@Pulpstar It isn't the only thing that is a mess. A lot of the Tory campaign will be about diverting attention from these, and hoping for a friendly media to not look closely into them.
Did anyone see Liz Truss on a photo opportunity visit to Somerset, making sure she got the message out about how important she took the flooding issue. " I have made this visit within the first 10 days of being in the job". She apparently turned up with no prior notice to most farmers and local residents, so they could not ask her any questions.
@edmundintokyo Sadly no,It would mean them having to be honest with the voters. We have the great British traditions to uphold!
It's not obvious that proper accounting would be a problem for politicians - it would be a much cheerier picture if you reported the government's actual net worth instead of just fretting about the liabilities all the time.
Absolute rubbish - why do you think they hide any proper accountability. The EU is just the same too - 20 years now with no accounts officially signed off. Its gone on for so long that its no longer news.
The liabilities of social security and government pensions alone on the basis that private companies have to account for pensions liabilities alone would be enough to show the true state of affairs. Now that would be some 'proper accounting' as you put it!
Did anyone see Liz Truss on a photo opportunity visit to Somerset, making sure she got the message out about how important she took the flooding issue. " I have made this visit within the first 10 days of being in the job". She apparently turned up with no prior notice to most farmers and local residents, so they could not ask her any questions.
Thanks for making us aware of that. And then they wonder why people are turning against the establishment in droves:
@hunchman It might all be academic At the moment, it suits the "West" to do a bit of strutting, with the fallback of blaming "sanctions" for any economic fall off. Putin agrees, and can do the same schtick for his countrymen.
The surreal thing about government accounting is that they don't seem to take any notice of assets. If you're owed a load of money, and you sell those debts to somebody else at fair value, that should make basically zero difference to the amount of money you have available to spend on things, because the money you get for the loan book just replaces your future income stream from the debts.
I don't think that is right. The net present value of the loan book depends on at least four things: (a) future interest rates, (b) bad debt levels, (c) whether the expected repayments are higher or lower than expected because income has been mispredicted [this is similar to (b) but not quite the same, because (b) refers to repayments which are actually due but don't get paid, whereas this refers to whether they are due], and (d) administrative costs involved in collecting all this dosh.
It might well be that the reasoning is that, if universities have a stake in the repayments, items (b) and (c), and perhaps even (d), would come out better.
Your very last hope is a Kinnockised assault on Ed from your media arm isn't it?
A long shot.
My very good hope is that voters will look at the choice available to them.
No guarantees, of course. I don't entirely share Jack W's faith that voters are rational.. Sometimes they are bonkers.
I've never inferred the voters are rational. Many of them can't be trusted to tie their shoe laces let alone vote and a high proportion should be locked up on polling day.
However as bonkers as many are the nation still retains a suitable number of spanners in their collective tool box not to place Ed in Downing Street.
I actually think the voters are pretty smart. Almost every election they pick the best government, including the current LD-Con one.
It seems likely that we will have PM Miliband, but that may well be the best possible choice.
Can any LandslideLabour types disagree with McBride ?
Mr McBride concludes: ‘Labour currently has no clear idea who its target audience is, no positive messages to communicate to anyone about why they should vote for the party, no policies which will persuade them, and is being run in a totally dysfunctional way.’
Mr Miliband is odds on to be the next PM. The Labour leader whom Mr McBride advised seemed less successful. Curious, isn't it? Perhaps there's something to be said for the milder approach.
If the question is whether I'd rather spend time with the people around Ed Miliband, or McBride and the other people surrounding Brown, then yeah, Ed and his circle seem much nicer people.
But I think McBride has a pretty cogent analysis of politics, judging by this article and some of his previous blogs. I think the most true bit is when he says Labour has no idea of the kind of voters they should be targeting. Despite all the lip service about "reconnecting with the public", the Labour leadership still always seem to think what the London chatterati think is automatically what the public think. All this nonsense about "economic credibility" and their belief that the reason Labour are struggling is because they don't have tough "targets" on the deficit. It might be of interest to pointy-heads who work for thinktanks, but the average person down the Dog & Duck does not see why some spreadsheet in a Whitehall office should be of any concern to them.
Similarly, even when Labour do occasionally have a good policy, they present it in a way which will go over the public's heads: most people don't care about "responsible capitalism" as some general principle just for the sake of it, but they do care about big companies routinely ripping off their customers, bosses not giving their employees decent wages and working conditions, and rich people and big businesses thinking that paying their taxes is only something that plebs do and that they're too rich and powerful to have to bother with it. So EdM has to spell out that those are what he wants to do, rather than making sweeping high-brow ideological speeches which feel good to people in the Westminster bubble who like to feel part of some big "movement", but leaves normal people wondering what the hell all this has to do with their lives. It goes beyond Labour not knowing people's opinions on things, it's that on a fundamental level they don't seem to grasp how normal people's thought processes work.
@hunchman It might all be academic At the moment, it suits the "West" to do a bit of strutting, with the fallback of blaming "sanctions" for any economic fall off. Putin agrees, and can do the same schtick for his countrymen.
Putin is desperate to divert attention away from the domestic situation in Russia which has been deteriorating for some while now. Which until now he is doing successfully. The demographics are horrible, and the population is going down despite the best efforts of the Putin government to offer large financial inducements for having children. The fact that so many Russian males are dying much earlier than females (so much alcoholism) is leading to a birth rate crisis. You only need to be a tourist on the streets of Moscow and St Petersburg, and you notice very few elderly men, but plenty of elderly women. And because of the language barrier / perceived racism trying to attract immigrants is far easier said than done. I saw very few ethnic minorities during my time there either. And this problem is only getting worse for Russia, as their population is projected to decline by a 1m people a year for a long time going forward (from the present level of 142m).
@hunchman At least our economy is growing, but where exactly is the "growth" coming from? When you work it out, look at all the other countries that are in the same boat. Britain may be a front runner, but the others are not all that far behind. ^^
@hunchman It might all be academic At the moment, it suits the "West" to do a bit of strutting, with the fallback of blaming "sanctions" for any economic fall off. Putin agrees, and can do the same schtick for his countrymen.
Putin is desperate to divert attention away from the domestic situation in Russia which has been deteriorating for some while now. Which until now he is doing successfully. The demographics are horrible, and the population is going down despite the best efforts of the Putin government to offer large financial inducements for having children. The fact that so many Russian males are dying much earlier than females (so much alcoholism) is leading to a birth rate crisis. You only need to be a tourist on the streets of Moscow and St Petersburg, and you notice very few elderly men, but plenty of elderly women. And because of the language barrier / perceived racism trying to attract immigrants is far easier said than done. I saw very few ethnic minorities during my time there either. And this problem is only getting worse for Russia, as their population is projected to decline by a 1m people a year for a long time going forward (from the present level of 142m).
Did anyone see Liz Truss on a photo opportunity visit to Somerset, making sure she got the message out about how important she took the flooding issue. " I have made this visit within the first 10 days of being in the job". She apparently turned up with no prior notice to most farmers and local residents, so they could not ask her any questions.
Thanks for making us aware of that. And then they wonder why people are turning against the establishment in droves:
People are turning against the establishment because a ministers comes and talks to local people in any area where there has been a problem, and sees for herself what is being done?
Well done Adam Gemili and Jazz Carlin tonight. Followed their careers with interest up to now - silver and gold medals good reward for all their dedication over the past few years.
The PB Hodges are like the Grand Old Duke of Yorks men. They march enthusiastically all the way to the near pinnacle which is a 1% Labour lead on the polling hill, over excitedly declare crossover imminent.....and repeatedly tumble back down the hill.
Did anyone see Liz Truss on a photo opportunity visit to Somerset, making sure she got the message out about how important she took the flooding issue. " I have made this visit within the first 10 days of being in the job". She apparently turned up with no prior notice to most farmers and local residents, so they could not ask her any questions.
Thanks for making us aware of that. And then they wonder why people are turning against the establishment in droves:
People are turning against the establishment because a ministers comes and talks to local people in any area where there has been a problem, and sees for herself what is being done?
Would it better if she sat at a computer instead?
It would be better if she turned up announced, so that the locals had had some time to prepare questions for her to answer. That's what we're so annoyed about here. But no, the no.10 spin operation has been fully at work here. As for the old modelling paradigm goes, rubbish in = rubbish out, cynical politics = cynical voter reaction. Its not hard to fathom, unless you're the Westminster village!
Did anyone see Liz Truss on a photo opportunity visit to Somerset, making sure she got the message out about how important she took the flooding issue. " I have made this visit within the first 10 days of being in the job". She apparently turned up with no prior notice to most farmers and local residents, so they could not ask her any questions.
Thanks for making us aware of that. And then they wonder why people are turning against the establishment in droves:
People are turning against the establishment because a ministers comes and talks to local people in any area where there has been a problem, and sees for herself what is being done?
The PB Hodges are like the Grand Old Duke of Yorks men. They march enthusiastically all the way to the near pinnacle which is a 1% Labour lead on the polling hill, over excitedly declare crossover imminent.....and repeatedly tumble back down the hill.
Whereas you were confident that it wouldnt happen before the GE right until .. it happened!
The PB Hodges are like the Grand Old Duke of Yorks men. They march enthusiastically all the way to the near pinnacle which is a 1% Labour lead on the polling hill, over excitedly declare crossover imminent.....and repeatedly tumble back down the hill.
Whereas you were confident that it wouldnt happen before the GE right until .. it happened!
I don't know who needs the tramadol more, me and Basil carrying these goalposts or the Hodges for repeatedly falling back down the hill.
"No it's there, I can see the crossover, it's there . I have one of Averys yellow boxes on this damn piece of paper telling me crossover is imminent, look. I can see the crossover....."
@perdix I can fairly well guarantee you, that no one who had an awkward question for her, even got within shouting distance. The visit, while being technically unannounced, would have been cleared through security channels beforehand.
Did anyone see Liz Truss on a photo opportunity visit to Somerset, making sure she got the message out about how important she took the flooding issue. " I have made this visit within the first 10 days of being in the job". She apparently turned up with no prior notice to most farmers and local residents, so they could not ask her any questions.
Thanks for making us aware of that. And then they wonder why people are turning against the establishment in droves:
@hunchman At least our economy is growing, but where exactly is the "growth" coming from? When you work it out, look at all the other countries that are in the same boat. Britain may be a front runner, but the others are not all that far behind. ^^
I've said on here last week, confidence remains in an 'up' state until the start of October 2015. I think we're looking at a 10% stockmarket correction ideally into mid-late November, and probably somewhat more in Europe. But the ECB / Draghi still has full blown QE card to play to keep the pack of cards upright for a good while yet. But as Espirito Santo and the mainstream news ignored Bulgarian bank run showed, Europe's banking system is in a chronic state.
It seems that we're rerunning the 1920's in a way. There the timetable was:
1920-21 initial deflationary shock (including Weimar Germany) Response - slash interest rates to rock bottom levels. Mid-1920's - pretty hated stockmarket rally, a lot of nay sayers predicting a crash at any moment. 1927/28 - higher US rates, lower European rates (as we're on the cusp of trying now)to try to divert capital flow to invest in depressed European economy (flirting in and out of recession through the 1920's with all that WW1 debt floating around) late 1929 - we all know that!
If you put the events since 2007 on this timeline then they show a remarkable fit so far. And once we get this necessary correction out of the way on the markets, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Dow climb strongly on higher interest rates, leaving people's heads scratching. And equally we know the inevitable end to all this madness..........It'll be a fun party whilst it lasts!
Did anyone see Liz Truss on a photo opportunity visit to Somerset, making sure she got the message out about how important she took the flooding issue. " I have made this visit within the first 10 days of being in the job". She apparently turned up with no prior notice to most farmers and local residents, so they could not ask her any questions.
Thanks for making us aware of that. And then they wonder why people are turning against the establishment in droves:
Your very last hope is a Kinnockised assault on Ed from your media arm isn't it?
A long shot.
My very good hope is that voters will look at the choice available to them.
No guarantees, of course. I don't entirely share Jack W's faith that voters are rational.. Sometimes they are bonkers.
But it's a democracy. If people want to vote for a PM who will undoubtedly be worse even than Brown (and that is saying something), fair enough. They'll regret it of course, and very quickly.
At least Brown had some sane minders who could rein him in. Who will play the Peter Mandelson and Alastair Darling role in a putative Miliband government? Lord Adonis is sensible enough, to be sure, but I don't think will have the clout. Ed Balls is, well, Ed Balls.
Lol.
Don't worry, Ed won't be a worse PM than liar Cameron, it's not possible. "No more top down reorganisations".
Cameron has not lied - the reforms were all about bottom up reorganisation - GP commissioning (untill the LibDems extended it) and driving the service from the users upwards.
@Flightpath There was an article in one of the papers today, It would appear those GP's are predicting a bit of trouble ahead. Still, we all know what British doctors are like? Future American and Australian citizens. :-)
@hunchman I might argue about timings and outcomes, but that pretty much sums it up.
The timing is critical though......and as I see the 'system' creaking along to the end of next year, I think without the necessary ingredient of economic implosion for radical political change (that a lot of us want in various forms), we'll probably one way or another avoid the disruptive results in the Scottish referendum (low 40's for the Yes campaign), and somehow in a very British way we'll find a way to muddle through the GE result with a Labour Lib Dem coalition ( I think most likely) or a continuation of the status quo (I suspect that a few economic tremors, revelations from PIE and the Westminster village or some other wildcard could dampen the Tories chances).
The real radical change comes once the economic collapse comes. I give whatever the government that wins the 2015GE a maximum of 2 years to collapse in acrimony whatever that result. I said at the time that the 2010GE was the best election to lose in more than a lifetime and was wrong about that, but I really mean it this time about the 2015GE.
Good night to all - found this wonderfully reflective piece of music on YouTube. About time I discovered Yann Tiersen, there's still a lot of great talent eminating from France despite the wretched socialism of Mr Hollande:
Seems that some genius "borked" the estimates for the student loans book? I do hope whoever it was, wasn't counting on spending the twelve billion they estimated for selling it off, for anything important.
The surreal thing about government accounting is that they don't seem to take any notice of assets. If you're owed a load of money, and you sell those debts to somebody else at fair value, that should make basically zero difference to the amount of money you have available to spend on things, because the money you get for the loan book just replaces your future income stream from the debts.
Isn't there a way we could get the government to account for things properly so we don't incentivize politicians to play all these silly games? (See also PFI etc.)
The essential problem is that politicians need to get re-elected, so they're on 4 year cycles and feel pressured into over-promising to the electorate.
(This is of course an age old criticism of democracy).
@hunchman I will get pilloried for this, but... Capitalism is good at making money, and so good and proficient has it become, that it can magic money from "nowhere" at will. The flaw is that "nowhere" hasn't got the assets to back it up. This could do with some rethinking. The other point about capitalism it has become so complex, that the market and people don't quite know where to go next. Stop whinging about immigration, and sort things out so no one really needs to move. that's what rationality dictates, capitalism is pretty much random, even with the constraints of the buyer/seller relationship. It has become a sort of chaos generator again, and it's acolytes are truly fanatical.
The surreal thing about government accounting is that they don't seem to take any notice of assets. If you're owed a load of money, and you sell those debts to somebody else at fair value, that should make basically zero difference to the amount of money you have available to spend on things, because the money you get for the loan book just replaces your future income stream from the debts.
I don't think that is right. The net present value of the loan book depends on at least four things: (a) future interest rates, (b) bad debt levels, (c) whether the expected repayments are higher or lower than expected because income has been mispredicted [this is similar to (b) but not quite the same, because (b) refers to repayments which are actually due but don't get paid, whereas this refers to whether they are due], and (d) administrative costs involved in collecting all this dosh.
It might well be that the reasoning is that, if universities have a stake in the repayments, items (b) and (c), and perhaps even (d), would come out better.
That's why I said "basically" zero: There may be a marginal gain if the assets is better administered, or a marginal loss reflecting the fact that the buyer may be borrowing money to buy the debts and doing it more expensively than the central governmemt would. Either way this will be small compared to the total value of the asset. But even in the optimistic case, the gain you should be counting is the difference between the value of the asset if you'd administered it and the value as administered by the buyer, or less because the buyer will presumably have something in for the buyer as well as the seller. That's the money you have to spend on something nice as a result of the deal, not the total value of the asset.
Likewise with PFI: The deals may or may not be a good idea, but if they make a big difference to the amount the government thinks it has to spend on other things, there's something wonky about the way we're counting how much stuff the government has.
Seems that some genius "borked" the estimates for the student loans book? I do hope whoever it was, wasn't counting on spending the twelve billion they estimated for selling it off, for anything important.
The surreal thing about government accounting is that they don't seem to take any notice of assets. If you're owed a load of money, and you sell those debts to somebody else at fair value, that should make basically zero difference to the amount of money you have available to spend on things, because the money you get for the loan book just replaces your future income stream from the debts.
Isn't there a way we could get the government to account for things properly so we don't incentivize politicians to play all these silly games? (See also PFI etc.)
The essential problem is that politicians need to get re-elected, so they're on 4 year cycles and feel pressured into over-promising to the electorate.
(This is of course an age old criticism of democracy).
British partisan considerations are basically zero-sum with a 50/50 chance of either of Lab or Con winning the next election but one. So pass a bi-partisan Counting Things Properly Act now, with the stipulation that it doesn't take effect until 2020.
Seems that some genius "borked" the estimates for the student loans book? I do hope whoever it was, wasn't counting on spending the twelve billion they estimated for selling it off, for anything important.
The surreal thing about government accounting is that they don't seem to take any notice of assets. If you're owed a load of money, and you sell those debts to somebody else at fair value, that should make basically zero difference to the amount of money you have available to spend on things, because the money you get for the loan book just replaces your future income stream from the debts.
Isn't there a way we could get the government to account for things properly so we don't incentivize politicians to play all these silly games? (See also PFI etc.)
The essential problem is that politicians need to get re-elected, so they're on 4 year cycles and feel pressured into over-promising to the electorate.
(This is of course an age old criticism of democracy).
British partisan considerations are basically zero-sum with a 50/50 chance of either of Lab or Con winning the next election but one. So pass a bi-partisan Counting Things Properly Act now, with the stipulation that it doesn't take effect until 2020.
If Ladbrokes (or whoever) wants to open a book (is that the right word?) on the mistribution futures market, I would advise them to put evens on whether Adam Gemili will be waaaaghed within the next 24 hours.
Comments
It isn't the only thing that is a mess.
A lot of the Tory campaign will be about diverting attention from these, and hoping for a friendly media to not look closely into them.
The liabilities of social security and government pensions alone on the basis that private companies have to account for pensions liabilities alone would be enough to show the true state of affairs. Now that would be some 'proper accounting' as you put it!
http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/11371128.Environment_Secretary_Liz_Truss_visits_Somerset/?ref=var_0
It might all be academic At the moment, it suits the "West" to do a bit of strutting, with the fallback of blaming "sanctions" for any economic fall off.
Putin agrees, and can do the same schtick for his countrymen.
It might well be that the reasoning is that, if universities have a stake in the repayments, items (b) and (c), and perhaps even (d), would come out better.
It seems likely that we will have PM Miliband, but that may well be the best possible choice.
But I think McBride has a pretty cogent analysis of politics, judging by this article and some of his previous blogs. I think the most true bit is when he says Labour has no idea of the kind of voters they should be targeting. Despite all the lip service about "reconnecting with the public", the Labour leadership still always seem to think what the London chatterati think is automatically what the public think. All this nonsense about "economic credibility" and their belief that the reason Labour are struggling is because they don't have tough "targets" on the deficit. It might be of interest to pointy-heads who work for thinktanks, but the average person down the Dog & Duck does not see why some spreadsheet in a Whitehall office should be of any concern to them.
Similarly, even when Labour do occasionally have a good policy, they present it in a way which will go over the public's heads: most people don't care about "responsible capitalism" as some general principle just for the sake of it, but they do care about big companies routinely ripping off their customers, bosses not giving their employees decent wages and working conditions, and rich people and big businesses thinking that paying their taxes is only something that plebs do and that they're too rich and powerful to have to bother with it. So EdM has to spell out that those are what he wants to do, rather than making sweeping high-brow ideological speeches which feel good to people in the Westminster bubble who like to feel part of some big "movement", but leaves normal people wondering what the hell all this has to do with their lives. It goes beyond Labour not knowing people's opinions on things, it's that on a fundamental level they don't seem to grasp how normal people's thought processes work.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/03/numbers-vladimir-putin-doesnt-want-you-to-see
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/russia-population/
Keep on walking Basil, we have a long way to go.
At least our economy is growing, but where exactly is the "growth" coming from?
When you work it out, look at all the other countries that are in the same boat.
Britain may be a front runner, but the others are not all that far behind.
^^
"The 83% of Russians saying they approve of Putin's leadership in late April/early June"
Would it better if she sat at a computer instead?
"No it's there, I can see the crossover, it's there . I have one of Averys yellow boxes on this damn piece of paper telling me crossover is imminent, look. I can see the crossover....."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuI23zCudKY
I can fairly well guarantee you, that no one who had an awkward question for her, even got within shouting distance.
The visit, while being technically unannounced, would have been cleared through security channels beforehand.
Are they so dim in Somerset? How much time do they need?
I think that sometimes no matter what a minister does people will always go out of their way to dream up an excuse to criticise.
It seems that we're rerunning the 1920's in a way. There the timetable was:
1920-21 initial deflationary shock (including Weimar Germany)
Response - slash interest rates to rock bottom levels.
Mid-1920's - pretty hated stockmarket rally, a lot of nay sayers predicting a crash at any moment.
1927/28 - higher US rates, lower European rates (as we're on the cusp of trying now)to try to divert capital flow to invest in depressed European economy (flirting in and out of recession through the 1920's with all that WW1 debt floating around)
late 1929 - we all know that!
If you put the events since 2007 on this timeline then they show a remarkable fit so far. And once we get this necessary correction out of the way on the markets, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Dow climb strongly on higher interest rates, leaving people's heads scratching. And equally we know the inevitable end to all this madness..........It'll be a fun party whilst it lasts!
I might argue about timings and outcomes, but that pretty much sums it up.
There was an article in one of the papers today, It would appear those GP's are predicting a bit of trouble ahead.
Still, we all know what British doctors are like?
Future American and Australian citizens. :-)
The real radical change comes once the economic collapse comes. I give whatever the government that wins the 2015GE a maximum of 2 years to collapse in acrimony whatever that result. I said at the time that the 2010GE was the best election to lose in more than a lifetime and was wrong about that, but I really mean it this time about the 2015GE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=camtQULMLtA
(This is of course an age old criticism of democracy).
I will get pilloried for this, but...
Capitalism is good at making money, and so good and proficient has it become, that it can magic money from "nowhere" at will. The flaw is that "nowhere" hasn't got the assets to back it up.
This could do with some rethinking.
The other point about capitalism it has become so complex, that the market and people don't quite know where to go next.
Stop whinging about immigration, and sort things out so no one really needs to move. that's what rationality dictates, capitalism is pretty much random, even with the constraints of the buyer/seller relationship.
It has become a sort of chaos generator again, and it's acolytes are truly fanatical.
Likewise with PFI: The deals may or may not be a good idea, but if they make a big difference to the amount the government thinks it has to spend on other things, there's something wonky about the way we're counting how much stuff the government has.
On Georgia some recent polls have shown Nunn ahead, could be a tight race with Perdue
Shame though!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2014/jul/28/-sp-twin-peaks-coolest-characters-david-lynch