In other news... EdM had a selfie taken with Joey Essex at some do or other, and Dave 'lavished praise on Waitrose, lauding customers of the upmarket store as more "talkative and engaged" than those who shop elsewhere.' (Telegraph).
Excuse me. That is an outright lie. I have not argued against a referendum. What I have said is that a referendum under Cameron will be so fixed as to be worthless. We are seeing the start of that process now with meaningless platitudes from Germany and Italy in support of Cameron which we know are completely worthless - as will be any 'deal' Cameron brings back from his 'negotiations'.
In the end I still want a referendum. But before that happens I want to make sure that Cameron is not in a position to continue to fix the result before a single vote has been cast.
Apologies, I'd forgotten that your faith in Cameron's unbelievable political skill is so strong that you think that, despite Nigel Farage sweeping the board in every debate and every broadcast, Cameron will still be able to hypnotise the British public into voting against their better judgement, despite the fact (as you see it) that he won't get a sausage out of the renegotiation.
I'm sorry, but your position is absolutely risible.
Because you're voicing the madness of it: a huge number have the right to come here, and we have no control over how many do. It's farming out our immigration levels down to the aggregation decisions of millions of Eastern Europeans. Do you really think the public are too thick to understand the difference between "have the right to come" and "will come"? And even if you do, then make clear the distinction: don't claim that the person that said "have the right to come" said "will come".
Come off it: you're claiming that it would be reasonable to stand up in a Tea Party convention in Idaho and say that it is madness that 314 million people have the right to live in Idaho?
The people in the rest of the United States aren't on half the income level in Idaho. Meanwhile inner London is by far the richest part of the entire EU. That's why millions of Europeans have come to London from all over the continent, and millions of Americans haven't gone to Idaho recently.
Because you're voicing the madness of it: a huge number have the right to come here, and we have no control over how many do. It's farming out our immigration levels down to the aggregation decisions of millions of Eastern Europeans. Do you really think the public are too thick to understand the difference between "have the right to come" and "will come"? And even if you do, then make clear the distinction: don't claim that the person that said "have the right to come" said "will come".
Come off it: you're claiming that it would be reasonable to stand up in a Tea Party convention in Idaho and say that it is madness that 314 million people have the right to live in Idaho?
The people in the rest of the United States aren't on half the income level in Idaho. Meanwhile inner London is by far the richest part of the entire EU. That's why millions of Europeans have come to London from all over the continent, and millions of Americans haven't gone to Idaho recently.
1) An economy dominated by consumer spending is fundamentally liable to lower productivity growth as better consumer service often requires more labour supplying that service. An example would be supermarket checkouts - the more checkouts in operation the better the service but the lower the overall productivity. With the government subsidising consumer spending to record amounts (see the government debt as evidence) the incentive to higher productivity is reduced. By comparison government cuts in parts of the public sector have seen improved public sector productivity contrary to the overall national productivity.
2) An effectively unlimited amount of willing and cheap unskilled economic migrants acts as a disincentive for business to invest in new equipment and technology.
3) The continuance of zero interest rates and debt forbearance has led to zombie businesses survival and malinvestment remaining. Creative destruction is a necessary part of healthy free market capitalism as it frees up factors of production (capital, labour, land etc) for more useful employment.
4) The steady increase in government regulations, QA requirements etc means a higher proportion of labour output is used for 'overhead' purposes and not in the production of useful goods or services.
Too late to get stuck into a heavy debate on productivity, so just a few points:
1. I don't see a direct link between the size of government debt and consumer spending. Household debt, the savings ratio and consumer expenditure are more closely related.
2. In times of high unemployment, depressed demand and low confidence - all characteristic of a recession - firms are most likely to recover output intially by employing cheap labour (whether from existing residents or economic migrants). This applies even when borrowing costs have been reduced to what you call "zero interest rates". Increasing headcount, rather than investing in plant and machinery, helps firms deleverage debt and conserve cash, again indicators of a recession.
As the recovery sets in, confidence rises and labour market slack tightens, then businesses become more willing to make capital investments, take on additional loans and reduce cash balances. This particularly applies if the incentive of low interest rates has been retained as an incentive.
3. Low interest rates do protect inefficient enterprises - your zombies - but that is a necessary evil in times of universally depressed demand. As the economic slack in the economy - the output gap - is closed, then pressure can be brought to bear on the natural selection processes of fully functioning capital markets.
4. Many of the ills you expose are just cyclical stages of an economic cycle. A significant amount will not be cyclical though and the productivity debate should be about early identification of those enterprises and production/service sectors which are unsustainable even in a fully recovered economy.
Now that the evidence for the productivity problem is clear the reasons behind it must be discussed.
My thoughts are that involves these factors, in amounts which vary from one part of the economy to another:
1) An economy dominated by consumer spending is fundamentally liable to lower productivity growth as better consumer service often requires more labour supplying that service. An example would be supermarket checkouts - the more checkouts in operation the better the service but the lower the overall productivity. With the government subsidising consumer spending to record amounts (see the government debt as evidence) the incentive to higher productivity is reduced. By comparison government cuts in parts of the public sector have seen improved public sector productivity contrary to the overall national productivity.
2) An effectively unlimited amount of willing and cheap unskilled economic migrants acts as a disincentive for business to invest in new equipment and technology.
3) The continuance of zero interest rates and debt forbearance has led to zombie businesses survival and malinvestment remaining. Creative destruction is a necessary part of healthy free market capitalism as it frees up factors of production (capital, labour, land etc) for more useful employment.
4) The steady increase in government regulations, QA requirements etc means a higher proportion of labour output is used for 'overhead' purposes and not in the production of useful goods or services.
A lot of good points there, particularly point 3. Also I would add that lack of apprenticeship training / poor skills is behind the malaise as well, although to be fair to this government, they have tried harder to address this point than most.
The work being done on education / training is important and hopefully will produce results.
However its something which isn't going to improve things for at least a decade. That's assuming that it will improve things, there have been no shortage of government initiatives in education / training which peter out for one reason or another. 'Education, educashun, idducashunne' for example.
In the meantime it risks being a dangerous crutch to lean on "we're aware of the productivity issue and have brought in new training guidelines so there's now nothing to worry out blah and blah".
I completely agree. I am a pro-EU Lib Dem, but the consequences of Nigel Farages party taking power would not be a risk of Fascism. Fascism has never had much following here.
We could look forward to a world where taxi drivers wore uniforms and trains were in 1920's livery, but it would not be a Fascist place
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
What a ludicrous and bigoted post from start to finish. Forget despair, what you should be feeling is deep shame.
An Orwell quote from ~50 years before, hence Major being mocked for being out of touch.
Daniel Finkelstein hit the nail on the head on Newsnight before. Clegg's narrative of not being able to trust Farage and that he was a "conman" was never going to work, because of the messenger. Nick Clegg is never going to win a battle for trustworthiness against any politician.
The people in the rest of the United States aren't on half the income level in Idaho. Meanwhile inner London is by far the richest part of the entire EU. That's why millions of Europeans have come to London from all over the continent, and millions of Americans haven't gone to Idaho recently.
OK, substitute Phoenix or New York City for Idaho - does that make the argument any less barmy?
Excuse me. That is an outright lie. I have not argued against a referendum. What I have said is that a referendum under Cameron will be so fixed as to be worthless. We are seeing the start of that process now with meaningless platitudes from Germany and Italy in support of Cameron which we know are completely worthless - as will be any 'deal' Cameron brings back from his 'negotiations'.
In the end I still want a referendum. But before that happens I want to make sure that Cameron is not in a position to continue to fix the result before a single vote has been cast.
Apologies, I'd forgotten that your faith in Cameron's unbelievable political skill is so strong that you think that, despite Nigel Farage sweeping the board in every debate and every broadcast, Cameron will still be able to hypnotise the British public into voting against their better judgement, despite the fact (as you see it) that he won't get a sausage out of the renegotiation.
I'm sorry, but your position is absolutely risible.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. I would support an immediate referendum in the next parliament, or a referendum twelve months after any changes, so people know what they've signed up for. What Richard is rightly criticising, is a quick dash of a referendum after some phantom renegotiation with no substance that is lauded by all the EU leaders, UK party leaders and the europhile BBC, giving it a temporary boost in the polls.
in direct contradiction, I couldn't help noticing, of the views of our distinguished Kippers here on PB.com
A misrepresentation of Nick Clegg. I'm pretty sure all of us that support UKIP on European matters are ardent supporters of an immediate referendum. But, surprise, surprise, the Tories want one only after the next election, when they know they'll be out of power...
The Conservatives have done as much as is possible with the existing parliamentary arithmetic. Cameron cannot simply order a referendum any more than Farage can.
I missed the debate as I was working, so have just caught up with it. Clegg did not perform at his best, but Farage is like Salmond in not being clear about what BOO means. Is he wanting to stay in the EEA/EFTA or not.
Very well trained and hard working bunch. Everyone who has worked with them praises them and wants them to work in their unit. More on the way. So much better trained than UK graduates.
What was most obviously dishonest, however, was Clegg repeatedly misrepresenting Farage's position. He said that Farage had claimed almost 500 million would come here from Eastern Europe, when Farage had only said, correctly, that that number had the right to come here. That was just one of a number where he knows full well what Farage had said and then chose to lie about it.
I take issue with that. Yes, it's literally true - just as it's literally true that, even if we had the world's strictest immigration policy, it would be true that 64 million people have the right to live in Hay-on-Wye. But why on earth mention such a nonsensical figure at all, unless you're deliberately trying to mislead?
Because you're voicing the madness of it: a huge number have the right to come here, and we have no control over how many do. It's farming out our immigration levels down to the aggregation decisions of millions of Eastern Europeans. Do you really think the public are too thick to understand the difference between "have the right to come" and "will come"? And even if you do, then make clear the distinction: don't claim that the person that said "have the right to come" said "will come".
What Richard is rightly criticising, is a quick dash of a referendum after some phantom renegotiation with no substance that is lauded by all the EU leaders, UK party leaders and the europhile BBC, giving it a temporary boost in the polls.
What 'quick dash'? It's scheduled (God willing) for 2017. Farage was arguing for a referendum immediately.
You can't have it both ways: do you want a referendum or not? The EU leaders, Labour, LibDems, some Tories, the unions, big business, US politicians, and - most importantly - the BBC will be rooting for the In side whenever any referendum is held, whether tomorrow or in 2017.
On programmes like this they usually show someone who can say what day of the week any date in history was, but actually anyone can learn to do it in a relatively short time. I taught myself how to do it in a few days after seeing it done on Des Lynam's "How Do They Do That" show in the 1990s.
1. I don't see a direct link between the size of government debt and consumer spending. Household debt, the savings ratio and consumer expenditure are more closely related.
There's an obvious link.
Most government spending goes on wages or benefits.
If there was less government spending then there would be lower wages, either directly through public sector workers or indirectly via business with government contracts, and/or lower benefits.
This would in turn result in lower consumer spending and so cause more competition among providers of consumer spending to provide a better service to attract the same level of income.
Daniel Finkelstein hit the nail on the head on Newsnight before. Clegg's narrative of not being able to trust Farage and that he was a "conman" was never going to work, because of the messenger. Nick Clegg is never going to win a battle for trustworthiness against any politician.
Obviously but Clegg's ostrich faction simply can't or won't believe it despite it being true for years now and having it proved yet again every May. They just don't get it and never will.
The people in the rest of the United States aren't on half the income level in Idaho. Meanwhile inner London is by far the richest part of the entire EU. That's why millions of Europeans have come to London from all over the continent, and millions of Americans haven't gone to Idaho recently.
OK, substitute Phoenix or New York City for Idaho - does that make the argument any less barmy?
GDP per capita:
Arizona - $33,441 New York - $46,617 Mississippi - $24,062
UK - $36,120 Bulgaria - $6,334
Are you really saying these things are comparable? They clearly are not, as evidenced by the fact that New York and Arizona have mass immigration every year. If they were, and if they were debating secession from the US partially on this basis, it would be a perfectly valid point to raise.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
Gotta agree with you there. You're clearly not young, indeed you possibly have Alzheimer's.
My parents had Alzheimers so I am probably on the cusp. But at the moment I am still compos mentis. I just feel we are teetering on the brink of a major national nervous breakdown which could have disastrous results. I have been knocking on doors for 50 years and I have never felt so remote from what people are saying. There is an irrationality in the air. Hence the pessimism.
At least Nick can console himself that his party is loyal to its leaders, but he might have cause for concern if AveryLP sends a large yellow box to Lib Dem HQ.
What Richard is rightly criticising, is a quick dash of a referendum after some phantom renegotiation with no substance that is lauded by all the EU leaders, UK party leaders and the europhile BBC, giving it a temporary boost in the polls.
What 'quick dash'? It's scheduled (God willing) for 2017. Farage was arguing for a referendum immediately.
You can't have it both ways: do you want a referendum or not? The EU leaders, Labour, LibDems, some Tories, the unions, big business, US politicians, and - most importantly - the BBC will be rooting for the In side whenever any referendum is held, whether tomorrow or in 2017.
The quick dash is clearly immediately after the change. People will be fooled into thinking there's some imaginary half-way house renegotiation that's been achieved, and they won't have time to realise it's the same old EU with a few knobs and whistles. If there's a change in the EU, then people need time to digest it to understand what's new.
The LibLabCon want to add more and more countries to the EU that are relatively much poorer than the UK. With free movement within the EU that adds up to economic and demographic warfare on the indigenous population.
Excuse me. That is an outright lie. I have not argued against a referendum. What I have said is that a referendum under Cameron will be so fixed as to be worthless. We are seeing the start of that process now with meaningless platitudes from Germany and Italy in support of Cameron which we know are completely worthless - as will be any 'deal' Cameron brings back from his 'negotiations'.
In the end I still want a referendum. But before that happens I want to make sure that Cameron is not in a position to continue to fix the result before a single vote has been cast.
Apologies, I'd forgotten that your faith in Cameron's unbelievable political skill is so strong that you think that, despite Nigel Farage sweeping the board in every debate and every broadcast, Cameron will still be able to hypnotise the British public into voting against their better judgement, despite the fact (as you see it) that he won't get a sausage out of the renegotiation.
I'm sorry, but your position is absolutely risible.
No, what is risible is your unbending loyalty to Cameron which leads you to believe that he will ever allow a straight vote on EU membership. He has made clear he will not countenance the UK leaving the EU under any circumstances and it is clear that he has only ever agreed to an in/out referendum (after opposing one for so very long) because he was desperate to stem the loss of support to UKIP. Once he had agreed to the principle of a referendum he is now fully committed to making sure In wins by any means possible including outright lies to the electorate.
If he had been serious about any form of renegotiation he would have started the process years ago, not waited until it is far too late to get any meaningful changes made.
Incidentally, Farage v Clegg may be utterly irrelevant and uninteresting to most voters, but isn't that true of all politcs?
And, by the risible standard of boring political debates, Farage v Clegg isn't doing too bad, out there with the Real People. Right now it is the 2nd most read news story on the BBC website.
I completely agree. I am a pro-EU Lib Dem, but the consequences of Nigel Farages party taking power would not be a risk of Fascism. Fascism has never had much following here.
We could look forward to a world where taxi drivers wore uniforms and trains were in 1920's livery, but it would not be a Fascist place
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
What a ludicrous and bigoted post from start to finish. Forget despair, what you should be feeling is deep shame.
An Orwell quote from ~50 years before, hence Major being mocked for being out of touch.
Daniel Finkelstein hit the nail on the head on Newsnight before. Clegg's narrative of not being able to trust Farage and that he was a "conman" was never going to work, because of the messenger. Nick Clegg is never going to win a battle for trustworthiness against any politician.
I missed the debate as I was working, so have just caught up with it. Clegg did not perform at his best, but Farage is like Salmond in not being clear about what BOO means. Is he wanting to stay in the EEA/EFTA or not.
Very well trained and hard working bunch. Everyone who has worked with them praises them and wants them to work in their unit. More on the way. So much better trained than UK graduates.
What was most obviously dishonest, however, was Clegg repeatedly misrepresenting Farage's position. He said that Farage had claimed almost 500 million would come here from Eastern Europe, when Farage had only said, correctly, that that number had the right to come here. That was just one of a number where he knows full well what Farage had said and then chose to lie about it.
I take issue with that. Yes, it's literally true - just as it's literally true that, even if we had the world's strictest immigration policy, it would be true that 64 million people have the right to live in Hay-on-Wye. But why on earth mention such a nonsensical figure at all, unless you're deliberately trying to mislead?
Because you're voicing the madness of it: a huge number have the right to come here, and we have no control over how many do. It's farming out our immigration levels down to the aggregation decisions of millions of Eastern Europeans. Do you really think the public are too thick to understand the difference between "have the right to come" and "will come"? And even if you do, then make clear the distinction: don't claim that the person that said "have the right to come" said "will come".
Arizona - $33,441 New York - $46,617 Mississippi - $24,062
UK - $36,120 Bulgaria - $6,334
Are you really saying these things are comparable?
Err, are there nearly 500 million Bulgarians?
If Farage really wants to make a serious point, then I'd suggest a good start would be to exclude from his figure the Germans, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Austrians, French, Belgians, and all the other well-off citizens who have a theoretical right to come here.
On programmes like this they usually show someone who can say what day of the week any date in history was, but actually anyone can learn to do it in a relatively short time. I taught myself how to do it in a few days after seeing it done on Des Lynam's "How Do They Do That" show in the 1990s.
Sunday = 0, Monday = 1, etc.
Codes for months:
Jan 5, Feb 1, Mar 1, Apr 4, May 6, Jun 2, Jul 4, Aug 0, Sep 3, Oct 5, Nov 1, Dec 3
Because you're voicing the madness of it: a huge number have the right to come here, and we have no control over how many do. It's farming out our immigration levels down to the aggregation decisions of millions of Eastern Europeans. Do you really think the public are too thick to understand the difference between "have the right to come" and "will come"? And even if you do, then make clear the distinction: don't claim that the person that said "have the right to come" said "will come".
Come off it: you're claiming that it would be reasonable to stand up in a Tea Party convention in Idaho and say that it is madness that 314 million people have the right to live in Idaho?
The people in the rest of the United States aren't on half the income level in Idaho. Meanwhile inner London is by far the richest part of the entire EU. That's why millions of Europeans have come to London from all over the continent, and millions of Americans haven't gone to Idaho recently.
At least Nick can console himself that his party is loyal to its leaders
*chuckles*
Very droll indeed considering it was Cleggy who was one of the first out of the gates briefing against Ming for the leadership. We'll see how the whole Rennard debacle continues as that still has the potential to be incredibly damaging should either one of them remember they both supposedly drew red lines over it.
in direct contradiction, I couldn't help noticing, of the views of our distinguished Kippers here on PB.com
A misrepresentation of Nick Clegg. I'm pretty sure all of us that support UKIP on European matters are ardent supporters of an immediate referendum. But, surprise, surprise, the Tories want one only after the next election, when they know they'll be out of power...
The Conservatives have done as much as is possible with the existing parliamentary arithmetic. Cameron cannot simply order a referendum any more than Farage can.
Cameron wants Turkey to join the EU. - that's another 80 (?) million people from a country poorer than the UK with the right to live and work in the UK. The consequences of doing that won't effect Cameron.
Incidentally, Farage v Clegg may be utterly irrelevant and uninteresting to most voters, but isn't that true of all politcs?
And, by the risible standard of boring political debates, Farage v Clegg isn't doing too bad, out there with the Real People. Right now it is the 2nd most read news story on the BBC website.
The quick dash is clearly immediately after the change. People will be fooled into thinking there's some imaginary half-way house renegotiation that's been achieved, and they won't have time to realise it's the same old EU with a few knobs and whistles. If there's a change in the EU, then people need time to digest it to understand what's new.
Yeah, yeah, "it's unfair, we want a referendum but not THAT referendum and we want it immediately but 2017 is too soon and Cameron is a disaster whom no-one trusts and who couldn't give out free whelks from a whelkstall and who claims he'll renegotiate but will get nothing and therefore the last thing we want is a referendum where we'll be able to point out that he's achieved nothing so we're going to work for a Labour government to be absolutely certain we don't get a referendum..."
2. In times of high unemployment, depressed demand and low confidence - all characteristic of a recession - firms are most likely to recover output intially by employing cheap labour (whether from existing residents or economic migrants). This applies even when borrowing costs have been reduced to what you call "zero interest rates". Increasing headcount, rather than investing in plant and machinery, helps firms deleverage debt and conserve cash, again indicators of a recession.
As the recovery sets in, confidence rises and labour market slack tightens, then businesses become more willing to make capital investments, take on additional loans and reduce cash balances. This particularly applies if the incentive of low interest rates has been retained as an incentive.
3. Low interest rates do protect inefficient enterprises - your zombies - but that is a necessary evil in times of universally depressed demand. As the economic slack in the economy - the output gap - is closed, then pressure can be brought to bear on the natural selection processes of fully functioning capital markets.
4. Many of the ills you expose are just cyclical stages of an economic cycle. A significant amount will not be cyclical though and the productivity debate should be about early identification of those enterprises and production/service sectors which are unsustainable even in a fully recovered economy.
Your other points seem to be based on the idea that things have been uniquely bad and that we have all the time we want to recover and that we can do so without inconveniencing anyone unduly.
Well what happens if we don't and there's another recession in a year or two or even within the next five years ?
Gordon Brown is much mocked here for his 'no more boom or bust' promise but isn't the complacency behind that also inherant in Osborne's predictions of endless steady growth year after year ?
What do we do if we hit the next recession still with zero interest rates, still with the zombie firms from the last recession, still with no productivity growth ?
And meanwhile, what's the rest of the world going to be doing while we're still fannying about not wanting to deal with the consequences of the last recession.
I'll tell you what they're doing - they're increasing their investment and productivity. As they do so they take trade and wealth from this country.
And I am aware that Britain has high productivity on a worldwide basis. Its the relative changes which are important.
Not forgetting that while we have high productivity we also have a high cost base and that, unlike our productivity, hasn't stopped increasing.
in direct contradiction, I couldn't help noticing, of the views of our distinguished Kippers here on PB.com
A misrepresentation of Nick Clegg. I'm pretty sure all of us that support UKIP on European matters are ardent supporters of an immediate referendum. But, surprise, surprise, the Tories want one only after the next election, when they know they'll be out of power...
The Conservatives have done as much as is possible with the existing parliamentary arithmetic. Cameron cannot simply order a referendum any more than Farage can.
Cameron wants Turkey to join the EU. - that's another 80 (?) million people from a country poorer than the UK with the right to live and work in the UK. The consequences of doing that won't effect Cameron.
I missed the debate as I was working, so have just caught up with it. Clegg did not perform at his best, but Farage is like Salmond in not being clear about what BOO means. Is he wanting to stay in the EEA/EFTA or not.
Very well trained and hard working bunch. Everyone who has worked with them praises them and wants them to work in their unit. More on the way. So much better trained than UK graduates.
What was most obviously dishonest, however, was Clegg repeatedly misrepresenting Farage's position. He said that Farage had claimed almost 500 million would come here from Eastern Europe, when Farage had only said, correctly, that that number had the right to come here. That was just one of a number where he knows full well what Farage had said and then chose to lie about it.
I take issue with that. Yes, it's literally true - just as it's literally true that, even if we had the world's strictest immigration policy, it would be true that 64 million people have the right to live in Hay-on-Wye. But why on earth mention such a nonsensical figure at all, unless you're deliberately trying to mislead?
Because you're voicing the madness of it: a huge number have the right to come here, and we have no control over how many do. It's farming out our immigration levels down to the aggregation decisions of millions of Eastern Europeans. Do you really think the public are too thick to understand the difference between "have the right to come" and "will come"? And even if you do, then make clear the distinction: don't claim that the person that said "have the right to come" said "will come".
Can you imagine your new hero Salmond saying Eastern European nurses are better than Scottish nurses as Doc did ?
Yes to clause 28 and yes to gay marriage Yes to paid trips to apartheid South Africa and by the way, what a great chap Nelson Mandela is
Listen you loony racists, vote for me and I'll give you what you want trust me
Cameron and his supporters remind me of the quote from Mutiny on the Bounty from Fletcher to Bligh as Bligh was promising anything to prevent the takeover of the ship
A lot of good points there, particularly point 3. Also I would add that lack of apprenticeship training / poor skills is behind the malaise as well, although to be fair to this government, they have tried harder to address this point than most.
The work being done on education / training is important and hopefully will produce results.
However its something which isn't going to improve things for at least a decade. That's assuming that it will improve things, there have been no shortage of government initiatives in education / training which peter out for one reason or another. 'Education, educashun, idducashunne' for example.
In the meantime it risks being a dangerous crutch to lean on "we're aware of the productivity issue and have brought in new training guidelines so there's now nothing to worry out blah and blah".
"However its something which isn't going to improve things for at least a decade."
Trade skills don't take that long. Private companies don't like paying for trade training because the trained people get poached afterwards. It worked out in this country in the past because a lot of the training was done by the nationalized industries and the armed forces as effectively part of state subsidized education. That was all trashed without replacement by the political class because they are such useless ***** who don't know anything.
So now companies poach people who are trained abroad instead.
This could be easily fixed if the political class weren't such *****.
OT The BBC's account of Lord Justice Goldring's charge to the jury in the Hillsborough Inquest makes for interesting reading. Far from being the startling revelations that the Hillsborough Independent Panel claimed, it is looking ever more probable that the position, in relation to the amendment of statements, is not materially different from that examined by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in 1998. The HIP, of course, never bothered to say why they thought Stuart-Smith's conclusions were erroneous. One to watch...
I missed the debate as I was working, so have just caught up with it. Clegg did not perform at his best, but Farage is like Salmond in not being clear about what BOO means. Is he wanting to stay in the EEA/EFTA or not.
Very well trained and hard working bunch. Everyone who has worked with them praises them and wants them to work in their unit. More on the way. So much better trained than UK graduates.
What was most obviously dishonest, however, was Clegg repeatedly misrepresenting Farage's position. He said that Farage had claimed almost 500 million would come here from Eastern Europe, when Farage had only said, correctly, that that number had the right to come here. That was just one of a number where he knows full well what Farage had said and then chose to lie about it.
I take issue with that. Yes, it's literally true - just as it's literally true that, even if we had the world's strictest immigration policy, it would be true that 64 million people have the right to live in Hay-on-Wye. But why on earth mention such a nonsensical figure at all, unless you're deliberately trying to mislead?
Because you're voicing the madness of it: a huge number have the right to come here, and we have no control over how many do. It's farming out our immigration levels down to the aggregation decisions of millions of Eastern Europeans. Do you really think the public are too thick to understand the difference between "have the right to come" and "will come"? And even if you do, then make clear the distinction: don't claim that the person that said "have the right to come" said "will come".
Can you imagine your new hero Salmond saying Eastern European nurses are better than Scottish nurses as Doc did ?
1. I don't see a direct link between the size of government debt and consumer spending. Household debt, the savings ratio and consumer expenditure are more closely related.
There's an obvious link.
Most government spending goes on wages or benefits.
If there was less government spending then there would be lower wages, either directly through public sector workers or indirectly via business with government contracts, and/or lower benefits.
This would in turn result in lower consumer spending and so cause more competition among providers of consumer spending to provide a better service to attract the same level of income.
The indirect effect.
The key is to optimise the rate of expenditure cuts. The coalition government has been ruthless on administration budgets in government and the public sector (over 25% in most departments) but much more cautious in reducing the much greater share of total expenditure comprised of service delivery (e.g. nurses, doctors, bobbies on the beat and, of course, benefits).
This has led, as you pointed out in your first post, to some impressive productivity increases in the government and public sector. But more importantly, cuts in service delivery have to be tempered by the need to avoid depressing demand in the overall economy, choking growth and preventing the private sector taking up the rebalancing slack.
The coalition have done well by decreasing public sector employment at a significantly lower rate than private sector employment has increased. Similar decisions are being taken over investment and other essential non-employment costs.
This choice of the optimal rates of fiscal consolidation accounts more than any other factor in the relative high performance of the UK's economy compared with those of its G7 partners.
Cutting core service delivery is also going to present a challenge to the next government. The 20/80 fiscal consolidation plan - 20% tax rises and 80% expenditure cuts, - has already been fully implemented on the tax side and on administrative costs on the spending side. What remains can only be substantial cuts in service delivery.
George has made service delivery cuts easier by delaying them for five years but whether he is in No 11 or not in 2015, they can't be avoided. The alternative of raising the proportion of consolidation taken by tax rises will no doubt be pursued by Labour and, to a lesser extent, the Lib Dems but the question which needs to be asked of such proposed policy changes is at what cost to growth? France under Hollande does not provide a pretty example to follow.
A lot of good points there, particularly point 3. Also I would add that lack of apprenticeship training / poor skills is behind the malaise as well, although to be fair to this government, they have tried harder to address this point than most.
The work being done on education / training is important and hopefully will produce results.
However its something which isn't going to improve things for at least a decade. That's assuming that it will improve things, there have been no shortage of government initiatives in education / training which peter out for one reason or another. 'Education, educashun, idducashunne' for example.
In the meantime it risks being a dangerous crutch to lean on "we're aware of the productivity issue and have brought in new training guidelines so there's now nothing to worry out blah and blah".
"However its something which isn't going to improve things for at least a decade."
Trade skills don't take that long. Private companies don't like paying for trade training because the trained people get poached afterwards. It worked out in this country in the past because a lot of the training was done by the nationalized industries and the armed forces as effectively part of state subsidized education. That was all trashed without replacement by the political class because they are such useless ***** who don't know anything.
So now companies poach people who are trained abroad instead.
This could be easily fixed if the political class weren't such *****.
I meant more that it would take at least a decade for new education / training initiatives to have a noticeable effect on the ONS productivity stats.
Even if successful and new workers have higher education / training the first year to enter the workforce would still only be equivalent to approximately 1/40 of the entire workforce. It would need several years of an 'improved' workforce to materially increase average productivity.
Arizona - $33,441 New York - $46,617 Mississippi - $24,062
UK - $36,120 Bulgaria - $6,334
Are you really saying these things are comparable?
Err, are there nearly 500 million Bulgarians?
If Farage really wants to make a serious point, then I'd suggest a good start would be to exclude from his figure the Germans, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Austrians, French, Belgians, and all the other well-off citizens who have a theoretical right to come here.
If you wanted to make a serious point your analogy would start with the US as 50 independent states without free movement and then adding free movement to that situation.
"Chair: In terms of the extent that she mentioned-the 16,500 and the 2,409-are those figures a surprise to you, or do they bear out the kind of investigations that you have been involved in?"
"When you read an internal police report from one particular county-South Yorkshire-and you read the police themselves saying in 2010 that they have up to 300 girls actively being exploited or at high risk, with each of them the victim of multiple criminal offences, meaning that in all likelihood you are looking at thousands of criminal offences in that one force area each year, I think it is possible that it could be higher."
A lot of good points there, particularly point 3. Also I would add that lack of apprenticeship training / poor skills is behind the malaise as well, although to be fair to this government, they have tried harder to address this point than most.
The work being done on education / training is important and hopefully will produce results.
However its something which isn't going to improve things for at least a decade. That's assuming that it will improve things, there have been no shortage of government initiatives in education / training which peter out for one reason or another. 'Education, educashun, idducashunne' for example.
In the meantime it risks being a dangerous crutch to lean on "we're aware of the productivity issue and have brought in new training guidelines so there's now nothing to worry out blah and blah".
"However its something which isn't going to improve things for at least a decade."
Trade skills don't take that long. Private companies don't like paying for trade training because the trained people get poached afterwards. It worked out in this country in the past because a lot of the training was done by the nationalized industries and the armed forces as effectively part of state subsidized education. That was all trashed without replacement by the political class because they are such useless ***** who don't know anything.
So now companies poach people who are trained abroad instead.
This could be easily fixed if the political class weren't such *****.
I meant more that it would take at least a decade for new education / training initiatives to have a noticeable effect on the ONS productivity stats.
Even if successful and new workers have higher education / training the first year to enter the workforce would still only be equivalent to approximately 1/40 of the entire workforce. It would need several years of an 'improved' workforce to materially increase average productivity.
Yeah I know really. I just like to point out the key problem with skill training since privatization when the opportunity arises.
"Chair: In terms of the extent that she mentioned-the 16,500 and the 2,409-are those figures a surprise to you, or do they bear out the kind of investigations that you have been involved in?"
"When you read an internal police report from one particular county-South Yorkshire-and you read the police themselves saying in 2010 that they have up to 300 girls actively being exploited or at high risk, with each of them the victim of multiple criminal offences, meaning that in all likelihood you are looking at thousands of criminal offences in that one force area each year, I think it is possible that it could be higher."
Most of the main national Newspapers have managed to keep the debate off the front page. I guess two victories in succession for Farage is too much for the editors and their masters to bear.
Most of the main national Newspapers have managed to keep the debate off the front page. I guess two victories in succession for Farage is too much for the editors and their masters to bear.
UKIP/con stitch up 2015 must surely have ballooned in likelihood. Nige, mate, we've got our 97-05 core in the bag, bring your 11% to the table No one is letting Labour back in. Hopefully ever
"My old council flat sold for half a million – this madness can't end well Whether there's a crash or not, this property bubble is devastating. London is being hollowed out, turned into a playground for international finance, its communities left to hang"
The quick dash is clearly immediately after the change. People will be fooled into thinking there's some imaginary half-way house renegotiation that's been achieved, and they won't have time to realise it's the same old EU with a few knobs and whistles. If there's a change in the EU, then people need time to digest it to understand what's new.
Yeah, yeah, "it's unfair, we want a referendum but not THAT referendum and we want it immediately but 2017 is too soon and Cameron is a disaster whom no-one trusts and who couldn't give out free whelks from a whelkstall and who claims he'll renegotiate but will get nothing and therefore the last thing we want is a referendum where we'll be able to point out that he's achieved nothing so we're going to work for a Labour government to be absolutely certain we don't get a referendum..."
As I said, risible.
You really have turned into Nick Clegg. As I said very clearly, 2017 would be perfectly fine for a referendum, either (a) without repatriation or (b) a year after repatriation. I'm absolutely prepared to win a referendum on the EU as long as it's not coming off a temporary bump in the polls from the Europhile parties and press doing a PR blitz. Your refusal to honestly understand the other side's position is what is risible here Richard. You're just as pathetic as all the other Europhiles in your avoidance of debating honestly.
By the way, are you still promising to become a BOOer if the bank bonus cap comes in?
What do we do if we hit the next recession still with zero interest rates, still with the zombie firms from the last recession, still with no productivity growth ?
And meanwhile, what's the rest of the world going to be doing while we're still fannying about not wanting to deal with the consequences of the last recession.
I'll tell you what they're doing - they're increasing their investment and productivity. As they do so they take trade and wealth from this country.
And I am aware that Britain has high productivity on a worldwide basis. Its the relative changes which are important.
Not forgetting that while we have high productivity we also have a high cost base and that, unlike our productivity, hasn't stopped increasing.
ar
You can only plan forward on most likely outcomes. Of course contingencies should be taken into account, such as external negative or positive shocks, but the path you follow is the one most likely to deliver your goals, even if you have to change direction later.
Some will argue that the extent of fiscal consolidation forced on Ireland, Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Portugal will eventually leave these countries leaner and fitter and more capable of competing in a the cut-throat global economy than the UK.
But this argument is like saying the bombing of Germany's industrial heartlands in WWII allowed it, with Marshall plan financing, to develop a more competitive manufacturing sector than its former conquerors. But would you will industry to be bombed as a matter of policy?
The same applies in the UK. We didn't need to impose the immediate benefit, service delivery and government spending cuts which, say, the Irish had to suffer. There was an alternative, more gradualist and less socially oppressive and divisive route out of recession available to us.
If we get hit by new external shocks or the gradualist approach is seen not to be working (contrary to today's expectations) then we still have the option of more extreme consolidation measures.
Private sector investment is recovering in the UK and even the government has long term forward plans for increased infrastructure investment, geared by strong guarantees for private and foreign co-investors. I doubt we are losing ground here to our main competitors.
Productivity is patchy, with overall performance impacted by disproportionate declines in two key sub-sectors, and with overall performance depressed by weighting high employment above productivity as a policy goal. There will need to be a weeding out and/or targetted productivity improvements in selected industry, but I doubt whether we will be talking about productivity as our major economic problem come 2016-17. Most of the problems will self-cure with full economic recovery.
Arizona - $33,441 New York - $46,617 Mississippi - $24,062
UK - $36,120 Bulgaria - $6,334
Are you really saying these things are comparable?
Err, are there nearly 500 million Bulgarians?
If Farage really wants to make a serious point, then I'd suggest a good start would be to exclude from his figure the Germans, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Austrians, French, Belgians, and all the other well-off citizens who have a theoretical right to come here.
They come too, just in smaller numbers. The point is the problem is in aggregate. It's typical of you to pick a fight over something Farage said which is entirely accurate, to draw attention away from the utter lies of the Europhile side, not least "three million jobs" or "largest economy in the world".
"My old council flat sold for half a million – this madness can't end well Whether there's a crash or not, this property bubble is devastating. London is being hollowed out, turned into a playground for international finance, its communities left to hang"
Corporeal Given UKIP are polling over 10% and the LDs slightly under it, and UKIP have consistently won more MEPs than the LDs (with the Greens also winning MEPs as well as an MP and Brighton Council) and given the second place of UKIP in most recent by-elections and strong showing in the last local elections, I think OFCOM have ample grounds to include UKIP and the Greens in second debate with Miliband, Cameron and Clegg (and I expect the LDs to agree if they do not want to be even more slaughtered and OFCOM will want to avoid the inevitable legal challenges following a refusal)
"Exclusive: Michael Heseltine: EU referendum will have a "chilling effect" on business Conservative peer also says that Britain will join the euro, that UKIP is a "racist" party and that Boris Johnson shouldn't stand for parliament before 2016":
Corporeal Given UKIP are polling over 10% and the LDs slightly under it, and UKIP have consistently won more MEPs than the LDs (with the Greens also winning MEPs as well as an MP and Brighton Council) and given the second place of UKIP in most recent by-elections and strong showing in the last local elections, I think OFCOM have ample grounds to include UKIP and the Greens in second debate with Miliband, Cameron and Clegg (and I expect the LDs to agree if they do not want to be even more slaughtered and OFCOM will want to avoid the inevitable legal challenges following a refusal)
HYUFD, can I ask if you read the thread I linked to, because that really spelt it all out as I saw it.
If you import large numbers of men to work in sweatshops who live four to a room and send most of their money home then you create a large demand for ultra-cheap prostitution. Supplying large numbers of ultra-cheap prostitutes requires children or slaves.
old_labour - actually I think the Lib Dems are pretty bitter about the behaviour of the Graun. For reasons best known to themselves they backed the Lib Dems in 2010 but have hardly given them any praise since.
Corporeal Yes, I read it and that answered the points you made ie the 10% point and previous electoral success, plus the practical point that if Clegg denies UKIP a place in the debate the LDs will be lucky to make 5% let alone 10% in 2015, night!
Comments
Needs a thread I think...
I'm sorry, but your position is absolutely risible.
1) An economy dominated by consumer spending is fundamentally liable to lower productivity growth as better consumer service often requires more labour supplying that service. An example would be supermarket checkouts - the more checkouts in operation the better the service but the lower the overall productivity. With the government subsidising consumer spending to record amounts (see the government debt as evidence) the incentive to higher productivity is reduced. By comparison government cuts in parts of the public sector have seen improved public sector productivity contrary to the overall national productivity.
2) An effectively unlimited amount of willing and cheap unskilled economic migrants acts as a disincentive for business to invest in new equipment and technology.
3) The continuance of zero interest rates and debt forbearance has led to zombie businesses survival and malinvestment remaining. Creative destruction is a necessary part of healthy free market capitalism as it frees up factors of production (capital, labour, land etc) for more useful employment.
4) The steady increase in government regulations, QA requirements etc means a higher proportion of labour output is used for 'overhead' purposes and not in the production of useful goods or services.
Too late to get stuck into a heavy debate on productivity, so just a few points:
1. I don't see a direct link between the size of government debt and consumer spending. Household debt, the savings ratio and consumer expenditure are more closely related.
2. In times of high unemployment, depressed demand and low confidence - all characteristic of a recession - firms are most likely to recover output intially by employing cheap labour (whether from existing residents or economic migrants). This applies even when borrowing costs have been reduced to what you call "zero interest rates". Increasing headcount, rather than investing in plant and machinery, helps firms deleverage debt and conserve cash, again indicators of a recession.
As the recovery sets in, confidence rises and labour market slack tightens, then businesses become more willing to make capital investments, take on additional loans and reduce cash balances. This particularly applies if the incentive of low interest rates has been retained as an incentive.
3. Low interest rates do protect inefficient enterprises - your zombies - but that is a necessary evil in times of universally depressed demand. As the economic slack in the economy - the output gap - is closed, then pressure can be brought to bear on the natural selection processes of fully functioning capital markets.
4. Many of the ills you expose are just cyclical stages of an economic cycle. A significant amount will not be cyclical though and the productivity debate should be about early identification of those enterprises and production/service sectors which are unsustainable even in a fully recovered economy.
However its something which isn't going to improve things for at least a decade. That's assuming that it will improve things, there have been no shortage of government initiatives in education / training which peter out for one reason or another. 'Education, educashun, idducashunne' for example.
In the meantime it risks being a dangerous crutch to lean on "we're aware of the productivity issue and have brought in new training guidelines so there's now nothing to worry out blah and blah".
All black Londoners who don't vote BNP are therefore not really interested in representation of black people in high office
In the meantime I have been working with some of this delightful lot: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/European-nurses-arrive-improve-patient-care/story-20579490-detail/story.html
Very well trained and hard working bunch. Everyone who has worked with them praises them and wants them to work in their unit. More on the way. So much better trained than UK graduates.
Facts on the ground, Nigel, facts on the ground!
You can't have it both ways: do you want a referendum or not? The EU leaders, Labour, LibDems, some Tories, the unions, big business, US politicians, and - most importantly - the BBC will be rooting for the In side whenever any referendum is held, whether tomorrow or in 2017.
On programmes like this they usually show someone who can say what day of the week any date in history was, but actually anyone can learn to do it in a relatively short time. I taught myself how to do it in a few days after seeing it done on Des Lynam's "How Do They Do That" show in the 1990s.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26863033
Most government spending goes on wages or benefits.
If there was less government spending then there would be lower wages, either directly through public sector workers or indirectly via business with government contracts, and/or lower benefits.
This would in turn result in lower consumer spending and so cause more competition among providers of consumer spending to provide a better service to attract the same level of income.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/owenspottiswoode/12-things-we-learned-from-nick-clegg-and-nigel-far-nmzm
Arizona - $33,441
New York - $46,617
Mississippi - $24,062
UK - $36,120
Bulgaria - $6,334
Are you really saying these things are comparable? They clearly are not, as evidenced by the fact that New York and Arizona have mass immigration every year. If they were, and if they were debating secession from the US partially on this basis, it would be a perfectly valid point to raise.
If he had been serious about any form of renegotiation he would have started the process years ago, not waited until it is far too late to get any meaningful changes made.
If Farage really wants to make a serious point, then I'd suggest a good start would be to exclude from his figure the Germans, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Austrians, French, Belgians, and all the other well-off citizens who have a theoretical right to come here.
Codes for months:
Jan 5, Feb 1, Mar 1, Apr 4, May 6, Jun 2, Jul 4, Aug 0, Sep 3, Oct 5, Nov 1, Dec 3
Codes for years:
1977 - 0, 1978 - 1, 1979 - 3, 1980 - 4/5, 1981 - 6, 1982 - 0, 1983 - 1, 1984 - 2/3, 1985 - 4
So 9th June 1983 = 9 + 2 + 1 = 12 which is same as 5 in a 7 day cycle.
5 = Thursday.
This was the date of the 1983 general election.
Very droll indeed considering it was Cleggy who was one of the first out of the gates briefing against Ming for the leadership. We'll see how the whole Rennard debacle continues as that still has the potential to be incredibly damaging should either one of them remember they both supposedly drew red lines over it.
As I said, risible.
Well what happens if we don't and there's another recession in a year or two or even within the next five years ?
Gordon Brown is much mocked here for his 'no more boom or bust' promise but isn't the complacency behind that also inherant in Osborne's predictions of endless steady growth year after year ?
What do we do if we hit the next recession still with zero interest rates, still with the zombie firms from the last recession, still with no productivity growth ?
And meanwhile, what's the rest of the world going to be doing while we're still fannying about not wanting to deal with the consequences of the last recession.
I'll tell you what they're doing - they're increasing their investment and productivity. As they do so they take trade and wealth from this country.
And I am aware that Britain has high productivity on a worldwide basis. Its the relative changes which are important.
Not forgetting that while we have high productivity we also have a high cost base and that, unlike our productivity, hasn't stopped increasing.
Every UKIP voter puts Miliband one step closer to number 10.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-v-nick-clegg-3342210
Yes to paid trips to apartheid South Africa and by the way, what a great chap Nelson Mandela is
Listen you loony racists, vote for me and I'll give you what you want trust me
Cameron and his supporters remind me of the quote from Mutiny on the Bounty from Fletcher to Bligh as Bligh was promising anything to prevent the takeover of the ship
"Why are you being so damn reasonable now?"
Trade skills don't take that long. Private companies don't like paying for trade training because the trained people get poached afterwards. It worked out in this country in the past because a lot of the training was done by the nationalized industries and the armed forces as effectively part of state subsidized education. That was all trashed without replacement by the political class because they are such useless ***** who don't know anything.
So now companies poach people who are trained abroad instead.
This could be easily fixed if the political class weren't such *****.
I have a soft spot for Portugal, England ally long before the Scots were. Better off together with these nurses!
Nigel Farage triumphs over Nick Clegg in second televised debate
The key is to optimise the rate of expenditure cuts. The coalition government has been ruthless on administration budgets in government and the public sector (over 25% in most departments) but much more cautious in reducing the much greater share of total expenditure comprised of service delivery (e.g. nurses, doctors, bobbies on the beat and, of course, benefits).
This has led, as you pointed out in your first post, to some impressive productivity increases in the government and public sector. But more importantly, cuts in service delivery have to be tempered by the need to avoid depressing demand in the overall economy, choking growth and preventing the private sector taking up the rebalancing slack.
The coalition have done well by decreasing public sector employment at a significantly lower rate than private sector employment has increased. Similar decisions are being taken over investment and other essential non-employment costs.
This choice of the optimal rates of fiscal consolidation accounts more than any other factor in the relative high performance of the UK's economy compared with those of its G7 partners.
Cutting core service delivery is also going to present a challenge to the next government. The 20/80 fiscal consolidation plan - 20% tax rises and 80% expenditure cuts, - has already been fully implemented on the tax side and on administrative costs on the spending side. What remains can only be substantial cuts in service delivery.
George has made service delivery cuts easier by delaying them for five years but whether he is in No 11 or not in 2015, they can't be avoided. The alternative of raising the proportion of consolidation taken by tax rises will no doubt be pursued by Labour and, to a lesser extent, the Lib Dems but the question which needs to be asked of such proposed policy changes is at what cost to growth? France under Hollande does not provide a pretty example to follow.
Even if successful and new workers have higher education / training the first year to enter the workforce would still only be equivalent to approximately 1/40 of the entire workforce. It would need several years of an 'improved' workforce to materially increase average productivity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297906/Turkey-join-EU-says-Cameron-Those-playing-fears-Islam.html
or this one
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/411830/Outcry-as-David-Cameron-says-Let-s-extend-the-EU-towards-Asia
Who can ever know for sure?
Every LibLabCon vote puts the LibLabCon one step closer to staying in number 10.
Watching Fast and Furious Five now - the Korean character is called "Han Seoul-Oh"
twitter.com/JoeyEssex_/status/451440936929988608/photo/1r
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/uc182-vii/uc18201.htm
"Chair: In terms of the extent that she mentioned-the 16,500 and the 2,409-are those figures a surprise to you, or do they bear out the kind of investigations that you have been involved in?"
"When you read an internal police report from one particular county-South Yorkshire-and you read the police themselves saying in 2010 that they have up to 300 girls actively being exploited or at high risk, with each of them the victim of multiple criminal offences, meaning that in all likelihood you are looking at thousands of criminal offences in that one force area each year, I think it is possible that it could be higher."
If you want the technicalities I did a thread on it.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/02/22/the-leaders-tv-debates-corporeal-looks-at-the-rules-2/
"Serious attempt by Islamists to take over most of the schools in east and south Birmingham".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26856037
I guess two victories in succession for Farage is too much for the editors and their masters to bear.
Nige, mate, we've got our 97-05 core in the bag, bring your 11% to the table
No one is letting Labour back in. Hopefully ever
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/uc182-vii/uc18201.htm
Corporeal Given tonight's performance and present polls Clegg is more minor than Farage.
Old Labour I think it was too postmodern even for Grayson Perry! Hopefully as a result Fort Hood has avoided a massacre
Clegg comes across even worse without pictures.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/farage-clegg-debate-drab-bbc-television
"My old council flat sold for half a million – this madness can't end well
Whether there's a crash or not, this property bubble is devastating. London is being hollowed out, turned into a playground for international finance, its communities left to hang"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/02/london-housing-bubble-property-market-madness
By the way, are you still promising to become a BOOer if the bank bonus cap comes in?
What do we do if we hit the next recession still with zero interest rates, still with the zombie firms from the last recession, still with no productivity growth ?
And meanwhile, what's the rest of the world going to be doing while we're still fannying about not wanting to deal with the consequences of the last recession.
I'll tell you what they're doing - they're increasing their investment and productivity. As they do so they take trade and wealth from this country.
And I am aware that Britain has high productivity on a worldwide basis. Its the relative changes which are important.
Not forgetting that while we have high productivity we also have a high cost base and that, unlike our productivity, hasn't stopped increasing.
ar
You can only plan forward on most likely outcomes. Of course contingencies should be taken into account, such as external negative or positive shocks, but the path you follow is the one most likely to deliver your goals, even if you have to change direction later.
Some will argue that the extent of fiscal consolidation forced on Ireland, Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Portugal will eventually leave these countries leaner and fitter and more capable of competing in a the cut-throat global economy than the UK.
But this argument is like saying the bombing of Germany's industrial heartlands in WWII allowed it, with Marshall plan financing, to develop a more competitive manufacturing sector than its former conquerors. But would you will industry to be bombed as a matter of policy?
The same applies in the UK. We didn't need to impose the immediate benefit, service delivery and government spending cuts which, say, the Irish had to suffer. There was an alternative, more gradualist and less socially oppressive and divisive route out of recession available to us.
If we get hit by new external shocks or the gradualist approach is seen not to be working (contrary to today's expectations) then we still have the option of more extreme consolidation measures.
Private sector investment is recovering in the UK and even the government has long term forward plans for increased infrastructure investment, geared by strong guarantees for private and foreign co-investors. I doubt we are losing ground here to our main competitors.
Productivity is patchy, with overall performance impacted by disproportionate declines in two key sub-sectors, and with overall performance depressed by weighting high employment above productivity as a policy goal. There will need to be a weeding out and/or targetted productivity improvements in selected industry, but I doubt whether we will be talking about productivity as our major economic problem come 2016-17. Most of the problems will self-cure with full economic recovery.
Conservative peer also says that Britain will join the euro, that UKIP is a "racist" party and that Boris Johnson shouldn't stand for parliament before 2016":
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/exclusive-michael-heseltine-eu-referendum-will-have-chilling-effect-business
If the Guardian, which has been making excuses for him since 2010 turns on him, I think he might be toast.
Nick Clegg v Nigel Farage second live debate: Deputy PM's aggressive change of strategy fails to win over the public
Facts on the ground
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/uc182-vii/uc18201.htm