What are the horrors of the HS2 link? Are these horrors just from the perspective of property owners in the area, or actually bad for the nation as a whole?
No, just from the perspective of property owners in NW1 and NW3. The link might have been great for the nation, but as a property owner in NW1, I don't give a f*ck. The link would have been catastrophic for Camden Town and outlying burbs like Primrose Hill, Dartmouth Park, Hampstead, etc.
Memo to railway planners: if you want to get permission for a hugely disruptive new railway line, make sure you plan to smash it through a poor area, like, say, Yorkshire, Liverpool, or Scotland, not through the most media savvy, politically influential borough in the entire country.
Can't they tunnel it, or was the tunnelling what would cause the disruption.
It's too expensive to tunnel, right now. Apparently. And too destructive to go overground. They literally wanted to smash through Camden Markets, one of the biggest tourist attractions in the UK, which generates billions. Insane.
But in all honesty the whole thing is daft. At some point - given that we aren't in Schengen - we would need to check passports of people going to Europe anyway, so "through trains" are a delusion. We might as well do it in Euston or St Pancras. Ergo people from Brum or northern cities or Scotland will have to get off at Euston, then stand on a travelator for 3 minutes (the latest plan) then get their passports checked, then get on a new train at Kings X.
It's not exactly the Holocaust.
Camden's a shithole. Demolishing it to build a decent railway would improve the area.
As for your ludicrous suggestion that the markets generate billions? Lay off the Morrisons Amarone.
Absolutely right. Camden market is hideous. It would be a blessing if it were razed to the ground.
As for the poster who complained that we were earlier discussing sharia, I have only this to say: the rights of women matter.
And, frankly, matter rather more than discovering that Labour are still in the lead in an opinion poll, a position they have held for ca. 2 years now.
Surbiton Wrong, according to Yougov the Tories have won over as many as 14% of 2010 LDs, if they win back the 13% of 2010 Tories they have lost to UKIP, they should easily outweigh a few losses to the reds with gains from the yellows, have a 2-3% lead over Labour overall and remain largest party leading another Tory-LD Coalition http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8zdmok1anf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200314.pdf
HS2 link would be good for the rest of the country: it would mean Bham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Leeds having a direct rail link to the continent.
Who wants to go all the way from Newcastle to Cologne by train? Flying is better. London to Brussels or Paris just about works, but it's almost more convenient (and cheaper) to fly to Amsterdam rather than take the train.
Competition. Some will be happy to sit on a train for 8 hours to get somewhere they can fly in 2 to save £££.
But I did EasyJet from Gatwick to the Dam for £30 each way and when you get there, you just get on the train, no messy airport transfers. Yes that was a while ago but even then was much cheaper than Eurostar.
I did once go to the Netherlands by train, but my first destination was Utrecht, with a stop off in Antwerp, and I came back from Amsterdam via Nijmegen, Maastricht, Aachen and Namur, so not your average trip.
"Drive over the canal from Parkway, to Regents Park and you might as well be journeying to the Moon. You're deluding yourself if you think that Arlington Road is the Outer Circles little cousin.
The Park is Bentleys and serenity, Camden is 'dogs on string' and the horrors of Chalk Farm and deprived council estates."
Arlington Road? Admittedly that is at the edgier end of Camden's excitingly diverse social spectrum
Which is probably why a humble 4 bed terrace house, on Arlington Road, can be had for a mere £1.5 million.
Surbiton Wrong, according to Yougov the Tories have won over as many as 14% of 2010 LDs, if they win back the 13% of 2010 Tories they have lost to UKIP, they should easily outweigh a few losses to the reds with gains from the yellows, have a 2-3% lead over Labour overall and remain largest party leading another Tory-LD Coalition http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8zdmok1anf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200314.pdf
Surely any action that would win them back those they have lost to UKIP would lose them any they have gained from the LDs, more likely than not?
Surbiton Wrong, according to Yougov the Tories have won over as many as 14% of 2010 LDs, if they win back the 13% of 2010 Tories they have lost to UKIP, they should easily outweigh a few losses to the reds with gains from the yellows, have a 2-3% lead over Labour overall and remain largest party leading another Tory-LD Coalition http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8zdmok1anf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200314.pdf
So all they have to do is appeal to people who liked the lefty version of Nick Clegg at the same time as the people who like Nigel Farage. OK.
The Clegg-Farage showdown could seriously damage the PM
The Tories say the debates offer them a win-win scenario. If Mr Farage does well, it will be at the expense of the Lib Dems and Mr Clegg, which would suit them nicely: coalition has made Conservatives eager to see their partners fail. Equally, if Mr Clegg emerges triumphant, he will have done them a favour by knocking the wind out of the Ukip sails. With either outcome, they claim, their cause is enhanced. “David Cameron is happy to see the debate happen,” an aide says. “He’s quite relaxed about it. He doesn’t feel a particular need to take on Farage himself. This debate is a win-win for us.”
Test that proposition among Tories though, and the more common reflection is that the debate has all the makings of a “lose–lose”. Both parties depend for their success on taking votes off the Tories. Whichever one does well out of the debate, it will be at the expense of the Conservatives. If Mr Farage keeps his temper and emerges with his reputation as a gadfly of the Right enhanced, it will cause anguish in Tory constituencies. Equally, if Mr Clegg delivers a statesmanlike performance that develops the reputation he has built with his radio phone-ins as an easy-going Mr Normal, it will worry Conservative HQ. Between them, they have an opportunity to damage the Tories.
George Galloway debating Jim Sillars on BBC Scotland at the mo'. George seems to have borrowed his outfit from Peter Stringfellow.
I've always thought they would be natural bedfellows.
On Scotland, was it Donald Dewar who said devolution was a process not an event? Could the same be true of independence? Could a Yes vote merely be stage 1 of the Balkanisation of Britain.
"Drive over the canal from Parkway, to Regents Park and you might as well be journeying to the Moon. You're deluding yourself if you think that Arlington Road is the Outer Circles little cousin.
The Park is Bentleys and serenity, Camden is 'dogs on string' and the horrors of Chalk Farm and deprived council estates."
Arlington Road? Admittedly that is at the edgier end of Camden's excitingly diverse social spectrum
Which is probably why a humble 4 bed terrace house, on Arlington Road, can be had for a mere £1.5 million.
Edgier? I'd class Arlington as one of the more pleasant bits, certainly the end near Gloucester Crescent and Oval Road. But it's no Primrose Hill. And I wouldn't pay 1.5 bar for a house there.
Surbiton Wrong, according to Yougov the Tories have won over as many as 14% of 2010 LDs, if they win back the 13% of 2010 Tories they have lost to UKIP, they should easily outweigh a few losses to the reds with gains from the yellows, have a 2-3% lead over Labour overall and remain largest party leading another Tory-LD Coalition http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8zdmok1anf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200314.pdf
Surely any action that would win them back those they have lost to UKIP would lose them any they have gained from the LDs, more likely than not?
Not all policies appeal to one section of voters at the expense of others, as last week's budget announcement on annuities showed.
FWIW I think the last few days have been a trial run for the election - a test of how much support the Tories can recover under fairly optimal circumstances with a strong press wind.
As DavidL observes, it's not signficantly affected the Labour rating, but it's given a modest boost to the Tories. What this shows is that the Con->UKIP shift is more easily reversed than the LD->:Lab shift. But the Conservatives probably need to aim to get close to 40% to be the largest party, and it's hard to see that happening.
I take your point However I was wondering why the lead was 5%, It strikes me as unlikely. It could be many things, indeed it could be an outlier. We need more data (lots more polls), but my impression is that the worm has turned, so to speak.
"Drive over the canal from Parkway, to Regents Park and you might as well be journeying to the Moon. You're deluding yourself if you think that Arlington Road is the Outer Circles little cousin.
The Park is Bentleys and serenity, Camden is 'dogs on string' and the horrors of Chalk Farm and deprived council estates."
Arlington Road? Admittedly that is at the edgier end of Camden's excitingly diverse social spectrum
Which is probably why a humble 4 bed terrace house, on Arlington Road, can be had for a mere £1.5 million.
So, it's an expensive shithole, that is all that you have demonstrated.
There have always been folk with more money than sense.
Sure, of course. That is possibly true.
Alternatively, it's not a shithole and all these people spending £1m+ for a house have worked that out, and, er, you haven't. Given that these Camdenites can spend £1m on a house, I'm guessing that quite a few of them are really VERY smart, as so many have made the money themselves (trustafarians buy in west London).
Indeed I wrote about these people, my new neighbours, in a Telegraph blog. And they really are young and smart. I know this annoys pb-ers, but there we are. It's not my fault some of you are less smart and less young and live in bungalows in Lincolnshire worth £6.
Surbiton Wrong, according to Yougov the Tories have won over as many as 14% of 2010 LDs, if they win back the 13% of 2010 Tories they have lost to UKIP, they should easily outweigh a few losses to the reds with gains from the yellows, have a 2-3% lead over Labour overall and remain largest party leading another Tory-LD Coalition http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8zdmok1anf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200314.pdf
So all they have to do is appeal to people who liked the lefty version of Nick Clegg at the same time as the people who like Nigel Farage. OK.
Not all LDs liked the lefty version of Nick Clegg.
Surbiton Wrong, according to Yougov the Tories have won over as many as 14% of 2010 LDs, if they win back the 13% of 2010 Tories they have lost to UKIP, they should easily outweigh a few losses to the reds with gains from the yellows, have a 2-3% lead over Labour overall and remain largest party leading another Tory-LD Coalition http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8zdmok1anf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200314.pdf
Surely any action that would win them back those they have lost to UKIP would lose them any they have gained from the LDs, more likely than not?
Not all policies appeal to one section of voters at the expense of others, as last week's budget announcement on annuities showed.
That is true, but it is tough to find that sweet spot when you have, in all probability, attracted people on the left from the LDs, while forcing away people from the right for UKIP. Finding something that appeals to both will not be easy.
KLE4 Not necessarily, when those UKIP Tories are faced with the choice of a Miliband premiership and no EU referendum. They voted for Cameron in 2010 anyway and he was not exactly Thatcher 2 then was he, so no reason they could not do so again
"Drive over the canal from Parkway, to Regents Park and you might as well be journeying to the Moon. You're deluding yourself if you think that Arlington Road is the Outer Circles little cousin.
The Park is Bentleys and serenity, Camden is 'dogs on string' and the horrors of Chalk Farm and deprived council estates."
Arlington Road? Admittedly that is at the edgier end of Camden's excitingly diverse social spectrum
Which is probably why a humble 4 bed terrace house, on Arlington Road, can be had for a mere £1.5 million.
Edgier? I'd class Arlington as one of the more pleasant bits, certainly the end near Gloucester Crescent and Oval Road. But it's no Primrose Hill. And I wouldn't pay 1.5 bar for a house there.
You haven't got a f*cking clue what you are talking about. First you say Arlington Road is the pits. Then I prove it isn't. Then you do a 180 and you say Arlington Road is one of the nicer bits of Camden - and yet you cite the bit of Arlington Road near Gloucester Crescent in particular.
But that is where the homeless hostel is, and the bingo Hall. That IS downmarket. The nice bit - with the £1.5m houses - is either side of Delancey in the middle. Duh. You clearly are talking out of your arse and I suspect you haven't been to Camden in a decade and this debate is, of necessity, over. Pointless. Next.
Heh. It's a scuzzy rats nest, and you wish you were living on the other side of the canal in Primrose Hill, near The Engineer and Princess of Wales. Keep talking the area up if it makes you feel better!
Surbiton Wrong, according to Yougov the Tories have won over as many as 14% of 2010 LDs, if they win back the 13% of 2010 Tories they have lost to UKIP, they should easily outweigh a few losses to the reds with gains from the yellows, have a 2-3% lead over Labour overall and remain largest party leading another Tory-LD Coalition http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8zdmok1anf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200314.pdf
So all they have to do is appeal to people who liked the lefty version of Nick Clegg at the same time as the people who like Nigel Farage. OK.
Not all LDs liked the lefty version of Nick Clegg.
2010 LDs liked him enough to prefer him over the 2010 Lefty Cameron. And now 2014 Cameron is all about inheritance tax cuts for the rich and bashing the EU. It's a hard gulf to straddle, I think.
TNS BMRB’s latest monthly poll is published this morning. It is in fact relatively old. Interviewing began almost a month ago, and finished as long ago as the 9th of this month. However, that does not mean it should be ignored.
The poll puts Yes on 28%, No on 42%. That represents a one point drop in the Yes vote compared with the company’s previous poll, conducted in early February before the Chancellor’s announcement that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to share the pound. Once the very substantial number of Don’t Knows (30%, up one point) are excluded, that equates to a Yes vote of 40%, down one.
In theory the Clegg strategy should be to win over soft Tory voters from 2010. What is remarkable is just how unsuccessful they've been. In spite of the Lib Dems moving to the right, going into coalition with Cameron, appearing statesmanlike, Cameron having to deal with restless Eurosceptic backbenchers, bringing in Lynton Crosby, Clegg has completely failed to win them over? Given Cameron hardly did any better against the Lib Dems than Michael Howard did, who did Clegg think these 'soft' Tory voters were? People who voted Howard in 2005 but might switch to Lib Dem in 2015?
They won't commit resources but Labour should be looking at the results in Tory/Lib Dem marginals that the Tories hold. If it's assumed the Tories can't lose there, will the Lib Dem vote collapse? Can Labour beat the Lib Dems in the South West in the Euros?
Freggles So what, Cameron clearly has already won over LDs since 2010 as shown by the yougov polls, those he won over are clearly centrist/centre right and distinct from the left wing LDs who have now gone back to Labour
I'm still flabbergasted Shadsys mob have the Lib Dems favourite in Roxborough. Boots being filled. Competence confidence in the Tories going up, Labour lead declining, reality of Kipper vote settling in. The election campaign is underway. I'd like odds on Banff and Buchan. A no vote might hand it to the blue army. I've had a drink.
On topic. Not surprised at the closing gap on living standards, remember Ed Milibands big energy freeze meme in the run up to this winter? Well, I doubt that I am the only person on this site who has just seen their cheapest fuel bills in over a decade this winter. I had been expecting quite a harsh winter, so I ordered extra logs and filled my heating oil tank in the Autumn with the expectation that I would be refilling it come January/February as I did that two harsh winters we had a couple of years ago. I ended up using so little of my log pile this winter that I will for the first time ever not have to order any this summer for next winter, and that full tank of oil from last Autumn has lasted me the whole winter with a bit left over, another first over the last decade. I even got a nice rebate from my electricity supplier just before Christmas.
What happened to that much heralded NHS crisis that Labour were also expecting and warning us of this winter? Add in the recent budget, a new supermarket price wars, and of course the slow unwinding of wage restraints as employment grows and help to buy kicks in.... Cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis when its now deemed pretty cool to shop at Aldi or Lidl for the best bargains as they outperform more expensive alternatives. And anyone remember the last time that the cost of filling your car up was leading the news?
Off Topic. rcs1000 "It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad."
As a family history anorak, I have to say that the idea that pre-marital sex was not a common occurrence even if it was more frowned upon before the sixties is a complete myth. It might have seen far more couples eventually getting wed at some point after the event, but it was far from uncommon over the last couple of hundred years even if in the bad old days you would be named and shamed on Sunday in the local Kirk up here in the Highlands.
"A few hours later a letter appeared in the Guardian from those self same Hampstead academics. They didn’t think Ed Miliband was working either. “The country needs not just a change of government but a transformative change in direction,” they warned, in their clever, but rather abstract way. “If Labour plays the next election safe, hoping to win on the basis of Tory unpopularity, it will not have earned a mandate for such change.”"
Dan nails an important point, a lot of criticism has been levelled at George Osborne over the last few years because he delivered that 'austerity' speech at the last Conservative Conference in the run up to the 2010 GE. Some even suggest it cost the Conservatives a majority at the last GE. But I remember reading an article before the GE where those close to Osborne spoke of the fact that he deemed it vital that he be honest with the country, and that they understood the tough austerity choices ahead and gave him and the Conservatives the mandate to follow through on their economic policies.
Right now the Labour party have not even started to deliver on an economic message that is honest or credible, far less created a mandate for change. Sorry NickP, but your idea that Labour will be able to take the tough decisions needed while delivering a less painful and yet more successful economic landscape with a kinder coal face just isn't going to cut it. That is why Labour is going to lose the next GE.
Nicholas Fairbairn MP disinherited his own children, in favour of his new wife, just a few hours before he died. Under Scottish law, this had no effect, as his children were entitled to inherit regardless of his wishes. As a lawyer, he would have known that. Thus his action in disinheriting them must have been done out of malice and booliakterousness.
@fitalass the fact Labour have only promised to limit spending in the election year tells you all you need to know. And they spin out tough lines about "balancing the books" like in Balls' last speech but in reality leave open the possbility of £billions of extra borrowing
As a family history anorak, I have to say that the idea that pre-marital sex was not a common occurrence even if it was more frowned upon before the sixties is a complete myth. It might have seen far more couples eventually getting wed at some point after the event, but it was far from uncommon over the last couple of hundred years even if in the bad old days you would be named and shamed on Sunday in the local Kirk up here in the Highlands.
It's funny how every generation thinks it's the one that discovered sex......
Doing a little digging in the census, I was intrigued to discover that my grandmother was born 5 months after my great grandparents married......this Wick couple had got married in Inverness.......and an oblique comment made by a great aunt many years before suddenly made sense!
John Curtice on the "latest" (published) SIndy poll:
TNS BMRB’s latest monthly poll is published this morning. It is in fact relatively old. Interviewing began almost a month ago, and finished as long ago as the 9th of this month. However, that does not mean it should be ignored.
The poll puts Yes on 28%, No on 42%. That represents a one point drop in the Yes vote compared with the company’s previous poll, conducted in early February before the Chancellor’s announcement that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to share the pound. Once the very substantial number of Don’t Knows (30%, up one point) are excluded, that equates to a Yes vote of 40%, down one.
They literally wanted to smash through Camden Markets, one of the biggest tourist attractions in the UK, which generates billions. Insane.
London hyperbole reaches new levels.
With such wealth creators as Camden Markets, which looked a bit of a shithole the last time I saw it, I'm baffled as to why this country is running perpetual trade and budget deficits with a falling standard of living.
Still I'm a reasonable man so I propose the wondrous Camden Markets be saved, HS2 be cancelled and the money saved be spent on transport links in northern England.
Nicholas Fairbairn MP disinherited his own children, in favour of his new wife, just a few hours before he died. Under Scottish law, this had no effect, as his children were entitled to inherit regardless of his wishes. As a lawyer, he would have known that. Thus his action in disinheriting them must have been done out of malice and booliakterousness.
John that is rubbish. Under Scots law if the children are excluded from the will they can claim legal rights. With a surviving spouse legal rights are 1/3 of the moveable estate divided between them. They would have no claim on heritage or property. The other 2/3 of the moveable estate would go to the widow under the will as would all the heritage.
They literally wanted to smash through Camden Markets, one of the biggest tourist attractions in the UK, which generates billions. Insane.
London hyperbole reaches new levels.
With such wealth creators as Camden Markets, which looked a bit of a shithole the last time I saw it, I'm baffled as to why this country is running perpetual trade and budget deficits with a falling standard of living.
Still I'm a reasonable man so I propose the wondrous Camden Markets be saved, HS2 be cancelled and the money saved be spent on transport links in northern England.
"money saved be spent on transport links in northern England."
They literally wanted to smash through Camden Markets, one of the biggest tourist attractions in the UK, which generates billions. Insane.
London hyperbole reaches new levels.
With such wealth creators as Camden Markets, which looked a bit of a shithole the last time I saw it, I'm baffled as to why this country is running perpetual trade and budget deficits with a falling standard of living.
Still I'm a reasonable man so I propose the wondrous Camden Markets be saved, HS2 be cancelled and the money saved be spent on transport links in northern England.
"money saved be spent on transport links in northern England."
What would you spend it on?
This whole line of questioning is indicative of why our national finances are so screwed. Money saved should be...err...saved. We need to reduce our deficit and stop spending so much damned money.
They literally wanted to smash through Camden Markets, one of the biggest tourist attractions in the UK, which generates billions. Insane.
London hyperbole reaches new levels.
With such wealth creators as Camden Markets, which looked a bit of a shithole the last time I saw it, I'm baffled as to why this country is running perpetual trade and budget deficits with a falling standard of living.
Still I'm a reasonable man so I propose the wondrous Camden Markets be saved, HS2 be cancelled and the money saved be spent on transport links in northern England.
"money saved be spent on transport links in northern England."
What would you spend it on?
This whole line of questioning is indicative of why our national finances are so screwed. Money saved should be...err...saved. We need to reduce our deficit and stop spending so much damned money.
It is well worth a read. Having reflected on it overnight I have come to the view that even a tory majority goverment is not going to be able to bring in the level of cuts that are planned but not identified after the election. As an illustration of the scale of the problem:
"Osborne hasn’t said, he’s in no rush to spell out his post-2015 spending plans. But, deliciously, the OBR has pieced it together anyway and forecast the mother of all squeezes on unprotected departments – the political soft targets like defence, police, prisons etc. I suspect that whoever threw this graph into the OBR report was politely trying to point out that protecting NHS budget, when the mega-squeeze begins in 2015, is just not tenable. It means health goes from 29pc of departmental spending to about 45pc."
This is just not possible so public spending will remain higher than forecast and borrowing will remain higher too unless taxes are further increased. One of my concerns about increasing the personal allowance is that the breadth of the tax base has been reduced and we are ever more dependent on the 2m or so who pay all the bills. I suspect fiscal drag will be used to reverse some of the gains once real wages increases cover the pain.
What a Labour government would do with this inheritance really doesn't bear thinking about.
They literally wanted to smash through Camden Markets, one of the biggest tourist attractions in the UK, which generates billions. Insane.
London hyperbole reaches new levels.
With such wealth creators as Camden Markets, which looked a bit of a shithole the last time I saw it, I'm baffled as to why this country is running perpetual trade and budget deficits with a falling standard of living.
Still I'm a reasonable man so I propose the wondrous Camden Markets be saved, HS2 be cancelled and the money saved be spent on transport links in northern England.
"money saved be spent on transport links in northern England."
What would you spend it on?
This whole line of questioning is indicative of why our national finances are so screwed. Money saved should be...err...saved. We need to reduce our deficit and stop spending so much damned money.
There's different sorts of spending. Spending on infrastructure can often create more wealth than is spent on it - for instance, would you have preferred the money not having been spent on the M1 and M25? It's basically short-term pain for hopefully long-term (potentially hundred year span) gain. Project where that does not happen - for instance the Humber Bridge - are relatively rare, and the economic effects of that bridge may well have paid off, even if the tolls have not. Such projects can be enablers of growth.
Then there is non-capital spending. Much of this is necessary, but the returns are either unimportant or almost impossible to calculate. for instance education has negligible immediate returns, but a well-educated workforce is vital long-term.
However, there is also the cost of *not* spending. For instance, how much would the absence of (say) the M25 be costing the UK economy now?
You've not lived until you've experienced the thrill of a Lincolnshire bungalow. Forget cavorting with Thai hookers while zonked on coke. Just imagine walking out in your fenland garden, pressing forward against the gale-force winds fresh from Siberia.
Camden market? Probably full of Dick van Dyke lookalikes chirruping over the jellied eels, or more likely, fencing everyone's property that's been half-inched from the local gentry like yourself.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
The absolute total amount of money spent must fall. ALOT. We are still running a deficit of about 100bn/year. The essential maths is that we must find another 100bn or thereabouts. Osborne makes noises about this and the latest budget said we'd be in the black in 2017/2018. Hmmm...Labour don't even plan to address the problem. We need to readjust people's expectations on the scale of the welfare state we can afford in a competitive world. We just can't keep borrowing like this.
Within a limited total spend (that wipes out the deficit and in fact creates a small surplus) we can fairly argue about the balance between investment and spending.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
Like.
The graph showing the proportion of cuts that have been projected forward over time is a very good example of this. Osborne would of course point to the EZ headwinds, the need to support nascent growth and the desire to increase employment and he would be right but the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
The absolute total amount of money spent must fall. ALOT. We are still running a deficit of about 100bn/year. The essential maths is that we must find another 100bn or thereabouts. Osborne makes noises about this and the latest budget said we'd be in the black in 2017/2018. Hmmm...Labour don't even plan to address the problem. We need to readjust people's expectations on the scale of the welfare state we can afford in a competitive world. We just can't keep borrowing like this.
Within a limited total spend (that wipes out the deficit and in fact creates a small surplus) we can fairly argue about the balance between investment and spending.
Absolutely agree about the need to get spending under control. But we also need good and sustainable growth. And it's hard to get growth without investment.
The absolute total amount of money spent must fall. ALOT. We are still running a deficit of about 100bn/year. The essential maths is that we must find another 100bn or thereabouts. Osborne makes noises about this and the latest budget said we'd be in the black in 2017/2018. Hmmm...Labour don't even plan to address the problem. We need to readjust people's expectations on the scale of the welfare state we can afford in a competitive world. We just can't keep borrowing like this.
Within a limited total spend (that wipes out the deficit and in fact creates a small surplus) we can fairly argue about the balance between investment and spending.
It is worth remembering that - when economic growth begins to accelerate - that deficits often fall more quickly than expected. This happens for a couple of reasons:
1. As people move from unemployment to employment, it's a double benefit for the economy - spending falls (income support, housing benefit) and tax receipts increase (income tax, plus VAT from spending).
2. 'Fiscal drag' starts to kick in: that is, when wages start to rise, then the proportion of peoples' income that goes in taxes increases. (Your pay rise is all at the marginal tax rate.)
3. Economic growth - and particularly nominal economic growth - means that the GDP number is bigger, which means that debt as a percentage of GDP falls, as does the deficit. (Ireland is likely to post nominal (not real) GDP growth of close to 5% this year, which means that its debt-to-GDP number is likely to fall by the end of 2015.)
Together these explain why deficits tend to drop more than expected in cyclical upturns, and is why it is possible that the chancellor (and the OBR) are unduly pessimistic about the direction of the deficit in the short-term.
Longer-term, we need to start moving the retirement age ever further upwards, as a growing proportion of population recieving state benefits (pensions) is a major economic issue that can only make it harder and harder to run a balanced budget in the future.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
The absolute total amount of money spent must fall. ALOT. We are still running a deficit of about 100bn/year. The essential maths is that we must find another 100bn or thereabouts. Osborne makes noises about this and the latest budget said we'd be in the black in 2017/2018. Hmmm...Labour don't even plan to address the problem. We need to readjust people's expectations on the scale of the welfare state we can afford in a competitive world. We just can't keep borrowing like this.
Within a limited total spend (that wipes out the deficit and in fact creates a small surplus) we can fairly argue about the balance between investment and spending.
Absolutely agree about the need to get spending under control. But we also need good and sustainable growth. And it's hard to get growth without investment.
Quite right. Running an economy of an entire nation is not the same as running a household budget.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
We need more imaginative thinking than this DavidL. There are plenty of solutions out there, not just ones which will cause profound hardship to those in the lower percentiles of the wealth tables.
The absolute total amount of money spent must fall. ALOT. We are still running a deficit of about 100bn/year. The essential maths is that we must find another 100bn or thereabouts. Osborne makes noises about this and the latest budget said we'd be in the black in 2017/2018. Hmmm...Labour don't even plan to address the problem. We need to readjust people's expectations on the scale of the welfare state we can afford in a competitive world. We just can't keep borrowing like this.
Within a limited total spend (that wipes out the deficit and in fact creates a small surplus) we can fairly argue about the balance between investment and spending.
It is worth remembering that - when economic growth begins to accelerate - that deficits often fall more quickly than expected. This happens for a couple of reasons:
1. As people move from unemployment to employment, it's a double benefit for the economy - spending falls (income support, housing benefit) and tax receipts increase (income tax, plus VAT from spending).
2. 'Fiscal drag' starts to kick in: that is, when wages start to rise, then the proportion of peoples' income that goes in taxes increases. (Your pay rise is all at the marginal tax rate.)
3. Economic growth - and particularly nominal economic growth - means that the GDP number is bigger, which means that debt as a percentage of GDP falls, as does the deficit. (Ireland is likely to post nominal (not real) GDP growth of close to 5% this year, which means that its debt-to-GDP number is likely to fall by the end of 2015.)
Together these explain why deficits tend to drop more than expected in cyclical upturns, and is why it is possible that the chancellor (and the OBR) are unduly pessimistic about the direction of the deficit in the short-term.
Longer-term, we need to start moving the retirement age ever further upwards, as a growing proportion of population recieving state benefits (pensions) is a major economic issue that can only make it harder and harder to run a balanced budget in the future.
The evidence for (1) is distinctly mixed as in work benefits form an ever larger part of public spending. (2) I agree but (3) still requires much larger reductions in the deficit. This year we are forecast to increase GDP by 2.7% but the deficit is still over 5% of GDP so debt will continue to grow as a share of GDP. The sheer scale of the debt mountain and the cost of servicing it is one of the major reasons it will prove hard to reduce overall public spending.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
We need more imaginative thinking than this DavidL. There are plenty of solutions out there, not just ones which will cause profound hardship to those in the lower percentiles of the wealth tables.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
We need more imaginative thinking than this DavidL. There are plenty of solutions out there, not just ones which will cause profound hardship to those in the lower percentiles of the wealth tables.
With the recnt understandable talk about the missing aeroplane, the landslide tragedy in the US has not been covered. The excellent Landslide Blog has some sobering pictures and detail:
I think - imagine the horror - there are areas of public spending where the state should exit. I'd include education in this. 100% vouchers and 100% of schools free/independent. I'd also - double horror - suggest the NHS be made more like the French or German systems with the state paying but significant levels of private delivery. We haven't even started on the quangocracy. Or endless non-jobs.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
We need more imaginative thinking than this DavidL. There are plenty of solutions out there, not just ones which will cause profound hardship to those in the lower percentiles of the wealth tables.
Yes, it is. I sometimes think that the obscenely wealthy are going to need saving from themselves. Their desire to hoard money they can never hope to spend and to avoid paying taxes they will never notice they are paying will, in the end, lead to their downfall. There is more wealth in this country - and in the world generally - than there has ever been in human history. It is inevitable that at some stage some form of collective international action will be taken to ensure a more equitable redistribution of that wealth. I'd have thought it would be much more advisable for super rich individuals and corporations to play a part in the process, rather than waiting for others to do it.
This story has not yet been covered much in the UK, but it is gaining an awful lot of traction in the US:
The absolute total amount of money spent must fall. ALOT. We are still running a deficit of about 100bn/year. The essential maths is that we must find another 100bn or thereabouts. Osborne makes noises about this and the latest budget said we'd be in the black in 2017/2018. Hmmm...Labour don't even plan to address the problem. We need to readjust people's expectations on the scale of the welfare state we can afford in a competitive world. We just can't keep borrowing like this.
Within a limited total spend (that wipes out the deficit and in fact creates a small surplus) we can fairly argue about the balance between investment and spending.
Absolutely agree about the need to get spending under control. But we also need good and sustainable growth. And it's hard to get growth without investment.
Quite right. Running an economy of an entire nation is not the same as running a household budget.
True. But no nation holds the seeds of the magic money tree, either.
@fitalass the fact Labour have only promised to limit spending in the election year tells you all you need to know. And they spin out tough lines about "balancing the books" like in Balls' last speech but in reality leave open the possbility of £billions of extra borrowing
Actually, no. The message Balls is giving PPCs in private is exactly the same - there isn't spare money lying around, we're going to have to be disciplined, don't make wild spending promises, we simply aren't going to be able to afford them.
It isn't much fun and it limits the scope for enthusing people, but by and large PPCs have got the message.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
We need more imaginative thinking than this DavidL. There are plenty of solutions out there, not just ones which will cause profound hardship to those in the lower percentiles of the wealth tables.
The ability of corporations and extremely rich individuals to put their income beyond the reach of the state is an inevitable consequence of the lack of capital controls and a degree of competition between states to attract at least some of that wealth. We in the UK get our share of this, hence SeanT going about £1m houses in dodgy parts of London.
I think states need to work together to address this problem and Osborne has said some interesting things about this. He also has worked hard to close loopholes, the nonsense of downloads supposedly coming from Luxemburg with a 3% VAT rate being subject to 20% VAT in the budget being a recent example.
So work to do on the income side I agree but this does not mean we can avoid seeking to get better results on the spending side. Given the difficulties I have mentioned that is essential if the poor you are talking about are not to suffer even more.
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
We need more imaginative thinking than this DavidL. There are plenty of solutions out there, not just ones which will cause profound hardship to those in the lower percentiles of the wealth tables.
Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection Countdown :
1745 seconds
I have seen the results and it says that the Tories will be the biggest party in a NOM, and that Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
Jack predictable? Never.
Dickson predictable.. ALWAYS.
Be fair.
He entertained us yesterday with his astonishing ignorance - such an expert on Scottish polls, and he doesn't know the difference between 'an internal' and 'a sub-sample'!
Given his previous experience, you would have thought he would know what a 'sub-sample' is, but evidently not!
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Yawn. As forecast.
You'll have been yawning for more than a year as the projection has been remarkably stable with the three main parties all operating within the following range :
@DavidL As the European People's Party candidate for Commission President said: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it."
the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
And that's without any recessions. We're in the situation of needing growth to stay positive until probably 2019 just to keep borrowing under control and then hope that we can post surpluses for a further decade. The only good thing about the mess we are in is it will concentrate minds. In retrospect, 1997-2007 had too much faffing about and a golden opportunity to sort out many of our countries social problems was missed.
One of the more important failings in that period was the failure to improve productivity in the public sector at a time of considerable technological innovation. So our public services are riddled with excessively large personnel departments, quality managers, management generally and too few workers at the sharp end actually providing the services. Getting the management structure of public sector services flatter and leaner is going to be the major challenge of the next 10 years.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
We need more imaginative thinking than this DavidL. There are plenty of solutions out there, not just ones which will cause profound hardship to those in the lower percentiles of the wealth tables.
@DavidL - At some stage states will realise that competing with each other for a little bit of trickle down is a lot less effective than working with each other to create a system in which very wealthy corporations and individuals pay a much larger percentage of their income in tax. The solutions they come up with are bound to be a lot more detrimental to the interests of the extremely wealthy than reforms to which the extremely wealthy are a voluntary party. Populism on the right and left is going to become ever more dangerous for our elites.
Any PBers have a view on this vote in the House today about decriminalising BBC Licence Fee non-payments? I assume it will pass.
I also assume that this will bring huge pressure on the BBC to reform - cost effectiveness, political bias, the nature of its programming (as millions decide they aren't interested), etc.
It is a positive development. I don't think anybody apart from the senior Beeboids likes the Licence Fee.
Great Yarmouth Is a hole of massive egregiousness, UKIP will take it in a close three way I'm sober this morning but the Tories are atill going to take Banff and Buchan if No wins this year and there will be a huge swing in Ming the Merciless seat to SNP and Tory Word.
I'd love to know from JackW where UKIP is going to get its MP. That implies to me a pretty steep rise in the overall UKIP vote share percentage, but it looks like he is discounting the general effect that is going to have on any of the big three parties in terms of MPs. I am not sure that quite squares.
Comments
As for the poster who complained that we were earlier discussing sharia, I have only this to say: the rights of women matter.
And, frankly, matter rather more than discovering that Labour are still in the lead in an opinion poll, a position they have held for ca. 2 years now.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8zdmok1anf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200314.pdf
I did once go to the Netherlands by train, but my first destination was Utrecht, with a stop off in Antwerp, and I came back from Amsterdam via Nijmegen, Maastricht, Aachen and Namur, so not your average trip.
This "ad" in Private Eye will do @Nigel_Farage no harm pic.twitter.com/ZJS5AsPTQp
There have always been folk with more money than sense.
The Tories say the debates offer them a win-win scenario. If Mr Farage does well, it will be at the expense of the Lib Dems and Mr Clegg, which would suit them nicely: coalition has made Conservatives eager to see their partners fail. Equally, if Mr Clegg emerges triumphant, he will have done them a favour by knocking the wind out of the Ukip sails. With either outcome, they claim, their cause is enhanced. “David Cameron is happy to see the debate happen,” an aide says. “He’s quite relaxed about it. He doesn’t feel a particular need to take on Farage himself. This debate is a win-win for us.”
Test that proposition among Tories though, and the more common reflection is that the debate has all the makings of a “lose–lose”. Both parties depend for their success on taking votes off the Tories. Whichever one does well out of the debate, it will be at the expense of the Conservatives. If Mr Farage keeps his temper and emerges with his reputation as a gadfly of the Right enhanced, it will cause anguish in Tory constituencies. Equally, if Mr Clegg delivers a statesmanlike performance that develops the reputation he has built with his radio phone-ins as an easy-going Mr Normal, it will worry Conservative HQ. Between them, they have an opportunity to damage the Tories.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100264861/the-clegg-farage-showdown-could-seriously-damage-the-pm/
Fop chicken.
On Scotland, was it Donald Dewar who said devolution was a process not an event? Could the same be true of independence? Could a Yes vote merely be stage 1 of the Balkanisation of Britain.
As DavidL observes, it's not signficantly affected the Labour rating, but it's given a modest boost to the Tories. What this shows is that the Con->UKIP shift is more easily reversed than the LD->:Lab shift. But the Conservatives probably need to aim to get close to 40% to be the largest party, and it's hard to see that happening.
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/games.php?subpage=pending&msg=18
"What profitith a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?"
Night all.
And now 2014 Cameron is all about inheritance tax cuts for the rich and bashing the EU. It's a hard gulf to straddle, I think.
The poll puts Yes on 28%, No on 42%. That represents a one point drop in the Yes vote compared with the company’s previous poll, conducted in early February before the Chancellor’s announcement that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to share the pound. Once the very substantial number of Don’t Knows (30%, up one point) are excluded, that equates to a Yes vote of 40%, down one.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/03/tns-bmrb-poll-suggests-yes-still-have-plenty-to-do/
They won't commit resources but Labour should be looking at the results in Tory/Lib Dem marginals that the Tories hold. If it's assumed the Tories can't lose there, will the Lib Dem vote collapse? Can Labour beat the Lib Dems in the South West in the Euros?
Competence confidence in the Tories going up, Labour lead declining, reality of Kipper vote settling in. The election campaign is underway.
I'd like odds on Banff and Buchan. A no vote might hand it to the blue army. I've had a drink.
And bed.....................
What happened to that much heralded NHS crisis that Labour were also expecting and warning us of this winter? Add in the recent budget, a new supermarket price wars, and of course the slow unwinding of wage restraints as employment grows and help to buy kicks in.... Cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis when its now deemed pretty cool to shop at Aldi or Lidl for the best bargains as they outperform more expensive alternatives. And anyone remember the last time that the cost of filling your car up was leading the news?
Off Topic. rcs1000 "It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad."
As a family history anorak, I have to say that the idea that pre-marital sex was not a common occurrence even if it was more frowned upon before the sixties is a complete myth. It might have seen far more couples eventually getting wed at some point after the event, but it was far from uncommon over the last couple of hundred years even if in the bad old days you would be named and shamed on Sunday in the local Kirk up here in the Highlands.
"A few hours later a letter appeared in the Guardian from those self same Hampstead academics. They didn’t think Ed Miliband was working either. “The country needs not just a change of government but a transformative change in direction,” they warned, in their clever, but rather abstract way. “If Labour plays the next election safe, hoping to win on the basis of Tory unpopularity, it will not have earned a mandate for such change.”"
Dan nails an important point, a lot of criticism has been levelled at George Osborne over the last few years because he delivered that 'austerity' speech at the last Conservative Conference in the run up to the 2010 GE. Some even suggest it cost the Conservatives a majority at the last GE. But I remember reading an article before the GE where those close to Osborne spoke of the fact that he deemed it vital that he be honest with the country, and that they understood the tough austerity choices ahead and gave him and the Conservatives the mandate to follow through on their economic policies.
Right now the Labour party have not even started to deliver on an economic message that is honest or credible, far less created a mandate for change. Sorry NickP, but your idea that Labour will be able to take the tough decisions needed while delivering a less painful and yet more successful economic landscape with a kinder coal face just isn't going to cut it. That is why Labour is going to lose the next GE.
I didn't know until a couple of years ago that I had met the Blackpool copper who investigated the crime after the war.
He was just someone my dad knew.
It was something of a surprise.
Nicholas Fairbairn MP disinherited his own children, in favour of his new wife, just a few hours before he died. Under Scottish law, this had no effect, as his children were entitled to inherit regardless of his wishes. As a lawyer, he would have known that. Thus his action in disinheriting them must have been done out of malice and booliakterousness.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25885606
The SCons are holding steady in the 2014 polling, vis à vis 2010 (in contrast to the SLDs), and just look at the 2011 result in that seat:
Con 12,933
SNP 7,599
LD 4,990
Lab 2,986
Ind 308
Why Ladbrokes price the SNP are 66/1 (!!) while the hopeless SLDs are 4/6 FAV is a bit of a mystery.
I'd suggest that more realistic pricing in that seat might be:
(Shadsy's price in brackets)
Con 4/5 (11/10)
LD 5/4 (4/6)
SNP 10/1 (66/1)
UKIP 100/1 (100/1)
Lab 250/1 (100/1)
Doing a little digging in the census, I was intrigued to discover that my grandmother was born 5 months after my great grandparents married......this Wick couple had got married in Inverness.......and an oblique comment made by a great aunt many years before suddenly made sense!
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/british-health-care-prices-are-lower/885/?Post+generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
You Gov - "Doing a Good or Bad Job..." ratings.
Dave on net -9
Ed on -31
Dave showing a slow improvement in 2014, Ed not so much.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5vgvoqpcj3/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-210314.pdf
TNS BMRB’s latest monthly poll is published this morning. It is in fact relatively old. Interviewing began almost a month ago, and finished as long ago as the 9th of this month. However, that does not mean it should be ignored.
The poll puts Yes on 28%, No on 42%. That represents a one point drop in the Yes vote compared with the company’s previous poll, conducted in early February before the Chancellor’s announcement that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to share the pound. Once the very substantial number of Don’t Knows (30%, up one point) are excluded, that equates to a Yes vote of 40%, down one.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/03/tns-bmrb-poll-suggests-yes-still-have-plenty-to-do/
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/69d54kkato/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-240314.pdf
125 minutes 125 seconds
With such wealth creators as Camden Markets, which looked a bit of a shithole the last time I saw it, I'm baffled as to why this country is running perpetual trade and budget deficits with a falling standard of living.
Still I'm a reasonable man so I propose the wondrous Camden Markets be saved, HS2 be cancelled and the money saved be spent on transport links in northern England.
1 hour 1 minute 1 second
What would you spend it on?
It is well worth a read. Having reflected on it overnight I have come to the view that even a tory majority goverment is not going to be able to bring in the level of cuts that are planned but not identified after the election. As an illustration of the scale of the problem:
"Osborne hasn’t said, he’s in no rush to spell out his post-2015 spending plans. But, deliciously, the OBR has pieced it together anyway and forecast the mother of all squeezes on unprotected departments – the political soft targets like defence, police, prisons etc. I suspect that whoever threw this graph into the OBR report was politely trying to point out that protecting NHS budget, when the mega-squeeze begins in 2015, is just not tenable. It means health goes from 29pc of departmental spending to about 45pc."
This is just not possible so public spending will remain higher than forecast and borrowing will remain higher too unless taxes are further increased. One of my concerns about increasing the personal allowance is that the breadth of the tax base has been reduced and we are ever more dependent on the 2m or so who pay all the bills. I suspect fiscal drag will be used to reverse some of the gains once real wages increases cover the pain.
What a Labour government would do with this inheritance really doesn't bear thinking about.
Then there is non-capital spending. Much of this is necessary, but the returns are either unimportant or almost impossible to calculate. for instance education has negligible immediate returns, but a well-educated workforce is vital long-term.
However, there is also the cost of *not* spending. For instance, how much would the absence of (say) the M25 be costing the UK economy now?
You've not lived until you've experienced the thrill of a Lincolnshire bungalow. Forget cavorting with Thai hookers while zonked on coke. Just imagine walking out in your fenland garden, pressing forward against the gale-force winds fresh from Siberia.
Camden market? Probably full of Dick van Dyke lookalikes chirruping over the jellied eels, or more likely, fencing everyone's property that's been half-inched from the local gentry like yourself.
This shows that 31% of the 1024 respondents did not vote in 2010 (also 5% cannot remember and 6% refused).
So what will happen to the turnout in 2015 and are we facing an 'unknown' electorate?
The absolute total amount of money spent must fall. ALOT. We are still running a deficit of about 100bn/year. The essential maths is that we must find another 100bn or thereabouts. Osborne makes noises about this and the latest budget said we'd be in the black in 2017/2018. Hmmm...Labour don't even plan to address the problem. We need to readjust people's expectations on the scale of the welfare state we can afford in a competitive world. We just can't keep borrowing like this.
Within a limited total spend (that wipes out the deficit and in fact creates a small surplus) we can fairly argue about the balance between investment and spending.
The graph showing the proportion of cuts that have been projected forward over time is a very good example of this. Osborne would of course point to the EZ headwinds, the need to support nascent growth and the desire to increase employment and he would be right but the scale and seriousness of Brown's structural fiscal deficit is going to make politicians' lives a misery for a generation.
1745 seconds
Orkney & Shetland (LD maj, Alistair Carmichael MP = 9,928)
LD 1/100
SNP 25/1
Con 100/1
Lab 100/1
UKIP 100/1
Ross, Skye & Lochaber (LD maj, Charlie Kennedy MP = 13,070)
LD 1/33
SNP 10/1
Lab 33/1
Con 100/1
UKIP 100/1
Ladbrokes have got their full market up for Malaysia. I wouldn't advise betting until nearer the time, though.
1. As people move from unemployment to employment, it's a double benefit for the economy - spending falls (income support, housing benefit) and tax receipts increase (income tax, plus VAT from spending).
2. 'Fiscal drag' starts to kick in: that is, when wages start to rise, then the proportion of peoples' income that goes in taxes increases. (Your pay rise is all at the marginal tax rate.)
3. Economic growth - and particularly nominal economic growth - means that the GDP number is bigger, which means that debt as a percentage of GDP falls, as does the deficit. (Ireland is likely to post nominal (not real) GDP growth of close to 5% this year, which means that its debt-to-GDP number is likely to fall by the end of 2015.)
Together these explain why deficits tend to drop more than expected in cyclical upturns, and is why it is possible that the chancellor (and the OBR) are unduly pessimistic about the direction of the deficit in the short-term.
Longer-term, we need to start moving the retirement age ever further upwards, as a growing proportion of population recieving state benefits (pensions) is a major economic issue that can only make it harder and harder to run a balanced budget in the future.
It is going to require a cultural change but the price of failure is going to be an ever more patchy provision of services as the money dries up. TwistedFireStopper's example of threatened cuts in firemen organised from the expensive new head office is unfortunately typical.
If the SNP had been priced at 20/1 in Kennedy's seat they would have been worth 50 quid, but 10/1? Nah. That's about right.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101499141
The story linked to is an obscenity.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection :
Con 308 .. Lab 270 .. LibDem 40 .. SNP 9 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 1 .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 18 seats short of a majority.
Note - Highest Conservative seat total in the 2015 GE projections.
.................................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
With the recnt understandable talk about the missing aeroplane, the landslide tragedy in the US has not been covered. The excellent Landslide Blog has some sobering pictures and detail:
http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2014/03/25/the-steelhead-landslide-1/
We CAN save alot of money if we are minded to.
Yes, it is. I sometimes think that the obscenely wealthy are going to need saving from themselves. Their desire to hoard money they can never hope to spend and to avoid paying taxes they will never notice they are paying will, in the end, lead to their downfall. There is more wealth in this country - and in the world generally - than there has ever been in human history. It is inevitable that at some stage some form of collective international action will be taken to ensure a more equitable redistribution of that wealth. I'd have thought it would be much more advisable for super rich individuals and corporations to play a part in the process, rather than waiting for others to do it.
This story has not yet been covered much in the UK, but it is gaining an awful lot of traction in the US:
http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/
They are their own worst enemies.
It isn't much fun and it limits the scope for enthusing people, but by and large PPCs have got the message.
I think states need to work together to address this problem and Osborne has said some interesting things about this. He also has worked hard to close loopholes, the nonsense of downloads supposedly coming from Luxemburg with a 3% VAT rate being subject to 20% VAT in the budget being a recent example.
So work to do on the income side I agree but this does not mean we can avoid seeking to get better results on the spending side. Given the difficulties I have mentioned that is essential if the poor you are talking about are not to suffer even more.
I defer to the awesome power of your ARSE. Out of interest, what poll percentages equate to these seat counts?
I doubt the Government will do that, though. If anything, it might be likelier to try and slap VAT on physical books to make Amazon et al. pay.
He entertained us yesterday with his astonishing ignorance - such an expert on Scottish polls, and he doesn't know the difference between 'an internal' and 'a sub-sample'!
Given his previous experience, you would have thought he would know what a 'sub-sample' is, but evidently not!
Con 290-308 .. Lab 268-283 .. LibDem 35-44
I also assume that this will bring huge pressure on the BBC to reform - cost effectiveness, political bias, the nature of its programming (as millions decide they aren't interested), etc.
It is a positive development. I don't think anybody apart from the senior Beeboids likes the Licence Fee.
I'm sober this morning but the Tories are atill going to take Banff and Buchan if No wins this year and there will be a huge swing in Ming the Merciless seat to SNP and Tory
Word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA