Avery - so the deficit is down by £8bn over the year in which the economy has grown. Remind me how much Osborne was intending to reduce the deficit by this year in his 2010 budget. Was it £25bn? £30bn? Sticking to Plan A, eh?
It all depends on how you define the "deficit".
Osborne's Primary Fiscal Mandate (adopted in 2010) was to plan public finances forward on a five year rolling basis so that the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget (CACB) will be in surplus by the fifth year. The OBR has repeatedly confirmed that this target is being and will continue to be met by the government. The latest OBR forecast is that a surplus on this measure will be realised in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
Quoting OBR direct from their March 2014 EFO:
In the June 2010 Budget, the Coalition Government set itself a medium-term fiscal mandate and a supplementary target, namely:
• to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) by the end of a rolling, five-year period, which is now 2018-19;
[...]
The Government’s ‘fiscal mandate’ requires it to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) – the amount the Government has to borrow to finance non-investment spending, adjusted for the state of the economy – five years ahead. In December, we forecast that the CACB would be in surplus by 1.6 per cent of GDP in 2018-19. We now forecast the surplus in 2018-19 to be 1.5 per cent of GDP, fractionally less than we forecast in December.
We have looked at two scenarios where interest rates are higher than assumed in our central forecast. In one scenario, that happens for good reasons – stronger growth in household incomes and company profits. In the other scenario, it happens for bad reasons – instability in emerging markets intensifies, triggering risk aversion that drives up credit spreads meaning interest rates facing households and companies rise without corresponding increases in incomes and profits. The Government would continue to meet the fiscal mandate in both scenarios, reflecting the substantial CACB surplus in 2018-19 in our central forecast. The supplementary debt target would be missed in the bad scenario, but met by a very small margin in the good scenario.
Looks like Osborne has scored a straightforward bullseye hit, Mr. Booth. Are you suggesting the OBR is wrong?
So Universal Credit expands to 90 new job centres in the North East. Will be interesting to see the effects of it on unemployment in the area since it does cover basically the whole area rather than just 4 insignificant job centres.
Surprised that Osborne wasn't able to kill off, it seems useless and expensive looking from the outside in. Still let's see what happens.
O/T But for those who think that UKIP is racist, the below seems to pass as acceptable comment and the basis of a public debate in Japan. The "foreign executives" that I know there are bailing out just as quick as they can.
“The company’s [Takeda] globalisation is a wrong globalisation. It should be globalised as a Japanese company. However, from the top to the bottom ,there are hundreds of non-Japanese working in the company in Japan,” said Yujiro Hara, a former head of Takeda’s real estate subsidiary who represents the group.
“We say it was acquired by a foreign capital. We cannot accept it,” he added. “Three main executive positions, finance, HR and purchase, are taken by foreigners.”
@Pulpstar@Socrates 'Syria is a superb example of how Sunnis, Shias and Christians can live in harmony?'
100% Yes. And this is what they tell us every time we vaguely care to listen. Protests of millions in favour of Assad: www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gqq-FFgJM#t=264
This documentary on the genesis of the Syria conflict will reward a watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwv7JXgPxLI Sadly the man who speaks first was murdered by insurgents recently.
Yes, the millions in favour of Assad are the minority groups, who band together to keep out the Sunnis. That's not a beautiful example of ethnic harmony, its the normal ethnic alliances to keep out a third group you see in divided states. If Assad had the support of half the population, he would be happy to have free and fair elections. But he's not.
Syria has just held Presedential elections, which Assad won hadsomely on a great turnout. Western politicians and media outlets (obviously) all squealed 'sham' and 'affront to democracy', but then we refused to send any observers, so I'm not sure we can comment on what was un-free and what was unfair. The idea that that Assad does not benefit from Sunni support does not stand up to a moment's passing reflection, let alone serious scrutiny. This war has made him even more popular.
I'm not sure we realise the extent to which our media slants its reporting on Syria. When Syrians take up arms to defend their homes from insurgents, it's described as 'Assad's deadly 'Shabiha' militias'. When there are mass rallies in favour of Assad, it's described as 'bullets were fired into the air -people reported shot'. There is a constant attempt to portray Syria the way you describe it, that in no way marries with any accounts coming out of Syria itself. It's a nonsense.
I get my media from a range of sources, so am quite capable of understanding the different claims. The presidential elections that were just held obviously did not include rebel held areas - the areas most sympathetic to the rebel cause and thus least supportive of Assad. In the 2007 election, Assad won 98% of the vote. If you really believe that is an honest result, when just a few years later huge protests emerged against the guy, then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Has the England football gloom been overdone and is there some realistic betting prospects there ?? .... I'd say yes.
The essentials are clear.
The only way for England to qualify from their group (now 7/1 widely available) is for Italy to win both their remaining games (by only 1 clear goal over Costa Rica) of which they are clear favourites and England must beat Costa Rica by 2 clear goals. Clearly a bigger Italian win will reduce England's necessity to beat Costa Rica to a single goal. England would qualify on goal difference over both Uruguay and Costa Rica.
If England do qualify in this fashion the widely available 125/1 on them winning the tournament will tumble and both a trading bet and outright win looks rather amusing.
I'm having a nibble on both bets .... if you fancy the same get in before the Italy/Costa Rica match later today.
JackW - In setting out your "Smithson Alert" above, you effectively plagiarised the self same bet I had referred to on this thread at better odds, almost three hours earlier at 5.20am:
"Those who enjoy betting on seemingly lost causes will not be too impressed by BETFRED's miserable odds of 40/1 against England winning the World Cup outright. Somewhat more generously, but not overly so, is the 132/1 net available from Betfair against the same highly unlikely outcome."
Apologise like a true gentleman sir, forthwith.
Certainly not ....
A gentleman is a rank much below my own and as a Scottish noble I'm historically utterly unscrupulous and accordingly I may even pillage across the border into Bedfordshire for mere sport.
However in the spirit of fraternal PB concordat I acknowledge to you a minor reference to my otherwise outstandingly orchestrated and original missive to the great unwashed.
• to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) by the end of a rolling, five-year period, which is now 2018-19;
Are you suggesting the OBR is wrong?
If I read this correctly, Osborne has set himself a target which involves only forecasts, and not the actual levels of borrowing made.
I'm sure the OBR forecast that Osborne would meet this five year target in 2010 (for 2015), but those forecasts have not turned out too well, have they?
What relavance will the national swing be in Watford or elsewhere? The national swing or rather uniform national swing did not come into play in 2010. Do the people of Watford (or rather the majority of people in Watford) want a Labour government? If not then they will be aware of the position in their own constituency and will thus consider how to vote. If Watford were like many constituencies a 'safe' seat then they might consider all sorts of flights of fancy when it comes to a vote, but it is not. The ultimate question they face up to is, 'do we want a Labour Government'. How will non labour voters react and vote in those circumstances?
US subsidies are HALF the rate of EU ones. As for the UK, when we joined the EU we were suffering under 1970s socialist malaise. We are a far more economically liberal nation these days in our philosophy, so I doubt we'd keep major subsidies long term.
You say "not altogether", but what sort of thing do you think we should get?
I think this is one area where we could gradually change the EU's policy, especially now that France is weakened politically. We would not be without allies on this. But I wouldn't expect miracles!
NAFTA, EFTA, ASEAN etc don't have a common external tariff. Do they make "no sense"?
They are not as closely integrated economically as the EU is.
More generally, I don't think external tariffs are a big sticking point. We've won that argument. Whilst I'm sure it won't always be a smooth ride, the clear direction of travel internationally, including on the part of the EU, is towards dismantling barriers to trade. In fact, the EU Commission are positively on our side of the debate.
Avery - so the deficit is down by £8bn over the year in which the economy has grown. Remind me how much Osborne was intending to reduce the deficit by this year in his 2010 budget. Was it £25bn? £30bn? Sticking to Plan A, eh?
It all depends on how you define the "deficit".
Osborne's Primary Fiscal Mandate (adopted in 2010) was to plan public finances forward on a five year rolling basis so that the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget (CACB) will be in surplus by the fifth year. The OBR has repeatedly confirmed that this target is being and will continue to be met by the government. The latest OBR forecast is that a surplus on this measure will be realised in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
Quoting OBR direct from their March 2014 EFO:
In the June 2010 Budget, the Coalition Government set itself a medium-term fiscal mandate and a supplementary target, namely:
• to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) by the end of a rolling, five-year period, which is now 2018-19;
[...]
The Government’s ‘fiscal mandate’ requires it to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) – the amount the Government has to borrow to finance non-investment spending, adjusted for the state of the economy – five years ahead. In December, we forecast that the CACB would be in surplus by 1.6 per cent of GDP in 2018-19. We now forecast the surplus in 2018-19 to be 1.5 per cent of GDP, fractionally less than we forecast in December.
We have looked at two scenarios where interest rates are higher than assumed in our central forecast. In one scenario, that happens for good reasons – stronger growth in household incomes and company profits. In the other scenario, it happens for bad reasons – instability in emerging markets intensifies, triggering risk aversion that drives up credit spreads meaning interest rates facing households and companies rise without corresponding increases in incomes and profits. The Government would continue to meet the fiscal mandate in both scenarios, reflecting the substantial CACB surplus in 2018-19 in our central forecast. The supplementary debt target would be missed in the bad scenario, but met by a very small margin in the good scenario.
Looks like Osborne has scored a straightforward bullseye hit, Mr. Booth. Are you suggesting the OBR is wrong?
Sorry but the target in 2010 was not 2018-19 was it?
'to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) by the end of a rolling, five-year period, which is now 2018-19;'
I'm not sure I understand that. They're effectively saying that the govenment intends to balance the budget over a 5 year period but they've just changed the dates. To me that looks like the sort of spin you would expect from CCHQ not a supposedly independent body.
I thinkl Mr AveryLP's post at 11.44 is a good one and congratulations to him for making it. The fact that he has to shows what a general level of ignorance there is about 'deficit reduction'.
Another way to look at it is to consider the government's actual pre election promise set out in plain English, which was to eliminate the structural deficit over the life of the parliament. ie to eliminate that part of the inherited spending which could never be covered by the revenues the economy was capable of generating. On top of this or alongside it is the cyclical deficit caused by the recession. When the recession remained stubborn when the eurozone crisis hit, the govt did not squeeze further to meet a now outdated combined target, it kept to its plans to reduce the structural deficit but let the cyclical regulators do their work and let the date for a complete surplus slip back.
These were wise decisions and the govt and Osborne are to be commended for steering us through difficult waters.
It's nigh impossible to distinguish between an England football fan and a grizzly with toothache & a humour deficiency.
There's less to laugh at during the World Cup these days - the Scotland team don't even qualify!
My favourite part of these events is England fans warming the coals of their failure by clinging to the idea that they're not quite as shite as a country with less than a tenth of their population.
What are you talking about? Scotland's not a country. It's just a region of the UK.
Absolute and utter rubbish.
Scotland is a constituent country of the UK, in the same way Aruba is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Cook Islands are a constituent country of the New Zealand Realm.
The difference is that the latter two get an Olympic team whereas Scotland, by some bizarre quirk, doesn't, and has to play for Great Britain, which is an island and not a country.
Incorrect, Aruba and the Cook Islands are dependencies of their respective parent countries, the way that Pitcairn, The Cayman Islands, Jersey and the Isle of Man are (for example) to the UK. Scotland is an anomaly, it was formally incorporated into the Kingdom of Great Britain by the Act of Union, but the legal systems were not unified. That is part of the reason that it retains it's own national identity, a part of, but distinct from, the rest of the kingdom. It is this status that is under review in the referendum. Wales is a different kettle of fish. There is no nation of Wales, there is the nation of England and Wales which has existed as one unit since the 13th century. Scotland anomalous status will see it, at some point, go it's own way, there is no other logical route. They stuffed up the 1707 Act and it only came about through bribery in any case.
So could the UK negotiate access to the single market as an independent sovereign state and maintain control of its borders? Probably, Germany after all sends lost of cars here but not many immigrants, so what is important to Germany export of goods or export of people? I would think what would be more worrying for the EU is that a trade agreement would include a free market in services.
My assessment would be that that we could negotiate free access for goods without free movement of labour, but the sticking point would be services. Bear in mind that cross-border services are much, much more important to us than they are to our EU friends - in fact, quite a few of them would prefer it if we butted out of their financial and other markets.
The main point, though, is that the negotiation is much the same whether we renegotiate and stay in, or leave and negotiate a trade treaty. Either way we'll be negotiating with the same people over the same issues. The net outcome is unlikely to be radically different whichever we do.
Fully agree with that, Mr. N.. Our EU partners do not want a single market for services and so despite that fact that it is in all the treaties and they talk about it as if it had happened every time they mention the "Four Freedoms" (see this morning's news for an example) it has never happened and, probably, never will happen.
So stay in and put up with the bits that disadvantage us without getting the bits that do or pull out and get rid of at least some of the bits that disadvantage us. Movement of peoples would not stop if we were outside the EU, it went on before 1973, but the movement of peoples of no obvious benefit to the host country would be controllable.
If we want to be put of the EU but in the single market then we will have to agree to the free movement of labour. Why would the EU agree to anything different? Why would they agree to put themselves at a supposed disadvantage? Norway is not in the EU but part of its single markt and free movement of labour. If people want to say we should be out of the EU and out of the single market they have to make and prove (not just speculate) how that would be benefitial. We benefit greatly from inward investment thanks to the soingle market - just look at our car industry.
Being in the EEA may well suit us, its a point worth arguing. But it still leaves us closely linked to the EU and its single market and labour movement, although well out if the Euro and any other political linkage.
Dunno, it's a complete mess. It's a bit like the Californians voting both for lower taxes and for higher spending: if you have government by referendum, you end up with incoherence.
My understanding is that if the Swiss find it impossible to deliver the mandate of the referendum, they will need to calla new referendum giving a choice between alternative feasible options, which would be likely to be free movement plus previous agreements (with some tweaks) or no free movement minus some or all previous agreements. The referendum majority was narrow and I'd expect the Swiss, who are pretty pragmatic, to say oh well and settle for the former.
Scotland anomalous status will see it, at some point, go it's own way, there is no other logical route. They stuffed up the 1707 Act and it only came about through bribery in any case.
Dominic Cummings (Gove's ex spad) has done a blog and ouch, the most interesting observations from it
The second silliest error is to think that it is connected to a plot by me to make Gove leader. I’ve said hundreds of times off and on the record – MG would be a bad leader, he knows it, and so do his best friends.
and
ouchies for Dave
A few people such as Tim Bale have suggested Macmillan was quite a good prime minister. While I don’t think he was ‘good’, I do think he was a more serious character than Cameron – he was actually a prime minster whereas as far as one can tell Cameron seems to regard his role as the nation’s uber-pundit.
and
10. Cameron. At the PolEx party (18/6), Cameron said that I am a ‘career psychopath’.
A) No10′s first reaction was to decide not to react to my interview, then one of his friends pleaded with me to ‘leave him alone because Miliband would be even worse’ and another threatened me (incompetently). The fact that Cameron then blurts out an insult reviving the story four days later is an example of my point about the lack of focus in No10. If they can’t decide a consistent line on me, what chance on ISIS?!
Avery - so the deficit is down by £8bn over the year in which the economy has grown. Remind me how much Osborne was intending to reduce the deficit by this year in his 2010 budget. Was it £25bn? £30bn? Sticking to Plan A, eh?
Yes but if you subtract pension receipts, adjust for PSNI and higher SNP, then divide by 27 and subtract the number you first thought of, he's doing a tremendous job.
Dear Mr. Brooke
I am very pleased to note the progress you have made over the past few weeks in your economics studies.
Your conclusions are now correct and exemplary.
The only area I suggest you now work on is your workings and methods.
I thinkl Mr AveryLP's post at 11.44 is a good one and congratulations to him for making it. The fact that he has to shows what a general level of ignorance there is about 'deficit reduction'.
Another way to look at it is to consider the government's actual pre election promise set out in plain English, which was to eliminate the structural deficit over the life of the parliament. ie to eliminate that part of the inherited spending which could never be covered by the revenues the economy was capable of generating. On top of this or alongside it is the cyclical deficit caused by the recession. When the recession remained stubborn when the eurozone crisis hit, the govt did not squeeze further to meet a now outdated combined target, it kept to its plans to reduce the structural deficit but let the cyclical regulators do their work and let the date for a complete surplus slip back.
These were wise decisions and the govt and Osborne are to be commended for steering us through difficult waters.
Of course its relatively easy to check how much the government is borrowing, working out the structural deficit is fraught with difficulties. Osborne can always fiddle the figures to make the structural deficit look sound, whilst continually failing to get borrowing down by much as the financial times notes today. Just as with Brown an his golden rules, George is remarkably flexible.
If we want to be put of the EU but in the single market then we will have to agree to the free movement of labour. Why would the EU agree to anything different? Why would they agree to put themselves at a supposed disadvantage? Norway is not in the EU but part of its single markt and free movement of labour. If people want to say we should be out of the EU and out of the single market they have to make and prove (not just speculate) how that would be benefitial. We benefit greatly from inward investment thanks to the soingle market - just look at our car industry.
Being in the EEA may well suit us, its a point worth arguing. But it still leaves us closely linked to the EU and its single market and labour movement, although well out if the Euro and any other political linkage.
Now when I was working and going into a negotiation my starting point was what do we want to achieve? You starting point seems to be what do I think the people on the other side will let us achieve and that is where we should set our sights?
I am sure Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, who, it would seem, negotiates for a living might have some thoughts on the merits of the relative strategies.
Avery - so the deficit is down by £8bn over the year in which the economy has grown. Remind me how much Osborne was intending to reduce the deficit by this year in his 2010 budget. Was it £25bn? £30bn? Sticking to Plan A, eh?
Yes but if you subtract pension receipts, adjust for PSNI and higher SNP, then divide by 27 and subtract the number you first thought of, he's doing a tremendous job.
Dear Mr. Brooke
I am very pleased to note the progress you have made over the past few weeks in your economics studies.
Your conclusions are now correct and exemplary.
The only area I suggest you now work on is your workings and methods.
I remain confident of continued progress.
Yours as ever
Bardolf
Dear Mr Pole
I remain amused as ever at what you call economics.
Your chief economic success remains with the verite as ever.
Now go do some yellow boxes and pretend they are significant.
• to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) by the end of a rolling, five-year period, which is now 2018-19;
Are you suggesting the OBR is wrong?
If I read this correctly, Osborne has set himself a target which involves only forecasts, and not the actual levels of borrowing made.
I'm sure the OBR forecast that Osborne would meet this five year target in 2010 (for 2015), but those forecasts have not turned out too well, have they?
Meeting the Primary Fiscal Mandate is the overriding high level 'mission'.
Each year, principally in the budget speech, the government makes "illustrative financial projections" for the next four years Central Government Net Financing Requirement. These projections are not "forecasts" let alone "targets". They are used to assist forward planning and forecasting by the OBR and (and external) forecasting bodies. Their main purpose however is to provide the Debt Management Office with guidelines which influence gilt issuance strategy.
Osborne's 2010 financial projections have turned out to be remarkably accurate to date and compare very favourably with those made annually by the previous government's CoEs.
I repeat a post I made last month which states Osborne's 2010 forecasts and matches them to outturns as of April 2014:
Osborne's 2010 financial projections have turned out to be remarkably accurate to date
Oh, Avery!
You should have the intellectual confidence to defend Osborne's record for what it is. Throwing this kind of claim into the mix makes it seem like you think what he actually managed wasnt that impressive.
Osborne's 2010 financial projections have turned out to be remarkably accurate to date
Oh, Avery!
You should have the intellectual confidence to defend Osborne's record for what it is. Throwing this kind of claim into the mix makes it seem like you think what he actually managed wasnt that impressive.
A gentleman is a rank much below my own and as a Scottish noble I'm historically utterly unscrupulous and accordingly I may even pillage across the border into Bedfordshire for mere sport.
However in the spirit of fraternal PB concordat I acknowledge to you a minor reference to my otherwise outstandingly orchestrated and original missive to the great unwashed.
Nob-less Obleesse we can it.
Jack
Your response to PfP reminds me of a royal story.
Queen Mary was visiting a naval ship with her grandchildren, the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.
Princess Margaret was having difficulty negotiating a set of ladder steps and a naval officer intervened:
"Let me help you my lady", he said.
Margaret retorted: "I am a Princess not a Lady!".
To which Queen Mary is reported to have commented: "My granddaughter is indeed a Princess but with a little more time we hope she will also become a lady".
Perhaps Avery could come to IDS's aid with a few yellow boxes? The announcement of a further roll out of UC in the North East seems a significant step forward. It should be noted however, that those eligible are still in the "simplest" group, i.e. single unemployed with no children or disabilities.
The derivative of those values is interesting, though: +36, +21, +22.
One explanation for those figures is that the peak of borrowing came in a lot lower than originally forecast, undershooting in the early years, but ever since then the pace of deficit reduction has been slower than forecast, so that we're now behind the forecasted pace of deficit reduction.
Using your figures, and assuming that Gilt Redemptions were as forecast, the GNCR was:
Where's the deficit reduction? On those figures there has been none. Absolutely nada.
To their credit there are some righties who will face the reality of Osborne's debt mountain, but there are others so convinced that this is only ever a problem created by Labour that they won't see Osborne's failure to tackle it.
If Osborne's record had been that of a Labour Chancellor we would never hear the end of it.
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
Rory Mac picked the perfect time to announce he would represent Ireland in the Olympics.
Such an outrageous decision, golf? an Olympic sport, you're having a laugh.
Probably wouldn't get in Team GB - Rose, Westwood etc.
Gerrard merits that rating, but not for the goals - his tackle was poor for the first one, but hardly decisive, and the second one is just unfortunate, and far more culpability attaches to the centre-backs.
Avery - so the deficit is down by £8bn over the year in which the economy has grown. Remind me how much Osborne was intending to reduce the deficit by this year in his 2010 budget. Was it £25bn? £30bn? Sticking to Plan A, eh?
It all depends on how you define the "deficit".
Osborne's Primary Fiscal Mandate (adopted in 2010) was to plan public finances forward on a five year rolling basis so that the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget (CACB) will be in surplus by the fifth year. The OBR has repeatedly confirmed that this target is being and will continue to be met by the government. The latest OBR forecast is that a surplus on this measure will be realised in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
Quoting OBR direct from their March 2014 EFO:
In the June 2010 Budget, the Coalition Government set itself a medium-term fiscal mandate and a supplementary target, namely:
• to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) by the end of a rolling, five-year period, which is now 2018-19;
[...]
The Government’s ‘fiscal mandate’ requires it to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) – the amount the Government has to borrow to finance non-investment spending, adjusted for the state of the economy – five years ahead. In December, we forecast that the CACB would be in surplus by 1.6 per cent of GDP in 2018-19. We now forecast the surplus in 2018-19 to be 1.5 per cent of GDP, fractionally less than we forecast in December.
...
Looks like Osborne has scored a straightforward bullseye hit, Mr. Booth. Are you suggesting the OBR is wrong?
Sorry but the target in 2010 was not 2018-19 was it?
'to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) by the end of a rolling, five-year period, which is now 2018-19;'
I'm not sure I understand that. They're effectively saying that the govenment intends to balance the budget over a 5 year period but they've just changed the dates. To me that looks like the sort of spin you would expect from CCHQ not a supposedly independent body.
It sounds convoluted but is really quite simple and effective.
What it means is that every time the government plans public finances over a five year period it will aim, at a minimum, to generate a cyclically adjusted current account surplus within the fifth year. In other words it constrains government planning of revenues and expenditure to that end.
Dominic Cummings (Gove's ex spad) has done a blog and ouch, the most interesting observations from it
The second silliest error is to think that it is connected to a plot by me to make Gove leader. I’ve said hundreds of times off and on the record – MG would be a bad leader, he knows it, and so do his best friends.
and
ouchies for Dave
A few people such as Tim Bale have suggested Macmillan was quite a good prime minister. While I don’t think he was ‘good’, I do think he was a more serious character than Cameron – he was actually a prime minster whereas as far as one can tell Cameron seems to regard his role as the nation’s uber-pundit.
and
10. Cameron. At the PolEx party (18/6), Cameron said that I am a ‘career psychopath’.
A) No10′s first reaction was to decide not to react to my interview, then one of his friends pleaded with me to ‘leave him alone because Miliband would be even worse’ and another threatened me (incompetently). The fact that Cameron then blurts out an insult reviving the story four days later is an example of my point about the lack of focus in No10. If they can’t decide a consistent line on me, what chance on ISIS?!
It sounds convoluted but is really quite simple and effective.
What it means is that every time the government plans public finances over a five year period it will aim, at a minimum, to generate a cyclically adjusted current account surplus within the fifth year. In other words it constrains government planning of revenues and expenditure to that end.
I'm pretty sure that Darling's first budget would have passed under this sort of test. The reason being that economic forecast five years ahead are less than useless, which is the best that can be said for this target, which does so little to achieve its stated intention.
I get my media from a range of sources, so am quite capable of understanding the different claims. The presidential elections that were just held obviously did not include rebel held areas - the areas most sympathetic to the rebel cause and thus least supportive of Assad. In the 2007 election, Assad won 98% of the vote. If you really believe that is an honest result, when just a few years later huge protests emerged against the guy, then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I see Assad as what he is, a secular arab nationalist dictator. Though I must say, in that region, a comparatively benign one. No-one would deny the poor conditions for an election, but in this instance, he was surely damned if he held elections and damned if he didn't. He is married to a Sunni, his army contains a significant proportion of Sunnis, and the top military commander recently killed was Sunni.
But this isn't really about Assad, it's about Syria, which until recently was a cohesive and successful state, not the sectarian basket case that Hannan's deeply patronising article makes it out to be. I have every respect for the breadth of your reading and your understanding of this topic, but you cannot understand Syria without understanding US policy in the region and worldwide, which has been to wage irregular warfare and project 'soft power' by sponsoring minority and sectarian groups, funding and supporting insurgencies and colour revolutions, and aiding supportive regimes. We see this approach, outlined in the video I posted earlier, laid totally bare in Ukraine for example. This 'Arab Spring' worked immediately in Tunisia, Egypt, etc., but has foundered in Syria. That can only be put down to a far broader support for the regime, and the integrity of the Syrian state than the Western media narrative gives credit to.
Osborne's 2010 financial projections have turned out to be remarkably accurate to date
Oh, Avery!
You should have the intellectual confidence to defend Osborne's record for what it is. Throwing this kind of claim into the mix makes it seem like you think what he actually managed wasnt that impressive.
Intellectual self-confidence is a left-wing concept, Neil.
I just report the truth.
The achilles heel of Osborne's five year projection lies in the final year of this parliament where, unless an unpredictable miracle occurs, will result in borrowing figures significantly above the 2010 projection.
But this may be deliberate. Did you note that George, when addressing the banksters in Mansion House last week, stated that the government will have reduced the deficit by "50%" by the end of its term, This is the first time a senior minister has moved up from the "30%" boast which has stuck since 2010.
And talking of first terms, he also expressed his hope that the speech wouldn't be his last. George has not only predicted a falling deficit and a general election victory but he has also abrogated prime ministerial powers by appointing himself Chancellor for a second term.
Are there no limits to this man's omnipotence?
P.S. Do you really think 50% deficit reduction is a political or economic goal? I'm having trouble working this one out.
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
Rory Mac picked the perfect time to announce he would represent Ireland in the Olympics.
Such an outrageous decision, golf? an Olympic sport, you're having a laugh.
Probably wouldn't get in Team GB - Rose, Westwood etc.
If he declared for GB he'd have been their top ranked player and an automatic pick.
(If the selection were made today, that is. It would be a very brave person to predict that Lee Westwood will overhaul him in the world rankings in the next two years.)
Osborne's 2010 financial projections have turned out to be remarkably accurate to date
Oh, Avery!
You should have the intellectual confidence to defend Osborne's record for what it is. Throwing this kind of claim into the mix makes it seem like you think what he actually managed wasnt that impressive.
Intellectual self-confidence is a left-wing concept, Neil.
I would like to see you apply your intellectual self-confidence to Osborne's other (more objective) fiscal target, Avery.
Osborne's 2010 financial projections have turned out to be remarkably accurate to date
Oh, Avery!
You should have the intellectual confidence to defend Osborne's record for what it is. Throwing this kind of claim into the mix makes it seem like you think what he actually managed wasnt that impressive.
P.S. Do you really think 50% deficit reduction is a political or economic goal? I'm having trouble working this one out.
All I know is that when Labour proposed that, it wasn't deemed good enough.
As I remember getting irate watching Cameron on telly. 'It's not good enough to say we'll get the job half done, we've got to get the whole job done.' Silly politicking then and failed policy now.
It's true to say the late Princess Margaret was well known for insisting on her full royal dignity, status and precedence even within the confines of the royal family.
If we want to be put of the EU but in the single market then we will have to agree to the free movement of labour. Why would the EU agree to anything different? Why would they agree to put themselves at a supposed disadvantage? Norway is not in the EU but part of its single markt and free movement of labour. If people want to say we should be out of the EU and out of the single market they have to make and prove (not just speculate) how that would be benefitial. We benefit greatly from inward investment thanks to the soingle market - just look at our car industry.
Being in the EEA may well suit us, its a point worth arguing. But it still leaves us closely linked to the EU and its single market and labour movement, although well out if the Euro and any other political linkage.
Hang on a minute, the EU tells us all the time that free movement of labour is GOOD for the UK. If they believe free movement is beneficial, then they would view the UK opting out as an advantage to the rest of Europe and a disadvantage to us. If they believe it is not beneficial, why the hell don't they scrap it?
Requiring impossible "proof" for a counter-factual is absurd, and just a ridiculous tyranny of the status quo. You obviously need more than speculation, and policy should be conducted on the basis of available evidence and sound logic. On this, the case for leaving the EU is clear.
FDI is evidently an important thing to have. Investment is chosen by individuals and companies on the basis of the likely return on that invested capital. Thus the best way to raise investment is to raise total demand that UK firms can sell to.
So how to maximise that demand? Most reasonable EU supporters accept we would be able to get some sort of trade deal with the EU if we left, and most reasonable eurosceptics would accept we would not get 100% of what we have now. Plus even in place where we lose free access, a lot of trade would so happen. So it's a question whether that fraction of EU trade that we lose is worth more to UK gross sales than the extra benefit we would get from trade deals we can sign with everyone else, and all the regulatory bureaucracy we could reduce.
This is the real story today, the growing economy is not seeing a growth in tax receipts, so no wonder Avery wants to bury us in detail.
Complete bunkum, Mr. Booth.
First, refer to the ONS commentary on government receipts and expenditure here requoted:
The underlying revenue and expenditure figures for the month appear solid:
Revenue: Taxes on production in May 2014 were £18.6 billion, a £1.0 billion, or 5.5% increase compared to the same month last year. Of these taxes VAT receipts increased by £0.5 billion (or 4.9%) to £9.9 billion, while Stamp duties (on shares, land & property) increased by £0.3 billion (or 28.2%) to £1.2 billion, compared to the same month last year.
Taxes on Income and Wealth reported in May 2014 was £11.9 billion, a £0.1 billion, or 0.4% increase compared to the same month last year.
Corporation tax in May 2014 was £1.5 billion, an increase of £0.2 billion, or 17.5% compared with May 2013.
Now take into account the OBR commentary on the May PSF Bulletin as released in the past hour:
Over the first two months of 2014-15, central government receipts growth has been weak. Excluding APF transfers, receipts are up just 1.4 per cent, compared with a full year forecast of 5.2 per cent. Subdued year-on-year growth in central government accrued receipts so far in 2014-15 largely reflects the front-loading of receipts last year. In particular, that reflected income shifting of PAYE and NIC liabilities related to the reduction in the additional rate of income tax to 45p and the accruing of £0.9 billion of Swiss capital tax receipts to the single month of May 2013. Other tax streams have shown stronger growth so far in 2014-15, with accrued VAT and stamp duty land tax up by 5.7 per cent and 30.2 per cent on a year earlier respectively.
Last year’s front-loading means receipts growth in 2014-15 is likely to be end-loaded, primarily due to the timing of self-assessment income tax receipts through the year. The March EFO forecast for SA income tax assumes a 30 per cent rise in receipts in 2014-15, in part related to the income-shifting of SA liabilities due to the reduction in the additional rate. This will boost SA receipts due at the end of January 2015 when the final tax payments on 2013-14 liabilities are paid. (SA is paid with a one-year lag, so last year’s boost to PAYE will be seen this year for SA.
And this is before we take into account the impact of revisions which are generally positive when the economy is growing due to the ONS basing 60% of its first estimate on prior data rather than departmental returns. For example, April 2014's net borrowing forecast was revised up by £0.6 principally due to this lagging effect.
Note also that the distortions arising from introduction of the 45% tax rate now seem to be unwinding with income and wealth taxes showing an increase in May compared with a large decrease in April.
Of course the argument works better for the 'European cosmopolitans' than it does for the left-behind and the under-educated. But perhaps the root problem is that we have so many who are left behind and under-educated in the first place.
Here’s a probably controversial question: Is class an element of our footballing underachievement?
I see in the papers today that UK sporting success comes disproportionally from the private sector. I also note that Dutch/Italian/German/etc footballers are notably more articulate/educated than our own. Hell they mostly speak English alot better than Wayne.
Makes me wonder if mental clockspeed / general articulacy is in any way connected to footballing capability. Correlation is not causation. But….hmm….Maybe it's something to do with ruthlessness and desire to win.
All I know is that when Labour proposed that, it wasn't deemed good enough. .
And given the performance of the EU economy in 2011/2 they would have missed their target by a mile. The Tories haven't achieved their stretch target, but they've done credibly well in the circumstances.
Yes, there are a smattering of Sunnis involved with the Assad regime, but the vast bulk of his regime was Alawite, and was resented by the bulk of the Syrian population. The fact you state his rule is "benign" after the mass slaughters his regime has conducted over the last few years is incredibly inflammatory, and demeaning the lives of thousands of innocents that have been killed by it. You can use the civil war as an excuse for this election, but not for the many, many elections fixed by Assad and his father over the years.
Your analysis of American foreign policy is also simplified and, frankly, incorrect. Ben Ali and Mubarak were American allies, and the US did not fund the Arab Spring against them. They did, however, accept (at least for a time in the case in Egypt) the democratic aspirations of the peoples of those countries and didn't want to back strong men against popular uprisings.
In the case of Syria, Obama specifically tried to avoid getting involved for a very long period, despite very barbaric massacres of civilians by the regime. It was only when the regime crossed his red line that he was forced to get involved, as US credibility was on the line. The reason why the regime survived in Syria, and not in Egypt and Tunisia, was because of the sectarian split there, with minority groups remaining loyal to the dictator rather than rule by another sectarian split. As Tunisia and Egypt are ethnically uniform, that was not an issue there. In addition, the Tunisian and Egyptian were partially propped up in power by their American ally. When the US told them their game was up, they had to leave. It's the difference between the US supporting popular pushes towards electoral democracy and Russia supporting brutal autocrats.
Of course the argument works better for the 'European cosmopolitans' than it does for the left-behind and the under-educated. But perhaps the root problem is that we have so many who are left behind and under-educated in the first place.
I love it how pieces like that one can say things like "rejection of freedom of movement expresses a populist and frankly nationalist impulse devoid of much thought about how exactly this roll back of open borders might be implemented in a world driven by global and regional economic forces", and yet fails to engage on any of the many detailed, thoughtful criticisms of mass migration. So which is the side being thoughtless, and which is the side engaging in the topic argument by argument?
These were wise decisions and the govt and Osborne are to be commended for steering us through difficult waters.
A perfectly plausible argument.
It's the argument that the Government met its fiscal targets while keeping to its fiscal plans that is intellectually dishonest.
Performance is judged mainly on meeting projections.
I have never claimed that George has met his targets as a result of being inflexible on implementing his original fiscal plans. His performance is very much in the "all the right notes in the wrong order" tradition.
That said, there has been both commitment to and achievement of lower actual borrowing by the government and this in the end is what counts.
Just as Mr. Brooke has reached the right conclusion about St. George ("tremendous job") any inquiry into the process of how this conclusion (or George's fiscal outturn) was reached is best avoided.
Here’s a probably controversial question: Is class an element of our footballing underachievement?
I see in the papers today that UK sporting success comes disproportionally from the private sector. I also note that Dutch/Italian/German/etc footballers are notably more articulate/educated than our own. Hell they mostly speak English alot better than Wayne.
Makes me wonder if mental clockspeed / general articulacy is in any way connected to footballing capability. Correlation is not causation. But….hmm….Maybe it's something to do with ruthlessness and desire to win.
I wouldn't want to intrude into private English grief too much but to my mind England as a team seem to be a little less than the sum of their parts.
Also I feel England have been a wee bit unlucky. Both matches might easily have been draws. However the key for me is the prowess and leadership of the manager and captain. Here I think England fall a little short that in a tight group has made the difference.
Notwithstanding the above, tournament football can be an odd creature and if England proceed to the knockout round, albeit on goal difference, then stranger things have happened in sport than a team starting badly coming good in the later stages.
Scotland anomalous status will see it, at some point, go it's own way, there is no other logical route. They stuffed up the 1707 Act and it only came about through bribery in any case.
The alternative was national bankruptcy.
Which with the SNP's spending plans, no currency union and Edinburgh's role as LOLR.........
Here’s a probably controversial question: Is class an element of our footballing underachievement?
I see in the papers today that UK sporting success comes disproportionally from the private sector. I also note that Dutch/Italian/German/etc footballers are notably more articulate/educated than our own. Hell they mostly speak English alot better than Wayne.
Makes me wonder if mental clockspeed / general articulacy is in any way connected to footballing capability. Correlation is not causation. But….hmm….Maybe it's something to do with ruthlessness and desire to win.
I remember some years ago staying at the Hotel Marina in Denmark, which turned out to be where the Danish national team (then very successful) were temporarily based. My wife was alarmed, fearing that the night would be filled with riotous parties, etc. We didn't hear a sound, and the only sign of their presence was that all the copies of the broadsheet newspapers had been taken next morning. My wife told the receptionist that she was relieved - the receptionist looked bemused, and said that surely the team was just behaving normally, like any other guests.
That said, I know lots of articulate people, including myself, who you really would not want anywhere near a football team. Imagine if our squad was led by Oliver Letwin, Frank Field and Norman Lamb. "Ah, a ball. Why do you think that it's round rather than egg-shaped? Interesting point, let's sit down and discuss it..."
Osborne's 2010 financial projections have turned out to be remarkably accurate to date
Oh, Avery!
You should have the intellectual confidence to defend Osborne's record for what it is. Throwing this kind of claim into the mix makes it seem like you think what he actually managed wasnt that impressive.
Intellectual self-confidence is a left-wing concept, Neil.
I would like to see you apply your intellectual self-confidence to Osborne's other (more objective) fiscal target, Avery.
The secondary target?
Although the OBR are still predicting (March 2014 EFO) that Osborne will miss the secondary target by a year, I think there is a reasonable chance (say 40%) that he will make it.
See the current trend. This looks very much as if the ratio is topping out at the moment. It won't require much additional GDP growth over latest OBR forecast (which was conservatively estimating 0.5% growth per quarter for this fiscal year) or much improvement in receipts affecting PSND ex for the target to be met this fiscal year.
Public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP at market prices
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 /11 /12 /13 /14 /15
April 56.5 65.9 70.1 73.8 75.7 May 57.2 66.4 70.4 74.1 76.1 June 58.6 67.7 71.8 74.8 .. July 60.4 67.2 71.2 74.1 .. August 60.8 68.1 71.6 73.8 .. September 62.3 68.5 72.8 74.6 .. October 62.4 68.3 72.8 74.1 .. November 63.4 68.9 73.5 74.7 .. December 65.0 70.5 74.8 75.8 .. January 64.0 69.2 73.0 74.7 .. February 64.2 69.5 72.9 74.8 .. March 65.9 71.2 74.2 76.1 ..
The problem however is that it is all change in debt presentation from September 2014 onwards when ESA2010 and other major changes are due to be implemented by the ONS. Under the new methods PSNB ex is due to rise around £120 bn, so by the time of the GE this target may be lost in translation.
Here’s a probably controversial question: Is class an element of our footballing underachievement?
I see in the papers today that UK sporting success comes disproportionally from the private sector. I also note that Dutch/Italian/German/etc footballers are notably more articulate/educated than our own. Hell they mostly speak English alot better than Wayne.
Makes me wonder if mental clockspeed / general articulacy is in any way connected to footballing capability. Correlation is not causation. But….hmm….Maybe it's something to do with ruthlessness and desire to win.
I wouldn't want to intrude into private English grief too much but to my mind England as a team seem to be a little less than the sum of their parts.
Also I feel England have been a wee bit unlucky. Both matches might easily have been draws. However the key for me is the prowess and leadership of the manager and captain. Here I think England fall a little short that in a tight group has made the difference.
Notwithstanding the above, tournament football can be an odd creature and if England proceed to the knockout round, albeit on goal difference, then stranger things have happened in sport than a team starting badly coming good in the later stages.
So cheer Italy and cross all your limbs.
Indeed. Who can forget Denmark winning the Euros when they didn't even qualify for the tournament?! We can but dream, until 7pm at least ;-)
Scotland anomalous status will see it, at some point, go it's own way, there is no other logical route. They stuffed up the 1707 Act and it only came about through bribery in any case.
The alternative was national bankruptcy.
Which with the SNP's spending plans, no currency union and Edinburgh's role as LOLR.........
More Tory lies , Scotland was not bankrupt in 1707 , that is just usual Unionist wishful thinking and usual Carlotta vomit is as you expect just a pack of lies.
Here’s a probably controversial question: Is class an element of our footballing underachievement?
I see in the papers today that UK sporting success comes disproportionally from the private sector. I also note that Dutch/Italian/German/etc footballers are notably more articulate/educated than our own. Hell they mostly speak English alot better than Wayne.
Makes me wonder if mental clockspeed / general articulacy is in any way connected to footballing capability. Correlation is not causation. But….hmm….Maybe it's something to do with ruthlessness and desire to win.
I've thought this for years. To reach your potential you've got to be a good trainer. Thick chavvy footballers don't tend to stay on the rails very easily when being handed millions of quid at 18.
Compare the physique of Rooney to Ronaldo for example.
Here’s a probably controversial question: Is class an element of our footballing underachievement?
I see in the papers today that UK sporting success comes disproportionally from the private sector. I also note that Dutch/Italian/German/etc footballers are notably more articulate/educated than our own. Hell they mostly speak English alot better than Wayne.
Makes me wonder if mental clockspeed / general articulacy is in any way connected to footballing capability. Correlation is not causation. But….hmm….Maybe it's something to do with ruthlessness and desire to win.
I've thought this for years. To reach your potential you've got to be a good trainer. Thick chavvy footballers don't tend to stay on the rails very easily when being handed millions of quid at 18.
Compare the physique of Rooney to Ronaldo for example.
I'd have thought a big part of that is genetics.
Isn't Ryan Giggs a working class lad, yet has clearly led a healthy lifestyle long term.
This is a broader issue than sport. The cost of obesity to this country must be in the billions, in terms of healthcare costs and lost work hours.
Mr Socrates - you wriggle by saying 'Requiring impossible "proof" for a counter-factual is absurd,' What is absurd is pretending that we can somehow leave the EU and get a deal which is going to be more advantageous to us, which would thus assume that it would be less advantageous to remaining EU members. We have no idea what would happen if we upped and left the EU and on what basis any nice sounding 'trade deal' would or could be made. And this is before we get into whether or not it would require us to join Schengen. Studies do show the free movement of labour (to work) is a benefit to the EU. They will still get that benefit if we leave. if we want that benefit for ourselves it will have to cut both ways.
Trade is good for everybody but it seems a flight of fancy for anybody to pretend that any likely outcome for a 'trade deal' would leave us an any different situation to the one we find ourselves in now. If Britain is to protect its inward investment and its industries that benefit hugely from the single market it could not afford to ignore these issues in negotiating this holy grail of sceptics, a 'trade deal'. It's hard to see how we could end up better off this way rather than negotiating whilst still in the EU. The question thus remains - why do right wingers tear their hair out and present a golden opportunity for labour to regain office? Just what are people arguing over? It strikes me its the very existence of the EU itself. Well I have news for you - its not going to go away and we have to live with it. I'm not a big fan of the EU, I don't see why it needs a parliament for one thing, but I'm a bit scepticical about the sceptics.
Comments
Osborne's Primary Fiscal Mandate (adopted in 2010) was to plan public finances forward on a five year rolling basis so that the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget (CACB) will be in surplus by the fifth year. The OBR has repeatedly confirmed that this target is being and will continue to be met by the government. The latest OBR forecast is that a surplus on this measure will be realised in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
Quoting OBR direct from their March 2014 EFO:
In the June 2010 Budget, the Coalition Government set itself a medium-term fiscal mandate and a supplementary target, namely:
• to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) by the end of a rolling, five-year period, which is now 2018-19;
[...]
The Government’s ‘fiscal mandate’ requires it to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) – the amount the Government has to borrow to finance non-investment spending, adjusted for the state of the economy – five years ahead. In December, we forecast that the CACB would be in surplus by 1.6 per cent of GDP in 2018-19. We now forecast the surplus in 2018-19 to be 1.5 per cent of GDP, fractionally less than we forecast in December.
We have looked at two scenarios where interest rates are higher than assumed in our central forecast. In one scenario, that happens for good reasons – stronger growth in household incomes and company profits. In the other scenario, it happens for bad reasons – instability in emerging markets intensifies, triggering risk aversion that drives up credit spreads meaning interest rates facing households and companies rise without corresponding increases in incomes and profits. The Government would continue to meet the fiscal mandate in both scenarios, reflecting the substantial CACB surplus in 2018-19 in our central forecast. The supplementary debt target would be missed in the bad scenario, but met by a very small margin in the good scenario.
Looks like Osborne has scored a straightforward bullseye hit, Mr. Booth. Are you suggesting the OBR is wrong?
Surprised that Osborne wasn't able to kill off, it seems useless and expensive looking from the outside in. Still let's see what happens.
“The company’s [Takeda] globalisation is a wrong globalisation. It should be globalised as a Japanese company. However, from the top to the bottom ,there are hundreds of non-Japanese working in the company in Japan,” said Yujiro Hara, a former head of Takeda’s real estate subsidiary who represents the group.
“We say it was acquired by a foreign capital. We cannot accept it,” he added. “Three main executive positions, finance, HR and purchase, are taken by foreigners.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bdf8abd2-f84c-11e3-a333-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz35AuOWLki
A gentleman is a rank much below my own and as a Scottish noble I'm historically utterly unscrupulous and accordingly I may even pillage across the border into Bedfordshire for mere sport.
However in the spirit of fraternal PB concordat I acknowledge to you a minor reference to my otherwise outstandingly orchestrated and original missive to the great unwashed.
Nob-less Obleesse we can it.
I'm sure the OBR forecast that Osborne would meet this five year target in 2010 (for 2015), but those forecasts have not turned out too well, have they?
Do the people of Watford (or rather the majority of people in Watford) want a Labour government? If not then they will be aware of the position in their own constituency and will thus consider how to vote.
If Watford were like many constituencies a 'safe' seat then they might consider all sorts of flights of fancy when it comes to a vote, but it is not. The ultimate question they face up to is, 'do we want a Labour Government'. How will non labour voters react and vote in those circumstances?
I'm sure Avery will only be too delighted to provide the numbers on how that is going.
His name will also go in the book .....
Cue "Dad's Army" sketch ....
More generally, I don't think external tariffs are a big sticking point. We've won that argument. Whilst I'm sure it won't always be a smooth ride, the clear direction of travel internationally, including on the part of the EU, is towards dismantling barriers to trade. In fact, the EU Commission are positively on our side of the debate.
'to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) by the end of a rolling, five-year period, which is now 2018-19;'
I'm not sure I understand that. They're effectively saying that the govenment intends to balance the budget over a 5 year period but they've just changed the dates. To me that looks like the sort of spin you would expect from CCHQ not a supposedly independent body.
We could play Australia, Spain and a few others and have a real chance of winning something. It might encourage Scotland to qualify too.
The fact that he has to shows what a general level of ignorance there is about 'deficit reduction'.
Another way to look at it is to consider the government's actual pre election promise set out in plain English, which was to eliminate the structural deficit over the life of the parliament. ie to eliminate that part of the inherited spending which could never be covered by the revenues the economy was capable of generating. On top of this or alongside it is the cyclical deficit caused by the recession.
When the recession remained stubborn when the eurozone crisis hit, the govt did not squeeze further to meet a now outdated combined target, it kept to its plans to reduce the structural deficit but let the cyclical regulators do their work and let the date for a complete surplus slip back.
These were wise decisions and the govt and Osborne are to be commended for steering us through difficult waters.
It's the argument that the Government met its fiscal targets while keeping to its fiscal plans that is intellectually dishonest.
Audience ejects crowd-surfer from classical concert
Scientist is thrown out of "accessible and informal" classical concert by fellow audience members after attempting to crowd-surf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/10913904/Audience-ejects-crowd-surfer-from-classical-concert.html
Aruba and the Cook Islands are dependencies of their respective parent countries, the way that Pitcairn, The Cayman Islands, Jersey and the Isle of Man are (for example) to the UK.
Scotland is an anomaly, it was formally incorporated into the Kingdom of Great Britain by the Act of Union, but the legal systems were not unified. That is part of the reason that it retains it's own national identity, a part of, but distinct from, the rest of the kingdom. It is this status that is under review in the referendum.
Wales is a different kettle of fish. There is no nation of Wales, there is the nation of England and Wales which has existed as one unit since the 13th century. Scotland anomalous status will see it, at some point, go it's own way, there is no other logical route. They stuffed up the 1707 Act and it only came about through bribery in any case.
If people want to say we should be out of the EU and out of the single market they have to make and prove (not just speculate) how that would be benefitial. We benefit greatly from inward investment thanks to the soingle market - just look at our car industry.
Being in the EEA may well suit us, its a point worth arguing. But it still leaves us closely linked to the EU and its single market and labour movement, although well out if the Euro and any other political linkage.
The voters have judged him a success, whereas toxic Ed Miliband's ratings are lower than Nick Clegg.
Also worth keeping an eye on the weather forecast.
One final moan about the World Cup; I reckon Suarez cheated for the second goal.
I'd assumed they'd all agreed on no hard shots before the match. England kept to the bargain anyway.
The second silliest error is to think that it is connected to a plot by me to make Gove leader. I’ve said hundreds of times off and on the record – MG would be a bad leader, he knows it, and so do his best friends.
and
ouchies for Dave
A few people such as Tim Bale have suggested Macmillan was quite a good prime minister. While I don’t think he was ‘good’, I do think he was a more serious character than Cameron – he was actually a prime minster whereas as far as one can tell Cameron seems to regard his role as the nation’s uber-pundit.
and
10. Cameron. At the PolEx party (18/6), Cameron said that I am a ‘career psychopath’.
A) No10′s first reaction was to decide not to react to my interview, then one of his friends pleaded with me to ‘leave him alone because Miliband would be even worse’ and another threatened me (incompetently). The fact that Cameron then blurts out an insult reviving the story four days later is an example of my point about the lack of focus in No10. If they can’t decide a consistent line on me, what chance on ISIS?!
http://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/a-few-responses-to-comments-misconceptions-etc-about-my-times-interview/
I am very pleased to note the progress you have made over the past few weeks in your economics studies.
Your conclusions are now correct and exemplary.
The only area I suggest you now work on is your workings and methods.
I remain confident of continued progress.
Yours as ever
Bardolf
Unfortunately, it was 'the wrong kind kind of pride'.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f4798152-f858-11e3-a333-00144feabdc0.html#axzz35B3by4M9
This is the real story today, the growing economy is not seeing a growth in tax receipts, so no wonder Avery wants to bury us in detail.
I am sure Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, who, it would seem, negotiates for a living might have some thoughts on the merits of the relative strategies.
I remain amused as ever at what you call economics.
Your chief economic success remains with the verite as ever.
Now go do some yellow boxes and pretend they are significant.
Yours
Herr Brooke.
Each year, principally in the budget speech, the government makes "illustrative financial projections" for the next four years Central Government Net Financing Requirement. These projections are not "forecasts" let alone "targets". They are used to assist forward planning and forecasting by the OBR and (and external) forecasting bodies. Their main purpose however is to provide the Debt Management Office with guidelines which influence gilt issuance strategy.
Osborne's 2010 financial projections have turned out to be remarkably accurate to date and compare very favourably with those made annually by the previous government's CoEs.
I repeat a post I made last month which states Osborne's 2010 forecasts and matches them to outturns as of April 2014: Even Neil would admit this is gold medal shooting.
right on cue :-)
You should have the intellectual confidence to defend Osborne's record for what it is. Throwing this kind of claim into the mix makes it seem like you think what he actually managed wasnt that impressive.
A gentleman is a rank much below my own and as a Scottish noble I'm historically utterly unscrupulous and accordingly I may even pillage across the border into Bedfordshire for mere sport.
However in the spirit of fraternal PB concordat I acknowledge to you a minor reference to my otherwise outstandingly orchestrated and original missive to the great unwashed.
Nob-less Obleesse we can it.
Jack
Your response to PfP reminds me of a royal story.
Queen Mary was visiting a naval ship with her grandchildren, the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.
Princess Margaret was having difficulty negotiating a set of ladder steps and a naval officer intervened:
"Let me help you my lady", he said.
Margaret retorted: "I am a Princess not a Lady!".
To which Queen Mary is reported to have commented: "My granddaughter is indeed a Princess but with a little more time we hope she will also become a lady".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2014/article-2663511/Steven-Gerrards-display-against-Uruguay-bad-Spanish-newspaper-AS-refused-rating.html
Great research and an even better point about England having to delay their goal scoring!
Simply superb.
@Isam - that is value.
The announcement of a further roll out of UC in the North East seems a significant step forward.
It should be noted however, that those eligible are still in the "simplest" group, i.e. single unemployed with no children or disabilities.
+36, +21, +22.
One explanation for those figures is that the peak of borrowing came in a lot lower than originally forecast, undershooting in the early years, but ever since then the pace of deficit reduction has been slower than forecast, so that we're now behind the forecasted pace of deficit reduction.
Using your figures, and assuming that Gilt Redemptions were as forecast, the GNCR was: Where's the deficit reduction? On those figures there has been none. Absolutely nada.
To their credit there are some righties who will face the reality of Osborne's debt mountain, but there are others so convinced that this is only ever a problem created by Labour that they won't see Osborne's failure to tackle it.
If Osborne's record had been that of a Labour Chancellor we would never hear the end of it.
What it means is that every time the government plans public finances over a five year period it will aim, at a minimum, to generate a cyclically adjusted current account surplus within the fifth year. In other words it constrains government planning of revenues and expenditure to that end.
But this isn't really about Assad, it's about Syria, which until recently was a cohesive and successful state, not the sectarian basket case that Hannan's deeply patronising article makes it out to be. I have every respect for the breadth of your reading and your understanding of this topic, but you cannot understand Syria without understanding US policy in the region and worldwide, which has been to wage irregular warfare and project 'soft power' by sponsoring minority and sectarian groups, funding and supporting insurgencies and colour revolutions, and aiding supportive regimes. We see this approach, outlined in the video I posted earlier, laid totally bare in Ukraine for example. This 'Arab Spring' worked immediately in Tunisia, Egypt, etc., but has foundered in Syria. That can only be put down to a far broader support for the regime, and the integrity of the Syrian state than the Western media narrative gives credit to.
I just report the truth.
The achilles heel of Osborne's five year projection lies in the final year of this parliament where, unless an unpredictable miracle occurs, will result in borrowing figures significantly above the 2010 projection.
But this may be deliberate. Did you note that George, when addressing the banksters in Mansion House last week, stated that the government will have reduced the deficit by "50%" by the end of its term, This is the first time a senior minister has moved up from the "30%" boast which has stuck since 2010.
And talking of first terms, he also expressed his hope that the speech wouldn't be his last. George has not only predicted a falling deficit and a general election victory but he has also abrogated prime ministerial powers by appointing himself Chancellor for a second term.
Are there no limits to this man's omnipotence?
P.S. Do you really think 50% deficit reduction is a political or economic goal? I'm having trouble working this one out.
(If the selection were made today, that is. It would be a very brave person to predict that Lee Westwood will overhaul him in the world rankings in the next two years.)
As I remember getting irate watching Cameron on telly. 'It's not good enough to say we'll get the job half done, we've got to get the whole job done.' Silly politicking then and failed policy now.
Mods, please excuse this but I shall deviate from my normal analytical style and say this:
@luckyguy1983 You're an absolute [moderated] idiot.
It's true to say the late Princess Margaret was well known for insisting on her full royal dignity, status and precedence even within the confines of the royal family.
Requiring impossible "proof" for a counter-factual is absurd, and just a ridiculous tyranny of the status quo. You obviously need more than speculation, and policy should be conducted on the basis of available evidence and sound logic. On this, the case for leaving the EU is clear.
FDI is evidently an important thing to have. Investment is chosen by individuals and companies on the basis of the likely return on that invested capital. Thus the best way to raise investment is to raise total demand that UK firms can sell to.
So how to maximise that demand? Most reasonable EU supporters accept we would be able to get some sort of trade deal with the EU if we left, and most reasonable eurosceptics would accept we would not get 100% of what we have now. Plus even in place where we lose free access, a lot of trade would so happen. So it's a question whether that fraction of EU trade that we lose is worth more to UK gross sales than the extra benefit we would get from trade deals we can sign with everyone else, and all the regulatory bureaucracy we could reduce.
This is the real story today, the growing economy is not seeing a growth in tax receipts, so no wonder Avery wants to bury us in detail.
Complete bunkum, Mr. Booth.
First, refer to the ONS commentary on government receipts and expenditure here requoted:
The underlying revenue and expenditure figures for the month appear solid:
Revenue: Taxes on production in May 2014 were £18.6 billion, a £1.0 billion, or 5.5% increase compared to the same month last year. Of these taxes VAT receipts increased by £0.5 billion (or 4.9%) to £9.9 billion, while Stamp duties (on shares, land & property) increased by £0.3 billion (or 28.2%) to £1.2 billion, compared to the same month last year.
Taxes on Income and Wealth reported in May 2014 was £11.9 billion, a £0.1 billion, or 0.4% increase compared to the same month last year.
Corporation tax in May 2014 was £1.5 billion, an increase of £0.2 billion, or 17.5% compared with May 2013.
Now take into account the OBR commentary on the May PSF Bulletin as released in the past hour:
Over the first two months of 2014-15, central government receipts growth has been weak. Excluding APF transfers, receipts are up just 1.4 per cent, compared with a full year forecast of 5.2 per cent. Subdued year-on-year growth in central government accrued receipts so far in 2014-15 largely reflects the front-loading of receipts last year. In particular, that reflected income shifting of PAYE and NIC liabilities related to the reduction in the additional rate of income tax to 45p and the accruing of £0.9 billion of Swiss capital tax receipts to the single month of May 2013. Other tax streams have shown stronger growth so far in 2014-15, with accrued VAT and stamp duty land tax up by 5.7 per cent and 30.2 per cent on a year earlier respectively.
Last year’s front-loading means receipts growth in 2014-15 is likely to be end-loaded, primarily due to the timing of self-assessment income tax receipts through the year. The March EFO forecast for SA income tax assumes a 30 per cent rise in receipts in 2014-15, in part related to the income-shifting of SA liabilities due to the reduction in the additional rate. This will boost SA receipts due at the end of January 2015 when the final tax payments on 2013-14 liabilities are paid. (SA is paid with a one-year lag, so last year’s boost to PAYE will be seen this year for SA.
And this is before we take into account the impact of revisions which are generally positive when the economy is growing due to the ONS basing 60% of its first estimate on prior data rather than departmental returns. For example, April 2014's net borrowing forecast was revised up by £0.6 principally due to this lagging effect.
Note also that the distortions arising from introduction of the 45% tax rate now seem to be unwinding with income and wealth taxes showing an increase in May compared with a large decrease in April.
http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=4670&title=A-tightly-bordered-EU-is-at-odds-with-Britains-openness
Of course the argument works better for the 'European cosmopolitans' than it does for the left-behind and the under-educated. But perhaps the root problem is that we have so many who are left behind and under-educated in the first place.
I see in the papers today that UK sporting success comes disproportionally from the private sector. I also note that Dutch/Italian/German/etc footballers are notably more articulate/educated than our own. Hell they mostly speak English alot better than Wayne.
Makes me wonder if mental clockspeed / general articulacy is in any way connected to footballing capability. Correlation is not causation. But….hmm….Maybe it's something to do with ruthlessness and desire to win.
Your analysis of American foreign policy is also simplified and, frankly, incorrect. Ben Ali and Mubarak were American allies, and the US did not fund the Arab Spring against them. They did, however, accept (at least for a time in the case in Egypt) the democratic aspirations of the peoples of those countries and didn't want to back strong men against popular uprisings.
In the case of Syria, Obama specifically tried to avoid getting involved for a very long period, despite very barbaric massacres of civilians by the regime. It was only when the regime crossed his red line that he was forced to get involved, as US credibility was on the line. The reason why the regime survived in Syria, and not in Egypt and Tunisia, was because of the sectarian split there, with minority groups remaining loyal to the dictator rather than rule by another sectarian split. As Tunisia and Egypt are ethnically uniform, that was not an issue there. In addition, the Tunisian and Egyptian were partially propped up in power by their American ally. When the US told them their game was up, they had to leave. It's the difference between the US supporting popular pushes towards electoral democracy and Russia supporting brutal autocrats.
I have never claimed that George has met his targets as a result of being inflexible on implementing his original fiscal plans. His performance is very much in the "all the right notes in the wrong order" tradition.
That said, there has been both commitment to and achievement of lower actual borrowing by the government and this in the end is what counts.
Just as Mr. Brooke has reached the right conclusion about St. George ("tremendous job") any inquiry into the process of how this conclusion (or George's fiscal outturn) was reached is best avoided.
Also I feel England have been a wee bit unlucky. Both matches might easily have been draws. However the key for me is the prowess and leadership of the manager and captain. Here I think England fall a little short that in a tight group has made the difference.
Notwithstanding the above, tournament football can be an odd creature and if England proceed to the knockout round, albeit on goal difference, then stranger things have happened in sport than a team starting badly coming good in the later stages.
So cheer Italy and cross all your limbs.
Go Italy!
But hoping that they'll do what we hope is ...well.... e molto pericoloso...
If you gave England just a couple of the many penalty shoot-outs they have lost at tournaments down the years, things might have been much better.
Just Italia 90 and euro 96, for example. England would have probably gone on to win both those tournaments.
That said, I know lots of articulate people, including myself, who you really would not want anywhere near a football team. Imagine if our squad was led by Oliver Letwin, Frank Field and Norman Lamb. "Ah, a ball. Why do you think that it's round rather than egg-shaped? Interesting point, let's sit down and discuss it..."
Although the OBR are still predicting (March 2014 EFO) that Osborne will miss the secondary target by a year, I think there is a reasonable chance (say 40%) that he will make it.
See the current trend. This looks very much as if the ratio is topping out at the moment. It won't require much additional GDP growth over latest OBR forecast (which was conservatively estimating 0.5% growth per quarter for this fiscal year) or much improvement in receipts affecting PSND ex for the target to be met this fiscal year. The problem however is that it is all change in debt presentation from September 2014 onwards when ESA2010 and other major changes are due to be implemented by the ONS. Under the new methods PSNB ex is due to rise around £120 bn, so by the time of the GE this target may be lost in translation.
July 7th is ferret down your trousers time on PB
Compare the physique of Rooney to Ronaldo for example.
Isn't Ryan Giggs a working class lad, yet has clearly led a healthy lifestyle long term.
This is a broader issue than sport. The cost of obesity to this country must be in the billions, in terms of healthcare costs and lost work hours.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/483778/Nigel-Farage-says-David-Cameron-and-the-Tories-have-tried-to-undermine-Ukip-in-EU-pacts
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 20m
New TNS-BMRB poll has
LAB 35%, CON 29%, UKIP 23%, LIB DEM 6%
What is absurd is pretending that we can somehow leave the EU and get a deal which is going to be more advantageous to us, which would thus assume that it would be less advantageous to remaining EU members. We have no idea what would happen if we upped and left the EU and on what basis any nice sounding 'trade deal' would or could be made. And this is before we get into whether or not it would require us to join Schengen.
Studies do show the free movement of labour (to work) is a benefit to the EU. They will still get that benefit if we leave. if we want that benefit for ourselves it will have to cut both ways.
Trade is good for everybody but it seems a flight of fancy for anybody to pretend that any likely outcome for a 'trade deal' would leave us an any different situation to the one we find ourselves in now. If Britain is to protect its inward investment and its industries that benefit hugely from the single market it could not afford to ignore these issues in negotiating this holy grail of sceptics, a 'trade deal'. It's hard to see how we could end up better off this way rather than negotiating whilst still in the EU.
The question thus remains - why do right wingers tear their hair out and present a golden opportunity for labour to regain office? Just what are people arguing over? It strikes me its the very existence of the EU itself. Well I have news for you - its not going to go away and we have to live with it.
I'm not a big fan of the EU, I don't see why it needs a parliament for one thing, but I'm a bit scepticical about the sceptics.