@Richard_Nabavi Clearly Labour's 'red lines' on Europe are very wibbly, but if the numbers are there for a continuation of the coalition (More likely I reckon than CON majority), and the Lib Dems insist on 'no referendum' as a red line even to confidence and supply then what happens ! (May seem petty on such a question but perfidious Lib Demmery...)
Then there will not be a Conservative-led government under David Cameron, and I can't see there being one under anyone else either.
As I've been warning for yonks, the risk of May 2015 producing no viable government is quite a serious one, and not yet priced into the financial markets.
I have a similar problem. I shall either vote Green or Lib Dem, probably depending on my mood on the day.
My problem is that my region (East Midlands) has only 5 MEPs. My natural instinct in a Euro election is the Liberal Democrats - but on these polling figures they don't stand a chance in the East Midlands (likewise Greens). So that just leaves Conservative and Labour. I'll probably vote Conservative in the locals but I can't support them in a Euro election. As for Labour... well I've never voted Labour in my life. I might have to force myself to though.
Do you really care that much who gets elected? Why not just vote for the party you agree with most and let the count take care of itself?
Yes, but the first part of that is not going to happen. The Tories are simply not going to win a majority, which is what they'd need to have a referendum, as the Lib Dems will refuse to sign up for a coalition on that basis.
Actually I'm not so sure about the LibDems - I think they might agree, especially if the numbers are such that a Lab/LD coalition is not practical . Are they really going to crash out of government in order to enforce the principle that the public shouldn't get a say?
Still, it's certainly true that the only sure way of getting the referendum is a Tory majority. It's a very odd argument to use in favour voting UKIP, whose support, on current polls, is easily sufficient to make the difference.
In any case UKIP make no secret of the fact that their aim is to destabilise the Conservatives and deny a Conservative government, i.e. to put Ed Miliband into No 10. That's up to them, of course, people can vote how they like. All I'm doing is pointing out the reality.
I agree. That said, the Tories throwing PR into the mix would help expedite an renewed agreement.
Is it normal for three parties to set up a 'cross party action group' to tackle a party taking votes from all three?
Is there any evidence that they have? - So far we have only seen an Ex Labour immigration minister, claiming to represent a 'cross-party' group accusing UKIP of being almost racist and erm EUracist.
With regard to the overseas aid budget it has always seemed wrong to me to take money by force from people in this country to s(p)end it abroad. It seems even worse to be increasing the amount of money used in this way while reducing the amount used on things for the benefit of taxpayers here.
There are many areas of the world that can benefit from charitable work. The problem is that this isn't charity - it's politicians spending other people's money to feel better about themselves.
I would favour funding the DFID with entirely voluntary contributions - have an extra box on tax returns with "how much do you want to donate?" and a donations line etc. If people don't want to give to that particular form of charity it shouldn't be the job of politicians to force them. This would have the aded benefit of increasing pressure to direct aid more sensibly (away from countries with space programs and nuclear weapons for example).
media minutes on Hancock, Yeo, Mercer vs media minutes on Ukip council candidates
A bit of a selective list. Add in Peter Cruddas, Andrew Mitchell, Jeremy Hunt, Maria Miller, Liam Fox, Aidan Burley, plus to be fair a whole bunch of LibDem and Labour politicians in this parliament and in the previous ones, not to mention the wall-to-wall mud of the expenses scandal.
Some of the mud may of course have been fully justified, but some of it wasn't, and it's pretty absurd to claim that the media have given any of the parties a free ride. Basically there's nothing (other than pictures of pretty girls, preferably in alluring states of undress) which the media like more than throwing mud at politicians. UKIP are getting the same treatment as everyone else: they should be flattered.
Is it normal for three parties to set up a 'cross party action group' to tackle a party taking votes from all three?
The Unionists seem to think so when it comes to the SNP and the independence referendum. To be fair to the Unionists, Better Together was set up only after the SNP won a majority in the Scottish Parliament and called a referendum. On the other hand, the Unionists had tried to prevent both events by any means they could, including gerrymandering the Scottish Pmt voting system.
I don't much hold with the UKIP myself - not least in their lack of a mature set of policies - but I can see only too well that people are so angry that they are voting for them and that is something the established parties have to deal with. Though whether repeating the same mistakes (I think) as with the Scottish indy ref is a good idea I am not sure. I'm fascinated by how we see the same wording, the same monstering techniques, the same orchestrated media attacks, the same spinning and the same running around in ever-decreasing circles, like the proverbial jubjub bird.
There's something to be said for taking opportunities to vote for each mainstream party just for the mind-widening effect - I hope one day to vote for a Tory where the only competitor is further right! But yes, it's a pity that we've got a PR system that doesn't deliver PR. The E Mids result looked certain to be 2-2-1 UKIP/Con/Lab, but on these figures might be 3-1-1 or 3-2-0. Can't see LibDems or Greens coming close here, though London and the SW are another matter.
My 40th birthday is Friday 23rd May. So maybe I should give Labour a try on my final day of being young?
Seriously though, Nick, I'm open to the idea of voting for any party with which I have some common ground so long as they can provide me with convincing reasons to. I do have common ground with Labour on the issue of Europe so I'll be giving them serious consideration for the Euro vote (whilst simultaneously voting against them in the city council elections, of course...).
Is it normal for three parties to set up a 'cross party action group' to tackle a party taking votes from all three?
The Unionists seem to think so when it comes to the SNP and the independence referendum. To be fair to the Unionists, Better Together was set up only after the SNP won a majority in the Scottish Parliament and called a referendum. ...
That's only partly true. The Better Together campaign was set up specifically for the referendum with the aim of co-ordinating the No side. It wasn't specifically aimed at countering the SNP as a party. Once the referendum's over, whichever way it goes, Better Together will shut up shop and the component parts will go their own ways.
As was said downthread, is there any evidence that the Roach publicity stunt is any more than just her, never mind just her party?
Except of course we can pop online for 30 seconds or so and find many examples from the other parties - and the Tories in particular - of action and statements by councillors that have been as bad if not worse than those ascribed to UKIP and which have resulted in no action by those parties. Indeed, what sets UKIP apart from the other parties is their lack of tolerance for such behavior. Racist and homophobes are apparently welcome as councillors in the Tory party whilst they kicked out of UKIP.
There are several things working together here: Firstly, all parties have their share of nutters. Politics attracts them (and that's one of the reasons you don't want to be a politician). But what's different here is that UKIP has grown so quickly that it hasn't yet put in place the organisational structure to vet candidates, and there are non of the informal checks-and-balances that exist when a party has been around for a long time, and therefore everyone knows everyone else. This means there will probably - for now - be a higher proportion of people who've said questionable things in the past (or who don't know how to conduct themselves on social media).
Secondly, technology has changed. In the past, things you said in the pub couldn't come back to bite you. Now, there's a list of 3,000 council candidates, and any junior hack can check out pretty much all their tweets in an afternoon. Plus, because these things make headlines, anyone who knows someone who's a UKIP councillor or candidate knows that passing on their silly status updates to a journalist will generate a story.
Thirdly, like it or not, there is a market for these stories. That we're talking so much about them tells us that they are doing their job - i.e. generating readership for the news organisations. Newspapers exist to garner readers to generate advertising. If no-one read and shared and argued over these stories, then they would not exist. Kipper with silly view is simply a story that UKIP supporters will read and knash their teeth over, (and share to prove the biases of the MSM), while UKIP opponents will probably say "I told you so", and share. There is a natural life span to these stories mind, and I think we're probably coming to the end of it.
Do you really care that much who gets elected? Why not just vote for the party you agree with most and let the count take care of itself?
If I lived in one of the bigger regions which elect more MEPs then I certainly would take that approach.
Do it anyway: it feels less dirty. I can honestly say I've always voted for the party/candidate I most favoured in any election - that hasn't always been Tories (I was a Lib Dem long ago), and certainly hasn't always been one in with a chance of winning. Even if they don't win though, the votes go to increasing a national mandate, or expression of support.
@MichaelLCrick: Ukip donor Demetri Marchessini on #C4News at 7: ban women from wearing trousers, as they make them unattractive, & discourage love-making
media minutes on Hancock, Yeo, Mercer vs media minutes on Ukip council candidates
A bit of a selective list. Add in Peter Cruddas, Andrew Mitchell, Jeremy Hunt, Maria Miller, Liam Fox, Aidan Burley, plus to be fair a whole bunch of LibDem and Labour politicians in this parliament and in the previous ones, not to mention the wall-to-wall mud of the expenses scandal.
Some of the mud may of course have been fully justified, but some of it wasn't, and it's pretty absurd to claim that the media have given any of the parties a free ride. Basically there's nothing (other than pictures of pretty girls, preferably in alluring states of undress) which the media like more than throwing mud at politicians. UKIP are getting the same treatment as everyone else: they should be flattered.
media minutes on Hancock, Yeo, Mercer vs media minutes on Ukip council candidates
A bit of a selective list. Add in Peter Cruddas, Andrew Mitchell, Jeremy Hunt, Maria Miller, Liam Fox, Aidan Burley, plus to be fair a whole bunch of LibDem and Labour politicians in this parliament and in the previous ones, not to mention the wall-to-wall mud of the expenses scandal.
Some of the mud may of course have been fully justified, but some of it wasn't, and it's pretty absurd to claim that the media have given any of the parties a free ride. Basically there's nothing (other than pictures of pretty girls, preferably in alluring states of undress) which the media like more than throwing mud at politicians. UKIP are getting the same treatment as everyone else: they should be flattered.
elected MPs != council candidates
(not complaining btw the double standard is very helpful)
@MichaelLCrick: Ukip donor Demetri Marchessini on #C4News at 7: a husband can never rape his wife. "Once a woman accepts, she accepts"
That of course was the general view in most Western countries until relatively recently, and was the legal position until 1991 in England & Wales, 1989 in Scotland, 1991 in Australia, 1997 in Germany, and in some states in the US until 1993.
It is amazing how views which not long ago were mainstream are now beyond the pale, but I guess 'twas ever so.
On the other hand perhaps the BBC might use the opportunity to produce a programme that those other than dedicated Guardianistas might want to watch. OK, its unlikely I know. The BBC is much too far into we must maintain our £3bn poll tax income to actually think about viewers and listeners. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that whoever takes Paxo's place will be paid a suitable salary - £30k a year sounds reasonable to me.
Is it normal for three parties to set up a 'cross party action group' to tackle a party taking votes from all three?
The Unionists seem to think so when it comes to the SNP and the independence referendum. To be fair to the Unionists, Better Together was set up only after the SNP won a majority in the Scottish Parliament and called a referendum. ...
That's only partly true. The Better Together campaign was set up specifically for the referendum with the aim of co-ordinating the No side. It wasn't specifically aimed at countering the SNP as a party. Once the referendum's over, whichever way it goes, Better Together will shut up shop and the component parts will go their own ways.
As was said downthread, is there any evidence that the Roach publicity stunt is any more than just her, never mind just her party?
Point taken, and it is a good one, as there is no evidence of any earlier collusion. Though the difference seems minimal at times: for instance, the personal attacks on Mr Salmond and the SNP specifically - which has its echo, however shadowily, in the current events.
It will be interesting to see whether Ms Roach's approach is anything more than the anti-UKIP equivalent of Mr Brown's seemingly ephemeral "United with Labour". That last was of course driven by the fear of being seen by Labour voters etc as in alliance with the Tories. But the loss of Scotland is (presumably) seen as a bad thing by the leadership of both the main unionist parties. But it's different in the case of the advent of UKIP where it's - seemingly - in Labour's favour to let UKIP run riot and split the right-wing vote. So it seems odd for Ms Roach to effectively offer the Tories an olive branch.
Casting my mind back, this year will be the first time I'll be voting Labour in the Euros. Green last time, Respect the time before that, and previously DNV. Gosh.
Andrew Neil (@afneil) 30/04/2014 18:15 Paxo announces he's quitting Newsnight!
Shame. He's about the only reason for watching it. Emily Maitlis is a lightweight and K Wark sets my teeth on edge. None of them know how to ask a question.
Is it normal for three parties to set up a 'cross party action group' to tackle a party taking votes from all three?
You should be pleased.
Barbara Roache is a woman so incompetent, she managed to halve the Labour vote share in Hornsey and Wood Lane.
If she works the same magic on the non-UKIP share then you'll be laughing.
Apart from her central premise that the posters are racist (they are not), I think she was fine. She pointed out the difference between not wanting Romanians and not wanting Romanian criminals living in your street and rightly said it was scare tactics. She also said that with such careless talk it was no wonder that the party attracts racists which she thought was a shame.
O'Flynn, meanwhile, thinks it's fine for foreigners to come and live in your street "once you have got used to them." Really?
Both probably get a D- but I don't see how Roche was so much worse.
Kipper with silly view is simply a story that UKIP supporters will read and knash their teeth over, (and share to prove the biases of the MSM), while UKIP opponents will probably say "I told you so", and share. There is a natural life span to these stories mind, and I think we're probably coming to the end of it.
Unfortunate timing that you said that just before the C4News Marchessini tasters were tweeted.
On the other hand perhaps the BBC might use the opportunity to produce a programme that those other than dedicated Guardianistas might want to watch. OK, its unlikely I know. The BBC is much too far into we must maintain our £3bn poll tax income to actually think about viewers and listeners. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that whoever takes Paxo's place will be paid a suitable salary - £30k a year sounds reasonable to me.
£30k a year sounds fine, it is slightly over the median UK wage too.
Kipper with silly view is simply a story that UKIP supporters will read and knash their teeth over, (and share to prove the biases of the MSM), while UKIP opponents will probably say "I told you so", and share. There is a natural life span to these stories mind, and I think we're probably coming to the end of it.
Unfortunate timing that you said that just before the C4News Marchessini tasters were tweeted.
Actually not unfortunate. The donations were made last year, and the Guardian says that "A Ukip spokeswoman said the party no longer had anything to do with Marchessini. She said when Ukip "publicly opposed the crazy female trouser-wearing comments made by Marchessini last year he made it absolutely abundantly clear that he is no longer associated with the party at all".
"Even back then he was adamant that his thoughts were strictly his own. His only connection to Ukip is the fact he is an EU withdrawalist," the spokeswoman said."
... When it comes to the next election, I'm sure Cameron will find a lot of things to brag about to the voters in terms of what he has achieved, and no doubt he will be quite proud of increasing the international aid budget. But I remember the number of times before the election that he said that the deficit would be the number one priority and, well, he's blown that.
Sustainable economic recovery has been the number one priority of Cameron's government and that is what is being delivered.
Within this priority, deficit reduction remains up there with growth, employment and low interest rates as key elements of the overall strategy.
And the government is succeeding on deficit reduction probably more than they are prepared to openly disclose before the 2015 General Election.
Did you know, for example, that the Debt Management Office actually borrowed £21.2 billion more in 2013-14 than it needed to finance the same year's central government's net cash requirement? And this after sales of gilts and t-bills sales were reduced by over £10 bn during the course of the year? This effectively meant the government's financing requirement dropped by over £30 bn from that planned in April 2012 to the outturn at the end of the year.
The £21.2 bn surplus borrowing has been brought forward to the 2014-15 fiscal year, reducing the amount needed to be raised in new debt.
But this bonus is well disguised.
Total financing in 2013-14 was £158.4 bn including £51.5 bn of 'rolled over debt' (e.g. financing to repay gilt stocks which mature during the year). This meant £106.9 bn was new borrowing. Financing was by Gilt Sales (£153.4 bn) and T-Bills etc. (£5.0 bn). NS&I contributions were £3.4 bn against planned net zero sales (netted off before the above figures).
In 2014-15 the 'rolled over debt' rises to £62.2 bn and the overall financing requirement drops to £175.4 bn. Using the same logic as above new borrowing would be £113.2 bn, up from £106.9 bn last year but including £6.5 bn for Network Rail not previously incorporated. So on a like-for-like basis new borrowing drops by a mere £0.2 bn.
Now reduce the 2014-15 new borrowing figure by the £21.2 bn cash surplus from 2013-14 and the new borrowing requirement falls to £92.0 bn. Further reduce it by £13 bn net increase from NS&I (up £10 bn in a year!) and the DMO's actual new borrowing remit falls to £79.0 bn, and total borrowing remit to £141.2 (new borrowing + rolled over debt). Financing is now £127.2 bn in Gilt Sales and £14.0 in net T-Bills etc, a 17.08% fall in actual wholesale market borrowing from the previous year.
A careful analysis will show that George and Danny are having their cake and eating it.
The current arrangements allow government spending to remain stable while actual wholesale borrowing drops by 17%.
Retail borrowing through NS&I increases by £10 bn. Retail borrowing costs the taxpayer slightly less than wholesale borrowing. The fact that the government is relying on an increase in net borrowing through the NS&I this year confirms its expectations that the growing recovery will lead to increased household savings.
None of the above figures include proceeds from asset sales such as the disposal of the government's remaining 25% stake in the Lloyds Bank Group worth £13.4 bn at today's market prices. Nor does it include other additional income from the banking sector for example the payment of a dividend by the RBoS group or accelerated bank loan repayments. All of this would suggest that 2014-15 will generate a similar or larger cash surplus than 2013-14.
All pre-election options are therefore open to George and Danny from outright electoral bribes through to further substantial decreases in actual borrowing (i.e. real deficit reduction).
oh dear,looking through the thread,it looks like the right/centre right vote is split and I'm getting to the point that only thing that could bring them out for a tory vote at the GE is -
phew glad i got on the kippers to get most votes at 2.25 ( ladbrokes a week or so back). anyone think their opinion poll rating has peaked with 3 weeks to go and they might implode ?
Comments
I'd pay 'the same level' and one higher!
As I've been warning for yonks, the risk of May 2015 producing no viable government is quite a serious one, and not yet priced into the financial markets.
Andrew Neil (@afneil)
30/04/2014 18:15
Paxo announces he's quitting Newsnight!
Barbara Roache is a woman so incompetent, she managed to halve the Labour vote share in Hornsey and Wood Lane.
If she works the same magic on the non-UKIP share then you'll be laughing.
There are many areas of the world that can benefit from charitable work. The problem is that this isn't charity - it's politicians spending other people's money to feel better about themselves.
I would favour funding the DFID with entirely voluntary contributions - have an extra box on tax returns with "how much do you want to donate?" and a donations line etc. If people don't want to give to that particular form of charity it shouldn't be the job of politicians to force them. This would have the aded benefit of increasing pressure to direct aid more sensibly (away from countries with space programs and nuclear weapons for example).
Some of the mud may of course have been fully justified, but some of it wasn't, and it's pretty absurd to claim that the media have given any of the parties a free ride. Basically there's nothing (other than pictures of pretty girls, preferably in alluring states of undress) which the media like more than throwing mud at politicians. UKIP are getting the same treatment as everyone else: they should be flattered.
I don't much hold with the UKIP myself - not least in their lack of a mature set of policies - but I can see only too well that people are so angry that they are voting for them and that is something the established parties have to deal with. Though whether repeating the same mistakes (I think) as with the Scottish indy ref is a good idea I am not sure. I'm fascinated by how we see the same wording, the same monstering techniques, the same orchestrated media attacks, the same spinning and the same running around in ever-decreasing circles, like the proverbial jubjub bird.
My 40th birthday is Friday 23rd May. So maybe I should give Labour a try on my final day of being young?
Seriously though, Nick, I'm open to the idea of voting for any party with which I have some common ground so long as they can provide me with convincing reasons to. I do have common ground with Labour on the issue of Europe so I'll be giving them serious consideration for the Euro vote (whilst simultaneously voting against them in the city council elections, of course...).
http://order-order.com/2014/04/30/suspended-council-candidate-doesnt-make-national-news/
As was said downthread, is there any evidence that the Roach publicity stunt is any more than just her, never mind just her party?
Secondly, technology has changed. In the past, things you said in the pub couldn't come back to bite you. Now, there's a list of 3,000 council candidates, and any junior hack can check out pretty much all their tweets in an afternoon. Plus, because these things make headlines, anyone who knows someone who's a UKIP councillor or candidate knows that passing on their silly status updates to a journalist will generate a story.
Thirdly, like it or not, there is a market for these stories. That we're talking so much about them tells us that they are doing their job - i.e. generating readership for the news organisations. Newspapers exist to garner readers to generate advertising. If no-one read and shared and argued over these stories, then they would not exist. Kipper with silly view is simply a story that UKIP supporters will read and knash their teeth over, (and share to prove the biases of the MSM), while UKIP opponents will probably say "I told you so", and share. There is a natural life span to these stories mind, and I think we're probably coming to the end of it.
If it's true, he's got more bottle than Nigel.
It is amazing how views which not long ago were mainstream are now beyond the pale, but I guess 'twas ever so.
Autres temps, autres moeurs
Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind.
On the other hand perhaps the BBC might use the opportunity to produce a programme that those other than dedicated Guardianistas might want to watch. OK, its unlikely I know. The BBC is much too far into we must maintain our £3bn poll tax income to actually think about viewers and listeners. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that whoever takes Paxo's place will be paid a suitable salary - £30k a year sounds reasonable to me.
It will be interesting to see whether Ms Roach's approach is anything more than the anti-UKIP equivalent of Mr Brown's seemingly ephemeral "United with Labour". That last was of course driven by the fear of being seen by Labour voters etc as in alliance with the Tories. But the loss of Scotland is (presumably) seen as a bad thing by the leadership of both the main unionist parties. But it's different in the case of the advent of UKIP where it's - seemingly - in Labour's favour to let UKIP run riot and split the right-wing vote. So it seems odd for Ms Roach to effectively offer the Tories an olive branch.
O'Flynn, meanwhile, thinks it's fine for foreigners to come and live in your street "once you have got used to them." Really?
Both probably get a D- but I don't see how Roche was so much worse.
"A Ukip spokeswoman said the party no longer had anything to do with Marchessini. She said when Ukip "publicly opposed the crazy female trouser-wearing comments made by Marchessini last year he made it absolutely abundantly clear that he is no longer associated with the party at all".
"Even back then he was adamant that his thoughts were strictly his own. His only connection to Ukip is the fact he is an EU withdrawalist," the spokeswoman said."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/28/ukip-donor-telegraph-advert-sodomy-crime-libby-purves
So this is real barrel-scraping by C4 News.
... When it comes to the next election, I'm sure Cameron will find a lot of things to brag about to the voters in terms of what he has achieved, and no doubt he will be quite proud of increasing the international aid budget. But I remember the number of times before the election that he said that the deficit would be the number one priority and, well, he's blown that.
Sustainable economic recovery has been the number one priority of Cameron's government and that is what is being delivered.
Within this priority, deficit reduction remains up there with growth, employment and low interest rates as key elements of the overall strategy.
And the government is succeeding on deficit reduction probably more than they are prepared to openly disclose before the 2015 General Election.
Did you know, for example, that the Debt Management Office actually borrowed £21.2 billion more in 2013-14 than it needed to finance the same year's central government's net cash requirement? And this after sales of gilts and t-bills sales were reduced by over £10 bn during the course of the year? This effectively meant the government's financing requirement dropped by over £30 bn from that planned in April 2012 to the outturn at the end of the year.
The £21.2 bn surplus borrowing has been brought forward to the 2014-15 fiscal year, reducing the amount needed to be raised in new debt.
But this bonus is well disguised.
Total financing in 2013-14 was £158.4 bn including £51.5 bn of 'rolled over debt' (e.g. financing to repay gilt stocks which mature during the year). This meant £106.9 bn was new borrowing. Financing was by Gilt Sales (£153.4 bn) and T-Bills etc. (£5.0 bn). NS&I contributions were £3.4 bn against planned net zero sales (netted off before the above figures).
In 2014-15 the 'rolled over debt' rises to £62.2 bn and the overall financing requirement drops to £175.4 bn. Using the same logic as above new borrowing would be £113.2 bn, up from £106.9 bn last year but including £6.5 bn for Network Rail not previously incorporated. So on a like-for-like basis new borrowing drops by a mere £0.2 bn.
Now reduce the 2014-15 new borrowing figure by the £21.2 bn cash surplus from 2013-14 and the new borrowing requirement falls to £92.0 bn. Further reduce it by £13 bn net increase from NS&I (up £10 bn in a year!) and the DMO's actual new borrowing remit falls to £79.0 bn, and total borrowing remit to £141.2 (new borrowing + rolled over debt). Financing is now £127.2 bn in Gilt Sales and £14.0 in net T-Bills etc, a 17.08% fall in actual wholesale market borrowing from the previous year.
[to be continued...]
St George and the DMO debt
[...continued]
A careful analysis will show that George and Danny are having their cake and eating it.
The current arrangements allow government spending to remain stable while actual wholesale borrowing drops by 17%.
Retail borrowing through NS&I increases by £10 bn. Retail borrowing costs the taxpayer slightly less than wholesale borrowing. The fact that the government is relying on an increase in net borrowing through the NS&I this year confirms its expectations that the growing recovery will lead to increased household savings.
None of the above figures include proceeds from asset sales such as the disposal of the government's remaining 25% stake in the Lloyds Bank Group worth £13.4 bn at today's market prices. Nor does it include other additional income from the banking sector for example the payment of a dividend by the RBoS group or accelerated bank loan repayments. All of this would suggest that 2014-15 will generate a similar or larger cash surplus than 2013-14.
All pre-election options are therefore open to George and Danny from outright electoral bribes through to further substantial decreases in actual borrowing (i.e. real deficit reduction).
Lucky and skillful boy is our George.
Cameron as to go.