It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party..
It was doing ok until that bit......
Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...
Scottish Labour voters have the smallest "no" lead (+29, vs Con +78, LibD, +43) of the Unionist parties, and the greatest number of don't knows - twice the others at 17....and the lowest certainty to vote.....
Cameron is a towering genius compared to this clown.
Nice to find something we agree upon!
No doubt normal service will be resumed shortly......
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
Ah, you're getting towards tim's position: Osborne should have slashed welfare and used the savings to increase spending on infrastructure projects, within the same overall borrowing envelope.
Quite possibly right, but I don't recall anyone from the left complaining that Osborne was too generous on benefits in 2010-2012.
Nobody suggested it at the time but with hindsight they should probably have done "Cash in your pension early and SPEND SPEND SPEND" back in 2010 rather than waiting until the economy was picking up anyway.
It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party..
Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...
If the Union is "lost" then historians will doubtless lay most of the blame at the feet of Thatcher, Blair and Cameron. I'd propose that several other UK PMs also made key strategic errors, not least Attlee. I very much doubt that the name Ed Miliband would even be mentioned.
I presume Carlotta was referring to SLAB Leader Johann Lamont, not little Ed Miliband.
PS What did Attlee "do"?
Several things, which I'd love to tell you about, but I have got a deadline looming and I have to go now.
Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target. He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.
I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.
Thanks. So your solution to avoid borrowing more was to borrow even more. Now that the Multiverse idea has gained some credibility perhaps there is an Earth on which borrowing more equals borrowing less but I am not sure its the one we are living on.
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
The trick is in the timing.
The capital markets wouldn't have tolerated an immediate investment/spending programme untl they were sure the UK was serious about getting the deficit under control (regardless of how successful this was or wasn't).
GO did this hence could start capital spending. He couldn't (and nor could any govt) have done so from Day 1.
It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party..
It was doing ok until that bit......
Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...
Scottish Labour voters have the smallest "no" lead (+29, vs Con +78, LibD, +43) of the Unionist parties, and the greatest number of don't knows - twice the others at 17....and the lowest certainty to vote.....
Cameron is a towering genius compared to this clown.
Nice to find something we agree upon!
No doubt normal service will be resumed shortly......
Intriguingly it might also be one way for Boris to become PM. YES Wins > Cameron or Miliband become PM > but only for a year, until the Scots MPs leave > a new election is called,
Why would there be a general election then? The non-Scottish MPs could just continue sitting until 2020.
The main argument for no additional election would be continuity of government during the transition period, and secondarily cost. Since the voters in 2015 would have known Scotland was leaving, the remaining MPs would have a mandate for the full five year period, having been elected on that basis.
Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target. He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.
I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.
Thanks. So your solution to avoid borrowing more was to borrow even more. Now that the Multiverse idea has gained some credibility perhaps there is an Earth on which borrowing more equals borrowing less but I am not sure its the one we are living on.
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
The trick is in the timing.
The capital markets wouldn't have tolerated an immediate investment/spending programme untl they were sure the UK was serious about getting the deficit under control (regardless of how successful this was or wasn't).
GO did this hence could start capital spending. He couldn't (and nor could any govt) have done so from Day 1.
Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target. He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.
I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.
Thanks. So your solution to avoid borrowing more was to borrow even more. Now that the Multiverse idea has gained some credibility perhaps there is an Earth on which borrowing more equals borrowing less but I am not sure its the one we are living on.
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
Borrow to invest when there is going to be a positive return is a sensible idea, of course it is. Happens in businesses every day. However in the context of our discussion I am not sure that is relevant. Your complaint was that HMG had borrowed too much, but what you suggest they should have done was borrow even more. So the total debt, of which you are critical, would today be even higher.
Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target. He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.
I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.
Thanks. So your solution to avoid borrowing more was to borrow even more. Now that the Multiverse idea has gained some credibility perhaps there is an Earth on which borrowing more equals borrowing less but I am not sure its the one we are living on.
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
The trick is in the timing.
The capital markets wouldn't have tolerated an immediate investment/spending programme untl they were sure the UK was serious about getting the deficit under control (regardless of how successful this was or wasn't).
GO did this hence could start capital spending. He couldn't (and nor could any govt) have done so from Day 1.
Guff.
Why thank you.
(I take it "Guff" is Warwickshirese for "Huzzah"?)
I think Williams will fairly easily overtake Ferrari (the car's nowhere near good enough, and Raikkonen especially is struggling), and may benefit from speed better than McLaren and reliability better than Mercedes.
Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target. He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.
I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.
Thanks. So your solution to avoid borrowing more was to borrow even more. Now that the Multiverse idea has gained some credibility perhaps there is an Earth on which borrowing more equals borrowing less but I am not sure its the one we are living on.
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
The trick is in the timing.
The capital markets wouldn't have tolerated an immediate investment/spending programme untl they were sure the UK was serious about getting the deficit under control (regardless of how successful this was or wasn't).
GO did this hence could start capital spending. He couldn't (and nor could any govt) have done so from Day 1.
Guff.
Why thank you.
(I take it "Guff" is Warwickshirese for "Huzzah"?)
It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party..
It was doing ok until that bit......
Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...
Scottish Labour voters have the smallest "no" lead (+29, vs Con +78, LibD, +43) of the Unionist parties, and the greatest number of don't knows - twice the others at 17....and the lowest certainty to vote.....
Cameron is a towering genius compared to this clown.
Nice to find something we agree upon!
No doubt normal service will be resumed shortly......
You are so cynical
And you prove my point......
But you were being cynical, perhaps we will agree for months, its an injustice
Quite a few people have referred to Miliband's Budget response. Apparently it has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to receive an advance copy of the Chancellor's speech - with market sensitive sections redacted. This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders.
Quite a few people have referred to Miliband's Budget response. Apparently it has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to receive an advance copy of the Chancellor's speech - with market sensitive sections redacted. This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders.
And what's the excuse for Ed Balls' almost equally lamentable and content-free response 24 hours later?
Quite a few people have referred to Miliband's Budget response. Apparently it has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to receive an advance copy of the Chancellor's speech - with market sensitive sections redacted. This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders.
Thanks for that, you've reminded me it's ages since we've had an Ed is Crap thread.
Quite a few people have referred to Miliband's Budget response. Apparently it has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to receive an advance copy of the Chancellor's speech - with market sensitive sections redacted. This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders.
Just as well "thinking on your feet" is not a skill we look for in a PM, what with all those foreign leader negotiations and all.....
"This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders."
I think you will find this kind of thing was done before under a different chancellor.
Quite a few people have referred to Miliband's Budget response. Apparently it has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to receive an advance copy of the Chancellor's speech - with market sensitive sections redacted. This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders.
Playing the game by Labour's rules? Someone's learning.
Moderator, why was Mark Senior allowed to edit his post nearly an hour after he made it? All other posters are given 6 minutes.
MarkSenior Posts: 1,525 2:30PM edited 3:26PM
He changed "SNPbase" to "Panelbase".
He didn't.
We did as we felt it impugned the integrity of the pollster.
All posters should be aware it is fine to criticise the methodology of pollsters but not their integrity as Mike has said in the past.
par for the course for unionists, we expect no less from them, always play the man.
malc, is it that we haven't lovebombed you for a while ?
I will be sorry when it is over Alan, I have never laughed so much in my life. Labour party are just a joke, you just cannot believe they can be so bad and so stupid but they shock you every time. Still waiting on those love bombs, so far it has been all threats and black holes. At last count we will be £38K a year worse off , and cut off from the world.
Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target. He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.
I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.
Thanks. So your solution to avoid borrowing more was to borrow even more. Now that the Multiverse idea has gained some credibility perhaps there is an Earth on which borrowing more equals borrowing less but I am not sure its the one we are living on.
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
The trick is in the timing.
The capital markets wouldn't have tolerated an immediate investment/spending programme untl they were sure the UK was serious about getting the deficit under control (regardless of how successful this was or wasn't).
GO did this hence could start capital spending. He couldn't (and nor could any govt) have done so from Day 1.
Guff.
Why thank you.
(I take it "Guff" is Warwickshirese for "Huzzah"?)
nah, Midlands for load of bollocks.
so harsh!
I suppose GO could move us into surplus next quarter, rescue a troop of nuns from a burning bus, solve the Crimea/Ukraine issue, abolish poverty and unhappiness and ensure that Coventry City win the Champions League next season...
'Just as well "thinking on your feet" is not a skill we look for in a PM, what with all those foreign leader negotiations and all...'.. It will be interesting to see how well future Tory leaders cope with the same restriction.
Quite a few people have referred to Miliband's Budget response. Apparently it has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to receive an advance copy of the Chancellor's speech - with market sensitive sections redacted. This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders.
Thanks for that, you've reminded me it's ages since we've had an Ed is Crap thread.
He has just bombed in Perth , managed 20 mins and legged it to catch his plane, not even a day tripper like Dave and George. Most used phrase in speech was "SNP".
Scottish MPs will not have to leave Westminster in 2016 as the independence negotiations will not be finalised by then. The SNP does not get to set the date. It has to be agreed.
Another cracking photo of him to add to the collection, from a paper that's supposed to be on his side ('MILIBAND, who is just over a year away from becoming prime minister if the polls are correct'):
this isn't to do with GO per se. The so called markets were actually the BoE which printed money and made clear it would print more if needed. So the whole don't upset the markets theme is a bit of a red herring. Indeed over the years GO has been consistently under pressure to borrow more for infrastructure form the likes of the IMF and could probably have got away with it. Why he didn't God knows, but he was obsessed with the AAA so maybe that explains it. But let's be blunt his problem wasn't raising money the BoE had it's cheque book at the ready and have issued something like £375bn under QE.
Quite a few people have referred to Miliband's Budget response. Apparently it has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to receive an advance copy of the Chancellor's speech - with market sensitive sections redacted. This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders.
Interesting. It is also the first budget for a while which didn't have significant sections leaked to the press in advance. (Not that I am inferring any link - just making an observation...)
It was much easier under Labour - especially Brown, who used to leak virtually the whole thing before hand, so an advance copy was really neither here nor there.
Traditionally the line has been "While the Chancellor proposes X, our policy of Y would be so much more effective......"
Another cracking photo of [Ed] to add to the collection, from a paper that's supposed to be on his side ('MILIBAND, who is just over a year away from becoming prime minister if the polls are correct')
He doesn't photograph well, does he? The look on his face says it all:
"I know I'm an atheist, but dear God, make it stop. They are probably going to make me drink a pint of heavy next....HELP!!"
It was much easier under Labour - especially Brown, who used to leak virtually the whole thing before hand, so an advance copy was really neither here nor there.
Traditionally the line has been "While the Chancellor proposes X, our policy of Y would be so much more effective......"
Interesting. It is also the first budget for a while which didn't have significant sections leaked to the press in advance. (Not that I am inferring any link - just making an observation...)
I read somewhere that the LotO hasn't received the usual one hour warning this Parliament. Which might explain why Ed trots out the same speech he prepared three years ago.
(It also puts the LibDems firmly in the frame as the Budget leakers!)
It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party..
Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...
If the Union is "lost" then historians will doubtless lay most of the blame at the feet of Thatcher, Blair and Cameron. I'd propose that several other UK PMs also made key strategic errors, not least Attlee. I very much doubt that the name Ed Miliband would even be mentioned.
I presume Carlotta was referring to SLAB Leader Johann Lamont, not little Ed Miliband.
PS What did Attlee "do"?
Several things, which I'd love to tell you about, but I have got a deadline looming and I have to go now.
Well, do please tell us sometime once deadline is past!
this isn't to do with GO per se. The so called markets were actually the BoE which printed money and made clear it would print more if needed. So the whole don't upset the markets theme is a bit of a red herring. Indeed over the years GO has been consistently under pressure to borrow more for infrastructure form the likes of the IMF and could probably have got away with it. Why he didn't God knows, but he was obsessed with the AAA so maybe that explains it. But let's be blunt his problem wasn't raising money the BoE had it's cheque book at the ready and have issued something like £375bn under QE.
And what happens to bond yields in an expected inflationary environment?
Quite a few people have referred to Miliband's Budget response. Apparently it has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to receive an advance copy of the Chancellor's speech - with market sensitive sections redacted. This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders.
Thanks for that, you've reminded me it's ages since we've had an Ed is Crap thread.
Voters don't trust Ed to run UK plc: Less than one in four trusts Labour leader on economy after lacklustre Budget response Fewer than one in four voters say they trust Labour leader to run economy Support for Miliband dropped 10 points since January to 23 per cent 21 per cent said the Budget had reduced their trust in his economic ability
An ally of Ed Miliband told the Mail: ‘We always knew it was going to be a difficult Budget with the economy on the turn. It was not made easier by Ed Balls.’
A Labour MP summed up mood of frustration about Mr Miliband’s performance on the backbenches: ‘The best you can say is that it was better than Ed Balls’ awful speech after the last Autumn Statement. I’ve no idea why he didn’t talk about anything that was actually in the Budget.’
this isn't to do with GO per se. The so called markets were actually the BoE which printed money and made clear it would print more if needed. So the whole don't upset the markets theme is a bit of a red herring. Indeed over the years GO has been consistently under pressure to borrow more for infrastructure form the likes of the IMF and could probably have got away with it. Why he didn't God knows, but he was obsessed with the AAA so maybe that explains it. But let's be blunt his problem wasn't raising money the BoE had it's cheque book at the ready and have issued something like £375bn under QE.
And what happens to bond yields in an expected inflationary environment?
Well looking at the period we were talking about 2011 and 2012 they fell to their all time lows. in case you've forgotten we were in the middle of Eurogeddon and the UK was seen as a safe haven. So the market at that time had the appetite and the IMF were telling him to take the chance.
I have never laughed so much in my life. Labour party are just a joke, you just cannot believe they can be so bad and so stupid but they shock you every time.
Labour leader a laughing stock? Would never have happened under Prime Minister Gordon Brown...
Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target. He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.
More Flobajobbery?
Let us remember what George Osborne said in 2010:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget."
Now, let's look at that 2010 forecast for 'PSNB ex' and compare it to actual outcomes as published in today's Public Finances Bulletin from the ONS [see Table PSF2: Public Sector Net Borrowing by Sector: Column 'PSNB ex'].
So, over three years, we have a cumulative undershoot to GO's advantage, of -£16 billion.
Now you may say that this year will be different, so let's look at the monthly figures for both 2012/13 and 2013/14.
Public Sector Net Borrowing 2012 vs 2013 --------------------------------------- Apr 2012 -19,726 Apr 2013 5,620 May 2012 15,881 May 2013 9,159 Jun 2012 12,391 Jun 2013 7,751 Jul 2012 -482 Jul 2013 1,455 Aug 2012 12,907 Aug 2013 12,118 Sep 2012 12,412 Sep 2013 11,013 Oct 2012 8,004 Oct 2013 8,696 Nov 2012 16,691 Nov 2013 16,208 Dec 2012 14,311 Dec 2013 10,825 Jan 2013 -9,580 Jan 2014 -4,999 Feb 2013 6,492 Feb 2014 9,311 Mar 2013 11,427 Mar 2014 ------ ------ 80,728 (To date) 87,157
The last month of 2012/13 had net borrowing of £11.4 billion so let's assume that borrowing in March 2014 will be the same even though the OBR are predicting a lower final month figure. This brings the 2013-14 total to £98.6 bn or £17.9 bn (£18 bn rounded) more than last year.
Add £18 bn to the cumulative error on George's 2010 Forecasts and you end up with a net difference of - wait for it Flobabjob - + £2 billion. or half a per cent.
That looks to me as very accurate forecasting within the context and complexity of a national economy. Over four years and a forecast of £414 bn of borrowing George is cumulatively out by half a per cent.
I look forward to your worked argument that George will rack up a further £198 bn of borrowing in 2014-15 so that he ends his term with your claimed £200 billion overshoot.
this isn't to do with GO per se. The so called markets were actually the BoE which printed money and made clear it would print more if needed. So the whole don't upset the markets theme is a bit of a red herring. Indeed over the years GO has been consistently under pressure to borrow more for infrastructure form the likes of the IMF and could probably have got away with it. Why he didn't God knows, but he was obsessed with the AAA so maybe that explains it. But let's be blunt his problem wasn't raising money the BoE had it's cheque book at the ready and have issued something like £375bn under QE.
And what happens to bond yields in an expected inflationary environment?
Well looking at the period we were talking about 2011 and 2012 they fell to their all time lows. in case you've forgotten we were in the middle of Eurogeddon and the UK was seen as a safe haven. So the market at that time had the appetite and the IMF were telling him to take the chance.
Off out now.
For if you read this later...
Yes agree. He arguably could have done it but I understand his reluctance as imagine the criticism if he had done it and the markets _hadn't_ liked it: credibility shattered immediately and irrevocably.
Has one of the threads disappeared? At about 8am this morning I asked about the accent in Wyoming. Now there seems to be a big gap from 3am to about 1pm. Was it something about Osborne's budget?
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
Ah, you're getting towards tim's position: Osborne should have slashed welfare and used the savings to increase spending on infrastructure projects, within the same overall borrowing envelope.
Quite possibly right, but I don't recall anyone from the left complaining that Osborne was too generous on benefits in 2010-2012.
Richard
What everyone is missing in this argument about capex is that the Coalition Government has massively raised the financial guarantees available to private sector and foreign investors for infrastructure development.
The aim has been to increase infrastructure investment without raising government borrowing as government guarantees are treated in the national accounts (and generally by markets) as contingent liabilities rather than increased borrowing.
I plan to 'yellow box' the figures in due course. They will show that committed infrastructure development investment has greatly increased under the guarantee scheme.
Has one of the threads disappeared? At about 8am this morning I asked about the accent in Wyoming. Now there seems to be a big gap from 3am to about 1pm. Was it something about Osborne's budget?
It all unravelled, JL.
I suggest you check Grant Shapps's twitter account for the missing posts.
Has one of the threads disappeared? At about 8am this morning I asked about the accent in Wyoming. Now there seems to be a big gap from 3am to about 1pm. Was it something about Osborne's budget?
I imagine it was sucked into the black hole of Labour's economic policy.
Quite a few people have referred to Miliband's Budget response. Apparently it has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to receive an advance copy of the Chancellor's speech - with market sensitive sections redacted. This year no advance copy was provided - and there was no warning of the government's intent. I imagine that such discourtesy will be well remembered and used as a precedent to discomfort future Tory leaders.
Thanks for that, you've reminded me it's ages since we've had an Ed is Crap thread.
He has just bombed in Perth , managed 20 mins and legged it to catch his plane, not even a day tripper like Dave and George. Most used phrase in speech was "SNP".
"Ed Miliband has just given a quite extraordinary speech. I don’t know if it was deliberately banal or merely unfortunately dull. It was certainly stupefyingly boring. The Labour leader gave the impression that Scottish Labour’s spring conference was the very last place on earth he wished to be.
I suppose you can’t blame him for that.
Even so this perfunctory, cliche-stuffed flannel suggested Miliband’s heart wasn’t really in Perth today. It was a kind of “God, do I really have to go to Scotland?” kind of speech."
Has one of the threads disappeared? At about 8am this morning I asked about the accent in Wyoming. Now there seems to be a big gap from 3am to about 1pm. Was it something about Osborne's budget?
"Even so this perfunctory, cliche-stuffed flannel suggested Miliband’s heart wasn’t really in Perth today. It was a kind of “God, do I really have to go to Scotland?” kind of speech."
A serious (well, sort of) question for scientific and mathematical chaps here. Suppose I stacked several bottles of wine directly next to a locked door (wood), then lit a fuse which cause the bottles to explode. Could it do enough damage to (at least theoretically) open the door, whether by blowing a hole in it or simply damaging the lock?
"Even so this perfunctory, cliche-stuffed flannel suggested Miliband’s heart wasn’t really in Perth today. It was a kind of “God, do I really have to go to Scotland?” kind of speech."
Not after September, no.....
When is the penny going to drop in Unite HQ ? 49 MPs lost...
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
Ah, you're getting towards tim's position: Osborne should have slashed welfare and used the savings to increase spending on infrastructure projects, within the same overall borrowing envelope.
Quite possibly right, but I don't recall anyone from the left complaining that Osborne was too generous on benefits in 2010-2012.
Richard
What everyone is missing in this argument about capex is that the Coalition Government has massively raised the financial guarantees available to private sector and foreign investors for infrastructure development.
The aim has been to increase infrastructure investment without raising government borrowing as government guarantees are treated in the national accounts (and generally by markets) as contingent liabilities rather than increased borrowing.
I plan to 'yellow box' the figures in due course. They will show that committed infrastructure development investment has greatly increased under the guarantee scheme.
While Mr. Brooke is out bashing metal on a Warwickshire golf course, I thought I would slip in a quick quote from HM Treasury's Report and Accounts for 2012-13:
Investment in infrastructure is a key part of the Government’s economic plan, and we have supported private sector investment through the launch of the UK Guarantee scheme. The first guarantee, underpinning a £75 million loan for the biomass conversion of the Drax power station in North Yorkshire, was signed in April, and we have since confirmed support for the Mersey Gateway as well as announcing that Hinkley Point is eligible for a Guarantee.
The consultation process which led to the set up of the UK Guarantee scheme and enabling legislation took place in 2011-12, a time when many say George was asleep.
One gramme would blow open the bottles but not even scratch the door. One tonne would certainly open the door! (but would generate a 'you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off' result)
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
Ah, you're getting towards tim's position: Osborne should have slashed welfare and used the savings to increase spending on infrastructure projects, within the same overall borrowing envelope.
Quite possibly right, but I don't recall anyone from the left complaining that Osborne was too generous on benefits in 2010-2012.
Richard
What everyone is missing in this argument about capex is that the Coalition Government has massively raised the financial guarantees available to private sector and foreign investors for infrastructure development.
The aim has been to increase infrastructure investment without raising government borrowing as government guarantees are treated in the national accounts (and generally by markets) as contingent liabilities rather than increased borrowing.
I plan to 'yellow box' the figures in due course. They will show that committed infrastructure development investment has greatly increased under the guarantee scheme.
What makes the bottles explode? Are you asking if something were to increase the pressure inside the bottles enough for them to burst that the resulting glass shrapnel would damage the door? Answer would be no.
this isn't to do with GO per se. The so called markets were actually the BoE which printed money and made clear it would print more if needed. So the whole don't upset the markets theme is a bit of a red herring. Indeed over the years GO has been consistently under pressure to borrow more for infrastructure form the likes of the IMF and could probably have got away with it. Why he didn't God knows, but he was obsessed with the AAA so maybe that explains it. But let's be blunt his problem wasn't raising money the BoE had it's cheque book at the ready and have issued something like £375bn under QE.
And what happens to bond yields in an expected inflationary environment?
Well looking at the period we were talking about 2011 and 2012 they fell to their all time lows. in case you've forgotten we were in the middle of Eurogeddon and the UK was seen as a safe haven. So the market at that time had the appetite and the IMF were telling him to take the chance.
Off out now.
For if you read this later...
Yes agree. He arguably could have done it but I understand his reluctance as imagine the criticism if he had done it and the markets _hadn't_ liked it: credibility shattered immediately and irrevocably.
I'm not sure any CotE would have done it.
It simply showed his inexperience. He was caught in the middle of Eurogeddon, knew the economy would take a hit but sat on his hands and did nothing. He suffered for it later in the double\triple dip fiasco.
A serious (well, sort of) question for scientific and mathematical chaps here. Suppose I stacked several bottles of wine directly next to a locked door (wood), then lit a fuse which cause the bottles to explode. Could it do enough damage to (at least theoretically) open the door, whether by blowing a hole in it or simply damaging the lock?
I speak from experience. As a teenager I brewed beer - in bottles. One time I over-sugared it and three crates of strong bottles burst - but without any damage at all to surroundings.
I also once over-sugared a barrel and came down to the basement to find the thing spherical, sitting there like a pregnant nuclear device. I opened the tap and a jet of white beer foam shot across the room at light speed and bore into the wall opposite.
A serious (well, sort of) question for scientific and mathematical chaps here. Suppose I stacked several bottles of wine directly next to a locked door (wood), then lit a fuse which cause the bottles to explode. Could it do enough damage to (at least theoretically) open the door, whether by blowing a hole in it or simply damaging the lock?
That's a chemistry question. ;-)
My guess is that you'd have a lot of wasted wine, and most of the effect would be through the initial charge. As water's essentially incompressible, you could perhaps make a shaped charge to direct the force of the explosion into a small area (a bit like the water cutters used to cut steel). But that would be massively complex.
Champagne is pressurised to a few atmospheres, so might be different.
You'd be better of bribing the jailer with the wine.
Unless there's something I don't know about the flammability of wine?
Has one of the threads disappeared? At about 8am this morning I asked about the accent in Wyoming. Now there seems to be a big gap from 3am to about 1pm. Was it something about Osborne's budget?
Apparently Mark Senior stole that part of the thread in a desperate attempt to change the result of an overnight local by-election gain for the Tories.
Bedford police are said to be looking for a well known Worthing numismatist of decidedly yellow peril complexion last seen in the vicinity of the residence of a notorious Bedford yellow perilist counterfeit confectionary baron.
It seems Mr Senior was last seen leaving Chez Mike Smithson with a trail of chocolate coins behind him.
A local snitch, known only as "Stu the Swede" cried to the rossers "YES but NO but YES but NO but YES I must be a whiner."
Mr. Patrick, there's a fuse leading from the bottles, with the intention being that when it's lit and reaches the bottles it sets the wine on fire and the confined space makes it explode.
Not really my area, so if this is entirely wrong, that's quite alright.
Mr. Patrick, there's a fuse leading from the bottles, with the intention being that when it's lit and reaches the bottles it sets the wine on fire and the confined space makes it explode.
Not really my area, so if this is entirely wrong, that's quite alright.
Erm....wine is only about 14% alcohol and doesn't burn at all.
I suspect your door might yield to a combined trebuchet / space cannon attack though.
If you don't agree then why not stop all borrowing now, regardless of what it's for? Why borrow to build Crossrail? You must be saying that to avoid capital investment borrowing must be medium-run revenue positive?
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest. The trick is choosing the right projects.
Ah, you're getting towards tim's position: Osborne should have slashed welfare and used the savings to increase spending on infrastructure projects, within the same overall borrowing envelope.
Quite possibly right, but I don't recall anyone from the left complaining that Osborne was too generous on benefits in 2010-2012.
Richard
What everyone is missing in this argument about capex is that the Coalition Government has massively raised the financial guarantees available to private sector and foreign investors for
I plan to 'yellow box' the figures in due course. They will show that committed infrastructure development investment has greatly increased under the guarantee scheme.
While Mr. Brooke is out bashing metal on a Warwickshire golf course, I thought I would slip in a quick quote from HM Treasury's Report and Accounts for 2012-13:
Investment in infrastructure is a key part of the Government’s economic plan, and we have supported private sector investment through the launch of the UK Guarantee scheme. The first guarantee, underpinning a £75 million loan for the biomass conversion of the Drax power station in North Yorkshire, was signed in April, and we have since confirmed support for the Mersey Gateway as well as announcing that Hinkley Point is eligible for a Guarantee.
The consultation process which led to the set up of the UK Guarantee scheme and enabling legislation took place in 2011-12, a time when many say George was asleep.
Anyway, it sounds like the cunning plan simply wouldn't work. Ah ha! I have an even more cunning plan.
The chap in question could try it, blow the bottles open, leave the door entirely intact but have the guard open the door to try and see what the hell had happened.
A serious (well, sort of) question for scientific and mathematical chaps here. Suppose I stacked several bottles of wine directly next to a locked door (wood), then lit a fuse which cause the bottles to explode. Could it do enough damage to (at least theoretically) open the door, whether by blowing a hole in it or simply damaging the lock?
The question is: whose door do you want to open or have been locked out of? Remember most explosions make a noise.
As Patrick says, it would be easier to use some plastic and fuse in the lock.
The LEL (Lower Explosive Limit) for Ethyl Alcohol in air is 3.3% and the Upper Limit is 19%.
Now depending on your wine (cheap German is about 3% ethanol in water) and good claret around 13%, then you may be wasting a good wine! as you need to get the alcohol out of the wine and that is not so likely in the current weather.
If you just left a flame burning near a few bottles of wine, there is a good chance they might not ignite for a long time and that would depend on the size of the room they were held in, for the ethanol to reach 3.3% in air. Why not try a rotgut brandy?
Also wood is surprisingly strong and unless the "explosion" takes place in a confined and congested space, then you will just get a flame deflagration instead of a detonation.
I have had good explosions when making ginger beer though!
Mr. Patrick, there is some philosophical debate about whether space cannon ammunition should be loaded as is (in which case they may well be transformed into a fine red mist) or placed in specially made and highly durable 'bullets' to ensure safe transport to the sun.
What makes the bottles explode? Are you asking if something were to increase the pressure inside the bottles enough for them to burst that the resulting glass shrapnel would damage the door? Answer would be no.
Also, it depends what is in the bottles. Not being a Michael Caine expert, I don't know whether petrol would be sufficient, but I am sure that there would be a suitable igneous or fissile material to achieve your objective
What makes the bottles explode? Are you asking if something were to increase the pressure inside the bottles enough for them to burst that the resulting glass shrapnel would damage the door? Answer would be no.
Also, it depends what is in the bottles. Not being a Michael Caine expert, I don't know whether petrol would be sufficient, but I am sure that there would be a suitable igneous or fissile material to achieve your objective
Charles,
A small amount of petrol vapour would cause a good explosion in a small space or even natural gas.
However it is easy to make at home some picrates which are one of the things that can be used to initiate airbags in cars.
What makes the bottles explode? Are you asking if something were to increase the pressure inside the bottles enough for them to burst that the resulting glass shrapnel would damage the door? Answer would be no.
I once shared a slum terrace house with some friends. The house had a flush toilet at the bottom of the garden and an adjacent small storage room. We decided to make some "ginger beer" but unfortunately put it in some screw top bottles. The bottles exploded, leaving some small pieces of glass in the door.
O/T completely..A question for the pension experts on PB..Is it possible for someone who was obliged to buy an annuity to collapse it and take the remainder of the pot elsewhwere..?
I watched a film once called The Assassination Bureau in which a character (Oliver Reed maybe?) is about to be offed at dinner. He despatches his assailant by taking a good long pull of brandy and spraying it from his mouth through a lighter flame into the face of the attacker.
Hmm. Flour could work. I recall hearing of medieval explosions in flour mills. On the other hand, I quite like the idea of the wine failing and the door getting opened by a curious guard.
What makes the bottles explode? Are you asking if something were to increase the pressure inside the bottles enough for them to burst that the resulting glass shrapnel would damage the door? Answer would be no.
Also, it depends what is in the bottles. Not being a Michael Caine expert, I don't know whether petrol would be sufficient, but I am sure that there would be a suitable igneous or fissile material to achieve your objective
Charles,
A small amount of petrol vapour would cause a good explosion in a small space or even natural gas.
However it is easy to make at home some picrates which are one of the things that can be used to initiate airbags in cars.
Yes, but that's petrol mixed with oxygen - additionally would the force of the explosion be sufficiently directed to blow the door off without harming the prisoner?
Oh dear. 48 hours on, Labour still doesn't know whether they support the pensions reform or not
@bbclaurak: Miliband on pension changes-'there are certain questions that need to be answered by the government about fairness of these proposals'...
It's not as though Labour supporters have much doubt:
Abolishing the requirement for people to buy an annuity with their pension fund, and making it easier for pensioners to take part of their pension pot as a lump sum
I watched a film once called The Assassination Bureau in which a character (Oliver Reed maybe?) is about to be offed at dinner. He despatches his assailant by taking a good long pull of brandy and spraying it from his mouth through a lighter flame into the face of the attacker.
Is that actually possible?
Not sure the time delay required to evaporate the alcohol in the mouth, but brandy is quite easy to light at Christmas.
More effective is the James Bond one of using an aerosol spray - as long as ether or similar is used - the finely divided spray allows the droplets to have intimate contact with air and so making a flammable mixture.
Comments
The capital markets wouldn't have tolerated an immediate investment/spending programme untl they were sure the UK was serious about getting the deficit under control (regardless of how successful this was or wasn't).
GO did this hence could start capital spending. He couldn't (and nor could any govt) have done so from Day 1.
The main argument for no additional election would be continuity of government during the transition period, and secondarily cost. Since the voters in 2015 would have known Scotland was leaving, the remaining MPs would have a mandate for the full five year period, having been elected on that basis.
Considering backing Williams at 30 (Betfair) to win the Constructors. Hmm.
(I take it "Guff" is Warwickshirese for "Huzzah"?)
I think Williams will fairly easily overtake Ferrari (the car's nowhere near good enough, and Raikkonen especially is struggling), and may benefit from speed better than McLaren and reliability better than Mercedes.
Or are you all upset I haven't posted a precise explanation of the Red Bull fuel-flow rate penalty?
I think you will find this kind of thing was done before under a different chancellor.
Still waiting on those love bombs, so far it has been all threats and black holes. At last count we will be £38K a year worse off , and cut off from the world.
I suppose GO could move us into surplus next quarter, rescue a troop of nuns from a burning bus, solve the Crimea/Ukraine issue, abolish poverty and unhappiness and ensure that Coventry City win the Champions League next season...
...and you'd still say he was useless.
'Just as well "thinking on your feet" is not a skill we look for in a PM, what with all those foreign leader negotiations and all...'..
It will be interesting to see how well future Tory leaders cope with the same restriction.
Where will it end?
http://tinyurl.com/onsgzc3
Another cracking photo of him to add to the collection, from a paper that's supposed to be on his side ('MILIBAND, who is just over a year away from becoming prime minister if the polls are correct'):
http://tinyurl.com/pyb6tyj
Doesn't he have a Malcolm Tucker to prevent this sort of stuff?
this isn't to do with GO per se. The so called markets were actually the BoE which printed money and made clear it would print more if needed. So the whole don't upset the markets theme is a bit of a red herring. Indeed over the years GO has been consistently under pressure to borrow more for infrastructure form the likes of the IMF and could probably have got away with it. Why he didn't God knows, but he was obsessed with the AAA so maybe that explains it. But let's be blunt his problem wasn't raising money the BoE had it's cheque book at the ready and have issued something like £375bn under QE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584789/Twitter-blunder-left-Ed-lost-words-Milibands-response-flopped-based-predictions-social-networking-site.html#ixzz2wbz7UZq6
It was much easier under Labour - especially Brown, who used to leak virtually the whole thing before hand, so an advance copy was really neither here nor there.
Traditionally the line has been "While the Chancellor proposes X, our policy of Y would be so much more effective......"
But you can see Ed's problem......
"I know I'm an atheist, but dear God, make it stop. They are probably going to make me drink a pint of heavy next....HELP!!"
(It also puts the LibDems firmly in the frame as the Budget leakers!)
Fewer than one in four voters say they trust Labour leader to run economy
Support for Miliband dropped 10 points since January to 23 per cent
21 per cent said the Budget had reduced their trust in his economic ability
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585760/Voters-dont-trust-Ed-run-UK-plc-Less-one-four-trusts-Labour-leader-economy-lacklustre-Budget-response.html#ixzz2wc1pqtXM
With added Red-on-Red
An ally of Ed Miliband told the Mail: ‘We always knew it was going to be a difficult Budget with the economy on the turn. It was not made easier by Ed Balls.’
A Labour MP summed up mood of frustration about Mr Miliband’s performance on the backbenches: ‘The best you can say is that it was better than Ed Balls’ awful speech after the last Autumn Statement. I’ve no idea why he didn’t talk about anything that was actually in the Budget.’
Off out now.
http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2009/05/06/swastika-appears-behind-gordon-brown-in-picture/
What normally happens if you go through your money before you've cleared a bookie bonus btw ?
Another chance to talk about Tory Tax Cuts.
Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target.
He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.
More Flobajobbery?
Let us remember what George Osborne said in 2010:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget."
Now, let's look at that 2010 forecast for 'PSNB ex' and compare it to actual outcomes as published in today's Public Finances Bulletin from the ONS [see Table PSF2: Public Sector Net Borrowing by Sector: Column 'PSNB ex']. So, over three years, we have a cumulative undershoot to GO's advantage, of -£16 billion.
Now you may say that this year will be different, so let's look at the monthly figures for both 2012/13 and 2013/14.
The last month of 2012/13 had net borrowing of £11.4 billion so let's assume that borrowing in March 2014 will be the same even though the OBR are predicting a lower final month figure. This brings the 2013-14 total to £98.6 bn or £17.9 bn (£18 bn rounded) more than last year.
Add £18 bn to the cumulative error on George's 2010 Forecasts and you end up with a net difference of - wait for it Flobabjob - + £2 billion.
or half a per cent.
That looks to me as very accurate forecasting within the context and complexity of a national economy. Over four years and a forecast of £414 bn of borrowing George is cumulatively out by half a per cent.
I look forward to your worked argument that George will rack up a further £198 bn of borrowing in 2014-15 so that he ends his term with your claimed £200 billion overshoot.
Yes agree. He arguably could have done it but I understand his reluctance as imagine the criticism if he had done it and the markets _hadn't_ liked it: credibility shattered immediately and irrevocably.
I'm not sure any CotE would have done it.
What everyone is missing in this argument about capex is that the Coalition Government has massively raised the financial guarantees available to private sector and foreign investors for infrastructure development.
The aim has been to increase infrastructure investment without raising government borrowing as government guarantees are treated in the national accounts (and generally by markets) as contingent liabilities rather than increased borrowing.
I plan to 'yellow box' the figures in due course. They will show that committed infrastructure development investment has greatly increased under the guarantee scheme.
I suggest you check Grant Shapps's twitter account for the missing posts.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2014/03/ed-milibands-speech-in-scotland-mr-pooter-meets-alan-partridge/
"Ed Miliband has just given a quite extraordinary speech. I don’t know if it was deliberately banal or merely unfortunately dull. It was certainly stupefyingly boring. The Labour leader gave the impression that Scottish Labour’s spring conference was the very last place on earth he wished to be.
I suppose you can’t blame him for that.
Even so this perfunctory, cliche-stuffed flannel suggested Miliband’s heart wasn’t really in Perth today. It was a kind of “God, do I really have to go to Scotland?” kind of speech."
I'm afraid there are no PB Threads.
kind regards -
and good luck!
Mike
Investment in infrastructure is a key part of the Government’s economic plan, and we have supported private sector investment through the launch of the UK Guarantee scheme. The first guarantee, underpinning a £75 million loan for the biomass conversion of the Drax power station in North Yorkshire, was signed in April, and we have since confirmed support for the Mersey Gateway as well as announcing that Hinkley Point is eligible for a Guarantee.
The consultation process which led to the set up of the UK Guarantee scheme and enabling legislation took place in 2011-12, a time when many say George was asleep.
Pure desperation Mr Pole.
An experiment for Christmas maybe?
I also once over-sugared a barrel and came down to the basement to find the thing spherical, sitting there like a pregnant nuclear device. I opened the tap and a jet of white beer foam shot across the room at light speed and bore into the wall opposite.
Dangerous stuff sugar!
My guess is that you'd have a lot of wasted wine, and most of the effect would be through the initial charge. As water's essentially incompressible, you could perhaps make a shaped charge to direct the force of the explosion into a small area (a bit like the water cutters used to cut steel). But that would be massively complex.
Champagne is pressurised to a few atmospheres, so might be different.
You'd be better of bribing the jailer with the wine.
Unless there's something I don't know about the flammability of wine?
Bedford police are said to be looking for a well known Worthing numismatist of decidedly yellow peril complexion last seen in the vicinity of the residence of a notorious Bedford yellow perilist counterfeit confectionary baron.
It seems Mr Senior was last seen leaving Chez Mike Smithson with a trail of chocolate coins behind him.
A local snitch, known only as "Stu the Swede" cried to the rossers "YES but NO but YES but NO but YES I must be a whiner."
Not really my area, so if this is entirely wrong, that's quite alright.
I suspect your door might yield to a combined trebuchet / space cannon attack though.
Anyway, it sounds like the cunning plan simply wouldn't work. Ah ha! I have an even more cunning plan.
The chap in question could try it, blow the bottles open, leave the door entirely intact but have the guard open the door to try and see what the hell had happened.
Cheers for your advice, fellow pbers.
The question is: whose door do you want to open or have been locked out of? Remember most explosions make a noise.
As Patrick says, it would be easier to use some plastic and fuse in the lock.
The LEL (Lower Explosive Limit) for Ethyl Alcohol in air is 3.3% and the Upper Limit is 19%.
Now depending on your wine (cheap German is about 3% ethanol in water) and good claret around 13%, then you may be wasting a good wine! as you need to get the alcohol out of the wine and that is not so likely in the current weather.
If you just left a flame burning near a few bottles of wine, there is a good chance they might not ignite for a long time and that would depend on the size of the room they were held in, for the ethanol to reach 3.3% in air. Why not try a rotgut brandy?
Also wood is surprisingly strong and unless the "explosion" takes place in a confined and congested space, then you will just get a flame deflagration instead of a detonation.
I have had good explosions when making ginger beer though!
A small amount of petrol vapour would cause a good explosion in a small space or even natural gas.
However it is easy to make at home some picrates which are one of the things that can be used to initiate airbags in cars.
http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2014/03/fewer-people-are-going-hungry-than-under-labour.html
http://tinyurl.com/ohh8qu2
@bbclaurak: Miliband on pension changes-'there are certain questions that need to be answered by the government about fairness of these proposals'...
Likewise flour, caster sugar or very fine coffee.
However such an explosion is very difficult to control and could well kill the initiator - or is that the objective.
Is that actually possible?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/10712844/Budget-2014-reaction-from-the-bingo-hall.html
/watch?v=fF5B8LoEXCQ
Abolishing the requirement for people to buy an annuity with their pension fund, and making it easier for pensioners to take part of their pension pot as a lump sum
net agree:
Con:+78
Lab: +40
LibD: +65
UKIP: +77
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/a18inkar8h/YG-Archive-140320-Budget.pdf
More effective is the James Bond one of using an aerosol spray - as long as ether or similar is used - the finely divided spray allows the droplets to have intimate contact with air and so making a flammable mixture.
A leader of the opposition is quite entitled to give assurances of his party's support to the government and then vote against during a division.
Except, of course, on matters of national security and international affairs which involve our leading allies.
The Scots will vote by at least 60:40 to stay in the Union.
Whether that is the right thing or the wrong thing for them, I don't know.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/article4751667.ece