Totally OT - but thanks to all who gave me some advice yesterday in advance of my first local election hustings last night. Think that it went well from my perspective (some good and positive comments from others afterwards which is always nice).
The one thing that surprised (and disappointed) me was the vitriol and 'shoutiness' of it all - granted we were in Brixton, so the UKIP lady was never likely to recieve a warm reception - but the combination of audience chants of 'racist' before she even started, combined with her flippancy and denigration of the audience 'if you think we're a party of millionaires, then join us and you can be one too' highlighted for me one of reasons why 'normal' people feel so disengaged in politics - that's not how discussions in the workplace or the pub work, or even on the whole how conversations on here work, so why does it appear to be the default case in the politics that's immediately seen when people first look (Hustings events, PMQ's, PPB's)?
What I find truly depressing is that 208 readers of the Indy strongly agree with his absurdities and 13 (including me) don't. I was a daily reader of the Indy for more than a decade. It seems a very long time ago now.
Mr. Isam, if Farage goes for a deal with Cameron the ex-Labour voters will abandon him and some will return to Labour, reducing the need (if there were one) for Miliband to offer a referendum.
It's a stupid move.
Mr. Patrick, reminds me of a good line from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
Uncle Phil: Jazz, to what do we owe this pleasure?
Jeffrey [the butler]: Inbreeding would be my guess.
"The Ukip boss said he was willing "to put the interests of the country above the interests of my party" in order to guarantee an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU."
I don't see that this is anything new. UKIP want to leave the EU. In the past Mr Farage has said he'd do a deal with anyone to achieve that; I believe the papers then announced that as evidence of devil worship.
So it seems if there was a deal on the table after the election and Farage said no to a coalition with Cameron/getting a referendum.. that would be wrong I guess, as Richard Nabavi has alwways said
But if he said yes, that would be wrong as well according to everyone on here this morning?
Heads I win, tails you lose is how they play it on here!
He probably shouldn't have answered.
And then been criticised for being a typical politician 'evasive'...
One curious feature of the last couple of weeks has been Ed Miliband's 'intellectual self confidence' interview. In France or Germany, that would have been smart politics, but the British, and particularly the English, are notoriously suspicious of 'intellectuals'. In fact, they are suspicious of clever people generally, and they especially cannot abide people who think, or worse still say, that they are clever.
What makes his comments even odder is that they are not even a justified boast - Cameron got a better degree than Ed. To make it even worse, one of Miliband's weaknesses is that his image is already one of speaking in wonkish abstractions; you'd have thought he'd be trying to get away from that, not draw attention to it.
And finally, the suggestion that UKIP might prop up Cameron in Downing Street collapses Farage’s strategic plan.
This has been predicated on the presumption that UKIP would never put its trust in the man some of its less excitable supporters label Cast Iron Dave – that fraud, that sellout, that agent of Brussels, that catspaw of the EUSSR, that deceiver of the sheeple, that pawn of Common Purpose, that shape-shifting lizard, that very worst feature of the LibLabCon. They might well ask: if UKIP is going to keep Cameron in Downing Street, what on earth is the point of it?
Perhaps Farage has some cunning plan that I am missing. Or perhaps he was paying his words even less attention than he does to the contents of UKIP manifestos. Maybe we have a “clarification” by mid-day.
It is a ridiculous thing to say at this point. No idea why he has done it as whether you agree with the principle or not it is bound to drive away those supporters from the left who saw UKIP as a safe haven for their vote that would not risk a return of a Tory government.
If Labour have any sense they will be all over this.
Like Paul Goodman, I expect we'll have a clarification from Nigel soon.
I would have thought the reason he said it would be to encourage Ed Miliband to offer a referendum
Ed will say: "Vote Conservative, get Conservative. Vote LibDem, get Conservative. Vote UKIP, get Conservative. If you want anything other than a Convervative government, vote Labour."
Carney, at press conference releasing BoE's quarterly Inflation Report, is predicting earnings growth to reach 2.5% by year end, due to combined effects of productivity growth and reduced spare capacity in the economy.
Talking down prospects of an early increase in bank rate while acknowledging that the direction of economic recovery is increasing the need for the rate to be uprated.
Interesting to see how the markets interpret this forked tongue announcement, but I guess BoE are holding to their mid 2015 prediction for the first 0.25% rise.
For the private sector, total pay rose by 1.8%, while regular pay rose by 1.6%. For the public sector, total pay rose by 0.7%, while regular pay rose by 1.1%. For the public sector excluding financial services, both total pay and regular pay rose by 1.5%.
In what people would normally think of as the public sector, it seems that pay is rising at only just below the average in the private sector.
It's only when you include those bits of the "public sector" that are the nationalised banks that the increase in pay falls markedly behind that of the private sector. The implication being that pay increase in RBS, etc, must be pretty low. If you knew the relative proportions you would be able to work it out from the figures above.
Not sure why you are saying I am wrong. You are saying that public sector pay is rising by less than private sector pay and so am I. Inevitably this reduces the average. Maybe I overstated it in my brief summary but we seem to be on the same page.
Good point about the banks though. I wonder if this is pushing up or pushing down the average for the public sector.The figures make it clear that pay restraint in the nationalised banks is pushing down the average for the public sector.
Since everyone is agreed that the vast majority of the nationalised banks will be returned to the private sector I view their presence in the public sector as a technicality.
The difference between wage growth in the private sector and wage growth in the public sector [excluding the nationalised banks] is effectively nil, given the known uncertainties in the accuracy of the data.
"Wrong" was perhaps the incorrect word to use. Mistaken would perhaps be better.
Mr. Nabavi, not sure I agree with that. Boris is notoriously (as it were) intelligent and given to classical references.
I don't think the British like people who take themselves too seriously, or are up themselves. Saying "I am more intellectually self-confident than him/you" makes it sound like you're both.
Carney, at press conference releasing BoE's quarterly Inflation Report, is predicting earnings growth to reach 2.5% by year end, due to combined effects of productivity growth and reduced spare capacity in the economy.
Talking down prospects of an early increase in bank rate while acknowledging that the direction of economic recovery is increasing the need for the rate to be uprated.
Interesting to see how the markets interpret this forked tongue announcement, but I guess BoE are holding to their mid 2015 prediction for the first 0.25% rise.
Wasn't their analysis that leaving rates at 0.5% until 2017 wouldn't have much of a negative effect on inflation expectations?
One curious feature of the last couple of weeks has been Ed Miliband's 'intellectual self confidence' interview. In France or Germany, that would have been smart politics, but the British, and particularly the English, are notoriously suspicious of 'intellectuals'. In fact, they are suspicious of clever people generally, and they especially cannot abide people who think, or worse still say, that they are clever.
What makes his comments even odder is that they are not even a justified boast - Cameron got a better degree than Ed. To make it even worse, one of Miliband's weaknesses is that his image is already one of speaking in wonkish abstractions; you'd have thought he'd be trying to get away from that, not draw attention to it.
What was he thinking?
Richard
"I am more intellectually self-confident than the Prime Minister"
Mr. Isam, if Farage goes for a deal with Cameron the ex-Labour voters will abandon him and some will return to Labour, reducing the need (if there were one) for Miliband to offer a referendum.
It's a stupid move.
Mr. Patrick, reminds me of a good line from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
Uncle Phil: Jazz, to what do we owe this pleasure?
Jeffrey [the butler]: Inbreeding would be my guess.
"The Ukip boss said he was willing "to put the interests of the country above the interests of my party" in order to guarantee an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU."
I don't see that this is anything new. UKIP want to leave the EU. In the past Mr Farage has said he'd do a deal with anyone to achieve that; I believe the papers then announced that as evidence of devil worship.
So it seems if there was a deal on the table after the election and Farage said no to a coalition with Cameron/getting a referendum.. that would be wrong I guess, as Richard Nabavi has alwways said
But if he said yes, that would be wrong as well according to everyone on here this morning?
Heads I win, tails you lose is how they play it on here!
He probably shouldn't have answered.
And then been criticised for being a typical politician 'evasive'...
No. You just say: UKIP's primary objective is to give the British people a chance for a fair vote on whether to leave the EU. The best way to make that happen is to vote UKIP at the next election. Once we know how many MPs we have, we can then decide the best way to secure a referendum, but until then there's no point in speculating.
"I wonder much the same about Bryony Gordon off the same paper."
I think Bryony Gordon is actually an agent for the Society of Confirming Stereotypes - in her case the dumb blonde. How she got, and keeps, a job as a columnist on what is supposed to be a serious newspaper I don't know (someone's daughter or niece?). However, she often makes me laugh So I do not complain.
She's the daughter of Jane Gordon, who used to edit the Daily Express. I really cannot think of any other reason why any newspaper would employ her; she has nothing to say.
There seems to be a certain genre of vacuous female columnist - Gordon is one, that loony who used to edit Marie Claire is another - whose output consists of crushing trivia about their single life with some utter banality every week written as a cliffhanger ending. The only female blogger on the DT with anything intelligent to say is Cristina Odone.
And finally, the suggestion that UKIP might prop up Cameron in Downing Street collapses Farage’s strategic plan.
This has been predicated on the presumption that UKIP would never put its trust in the man some of its less excitable supporters label Cast Iron Dave – that fraud, that sellout, that agent of Brussels, that catspaw of the EUSSR, that deceiver of the sheeple, that pawn of Common Purpose, that shape-shifting lizard, that very worst feature of the LibLabCon. They might well ask: if UKIP is going to keep Cameron in Downing Street, what on earth is the point of it?
Perhaps Farage has some cunning plan that I am missing. Or perhaps he was paying his words even less attention than he does to the contents of UKIP manifestos. Maybe we have a “clarification” by mid-day.
It is a ridiculous thing to say at this point. No idea why he has done it as whether you agree with the principle or not it is bound to drive away those supporters from the left who saw UKIP as a safe haven for their vote that would not risk a return of a Tory government.
If Labour have any sense they will be all over this.
Like Paul Goodman, I expect we'll have a clarification from Nigel soon.
I would have thought the reason he said it would be to encourage Ed Miliband to offer a referendum
Ed will say: "Vote Conservative, get Conservative. Vote LibDem, get Conservative. Vote UKIP, get Conservative. If you want anything other than a Convervative government, vote Labour."
How do you reckon Farage would answer "Would you do a deal with Ed Miliband if it got a Referendum?"
If the answer is "no" then you have a point.
But here we see how UKIP are treated, its all here in one thread
Yes to a deal with Cameron = Hypocrite No to a deal with Cameron = Hypocrite Answer the question = Naive Dont answer the question = just like any other politician
The only conclusion I can draw is that supporters of parties losing members and votes are desperate to say everything is bad news for the party that is taking members and votes from them... quelle surprise!!
For the private sector, total pay rose by 1.8%, while regular pay rose by 1.6%. For the public sector, total pay rose by 0.7%, while regular pay rose by 1.1%. For the public sector excluding financial services, both total pay and regular pay rose by 1.5%.
In what people would normally think of as the public sector, it seems that pay is rising at only just below the average in the private sector.
It's only when you include those bits of the "public sector" that are the nationalised banks that the increase in pay falls markedly behind that of the private sector. The implication being that pay increase in RBS, etc, must be pretty low. If you knew the relative proportions you would be able to work it out from the figures above.
Not sure why you are saying I am wrong. You are saying that public sector pay is rising by less than private sector pay and so am I. Inevitably this reduces the average. Maybe I overstated it in my brief summary but we seem to be on the same page.
Good point about the banks though. I wonder if this is pushing up or pushing down the average for the public sector.
The figures make it clear that pay restraint in the nationalised banks is pushing down the average for the public sector.
Since everyone is agreed that the vast majority of the nationalised banks will be returned to the private sector I view their presence in the public sector as a technicality.
The difference between wage growth in the private sector and wage growth in the public sector [excluding the nationalised banks] is effectively nil, given the known uncertainties in the accuracy of the data.
"Wrong" was perhaps the incorrect word to use. Mistaken would perhaps be better.
Why do you assume that there is wage restraint in the banks and this is reducing the average increase in the public sector? I am not having an argument but I am genuinely curious. The indications I have seen suggest that bonuses and indeed profits have slowly been returning to the banks.
I hope it is not just me but posting is particularly trying this morning.
Carney, at press conference releasing BoE's quarterly Inflation Report, is predicting earnings growth to reach 2.5% by year end, due to combined effects of productivity growth and reduced spare capacity in the economy.
Talking down prospects of an early increase in bank rate while acknowledging that the direction of economic recovery is increasing the need for the rate to be uprated.
Interesting to see how the markets interpret this forked tongue announcement, but I guess BoE are holding to their mid 2015 prediction for the first 0.25% rise.
An increase in earnings growth to 2.5% is really pretty modest. It would be about half the expected growth in nominal GDP.
To increase interest rates too early would be a disastrous mistake - and Osborne has got a lot of catching up to do in terms of reducing the deficit, which would surely be a better way of taking the foot of the economic stimulus pedal than increasing interest rates.
It would be a great opportunity to introduce a Land Value Tax....
Re: UKIP/Sanya Jeet Thandi "UKIP Director of Communications Patrick O’Flynn said: “It is perplexing that Sanya could give such a whole-hearted endorsement of the party’s immigration policy one week and then accuse it of pandering to racism the next.
“She is of course fully entitled to change her mind and to belong or not belong to whichever party she chooses. But throwing the term “racism” into the mix so soon after explaining UKIP’s non-racist policy is extremely unfair on UKIP members and supporters and in my view a pretty shabby thing to have done.”"
And finally, the suggestion that UKIP might prop up Cameron in Downing Street collapses Farage’s strategic plan.
This has been predicated on the presumption that UKIP would never put its trust in the man some of its less excitable supporters label Cast Iron Dave – that fraud, that sellout, that agent of Brussels, that catspaw of the EUSSR, that deceiver of the sheeple, that pawn of Common Purpose, that shape-shifting lizard, that very worst feature of the LibLabCon. They might well ask: if UKIP is going to keep Cameron in Downing Street, what on earth is the point of it?
Perhaps Farage has some cunning plan that I am missing. Or perhaps he was paying his words even less attention than he does to the contents of UKIP manifestos. Maybe we have a “clarification” by mid-day.
It is a ridiculous thing to say at this point. No idea why he has done it as whether you agree with the principle or not it is bound to drive away those supporters from the left who saw UKIP as a safe haven for their vote that would not risk a return of a Tory government.
If Labour have any sense they will be all over this.
Like Paul Goodman, I expect we'll have a clarification from Nigel soon.
I would have thought the reason he said it would be to encourage Ed Miliband to offer a referendum
Ed will say: "Vote Conservative, get Conservative. Vote LibDem, get Conservative. Vote UKIP, get Conservative. If you want anything other than a Convervative government, vote Labour."
How do you reckon Farage would answer "Would you do a deal with Ed Miliband if it got a Referendum?"
If the answer is "no" then you have a point.
But here we see how UKIP are treated, its all here in one thread
Yes to a deal with Cameron = Hypocrite No to a deal with Cameron = Hypocrite Answer the question = Naive Dont answer the question = just like any other politician
The only conclusion I can draw is that supporters of parties losing members and votes are desperate to say everything is bad news for the party that is taking members and votes from them... quelle surprise!!
The correct answer would have been "I'm prepared to do a deal with anyone who agrees that holding a referendum on the EU is the first act of the new government. I'm not prepared to do a deal with anyone who tries to stall or buy UKIP's votes."
A bizarre interview - The impression I got from the article is that Nick Griffin is positioning his party as a counterbalance to UKIP - It obviously has led to some very convoluted, even contradictory explanations as to their ‘new’ position. - I have no idea if the BNP are shedding support to UKIP, but they certainly fear that this could happen imho.
And finally, the suggestion that UKIP might prop up Cameron in Downing Street collapses Farage’s strategic plan.
This has been predicated on the presumption that UKIP would never put its trust in the man some of its less excitable supporters label Cast Iron Dave – that fraud, that sellout, that agent of Brussels, that catspaw of the EUSSR, that deceiver of the sheeple, that pawn of Common Purpose, that shape-shifting lizard, that very worst feature of the LibLabCon. They might well ask: if UKIP is going to keep Cameron in Downing Street, what on earth is the point of it?
Perhaps Farage has some cunning plan that I am missing. Or perhaps he was paying his words even less attention than he does to the contents of UKIP manifestos. Maybe we have a “clarification” by mid-day.
It is a ridiculous thing to say at this point. No idea why he has done it as whether you agree with the principle or not it is bound to drive away those supporters from the left who saw UKIP as a safe haven for their vote that would not risk a return of a Tory government.
If Labour have any sense they will be all over this.
Like Paul Goodman, I expect we'll have a clarification from Nigel soon.
I would have thought the reason he said it would be to encourage Ed Miliband to offer a referendum
Ed will say: "Vote Conservative, get Conservative. Vote LibDem, get Conservative. Vote UKIP, get Conservative. If you want anything other than a Convervative government, vote Labour."
How do you reckon Farage would answer "Would you do a deal with Ed Miliband if it got a Referendum?"
If the answer is "no" then you have a point.
But here we see how UKIP are treated, its all here in one thread
Yes to a deal with Cameron = Hypocrite No to a deal with Cameron = Hypocrite Answer the question = Naive Dont answer the question = just like any other politician
The only conclusion I can draw is that supporters of parties losing members and votes are desperate to say everything is bad news for the party that is taking members and votes from them... quelle surprise!!
I posted a proposed answer, but Farage's positioning is speaking the truth (even if he doesn't).
He should basically say no point in speculating - we need to wait and see. That is honest.
For the private sector, total pay rose by 1.8%, while regular pay rose by 1.6%. For the public sector, total pay rose by 0.7%, while regular pay rose by 1.1%. For the public sector excluding financial services, both total pay and regular pay rose by 1.5%.
In what people would normally think of as the public sector, it seems that pay is rising at only just below the average in the private sector.
It's only when you include those bits of the "public sector" that are the nationalised banks that the increase in pay falls markedly behind that of the private sector. The implication being that pay increase in RBS, etc, must be pretty low. If you knew the relative proportions you would be able to work it out from the figures above.
Not sure why you are saying I am wrong. You are saying that public sector pay is rising by less than private sector pay and so am I. Inevitably this reduces the average. Maybe I overstated it in my brief summary but we seem to be on the same page.
Good point about the banks though. I wonder if this is pushing up or pushing down the average for the public sector.
The figures make it clear that pay restraint in the nationalised banks is pushing down the average for the public sector.
Since everyone is agreed that the vast majority of the nationalised banks will be returned to the private sector I view their presence in the public sector as a technicality.
The difference between wage growth in the private sector and wage growth in the public sector [excluding the nationalised banks] is effectively nil, given the known uncertainties in the accuracy of the data.
"Wrong" was perhaps the incorrect word to use. Mistaken would perhaps be better.
Why do you assume that there is wage restraint in the banks and this is reducing the average increase in the public sector? I am not having an argument but I am genuinely curious. The indications I have seen suggest that bonuses and indeed profits have slowly been returning to the banks.
I hope it is not just me but posting is particularly trying this morning.It's not an assumption - I quoted the figures in my initial post. They are near the bottom of this bit of the ONS release.
The key line is: "For the public sector excluding financial services, both total pay and regular pay rose by 1.5%."
I think the question needs to be asked, which of the many policies funded by bankers are you dropping or which other taxes will you raise to make it add up?
You'd only have made £750 overnight, but it would have bought a few drinks.
I confess my knowledge of forex trading is not good enough to consistently make money. I'm interested in macro-economics, but when it comes down to hard maths and basic concentration I just get bored. My brain isn't suited.
I suspect I am better off focussing on writing, where I know I can make lots of money, and have an absolute advantage, then hand the financial stuff to an adviser, who may only have a comparative advantage, but the trade still makes sense, as Ricardo taught us.
Same here - don't worry. I don't trade forex for a living: only time some big transfers when I need cash in a different currency.
Mr. Lennon, (First Mate Lennon?), glad it went well.
What are the pirate party's political prospects?
Over time for the party I am very positive - we have a strong message that appeals to people - we just don't have nearly enough money, members or candidates! Currently attempting to crowd-fund our European Election Deposit so anything to get the name and ideas out there is a good thing and we really try and be positive in politics which appears to be popular and get us some traction. I certainly don't think that we are 'flash in the pan' small party but are here to stay and grow - it's just a question of how and how fast.
For me personally - I am standing for the first time in a solid labour ward in Lambeth so I am not expecting to win - but am running on campaign of 'Give me 1 of your 3 votes - and I'll increase transparency and open up the council to scrutiny'.
Apols if that was a longer answer than you expected.
Does anyone in government understand why unemployment did not explode? We seem to have been very fortunate when compared to many similarly indebted countries, but I'm not sure that it can be attributed to any particular policy.
Flexible labour laws and, outside of the public sector, a proactive and sensible strategy by the unions of engaging with management & coming up with creative solutions (e.g. lower wages for future upside, flexible working) that preserved jobs
If you look at the countries with historically free labour markets - the UK, the US, Germany (since the Hartz reforms), the Netherlands - they have the lowest unemployment rates.
If you look at the countries with the most sclerotic labour markets, where firing people is difficult, such as Italy, Greece, and France, then you see the highest unemployment rates.
The reason is simple: if firms are not confident of the economic recovery (and the cost of firing people is high) then they will wait. The effect, therefore, of excessive worker protection, is that the economic recovery is delayed, and fewer people - through the cycle - are employed.
The good news is that a number of European countries have (belatedly, and at the worst possible time) learnt this lesson, most obviously Spain and Ireland.
Mr. Lennon, (First Mate Lennon?), glad it went well.
What are the pirate party's political prospects?
Over time for the party I am very positive - we have a strong message that appeals to people - we just don't have nearly enough money, members or candidates! Currently attempting to crowd-fund our European Election Deposit so anything to get the name and ideas out there is a good thing and we really try and be positive in politics which appears to be popular and get us some traction. I certainly don't think that we are 'flash in the pan' small party but are here to stay and grow - it's just a question of how and how fast.
For me personally - I am standing for the first time in a solid labour ward in Lambeth so I am not expecting to win - but am running on campaign of 'Give me 1 of your 3 votes - and I'll increase transparency and open up the council to scrutiny'.
Apols if that was a longer answer than you expected.
I don't want to be a candidate, but I'm quite happy to send a few quid...
By crowdfunding, d'you mean Kickstarter or similar?
A few authors have gone down that route.
I was pretty impressed by the Pirate Party's response to the Labour broadcast and the Lib Dem riposte. If I weren't a near certain UKIP voter this time I'd be willing to consider voting Pirate. Might do next time.
By crowdfunding, d'you mean Kickstarter or similar?
A few authors have gone down that route.
I was pretty impressed by the Pirate Party's response to the Labour broadcast and the Lib Dem riposte. If I weren't a near certain UKIP voter this time I'd be willing to consider voting Pirate. Might do next time.
Does anyone in government understand why unemployment did not explode? We seem to have been very fortunate when compared to many similarly indebted countries, but I'm not sure that it can be attributed to any particular policy.
Flexible labour laws and, outside of the public sector, a proactive and sensible strategy by the unions of engaging with management & coming up with creative solutions (e.g. lower wages for future upside, flexible working) that preserved jobs
If you look at the countries with historically free labour markets - the UK, the US, Germany (since the Hartz reforms), the Netherlands - they have the lowest unemployment rates.
If you look at the countries with the most sclerotic labour markets, where firing people is difficult, such as Italy, Greece, and France, then you see the highest unemployment rates.
The reason is simple: if firms are not confident of the economic recovery (and the cost of firing people is high) then they will wait. The effect, therefore, of excessive worker protection, is that the economic recovery is delayed, and fewer people - through the cycle - are employed.
The good news is that a number of European countries have (belatedly, and at the worst possible time) learnt this lesson, most obviously Spain and Ireland.
I know. But that wasn't quite glw's question.
Usually with flexible labour laws you would expect a rapid rise in unemployment and then a rapid fall as recovery kicks in. I'd agree with sclerotic labour markets you'd expect high constant levels or unemployment.
glw asked why was it different this time. @DavidL's answer was better than mine.
Mr. Lennon, (First Mate Lennon?), glad it went well.
What are the pirate party's political prospects?
Over time for the party I am very positive - we have a strong message that appeals to people - we just don't have nearly enough money, members or candidates! Currently attempting to crowd-fund our European Election Deposit so anything to get the name and ideas out there is a good thing and we really try and be positive in politics which appears to be popular and get us some traction. I certainly don't think that we are 'flash in the pan' small party but are here to stay and grow - it's just a question of how and how fast.
For me personally - I am standing for the first time in a solid labour ward in Lambeth so I am not expecting to win - but am running on campaign of 'Give me 1 of your 3 votes - and I'll increase transparency and open up the council to scrutiny'.
Apols if that was a longer answer than you expected.
I don't want to be a candidate, but I'm quite happy to send a few quid...
As the UK economy continues to improve, this seems likely to increase the chances of a "No" vote in Scotland, just as the reverse would probably have been the case.
As the UK economy continues to improve, this seems likely to increase the chances of a "No" vote in Scotland, just as the reverse would probably have been the case.
I can just see Nicola on the stump now. "We want to leave the fastest growing economy in Europe, but stay tied to Bulgaria. The highest levels of employment since records began are not for the likes of us. Stay in Scotland. Die young."
Mr. Lennon, (First Mate Lennon?), glad it went well.
What are the pirate party's political prospects?
Over time for the party I am very positive - we have a strong message that appeals to people - we just don't have nearly enough money, members or candidates! Currently attempting to crowd-fund our European Election Deposit so anything to get the name and ideas out there is a good thing and we really try and be positive in politics which appears to be popular and get us some traction. I certainly don't think that we are 'flash in the pan' small party but are here to stay and grow - it's just a question of how and how fast.
For me personally - I am standing for the first time in a solid labour ward in Lambeth so I am not expecting to win - but am running on campaign of 'Give me 1 of your 3 votes - and I'll increase transparency and open up the council to scrutiny'.
Apols if that was a longer answer than you expected.
I don't want to be a candidate, but I'm quite happy to send a few quid...
Re: UKIP/Sanya Jeet Thandi "UKIP Director of Communications Patrick O’Flynn said: “It is perplexing that Sanya could give such a whole-hearted endorsement of the party’s immigration policy one week and then accuse it of pandering to racism the next.
“She is of course fully entitled to change her mind and to belong or not belong to whichever party she chooses. But throwing the term “racism” into the mix so soon after explaining UKIP’s non-racist policy is extremely unfair on UKIP members and supporters and in my view a pretty shabby thing to have done.”"
Was strange how she explixityly defended UKIPs position AFTRE the posters were published, then called them racist..
She is trying for a career in blogging/fashion and needs all the publicity she can get I suppose. Cant have helped having Awate telling her she was a traitor to her skin colour live on National tv..
He'd probabaly be in prison now if he were white and said it to a white person... or have a brick through his window at least
Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson 42m Increase in migrants from other EU countries confirms that Tories way off their target to cut net migration to below 100,000
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ 1m Attack on #UKIP candidate, home & details of Farage address should lead some to reflect on nature of our UKIP 'debate'. I suspect it won't.
For the private sector, total pay rose by 1.8%, while regular pay rose by 1.6%. For the public sector, total pay rose by 0.7%, while regular pay rose by 1.1%. For the public sector excluding financial services, both total pay and regular pay rose by 1.5%.
In what people would normally think of as the public sector, it seems that pay is rising at only just below the average in the private sector.
.
"Wrong" was perhaps the incorrect word to use. Mistaken would perhaps be better.
Why do you assume that there is wage restraint in the banks and this is reducing the average increase in the public sector? I am not having an argument but I am genuinely curious. The indications I have seen suggest that bonuses and indeed profits have slowly been returning to the banks.
I hope it is not just me but posting is particularly trying this morning.
It's not an assumption - I quoted the figures in my initial post. They are near the bottom of this bit of the ONS release.
The key line is: "For the public sector excluding financial services, both total pay and regular pay rose by 1.5%."
Thanks, I had missed that. My guess is that average bank earnings are being held down by a reduction in the number of higher earners as I don't think those who still have jobs are doing that badly.
I agree that in light of that the difference between private and public sector pay is small to insignificant. Both are surprisingly low, especially the private sector where increased employment really should be pushing up demand by now.
Ed's problem is that he's reduced to promising baubles for the economic Christmas tree, but the voters don't really believe he can keep the tree alive, let alone growing.
As the UK economy continues to improve, this seems likely to increase the chances of a "No" vote in Scotland, just as the reverse would probably have been the case.
Scotland's unemployment rate is well below the national average (6.4% as opposed to 6.8%).
Totally OT - but thanks to all who gave me some advice yesterday in advance of my first local election hustings last night. Think that it went well from my perspective (some good and positive comments from others afterwards which is always nice).
The one thing that surprised (and disappointed) me was the vitriol and 'shoutiness' of it all - granted we were in Brixton, so the UKIP lady was never likely to recieve a warm reception - but the combination of audience chants of 'racist' before she even started, combined with her flippancy and denigration of the audience 'if you think we're a party of millionaires, then join us and you can be one too' highlighted for me one of reasons why 'normal' people feel so disengaged in politics - that's not how discussions in the workplace or the pub work, or even on the whole how conversations on here work, so why does it appear to be the default case in the politics that's immediately seen when people first look (Hustings events, PMQ's, PPB's)?
Interesting, and really glad it went well for you. The flavour of hustings depends entirely on the area - we had a dozen or so hustings in the last General Election in Broxtowe, and they were all well-attended and listened to in almost total polite silence (bar friendly applause after each speaker) until the questions, which were invariably politely-phrased requests for clarification or mildly critical challenges. The only aggro was between questioners and meetings chairs, who discouraged people coming back for 2nd and 3rd questions. Might have been a bit different in the BNP candidate had turned up, but the UKIP guy got a civil hearing too (and was indeed a nice chap, who said amiably that he was an old buffer, just putting his point of view).
Maybe that's too much the other way - not really like a pub argument either...
As the UK economy continues to improve, this seems likely to increase the chances of a "No" vote in Scotland, just as the reverse would probably have been the case.
I seem to recall in the aftermath of the financial collapse and at the height of Eurogeddon a recurring theme on here was that these were the most inauspicious circumstances possible in which to hold an independence referendum. I'm sure none of those naysayers would now be shameless enough to push the opposing view.
Although I keep being confused (sometimes by people who have been already told and should know better) for a Conservative, I'm perfectly open to voting for most parties, save those that are drearily EU-phile.
Thanks, I had missed that. My guess is that average bank earnings are being held down by a reduction in the number of higher earners as I don't think those who still have jobs are doing that badly.
I agree that in light of that the difference between private and public sector pay is small to insignificant. Both are surprisingly low, especially the private sector where increased employment really should be pushing up demand by now.
6% is usually the 'magic' number where you start seeing shortages and firms start paying up to recruit and retain staff.
In London - in the tech companies I'm involved in - we are starting to see the beginnings of wage inflation. We've upped salaries by double digit amounts (although as people are improving all the time, this at least partly is simply reflecting how much more productive our employees are) to make sure we don't have any unnecessary people turnover.
OGH, Antifrank and others - if as the polls suggest, the tide really is turning against Labour then there should be some seriously good betting opportunities to exploit, before the great lumbering bookies start to catch on, which as yet they don't appear to have done so.
Any ideas on those markets which are looking particularly attractive would be gratefully received. My own emphasis has been to look at those seats which have been between Labour's say 40th - 60th prime targets and which are suddenly looking far more likely to be Tory holds.
Mr. Lennon, (First Mate Lennon?), glad it went well.
What are the pirate party's political prospects?
Over time for the party I am very positive - we have a strong message that appeals to people - we just don't have nearly enough money, members or candidates! Currently attempting to crowd-fund our European Election Deposit so anything to get the name and ideas out there is a good thing and we really try and be positive in politics which appears to be popular and get us some traction. I certainly don't think that we are 'flash in the pan' small party but are here to stay and grow - it's just a question of how and how fast.
For me personally - I am standing for the first time in a solid labour ward in Lambeth so I am not expecting to win - but am running on campaign of 'Give me 1 of your 3 votes - and I'll increase transparency and open up the council to scrutiny'.
Apols if that was a longer answer than you expected.
I don't want to be a candidate, but I'm quite happy to send a few quid...
Yes but their car-makers are French and ours are German, Japanese and Indian.
And what has changed since the 1980s when our car plants were closing? Unions, perhaps; management, certainly.
Why does it matter if their car makers are French and ours aren't British? Do Tata, Nissan or GM not employ people? The UK car industry has been highly successful under foreign management with the threat of mass closures if unions get uppity. It's a good balance and everyone benefits. French car companies are in a complete state, there are no profits to be had. I would rather have a foreign owned industry which employs people and is growing than a domestically owned one which is contracting filled with militant unions and idiotic management. Obviously the best scenario would be that of Japan or Germany, but that doesn't seem possible unless Tata were to float JLR in London.
Mr Dancer, I would never confuse you for a Conservative but thought you a little too educated to fall for cheap populism and rampant over-simplification.
Thanks, I had missed that. My guess is that average bank earnings are being held down by a reduction in the number of higher earners as I don't think those who still have jobs are doing that badly.
I agree that in light of that the difference between private and public sector pay is small to insignificant. Both are surprisingly low, especially the private sector where increased employment really should be pushing up demand by now.
6% is usually the 'magic' number where you start seeing shortages and firms start paying up to recruit and retain staff.
In London - in the tech companies I'm involved in - we are starting to see the beginnings of wage inflation. We've upped salaries by double digit amounts (although as people are improving all the time, this at least partly is simply reflecting how much more productive our employees are) to make sure we don't have any unnecessary people turnover.
I agree we are somewhat short of what might be regarded as full employment as a generality but I would have expected more evidence of stress in particular skill sets by now and your annecdote is consistent with that.
Another factor that cannot be overlooked is that the availability of a huge pool of unemployed and highly skilled people with free rights to travel from the EU is clearly keeping a downward pressure on wages. Good for those that employ them, not so good for those at the margins of employability/ in need of training in this country.
Mr. Jim, I'm quite critical of UKIP in many ways (their approach to General Elections is not so much misguided as absolutely bloody stupid), but I'm also very sceptical of the EU.
Anyway, fret not. I shall be voting Conservative when the time to stamp on Balls arrives.
OGH, Antifrank and others - if as the polls suggest, the tide really is turning against Labour then there should be some seriously good betting opportunities to exploit, before the great lumbering bookies start to catch on, which as yet they don't appear to have done so.
Any ideas on those markets which are looking particularly attractive would be gratefully received. My own emphasis has been to look at those seats which have been between Labour's say 40th - 60th prime targets and which are suddenly looking far more likely to be Tory holds.
I've been trying on my regional tour to identify disproportionate value where I see it in such battles. Generally the rule is to bet on Labour on the national markets and the Conservatives on individual seat markets.
So far as I can tell from ONS data, recently medium sized towns have been doing rather better economically than the core cities (the eight largest cities outside London). That doesn't help that much because the Conservatives hold so few seats in the core cities.
As a general rule I'm warmer on the Conservatives, the closer the seat is to London. So the Conservatives look better in places like Harlow, Stevenage, Reading and Ipswich. I'm cold on the Conservatives by the seaside, where the bracing wind of UKIP is likely to be damaging for them.
Anywhere where the Lib Dems have a large third party vote, I'd steer clear of backing the Conservatives. So I really dislike them in Northampton North and Warrington South, for example.
When I've finished going round the country, I'll do a round-up post trying to identify risk factors for the various parties as best I can.
Mr. Putney, how're your F1 spread bets working out?
Could be wrong, but I think you made one each on Vettel and Raikkonen, yes?
I don't plan on spread-betting in the near future, but might start keeping track of how my 'tips' go for it.
Correct ..... Vettel & Raikkonen As previously reported, I closed my position on Vettel at an early stage and at a good profit (thank God), but my bet on the Finn is still open and is showing a loss - I really need him and Ferrari to start performing and soon! I had expected him to give Alonso a good run for his money but so far he has failed to do so ...... disappointing.
Mr Dancer well at least you are doing your best to do some castration. I just could never support UKIP because of their toxic mix of xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, misogyny and just awful hucksterism.
F1: pleasingly, Betfair has a winner without Hamilton and a winner without Hamilton/Rosberg market up for Monaco. That market's well worth considering (I often check it on Ladbrokes) and being on Betfair means hedging would be possible.
Red Bull will be much closer in Monaco. Clever strategy or good fortune might see them win... but I still think Mercedes will take it.
The possibility of MORI showing us all up notwithstanding, some thoughts on Labours decline. Energy price freeze, this could have been a winner, but rather than push on energy prices, Ed rushed out a policy which most sensible people realise is likely to cause the companies to bump prices in anticipation of a future Labour government. Pain now is not a recipe for support. Rent control. A loser. Eds squeezed middle have turned to property ownership as a counter to savings and pension death and are being called effectively slum lords needing state sanction and control. No coherent economic message that hasn't been undone by the figures of fact. Farage love bombing Labour support in word if not deed, why not go UKIP if you are a soft Labourite? Ed is offering no convincing option for you and soft voters will jump from a stationary/reversing train to a moving forwards one. THAT PPB. People are still hurting despite the recovery, and millionaire Ed releases a stupid attempt at cynical humour. The electorate would rather hear an alternative, not watch a student film.
It's not rocket science, Labour are adrift with no idea what to do. People notice. If this doesn't change, their core will need serious reassessment.
Thanks, I had missed that. My guess is that average bank earnings are being held down by a reduction in the number of higher earners as I don't think those who still have jobs are doing that badly.
I agree that in light of that the difference between private and public sector pay is small to insignificant. Both are surprisingly low, especially the private sector where increased employment really should be pushing up demand by now.
So many of the curious quirks about the UK economic figures appear to be explained by the decline in oil and gas output that my immediate assumption is that this may also be part of the answer here.
@antifrank - Many thanks for your excellent series of articles. Silence doesn't mean that they haven't been read attentively (and some bets placed accordingly).
Mr. Putney, he was competitive in Spain. The problem's the car. I don't think many of us expected it to be so lacklustre (perhaps fourth or fifth best). Once Force India gets some more updates (it's a little behind the curve) it may leapfrog the Ferrari.
As the UK economy continues to improve, this seems likely to increase the chances of a "No" vote in Scotland, just as the reverse would probably have been the case.
I seem to recall in the aftermath of the financial collapse and at the height of Eurogeddon a recurring theme on here was that these were the most inauspicious circumstances possible in which to hold an independence referendum. I'm sure none of those naysayers would now be shameless enough to push the opposing view.
I can see why Mr Putneyite is suggesting what he does, and it is a very good point to put forward. But as you say the opposite was much argued. I seem to recall that one could interpret the indy VI figures over, roughly, 2005-2013, in this way, but correlation is not causation ...
However, the situation is very different now. For one thing, it may well be that the biggest effect of the economic situation is through the possible UKIP + Tory victory in the EWNI euros, and the new UKGE voting intentions polls.
"Good for those that employ them, not so good for those at the margins of employability/ in need of training in this country."
Youth unemployment in this country still seems way, way too high. It is still hovering around the 20% mark and if someone gets to 24 without ever having had a proper job (or having been in higher education) their life chances are going to be pretty miserable. A life on benefits awaits them. HMG really needs to do more to encourage companies to take on and properly train young people. It has to be cheaper to fund an apprentice than pay that person benefits for life and pick up on all the added crime, social and health costs.
Thanks, I had missed that. My guess is that average bank earnings are being held down by a reduction in the number of higher earners as I don't think those who still have jobs are doing that badly.
I agree that in light of that the difference between private and public sector pay is small to insignificant. Both are surprisingly low, especially the private sector where increased employment really should be pushing up demand by now.
So many of the curious quirks about the UK economic figures appear to be explained by the decline in oil and gas output that my immediate assumption is that this may also be part of the answer here.
The sharp collapse in north sea output seems to constantly have caught economists by surprise.
Also, of course, the SNP whose long march seems ever more ill timed. So many arguments of the better/worse off scenario would have been tilted so much more in their direction 2 years ago when the scale of this fall was still not foreseen. I should be grateful for small mercies I suppose.
@antifrank - Many thanks for your excellent series of articles. Silence doesn't mean that they haven't been read attentively (and some bets placed accordingly).
I'm glad they're appreciated! They're mainly written for my own benefit, to help me work out my thinking and to record it for future reference (so I can see where I went wrong).
OGH, Antifrank and others - if as the polls suggest, the tide really is turning against Labour then there should be some seriously good betting opportunities to exploit, before the great lumbering bookies start to catch on, which as yet they don't appear to have done so.
Any ideas on those markets which are looking particularly attractive would be gratefully received. My own emphasis has been to look at those seats which have been between Labour's say 40th - 60th prime targets and which are suddenly looking far more likely to be Tory holds.
I've been trying on my regional tour to identify disproportionate value where I see it in such battles. Generally the rule is to bet on Labour on the national markets and the Conservatives on individual seat markets.
So far as I can tell from ONS data, recently medium sized towns have been doing rather better economically than the core cities (the eight largest cities outside London). That doesn't help that much because the Conservatives hold so few seats in the core cities.
As a general rule I'm warmer on the Conservatives, the closer the seat is to London. So the Conservatives look better in places like Harlow, Stevenage, Reading and Ipswich. I'm cold on the Conservatives by the seaside, where the bracing wind of UKIP is likely to be damaging for them.
Anywhere where the Lib Dems have a large third party vote, I'd steer clear of backing the Conservatives. So I really dislike them in Northampton North and Warrington South, for example.
When I've finished going round the country, I'll do a round-up post trying to identify risk factors for the various parties as best I can.
Thanks for that - I agree with you as regards SE England Tory held seats, a number of which were even barely marginal but remain on offer at or around evens to be held by the Blues.
The daily 'silly foreigners, what do they know' spot:
'Scottish Poll Shows Pro-U.K. Campaign Is Losing Ground
The campaign to keep Scotland in the U.K. ahead of this year’s referendum on independence is losing ground, according to a monthly poll. The survey by TNS published today showed 42 percent of respondents plan to vote to remain in the U.K., with 30 percent supporting independence. The 12 percentage-point gap was unchanged from the month before as the proportion of undecided voters dropped two percentage points to 28 percent. Among people who said they were certain to vote, the gap narrowed to nine points compared with 22 points in September, TNS said.'
Politics Rule One - Voters aren't stupid. Ed has forgotten this.
We are days away from a Euro election and local elections across the country, yet Labour has no visible policies for either.
The PPB was symptomatic of the hole at the heart of Miliband's Labour. No mention of local government, no mention of Europe. A Labour sympathiser can have no idea what the party would do over council tax, over a Euro referendum or any issue relevant to these elections.
All they can do is shout 'Toff', 'Liar Clegg' and whisper 'Thatcher'.
If he does not address this soon, this downward drift in the polls is likely to continue.
"Good for those that employ them, not so good for those at the margins of employability/ in need of training in this country."
Youth unemployment in this country still seems way, way too high. It is still hovering around the 20% mark and if someone gets to 24 without ever having had a proper job (or having been in higher education) their life chances are going to be pretty miserable. A life on benefits awaits them. HMG really needs to do more to encourage companies to take on and properly train young people. It has to be cheaper to fund an apprentice than pay that person benefits for life and pick up on all the added crime, social and health costs.
Completely agree Mr Llama. I don't know about the EU law on this matter but 125% tax relief on training and the funding of qualifications for staff would strike me as an excellent investment which would give some of our own kids more of a chance when competing against Spaniards with excellent English, a degree and no chance of a job in their own country.
@antifrank - Many thanks for your excellent series of articles. Silence doesn't mean that they haven't been read attentively (and some bets placed accordingly).
I'm glad they're appreciated! They're mainly written for my own benefit, to help me work out my thinking and to record it for future reference (so I can see where I went wrong).
They are very much appreciated.
On a related note, given present polling and the general trends, is backing the Tories in Broxtowe at 7/2 value?
On thread. Labour's Mary Creagh is on BBC2 DP. Humourless, uninspiring performance by one of Ed's team.
UKIP was more entertaining.
"When we said ending transitional controls would mean hundreds of thousands of Bulgarian immigrants, we meant at some unspecified point in the future. Honest"
I seem to remember reading that a key difference between the UK government, and Eastern/Asian governments was their approach to policy making. The UK uses the individual as the basic economic/policy unit, while eastern countries use the family as their basic economic/political unit when forming policy.
That concept of the family as one unit was one of the arguments used against extending the franchise to women by the opponents of the suffragettes.
Politics Rule One - Voters aren't stupid. Ed has forgotten this.
It's pretty clear that Ed thinks he is intellectually superior to most people. The electorate don't care for boastful dweebs, and this attitude will turn them away in droves.
Far right activists have targeted mosques in Bradford attempting to hand out Bibles and distribute leaflets accusing community elders of failing to stop grooming gangs.
It is believed members of Britain First, some wearing uniforms, staged the protests at 10 places of worship in the city centre. The group posted images of themselves on Facebook confronting members of the Asian community.
Maybe I'm being overly influenced by my hustings experience last night - but I wonder if (in the London locals particularly) the TUSC might do surprisingly well (in votes if not seats). If Labour are genuinely shedding voters due to a lack of policies - what does a left leaning pro immigration voter do? Assuming that UKIP, Tory and LD are definite no goes, and you're disenchanted by Labour, your options are basically Green or TUSC. I expect Green to take the majority of this, but a fair amount of 'Old' Labour and Union type voters will be attracted to them. Not sure what the consequence of this could be but something to consider...
Yes but their car-makers are French and ours are German, Japanese and Indian.
And what has changed since the 1980s when our car plants were closing? Unions, perhaps; management, certainly.
Why does it matter if their car makers are French and ours aren't British? Do Tata, Nissan or GM not employ people? The UK car industry has been highly successful under foreign management with the threat of mass closures if unions get uppity. It's a good balance and everyone benefits. French car companies are in a complete state, there are no profits to be had. I would rather have a foreign owned industry which employs people and is growing than a domestically owned one which is contracting filled with militant unions and idiotic management. Obviously the best scenario would be that of Japan or Germany, but that doesn't seem possible unless Tata were to float JLR in London.
Profits flowing overseas means our exports are paradoxically also invisible imports. IP held overseas. Even ease of closure, which you count as a benefit. But the wider issue is surely why can't British firms make cars (or anything else) here when foreign companies can?
Another factor that cannot be overlooked is that the availability of a huge pool of unemployed and highly skilled people with free rights to travel from the EU is clearly keeping a downward pressure on wages. Good for those that employ them, not so good for those at the margins of employability/ in need of training in this country.
I think there's definitely some truth in that. That being said, I'm seeing programmer Poles returning home. One Polish techy left to set-up an outsourced programmming business in Krakow: he reckons he can employ Poles there and 'rent them out' the tech companies in London - paying Polish wages on one side, and renting them out at London rates. Google has also set up a big development centre there as well - all the Google TV stuff outside Krakow too.
"Good for those that employ them, not so good for those at the margins of employability/ in need of training in this country."
Youth unemployment in this country still seems way, way too high. It is still hovering around the 20% mark and if someone gets to 24 without ever having had a proper job (or having been in higher education) their life chances are going to be pretty miserable. A life on benefits awaits them. HMG really needs to do more to encourage companies to take on and properly train young people. It has to be cheaper to fund an apprentice than pay that person benefits for life and pick up on all the added crime, social and health costs.
As an observation, it sucks to hire young people and train them up. Why? Because training people is expensive, and the moment they have marketable skills, they move on to someone paying full rate. At one firm I'm involved with, we hired a really bright guy who'd been in prison (Bedford prison too...), and we trained him up, and he became a very productive employee. We paid for his training, made him a productive member of the programming community, and the benficiary of our investment was another firm...
Antifrank - I second RN's comments and it's clear your blog already has quite a considerable fan base. Your pieces are much appreciated even if we don't appear to comment thereon to the extent they merit.
However, the situation is very different now. For one thing, it may well be that the biggest effect of the economic situation is through the possible UKIP + Tory victory in the EWNI euros, and the new UKGE voting intentions polls.
That's the conundrum. If (as we're constantly told on here it will) positive economic news makes a Tory victory more likely, which is the prevailing influence on the supposedly vital demographic of low paid workers living in schemes and dependent on benefits to make a living wage? If they're public service workers they'll have received a 1% pay rise in the last 4 years; I doubt there is or will be much of a feelgood factor there in the near future.
Comments
The one thing that surprised (and disappointed) me was the vitriol and 'shoutiness' of it all - granted we were in Brixton, so the UKIP lady was never likely to recieve a warm reception - but the combination of audience chants of 'racist' before she even started, combined with her flippancy and denigration of the audience 'if you think we're a party of millionaires, then join us and you can be one too' highlighted for me one of reasons why 'normal' people feel so disengaged in politics - that's not how discussions in the workplace or the pub work, or even on the whole how conversations on here work, so why does it appear to be the default case in the politics that's immediately seen when people first look (Hustings events, PMQ's, PPB's)?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27406316
What I find truly depressing is that 208 readers of the Indy strongly agree with his absurdities and 13 (including me) don't. I was a daily reader of the Indy for more than a decade. It seems a very long time ago now.
What makes his comments even odder is that they are not even a justified boast - Cameron got a better degree than Ed. To make it even worse, one of Miliband's weaknesses is that his image is already one of speaking in wonkish abstractions; you'd have thought he'd be trying to get away from that, not draw attention to it.
What was he thinking?
You'd only have made £750 overnight, but it would have bought a few drinks.
Talking down prospects of an early increase in bank rate while acknowledging that the direction of economic recovery is increasing the need for the rate to be uprated.
Interesting to see how the markets interpret this forked tongue announcement, but I guess BoE are holding to their mid 2015 prediction for the first 0.25% rise.
What are the pirate party's political prospects?
Good point about the banks though. I wonder if this is pushing up or pushing down the average for the public sector.The figures make it clear that pay restraint in the nationalised banks is pushing down the average for the public sector.
Since everyone is agreed that the vast majority of the nationalised banks will be returned to the private sector I view their presence in the public sector as a technicality.
The difference between wage growth in the private sector and wage growth in the public sector [excluding the nationalised banks] is effectively nil, given the known uncertainties in the accuracy of the data.
"Wrong" was perhaps the incorrect word to use. Mistaken would perhaps be better.
I don't think the British like people who take themselves too seriously, or are up themselves. Saying "I am more intellectually self-confident than him/you" makes it sound like you're both.
"I am more intellectually self-confident than the Prime Minister"
Degree: 2 (I)
"He thinks he's extremely clever"
Degree: 1
[but not a congratutory first, yet]
There seems to be a certain genre of vacuous female columnist - Gordon is one, that loony who used to edit Marie Claire is another - whose output consists of crushing trivia about their single life with some utter banality every week written as a cliffhanger ending. The only female blogger on the DT with anything intelligent to say is Cristina Odone.
If the answer is "no" then you have a point.
But here we see how UKIP are treated, its all here in one thread
Yes to a deal with Cameron = Hypocrite
No to a deal with Cameron = Hypocrite
Answer the question = Naive
Dont answer the question = just like any other politician
The only conclusion I can draw is that supporters of parties losing members and votes are desperate to say everything is bad news for the party that is taking members and votes from them... quelle surprise!!
Since everyone is agreed that the vast majority of the nationalised banks will be returned to the private sector I view their presence in the public sector as a technicality.
The difference between wage growth in the private sector and wage growth in the public sector [excluding the nationalised banks] is effectively nil, given the known uncertainties in the accuracy of the data.
"Wrong" was perhaps the incorrect word to use. Mistaken would perhaps be better.
Why do you assume that there is wage restraint in the banks and this is reducing the average increase in the public sector? I am not having an argument but I am genuinely curious. The indications I have seen suggest that bonuses and indeed profits have slowly been returning to the banks.
I hope it is not just me but posting is particularly trying this morning.
To increase interest rates too early would be a disastrous mistake - and Osborne has got a lot of catching up to do in terms of reducing the deficit, which would surely be a better way of taking the foot of the economic stimulus pedal than increasing interest rates.
It would be a great opportunity to introduce a Land Value Tax....
"UKIP Director of Communications Patrick O’Flynn said: “It is perplexing that Sanya could give such a whole-hearted endorsement of the party’s immigration policy one week and then accuse it of pandering to racism the next.
“She is of course fully entitled to change her mind and to belong or not belong to whichever party she chooses. But throwing the term “racism” into the mix so soon after explaining UKIP’s non-racist policy is extremely unfair on UKIP members and supporters and in my view a pretty shabby thing to have done.”"
http://www.ukip.org/young_independence_member_who_has_left_the_party_in_a_blaze_of_media_publicity_supported_ukip_immigration_policy_on_television_as_recently_as_last_week
I hope the Axe is watching Labour's pitiful spin operation in action today and considering his options...
He should basically say no point in speculating - we need to wait and see. That is honest.
I hope it is not just me but posting is particularly trying this morning.It's not an assumption - I quoted the figures in my initial post. They are near the bottom of this bit of the ONS release.
The key line is: "For the public sector excluding financial services, both total pay and regular pay rose by 1.5%."
I think the question needs to be asked, which of the many policies funded by bankers are you dropping or which other taxes will you raise to make it add up?
For me personally - I am standing for the first time in a solid labour ward in Lambeth so I am not expecting to win - but am running on campaign of 'Give me 1 of your 3 votes - and I'll increase transparency and open up the council to scrutiny'.
Apols if that was a longer answer than you expected.
If you look at the countries with the most sclerotic labour markets, where firing people is difficult, such as Italy, Greece, and France, then you see the highest unemployment rates.
The reason is simple: if firms are not confident of the economic recovery (and the cost of firing people is high) then they will wait. The effect, therefore, of excessive worker protection, is that the economic recovery is delayed, and fewer people - through the cycle - are employed.
The good news is that a number of European countries have (belatedly, and at the worst possible time) learnt this lesson, most obviously Spain and Ireland.
By crowdfunding, d'you mean Kickstarter or similar?
A few authors have gone down that route.
I was pretty impressed by the Pirate Party's response to the Labour broadcast and the Lib Dem riposte. If I weren't a near certain UKIP voter this time I'd be willing to consider voting Pirate. Might do next time.
They need to add up in the first place..
Usually with flexible labour laws you would expect a rapid rise in unemployment and then a rapid fall as recovery kicks in. I'd agree with sclerotic labour markets you'd expect high constant levels or unemployment.
glw asked why was it different this time. @DavidL's answer was better than mine.
(Edit: And THANK YOU! if you do choose to contribute :-) )
Who doesn't want to vote for that?
http://www.ukip.org/huge_increase_of_292_000_foreign_workers_in_past_year
"These figures do not include the dependents of foreign workers or those migrants not in work."
A friend of mine used to be the Pirate Party's PR person (in a very part-time capacity), so I'm generally very supportive.
Was strange how she explixityly defended UKIPs position AFTRE the posters were published, then called them racist..
She is trying for a career in blogging/fashion and needs all the publicity she can get I suppose. Cant have helped having Awate telling her she was a traitor to her skin colour live on National tv..
He'd probabaly be in prison now if he were white and said it to a white person... or have a brick through his window at least
Increase in migrants from other EU countries confirms that Tories way off their target to cut net migration to below 100,000
Attack on #UKIP candidate, home & details of Farage address should lead some to reflect on nature of our UKIP 'debate'. I suspect it won't.
The key line is: "For the public sector excluding financial services, both total pay and regular pay rose by 1.5%."
Thanks, I had missed that. My guess is that average bank earnings are being held down by a reduction in the number of higher earners as I don't think those who still have jobs are doing that badly.
I agree that in light of that the difference between private and public sector pay is small to insignificant. Both are surprisingly low, especially the private sector where increased employment really should be pushing up demand by now.
And what has changed since the 1980s when our car plants were closing? Unions, perhaps; management, certainly.
Maybe that's too much the other way - not really like a pub argument either...
Although I keep being confused (sometimes by people who have been already told and should know better) for a Conservative, I'm perfectly open to voting for most parties, save those that are drearily EU-phile.
In London - in the tech companies I'm involved in - we are starting to see the beginnings of wage inflation. We've upped salaries by double digit amounts (although as people are improving all the time, this at least partly is simply reflecting how much more productive our employees are) to make sure we don't have any unnecessary people turnover.
Any ideas on those markets which are looking particularly attractive would be gratefully received. My own emphasis has been to look at those seats which have been between Labour's say 40th - 60th prime targets and which are suddenly looking far more likely to be Tory holds.
Could be wrong, but I think you made one each on Vettel and Raikkonen, yes?
I don't plan on spread-betting in the near future, but might start keeping track of how my 'tips' go for it.
Another factor that cannot be overlooked is that the availability of a huge pool of unemployed and highly skilled people with free rights to travel from the EU is clearly keeping a downward pressure on wages. Good for those that employ them, not so good for those at the margins of employability/ in need of training in this country.
Anyway, fret not. I shall be voting Conservative when the time to stamp on Balls arrives.
So far as I can tell from ONS data, recently medium sized towns have been doing rather better economically than the core cities (the eight largest cities outside London). That doesn't help that much because the Conservatives hold so few seats in the core cities.
As a general rule I'm warmer on the Conservatives, the closer the seat is to London. So the Conservatives look better in places like Harlow, Stevenage, Reading and Ipswich. I'm cold on the Conservatives by the seaside, where the bracing wind of UKIP is likely to be damaging for them.
Anywhere where the Lib Dems have a large third party vote, I'd steer clear of backing the Conservatives. So I really dislike them in Northampton North and Warrington South, for example.
When I've finished going round the country, I'll do a round-up post trying to identify risk factors for the various parties as best I can.
As previously reported, I closed my position on Vettel at an early stage and at a good profit (thank God), but my bet on the Finn is still open and is showing a loss - I really need him and Ferrari to start performing and soon! I had expected him to give Alonso a good run for his money but so far he has failed to do so ...... disappointing.
Red Bull will be much closer in Monaco. Clever strategy or good fortune might see them win... but I still think Mercedes will take it.
Energy price freeze, this could have been a winner, but rather than push on energy prices, Ed rushed out a policy which most sensible people realise is likely to cause the companies to bump prices in anticipation of a future Labour government. Pain now is not a recipe for support.
Rent control. A loser. Eds squeezed middle have turned to property ownership as a counter to savings and pension death and are being called effectively slum lords needing state sanction and control.
No coherent economic message that hasn't been undone by the figures of fact.
Farage love bombing Labour support in word if not deed, why not go UKIP if you are a soft Labourite? Ed is offering no convincing option for you and soft voters will jump from a stationary/reversing train to a moving forwards one.
THAT PPB. People are still hurting despite the recovery, and millionaire Ed releases a stupid attempt at cynical humour. The electorate would rather hear an alternative, not watch a student film.
It's not rocket science, Labour are adrift with no idea what to do. People notice. If this doesn't change, their core will need serious reassessment.
Ukip candidate: Remove the vote from people to make elections 'more interesting'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-candidate-remove-the-vote-from-people-to-make-elections-more-interesting-9363569.html
However, the situation is very different now. For one thing, it may well be that the biggest effect of the economic situation is through the possible UKIP + Tory victory in the EWNI euros, and the new UKGE voting intentions polls.
If the German can win (and let's hope he does) then Hamilton will still be favourite but it'll be much tighter.
Youth unemployment in this country still seems way, way too high. It is still hovering around the 20% mark and if someone gets to 24 without ever having had a proper job (or having been in higher education) their life chances are going to be pretty miserable. A life on benefits awaits them. HMG really needs to do more to encourage companies to take on and properly train young people. It has to be cheaper to fund an apprentice than pay that person benefits for life and pick up on all the added crime, social and health costs.
Also, of course, the SNP whose long march seems ever more ill timed. So many arguments of the better/worse off scenario would have been tilted so much more in their direction 2 years ago when the scale of this fall was still not foreseen. I should be grateful for small mercies I suppose.
'Scottish Poll Shows Pro-U.K. Campaign Is Losing Ground
The campaign to keep Scotland in the U.K. ahead of this year’s referendum on independence is losing ground, according to a monthly poll.
The survey by TNS published today showed 42 percent of respondents plan to vote to remain in the U.K., with 30 percent supporting independence. The 12 percentage-point gap was unchanged from the month before as the proportion of undecided voters dropped two percentage points to 28 percent. Among people who said they were certain to vote, the gap narrowed to nine points compared with 22 points in September, TNS said.'
http://tinyurl.com/lk9skfh
We are days away from a Euro election and local elections across the country, yet Labour has no visible policies for either.
The PPB was symptomatic of the hole at the heart of Miliband's Labour. No mention of local government, no mention of Europe. A Labour sympathiser can have no idea what the party would do over council tax, over a Euro referendum or any issue relevant to these elections.
All they can do is shout 'Toff', 'Liar Clegg' and whisper 'Thatcher'.
If he does not address this soon, this downward drift in the polls is likely to continue.
Labour's Mary Creagh is on BBC2 DP. Humourless, uninspiring performance by one of Ed's team. She described EdM as "inspiring people" and as "charismatic". Meanwhile another Labour cheer leader Mary Riddell has a puff piece in the Telegraph boosting Balls.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10827622/As-Labour-stalls-its-time-to-bring-on-the-new-Balls.html
Fiddling while Rome burns?
On a related note, given present polling and the general trends, is backing the Tories in Broxtowe at 7/2 value?
"When we said ending transitional controls would mean hundreds of thousands of Bulgarian immigrants, we meant at some unspecified point in the future. Honest"
That concept of the family as one unit was one of the arguments used against extending the franchise to women by the opponents of the suffragettes.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9201871/did-most-women-want-the-vote/
Far right activists have targeted mosques in Bradford attempting to hand out Bibles and distribute leaflets accusing community elders of failing to stop grooming gangs.
It is believed members of Britain First, some wearing uniforms, staged the protests at 10 places of worship in the city centre. The group posted images of themselves on Facebook confronting members of the Asian community.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/farright-activists-hand-out-bibles-outside-mosques-in-bradford-9352271.html
I see the media/political parties have jumped on the figures people in work,the last bit of your sentence seems to be true where I live.
As an observation, it sucks to hire young people and train them up. Why? Because training people is expensive, and the moment they have marketable skills, they move on to someone paying full rate. At one firm I'm involved with, we hired a really bright guy who'd been in prison (Bedford prison too...), and we trained him up, and he became a very productive employee. We paid for his training, made him a productive member of the programming community, and the benficiary of our investment was another firm...
If (as we're constantly told on here it will) positive economic news makes a Tory victory more likely, which is the prevailing influence on the supposedly vital demographic of low paid workers living in schemes and dependent on benefits to make a living wage? If they're public service workers they'll have received a 1% pay rise in the last 4 years; I doubt there is or will be much of a feelgood factor there in the near future.