UK still covering up the evidence of doing the same, and Cameron apparently wants to leave the court's jurisdiction which would allow his government to help its allies torture people with impunity.
F1: suggestion in the gossip column Grosjean could take a seat (I'd guess Button's) at McLaren next year. This makes sense from both a driver and team perspective (Boullier is the 'team principal', though I forget his official title), and I believe he's Grosjean's manager as well as being his team principal when he led Lotus.
I'll be keeping my eyes open for that betting market when it appears.
Yes John Smith, I thought bhe was a decent cove in fact Sunny Jim was too.
You have forgotten the Winter of Discontent! I think everyone has roseate memories of Smith because of the timing of his death. He never had to deal with the realities of power.
You asked a specific question in the hopes that you wouldn't get an answer. Now that you have you are attempting to shift the goalposts, why do you do that?
Since you want to know, I'll tell you. It was to see how long it would take you (and Square Root, and one or two more who know they are) to descend to personal abuse. My bet with myself was "not long at all" and I see I'll have to pay out. And collect, too... In fact I will go so far as to say that the only reason people like you pitch up here is to be abusive to those whose political views (not that you know what mine are, come to that) you disagree with.
Care to quote the abuse?
"Why are you changing the goalposts?" reads - at least to me - as a sneer. You take yourself far too seriously...
It's "moving the goalposts"
Silly of me, it's not as if the expression ever gets used on here.
Not that I am the arbiter of this at all, but you said "shift the goalposts" which seems ok.... It was Innocent Abroads "Changing the goalposts" that didn't make sense
Mr. Woolie, well quite. Hard to take seriously a chap who is full of intellectual self-confidence and struggles to outwit a bacon sandwich.
Edited extra bit: [to clarify] I said at the time, and still think, judging politicians by such silly photo ops is daft. However, you can't then claim to not be interested in them when you clearly are without looking not only hypocritical but also as if you think voters are bloody stupid.
Flying for a photo with Obama on Monday (missing the Ukraine/Gaza statement in the Commons) and then claiming you don't care about photo ops is treating voters like morons.
As I have said before, photo ops are par for the course for any aspirant MP, Party leader or the PM himself – there’s nothing ‘new’ about them.
Ed’s hypocrisy on the issue aside, what I do find astounding is these repeated photo-op gaffs are being generated by Ed’s own PR team, whose sole purpose one would imagine was to make him look good. – they seriously need to change tack here.
DavidL - So the government has cut spending more than they said they would and is running a larger deficit than they said they would. And you see this as a triumph of coalition strategy? So even if the plans are working too well in strictly fiscal terms they are inflicting a good deal of pain on the voters. I suppose if making voters suffer is a main priority then fine.
However he appears to be focusing on absolute spending not adjusted for inflation. Why? If we really want to cut spending (as he measures it) I presume the best thing would be some deflation.
Yes John Smith, I thought bhe was a decent cove in fact Sunny Jim was too.
You have forgotten the Winter of Discontent! I think everyone has roseate memories of Smith because of the timing of his death. He never had to deal with the realities of power.
You asked a specific question in the hopes that you wouldn't get an answer. Now that you have you are attempting to shift the goalposts, why do you do that?
Since you want to know, I'll tell you. It was to see how long it would take you (and Square Root, and one or two more who know they are) to descend to personal abuse. My bet with myself was "not long at all" and I see I'll have to pay out. And collect, too... In fact I will go so far as to say that the only reason people like you pitch up here is to be abusive to those whose political views (not that you know what mine are, come to that) you disagree with.
Care to quote the abuse?
"Why are you changing the goalposts?" reads - at least to me - as a sneer. You take yourself far too seriously...
It's "moving the goalposts"
Silly of me, it's not as if the expression ever gets used on here.
Not that I am the arbiter of this at all, but you said "shift the goalposts" which seems ok.... It was Innocent Abroads "Changing the goalposts" that didn't make sense
That will be why I didn't remember typing it then, thanks for the clarification, I couldn't be bothered going back and checking myself.
what I do find astounding is these repeated photo-op gaffs are being generated by Ed’s own PR team, whose sole purpose one would imagine was to make him look good. – they seriously need to change tack here.
Labour made the same unforced errors with Gordon Brown. They are slavishly following Mandelson's model for late-Kinnock/early-Blair without regard for changed times, let alone changed leaders.
IndyRef - hard to escape a feeling of inevitability creeping in, isn't it? Sure, the final campaign could shift things radically, but final campaigns usually don't.
I'd be wary about the YG for the same reasons as I was wary when there was a big Labour lead the other day - the internals have all moved sharply at the same time. Unless there is a big game-changing event that's usually a sign of an off-balance sample. But we'll see the diverse polls tomorrow.
A minor question slipped in is interesting (and not much affected by the particular sample) - in between asking about Russia and Ukraine (the general response to which is "Let's punish Russia, we think they were involved with the plane"), there's the question "Do you think the the European Union should be able to impose sanctions if a majority of countries agree (even if it means individual countries such as Britain have to go along with sanctions they don't support), or should the EU only be able to impose sanctions when all members agree?" There's a 47-27 majority for surrender of sovreignity on this point. UKIP supporters agree, 54-31. Now that too needs to be taken warily, since it's just after various questions eliciting pro-sanctions responses. But it shows the ambiguity that many people have - they want Britain to be able decide most things, yet they recognise that sometimes collective majority decisions are needed or nothing happens.
Hmm Someone disagrees with OGH and its an attack, that's an interesting point of view
Some partisan Tory doesn't like it when people point out solid reasons why the Conservatives won't win an overall majority next year and makes snide comments.
So Avery is largely right. Osborne, with a lot of help from Danny Alexander, has been astonishingly successful in controlling public spending. He has also refused to panic when the tax receipts that faster growth ought to have delivered did not arrive and cut further.
Far from it. The claim in 2010 was that tax receipts would increase by c. £180 billion per annum between 2010-2011 and 2015-2016. That was absurd, as many pointed out at the time. Osborne hid behind an utterly fantastical forecast of increased tax revenue, and, as a result, ducked the difficult decisions on expenditure. That he is spending slightly less than forecast is hardly impressive. The forecast in 2010-2011 was for substantial increases in total expenditure in cash terms.
UK still covering up the evidence of doing the same, and Cameron apparently wants to leave the court's jurisdiction which would allow his government to help its allies torture people with impunity.
Whether or not we are subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court, it is and, will be unlawful for the government 'to help its allies torture people with impunity.' Indeed, the relief sought in Belhaj[2013] EWHC 4111 (QB) is:
A declaration of illegality and ... damages arising from what the [claimants] contend was the participation of the seven Defendants in their unlawful abduction, kidnapping and illicit removal across state borders to Libya in March 2004.
The claimants do not seek damages under s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Simon J struck out the claims as non-justiciable, and his ruling is being challenged before the Court of Appeal (Lord Dyson MR, Lloyd Jones & Sharp LJJ). The important point to note is that the alleged conduct would be unlawful under English law regardless of whether or not we remain a party to the convention. In any event, Cameron is not proposing to leave the jurisdiction of the court as Dominic Grieve QC MP has made clear.
The Justice and Security Act 2013 still represents the gravest threat to the rule of law in these cases.
If 'No' win by a majority of anything less than the English percentage of Scots voters then we are in for a disaster. As a supporter of Scots' independence I hope whatever victory is by a clear margin for both sides: We have enough knuckle-draggers blaming 'The Engurlisch' so a close (as per this poll) vote should not be welcomed...!
stodge - I have to admit it's been a surprise to me just how badly Clegg's strategy has worked. We all know they've lost lots of support to Labour but that was to be expected. What's really surprising is how little support he's picked up from the Tories in spite of moving to the right - almost none. And yet he's managed to lose support to Crosby's Tories in much greater numbers. I'm surprised by this. You would think tht with both parties maving to the right since 2010 that that would favour the Lib Dems but it hasn't.
Why? It may be that Clegg has been the greatest detoxifying agent the Tories have had. Him getting up to champion the record of a Tory-dominated government is much greater PR for the blues than if one of their own did it. Some 2010 LDs now think it's safe to vote Tory. At the same time those who voted Tory in 2010 but LD in 2005 are happy with the detox.
DavidL - So the government has cut spending more than they said they would and is running a larger deficit than they said they would. And you see this as a triumph of coalition strategy? So even if the plans are working too well in strictly fiscal terms they are inflicting a good deal of pain on the voters. I suppose if making voters suffer is a main priority then fine.
However he appears to be focusing on absolute spending not adjusted for inflation. Why? If we really want to cut spending (as he measures it) I presume the best thing would be some deflation.
The spending figures are in real terms so there is no distortion for inflation.
The point I was making is that contrary to the profligacy of Brown and, in fairness, most other governments, this government has been astonishingly self disciplined in controlling spending and in not giving away freebies to buy its way out of a bad headline.
The international situation in the period 2010 to 2013 was much poorer than anticipated and that certainly contributed to much lower growth and tax revenues.
There were 3 options arising from this. One could panic and spend more to boost the economy (trad Labour) in the short term without regard to the sustainability of that given the size of the deficit. Or one could panic and slash spending to keep deficit reduction on track (something some previous tory governments might have done). Or one could keep one's nerve and simply accept that a fiscal adjustment (ie more borrowing) was an appropriate response to the international situation.
By opting for the last course the misery that cuts would have caused has been minimised and the sustainability of government spending for the longer term has been increased. It is a job very well done.
To be fair: Not all Turks are the same. I doubt myself, Mrs B and Weathercock would approve of such behaviour (despite our political differences). Nought wrong with being cosmopolitan; it's the multi-cultis you need to be afraid of....
So Avery is largely right. Osborne, with a lot of help from Danny Alexander, has been astonishingly successful in controlling public spending. He has also refused to panic when the tax receipts that faster growth ought to have delivered did not arrive and cut further.
Far from it. The claim in 2010 was that tax receipts would increase by c. £180 billion per annum between 2010-2011 and 2015-2016. That was absurd, as many pointed out at the time. Osborne hid behind an utterly fantastical forecast of increased tax revenue, and, as a result, ducked the difficult decisions on expenditure. That he is spending slightly less than forecast is hardly impressive. The forecast in 2010-2011 was for substantial increases in total expenditure in cash terms.
UK still covering up the evidence of doing the same, and Cameron apparently wants to leave the court's jurisdiction which would allow his government to help its allies torture people with impunity.
Whether or not we are subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court, it is and, will be unlawful for the government 'to help its allies torture people with impunity.' Indeed, the relief sought in Belhaj[2013] EWHC 4111 (QB) is:
A declaration of illegality and ... damages arising from what the [claimants] contend was the participation of the seven Defendants in their unlawful abduction, kidnapping and illicit removal across state borders to Libya in March 2004.
The claimants do not seek damages under s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Simon J struck out the claims as non-justiciable, and his ruling is being challenged before the Court of Appeal (Lord Dyson MR, Lloyd Jones & Sharp LJJ). The important point to note is that the alleged conduct would be unlawful under English law regardless of whether or not we remain a party to the convention. In any event, Cameron is not proposing to leave the jurisdiction of the court as Dominic Grieve QC MP has made clear.
The Justice and Security Act 2013 still represents the gravest threat to the rule of law in these cases.
Once they're out of the ECHR parliament can amend domestic law to do whatever they like. Judging by their attitude on DRIP Labour would be happy to cooperate with them to retrospectively legalize crimes committed by the Blair administration.
You may be right on what Cameron plans to do though - we won't know for sure until he announces it.
Morning all and on thread, there could not be a more meaningless time to conduct a poll of Scottish voters than mid July. It is the main Scottish holiday period for working class families. They should have just polled people on the beaches of Benidorm or Majorca or the excited visitors in Orlando, Florida as these are the places you will find a great many ordinary Scots voters right now.
Meanwhile delighted to see Glasgow being shown in such a positive manner by the Commonwealth Games coverage. It is a wonderful city.
Back in the land of 3G and belated congratulations to Mr & Mrs Herdson.
On topic my 17 years old daughter is very prominent in a face book photo used on the BT website. She has been very disturbed to be the recipient of a lot of abusive posts as a result. Some are obscene, most just unpleasant abuse, none that we have been able to detect from people who actually know her.
This sort of conduct is a problem that the SNP and Yes campaigns have consistently underestimated. Who on earth would want to live in a country run or even influenced by prats like that? It really puts people off. Not my daughter though. She will be canvassing on alternate days this week. I will be doing my best to join her but my inbox is frightening.
David, I am sure you have proof that it is the SNP or YES campaigns doing it rather than just nutters. If your daughter is stupid enough to have her photo on BT then she should be adult enough to realise that it will attract cranks, same applies to YES side. The pathetic part is that you direct everything at YES/SNP but ignore the BT media pals talking about Nazis , throwing abuse etc that encourages the nutters. Who would ever want a country run by Tories or Labour. Pretty pathetic whinging.
***** Betting Post ***** The recent very discernible fall in Labour's poll leads, coupled with EdM's image problems which show no signs of going away, quite the opposite in fact, appear to open up several attractive betting opportunities. My favourite among these, purely on the basis that Shadsy may have called things wrongly, is Ladbrokes' market on which of the current party leaders will be first to leave office. Their prices are: Clegg ........... 7/4 Salmond ....... 9/4 Farage ......... 4/1 Cameron ...... 5/1 Miliband ....... 6/1 (Yes really!)
There can be no doubt that were Labour to lose the 2015 GE, EdM would be out in double quick time, quite possibly quicker than Clegg especially were the latter's departure to be delayed, say by coalition negotiations, etc with the Tories. As things stand I would rate Miliband as a 3/1 shot in this market, were one to foresee him losing the GE, then he'd be around evens or 6/4 at best.
Following a similar theme, OGH recently featured HenryG's suggestion that Andy Burnham should be backed as the next leader of the Labour Party. Although I have invested in him previously, I decided not to increase my bet on the basis that were Labour to win next year's GE, then Burnham's tilt at the top job would be deferred until at least 2020, which isn't an attractive prospect. Suddenly there is the prospect of this bet being decided over the next year rather than in six years' time and accordingly I've had another tenner's worth with SkyBet at generous odds I would suggest of 12/1.
Finally, I turn to the next Prime Minister market, where EdM is the odds-on favourite. Of course, were the Tories to win next year's GE, then very possibly, probably even, Cameron would be succeeded by one of his colleagues - step forward newly-promoted Philip Hammond, available at a whopping 25/1 from both Hills and Spreadex. Those of a nervous disposition and who don't fancy having to wait several years to collect on such a bet, might decide instead to back Hammond as next Tory leader, where those nice people at Betway have him on offer at stand out odds of 16/1, compared with his best price elsewhere of 12/1.
Please do your own research as regards each of the above.
browsing round looking for info on Ukraine you come across some odd stuff like how to start a fire with some tissue paper and a spoon - might come in handy if out glorious leaders drag us into WW3
"But £95bn is still a big number, and is a lot bigger than the OBR expected when it published its first forecast alongside Osborne’s first budget, back in June 2010, when it predicted a deficit of only £37bn for this year. Doesn’t this tell us that the critics are right, and that the chancellor has soft-pedalled on austerity, kicking the can down the road?
No. If we take public spending, which is where the chancellor gets it in the next from his right-wing critics, the striking thing is not that that spending has been relaxed but that it has been tightened – cut – relative to the 2010 plans.
According to those plans, the government intended to spend £722bn in the 2013-14 fiscal year, that one that ended this spring. In fact it spent £714bn.
Spending has been lower each year than set out then. Public sector current spending was originally intended to be £679bn in 2013-14. In fact it was £668bn. Unusually, for any government, spending has come in comfortably within budget. There has been no slippage."
So Avery is largely right. Osborne, with a lot of help from Danny Alexander, has been astonishingly successful in controlling public spending. He has also refused to panic when the tax receipts that faster growth ought to have delivered did not arrive and cut further. The result should be a rapidly improving financial situation as we play catch up with growth. Will that happen too? Most of his piece is about the underlying situation being better than the recent numbers indicate (largely to do with the accounting for tax on bonuses again).
That I am not so sure about.
It will be reasonable when they get even close to spending what we earn. Anyone can spend £100B + more than they earn, it is not hard and not clever.
DavidL - aren't you ignoring the economic cycle? It should be relatively easy to constrain spending coming out of a recession as unemployment benefit etc start to fall back. At the same time we've seen substantial cuts and yet the government continues to borrow lots of money. It's a strange definition of success you are using.
"So this morning’s Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times will come as a huge disappointment for those campaigning for Scotland to vote for independence"
Is it really as clear as that? The gap for all respondents has a No lead down to 7 (8 excluding DKs). From the previous Panelbase poll the gap has dropped by 4. There are 7 weeks to go. There could still be time for a change, what if there really is a "shy SNP vote" similar to 2011? What if the lazy Labour voters are less motivated to bother to go and vote?
I'd suggest a minor adjustment: not so much SNP/Labour in the indyref as a Yes/No distinction, of course. About 30% of Labour voters in 2011 - and those were the real hardcore, help ma boab - are going for Yes from what I see in recent polls. So far.
I'm glad to see someone else saw what seemed the salient fact re the poll - that the No lead has continued to drop to a point where only a 4 percentage swing is needed for Yes to win. OK, just one more point on a graph with a fair MoE, so I'm not reading much into it. Still, it is interesting, as we are not even past the indyref armistice during hols and Commonwealth Games yet. And yes, the higher turnout for Yes will be increasingly important.
Also telling that Bitter Together have to pay people to deliver their leaflets, mainly brought in from England on £10 per hour. meanwhile Yes has thousands of volunteers tramping the streets. It all looks very different from up here.
I noticed that too. Is it, I wonder, to do with the strange Electoral Commission rules which IIRC don't count money spent as salaries? Got to do something with all that dosh from wealthy non-voting types, I suppose.
Key point is they have little support or volunteers, they depend on Tory cash from people like Taylor to buy their votes. How low have Labour sunk.
Hmmm for all my Ed defence, watching the Marr interview GE says the Indy ref shows how proles can get involved and enthused about politics when given a chance to decide things
IndyRef - hard to escape a feeling of inevitability creeping in, isn't it? Sure, the final campaign could shift things radically, but final campaigns usually don't.
I'd be wary about the YG for the same reasons as I was wary when there was a big Labour lead the other day - the internals have all moved sharply at the same time. Unless there is a big game-changing event that's usually a sign of an off-balance sample. But we'll see the diverse polls tomorrow.
A minor question slipped in is interesting (and not much affected by the particular sample) - in between asking about Russia and Ukraine (the general response to which is "Let's punish Russia, we think they were involved with the plane"), there's the question "Do you think the the European Union should be able to impose sanctions if a majority of countries agree (even if it means individual countries such as Britain have to go along with sanctions they don't support), or should the EU only be able to impose sanctions when all members agree?" There's a 47-27 majority for surrender of sovreignity on this point. UKIP supporters agree, 54-31. Now that too needs to be taken warily, since it's just after various questions eliciting pro-sanctions responses. But it shows the ambiguity that many people have - they want Britain to be able decide most things, yet they recognise that sometimes collective majority decisions are needed or nothing happens.
Only failed Labour MP's could possibly think that way. The view from up here is a little different.
If 'No' win by a majority of anything less than the English percentage of Scots voters then we are in for a disaster. As a supporter of Scots' independence I hope whatever victory is by a clear margin for both sides: We have enough knuckle-draggers blaming 'The Engurlisch' so a close (as per this poll) vote should not be welcomed...!
IndyRef - hard to escape a feeling of inevitability creeping in, isn't it? Sure, the final campaign could shift things radically, but final campaigns usually don't.
I'd be wary about the YG for the same reasons as I was wary when there was a big Labour lead the other day - the internals have all moved sharply at the same time. Unless there is a big game-changing event that's usually a sign of an off-balance sample. But we'll see the diverse polls tomorrow.
A minor question slipped in is interesting (and not much affected by the particular sample) - in between asking about Russia and Ukraine (the general response to which is "Let's punish Russia, we think they were involved with the plane"), there's the question "Do you think the the European Union should be able to impose sanctions if a majority of countries agree (even if it means individual countries such as Britain have to go along with sanctions they don't support), or should the EU only be able to impose sanctions when all members agree?" There's a 47-27 majority for surrender of sovreignity on this point. UKIP supporters agree, 54-31. Now that too needs to be taken warily, since it's just after various questions eliciting pro-sanctions responses. But it shows the ambiguity that many people have - they want Britain to be able decide most things, yet they recognise that sometimes collective majority decisions are needed or nothing happens.
Only failed Labour MP's could possibly think that way. The view from up here is a little different.
DavidL - aren't you ignoring the economic cycle? It should be relatively easy to constrain spending coming out of a recession as unemployment benefit etc start to fall back. At the same time we've seen substantial cuts and yet the government continues to borrow lots of money. It's a strange definition of success you are using.
His definition is based on fact that he is doing very well thank you very much. Fact that it is due to robbing the poor is lost on Tories.
IndyRef - hard to escape a feeling of inevitability creeping in, isn't it? Sure, the final campaign could shift things radically, but final campaigns usually don't.
I'd be wary about the YG for the same reasons as I was wary when there was a big Labour lead the other day - the internals have all moved sharply at the same time. Unless there is a big game-changing event that's usually a sign of an off-balance sample. But we'll see the diverse polls tomorrow.
A minor question slipped in is interesting (and not much affected by the particular sample) - in between asking about Russia and Ukraine (the general response to which is "Let's punish Russia, we think they were involved with the plane"), there's the question "Do you think the the European Union should be able to impose sanctions if a majority of countries agree (even if it means individual countries such as Britain have to go along with sanctions they don't support), or should the EU only be able to impose sanctions when all members agree?" There's a 47-27 majority for surrender of sovreignity on this point. UKIP supporters agree, 54-31. Now that too needs to be taken warily, since it's just after various questions eliciting pro-sanctions responses. But it shows the ambiguity that many people have - they want Britain to be able decide most things, yet they recognise that sometimes collective majority decisions are needed or nothing happens.
Only failed Labour MP's could possibly think that way. The view from up here is a little different.
browsing round looking for info on Ukraine you come across some odd stuff like how to start a fire with some tissue paper and a spoon - might come in handy if out glorious leaders drag us into WW3
Once they're out of the ECHR parliament can amend domestic law to do whatever they like. Judging by their attitude on DRIP Labour would be happy to cooperate with them to retrospectively legalize crimes committed by the Blair administration.
You may be right on what Cameron plans to do though - we won't know for sure until he announces it.
You appear to be labouring under certain misunderstandings. The European Convention on Human Rights binds Her Majesty's Government in international law. The general principle, however, is that treaties do not have effect in English law unless incorporated by an Act of Parliament. The Convention had very limited effect before it was incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Parliament could repeal that statute while the United Kingdom remained subject to the Convention. Parliament can, and does choose to disregard judgments of the court which are binding on the government in international law such as Hurst (No. 2) and Vinter. The real question, whether or not we are subject to the convention, is whether Parliament could be persuaded to legalise retrospectively serious misconduct committed under the Blair government. One must hope that even the current crop of authoritarian MPs would shy away from such an outrageous move.
A minor question slipped in is interesting (and not much affected by the particular sample) - in between asking about Russia and Ukraine (the general response to which is "Let's punish Russia, we think they were involved with the plane"), there's the question "Do you think the the European Union should be able to impose sanctions if a majority of countries agree (even if it means individual countries such as Britain have to go along with sanctions they don't support), or should the EU only be able to impose sanctions when all members agree?" There's a 47-27 majority for surrender of sovreignity on this point. UKIP supporters agree, 54-31. Now that too needs to be taken warily, since it's just after various questions eliciting pro-sanctions responses. But it shows the ambiguity that many people have - they want Britain to be able decide most things, yet they recognise that sometimes collective majority decisions are needed or nothing happens.
One of the things the antis get right is that they nearly always manage to frame these questions as "Should Britain have a veto over X".
Ha Ha Ha , autobot using Torygraph , they would not know a Scot if they tripped over one.
Your feel for Scottish politics was exposed as non-existent when Coburn won a european seat after you'd claimed it as an impossibility. Pipe down, know-nothing.
No point mending the public finances if Labour have a very slim chance of getting in. Sorry Liam, still no money left and enjoy making those cuts your supporters believe don't need to be made. That's before the economic cycle even begins to turn. What is left to cut?
Ha Ha Ha , autobot using Torygraph , they would not know a Scot if they tripped over one.
Your feel for Scottish politics was exposed as non-existent when Coburn won a european seat after you'd claimed it as an impossibility. Pipe down, know-nothing.
browsing round looking for info on Ukraine you come across some odd stuff like how to start a fire with some tissue paper and a spoon - might come in handy if out glorious leaders drag us into WW3
DavidL - aren't you ignoring the economic cycle? It should be relatively easy to constrain spending coming out of a recession as unemployment benefit etc start to fall back. At the same time we've seen substantial cuts and yet the government continues to borrow lots of money. It's a strange definition of success you are using.
The record indicates otherwise. Governments traditionally overspend. Also, as I have pointed out on here repeatedly, the much more generous in work benefits mean that an almost miraculous increase in employment has done comparatively little for the bottom line.
The reason we have "substantial" cuts in public spending (and they have not been that substantial, more an ending of the assumptions of ever higher expenditure that the last government left in place) and yet still have to borrow more is that by 2008 we had the largest structural deficit in the western world.
In anything like a normal situation a change in the fiscal balance of £50bn a year would be massive. In our current situation it has reduced the deficit by 1/3. Does this mean we could theoretically afford another Labour government in 10 years? Unfortunately not. Public debt has doubled already and needs to be reduced. In short we need to run surpluses.
OGH Only the other day you were pointing out the Tory-UKIP switchers as just as important as a poll showed some move back from UKIP to the Tories and a tightening of the Labour lead even with no swingback of LD to Labour voters
Ha Ha Ha , autobot using Torygraph , they would not know a Scot if they tripped over one.
Your feel for Scottish politics was exposed as non-existent when Coburn won a european seat after you'd claimed it as an impossibility. Pipe down, know-nothing.
Ha Ha Ha, what a turnip.
Malcolm, I know your family roots in Scotland are superficial and recent, so it shouldn't be too painful for you to jog on.
OGH Only the other day you were pointing out the Tory-UKIP switchers as just as important as a poll showed some move back from UKIP to the Tories and a tightening of the Labour lead even with no swingback of LD to Labour voters
If the suggestion is that Clegg is carrying the weight of the Tories toxicity as well as his own, isn’t that an excellent reason for him to gracefully retire before the election.
DavidL - aren't you ignoring the economic cycle? It should be relatively easy to constrain spending coming out of a recession as unemployment benefit etc start to fall back. At the same time we've seen substantial cuts and yet the government continues to borrow lots of money. It's a strange definition of success you are using.
The record indicates otherwise. Governments traditionally overspend. Also, as I have pointed out on here repeatedly, the much more generous in work benefits mean that an almost miraculous increase in employment has done comparatively little for the bottom line.
The reason we have "substantial" cuts in public spending (and they have not been that substantial, more an ending of the assumptions of ever higher expenditure that the last government left in place) and yet still have to borrow more is that by 2008 we had the largest structural deficit in the western world.
In anything like a normal situation a change in the fiscal balance of £50bn a year would be massive. In our current situation it has reduced the deficit by 1/3. Does this mean we could theoretically afford another Labour government in 10 years? Unfortunately not. Public debt has doubled already and needs to be reduced. In short we need to run surpluses.
There haven't really been any cuts yet, more of a cost saving exercise.The real, severe cuts to local authority budgets have to start to be implemented by April next year.
As an aid to punters i can only repeat a conversation with a Scottish couple we met on holiday. They were stoutly in the NO camp and were convinced the vote would be NO. They were further convinced that, whilst pensioners themselves, the young would vote NO as well.
I should add for the benefit of the inevitable group of 'sod off Scotland' fanatics that these people were friendly to the English and happy with the Union.
The general principle, however, is that treaties do not have effect in English law unless incorporated by an Act of Parliament. The Convention had very limited effect before it was incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
IANAL but you wouldn't think the effect was very limited from the fuss people used to make about adverse judgements by the ECHR pre-1997.
TFS Rubbish I work in a local authority at the moment and almost a third of the staff have been cut, which is why Osborne announced no further spending cuts to LAs beyond those already announced. Overall spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen from about 47% in 2010 to 42% now. I do agree it would help if the government promised not to ringfence overseas aid or non-frontline NHS spending in order to reach its target of a surplus in 2018
OKC No, as like Brown in 2010 and Major in 1997 he needs to be the lightning rod for voter anger with the LDs so they can start afresh post election, and anyway, even if they lose half their seats on present polls they could still hold the balance of power
As it appears to be such a defining event, I have finally got around to watching the Sky News video of watching Ed eating a bacon sandwich. It just looks like someone eating - he's not doing it with his mouth open; he's not obviously slavering. Have I missed something?
TFS Rubbish I work in a local authority at the moment and almost a third of the staff have been cut, which is why Osborne announced no further spending cuts to LAs beyond those already announced. Overall spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen from about 47% in 2010 to 42% now. I do agree it would help if the government promised not to ringfence overseas aid or non-frontline NHS spending in order to reach its target of a surplus in 2018
You aint seen nothing yet. The next 5 years are going to be grim in the public sector.
IANAL but you wouldn't think the effect was very limited from the fuss people used to make about adverse judgements by the ECHR pre-1997.
I was referring to the direct effect of the convention in English law before the 1998 Act came into force. Of course, adverse judgments of the ECtHR (Dugdeon v UK being a good example) before 2000 did result in Parliament changing domestic law to render it compatible with the court's interpretation of the convention. Although the convention now has direct effect in English law, it is still the duty of the courts to give effect to an Act of Parliament where it cannot be construed compatibly with the convention. Prisoners still don't have the vote, and the Crown Court in England and Wales continues to impose "whole life orders" in the most serious cases of murder.
OKC No, as like Brown in 2010 and Major in 1997 he needs to be the lightning rod for voter anger with the LDs so they can start afresh post election, and anyway, even if they lose half their seats on present polls they could still hold the balance of power
Point taken; take the long view. I don’t think that if the LD’s lose half their seats, then they should retire and regroup, rather than continuing the coalition.
How are the FDP doing in Germany? or the Greens in Ireland?
Ha Ha Ha , autobot using Torygraph , they would not know a Scot if they tripped over one.
Your feel for Scottish politics was exposed as non-existent when Coburn won a european seat after you'd claimed it as an impossibility. Pipe down, know-nothing.
Ha Ha Ha, what a turnip.
Malcolm, I know your family roots in Scotland are superficial and recent, so it shouldn't be too painful for you to jog on.
Sorry I insulted turnips , you are even more dense.
TFS They have been grim enough already, but with the economy now growing I see no reason why a prudent Chancellor should not produce a surplus by 2018. However, what I do have a problem with is ringfencing the NHS and overseas aid. In my view overseas aid and non-frontline NHS spending should face exactly the same cuts as defence, the police, courts and legal aid, local government, the arts, universities, welfare etc have had to face otherwise it makes reaching that surplus that much more difficult if significant areas of spending are exempt from cuts
I wonder if some of ed's support in London comes from young voters appalled at London's cost of living, property, travel etc.
I read that property prices are starting to drift, however.
Well if the Conservatives are incapable of blaming the cost of living and housing crisis were it should be, namely Labour's immigration policies, then they will get the blame.
As an aid to punters i can only repeat a conversation with a Scottish couple we met on holiday. They were stoutly in the NO camp and were convinced the vote would be NO. They were further convinced that, whilst pensioners themselves, the young would vote NO as well.
I should add for the benefit of the inevitable group of 'sod off Scotland' fanatics that these people were friendly to the English and happy with the Union.
So you met a couple of institutionalised pensioners who had no vision and no hope. I have yet to meet or hear any Yes supporter having any issue with English people. Luckily there are many more people who have vision and hope and do want to run their own affairs.
OKC But if neither the Tories or Labour have a majority then the LDs will still almost certainly be the third largest party in terms of seats, and as they have refused to back a minority government, another Coalition with the largest party in Parliament looks election. On present polls another hung parliament looks more likely than not, so that is a strong possibility
It's absolutely absurd that, similar to yesterday, the so-called Commonwealth Games (whatever that means) accounts for thirteen and a half hours out of a total of fifteen hours' scheduling between 9am - 12 midnight today on BBC1, that's an obscene 90%
Can't the BBC bigwigs get it into their skulls that only a tiny proportion of viewers are remotely interested in these minority sports and even they surely could not engage with such a saturated level of coverage.
OKC No, as like Brown in 2010 and Major in 1997 he needs to be the lightning rod for voter anger with the LDs so they can start afresh post election, and anyway, even if they lose half their seats on present polls they could still hold the balance of power
Point taken; take the long view. I don’t think that if the LD’s lose half their seats, then they should retire and regroup, rather than continuing the coalition.
How are the FDP doing in Germany? or the Greens in Ireland?
Sorry, doesn’t make sense. Ignore the “don’t” S/be I think that if the LD’s lose half their seats, then they should retire and regroup,
IndyRef - hard to escape a feeling of inevitability creeping in, isn't it? Sure, the final campaign could shift things radically, but final campaigns usually don't.
I'd be wary about the YG for the same reasons as I was wary when there was a big Labour lead the other day - the internals have all moved sharply at the same time. Unless there is a big game-changing event that's usually a sign of an off-balance sample. But we'll see the diverse polls tomorrow.
A minor question slipped in is interesting (and not much affected by the particular sample) - in between asking about Russia and Ukraine (the general response to which is "Let's punish Russia, we think they were involved with the plane"), there's the question "Do you think the the European Union should be able to impose sanctions if a majority of countries agree (even if it means individual countries such as Britain have to go along with sanctions they don't support), or should the EU only be able to impose sanctions when all members agree?" There's a 47-27 majority for surrender of sovreignity on this point. UKIP supporters agree, 54-31. Now that too needs to be taken warily, since it's just after various questions eliciting pro-sanctions responses. But it shows the ambiguity that many people have - they want Britain to be able decide most things, yet they recognise that sometimes collective majority decisions are needed or nothing happens.
No. You are not seeing people judiciously deciding that in some cases collective EU action on the basis of a majority is best, you are seeing the result of a slanted question on people not generally used to answering political questions. Ask them 'Should a majority of EU countries be allowed to impose sanctions on a foreign power on behalf of the whole EU against the will of Britain, even if this may damage British economy?' and it would still be true, if slanted the other way. You would get a totally different result.
Furthermore, of course people believe Russia was involved in the plane, we've had nothing short of a media bombardment that this is the case. The fact is, we've seen no-one alleging Russian guilt put forward ANY evidence. Any. The Russians have held their press conference; they have shown their radar records and satellite pictures, as well as debunked the increasingly desperate rubbish coming out of the Ukrainian security services. America has yet to present anything at all to justify their side. Planning to intervene in another country based on no evidence? Where have we heard that before?
OldKingCole If neither the Tories nor Labour having a majority and another hung parliament likely with the economy still not sorted out I am afraid another Coalition may well be inevitable
As an aid to punters i can only repeat a conversation with a Scottish couple we met on holiday. They were stoutly in the NO camp and were convinced the vote would be NO. They were further convinced that, whilst pensioners themselves, the young would vote NO as well.
I should add for the benefit of the inevitable group of 'sod off Scotland' fanatics that these people were friendly to the English and happy with the Union.
So you met a couple of institutionalised pensioners who had no vision and no hope. I have yet to meet or hear any Yes supporter having any issue with English people. Luckily there are many more people who have vision and hope and do want to run their own affairs.
They disagree with you, so they are "institutionalised" and "have no vision and no hope"?
Do you ever read what you write?
I have difficulty in believing you are that pompous and condescending in real life, but are playing "the big man" from the safe anonymity of your computer screen.
As to "Scots who hate the English" YouGov today showed twice the level of "hoping England lose" than the reverse in England.
Of course, we don't know who these rather sad and pathetic individuals are, defining themselves in negative opposition to an "other" - but at a guess, do you think they are more or less likely to be separatists?
OldKingCole If neither the Tories nor Labour having a majority and another hung parliament likely with the economy still not sorted out I am afraid another Coalition may well be inevitable
OKC No, the markets will demand a Coalition for stability until the finances are returned to surplus if there is another hung parliament
Depends how short either of the two parties are short of a majority. Anyway, requires two willing partners. Can’t see the Scot Nats participating in one, although DUP might, but what would be their price?
Like most things this could be good for the yes campaign.
If they lose they get to blame better together and the UK government for misleading the electorate.
Whereas if they win they get to explain why their version of how Independence would work (Europe, currency etc) actually turned out not to be entirely accurate.
I could not agree more. Anyway Cameron does do tours where the public ask questions. Clegg does something on the radio
Is PMQs the right place for it, is really the question. How would public questions effect the rest of PMQs?
Also, would these be true public questions or carefully managed ones?
I think we need to go back to two PMQs a week, with the LOTO only allowed three questions. (or two: a question and a follow-up should be plenty). What ruins it is too much grandstanding by the party leaders. There was a different dynamic when back-benchers got to ask more questions.
OKC I think the scenario you imagine only occurs if both Tory+LD or Labour+LD does not have a majority. If we end up with a scenario where only Tory+LD+DUP+UKIP or Labour+LD+SNP+PC+SDLP+Greens+Respect has a majority, then god help us all!
@MilibandTips: If you can't ask effective questions at PMQs, suggest the public do it for you.
Another hilarious 'tips' twitter account?! Viz should sue for ruining the reputation of the original which distinguishes itself from the others by actually being funny
Malcolmg ---- re deficit ''It will be reasonable when they get even close to spending what we earn. Anyone can spend £100B + more than they earn, it is not hard and not clever. ''
That was the point of the article. they are on course - having inherited both a massive deficit in total and a massive structural deficit as part of that.
As an aid to punters i can only repeat a conversation with a Scottish couple we met on holiday. They were stoutly in the NO camp and were convinced the vote would be NO. They were further convinced that, whilst pensioners themselves, the young would vote NO as well.
I should add for the benefit of the inevitable group of 'sod off Scotland' fanatics that these people were friendly to the English and happy with the Union.
So you met a couple of institutionalised pensioners who had no vision and no hope. I have yet to meet or hear any Yes supporter having any issue with English people. Luckily there are many more people who have vision and hope and do want to run their own affairs.
They disagree with you, so they are "institutionalised" and "have no vision and no hope"?
Do you ever read what you write?
I have difficulty in believing you are that pompous and condescending in real life, but are playing "the big man" from the safe anonymity of your computer screen.
As to "Scots who hate the English" YouGov today showed twice the level of "hoping England lose" than the reverse in England.
Of course, we don't know who these rather sad and pathetic individuals are, defining themselves in negative opposition to an "other" - but at a guess, do you think they are more or less likely to be separatists?
ha Ha Ha , another unionist lickspittle says I am well off so things are great , all these uppity Scots should know their place and just continue to keep me in the splendour I am accustomed to. Toom Tabard was made for you.
PS: Your pathetic point about the Yougov misleading question, do you think if they asked an English person if they wanted the Scottish athlete to beat the English one that they would all say , Yes of course why would I support those English athletes when someone from Scotland could win it. PATHETIC.
Ha Ha Ha , autobot using Torygraph , they would not know a Scot if they tripped over one.
Your feel for Scottish politics was exposed as non-existent when Coburn won a european seat after you'd claimed it as an impossibility. Pipe down, know-nothing.
Ha Ha Ha, what a turnip.
Malcolm, I know your family roots in Scotland are superficial and recent, so it shouldn't be too painful for you to jog on.
Sorry I insulted turnips , you are even more dense.
Malcolmg ---- re deficit ''It will be reasonable when they get even close to spending what we earn. Anyone can spend £100B + more than they earn, it is not hard and not clever. ''
That was the point of the article. they are on course - having inherited both a massive deficit in total and a massive structural deficit as part of that.
Which decade will it be when we reach break even though. So far all they have done is redistribute money to rich people and soak the poor. How will they address the remaining £100B + per annum gap, the rich are too busy avoiding tax to pay it and the poor are skint. Who will fund it??
Comments
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/poland-found-complicit-us-torture-programme-130048719.html#9fvutQ7
UK still covering up the evidence of doing the same, and Cameron apparently wants to leave the court's jurisdiction which would allow his government to help its allies torture people with impunity.
Pretend being the operative word
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/25/poor-doors-segregation-london-flats
I'll be keeping my eyes open for that betting market when it appears.
Ed’s hypocrisy on the issue aside, what I do find astounding is these repeated photo-op gaffs are being generated by Ed’s own PR team, whose sole purpose one would imagine was to make him look good. – they seriously need to change tack here.
However he appears to be focusing on absolute spending not adjusted for inflation. Why? If we really want to cut spending (as he measures it) I presume the best thing would be some deflation.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/belgian-cafe-posts-sign-banning-jews-entering-store-article-1.1879839
I'd be wary about the YG for the same reasons as I was wary when there was a big Labour lead the other day - the internals have all moved sharply at the same time. Unless there is a big game-changing event that's usually a sign of an off-balance sample. But we'll see the diverse polls tomorrow.
A minor question slipped in is interesting (and not much affected by the particular sample) - in between asking about Russia and Ukraine (the general response to which is "Let's punish Russia, we think they were involved with the plane"), there's the question "Do you think the the European Union should be able to impose sanctions if a majority of countries agree (even if it means individual countries such as Britain have to go along with sanctions they don't support), or should the EU only be able to impose sanctions when all members agree?" There's a 47-27 majority for surrender of sovreignity on this point. UKIP supporters agree, 54-31. Now that too needs to be taken warily, since it's just after various questions eliciting pro-sanctions responses. But it shows the ambiguity that many people have - they want Britain to be able decide most things, yet they recognise that sometimes collective majority decisions are needed or nothing happens.
Interesting.
I wonder if some of ed's support in London comes from young voters appalled at London's cost of living, property, travel etc.
I read that property prices are starting to drift, however.
The Justice and Security Act 2013 still represents the gravest threat to the rule of law in these cases.
If 'No' win by a majority of anything less than the English percentage of Scots voters then we are in for a disaster. As a supporter of Scots' independence I hope whatever victory is by a clear margin for both sides: We have enough knuckle-draggers blaming 'The Engurlisch' so a close (as per this poll) vote should not be welcomed...!
Why? It may be that Clegg has been the greatest detoxifying agent the Tories have had. Him getting up to champion the record of a Tory-dominated government is much greater PR for the blues than if one of their own did it. Some 2010 LDs now think it's safe to vote Tory. At the same time those who voted Tory in 2010 but LD in 2005 are happy with the detox.
The point I was making is that contrary to the profligacy of Brown and, in fairness, most other governments, this government has been astonishingly self disciplined in controlling spending and in not giving away freebies to buy its way out of a bad headline.
The international situation in the period 2010 to 2013 was much poorer than anticipated and that certainly contributed to much lower growth and tax revenues.
There were 3 options arising from this. One could panic and spend more to boost the economy (trad Labour) in the short term without regard to the sustainability of that given the size of the deficit. Or one could panic and slash spending to keep deficit reduction on track (something some previous tory governments might have done). Or one could keep one's nerve and simply accept that a fiscal adjustment (ie more borrowing) was an appropriate response to the international situation.
By opting for the last course the misery that cuts would have caused has been minimised and the sustainability of government spending for the longer term has been increased. It is a job very well done.
The Justice and Security Act 2013 still represents the gravest threat to the rule of law in these cases.
Once they're out of the ECHR parliament can amend domestic law to do whatever they like. Judging by their attitude on DRIP Labour would be happy to cooperate with them to retrospectively legalize crimes committed by the Blair administration.
You may be right on what Cameron plans to do though - we won't know for sure until he announces it.
Meanwhile delighted to see Glasgow being shown in such a positive manner by the Commonwealth Games coverage. It is a wonderful city.
The pathetic part is that you direct everything at YES/SNP but ignore the BT media pals talking about Nazis , throwing abuse etc that encourages the nutters. Who would ever want a country run by Tories or Labour. Pretty pathetic whinging.
The recent very discernible fall in Labour's poll leads, coupled with EdM's image problems which show no signs of going away, quite the opposite in fact, appear to open up several attractive betting opportunities.
My favourite among these, purely on the basis that Shadsy may have called things wrongly, is Ladbrokes' market on which of the current party leaders will be first to leave office. Their prices are:
Clegg ........... 7/4
Salmond ....... 9/4
Farage ......... 4/1
Cameron ...... 5/1
Miliband ....... 6/1 (Yes really!)
There can be no doubt that were Labour to lose the 2015 GE, EdM would be out in double quick time, quite possibly quicker than Clegg especially were the latter's departure to be delayed, say by coalition negotiations, etc with the Tories.
As things stand I would rate Miliband as a 3/1 shot in this market, were one to foresee him losing the GE, then he'd be around evens or 6/4 at best.
Following a similar theme, OGH recently featured HenryG's suggestion that Andy Burnham should be backed as the next leader of the Labour Party. Although I have invested in him previously, I decided not to increase my bet on the basis that were Labour to win next year's GE, then Burnham's tilt at the top job would be deferred until at least 2020, which isn't an attractive prospect. Suddenly there is the prospect of this bet being decided over the next year rather than in six years' time and accordingly I've had another tenner's worth with SkyBet at generous odds I would suggest of 12/1.
Finally, I turn to the next Prime Minister market, where EdM is the odds-on favourite. Of course, were the Tories to win next year's GE, then very possibly, probably even, Cameron would be succeeded by one of his colleagues - step forward newly-promoted Philip Hammond, available at a whopping 25/1 from both Hills and Spreadex. Those of a nervous disposition and who don't fancy having to wait several years to collect on such a bet, might decide instead to back Hammond as next Tory leader, where those nice people at Betway have him on offer at stand out odds of 16/1, compared with his best price elsewhere of 12/1.
Please do your own research as regards each of the above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJuuFLo1a84
Ahem, EU referendum pledge Ed?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benrileysmith/100281497/scots-are-utterly-disillusioned-with-the-independence-referendum-debate/
They're not alone.
Buttler, Woakes and Jordan in for England.
Reminds me of this
http://youtu.be/XNvuXF8J0A4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28509014
The record indicates otherwise. Governments traditionally overspend. Also, as I have pointed out on here repeatedly, the much more generous in work benefits mean that an almost miraculous increase in employment has done comparatively little for the bottom line.
The reason we have "substantial" cuts in public spending (and they have not been that substantial, more an ending of the assumptions of ever higher expenditure that the last government left in place) and yet still have to borrow more is that by 2008 we had the largest structural deficit in the western world.
In anything like a normal situation a change in the fiscal balance of £50bn a year would be massive. In our current situation it has reduced the deficit by 1/3. Does this mean we could theoretically afford another Labour government in 10 years? Unfortunately not. Public debt has doubled already and needs to be reduced. In short we need to run surpluses.
I should add for the benefit of the inevitable group of 'sod off Scotland' fanatics that these people were friendly to the English and happy with the Union.
Anyway Cameron does do tours where the public ask questions.
Clegg does something on the radio
What substance can Ed talk about?
EconomyForeign Policy
Education
NHS
Bacon butties
Also, would these be true public questions or carefully managed ones?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/492315/EXCLUSIVE-Extremist-Muslim-bullies-forced-out-headteacher
@MrHarryCole: Will be on BBC lunchtime news talking about Labour's plan to nationalise Question Time.
How are the FDP doing in Germany? or the Greens in Ireland?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-28487288
[edit] more videos here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28509157
I have yet to meet or hear any Yes supporter having any issue with English people. Luckily there are many more people who have vision and hope and do want to run their own affairs.
Can't the BBC bigwigs get it into their skulls that only a tiny proportion of viewers are remotely interested in these minority sports and even they surely could not engage with such a saturated level of coverage.
Boring, boring, boring!
S/be
I think that if the LD’s lose half their seats, then they should retire and regroup,
Furthermore, of course people believe Russia was involved in the plane, we've had nothing short of a media bombardment that this is the case. The fact is, we've seen no-one alleging Russian guilt put forward ANY evidence. Any. The Russians have held their press conference; they have shown their radar records and satellite pictures, as well as debunked the increasingly desperate rubbish coming out of the Ukrainian security services. America has yet to present anything at all to justify their side. Planning to intervene in another country based on no evidence? Where have we heard that before?
How the brave western reporters are worried for their lives in Hamasland.
Do you ever read what you write?
I have difficulty in believing you are that pompous and condescending in real life, but are playing "the big man" from the safe anonymity of your computer screen.
As to "Scots who hate the English" YouGov today showed twice the level of "hoping England lose" than the reverse in England.
Of course, we don't know who these rather sad and pathetic individuals are, defining themselves in negative opposition to an "other" - but at a guess, do you think they are more or less likely to be separatists?
If they lose they get to blame better together and the UK government for misleading the electorate.
Whereas if they win they get to explain why their version of how Independence would work (Europe, currency etc) actually turned out not to be entirely accurate.
I don't think it racist of course, but it just wondered if Farage said it for instance, how it would go down?
''It will be reasonable when they get even close to spending what we earn. Anyone can spend £100B + more than they earn, it is not hard and not clever. ''
That was the point of the article. they are on course - having inherited both a massive deficit in total and a massive structural deficit as part of that.
PS: Your pathetic point about the Yougov misleading question, do you think if they asked an English person if they wanted the Scottish athlete to beat the English one that they would all say , Yes of course why would I support those English athletes when someone from Scotland could win it. PATHETIC.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qsCgrrrPHF0