Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Concern about the economy continues its dramatic collapse –
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Concern about the economy continues its dramatic collapse – but that could mean it’ll be less of an issue at GE2015
All the economic indicators in recent months have been positive for the coalition and this is picked up in the July Ipsos-MORI Issues Index where concern about the economy has continued its sharp and quite dramatic fall.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Titter ....
End of thread - unless we talk about other stuff.
On topic, ungrateful voters may well face buyer's remorse.....
Perhaps the PB lefties can remind me: Why do people vote Labour? What are they for?
1997 was never going to work for the Tories, actually 'because' of the economy. Black Wednesday screwed the Conservatives on the key economic trust indicators for the best part of a generation. Don't believe me? Checkout the opinion polls for the 12 months after the 1992 Black Wednesday debacle and watch the long slide. The rest of that parliament didn't exactly help either as sleaze took over. The irony that being ejected from the ERM probably led to the economic recovery was lost on most of us. The sight of Norman Lamont outside the treasury on Wednesday 22nd September began a meme that is still etched in some people's minds.
1945 really is scraping the barrel because there were multiple other sociological factors at work connected to war, comradeship and the evangelical efforts of the left both at home and among the troops. It's a silly example to use.
Anyone would think Mike writes these threads just to troll the PB Tories.
Like shooting fish in a barrel for the big man.
The cost of Ministerial and local authority incompetence.
Fear? Yes.
Anger? Yes.
Hope? Maybe.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2014/07/23/exposing_the_weakness_of_the_us_and_europe_110653.html
Very nice article. I have no doubt which I'd prefer and also that probably my preference is a minority view - at least that's what opinion polls suggest. How depressing.
Do not most voters vote tribally rather than logically?
Glad to see that Tim, I mean Bob, is contributing so eruditely to the debate.
So the fact that most voters are tribal is irrelevant, unless one party or another has a structural demographic advantage in their numbers - as might be the case currently in the US with the Democrats over the Republicans.
Very few voters decide logically.
* Not superficial as in not important, but superficial as in on the surface.
Both Labour and Tories always claim that their policies are responsible for growth when the economy is doing well, but in reality I am not sure government has much to do with it.
If anything govt should be grateful to us.
Titter ....
The main doubts among floating voters who care are (b) and (c) - they tend to feel things are now sort of OK, though not great, but that they're not getting a fair share of the recovery and that Labour might be more helpful in that.
F1: very interesting piece on Alonso potentially leaving Ferrari:
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/waiting-for-fernando/
"Fernando can pretty much name his price at the moment and, as I hear it, last weekend in Germany was pretty significant as Fernando’s contract has a clause in it that says that he is free to leave his team if it is not in the top three in the Constructors’ Championship."
Most people realise that Labour was "partly to blame" and that we were in a pretty bad way, with people queuing round the block 'cos they thought their bank was going to collapse and they wouldn't be able to get their money back. Plus they had mountains of personal debt.
Most people realise that GB spunked a ton of money up the wall for no (productivity) gain in the state sector and that at some point that would have to stop with the accompanying contraction. Further, during Lab's time the "self-certifying mortgage" emerged, offers of easy credit came through the letterbox with pizza delivery leaflets, and, although he gave the BoE independence, GB then promptly changed the basis upon which they were able to act to reduce the private debt and mortgage explosion by means of a CPI/RPI bait and switch.
And most people fear, rightly, that Lab might do it all over again, Nick.
Yet to see a coherent, passionate, learned, enlightened (if you are a lefty) point made by him.
Edit: no offence, Boba....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28457108
tim was a phenomenon and he knew his onions; god knows what else he did but he was on top of just about everything politically that happened before, during and after. Not always right, often wrong but always engaging.
Most of the rest of us, left and right, simply articulate our own prejudices with the odd bit of factual knowledge behind it (housing starts, GDP, 5-yr swap rates, whatever).
The thing that unfloats my boat, however, is what I call "meta-commentators". ie those who only comment on other people's comments without anything substantive opinion- or fact-wise. Sometimes IMVVVHO you can stray into the meta-commentator category. Not that it should concern you a tuppeny f*ck what I think.
Sorry to put a damper on Mikes thread but some think the horizon is far from rosy:
The Spectator @spectator 33m
The warning signs of a new credit crunch; in the global stock markets, red indicators are flashing says @LiamHalligan http://specc.ie/1pIwJ7Q
whose lax regulation? Surely not the administration that was happy to reap the tax take?
For 13 years.
Er, what was that all about?
So not just betting - a goal tax which will break Fifa rules...
The reason immigration is becoming so much of an issue is because people are waking up to the effect it has on jobs, pay, education, health etc. This place is interesting, in the main intelligent and middle class with an interest in politics, but by no means does it reflect the rump of the electorate who are really struggling.
Apology accepted and to be honest some of what you say is no doubt true. BobaFett is merely an internet character, not 'me'. We'd probably get on well in person. I have minimal time so just throw in off the cuff comments from time to time. That said BobaFett is starting to bore me so it might be time for a self disintegration.
Tim is clearly a complete legend on here: what baffles me is why the guy doesn't return if he is so popular and well respected even - and especially - by his opponents. He clearly added a lot of value.
Take £200 away from someone they know vaguely on Facebook (Spare room subsidy) and it's moan, moan, moan.
The filthy rich middle classes and poor being subsidised by the soon not to be rich as independent figures show the latter paying more into the pot than ever before.
Ungrateful mass of population - bastards ....
Titter ....
Bobafett,
Who is next ?!!
Will it be like the new Dr Who ?
O/T, how long will Salmond remain head of the Scotch socialists after he loses in September?
Ungrateful penile removal .... bastards
Titter ....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/jul/24/labour-ed-miliband-problem?CMP=twt_gu
"Reframing Miliband: Labour faces up to the 'Ed problem' – but is it too late?
The aim is to pitch Miliband as a decent, modest man of principle, but by now many voters will have made up their minds"
"There is a standard focus group exercise in which voters are asked to come up with the word that spontaneously comes to mind when shown a picture of a party leader. For Cameron, a common response is "privilege". For Nick Clegg it is "confused". For Miliband it is "no". Incredulous laughter is not uncommon. The idea that this man will be prime minister is judged so implausible by enough people that somehow democracy will find a way to make sure it doesn't happen"
"Labour doesn't need to generate great outpourings of love for its leader. It probably does need to fend off the charge that he is utterly ridiculous or a menace to civilisation. That ought to be possible because, whatever flaws Miliband may have, those are not among them."
I only ask because instead of telling us you just parrot someone else.
Clever move by Labour.
Talking of names, please use the policy's proper name - the Bedroom Tax
The idea that the PL will hand over a windfall tax to Labour is laughable - FIFA won't allow it as it will open up a global can of worms.
The PL is a business - treat it like all others - raise corporation taxes across the board or not at all. Stop distorting markets to pay for more BME and gender neutral linesperson training or whatever nonsense is in store.
The June borrowing figures werent terrible. Spending was fine. Taxes that werent distorted by timing issues were fine. Income tax figures should unwind when self-assessment payments come in, particularly in January.
See? The June borrowing figures were actually *good* news and no yellow boxes were harmed in this post.
Avery would be so proud.
It seems reasonable to me to ask the PL to make a bigger contribution. The experiment has been a failure in terms of youth and this England team development. I think most England fans would agree with me.
Anyway
I have mixed feelings on the levy.
On one hand these taxes always get passed through to the consumer - but then again there is more competition in the bookies market than ever.
I'd rather not see it but bookies have hardly covered themselves in glory whilst they
a) Have ridiculous amounts of FOBTs in their premises basically just ripping off the stupid
b) Ban/Limit/Refuse winning punters.
Perhaps instead of a levy they should have an obligation to take at least a £100 bet from anyone on any of their advertised prices. It'd probably cost them about the same (Less maybe) - and have less Gov't interference.
All this tittering is getting on my tits. Someone make it stop. Horrid PB buzz word.
Labour was schizophrenic on this as on so much else. Broon, I think, swallowed and still swallows Labour's propaganda about the City being full of posh public school toffs sorting each other out with jobs. At the same, however, he also clearly thought the City was so simple to run, and so well-managed, that it didn't need much regulating. So he dismantled the existing oversight structure, which largely worked, and replaced it with a new structure of his own, that didn't. He then assumed the riskless tax revenues would flow in forever.
So he had two mutually contradictory prejudices, both of which were abjectly wrong. Classic, classic Broon - utterly farmy-farm mad, and utterly rocking-horse wrong.
Seems like a mean-spirited idea from the puritanical Harman.
Also, 'investment' is a very overused word. 'Spending' is usually what is meant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=10987330&cc=10937153
Bookies having an obligation to take at least a £100 bet from anyone on any advertised price as a quid pro quo for being able to have FOBTs in their shops (Limited to 2...) would be a better move than more levies.
The PL is rich due to money from abroad for tv rights - PL will just set up a foreign corp to get around that - won't be difficult.
The clubs have money from the tv deals - but most goes to the players - who already pay more tax than their mates playing in Spain.
Hollande tried a super tax - but one of the first exemptions was for football players as the PSG and Monaco team all threatened to head off for Spain and London.
This has been developed by Harriet - I would be very worried about the imminent unravelling.
Am all for more money going to grassroots - but this is not the way - command and control stick beating from the centre.
errmm forced to money launder by law -not sure that works
Agree about no levy though . Labour love new taxes, still thinking they can spend money better than the public
Put a £10 tax on every seat or pay-per-viewer of foopbaw. Absolutely nobody in the UK has ever stopped watching foopbaw because it was crap, and neither will they stop watching it if it's made slightly more farcically expensive than it is now.
The art of taxation is taking it off people who don't notice or care. Anyone stupid enough to pay what it costs to watch these talentless monkeys, or who pay £90 to dress up like their favourite foopbawer, won't blink at another tenner a game.
So when councils face austerity they prefer to keep their administrators (jobs for the boys and girls in the club) and cut services like libraries, public toilets etc . In fact most councillors are far too close to the Executive, especially since many councillors are remunerated and a smaller coterie forms a controlling 'cabinet'.
The private sector has slashed its administration and GB slashed their pensions, but the public sector still needs to raise its efficiency levels to that of the private sector as well as the need to learn about economic procurement and that means severely cutting its administrators.
The reason why economic growth has not trickled down is that as a country we are still rewarding ourselves too well and so we are globally uncompetitive in many areas - more large companies that will bite the dust due to cost issues even though at present they are running on almost nil margins.
So costs have to be cut and that includes business rates, Green taxes and employer's NI. I do not expect to see much of that in EdM's manifesto as he does not understand the problems the UK faces.
Would have brought a tear to a glass eye.
Fair enough lets have the money laundering caveat in there too - it could actually be quite easily checked... Money laundering would also apply to the FOBTs too...
Winning punter heads in, tries to get £50 E/W on 4-1 2nd favourite "Bobafett's fancy" in the 3:20 @ Kempton. Is knocked back for "Money laundering".
Heads over to the FOBT and proceeds to put in a hundred quid to the machine.
Records the whole incident, bookie hauled up before the authorities for a dishonest refusal or some such.
People driving in city centres at 80 mph - whether it is legal or not - are behaving recklessly; as are people who create financial products that are tantamount to Ponzi schemes. Don't right wingers believe in personal responsibility? Maybe one of Brown's errors was to assume that of people working in financial institutions.
What do you suggest instead?
I was arguing against the implication in JackW's tittering post that the wealthy have suffered at the expense of the middle classes and the poor, when, in fact, he wealthy have never had it so good. I have no problem with that - to the extent that the wealth has been earned. My problem is with any assertion that people like me have felt any financial pain. We have not.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/revealed-bayern-munich-season-ticket-1752700
"Bayern fans can buy a SEASON TICKET to stand for just over £104.48 with the most expensive season ticket seat priced at £561."
"Bayern are the world football’s biggest generator of commercial income with £172.5m last year and they have also generated a profit for TWENTY successive years – something top Premier League clubs can only dream about."
""The Labour Party has barely seemed to notice that the big economic story of the summer is the deficit soaring once again, while complacency remains the watchword of the Osborne/Alexander regime at the Treasury."
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_s_patrick_o_flynn_warns_that_government_borrowing_is_back_out_of_control
But some would say that the responsibility is shared. Me (1/3rd), the banks (1/3rd), and the government (1/3rd).
Both views have merit. Either me wholly, or shared. But I don't see how the banks are wholly responsible.
Govt partnership with PL on education and sport - they provide the money , the govt provides the push on schools to deliver fitter kids.
Just stop looking for well run businesses to hammer with the tax stick - you might end up making the PL a 2nd tier league again.
Look at what Sky are doing with cycling - loads of grass roots events, money and a fitness push - no tax nor government required...
Good line OGH. I wonder if it's copyrighted.
http://labourlist.org/2014/07/aws-row-might-ann-clwyd-cancel-her-retirement-from-parliament-and-stand-in-2015/
The thing about drunk driving and complex financial products is that they are not obviously dangerous. Even if they are obvious to you and me, they don't become systemically dangerous unless everyone is at it, including people who to whom the danger is not obvious.
Only a regulator can have a sufficient market-wide view to know whether this is in fact the case. Broon's crime was to dismantle the regulatory structure of the City and replace it with an ineffective one. The FSA did not have this view and didn't even realise it needed it.
It was in the position of a clipboard-bearing bureaucrat who visits your house to check that you are sorting your rubbish correctly, but who fails to notice or react to the fact that your house is a bawdy house and is also on fire. Because it's not his job to notice.
Such were the FSA / BoE's terms of reference that nobody, not one regulator, was sacked over anything that happened. No regulator had failed versus what they were supposed to be doing; nor had any player had broken any law. That in a way describes the perfect crime - you've fiddled the law so your crime isn't a crime at all.
This inept regime gave the City a huge commercial advantage that others couldn't ignore and had to copy. Broon did all this out of greed for the taxes, plus hubris, plus ignorance. So that this time Labour broke not only our economy but everyone else's too.
This time, Ed Miliband has made absolutely no such effort, in fact quite the reverse. He's been going out of his way to alienate business, and the only policies anyone has noticed are populist and irresponsible. Ed Balls has been fighting a rearguard action to limit the damage, but he hasn't had much impact in that.
This matters particularly this time around because, in contrast to 1997, everyone agrees that things are going to remain tough.