Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes report “surge of money on UKIP” in Newark and no

24

Comments

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    "non-recurring special transactions"

    Translation......flogging off the family silver to selected spivs at a reduced rate, while keeping liabilities that have been magically shifted (temporarily) to the plus side of the balance sheet.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.

    Very well, once you adjust for world economic conditions deteriorating, and very well compared with comparable countries (although none in Europe, apart from Greece, started from as bad a deficit as ours). This is not hard to understand, surely?
    "Very well, once you adjust for world economic conditions deteriorating. This is not hard to understand, surely?"

    Excellent answer , Richard. Can all future Chancellors use the same excuse ?

    Somehow, I notice you do not give Darling the same room for manouvre despite the recession which virtually the entire world [ certainly the western world ] went into.

    Was Brown and Darling also responsible for the collapse of Lehmann Bros. , bailing out Gen Motors, AIG, Citibank etc. etc. ?
    mucho chortlo

    team blue desperation on the up.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Pulpstar said:

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.

    Very well, once you adjust for world economic conditions deteriorating, and very well compared with comparable countries (although none in Europe, apart from Greece, started from as bad a deficit as ours). This is not hard to understand, surely?
    Isn't that exactly what Brown and Darling said?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    O/T

    Question for @Neil as our resident Greenie

    Just saw a letter in the Standard from Tower Hamlets Green Party criticising the extension of Boris Bikes into Tower Hamlets. Argument was that the infrastructure cost £2m but that fewer than 10% of the residents will use it.

    If a Tory had used that argument I'd have understood - but I thought Greenies were fans of cycling...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    "Local punters are queueing up to back UKIP at 6/1 to surprise the pollsters to win Thursday’s Newark by-election, according to Ladbrokes."

    Really? Well in that case they'd be well advised to ignore the Magic Sign's odds and head off instead to Betfair where UKIP's current price is 9.6 = 8.17/1 net of commission.


    What if they wanted more than £19? Thats all there is to back bigger than 6/1 on Betfair

    Very weak betting market on UKIP,... if someone had £100 on them on Betfair the price would be 6/4 on there

    http://uk.site.sports.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoAction.do?marketId=113986228&selectionId=3614201&timeZone=Europe/London&locale=en&region=GBR&brand=betfair&currency=GBP
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @AveryLP

    "HMG is NOT borrowing "more than ever""

    I beg your pardon, I obviously missed the headlines on the day that the National Debt started to fall. Or perhaps my grasp of basic numeracy is not what I thought it was, isn't 1.n greater than 0.n?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2014

    Pulpstar said:

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.

    Very well, once you adjust for world economic conditions deteriorating, and very well compared with comparable countries (although none in Europe, apart from Greece, started from as bad a deficit as ours). This is not hard to understand, surely?
    Osborne es merda
    A new brand of gin or a universal tonic, Mr. Brooke?

    I can smell the fumes from Warwickshire over 200 miles away!

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    @AveryLP

    "HMG is NOT borrowing "more than ever""

    I beg your pardon, I obviously missed the headlines on the day that the National Debt started to fall. Or perhaps my grasp of basic numeracy is not what I thought it was, isn't 1.n greater than 0.n?

    Ah yes, Llama man, but if you remove all the zeroes from the numbers then Osborne is doing a cracking job and is the best chancellor ever.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894
    DavidL said:

    Only someone truly irrational could now claim that Osborne has not delivered truly stunning results given the situation that he inherited.

    What is genuinely concerning is that merely stunning has not been nearly good enough given the truly desperate straits we were in. The deficit inherited was the equivalent of fighting a major war and the way our economy and government spending had been shaped (particularly with in work benefits) meant that our structural deficit was extremely difficult to cope with. This is why very rapid growth in recent times is having such a modest effect.

    Unfortunately the Brown catastrophe will blight all of our childrens' lives and most of their children in turn. More and more of our tax resources will go to interest payments for a long time to come. This will make the social costs of an ever aging and more infirm population very difficult to deal with.

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    Spot on.

    He's just about done enough, and that is an outstanding achievement. He needs to keep to the regime though, and after many years of hard work any easing up could reverse all of the hard work.



  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    AveryLP said:

    Debt Management Office                             
    Outturns for borrowing in Gilts and T-Bills Markets
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Net Gilt New
    Financing Redemptions Net
    £ billion Requirement Borrowing
    ---------------------------------------------------
    2010-11 158.0 38.6 119.4
    2011-12 168.8 49.0 119.8
    2012-13 151.9 52.9 99.0
    2013-14 140.5 51.5 89.0
    2014-15* 141.2 62.2 79.0

    *DMO remit for current F/Y
    Avery - isn't that the debt trap there, in your figures?

    Net borrowing is declining slowly, but not as quickly as Redemptions are increasing, and so the net financing requirement is forecast to be higher this year than last year.
    You shouldn't ask Avery such questions. As far as he, nabavi et al are concerned, the sun rises each morning out of Osborne's arse.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.

    Very well, once you adjust for world economic conditions deteriorating, and very well compared with comparable countries (although none in Europe, apart from Greece, started from as bad a deficit as ours). This is not hard to understand, surely?
    Osborne es merda
    A new brand of gin or a universal tonic, Mr. Brooke?

    I can smell the fumes from Warwickshire over 200 miles away!

    those fumes aren't gin Mr P, they're the chances of blue votes in North Warwickshire going up in flames.

    Cameron = called it wrong.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_P said:

    @alstewitn: GERMANY'S MERKEL HAS ASKED FRANCE IF IT IS WILLING TO PUT
    FORWARD IMF'S LAGARDE AS EU COMMISSION CHIEF-SOURCES

    Interesting if true. I'm a great fan - she's sensible, Americanised (used to run Baker Mackenzie out for Chicago) and might see this as a good step towards being French President in due course.

    Understand George likes her as well: a good compromise candidate. Would also free up Barnier's seat for the UK _ which that f***wit Brown should never have given up
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    Only someone truly irrational could now claim that Osborne has not delivered truly stunning results given the situation that he inherited.

    What is genuinely concerning is that merely stunning has not been nearly good enough given the truly desperate straits we were in. The deficit inherited was the equivalent of fighting a major war and the way our economy and government spending had been shaped (particularly with in work benefits) meant that our structural deficit was extremely difficult to cope with. This is why very rapid growth in recent times is having such a modest effect.

    Unfortunately the Brown catastrophe will blight all of our childrens' lives and most of their children in turn. More and more of our tax resources will go to interest payments for a long time to come. This will make the social costs of an ever aging and more infirm population very difficult to deal with.

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    Spot on.

    He's just about done enough, and that is an outstanding achievement. He needs to keep to the regime though, and after many years of hard work any easing up could reverse all of the hard work.



    FFS what hard decisons has Osborne taken ?

    decided not to build houses ?
    avoided economic stimulation when he knew the EU zone was in the toilet ?
    ducked bank reform ?


  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Off topic - This spring has come in as the 5th warmest on record in Central England in the record dating back to 1659. Three of the five warmest springs have been in the last eight years [2007, 2011, 2014], which for a >350 year long record is remarkable.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2014

    AveryLP said:

    Cameron and Osborne did not promise to "erase the deficit by 2015". Produce any documentary or recorded evidence to support that claim.

    You are correct to an extent. My impression of Conservative policy on this was formed by watching one of the Cameron Direct sessions, and of course one should never trust anything not written down. Turning to the Conservative Manifesto for the 2010 general election and the exact text is:
    Ensure macroeconomic stability: We will safeguard Britain’s credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament.
    So we have "eliminate the bulk of" which is a lesser commitment than "erase" and "structural deficit" which is a clever piece of wonk-speak which avoids creating a measurable target as no-one can agree on how big the structural deficit is.

    Even so, it still looks like a monumental miss by Osborne.

    A bit later on in the manifesto we find this gem of a heading: "Urgent action to reduce debt".

    Now perhaps you can argue that this is "reduce debt compared to the vast mountain that Balls and Brown would have created", but given the vast increase in the size of the national debt during this Parliament they do now look like an odd choice of words.

    Edit: Oh, and did they promise to safeguard the credit rating? Oops.

    Hmmm.

    The "structural deficit" is very different to "actual net borrowing" as it excludes capex investment (inter alia). Osborne has been very clear though on what this meant in published documents. It is that the government will always plan its finances over a rolling five year forecast period so that it aims to balance the cyclically adjusted current balance at the end of the term.

    A flexible mandate certainly but one he has been able to consistently achieve (compare it to Gordon's Golden Rules which were hardly mentioned after 2003).

    As to gross debt, the challenge is with the ONS PSND ex figure not the aggregate PSND figure where debt has been reduced and will be further substantially reduced if Lloyds Bank Group is fully sold off by the GE. You might claim this is "cheating" but it is gross debt not presentational debt on which the government (and taxpayer) pays interest.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    @alstewitn: GERMANY'S MERKEL HAS ASKED FRANCE IF IT IS WILLING TO PUT
    FORWARD IMF'S LAGARDE AS EU COMMISSION CHIEF-SOURCES

    Interesting if true. I'm a great fan - she's sensible, Americanised (used to run Baker Mackenzie out for Chicago) and might see this as a good step towards being French President in due course.

    Understand George likes her as well: a good compromise candidate. Would also free up Barnier's seat for the UK _ which that f***wit Brown should never have given up
    french slapper

    nuff said
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Fact:

    The Austerity induced low growth model of this government has created a great achievement.
    This government has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years.

    Avery is very quick to show us the growth rates today against Europe. He keeps the 2010 - 2013 hidden away.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    DavidL said:

    Only someone completely irrational could now claim that Osborne has not delivered truly stunning results given the situation that he inherited.

    What is genuinely concerning is that merely stunning has not been nearly good enough given the absolutely desperate straits we were in. The deficit inherited was the equivalent of fighting a major war and the way our economy and government spending had been shaped (particularly with in work benefits) meant that our structural deficit was extremely difficult to cope with. This is why very rapid growth in recent times is having such a modest effect.

    Unfortunately the Brown catastrophe will blight all of our childrens' lives and most of their children in turn. More and more of our tax resources will go to interest payments for a long time to come. This will make the social costs of an ever aging and more infirm population very difficult to deal with.

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except I would put Osborne's performance down as competent, just, rather than stunning. The problem s though that recession seem to happen in the UK every ten years or so. The next one, if we stay true to form, is gong to hit towards the end of the next parliament and we will go into it already £1.6+ trillion in debt. What happens then?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Cameron and Osborne did not promise to "erase the deficit by 2015". Produce any documentary or recorded evidence to support that claim.

    You are correct to an extent. My impression of Conservative policy on this was formed by watching one of the Cameron Direct sessions, and of course one should never trust anything not written down. Turning to the Conservative Manifesto for the 2010 general election and the exact text is:
    Ensure macroeconomic stability: We will safeguard Britain’s credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament.
    So we have "eliminate the bulk of" which is a lesser commitment than "erase" and "structural deficit" which is a clever piece of wonk-speak which avoids creating a measurable target as no-one can agree on how big the structural deficit is.

    Even so, it still looks like a monumental miss by Osborne.

    A bit later on in the manifesto we find this gem of a heading: "Urgent action to reduce debt".

    Now perhaps you can argue that this is "reduce debt compared to the vast mountain that Balls and Brown would have created", but given the vast increase in the size of the national debt during this Parliament they do now look like an odd choice of words.

    Edit: Oh, and did they promise to safeguard the credit rating? Oops.
    Hmmm.

    The "structural deficit" is very different to "actual net borrowing" as it excludes capex investment (inter alia). Osborne has been very clear though on what this meant in published documents. It is that the government will always plan its finances over a rolling five year forecast period so that it aims to balance the cyclically adjusted current balance at the end of the term.

    A flexible mandate certainly but one he has been able to consistently achieve (compare it to Gordon's Golden Rules which were hardly mentioned after 2003).

    As to gross debt, the challenge is with the ONS PSND ex figure not the aggregate PSND figure where debt has been reduced and will be further substantially reduced if Lloyds Bank Group is fully sold off by the GE. You might claim this is "cheating" but it is gross debt not presentational debt on which the government (and taxpayer) pays interest.



    guffaw

    so if you take annual borrowing, divide by pi, subtract the number you first thought of and spin round and round saying fish for breakfast, then you can come up with any number you fancy and proclaim osborne the new crassus. Genius.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    @alstewitn: GERMANY'S MERKEL HAS ASKED FRANCE IF IT IS WILLING TO PUT
    FORWARD IMF'S LAGARDE AS EU COMMISSION CHIEF-SOURCES

    Interesting if true. I'm a great fan - she's sensible, Americanised (used to run Baker Mackenzie out for Chicago) and might see this as a good step towards being French President in due course.

    Understand George likes her as well: a good compromise candidate. Would also free up Barnier's seat for the UK _ which that f***wit Brown should never have given up
    french slapper

    nuff said
    Horrible person. She has been upto no good too !
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,586
    AveryLP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AveryLP said:

    currystar said:

    So would you prefer to be in France, or Spain's or Portugals position?

    False choices make for poor debate.

    In simple terms Cameron and Osborne promised to cuterase the deficit by 2015. This they will fail to do. The argument of many of their defenders appears to be that to have attempted to do so would have been to cut "too far and too fast". LOL
    ...

    Osborne told MPs that Britain had the largest structural budget deficit in Europe at £109bn, he said, with £43bn in debt interest paid back each year.

    Capital spending will be £51bn next year, then £49bn, then £46bn and £47bn in 2014-15 – about £2bn a year higher than set out in the budget.

    Total public expenditure, which includes debt interest payments, will be £702bn next year, then £713bn, £724bn and £740bn, bringing real terms public spending to the same level as 2008.

    Debt interest payments will be lower by £1bn in 2012, £1.8bn in 2013 and £3bn in 2014, a total of £5bn lower over the course of the spending review period

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.
    Pulpie

    Can't do the figures now but will answer in next couple of days.

    Without the stats in front of me and from memory, there is not going to be a big variance. CapEx will need special one-offs stripping out (e.g. the effect of the Royal Mail pensions transaction on ONS's net investment figures), but I would not be suprised to see the 2010 figures overestimating outcomes.

    George has undoubtedly used non-recurring special transactions to keep the public finances under control and much is obscured by National Accounting convention but the story is of 'special transactions' becoming less significant to outcomes as the term has progressed. This is shown by the current year's figures being almost 'clean'!

    Why all the praise for Osborne?
    He gets to make the speeches but it is Danny Alexander who has done all the heavy lifting.

  • "Local punters are queueing up to back UKIP at 6/1 to surprise the pollsters to win Thursday’s Newark by-election, according to Ladbrokes."

    Really? Well in that case they'd be well advised to ignore the Magic Sign's odds and head off instead to Betfair where UKIP's current price is 9.6 = 8.17/1 net of commission.

    P.S. For a bit of fun, I've just asked for and obtained a couple of quids' worth of UKIP at 9.8 with Betfair, equivalent to 8.36/1 in old money.

    Enough if I win to buy me the equivalent of around 12 pints of Old Speckled Hen, from those nice people at Aldi who have it on sale at the remarkable price of £1.25 per 50cl bottle.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    DavidL said:

    Only someone completely irrational could now claim that Osborne has not delivered truly stunning results given the situation that he inherited.

    What is genuinely concerning is that merely stunning has not been nearly good enough given the absolutely desperate straits we were in. The deficit inherited was the equivalent of fighting a major war and the way our economy and government spending had been shaped (particularly with in work benefits) meant that our structural deficit was extremely difficult to cope with. This is why very rapid growth in recent times is having such a modest effect.

    Unfortunately the Brown catastrophe will blight all of our childrens' lives and most of their children in turn. More and more of our tax resources will go to interest payments for a long time to come. This will make the social costs of an ever aging and more infirm population very difficult to deal with.

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except I would put Osborne's performance down as competent, just, rather than stunning. The problem s though that recession seem to happen in the UK every ten years or so. The next one, if we stay true to form, is gong to hit towards the end of the next parliament and we will go into it already £1.6+ trillion in debt. What happens then?
    dont go asking awkward questions Mr L, we'll just print more money and call it investment
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    isam said:

    ToryJim said:

    @IainDale: More on Tower Hamlets on @LBC right now. An election petition is about to be launched to overturn the Mayoral election.

    My Mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years. I spoke to her about this last night and she said it was widely known a long time ago that elections featuring this individual were bent. Asian men accompanying their wives into the ballot booth and helping them vote etc

    What exactly is wrong with this? Considering the number non-English speaking women in the borough, this seems quite sensible.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @HurstLlama

    "and we will go into it already £1.6+ trillion in debt. What happens then?"

    A very good question, I wish you better luck than I have had in getting an answer.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    AveryLP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AveryLP said:

    currystar said:

    So would you prefer to be in France, or Spain's or Portugals position?

    False choices make for poor debate.

    In simple terms Cameron and Osborne promised to cuterase the deficit by 2015. This they will fail to do. The argument of many of their defenders appears to be that to have attempted to do so would have been to cut "too far and too fast". LOL
    ...

    Osborne told MPs that Britain had the largest structural budget deficit in Europe at £109bn, he said, with £43bn in debt interest paid back each year.

    Capital spending will be £51bn next year, then £49bn, then £46bn and £47bn in 2014-15 – about £2bn a year higher than set out in the budget.

    Total public expenditure, which includes debt interest payments, will be £702bn next year, then £713bn, £724bn and £740bn, bringing real terms public spending to the same level as 2008.

    Debt interest payments will be lower by £1bn in 2012, £1.8bn in 2013 and £3bn in 2014, a total of £5bn lower over the course of the spending review period

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.
    Pulpie

    Can't do the figures now but will answer in next couple of days.

    Without the stats in front of me and from memory, there is not going to be a big variance. CapEx will need special one-offs stripping out (e.g. the effect of the Royal Mail pensions transaction on ONS's net investment figures), but I would not be suprised to see the 2010 figures overestimating outcomes.

    George has undoubtedly used non-recurring special transactions to keep the public finances under control and much is obscured by National Accounting convention but the story is of 'special transactions' becoming less significant to outcomes as the term has progressed. This is shown by the current year's figures being almost 'clean'!

    Why all the praise for Osborne?
    He gets to make the speeches but it is Danny Alexander who has done all the heavy lifting.

    facts are no fun NOA
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    Spot on.

    He's just about done enough, and that is an outstanding achievement. He needs to keep to the regime though, and after many years of hard work any easing up could reverse all of the hard work.



    FFS what hard decisons has Osborne taken ?

    decided not to build houses ?
    avoided economic stimulation when he knew the EU zone was in the toilet ?
    ducked bank reform ?


    He has stopped the juggernaut of ever increasing public spending that Brown and Darling built.

    He resisted siren calls to cut spending even faster when the economy needed support.

    He has rebalanced the weight of tax onto the higher paid, reducing tax on the lower paid and thus kept consumption going when demand was weak.

    He has refused to panic and throw yet more borrowed money at demand when the problems of the EZ looked most acute.

    He has restored confidence in our banking sector in particular and London in general.

    He has focussed the tiny amounts of money he had available on trying to increase investment and exports.

    He has delivered a remarkable fall in unemployment.

    He has funded record numbers of apprenticeships for our young unemployed

    He has cut borrowing by 1/3 in a very difficult economic environment.

    He is overseeing one of the longest and best periods of growth in both manufacturing and housebuilding over the last two years. These have been encouraged by modest government schemes and a stable macroeconomic outlook.

    But we are still in a hole. There is no point in denying it.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    @AveryLP

    "HMG is NOT borrowing "more than ever""

    I beg your pardon, I obviously missed the headlines on the day that the National Debt started to fall. Or perhaps my grasp of basic numeracy is not what I thought it was, isn't 1.n greater than 0.n?

    The reality:
    ONS: PSF Bulletin     
    April 2014

    Public Sector Net Debt
    as % ratio to GDP

    2009/10 151.7
    2010/11 147.2
    2011/12 139.7
    2012/13 137.5
    2013/14 132.4

    Public Sector Net Debt
    £ Million

    2009/10 2,228,371
    2010/11 2,245,414
    2011/12 2,169,057
    2012/13 2,196,592
    2013/14 2,216,831
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894


    FFS what hard decisons has Osborne taken ?

    decided not to build houses ?
    avoided economic stimulation when he knew the EU zone was in the toilet ?
    ducked bank reform ?


    He's cut where he can, and stopped increases in spending where he can't cut. If you're minister for Toffee-Apples then you want to make your name in that area, and the easiest way to do so is to spend money. Resisting that pressure is hard - he's done rather well.

    I know you know this already, and it's perfectly reasonable to say that he's done nothing terribly constructive, but it's also entirely reasonable to say that we can't afford anything constructive.

    Whatever your politics you have to acknowledge that GO has striven to constrain the governments lavish ways. Whether that counts for much, it is at least a positive for him. It's also a positive that is hard to earn. Being Mr Killjoy isn't a popularity winner.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    Only someone completely irrational could now claim that Osborne has not delivered truly stunning results given the situation that he inherited.

    What is genuinely concerning is that merely stunning has not been nearly good enough given the absolutely desperate straits we were in. The deficit inherited was the equivalent of fighting a major war and the way our economy and government spending had been shaped (particularly with in work benefits) meant that our structural deficit was extremely difficult to cope with. This is why very rapid growth in recent times is having such a modest effect.

    Unfortunately the Brown catastrophe will blight all of our childrens' lives and most of their children in turn. More and more of our tax resources will go to interest payments for a long time to come. This will make the social costs of an ever aging and more infirm population very difficult to deal with.

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except I would put Osborne's performance down as competent, just, rather than stunning. The problem s though that recession seem to happen in the UK every ten years or so. The next one, if we stay true to form, is gong to hit towards the end of the next parliament and we will go into it already £1.6+ trillion in debt. What happens then?
    Anum ex fenestra est as they almost say in Glasgow. We need a lot more time than that to fix this.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Re-posted from this morning for the benefit of those who have a life !!

    ............................................................................................................

    BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

    The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the launch of the ARSE 2015 General Election "JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will determine the nature of the contest.

    The 13 seats are a geographically and political spread of various target and marginal seats - 3 seats from the joint London and the South region, 3 from the East including a Ukip target, 2 each from the North and Midlands and 1 seat each from the West country, Wales and Scotland.

    From Tuesday 10th June the regular ARSE 2015 national projection will be joined by the "JackW Dozen" and will be called as follows :

    TCTC - Too Close To Call - Under 500 votes.
    LIKELY HOLD/GAIN - 500 - 2500 votes.
    HOLD/GAIN - Over 2500 votes.

    The "JackW Dozen" with the 2010 winner, majority and second placed party are :

    Bury North - Con - 2,243 - Lab
    Pudsey - Con - 1,659 - Lab
    Broxtowe - Con - 389 - Lab
    Warwickshire North - Con - 54 - Lab
    Cambridge - LibDem - 6792 - Con - 3 way marginal.
    Ipswich - Con - 2,079 - Lab
    Watford - Con - 1,425 - LibDem - 3 way marginal.
    Croydon Central - Con - 2,879 - Lab
    Enfield North - Con - 1,692 - Lab
    Cornwall North - LibDem - 2,981- Con
    Vale of Glamorgan - Con - 4,276 - Lab
    Ochil & South Perthshire - Lab - 5,187 - SNP
    Great Yarmouth - Con - 4,276 - Lab - Ukip target

    ......................................................................................

    WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
    JNN - Jacobite News Network
    ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    Spot on.

    He's just about done enough, and that is an outstanding achievement. He needs to keep to the regime though, and after many years of hard work any easing up could reverse all of the hard work.



    FFS what hard decisons has Osborne taken ?

    decided not to build houses ?
    avoided economic stimulation when he knew the EU zone was in the toilet ?
    ducked bank reform ?


    He has stopped the juggernaut of ever increasing public spending that Brown and Darling built.

    He resisted siren calls to cut spending even faster when the economy needed support.

    He has rebalanced the weight of tax onto the higher paid, reducing tax on the lower paid and thus kept consumption going when demand was weak.

    He has refused to panic and throw yet more borrowed money at demand when the problems of the EZ looked most acute.

    He has restored confidence in our banking sector in particular and London in general.

    He has focussed the tiny amounts of money he had available on trying to increase investment and exports.

    He has delivered a remarkable fall in unemployment.

    He has funded record numbers of apprenticeships for our young unemployed

    He has cut borrowing by 1/3 in a very difficult economic environment.

    He is overseeing one of the longest and best periods of growth in both manufacturing and housebuilding over the last two years. These have been encouraged by modest government schemes and a stable macroeconomic outlook.

    But we are still in a hole. There is no point in denying it.

    Hogshit

    we're still spending, he hasn't supported the economy, taxes are up, he should have stimulated when the EZ was punked and didn't, the banks are shite, london is worse, he has done zilch on exports because the problem is imports, employers have delivered on jobs, apprentices do you know what they are, manufacturing is STILL TEN per cent below peak.

    YOU ARE ALEX SALMOND
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    @alstewitn: GERMANY'S MERKEL HAS ASKED FRANCE IF IT IS WILLING TO PUT
    FORWARD IMF'S LAGARDE AS EU COMMISSION CHIEF-SOURCES

    Interesting if true. I'm a great fan - she's sensible, Americanised (used to run Baker Mackenzie out for Chicago) and might see this as a good step towards being French President in due course.

    Understand George likes her as well: a good compromise candidate. Would also free up Barnier's seat for the UK _ which that f***wit Brown should never have given up
    french slapper

    nuff said
    You'll need this and the hair of the dog tomorrow morning, Mr. Brooke.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzy2wZSg5ZM
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    The shortening of odds on the Conservatives down to 1/10 on may be down to information filtering back from observers at the opening of the postal votes, leading some to conclude that the Conservatives have it in the bag. Postal votes can be misleading though. It's worth bearing in mind though that UKIP were reported to have done very poorly on postal votes at Eastleigh with the LDs odds shortening a day or two before polling day. Then things reversed and for a period the Betfair odds shortened on UKIP as actual votes were counted, only widening as the count drew to its conclusion by which time it was clear that the LDs would win by a narrow margin.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat of the narrowing in the early stages of the count at Newark, assuming that UKIP are universally poor at garnering postal votes by comparison with established parties.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    DavidL said:

    Only someone completely irrational could now claim that Osborne has not delivered truly stunning results given the situation that he inherited.

    What is genuinely concerning is that merely stunning has not been nearly good enough given the absolutely desperate straits we were in. The deficit inherited was the equivalent of fighting a major war and the way our economy and government spending had been shaped (particularly with in work benefits) meant that our structural deficit was extremely difficult to cope with. This is why very rapid growth in recent times is having such a modest effect.

    Unfortunately the Brown catastrophe will blight all of our childrens' lives and most of their children in turn. More and more of our tax resources will go to interest payments for a long time to come. This will make the social costs of an ever aging and more infirm population very difficult to deal with.

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except I would put Osborne's performance down as competent, just, rather than stunning. The problem s though that recession seem to happen in the UK every ten years or so. The next one, if we stay true to form, is gong to hit towards the end of the next parliament and we will go into it already £1.6+ trillion in debt. What happens then?
    dont go asking awkward questions Mr L, we'll just print more money and call it investment
    You are probably correct Mr. Brooke, the Chancellor at the time probably won't be able to do anything else. Good old Avery though will be able to explain how it will be a good thing. After all he has told me here tonight that borrowing more each and every year does not increase the amount of debt one has.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited June 2014
    @DavidL

    "He has rebalanced the weight of tax onto the higher paid"

    And these higher paid, how have they fared since the crash? Are they now poorer under this burden that the chancellor has imposed upon them?
    Those at the very top have seen their wealth double, and for those below, circa 10% yoy increases in remuneration are the norm.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Ninoinoz said:

    isam said:

    ToryJim said:

    @IainDale: More on Tower Hamlets on @LBC right now. An election petition is about to be launched to overturn the Mayoral election.

    My Mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years. I spoke to her about this last night and she said it was widely known a long time ago that elections featuring this individual were bent. Asian men accompanying their wives into the ballot booth and helping them vote etc

    What exactly is wrong with this? Considering the number non-English speaking women in the borough, this seems quite sensible.
    Other than it contravenes the guidance given to the election staff, it's a brilliant idea.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Omnium said:


    FFS what hard decisons has Osborne taken ?

    decided not to build houses ?
    avoided economic stimulation when he knew the EU zone was in the toilet ?
    ducked bank reform ?


    He's cut where he can, and stopped increases in spending where he can't cut. If you're minister for Toffee-Apples then you want to make your name in that area, and the easiest way to do so is to spend money. Resisting that pressure is hard - he's done rather well.

    I know you know this already, and it's perfectly reasonable to say that he's done nothing terribly constructive, but it's also entirely reasonable to say that we can't afford anything constructive.

    Whatever your politics you have to acknowledge that GO has striven to constrain the governments lavish ways. Whether that counts for much, it is at least a positive for him. It's also a positive that is hard to earn. Being Mr Killjoy isn't a popularity winner.
    as spineless as Cameron. Blues want to give him credit for not torching the joint. They can't look at his totally average performance as being that and not at the level tye country needs to recover.

    What next Wayne Roonery is a genius but don't expect any goals at the World Cup ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    edited June 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL

    "He has rebalanced the weight of tax onto the higher paid"

    And these higher paid, how have they fared since the crash? Are they now poorer under this burden that the chancellor has imposed upon them?
    Those at the very top have seen their wealth double, and for those below, circa 10% yoy increases in remuneration are the norm.

    Oh I agree. My reservations about QE have largely proved to be unfounded (so far) but there is no question it has caused serious inflation of certain classes of assets which have benefitted the better off disproportionately greatly adding to already unacceptable levels of inequality.

    This is not a good thing but the alternative was probably mass unemployment for the lower paid as we saw in the early 90s.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    Spot on.

    He's just about done enough, and that is an outstanding achievement. He needs to keep to the regime though, and after many years of hard work any easing up could reverse all of the hard work.



    FFS what hard decisons has Osborne taken ?

    decided not to build houses ?
    avoided economic stimulation when he knew the EU zone was in the toilet ?
    ducked bank reform ?


    He has stopped the juggernaut of ever increasing public spending that Brown and Darling built.

    He resisted siren calls to cut spending even faster when the economy needed support.

    He has rebalanced the weight of tax onto the higher paid, reducing tax on the lower paid and thus kept consumption going when demand was weak.

    He has refused to panic and throw yet more borrowed money at demand when the problems of the EZ looked most acute.

    He has restored confidence in our banking sector in particular and London in general.

    He has focussed the tiny amounts of money he had available on trying to increase investment and exports.

    He has delivered a remarkable fall in unemployment.

    He has funded record numbers of apprenticeships for our young unemployed

    He has cut borrowing by 1/3 in a very difficult economic environment.

    He is overseeing one of the longest and best periods of growth in both manufacturing and housebuilding over the last two years. These have been encouraged by modest government schemes and a stable macroeconomic outlook.

    But we are still in a hole. There is no point in denying it.

    YOU ARE ALEX SALMOND
    Ouch. That is a bit uncalled for.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    DavidL said:

    Only someone completely irrational could now claim that Osborne has not delivered truly stunning results given the situation that he inherited.

    What is genuinely concerning is that merely stunning has not been nearly good enough given the absolutely desperate straits we were in. The deficit inherited was the equivalent of fighting a major war and the way our economy and government spending had been shaped (particularly with in work benefits) meant that our structural deficit was extremely difficult to cope with. This is why very rapid growth in recent times is having such a modest effect.

    Unfortunately the Brown catastrophe will blight all of our childrens' lives and most of their children in turn. More and more of our tax resources will go to interest payments for a long time to come. This will make the social costs of an ever aging and more infirm population very difficult to deal with.

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except I would put Osborne's performance down as competent, just, rather than stunning. The problem s though that recession seem to happen in the UK every ten years or so. The next one, if we stay true to form, is gong to hit towards the end of the next parliament and we will go into it already £1.6+ trillion in debt. What happens then?
    dont go asking awkward questions Mr L, we'll just print more money and call it investment
    You are probably correct Mr. Brooke, the Chancellor at the time probably won't be able to do anything else. Good old Avery though will be able to explain how it will be a good thing. After all he has told me here tonight that borrowing more each and every year does not increase the amount of debt one has.
    Osborne's only plus is he's not a planktonly stupid as David Willetts, the UKs premier twat.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    "Shredded: Inside RBS, The Bank That Broke Britain, by the financial journalist Ian Fraser, concludes that the governments led by Gordon Brown and David Cameron have “let the people of Britain down” by failing to reform RBS after it received its mammoth bailout under the stewardship of former chief executive Fred “The Shred” Goodwin."

    full article

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/rbs-could-fail-due-to-100bn-black-hole--with-british-taxpayers-in-line-to-lose-their-entire-45bn-stake-9466823.html

    I hope Lloyds is in better shape when Ozzie decides to flog the rest of it off (I wonder who will be holding the toxic assets?)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Smarmeron said:

    "Shredded: Inside RBS, The Bank That Broke Britain, by the financial journalist Ian Fraser, concludes that the governments led by Gordon Brown and David Cameron have “let the people of Britain down” by failing to reform RBS after it received its mammoth bailout under the stewardship of former chief executive Fred “The Shred” Goodwin."

    full article

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/rbs-could-fail-due-to-100bn-black-hole--with-british-taxpayers-in-line-to-lose-their-entire-45bn-stake-9466823.html

    I hope Lloyds is in better shape when Ozzie decides to flog the rest of it off (I wonder who will be holding the toxic assets?)

    Hey Gordo made RBS what they are today,
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !
  • The shortening of odds on the Conservatives down to 1/10 on may be down to information filtering back from observers at the opening of the postal votes, leading some to conclude that the Conservatives have it in the bag. Postal votes can be misleading though. It's worth bearing in mind though that UKIP were reported to have done very poorly on postal votes at Eastleigh with the LDs odds shortening a day or two before polling day. Then things reversed and for a period the Betfair odds shortened on UKIP as actual votes were counted, only widening as the count drew to its conclusion by which time it was clear that the LDs would win by a narrow margin.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat of the narrowing in the early stages of the count at Newark, assuming that UKIP are universally poor at garnering postal votes by comparison with established parties.

    Are postal votes in fact "opened" prior to the election date (other than to access the outer sealed envelope to validate the credentials of the voter) ?
    If so this is surely entirely wrong.

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @DavidL

    At the moment we have mass underemployment instead.
    Changing it's name, and paying tax credits instead of JSA might make some feel better, but it doesn't lower the benefits bill, and possibly raises it depending on circumstances.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Alanbrooke
    Yup, and five years later Cameron is still faffing about with reform (four in government, but he happily pointed the finger before the election)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL

    At the moment we have mass underemployment instead.
    Changing it's name, and paying tax credits instead of JSA might make some feel better, but it doesn't lower the benefits bill, and possibly raises it depending on circumstances.

    yeah but Labour did it and then imported 4 million people to make it even worse.

    Where's the houses ?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,808
    Has anyone ever tried to calculate the 'real' increase in the size/competencies of the state over time, factoring in labour saving technology like word processors, e-mail, fax, etc.? I was thinking the other day that the decrease in typing pools, filing secretaries, people delivering letters and memoranda etc. must mask a far bigger increase than the paper figures suggest.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    saddened said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    isam said:

    ToryJim said:

    @IainDale: More on Tower Hamlets on @LBC right now. An election petition is about to be launched to overturn the Mayoral election.

    My Mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years. I spoke to her about this last night and she said it was widely known a long time ago that elections featuring this individual were bent. Asian men accompanying their wives into the ballot booth and helping them vote etc

    What exactly is wrong with this? Considering the number non-English speaking women in the borough, this seems quite sensible.
    Other than it contravenes the guidance given to the election staff, it's a brilliant idea.
    Please post the guidance for non-English speanking voters and the blind and elderly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL

    At the moment we have mass underemployment instead.
    Changing it's name, and paying tax credits instead of JSA might make some feel better, but it doesn't lower the benefits bill, and possibly raises it depending on circumstances.

    I don't agree that we have mass underemployment (there is certainly some in the newly self-employed) but what we certainly do have is mass subsidised employment where people are paid a wage they cannot live on and are subsidised by in work benefits and housing benefit. This is the house Gordon built and it is a catastrophe.

    I think we need to use strong employment growth to increase the minimum wage to reduce this subsidy but there is no point in pretending that a significant percentage of those in work simply do not produce enough value to give them an acceptable standard of living and someone a return for employing them.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Alanbrooke
    Don't ask me, I have been pointing out the economic insanity since Mrs T and her half baked economist came up with the idea. Carrying it on was equally mad.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron


    In addition, the next election will be fought under redrawn constituency boundaries that will strip Labour of about 25 seats.


    :O
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Smarmeron said:

    @Alanbrooke
    Don't ask me, I have been pointing out the economic insanity since Mrs T and her half baked economist came up with the idea. Carrying it on was equally mad.

    ooh that could be anything, Tony Blair hasn;t gone away you know
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron


    In addition, the next election will be fought under redrawn constituency boundaries that will strip Labour of about 25 seats.


    :O
    Don't ask me what happend with the boundaries, I'm not a LibDem.
  • shadsyshadsy Posts: 289
    Here's a bit more detail on my scouting trip to Newark today;
    http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/newark-a-report-from-the-front-line/

    To answer the question "Why are UKIP still 6/1, then?" It's because the man on the street in Newark is not very likely to want to have a lumpy bet at 1/10, especially when all of the people he knows seem to be voting UKIP. The numerous three and four figure bets we take online at 1/10 on the Tories from those outside of the constituency mean we can happily accommodate all of the UKIP supporters in the town. (In fact we let most of them have 8/1). We're really talking about a few dozen people having fivers and tenners.

    We're in the unusually happy position of being able to lay both sides, which isn't often the case in these sorts of events.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    edited June 2014
    Ninoinoz said:

    saddened said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    isam said:

    ToryJim said:

    @IainDale: More on Tower Hamlets on @LBC right now. An election petition is about to be launched to overturn the Mayoral election.

    My Mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years. I spoke to her about this last night and she said it was widely known a long time ago that elections featuring this individual were bent. Asian men accompanying their wives into the ballot booth and helping them vote etc

    What exactly is wrong with this? Considering the number non-English speaking women in the borough, this seems quite sensible.
    Other than it contravenes the guidance given to the election staff, it's a brilliant idea.
    Please post the guidance for non-English speanking voters and the blind and elderly.
    Read the guidance for the blind. As for the other issues you raise the em

    http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200033/voting_and_elections/3462/3_how_to_vot
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    shadsy said:

    Here's a bit more detail on my scouting trip to Newark today;
    http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/newark-a-report-from-the-front-line/

    To answer the question "Why are UKIP still 6/1, then?" It's because the man on the street in Newark is not very likely to want to have a lumpy bet at 1/10, especially when all of the people he knows seem to be voting UKIP. The numerous three and four figure bets we take online at 1/10 on the Tories from those outside of the constituency mean we can happily accommodate all of the UKIP supporters in the town. (In fact we let most of them have 8/1). We're really talking about a few dozen people having fivers and tenners.

    We're in the unusually happy position of being able to lay both sides, which isn't often the case in these sorts of events.

    Anyone ask for 20 pence on the Lib Dems :D ?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2014

    DavidL said:

    Only someone completely irrational could now claim that Osborne has not delivered truly stunning results given the situation that he inherited.

    ...

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except I would put Osborne's performance down as competent, just, rather than stunning. The problem s though that recession seem to happen in the UK every ten years or so. The next one, if we stay true to form, is gong to hit towards the end of the next parliament and we will go into it already £1.6+ trillion in debt. What happens then?
    dont go asking awkward questions Mr L, we'll just print more money and call it investment
    You are probably correct Mr. Brooke, the Chancellor at the time probably won't be able to do anything else. Good old Avery though will be able to explain how it will be a good thing. After all he has told me here tonight that borrowing more each and every year does not increase the amount of debt one has.
    The reason being that the additional borrowing carried out to meet gaps between government revenues and expenses has been more than (just!) compensated for by reductions in overall debt arising out of the financial interventions into the banking sector.

    So net debt has slightly decreased over the term.

    Once the Lloyds Banking Group has been fully sold off there will be a substantial reduction in net debt (the intervened banks account for approximately £1,050 bn of current debt).

    Of course, this doesn't mean that the current budget and cyclically adjusted current account deficits don't need to be eliminated just that it is safe for this process to be extended over two rather one term of government.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894


    as spineless as Cameron. Blues want to give him credit for not torching the joint. They can't look at his totally average performance as being that and not at the level tye country needs to recover.

    What next Wayne Roonery is a genius but don't expect any goals at the World Cup ?


    Osborne has I think demonstrated a little more pluck than Cameron. However Cameron has shown something too, and I agree wholeheartedly with the comment below about Danny Alexander.

    These are undoubtedly tricky times, and it's not clear what is the right way to proceed. It is totally clear that the opportunities to get things monumentally wrong are far larger than they have ever been - courtesy of Labour perhaps, and the world circumstances certainly.

    If you phrase it that he hasn't torched the joint then sure - he hasn't. An average performance in the face of great peril isn't so average.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    England need a quick flurry of wickets or we're going to be Duckworth Lewised.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    DavidL said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL

    "He has rebalanced the weight of tax onto the higher paid"

    And these higher paid, how have they fared since the crash? Are they now poorer under this burden that the chancellor has imposed upon them?
    Those at the very top have seen their wealth double, and for those below, circa 10% yoy increases in remuneration are the norm.

    Oh I agree. My reservations about QE have largely proved to be unfounded (so far) but there is no question it has caused serious inflation of certain classes of assets which have benefitted the better off disproportionately greatly adding to already unacceptable levels of inequality.

    This is not a good thing but the alternative was probably mass unemployment for the lower paid as we saw in the early 90s.

    QE is a long story, long story short Central Bank on government orders buys government bonds from private investors for free cash, private investors with free cash live luxurious life that fails to increase inflation or gdp growth. I can give you the report i've written a few years ago about the details and effects, it's a long one.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @Shadsy

    One word for those who piling on KIP in Newark: mugs.

    This seat was always going to be an easy Tory hold, not least because the lefties up there would rather have the Tory than Helmer.


    No tactical vote = easy Tory hold.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Alanbrooke

    The supposition that country could get "rich" by unchaining capital and ignoring manufacturing left us increasingly vulnerable to a collapse in finance.
    It's one of the major reasons we suffered more when the collapse happened, than some of our more astute neighbours.
    Growth fueled by housing booms is not "real" growth either, and we know where it leads.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited June 2014
    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron
    Not yet it isn't, nor anywhere near being so.

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Speedy

    You omitted stock price inflation.
    But we better not mention that or Avery will yellow box us.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron
    Not yet it isn't, nor anywhere near being so.

    Where are all these Lib Dems hiding ?!

    No opinion pollster be it mobile, landline or internet pollster is picking them up.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Speedy said:

    DavidL said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL

    "He has rebalanced the weight of tax onto the higher paid"

    And these higher paid, how have they fared since the crash? Are they now poorer under this burden that the chancellor has imposed upon them?
    Those at the very top have seen their wealth double, and for those below, circa 10% yoy increases in remuneration are the norm.

    Oh I agree. My reservations about QE have largely proved to be unfounded (so far) but there is no question it has caused serious inflation of certain classes of assets which have benefitted the better off disproportionately greatly adding to already unacceptable levels of inequality.

    This is not a good thing but the alternative was probably mass unemployment for the lower paid as we saw in the early 90s.

    QE is a long story, long story short Central Bank on government orders buys government bonds from private investors for free cash, private investors with free cash live luxurious life that fails to increase inflation or gdp growth. I can give you the report i've written a few years ago about the details and effects, it's a long one.
    Well I do have trouble sleeping on these warmer nights. QE is to me a Pandora's box that politicians should not be allowed anywhere near. It is as economically rational as chipping the currency in the middle ages. Although it can increase the quantity of coin in circulation it does nothing for its value.

    It's main function seemed to be to give our banking sector lots of free money in the hope that it would allow them to lend again. The consequence of free money is that assets inflate. Those without assets lose out.

    The one unknown is whether it would have been even worse without it. I suspect so because I suspect that the UK may well have ended up defaulting on its debts if it had not rigged the market.

  • shadsy said:

    Here's a bit more detail on my scouting trip to Newark today;
    http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/newark-a-report-from-the-front-line/

    To answer the question "Why are UKIP still 6/1, then?" It's because the man on the street in Newark is not very likely to want to have a lumpy bet at 1/10, especially when all of the people he knows seem to be voting UKIP. The numerous three and four figure bets we take online at 1/10 on the Tories from those outside of the constituency mean we can happily accommodate all of the UKIP supporters in the town. (In fact we let most of them have 8/1). We're really talking about a few dozen people having fivers and tenners.

    We're in the unusually happy position of being able to lay both sides, which isn't often the case in these sorts of events.

    "In fact we let most of them have 8/1"

    You're all heart Shadsy!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    @Alanbrooke

    The supposition that country could get "rich" by unchaining capital and ignoring manufacturing left us increasingly vulnerable to a collapse in finance.
    It's one of the major reasons we suffered more when the collapse happened, than some of our more astute neighbours.
    Growth fueled by housing booms is not "real" growth either, and we know where it leads.

    It's either a choice on income vs security:

    Manufacturing needs investment, long term planning, low returns and lots of safety, finance needs no investment or planning, has high returns and high risks. It's like your choice is between a stable long term income and winning the lottery you probably go with the lottery.

    Or it's what Khrushchev said in the 1950's about the fault in soviet planning with the ever increase of managers that will result in more people managing the economy that actually producing anything.

    I believe we can see evidence of both in every company.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    AveryLP said:

    DavidL said:

    Only someone completely irrational could now claim that Osborne has not delivered truly stunning results given the situation that he inherited.

    ...

    How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.

    I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.

    I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except I would put Osborne's performance down as competent, just, rather than stunning. The problem s though that recession seem to happen in the UK every ten years or so. The next one, if we stay true to form, is gong to hit towards the end of the next parliament and we will go into it already £1.6+ trillion in debt. What happens then?
    dont go asking awkward questions Mr L, we'll just print more money and call it investment
    You are probably correct Mr. Brooke, the Chancellor at the time probably won't be able to do anything else. Good old Avery though will be able to explain how it will be a good thing. After all he has told me here tonight that borrowing more each and every year does not increase the amount of debt one has.
    The reason being that the additional borrowing carried out to meet gaps between government revenues and expenses has been more than (just!) compensated for by reductions in overall debt arising out of the financial interventions into the banking sector.

    So net debt has slightly decreased over the term.

    Once the Lloyds Banking Group has been fully sold off there will be a substantial reduction in net debt (the intervened banks account for approximately £1,050 bn of current debt).

    Of course, this doesn't mean that the current budget and cyclically adjusted current account deficits don't need to be eliminated just that it is safe for this process to be extended over two rather one term of government.

    I hope they are paying you well for this inept spin.

    If we ever meet you can spend your vast earnings on keeping this champagne socialist in the good stuff.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited June 2014
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k&feature=kp
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited June 2014

    AveryLP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AveryLP said:

    currystar said:

    So would you prefer to be in France, or Spain's or Portugals position?

    False choices make for poor debate.

    In simple terms Cameron and Osborne promised to cuterase the deficit by 2015. This they will fail to do. The argument of many of their defenders appears to be that to have attempted to do so would have been to cut "too far and too fast". LOL
    ...

    Osborne told MPs that Britain had the largest structural budget deficit in Europe at £109bn, he said, with £43bn in debt interest paid back each year.

    Capital spending will be £51bn next year, then £49bn, then £46bn and £47bn in 2014-15 – about £2bn a year higher than set out in the budget.

    Total public expenditure, which includes debt interest payments, will be £702bn next year, then £713bn, £724bn and £740bn, bringing real terms public spending to the same level as 2008.

    Debt interest payments will be lower by £1bn in 2012, £1.8bn in 2013 and £3bn in 2014, a total of £5bn lower over the course of the spending review period

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.
    Pulpie

    Can't do the figures now but will answer in next couple of days.

    Without the stats in front of me and from memory, there is not going to be a big variance. CapEx will need special one-offs stripping out (e.g. the effect of the Royal Mail pensions transaction on ONS's net investment figures), but I would not be suprised to see the 2010 figures overestimating outcomes.

    George has undoubtedly used non-recurring special transactions to keep the public finances under control and much is obscured by National Accounting convention but the story is of 'special transactions' becoming less significant to outcomes as the term has progressed. This is shown by the current year's figures being almost 'clean'!

    Why all the praise for Osborne?
    He gets to make the speeches but it is Danny Alexander who has done all the heavy lifting.

    I don't know enough about the machinations of the Treasury to know if that is correct or not, but surely that is simply the curse of the able achiever with an average or clueless boss the world over. If you do a great job they get the credit, even if you insist it was down to you.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    DavidL said:

    Speedy said:

    DavidL said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL

    "He has rebalanced the weight of tax onto the higher paid"

    And these higher paid, how have they fared since the crash? Are they now poorer under this burden that the chancellor has imposed upon them?
    Those at the very top have seen their wealth double, and for those below, circa 10% yoy increases in remuneration are the norm.

    Oh I agree. My reservations about QE have largely proved to be unfounded (so far) but there is no question it has caused serious inflation of certain classes of assets which have benefitted the better off disproportionately greatly adding to already unacceptable levels of inequality.

    This is not a good thing but the alternative was probably mass unemployment for the lower paid as we saw in the early 90s.

    QE is a long story, long story short Central Bank on government orders buys government bonds from private investors for free cash, private investors with free cash live luxurious life that fails to increase inflation or gdp growth. I can give you the report i've written a few years ago about the details and effects, it's a long one.
    Well I do have trouble sleeping on these warmer nights. QE is to me a Pandora's box that politicians should not be allowed anywhere near. It is as economically rational as chipping the currency in the middle ages. Although it can increase the quantity of coin in circulation it does nothing for its value.

    It's main function seemed to be to give our banking sector lots of free money in the hope that it would allow them to lend again. The consequence of free money is that assets inflate. Those without assets lose out.

    The one unknown is whether it would have been even worse without it. I suspect so because I suspect that the UK may well have ended up defaulting on its debts if it had not rigged the market.

    Actually the inventor of QE is the notorius John Law, the scotsman who ruined Scotland, France and England in the early 18th century, he was extensively used by governments to get rid of the mountain of government debt at the time at the expense of the common investor.
  • Ninoinoz said:

    What exactly is wrong with this? Considering the number non-English speaking women in the borough, this seems quite sensible.

    Suppose a popish priest were to accompany divers members of his flock into the polling booth and tell them how God wanted them to vote. I can't imagine anything would be wrong with that either.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron
    Not yet it isn't, nor anywhere near being so.

    Where are all these Lib Dems hiding ?!

    No opinion pollster be it mobile, landline or internet pollster is picking them up.
    That may be so, but if anyone believes Huhne's nonsense that the LibDems are set to win no more than 5% of the GE vote and the Tories no more than 25%, i.e. <30% combined, here's an offer you won't be able to refuse. I'll bet £20 at even money with each of the first five to accept that the combined Tory & LibDem vote at the 2015 General Election will exceed 37% of the UK vote.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    It sounds like a few kippers got a few tenners on, hardly a rush.

    I hope the massed kippers in the square didn't annoy those peaceful members of the caravan club who struggled to find their usual site.

    shadsy said:

    Here's a bit more detail on my scouting trip to Newark today;
    http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/newark-a-report-from-the-front-line/

    To answer the question "Why are UKIP still 6/1, then?" It's because the man on the street in Newark is not very likely to want to have a lumpy bet at 1/10, especially when all of the people he knows seem to be voting UKIP. The numerous three and four figure bets we take online at 1/10 on the Tories from those outside of the constituency mean we can happily accommodate all of the UKIP supporters in the town. (In fact we let most of them have 8/1). We're really talking about a few dozen people having fivers and tenners.

    We're in the unusually happy position of being able to lay both sides, which isn't often the case in these sorts of events.

    "In fact we let most of them have 8/1"

    You're all heart Shadsy!
  • DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 891
    edited June 2014
    Last call for Newark by-election game

    Evening all, just a final reminder that the Newark game will close at 7pm tomorrow:

    http://www.electiongame.co.uk/newark/

    Many thanks,

    DC
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2014
    surbiton said:

    Fact:

    The Austerity induced low growth model of this government has created a great achievement.

    This government has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years.

    Avery is very quick to show us the growth rates today against Europe. He keeps the 2010 - 2013 hidden away.

    Absurby, I have answered you twice already on this brazen effrontery.

    Absurby tells such Dreadful Lies,
    It makes one Gasp and Stretch one's Eyes;


    Here are the figures for 2010-14 as posted in answer to your previous calumny:
    ==========================================================
    FRANCE vs. UK
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    GDP Growth
    Expenditure method
    Quarter on Previous Quarter
    Percentage Growth
    Source: OECD Database, 28 May 2014
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    --------2012-------- --------2013-------- 2014
    Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
    UK 0.01 -0.39 0.77 -0.21 0.36 0.76 0.84 0.68 0.81
    France 0.63 -0.57 -0.11 -0.08 0.38 0.24 -0.10 0.24 -0.39
    ===============================================================
    ======================================================
    --------2010-------- --------2011--------
    Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
    UK 0.5 1.0 0.4 -0.2 0.5 0.1 0.6 -0.1
    France 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.1 -0.1 0.2 0.2
    ======================================================
    Time to remain silent on this issue, Absurby, and join St. George and the PB Tories in celebrating the UK overtaking France to become the second largest economy in Europe.

    Won't be a long wait for the party!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Where did Tapestry's post go ?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    For those who think that without QE the government would have defaulted look at the miniscule amount of british QE compared to the US or the LTRO of the eurozone. Plus without QE the Bank of England would have had to finance the deficit directly without the intermediaries of bond holders.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The lizards are active tonight?
    Pulpstar said:

    Where did Tapestry's post go ?

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Pulpstar

    A lizard got him?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    QE whilst it may have helped inflate asset prices and may ( we will never know I suppose ) have helped prop up demand and therefore employment, has of course torpedoed pensions by depressing gilt yields and so annuity rates. This I'm sure has led to all those oldies chasing a return via BTL much to the regret of thirty something's looking for a reasonably priced home, and created vast largely illusory corporate pension deficits which companies are then forced by law to fire hose cash into in the here and now thereby reducing investment and er demand thereby reducing support for the economy ...........bit circular innit?

    Results are mixed shall we say. Got a huge mortgage: low interest rates are great, got a money purchase pension fund they're not at all.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2014

    AveryLP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AveryLP said:

    currystar said:

    So would you prefer to be in France, or Spain's or Portugals position?

    False choices make for poor debate.

    In simple terms Cameron and Osborne promised to cuterase the deficit by 2015. This they will fail to do. The argument of many of their defenders appears to be that to have attempted to do so would have been to cut "too far and too fast". LOL
    ...

    Osborne told MPs that Britain had the largest structural budget deficit in Europe at £109bn, he said, with £43bn in debt interest paid back each year.

    Capital spending will be £51bn next year, then £49bn, then £46bn and £47bn in 2014-15 – about £2bn a year higher than set out in the budget.

    Total public expenditure, which includes debt interest payments, will be £702bn next year, then £713bn, £724bn and £740bn, bringing real terms public spending to the same level as 2008.

    Debt interest payments will be lower by £1bn in 2012, £1.8bn in 2013 and £3bn in 2014, a total of £5bn lower over the course of the spending review period

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.
    Pulpie

    Can't do the figures now but will answer in next couple of days.

    Without the stats in front of me and from memory, there is not going to be a big variance. CapEx will need special one-offs stripping out (e.g. the effect of the Royal Mail pensions transaction on ONS's net investment figures), but I would not be suprised to see the 2010 figures overestimating outcomes.

    George has undoubtedly used non-recurring special transactions to keep the public finances under control and much is obscured by National Accounting convention but the story is of 'special transactions' becoming less significant to outcomes as the term has progressed. This is shown by the current year's figures being almost 'clean'!

    Why all the praise for Osborne?
    He gets to make the speeches but it is Danny Alexander who has done all the heavy lifting.

    I have never stinted in my praise for the role played by Danny Alexander in the management of the economy and have consistently expressed my admiration for his achievements in posts on PB.

    Inevitably though Osborne as Chancellor will get the lion's share of both informed praise as well as having to suffer the barbs of the dissolute and drunken.

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron
    Not yet it isn't, nor anywhere near being so.

    Where are all these Lib Dems hiding ?!

    No opinion pollster be it mobile, landline or internet pollster is picking them up.
    That may be so, but if anyone believes Huhne's nonsense that the LibDems are set to win no more than 5% of the GE vote and the Tories no more than 25%, i.e. <30% combined, here's an offer you won't be able to refuse. I'll bet £20 at even money with each of the first five to accept that the combined Tory & LibDem vote at the 2015 General Election will exceed 37% of the UK vote.</p>
    There is a poll (Ashcroft) that says LD 6 and Tories 25, not far off.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AveryLP said:

    surbiton said:

    Fact:

    The Austerity induced low growth model of this government has created a great achievement.

    This government has borrowed more in 4 years than Labour managed in 13 years.

    Avery is very quick to show us the growth rates today against Europe. He keeps the 2010 - 2013 hidden away.

    Absurby, I have answered you twice already on this brazen effrontery.

    Absurby tells such Dreadful Lies,
    It makes one Gasp and Stretch one's Eyes;


    Here are the figures for 2010-14 as posted in answer to your previous calumny:
    ==========================================================
    FRANCE vs. UK
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    GDP Growth
    Expenditure method
    Quarter on Previous Quarter
    Percentage Growth
    Source: OECD Database, 28 May 2014
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    --------2012-------- --------2013-------- 2014
    Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
    UK 0.01 -0.39 0.77 -0.21 0.36 0.76 0.84 0.68 0.81
    France 0.63 -0.57 -0.11 -0.08 0.38 0.24 -0.10 0.24 -0.39
    ===============================================================
    ======================================================
    --------2010-------- --------2011--------
    Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
    UK 0.5 1.0 0.4 -0.2 0.5 0.1 0.6 -0.1
    France 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.1 -0.1 0.2 0.2
    ======================================================
    Time to remain silent on this issue, Absurby, and join St. George and the PB Tories in celebrating the UK overtaking France to become the second largest economy in Europe.

    Won't be a long wait for the party!
    Well done.Avery. You have successfully chosen the weakest country to compare with. Screwed right royally by Lagarde.

    You guys always blame the current malaise on the past Labour government. How come Hollande's travails is not given similar dispensation ? After all, Hollande took over even later.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894
    DavidL said:

    Those without assets lose out.

    It's all about the fate of those with debt though. One could equally say that those without debt will lose out, and this is precisely what the monetary authorities seek. Inflation.

    Inflation is of course governmental irresponsibility (almost synonymous) - that's why everyone wanted to get rid of it in the 80s - however governments have sort of realised that they're going to be irresponsible anyway, because no-one ever notices when they actually try to do the proper thing.


  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AveryLP said:

    currystar said:

    So would you prefer to be in France, or Spain's or Portugals position?

    False choices make for poor debate.

    In simple terms Cameron and Osborne promised to cuterase the deficit by 2015. This they will fail to do. The argument of many of their defenders appears to be that to have attempted to do so would have been to cut "too far and too fast". LOL
    ...

    Osborne told MPs that Britain had the largest structural budget deficit in Europe at £109bn, he said, with £43bn in debt interest paid back each year.

    Capital spending will be £51bn next year, then £49bn, then £46bn and £47bn in 2014-15 – about £2bn a year higher than set out in the budget.

    Total public expenditure, which includes debt interest payments, will be £702bn next year, then £713bn, £724bn and £740bn, bringing real terms public spending to the same level as 2008.

    Debt interest payments will be lower by £1bn in 2012, £1.8bn in 2013 and £3bn in 2014, a total of £5bn lower over the course of the spending review period

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.
    Pulpie

    Can't do the figures now but will answer in next couple of days.

    Without the stats in front of me and from memory, there is not going to be a big variance. CapEx will need special one-offs stripping out (e.g. the effect of the Royal Mail pensions transaction on ONS's net investment figures), but I would not be suprised to see the 2010 figures overestimating outcomes.

    George has undoubtedly used non-recurring special transactions to keep the public finances under control and much is obscured by National Accounting convention but the story is of 'special transactions' becoming less significant to outcomes as the term has progressed. This is shown by the current year's figures being almost 'clean'!

    Why all the praise for Osborne?
    He gets to make the speeches but it is Danny Alexander who has done all the heavy lifting.

    I have never stinted in my praise for the role played by Danny Alexander in the management of the economy and have consistently expressed my admiration for his achievements in posts on PB.

    Inevitably though Osborne as Chancellor will get the lion's share of both informed praise as well as having to suffer the barbs of the dissolute and drunken.

    What would have happened if the austerity was on the level Labour had planned?
    The americans did no austerity until last year and have a smaller deficit now and higher growth starting from the same point as Britain in 2010.
    Either Osborne is right or Geithner is right, they can't be both right.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron
    Not yet it isn't, nor anywhere near being so.

    Where are all these Lib Dems hiding ?!

    No opinion pollster be it mobile, landline or internet pollster is picking them up.
    That may be so, but if anyone believes Huhne's nonsense that the LibDems are set to win no more than 5% of the GE vote and the Tories no more than 25%, i.e. <30% combined, here's an offer you won't be able to refuse. I'll bet £20 at even money with each of the first five to accept that the combined Tory & LibDem vote at the 2015 General Election will exceed 37% of the UK vote.</p>
    It's all gone very quiet in response to my generous offer. Time limit of midnight tonight to accept. Bona Fide PB bettors only.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron
    Not yet it isn't, nor anywhere near being so.

    Where are all these Lib Dems hiding ?!

    No opinion pollster be it mobile, landline or internet pollster is picking them up.
    That may be so, but if anyone believes Huhne's nonsense that the LibDems are set to win no more than 5% of the GE vote and the Tories no more than 25%, i.e. <30% combined, here's an offer you won't be able to refuse. I'll bet £20 at even money with each of the first five to accept that the combined Tory & LibDem vote at the 2015 General Election will exceed 37% of the UK vote.</p>
    It's all gone very quiet in response to my generous offer. Time limit of midnight tonight to accept. Bona Fide PB bettors only.
    If it's only the LD its tempting because all polls bar ICM point them to that direction, with the Tories it's uncertain because it depends largely on UKIP, only ComRes, Survation and Ashcroft have shown them bellow 30.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    We have truly entered the twilight zone this evening with Jaune Boite hell from Avery, lizards and invitations to bet against the forecasts of Chris Huhne.

    There is a funny light in London this evening.

    Now we know why.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    BobaFett said:

    We have truly entered the twilight zone this evening with Jaune Boite hell from Avery, lizards and invitations to bet against the forecasts of Chris Huhne.

    There is a funny light in London this evening.

    Now we know why.

    Noctilucent cloud over London?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Speedy said:

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AveryLP said:

    currystar said:

    So would you prefer to be in France, or Spain's or Portugals position?

    False choices make for poor debate.

    In simple terms Cameron and Osborne promised to cuterase the deficit by 2015. This they will fail to do. The argument of many of their defenders appears to be that to have attempted to do so would have been to cut "too far and too fast". LOL
    ...

    Osborne told MPs that Britain had the largest structural budget deficit in Europe at £109bn, he said, with £43bn in debt interest paid back each year.

    Capital spending will be £51bn next year, then £49bn, then £46bn and £47bn in 2014-15 – about £2bn a year higher than set out in the budget.

    Total public expenditure, which includes debt interest payments, will be £702bn next year, then £713bn, £724bn and £740bn, bringing real terms public spending to the same level as 2008.

    Debt interest payments will be lower by £1bn in 2012, £1.8bn in 2013 and £3bn in 2014, a total of £5bn lower over the course of the spending review period

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.
    Pulpie

    ...
    Why all the praise for Osborne?
    He gets to make the speeches but it is Danny Alexander who has done all the heavy lifting.

    I have never stinted in my praise for the role played by Danny Alexander in the management of the economy and have consistently expressed my admiration for his achievements in posts on PB.

    Inevitably though Osborne as Chancellor will get the lion's share of both informed praise as well as having to suffer the barbs of the dissolute and drunken.

    What would have happened if the austerity was on the level Labour had planned?
    The americans did no austerity until last year and have a smaller deficit now and higher growth starting from the same point as Britain in 2010.
    Either Osborne is right or Geithner is right, they can't be both right.
    Well UK GDP growth in Q1 2014 was 32 times the growth recorded by the US.

    Need I say more?

    *titters*

  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    edited June 2014
    saddened said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    saddened said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    isam said:

    ToryJim said:

    @IainDale: More on Tower Hamlets on @LBC right now. An election petition is about to be launched to overturn the Mayoral election.

    My Mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years. I spoke to her about this last night and she said it was widely known a long time ago that elections featuring this individual were bent. Asian men accompanying their wives into the ballot booth and helping them vote etc

    What exactly is wrong with this? Considering the number non-English speaking women in the borough, this seems quite sensible.
    Other than it contravenes the guidance given to the election staff, it's a brilliant idea.
    Please post the guidance for non-English speanking voters and the blind and elderly.
    Read the guidance for the blind. As for the other issues you raise the em

    http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200033/voting_and_elections/3462/3_how_to_vot
    Thanks for the link.
    If you have a visual impairment, you can ask for a special voting device that allows you to vote on your own in secret.
    I note the words "can" and "allows". Not compulsory.
    Take your ballot paper into a polling booth so that no one can see how you vote. Read the ballot paper carefully – it will tell you how many votes you have.
    No mention of the penalties for NOT doing so. Also, the word "read" is used and as the ballot paper was in English, this would be problematic.

    In any case, the rules are for the benefit of the voter. If a husband wanted to seize his wife's vote then it would be far easier to apply for a postal vote and do it at home rather than do it in front of electoral officers.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    AveryLP said:

    Speedy said:

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AveryLP said:

    currystar said:

    So would you prefer to be in France, or Spain's or Portugals position?

    False choices make for poor debate.

    In simple terms Cameron and Osborne promised to cuterase the deficit by 2015. This they will fail to do. The argument of many of their defenders appears to be that to have attempted to do so would have been to cut "too far and too fast". LOL
    ...

    Osborne told MPs that Britain had the largest structural budget deficit in Europe at £109bn, he said, with £43bn in debt interest paid back each year.

    Capital spending will be £51bn next year, then £49bn, then £46bn and £47bn in 2014-15 – about £2bn a year higher than set out in the budget.

    Total public expenditure, which includes debt interest payments, will be £702bn next year, then £713bn, £724bn and £740bn, bringing real terms public spending to the same level as 2008.

    Debt interest payments will be lower by £1bn in 2012, £1.8bn in 2013 and £3bn in 2014, a total of £5bn lower over the course of the spending review period

    How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.
    Pulpie

    ...
    Why all the praise for Osborne?
    He gets to make the speeches but it is Danny Alexander who has done all the heavy lifting.

    I have never stinted in my praise for the role played by Danny Alexander in the management of the economy and have consistently expressed my admiration for his achievements in posts on PB.

    Inevitably though Osborne as Chancellor will get the lion's share of both informed praise as well as having to suffer the barbs of the dissolute and drunken.

    What would have happened if the austerity was on the level Labour had planned?
    The americans did no austerity until last year and have a smaller deficit now and higher growth starting from the same point as Britain in 2010.
    Either Osborne is right or Geithner is right, they can't be both right.
    Well UK GDP growth in Q1 2014 was 32 times the growth recorded by the US.

    Need I say more?

    *titters*

    US GDP growth 2010-14 9.3%
    UK GDP growth 2010-14 5.9%
    That's 58% more.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited June 2014
    fitalass said:
    I'm surprised he kept bothering to leave by the main gate then, given how fussy the police appear to have been on the whole matter, although given how disgracefully the police acted during and after plebgate, I guess they were right to protest at the lack of flexibility, as it was probably the police having some fun at the expense.

  • Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:



    That may be so, but if anyone believes Huhne's nonsense that the LibDems are set to win no more than 5% of the GE vote and the Tories no more than 25%, i.e. <30% combined, here's an offer you won't be able to refuse. I'll bet £20 at even money with each of the first five to accept that the combined Tory & LibDem vote at the 2015 General Election will exceed 37% of the UK vote.</p>

    There is a poll (Ashcroft) that says LD 6 and Tories 25, not far off.
    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/4996864

    UKIP now 5-4 (In from 11-8) to beat the Lib Dems.

    Ladbrokes have this priced up 5/6 5/6 (50% probability) which implies there is still ~ 6% value left in the Hills UKIP price if you regard Shadsy as a good oddsmaker.

    @isam tipped this one up at bigger odds a while back !

    Amazing that all this was predicted partially by Chris Huhne "The Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, has privately predicted that support for his party will fall to 5 per cent and support for the Tories to 25 per cent." all that from 2010, how prescient.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/12/labour-party-election-cameron
    Not yet it isn't, nor anywhere near being so.

    Where are all these Lib Dems hiding ?!

    No opinion pollster be it mobile, landline or internet pollster is picking them up.
    That may be so, but if anyone believes Huhne's nonsense that the LibDems are set to win no more than 5% of the GE vote and the Tories no more than 25%, i.e. <30% combined, here's an offer you won't be able to refuse. I'll bet £20 at even money with each of the first five to accept that the combined Tory & LibDem vote at the 2015 General Election will exceed 37% of the UK vote.</p>
    There is a poll (Ashcroft) that says LD 6 and Tories 25, not far off.

    So, if that's what you believe simply put your money down - as you're not an established punter on PB.com, at least so far as I'm aware, I suggest we both lodge our £20 stakes with PtP ..... agreed?

This discussion has been closed.