab to finally topple Hughes in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. The London assembly results in the constituency had Labour miles ahead the LDs on both the FPTP and list votes.
For the LDs, I'm not tempted by anything at above evens in the constituency markets. The "predict the seats" market seems better value where you can almost get evens on a combined bet that they will avoid meltdown with a seat outcome will be in range of 31 to 50.
Any thoughts?
On Torbay, the candidate is a personal friend of my family and has a reputation from his time on Coventry council as being an excellent campaigner. That said toppling Sanders will be a significant ask.
Perhaps because manufacturing output was lower in 2013 than 2012 and for that matter every year since 1993 with the exception of 2009.
And while manufacturing output did grow during the year from its low point in Q1 the 2013Q4 manufacturing output was still lower than in 2010Q4 - whatever happened to the 'March of the Makers' ?
The wider industrial ouput data being even more dismal.
You will note that the main fall in manufacturing output (-10.2%) took place in 2009 before King George ascended to the throne. This mainly reflected factories being mothballed or going onto short day weeks with the capacity being part recovered the following year with a 4.2% rise.
The second hit to manufacturing was end 2011 to the beginning of 2013 as the UK was forced to respond to the Eurozone crisis and the associated drop in export demands.
Overall though Osborne's record with manufacturing is good: certainly better than our European competitors, where only Germany in 2010-11 outperformed us. The Index for Manufacturing when based on 2010 is positive and growth over the last three quarters of 2013 has been impressive.
So given context and competition, not a bad performance and getting better every day.
The bailout of the banking sector (a correct decision by Darling and Brown) has had massive benefit for taxpayers. It contained catastrophic loss to bank shareholders and avoided losses being absorbed by bank customers.
On taxpayer funds deployed to bailout the banks, once the intervention unwinds, there will be a net surplus to the taxpayer, insofar as more cash will be returned than was originally invested. How this stacks up against the 'opportunity cost' of investing such funds elsewhere is debatable but the fact remains that there was no option to invest the funds for better returns in alternative opportunities.
Almost all of the banks except RBS are now returning cash to the taxpayer. RBS will take maybe two to five years to return to the private sector and, though it is unlikely to return surpluses equivalent to the other intervened banks (e.g. Lloyds), it is more likely than not to return more than the original cash invested.
Osborne's primary task with regard to the banking sector was to secure it against a repeat systemic crisis. In other words, to ensure that, in future, if the UK retail banks became insolvent the taxpayer would not have to pick up the tab.
This doesn't mean that there should be no banking sector restructuring, and more banks in the market, just that it is very much a secondary priority to the reforms necessarily implemented during this parliamentary term.
It is rare that I agree with Avery but to say the bailouts did not work is simply not correct. The difference between this contraction and the 1930's is all there to see. By pumping money into the system and thereby keeping interest rates low, many many, bankruptcies were avoided.
All of us need look no further than our own mortgages.Bizarrely, during such a severe crunch living standards of people in work and owning houses actually improved.
Therein, lies the other tale. Those not in work or renting accomodation have been hit but none more than pensioners whose annuity incomes just crashed. They are the biggest losers of these past 5 years.
All governments, in my opinion, have done well to learn the lessons of the 30's. It is also possible by making the downturn less hard than it might have been, it's duration has been extended.
I am not sure what the effects of QE will be in the long term. I do believe there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, sometime will have to pay. I believe more stimulation should have been done directly to kick start growth so that tax revenues came in faster.
In the UK, we managed to keep jobs by keeping the cost of capital low. It hasn't effected investment much. Productivity growth during the last 4 years have been non-existent. In fact, it has fallen.
Anyone got any views on which are the best value odds at present in the UK GE betting markets for seats which Con, Lab and LD might win respectively at odds of better than evens?
For Con wins, there seem to be quite a few good choices around, but I'm drawn to 9/4 for them to take Torbay with Ladbrokes (Paddy Power are offering only 6/4).
For Lab wins, I don't fancy any of the Con-Lab contests. I agree with OGH that there's better value in backing Lab nationally than the constituencies. But if pushed I would settle for another 9/4 for Lab to finally topple Hughes in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. The London assembly results in the constituency had Labour miles ahead the LDs on both the FPTP and list votes.
For the LDs, I'm not tempted by anything at above evens in the constituency markets. The "predict the seats" market seems better value where you can almost get evens on a combined bet that they will avoid meltdown with a seat outcome will be in range of 31 to 50.
Any thoughts?
Yes don't waste your money backing against Hugheshy, he will do what it takes to win. For a good value Tory taking Derby North off Labour. The MP Williamson is gaining deep unpopularity and so is the Labour Council.
Perhaps because manufacturing output was lower in 2013 than 2012 and for that matter every year since 1993 with the exception of 2009.
And while manufacturing output did grow during the year from its low point in Q1 the 2013Q4 manufacturing output was still lower than in 2010Q4 - whatever happened to the 'March of the Makers' ?
The wider industrial ouput data being even more dismal.
You will note that the main fall in manufacturing output (-10.2%) took place in 2009 before King George ascended to the throne. This mainly reflected factories being mothballed or going onto short day weeks with the capacity being part recovered the following year with a 4.2% rise.
The second hit to manufacturing was end 2011 to the beginning of 2013 as the UK was forced to respond to the Eurozone crisis and the associated drop in export demands.
Overall though Osborne's record with manufacturing is good: certainly better than our European competitors, where only Germany in 2010-11 outperformed us. The Index for Manufacturing when based on 2010 is positive and growth over the last three quarters of 2013 has been impressive.
So given context and competition, not a bad performance and getting better every day.
Avery, you cannot view Britain in isolation. Look at the figures of the G20 countries in 2009. I think only Canada came out positive !
The indictment against Osborne is that in the fifth year , we still had negative growth despite a strong 4th quarter. Britain has had the longest period of output lower than its previous peak. Even compared to the 30's. Osborne's record is truly abysmal.
All your yellow boxes avoids that dreaded word: productivity. I wonder why ?
1) Oh God. "Tidal wave" of support. Yeah right. 2) The NotW did some decent exposes, for instance the Pakistani cricketers. 3) You are meant to be a serious political party, not Pravda.
FTSE fell to a three-week closing low on Friday as a landmark corporate bond default in China, the world's top metals consumer, hit major mining stocks.
Lingering concerns about the crisis in Ukraine, after Russia's effective seizure of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula, also weighed on the market.
... "The pressure is growing to the downside," said Hantec Markets analyst Richard Perry.
1) Oh God. "Tidal wave" of support. Yeah right. 2) The NotW did some decent exposes, for instance the Pakistani cricketers. 3) You are meant to be a serious political party, not Pravda.
Mr Pole let's not pretend that the bailout was anything less than the nation having a gun held to its head and having no alternative. To claim this as a benefit is simply perverse.
Osborne's actions as you describe them are simply the rest of us being fleeced by either unrealistic interest rates or credit rationing to help banks rebuild their balance sheets. It's hardly a novel view that parts of our banking system serve no social purpose.
On competiton I maintain my argument that competition creates security since nobody is too big to fail and competitive pressure does more to keep bankers clean than supervison - I forget what's this weeks corruption scandal BoE isn't it ?
Finally bar underwriters I doubt anyone will thank Osborne for a privatisation give away. In the stick it will be seen as London v the rest and whatever value he sells the shares for it will be wrong. Assuning of course that it's not Ed doing something completely different.
It is true a gun was held at all governments' heads when the financial sector crashed but the decision to invest in bank equity was a peculiarly European solution, most notably chosen by Sweden in its late 1990s crisis and advocated by Brown in the mid noughties crash. It was a discretionary decision and one followed by the US. So credit is due to Darling and Brown here for adopting the Swedish model.
On interest rates you really cannot complain here, Mr. Brooke. The Bank of England has held its rates at 0.5% since the crisis and the Treasury in conjunction with the BoE have had numerous schemes from QE to Help to Buy to ensure funds are available for lending while bank balance sheets were repaired. The principal reason why lending hasn't increased has been lack of demand rather than insufficient supply. Everyone, government, corporations of all sizes, households and individuals have responded to the financial crisis by deleveraging.
This week's scandal is forex rate fixing and the BoE official suspended is not implicated in fixing but in non-application of regulatory procedures related to but not causing or colluding in the alleged fixing. I remain to be convinced that smaller retail banking units will have any impact on the incidence of price fixing in wholesale markets.
The too big to fail risk is addressed by the ring fencing reforms introduced by Osborne. A less concentrated and more competitive retail banking industry is likely to lead to more failures which are better covered with less risk to the taxpayer. Ironically, it will be depositors who will have to be aware of the greater risks in the new environment.
I hooe there won't be a big 'privatisation giveaway' of bank shares. The more quickly and effectively they are transferred to the private sector the better the value to the taxpayer. Vince Cable self-promotions are not necessary or desirable in a competently run economy.
That press release is proof of the demographic that UKIP is drawn from. Everyone educated under 70 knows that the correct word is "tsunami", and that "tidal wave" is utterly inaccurate for what it describes.
That press release is proof of the demographic that UKIP is drawn from. Everyone educated under 70 knows that the correct word is "tsunami", and that "tidal wave" is utterly inaccurate for what it describes.
I disagree. "Tidal wave" is a very accurate description. It is a wave that acts like a tide.
That press release is proof of the demographic that UKIP is drawn from. Everyone educated under 70 knows that the correct word is "tsunami", and that "tidal wave" is utterly inaccurate for what it describes.
That press release is proof of the demographic that UKIP is drawn from. Everyone educated under 70 knows that the correct word is "tsunami", and that "tidal wave" is utterly inaccurate for what it describes.
I disagree. "Tidal wave" is a very accurate description. It is a wave that acts like a tide.
I think the more obvious objection is that if we purged the English language of everything that didn't make sense, we wouldn't have much left!
Avery, you cannot view Britain in isolation. Look at the figures of the G20 countries in 2009. I think only Canada came out positive !
The indictment against Osborne is that in the fifth year , we still had negative growth despite a strong 4th quarter. Britain has had the longest period of output lower than its previous peak. Even compared to the 30's. Osborne's record is truly abysmal.
All your yellow boxes avoids that dreaded word: productivity. I wonder why ?
Surby, you would be much better off agreeing with all my posts.
The answer to your 'conundrum' is to take the widely differing dips in GDP suffered in the G20 countries and align the low points. Then compare the rates of growth from the indexed low.
You will see that the UK has grown faster than almost all it competitors (US excepted) but from a lower starting point.
Osborne is responsible for the rate of recovery growth, Brown for the depth of the trough.
well it's more Pole dancing but your string's slipping.
Nobody would claim that having to save the banking system is somehow a "benefit", it's a poor consolation prize for a royal screw up.
Your point on lack of demand is just guff. There is demand which just can't find credit at a realistic price, whether it's first time buyers being asked for historically high deposits or as has been the case businesses being pre-screened before making a credit submission and thereby never making the statistics. Unless I've missed it it remains the case that big corporates can obtain easy credit they don't need and SMEs are still struggling. Banks still haven't achieved the SME targets on lending HMG has set. Banks are simply changing the hurdles and then saying nobody wants to jump.
Competition keeps companies clean, oligoplies don't. There's a difference between pricing to win business and pricing for profit. Your point on regulation is just silly by supporting the principle of not letting banks go you are merely reinforcing the incentive to cheat.
On RBS there will be no movement for several years and since time is money the idea we are going to get our money back is just plain naive.
That press release is proof of the demographic that UKIP is drawn from. Everyone educated under 70 knows that the correct word is "tsunami", and that "tidal wave" is utterly inaccurate for what it describes.
I disagree. "Tidal wave" is a very accurate description. It is a wave that acts like a tide.
I think the more obvious objection is that if we purged the English language of everything that didn't make sense, we wouldn't have much left!
True. In any case, "tsunami" translates as "harbour wave", which strikes me as a good deal less accurate than tidal wave.
As a long-standing Labour member in Bermondsey I wouldn't risk a penny on the party being able to beat Simon Hughes here. We see it every five years with the same slogan "Everybody in Bermondsey knows someone who has been helped by Simon Hughes".
It works because it happens to be true as I can testify. His help for me and my family during a very difficult period 15 years ago is something I will be grateful to him until I die. Although I'm totally hostile to the Liberals I couldn't bring myself to vote against Simon and I really wish him well. He's a good man.
FTSE fell to a three-week closing low on Friday as a landmark corporate bond default in China, the world's top metals consumer, hit major mining stocks.
Lingering concerns about the crisis in Ukraine, after Russia's effective seizure of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula, also weighed on the market.
... "The pressure is growing to the downside," said Hantec Markets analyst Richard Perry.
Are you serious? The FTSE is almost at an all-time high.
'Equities slide as risk appetite crumbles'
The dramatic escalation of tensions in Ukraine prompted a sharp increase in risk aversion among participants, driving equity prices lower across the board and triggering flows into “havens” such as US and German government bonds and gold.
... Brent crude oil touched a 2014 high above $112 a barrel before settling at $111.20, up $2.13.
... the CBOE Vix volatility index – Wall Street’s “fear gauge” – was up 16 per cent in late trade.
... The shift away from risk also helped gold climb $25, or 1.9 per cent to $1,350 an ounce, the highest since late October.
Obvious typo from MicroSoft's anti-competition lawyer.
He was actively involved in legally defending Microsoft's intellectual property rights around the world, most notably in Apple v. Microsoft.[8] He also was involved in defending Microsoft from a series of complex antitrust suits (i.e. United States v. Microsoft).[8] While at Microsoft, Neukom also directed the company's community affairs program, which initiated corporate-giving programs including the Microsoft Giving Campaign, the Microsoft Matching Gifts Program, and the Microsoft Volunteer Program. In 2002 Neukom retired from Microsoft as Executive Vice President, Law & Corporate Affairs.[8]
Comments
There's a Randy Bumgardner, who works at the US embassy in London.
And there was a solicitor who got struck off called Miss Anal Sheikh.
The Cameroons can by-pass his lack of support by getting Oxford to grant honorary degrees in PPE to alumni of Staffordshire University.
We have Warwickshire surrounded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kennedy_(police_officer)#Aftermath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Života_Panić
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmwGFX5pgXw
By all accounts he is/was a top bloke.
As an aside: having railway safety inspected by members of the Corps of Royal Engineers worked very well for many, many years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/10682419/Pictures-of-the-day-7-March-2014.html?frame=2845650
One of my colleagues used to amuse himself looking up funny ship names in Clarkson's. There was a Korean tanker called the Bum Dong, for example. There was also a Fanny and a Willy. This guy was just longing for the day we needed to transship cargo between the two. He would then be able to instruct the Willy to discharge into the Fanny.
I don't think it ever happened.
Ahem, Mr. Brooke, what makes you think he has a feel for voters in the SE?
And in answer to your earlier question, no Cameron cannot count on my vote. However, as I live in a constituency where his man has a 15k majority, it does nor matter which way I vote if I do so at all.
Mr. Charles wrote a good post earlier about tuning the ship of state around. If he was the captain I'd vote for him (a lesson from the army, you can't beat a well brought up honest toff with old money as a leader - at least he will always make sure his chaps have the essentials like fags), but he ain't. Will I vote for Cameron and his clique? They may be steering the ship away from the rocks but their base course looks like being the same as the last lot and I am not sure I want to go there.
The West Midlands recovery is well entrenched.
That is why you have even more opportunity to meet George in a yellow hat and blue boiler suit than any resident of the dogging county.
It is the East Midlands where the Tories have problems. That is why I am thinking of becoming a donor to the Greens in the Nottingham marginals.
I did enjoy the pic of the Kipper, though.
http://bit.ly/1hT9XaY
If voters don't want good government, well, they'll get Miliband. Good luck to them.
Cameron had a good chance to consolidate his progress and move northwards post 2010, he fluffed it because he couldn't relate to voters outside his heartlands. His inability to understand he needs to have policies which have wider appeal simply means his core voters are going to have their asses taxed off because he can't win an election outright.
The entire package is one aimed at the whole country - and working extremely well, given the abysmal starting point and world conditions. That they have made all the progress they have on structural changes, whilst at the same time preventing unemployment from rising, is a really major achievement, benefitting the whole country.
I am afraid you have bought into Labour's Crew & Nantwich-style class prejudice, as have many. Cameron is no more out of touch than Macmillan or Blair was. On the facts as they actually are, based on the measures actually enacted, it's a completely absurd charge.
We need a lot more social housing.
Cameron has to operate in the real world, a world where the tories do not even have a majority despite his seat gains being second only to Blair in 1997 and he depends on the Lib Dems. All of these problems are structural, deeprooted and many even pre-date (although they were inevitably aggravated by) the last Labour government.
Part of believing in the capitalist system and freedom is recognition that the power of governments is limited and that they frequently do more harm than good when they try too hard. None of these gifts were in his control. They are not in any government's control. His government has made progress on almost all fronts, on some more modest than others, despite huge institutional opposition. Moaning everything is not perfect is pure self indulgence.
In my view Halligan's article was flawed because it was based on false assumptions about the status of the economy and the current government's economic policy. These assumptions are almost 'memes' which form the frontlines of debates where divisions are driven more by regional and class prejudice than informed by factual data.
Given this afternoon's debate has shifted back to the ground covered by Halligan in his original article, I will revive my posts.
Halligan's article: Part I
Let's get started with Liam Halligan's comments on GDP growth.
Beyond the headlines, the GDP fine print isn't good. For one thing, the UK's recovery remains extremely imbalanced. Over half this fourth quarter growth was driven by financial and business services, including real estate. Not only are such activities overwhelmingly London-centric, but a bloated financial sector and an overheated housing market were the reason we got in this mess in the first place.
Halligan is referring here to the ONS's release of a preliminary estimate of GDP growth for Q4 2013. The headline figure of 0.7% is the growth of Q4 2013 over the previous quarter, Q3 2013.
To analyse Halligan's comments properly, we need to understand how the ONS calculates its preliminary estimate of GDP growth from output growth figures for each of four headline sectors of the UK economy: Services, Production, Construction and Agriculture. We also need to understand the difference between the "output growth" of a single sector and its (almost always) differing "contribution to GDP growth". Before we can address the question of whether growth is "balanced" or "imbalanced", we must first understand how the ONS applies weights to output growth in order to calculate its GDP growth figure.
So, to the first 'yellow box' which will follow in the next post.
Column A states the share of total output accounted for by each of the four main ONS Sectors. These shares are used as weighting factors to calculate the contributions made by growth in each sector to overall GDP growth. The weights are based on known 2010 shares. Column A shows that nearly 80% of UK output is made up of Services, with a further 15% comprised by Production. Construction accounts for just over 6% and Agriculture less than 1%.
Column B is a hypothetical assumption that each of the four sectors grows in a single quarter at the same rate, 1%.
Column C shows the impact of applying the weights to sector growth rates when calculating contributions to growth. If all sectors grow at 1%, total GDP also grows at the same rate, but the contributions made by each sector vary in line with their shares of output. So 1% growtn in Services will deliver 0.78% growth in GDP but, at the bottom end, 1% growth in Agriculture will only contribute 0.01% to GDP growth.
Column E looks at the effects of weighting from another angle. This time the hypothetical assumption is that each sector contributes 0.25% to GDP growth, with overall growth totalling to 1% as before.
Column D calculates the growth rates in each sector which would be required to deliver a 0.25% contribution to growth. It shows that Services would only need to grow at 0.32% to deliver 0.25% GDP growth. At the other end Agriculture would need to grow at over 35% to deliver the same 0.25% of GDP growth. For Production to deliver the same amount of growth as Services would require it to grow at more than five times the rate of the Services Sector. Construction would need to grow at over ten times the rate, and, Agriculture at over an hundred times.
This is all very basic stuff but it is fundamental to understanding whether growth is balanced and, if not, what is required to make growth "more balanced". It also explains why Services making the largest contribution to GDP does not necessarily mean that Services has grown faster than other sectors.
More to follow.
The nub is:
"By the same token, to say that this recovery relies on consumers alone flies in the face of the facts.
Let us look at the evidence. In the year to the final quarter of 2013, GDP rose by 2.7%. Consumer spending rose by a reasonable 2.4% over that period - slower than overall GDP - and its rise was dwarfed by the increase in overall investment, 8.7%, and business investment, which rose by 8.5%.
Consumers played their part in the recovery. Of the 2.7% rise in GDP, 1.5 percentage points came from consumer spending. Their contribution to growth, just over half, was however smaller than their long-run 62% share of GDP.
Investment, meanwhile, accounted for a percentage point of the GDP rise, and there were also contributions from net trade (exports minus imports) and government spending. If there was a glitch it was that net trade only contributed 0.1 points to the 2.7% growth rate. Much of that, however, reflected an unusually bad third quarter of 2013, when for no obvious reason Britain’s trade lurched into much bigger deficit.
The story of a better-balanced recovery is also in the GDP breakdown by sector. All three of the main sectors of the economy grew over the past year; industrial production by 2.3%, services by 2.7% and construction by 4.3%."
Governments can wreck things quickly, though, as President Hollande is demonstrating, and as we may find in the next parliament.
Let's look next at the actual figures for GDP growth in Q4 2013 as reported last Tuesday by the ONS. Table 2 shows the weights in action upon real figures. It shows that Services grew by 0.8% in the last quarter of last year and contributed 0.62 of the 0.70% GDP growth. Production grew by nearly the same amount as Services, 0.7%, but, because of the weighting applied, only contributed 0.11% to the overall growth figure. Agriculture's 0.5% growth similarly resulted in no addition to GDP (to two decimal points) and the fall of -0.3% in Construction only knocked 0.02% off the final GDP figure. [Rounding means columns do not always sum accurately].
It is clear Halligan doesn't understand the impact of weighting as he goes on to state:
Manufacturing, meanwhile, grew just 0.1pc from October to December.
This is simply wrong.
Manufacturing is a sub-sector of "Production" and grew at 0.9% over 2013 Q4. Offsetting falls in other sub-sectors of Production caused the overall growth of the sector to be 0.7%. It is the weighting of this 0.7% growth which caused Production's contribution to GDP to be "just 0.1pc". Halligan appears to be muddling "contribution to GDP" with "output growth", and, "Production" with "Manufacturing".
Halligan's misunderstanding is dangerous as it leads him to false conclusions. But this must be left to another post, where we need to dig deeper and look at the sub-sectors.
[I'll take a break here!]
C 34, L 37, LD 9, UKIP 12
So a very mixed picture this week. Lab leads:
Populus: 3, 3
YouGov: 9, 4, 3, 9
ComRes 8
Though average of all 7 polls is 5.6 which is pretty much bang in line with where we have been for some time.
Were is the push to get manufacturing back on its feet ? We've done it ourselves up here and watched politicians zap in to try and claim the credit. Banks are still non-functional, and protected by Osborne, the tax system remains largely unreformed, there has been no signifcant infrastructure investment bar waffly promises for future years, no sensible parliamentary reforms and the country remains overcentralised. And then there's arch dabbler Osborne.
You are right. David Smith is one of the few economic journalists who does understand the figures.
I still hope it is worth continuing with this series of posts though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/londons-laundry-business.html?ref=opinion&_r=1
It's pretty shameful how David Cameron is putting the profits of wealthy bankers ahead of standing up for international law and protecting a democracy-aspiring nation from its imperialist aggressor.
Before digging into the sub-sectors let's have some definitions (mostly) from the ONS. It will enable me to shorten the Sector descriptions in the tables.
We'll start with the Production Sector
Production sub-sectors:
Mining: Mining and Quarrying [almost all Oil & Gas extraction from North Sea]
Manufacturing: [All factory output of finished and intermediate goods]
Electricity: Electricity; Gas; Steam; Air
Water: Water supply; Sewerage
The sub-sector and sector 'output growth' and 'contribution to GDP growth' figures for all four quarters of 2013 are set out in Table 3. Column A sets out the weights for the sector. Manufacturing accounts for two thirds or 10.4% of total output. This makes for easy reckoning of the impact of increasing manufacturing output: for every 1% of growth in manufacturing GDP growth will increase by 0.1%.
Columns B-E states the output growth in each quarter of 2013. Noteworthy is that Manufacturing increased by strong percentage in the three last quarters of the year at a rate faster than the increase in the Services Sector over the same period (but still below growth in the Business Services sub-sector). Mining (North Sea Oil & Gas extraction) grew well in the first three quarters slowing the disastrous rate of decline since 2010. Electricity is very volatile: the figures are seasonally adjusted but do not take account of variations from average weather so an unusually cold or warm quarter will affect output figures.
Columns F-I state the contributions made to GDP growth in each quarter. The main point to note is that even large variations in the quarterly output of sub-sectors do not register significantly on the contribution of the sector as a whole to GDP growth. After rounding the GDP contribution is a flat 0.1% for each quarter.
But we need a longer perspective to really put Halligan's conclusions to the test. And that will be subject of Part 5.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554455/John-Bercow-evidence-rape-trial-former-deputy-speaker-Nigel-Evans.html
If you want money go and talk to Handelsbanken like any one with any f**king sense does.
There is certainly nothing in the 2013 Production output figures to justify the statement by Halligan in his article:
our recovery is far from balanced: and with financial services and real estate roaring, while manufacturing and construction languish, the imbalance is getting worse.
It is the use of the words "roaring" and "languishing" which deceive. Manufacturing last year grew at a reasonable pace and, given trends since the recession, at a rate broadly equal to Services, which should properly be welcomed. Business Services have grown faster but not by an substantial amount. This means any increase in "imbalance" would be so small as to be statistically insignificant.
Once again it appears that Halligan is looking at the GDP contribution figures and not output growth to reach his false conclusions.
Halligan's comment on Construction is particularly disingenuous as it doesn't put the Q4 0.3% decline in output in the context of the whole year or the current trend in Construction output. Although seasonally adjusted, Construction output is still affected by weather extremes. It is not surprising therefore that the two middle quarters of last year saw strong quarterly growth of 2.6% in output with Q1 & Q4 showing a decline in comparison with their previous quarters. Overall Construction grew by 1.8% over 2013, only 0.1% less than Services.
Another feature of Construction is that falls in output tend to get reversed: once a building project is started it gets finished (except in exceptional recessionary conditions) even if the completion date is delayed. This is unlike, say Hotel accommodation, where falls in occupancy are not easily reversed in later periods. So we can reasonably expect the Q4 fall, attributed by the ONS to adverse weather in November, to lead to higher Q1 2014 output.
This especially applies given recent Construction PMIs from Markit which were at record levels, 62.1 in December and 62.6 in November, suggesting further that the Q4 decline is a strong candidate for future upward revision by the ONS. Markit's first two key points in its December report were:
"Strong output rises recorded in all three broad areas of construction activity" and "Fastest increase in commercial work since August 2007".
I'm not aware of any treaty that obliges us to do what the Americans want in any situation.
Meanwhile, the tax system has been much reformed - business rates down, corporation tax slashed, capital gains tax reformed so that hedge fund managers pay much more, national insurance rises cancelled. Doing all that, at a time when money is very short, is absolutely remarkable.
I'll grant you that progress on infrastructure investment has been slow. It's politically hugely difficult, though.
But, ultimately, you are absolutely right: politicians can't get manufacturing, or any other sector, back on its feet: only businessmen and women can do that. All politicians can do is exactly what Osborne is doing: get out the way as much as possible, and lower taxes. To see the benefits takes time (it took a decade when Maggie did it so effectively).
On another note, in Hong Kong there is a very strong fashion brand called Wanko which I always thought was overdue a rebrand.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100262387/too-many-tweets-why-david-cameron-should-quit-twitter/
Still not going to see 301, but just seen a review which suggests Eva Green's rather splendid, so if/when it visits the TV screen I might watch it then [I rather like villainesses. Livia in I, Claudius is a particular favourite].
F1: BBC coverage, and lack thereof, detailed here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26443262
No Monaco again, which is good, Canada/Britain/Belgium are all great, no Singapore either (see Monaco), we get the first Russian race (but not the return to Austria, alas), but the late season pair of the US and Brazil are missing, which is a great shame.
We do get the double points season ending Abu Dhabi, though. I tingle at the prospect. [In fairness, Abu Dhabi has been more entertaining lately, but it's still not half the race Interlagos offers].
The banking system was bailed out by the taxpayer and the taxpayer has had little benefit for the privilege. Osborne should have the courage to recognise he isn't going to get his money back and break up RBS to inject more competiton. Ultimately that's one way the nation could possibly see a return. Furthermore if he wants to break out of the moral hazard he's engaged in, being seen to make bankers face the consequences would actually help him elsewhere in the country.
Osbone is a dabbling chancellor and not a refeormer. We will not get a significantly improved tax system until he leaves office.
Infrastructure we'll see if HMG sticks the pace. But there are also a lot of simple improvements which could have been prioritised like the rural broadband programme. Currently we're two years behind schedule in my village.
And yes HMG can't rebalance the economy. As I've said we've been doing it ourselves up here despite the govt. As you rightly point out it took the Thatcher reforms about 10 years to have their full effects, which agrees with what I have posted here over several years that Osborne chickened out of reform in 2011 and wasted a Parliament. The country will have it all to do in the next Parlt or the one after that.
A deal on sharing control of the pound between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK is "unlikely", analysts at the global bank Citigroup have said.
They also said it was "astonishing" the Scottish government did not have a currency union alternative.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26489307
Gong back to my orginal point in bringing this matter up. From your average squady's point of view it don't matter of your officer's family originally made their money from land granted by The Conquerer, Sugar and Slaves or Banking. The important thing is that it is old money and he be properly brought up. Then you know where you stand and what you can expect - the grammar school boys are the problem.
Long ago and far away an American multinational wanted to add to its portfolio of UK brands with a successful dishwashing liquid - then selling successfully in the US.
The UK organisation was a little reluctant, given the name, and suggested a parallel test market using a name already established in the UK market for many years.
And that, dear reader, is why the UK's leading dishwashing liquid is called 'Fairy' and not 'Gay'.......
http://t.co/hnreHUo70X
My father's family are goldsmiths (we still have our hallmark, although we don't do too much manufacturing these days)
For Con wins, there seem to be quite a few good choices around, but I'm drawn to 9/4 for them to take Torbay with Ladbrokes (Paddy Power are offering only 6/4).
For Lab wins, I don't fancy any of the Con-Lab contests. I agree with OGH that there's better value in backing Lab nationally than the constituencies. But if pushed I would settle for another 9/4 for Lab to finally topple Hughes in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. The London assembly results in the constituency had Labour miles ahead the LDs on both the FPTP and list votes.
For the LDs, I'm not tempted by anything at above evens in the constituency markets. The "predict the seats" market seems better value where you can almost get evens on a combined bet that they will avoid meltdown with a seat outcome will be in range of 31 to 50.
Any thoughts?
1) Changing the emphasis away from wealth consumption towards wealth creation - wealth creation is inherantly more productive as it has to compete globally whereas wealth consumption is inward looking.
2) Stopping governments of all types from continually increasing the regulatory burden on business. And if governments want to do something they should do it themselves and not pass the responsibility and costs onto others.
3) Increase interest rates. We are told that even a small increase in interest rates might be disasterous for some business and mortgage payers. My response is 'so what' - if people haven't used the last five years to organise their finances properly then they deserve no sympathy. Creative destruction is a fundamental part of capitalism, keeping malinvestment alive through the drug of cheap credit isn't.
4) Stop low skilled immigration - businesses would then have an incentive to invest in new technology and/or improve the skills of their present workforce.
I expect none of my suggestions to be implemented and for productivity in this country to continue to stagnate while that of our competitors steadily rises.
If you are in the business, though, do you come down to Foster Lane at all? I pop in occasionally for lunch when I get a moment.
The banking system was bailed out by the taxpayer and the taxpayer has had little benefit for the privilege. Osborne should have the courage to recognise he isn't going to get his money back and break up RBS to inject more competiton. Ultimately that's one way the nation could possibly see a return. Furthermore if he wants to break out of the moral hazard he's engaged in, being seen to make bankers face the consequences would actually help him elsewhere in the country.
Your claims are simply not true, Mr. Brooke.
The bailout of the banking sector (a correct decision by Darling and Brown) has had massive benefit for taxpayers. It contained catastrophic loss to bank shareholders and avoided losses being absorbed by bank customers.
On taxpayer funds deployed to bailout the banks, once the intervention unwinds, there will be a net surplus to the taxpayer, insofar as more cash will be returned than was originally invested. How this stacks up against the 'opportunity cost' of investing such funds elsewhere is debatable but the fact remains that there was no option to invest the funds for better returns in alternative opportunities.
Almost all of the banks except RBS are now returning cash to the taxpayer. RBS will take maybe two to five years to return to the private sector and, though it is unlikely to return surpluses equivalent to the other intervened banks (e.g. Lloyds), it is more likely than not to return more than the original cash invested.
Osborne's primary task with regard to the banking sector was to secure it against a repeat systemic crisis. In other words, to ensure that, in future, if the UK retail banks became insolvent the taxpayer would not have to pick up the tab.
To this end he has undertaken radical reforms to recapitalise the banks, reorganise their supervision and ring fence retail operations from riskier wholesale and investment banking operations. He has achieved this over the course of the last three and a half years and delivered a more robust and safer banking sector faster than almost anywhere else in the world. The UK banks are far ahead of their EU counterparts in capital adequacy
We have argued about competition in the banking sector before. It is a secondary issue to security. The level of competition within a banking sector is driven much less by industry structure than macroeconomic conditions and regulatory environment. The cost of mortgage finance, for example, is driven far more by the BoE base rate, the current need for reserves to be used to recapitalise banks, the availability of lending support from the BoE and Treasury and consumer confidence and demand. You cannot simply create better credit conditions by restructuring a retail banking sector.
This doesn't mean that there should be no banking sector restructuring, and more banks in the market, just that it is very much a secondary priority to the reforms necessarily implemented during this parliamentary term.
It takes time to build out product ranges and geographic presence, but it is happening,
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2332851/more-austerity-as-treasury-faces-gbp20bn-black-hole
Perhaps because manufacturing output was lower in 2013 than 2012 and for that matter every year since 1993 with the exception of 2009.
And while manufacturing output did grow during the year from its low point in Q1 the 2013Q4 manufacturing output was still lower than in 2010Q4 - whatever happened to the 'March of the Makers' ?
The wider industrial ouput data being even more dismal.
Mr Pole let's not pretend that the bailout was anything less than the nation having a gun held to its head and having no alternative. To claim this as a benefit is simply perverse.
Osborne's actions as you describe them are simply the rest of us being fleeced by either unrealistic interest rates or credit rationing to help banks rebuild their balance sheets. It's hardly a novel view that parts of our banking system serve no social purpose.
On competiton I maintain my argument that competition creates security since nobody is too big to fail and competitive pressure does more to keep bankers clean than supervison - I forget what's this weeks corruption scandal BoE isn't it ?
Finally bar underwriters I doubt anyone will thank Osborne for a privatisation give away. In the stick it will be seen as London v the rest and whatever value he sells the shares for it will be wrong. Assuning of course that it's not Ed doing something completely different.
Should we have the EU debate with the leader of the Bus Pass Elvis Party instead of @nick_clegg? #LibDims #SoonToBeExtinct
Simon Wood @MrSimonWood 2h
I assume Nick Clegg will challenge the Bus-pass Elvis party leader to debate him, now? http://bbc.in/1cgkTQT
fleetstreetfox @fleetstreetfox 4h
There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Nick Clegg http://bit.ly/1owUIpc pic.twitter.com/yX96sDD8io
LOL
On Torbay, the candidate is a personal friend of my family and has a reputation from his time on Coventry council as being an excellent campaigner. That said toppling Sanders will be a significant ask.
6/4 is skinny, might be some value in the 9/4.
No yellow box for manufacturing output Avery ?
Perhaps because manufacturing output was lower in 2013 than 2012 and for that matter every year since 1993 with the exception of 2009.
And while manufacturing output did grow during the year from its low point in Q1 the 2013Q4 manufacturing output was still lower than in 2010Q4 - whatever happened to the 'March of the Makers' ?
The wider industrial ouput data being even more dismal.
You only need but ask, ar.
Here are the figures, in context: You will note that the main fall in manufacturing output (-10.2%) took place in 2009 before King George ascended to the throne. This mainly reflected factories being mothballed or going onto short day weeks with the capacity being part recovered the following year with a 4.2% rise.
The second hit to manufacturing was end 2011 to the beginning of 2013 as the UK was forced to respond to the Eurozone crisis and the associated drop in export demands.
Overall though Osborne's record with manufacturing is good: certainly better than our European competitors, where only Germany in 2010-11 outperformed us. The Index for Manufacturing when based on 2010 is positive and growth over the last three quarters of 2013 has been impressive.
So given context and competition, not a bad performance and getting better every day.
Expert calls for Royal Commission into police misconduct - after possible #DanielMorgan & #StephenLawrence case links http://itv.co/1n2I4CY
Tick, tock.
All of us need look no further than our own mortgages.Bizarrely, during such a severe crunch living standards of people in work and owning houses actually improved.
Therein, lies the other tale. Those not in work or renting accomodation have been hit but none more than pensioners whose annuity incomes just crashed. They are the biggest losers of these past 5 years.
All governments, in my opinion, have done well to learn the lessons of the 30's. It is also possible by making the downturn less hard than it might have been, it's duration has been extended.
I am not sure what the effects of QE will be in the long term. I do believe there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, sometime will have to pay. I believe more stimulation should have been done directly to kick start growth so that tax revenues came in faster.
In the UK, we managed to keep jobs by keeping the cost of capital low. It hasn't effected investment much. Productivity growth during the last 4 years have been non-existent. In fact, it has fallen.
We need a boost !
UKIP party statement about a smear campaign by The Times newspaper http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1242-ukip-party-statement-about-a-smear-campaign-by-the-times-newspaper-akin-to-the-one-it-ran-against-lord-ashcroft-15-years-ago-as-the-political-establishment-struggles-to-control-a-tidal-wave-of-support-for-the-party …
The indictment against Osborne is that in the fifth year , we still had negative growth despite a strong 4th quarter. Britain has had the longest period of output lower than its previous peak. Even compared to the 30's. Osborne's record is truly abysmal.
All your yellow boxes avoids that dreaded word: productivity. I wonder why ?
2) The NotW did some decent exposes, for instance the Pakistani cricketers.
3) You are meant to be a serious political party, not Pravda.
Are you serious? The FTSE is almost at an all-time high.
On interest rates you really cannot complain here, Mr. Brooke. The Bank of England has held its rates at 0.5% since the crisis and the Treasury in conjunction with the BoE have had numerous schemes from QE to Help to Buy to ensure funds are available for lending while bank balance sheets were repaired. The principal reason why lending hasn't increased has been lack of demand rather than insufficient supply. Everyone, government, corporations of all sizes, households and individuals have responded to the financial crisis by deleveraging.
This week's scandal is forex rate fixing and the BoE official suspended is not implicated in fixing but in non-application of regulatory procedures related to but not causing or colluding in the alleged fixing. I remain to be convinced that smaller retail banking units will have any impact on the incidence of price fixing in wholesale markets.
The too big to fail risk is addressed by the ring fencing reforms introduced by Osborne. A less concentrated and more competitive retail banking industry is likely to lead to more failures which are better covered with less risk to the taxpayer. Ironically, it will be depositors who will have to be aware of the greater risks in the new environment.
I hooe there won't be a big 'privatisation giveaway' of bank shares. The more quickly and effectively they are transferred to the private sector the better the value to the taxpayer. Vince Cable self-promotions are not necessary or desirable in a competently run economy.
Education Minister Huw Lewis said he wanted his officials to look into it as a "matter of urgency".
The changes to the exam were made following a row over GCSE English results in 2012 which led to thousands of papers being re-graded.
The Welsh government plans the new courses in English, Welsh, double maths and the Welsh baccalaureate next year.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-26476199
Avery, you cannot view Britain in isolation. Look at the figures of the G20 countries in 2009. I think only Canada came out positive !
The indictment against Osborne is that in the fifth year , we still had negative growth despite a strong 4th quarter. Britain has had the longest period of output lower than its previous peak. Even compared to the 30's. Osborne's record is truly abysmal.
All your yellow boxes avoids that dreaded word: productivity. I wonder why ?
Surby, you would be much better off agreeing with all my posts.
The answer to your 'conundrum' is to take the widely differing dips in GDP suffered in the G20 countries and align the low points. Then compare the rates of growth from the indexed low.
You will see that the UK has grown faster than almost all it competitors (US excepted) but from a lower starting point.
Osborne is responsible for the rate of recovery growth, Brown for the depth of the trough.
No more boom and bust, Surby!
well it's more Pole dancing but your string's slipping.
Nobody would claim that having to save the banking system is somehow a "benefit", it's a poor consolation prize for a royal screw up.
Your point on lack of demand is just guff. There is demand which just can't find credit at a realistic price, whether it's first time buyers being asked for historically high deposits or as has been the case businesses being pre-screened before making a credit submission and thereby never making the statistics. Unless I've missed it it remains the case that big corporates can obtain easy credit they don't need and SMEs are still struggling. Banks still haven't achieved the SME targets on lending HMG has set. Banks are simply changing the hurdles and then saying nobody wants to jump.
Competition keeps companies clean, oligoplies don't. There's a difference between pricing to win business and pricing for profit. Your point on regulation is just silly by supporting the principle of not letting banks go you are merely reinforcing the incentive to cheat.
On RBS there will be no movement for several years and since time is money the idea we are going to get our money back is just plain naive.
As a long-standing Labour member in Bermondsey I wouldn't risk a penny on the party being able to beat Simon Hughes here. We see it every five years with the same slogan "Everybody in Bermondsey knows someone who has been helped by Simon Hughes".
It works because it happens to be true as I can testify. His help for me and my family during a very difficult period 15 years ago is something I will be grateful to him until I die. Although I'm totally hostile to the Liberals I couldn't bring myself to vote against Simon and I really wish him well. He's a good man.
'Equities slide as risk appetite crumbles' http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dbf94a3a-a27d-11e3-87f6-00144feab7de.html#axzz2vDLUe2xU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Neukom
Obvious typo from MicroSoft's anti-competition lawyer.