Why are Labour playing games with gay marriage? This morning this paper quotes Labour sources who are claiming “many Labour MPs” are preparing to support plans from rebel Tory MPs for a “wrecking amendment” to the same-sex marriage bill. The amendment, tabled by former children’s minister Tim Loughton, would extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, potentially adding as much as £4 billion to the cost of the legislation, and significantly delaying the timetable for its implementation.
The same-sex marriage bill is a simple piece of legislation, based around a simple principle; providing equality to members of our society that have been denied it under the law. And as usually happens with simple pieces of legislation based around simple principles, it is about to be swamped beneath a tidal wave of hypocrisy, false morality and cant.
Look no further than the Loughton amendment itself. Mr Loughton claims his amendment is based on the purest of motives. It “addresses a real inequality that will be created if the Bill becomes law,” he told Conservative Home, and seeks to end the anomaly whereby “opposite sex couples will only have the option to marry, albeit in a wider range of religious or civil institutions. A Bill which is being pushed through (wrongly in my view) as an equality measure will therefore actually create a new and substantial inequality.”
Who does Tim Loughton think he’s kidding? At the very start of the same Conservative Home article in which he makes his impassioned plea for equality, he approvingly points his readers to an “excellent piece” by his colleague David Burrows, which he says “sets out the stall for those of us who have opposed the Same Sex Marriage bill”...
@RogerHelmerMEP There are rumours that the EU is back-tracking on climate hysteria: http://is.gd/LHF81E . Seems the sceptics are winning the argument.
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Darling's plan would have been much more successful than Osborne's. Much, much more. It was not an adequate plan by any means. But fag packet or not, it was far superior to Osborne's failed Austerity strategy.
And worth noting that Darling would have been more sensibly flexible to any shortcoming in that plan.
You may also have noticed that the economic environment is "toughter" BECAUSE OF Osborne.
No, Darling's lan was basically bullsh1t. It had no details beyond the high level numbers. So flexibility would have been possible because there was nothing set.
You're missing the point.
Darling's plan may have been back-of-fag-packet but it was miles better than Osborne's economically illiterate plan.
And facts and history have now found Osborne out.
The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.
Eventually the political parties are all going to realise that the only way that the public sector deficit can be curbed is by an across the board wage cut of all public sector workers.
This would include armed forces, teachers, NHS staff, GP contracts, and local goverment - no exceptions.
This has the benefit of reducing the wage bill without increasing unemployment.
The coalition should have done it straight after the last election when most people might have accepted there was a crisis. They are not going to do it between now and the election when people don't realise there is a crisis. But who ever wins the election will find the accumulated public debt has reached a level where the bond market will not allow them to add to it with continued annual deficits.
Three years of cuts has led to... a static economy and static deficit.
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Even more ridiculous for Osborne to have based his 2010 fantasy on a booming Eurozone offsetting domestic austerity then wasn't it. And now he's shifted to trying to ramp up house price inflation instead.
Few people realised how bad it was going to be.
I suspect he has done a better job than you would have done.
Oh dear, all those school fees well spent with responses like that.
Hope you kept the receipts.
I was dumbing it down so you understood.
It is very easy to criticise with hindsight. That means you are looking today at decisions made 3 years ago and saying they were the wrong decision.
At the time, few people realised how bad the Eurozone economy was going to be. The politicians have been very good a kicking the can down the road, with the result that the car crash is playing out in slow motion. That absolutely has a drag on confidence, export potential and growth.
Whilst hindsight's always a great advantage, the thing here is that many commentators on the left were predicting that Osborne's policies would have had exactly the effect that they have had. So really it comes down to the hypothetical argument of whether or not the alternatives proposed at the time would have done better or worse and that becomes a faith-based evidence-free discussion confirming the prejudices of all parties pretty quickly.
The fact that Osborne's now opted for reinflating the private debt bubble rather than relying on public sector austerity and unassisted market processes suggests that he's come to the conclusion that there needs to be an alternative to his original plan.
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Even more ridiculous for Osborne to have based his 2010 fantasy on a booming Eurozone offsetting domestic austerity then wasn't it. And now he's shifted to trying to ramp up house price inflation instead.
To be fair, few expected the Eurozone to be so horrifically mismanaged as it had been. Most forecasters expected it to do better than it has, but the policy mistakes were not anticipated.
That said, when it became clear Eurozone politicians were out of their depth, some of us changed our views and called for policy changes.
Surely if the argument for gay marriage is one of equality, then it would be ridiculous for civil partnerships to exclude same sex couples?
If they are not available for everyone, and marriage is, simply upgrade all civil partnerships to the status of marriage, and make them unavailable from then on..
Im sure there wouldnt be gay people moaning that civil partnerships were something special "just for us", that would be too hypocritical
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Darling's plan would have been much more successful than Osborne's. Much, much more. It was not an adequate plan by any means. But fag packet or not, it was far superior to Osborne's failed Austerity strategy.
And worth noting that Darling would have been more sensibly flexible to any shortcoming in that plan.
You may also have noticed that the economic environment is "toughter" BECAUSE OF Osborne.
No, Darling's lan was basically bullsh1t. It had no details beyond the high level numbers. So flexibility would have been possible because there was nothing set.
You're missing the point.
Darling's plan may have been back-of-fag-packet but it was miles better than Osborne's economically illiterate plan.
And facts and history have now found Osborne out.
The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.
That's a bold statement. Why do you believe GO is the 'worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none'
Here is the text of that letter to the Prime Minister on the importance of our involvement in Europe, signed by Martin Sorrell and other big wigs:
We are writing to make clear our concerns about the implications for business if the Government rules out membership of the euro for the lifetime of this parliament. Such a decision would be damaging for British-based businesses, British employees and the British economy as a whole.
Since the Chancellor's statement on the euro in October 1997, the working assumption of business has been that Britain is a 'pre-entry' country. If it becomes apparent that this is no longer the case, the Government must be aware that this will constitute a significant change in the business climate of this country. Although in many respects, Britain is a good place to do business; non-membership of the euro is damaging that position.
Inward investment in Britain has already fallen substantially. According to the United Nations, Britain attracted 29% of foreign direct investment in the EU over the 20 years to 1999. But since the launch of the euro in that year, the share has fallen to 16%. The UN estimates that it collapsed to 5% in 2002.
By removing the barriers of separate currencies, the creation of the euro has led to a rapid increase in cross-border trade in the euro-zone. Germany's trade with the EU has leapt from 27% of national output in 1998 to 32% in 2001. France's trade with the EU has risen from 28% of GDP to 31%. Overall, the average rise in euro-zone countries is 3 percentage points. Meanwhile, Britain's trade with Europe has stagnated.
The weight of independent economic evidence suggests that the conditions for entry are right. Commercial reality strongly dictates that the risks of staying outside the euro far outweigh any risks of joining. The European single market has moved on and we are no longer full members. We hope that the Government will have the courage of its convictions and recognise that membership of the euro is in our long-term national interest. To do otherwise would have serious consequences for Britain's future prosperity.
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Darling's plan would have been much more successful than Osborne's. Much, much more. It was not an adequate plan by any means. But fag packet or not, it was far superior to Osborne's failed Austerity strategy.
And worth noting that Darling would have been more sensibly flexible to any shortcoming in that plan.
You may also have noticed that the economic environment is "toughter" BECAUSE OF Osborne.
No, Darling's lan was basically bullsh1t. It had no details beyond the high level numbers. So flexibility would have been possible because there was nothing set.
You're missing the point.
Darling's plan may have been back-of-fag-packet but it was miles better than Osborne's economically illiterate plan.
And facts and history have now found Osborne out.
The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.
Prove Darling's plan was better ? You can't.
See France for rEd's plans - doing better than the Uk ?
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Even more ridiculous for Osborne to have based his 2010 fantasy on a booming Eurozone offsetting domestic austerity then wasn't it. And now he's shifted to trying to ramp up house price inflation instead.
Few people realised how bad it was going to be.
I suspect he has done a better job than you would have done.
Oh dear, all those school fees well spent with responses like that.
Hope you kept the receipts.
I was dumbing it down so you understood.
It is very easy to criticise with hindsight. That means you are looking today at decisions made 3 years ago and saying they were the wrong decision.
At the time, few people realised how bad the Eurozone economy was going to be. The politicians have been very good a kicking the can down the road, with the result that the car crash is playing out in slow motion. That absolutely has a drag on confidence, export potential and growth.
Whilst hindsight's always a great advantage, the thing here is that many commentators on the left were predicting that Osborne's policies would have had exactly the effect that they have had. So really it comes down to the hypothetical argument of whether or not the alternatives proposed at the time would have done better or worse and that becomes a faith-based evidence-free discussion confirming the prejudices of all parties pretty quickly.
The fact that Osborne's now opted for reinflating the private debt bubble rather than relying on public sector austerity and unassisted market processes suggests that he's come to the conclusion that there needs to be an alternative to his original plan.
It's fairly self-evident that cutting government spending is going to reduce GDP - that's just maths. The fact is that GO has managed to reduce the deficit significantly without crashing the economy. He's not gone cold turkey - like some on the right would have liked him to do - but there has been a trade off between growth being +/- 0 and a reduced rate of incremental borrowing.
I don't like the fact that QE has created an asset price bubble, I'm not wild about the mortgage support scheme, I think it is terrible that he is shafting the prudent saver / those on fixed incomes to bail out the irresponsible. But overall he's done ok.
A VAT cut, for instance, would have made the figures look good (higher GDP) but would have cost a lot and achieved the square root of bugger all.
'The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.'
Yes, Brown's got the exclusivity of that award,worst economic crash,longest period without any growth,worst regulation,country on the edge of economic collapse,no more boom just bust, nobody will ever match his record.
Jason Cowan @jason_manc I knew exactly what to expect when I saw the Farage letter - "obsessed with wind farms and gay marriage". Unlike Mr Farage, of course.
Not sure that works. Isnt it like saying a left winger who opposes a tax cut for the wealthy is "obsessed with tax"? They arent obsessed with tax, they are opposed to a government policy on tax which, if changed, they would no longer mention.
Could be wrong, often am.
By the way I loved Prison Break. First Series best show Id seen in years. Thought the second was pretty good, but couldnt stomach them keep not escaping and didnt watch again. Last I remember the fat prison guard was fighting, and the pretty Dr (Trintedi?) was dead... or am I misremembering?
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Even more ridiculous for Osborne to have based his 2010 fantasy on a booming Eurozone offsetting domestic austerity then wasn't it. And now he's shifted to trying to ramp up house price inflation instead.
Few people realised how bad it was going to be.
I suspect he has done a better job than you would have done.
Oh dear, all those school fees well spent with responses like that.
Hope you kept the receipts.
I was dumbing it down so you understood.
It is very easy to criticise with hindsight. That means you are looking today at decisions made 3 years ago and saying they were the wrong decision.
At the time, few people realised how bad the Eurozone economy was going to be. The politicians have been very good a kicking the can down the road, with the result that the car crash is playing out in slow motion. That absolutely has a drag on confidence, export potential and growth.
Whilst hindsight's always a great advantage, the thing here is that many commentators on the left were predicting that Osborne's policies would have had exactly the effect that they have had. So really it comes down to the hypothetical argument of whether or not the alternatives proposed at the time would have done better or worse and that becomes a faith-based evidence-free discussion confirming the prejudices of all parties pretty quickly.
The fact that Osborne's now opted for reinflating the private debt bubble rather than relying on public sector austerity and unassisted market processes suggests that he's come to the conclusion that there needs to be an alternative to his original plan.
It's fairly self-evident that cutting government spending is going to reduce GDP - that's just maths. The fact is that GO has managed to reduce the deficit significantly without crashing the economy. He's not gone cold turkey - like some on the right would have liked him to do - but there has been a trade off between growth being +/- 0 and a reduced rate of incremental borrowing.
I don't like the fact that QE has created an asset price bubble, I'm not wild about the mortgage support scheme, I think it is terrible that he is shafting the prudent saver / those on fixed incomes to bail out the irresponsible. But overall he's done ok.
A VAT cut, for instance, would have made the figures look good (higher GDP) but would have cost a lot and achieved the square root of bugger all.
What evidence is there that QE has created an asset price bubble in the UK or the US? Or is it just your own assumptions?
'The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.'
Yes, Brown's got the exclusivity of that award,worst economic crash,longest period without any growth,worst regulation,country on the edge of economic collapse,no more boom just bust, nobody will ever match his record.
Brown then led the recovery in 2009-10, growing the UK more in a year than Osborne has in three.
That's why Osborne comes above Brown in the pecking order of lousy chancellors. Lamont is up there too, above Brown.
It's one thing to argue that mainstream climate science is mistaken, as Richard Tyndall does, but when people like Helmer call it "hysteria" it puts off many of us centre-right moderates that would otherwise be inclined to vote UKIP. You need to realise that if you want to be a large party, you need to be a broad tent and be respectful of those with different views. Otherwise you will piss off people that could be your supporters, as Cameron has done.
By the way I loved Prison Break. First Series best show Id seen in years. Thought the second was pretty good, but couldnt stomach them keep not escaping and didnt watch again. Last I remember the fat prison guard was fighting, and the pretty Dr (Trintedi?) was dead... or am I misremembering?
Watch the rest, it just gets better and better. Which is quite an achievement considering the point of the series is them breaking out of prison, and they've already broken out of prison.
It gradually gets a little bit odd and spooky, until it ends up sort-of like The Prisoner.
Pretty sad state of affairs for Labour when their droids are bigging up their old CoTE not the current shadow one.
Well, in a discussion about the respective records of actual chancellors, it's not so easy to address the record of someone who's never been chancellor.
Pretty sad state of affairs for Labour when their droids are bigging up their old CoTE not the current shadow one.
Well, in a discussion about the respective records of actual chancellors, it's not so easy to address the record of someone who's never been chancellor.
Darling promised to borrow around "115 odd billion in 2008(?) and ended up borrowing £160Bn (?) - in just one year he was that far out - so utterly hopeless and managing money.
No other chancellor has been so far out in a single year.
"Government borrowing is expected to hit around £175bn in 2009/10 – up from £38bn predicted in the 2008 Budget, and a revised pre-Budget estimate of £118bn. "
All these sockets on here giving GO grief for relying on the Eurozone - well your chap got it utterly utterly wrong - in a SINGLE YEAR.
"Government borrowing is expected to hit around £175bn in 2009/10 – up from £38bn predicted in the 2008 Budget, and a revised pre-Budget estimate of £118bn. "
All these sockets on here giving GO grief for relying on the Eurozone - well your chap got it utterly utterly wrong - in a SINGLE YEAR.
It never did hit £175bn. It came in much LOWER.
Where Osborne's borrowing figures always get revised UP, Darling's got revised DOWN. Because he got growth in the system.
Pretty sad state of affairs for Labour when their droids are bigging up their old CoTE not the current shadow one.
Well, in a discussion about the respective records of actual chancellors, it's not so easy to address the record of someone who's never been chancellor.
Darling promised to borrow around "115 odd billion in 2008(?) and ended up borrowing £160Bn (?) - in just one year he was that far out - so utterly hopeless and managing money.
No other chancellor has been so far out in a single year.
What's your point? I was replying to your slightly odd comment about the lack of discussion of Ed Balls from posters you presume to be Labour supporters. Come to think of it, I've never actually seen Darling and Balls together, but I've always worked on the assumption that they were not in fact the same person.
On the topic you raise, it occurs to me that at least one or two significant unexpected financial events took place between his forecast and final figures.
Darling's plan may have been back-of-fag-packet but it was miles better than Osborne's economically illiterate plan.
And facts and history have now found Osborne out.
The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.
Ben
Do you genuinely mean this or are you just spouting Labour propaganda. Given the economy he inherited, the worldwide economic slowdown, and the euro crisis, is having 7.8% unemployment, record employment and a mildly recovering economy really an indication of the worst chancellor in modern UK history. Spain currently has 27.2% unemployment. Are you really suggesting that with the ongoing worldwide/euro economic issues that if Labour had won in 2010 we would have unemployment below 5%, the economy growing at 3% per year and no deficit? Given Labours economic record in Government is that really likely? They were borrowing huge amounts in a booming worldwide economy, how do you think they would be able to borrow less in an worldwide economic downturn with the euro crisis still in full effect.
Rather than Labour propaganda nonsense please give some reasoned responses as I am sure there are lots of people genuinely interested in how Labour would have managed the economy to ensure huge growth, low unemployment and wipe out the deficit
"Government borrowing is expected to hit around £175bn in 2009/10 – up from £38bn predicted in the 2008 Budget, and a revised pre-Budget estimate of £118bn. "
All these sockets on here giving GO grief for relying on the Eurozone - well your chap got it utterly utterly wrong - in a SINGLE YEAR.
It never did hit £175bn. It came in much LOWER.
Where Osborne's borrowing figures always get revised UP, Darling's got revised DOWN. Because he got growth in the system.
How much lower ? Was he only out by £40Bn - in a single year ?
Uk borrowing for last year was revised down - this year. You're on your plums here Ben.
GO may be the Aston Villa of CoTE's - but Darling is Rotheram U-11s second XI.
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Even more ridiculous for Osborne to have based his 2010 fantasy on a booming Eurozone offsetting domestic austerity then wasn't it. And now he's shifted to trying to ramp up house price inflation instead.
Few people realised how bad it was going to be.
I suspect he has done a better job than you would have done.
Oh dear, all those school fees well spent with responses like that.
Hope you kept the receipts.
I was dumbing it down so you understood.
It is very easy to criticise with hindsight. That means you are looking today at decisions made 3 years ago and saying they were the wrong decision.
At the time, few people realised how bad the Eurozone economy was going to be. The politicians have been very good a kicking the can down the road, with the result that the car crash is playing out in slow motion. That absolutely has a drag on confidence, export potential and growth.
Whilst hindsight's always a great advantage, the thing here is that many commentators on the left were predicting that Osborne's policies would have had exactly the effect that they have had. So really it comes down to the hypothetical argument of whether or not the alternatives proposed at the time would have done better or worse and that becomes a faith-based evidence-free discussion confirming the prejudices of all parties pretty quickly.
The fact that Osborne's now opted for reinflating the private debt bubble rather than relying on public sector austerity and unassisted market processes suggests that he's come to the conclusion that there needs to be an alternative to his original plan.
It's fairly self-evident that cutting government spending is going to reduce GDP - that's just maths. The fact is that GO has managed to reduce the deficit significantly without crashing the economy. He's not gone cold turkey - like some on the right would have liked him to do - but there has been a trade off between growth being +/- 0 and a reduced rate of incremental borrowing.
I don't like the fact that QE has created an asset price bubble, I'm not wild about the mortgage support scheme, I think it is terrible that he is shafting the prudent saver / those on fixed incomes to bail out the irresponsible. But overall he's done ok.
A VAT cut, for instance, would have made the figures look good (higher GDP) but would have cost a lot and achieved the square root of bugger all.
What evidence is there that QE has created an asset price bubble in the UK or the US? Or is it just your own assumptions?
Market view generally has been that money released from QE has bled across into the equity markets and helped drive the stock market to its current levels. This is probably ahead of fundamentals - question is whether there will be a pause or a correction and when will it come. Two months ago I was nervous that there was going to be a correction so positioned accordingly - with improving economic fundamentals now think that a pause is more likely.
I see the IMF experts have arrived so they can find out how Osborne has managed to run the economy so successfully, and so much better than any of our main European competitors, despite inheriting the worst deficit of any European country other than Greece and despite the worst peacetime world economic conditions since the 1930s.
I said at the beginning of the year that I expected the UK economy would surprise on the upside in 2013, for which I got much flak from the usual suspects. My hunch is looking quite good now.
Jason Cowan @jason_manc I knew exactly what to expect when I saw the Farage letter - "obsessed with wind farms and gay marriage". Unlike Mr Farage, of course.
Not sure that works. Isnt it like saying a left winger who opposes a tax cut for the wealthy is "obsessed with tax"? They arent obsessed with tax, they are opposed to a government policy on tax which, if changed, they would no longer mention.
Could be wrong, often am.
By the way I loved Prison Break. First Series best show Id seen in years. Thought the second was pretty good, but couldnt stomach them keep not escaping and didnt watch again. Last I remember the fat prison guard was fighting, and the pretty Dr (Trintedi?) was dead... or am I misremembering?
I agree re Prison Break - some critics moaned that the writers relied too much on the tattoo device for their plot, but that seems very lazy thinking to me as its the whole crux of the premise of Schofield's way of thinking and the flaw in his plan that Haywire helped to fix.
I thought S3 was a bit peculiar but it came good and was vicious in places, but S4 was pretty annoying as it felt rather recycled characterism...trying not to spoil the plot here. I saw the two extra episodes that covered the bit explaining the story end - I thought it was okay but left me feeling a bit empty.
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Even more ridiculous for Osborne to have based his 2010 fantasy on a booming Eurozone offsetting domestic austerity then wasn't it. And now he's shifted to trying to ramp up house price inflation instead.
Few people realised how bad it was going to be.
I suspect he has done a better job than you would have done.
Oh dear, all those school fees well spent with responses like that.
Hope you kept the receipts.
I was dumbing it down so you understood.
It is very easy to criticise with hindsight. That means you are looking today at decisions made 3 years ago and saying they were the wrong decision.
At the time, few people realised how bad the Eurozone economy was going to be. The politicians have been very good a kicking the can down the road, with the result that the car crash is playing out in slow motion. That absolutely has a drag on confidence, export potential and growth.
Whilst hindsight's always a great advantage, the thing here is that many commentators on the left were predicting that Osborne's policies would have had exactly the effect that they have had. So really it comes down to the hypothetical argument of whether or not the alternatives proposed at the time would have done better or worse and that becomes a faith-based evidence-free discussion confirming the prejudices of all parties pretty quickly.
The fact that Osborne's now opted for reinflating the private debt bubble rather than relying on public sector austerity and unassisted market processes suggests that he's come to the conclusion that there needs to be an alternative to his original plan.
It's fairly self-evident that cutting government spending is going to reduce GDP - that's just maths. The fact is that GO has managed to reduce the deficit significantly without crashing the economy. He's not gone cold turkey - like some on the right would have liked him to do - but there has been a trade off between growth being +/- 0 and a reduced rate of incremental borrowing.
I don't like the fact that QE has created an asset price bubble, I'm not wild about the mortgage support scheme, I think it is terrible that he is shafting the prudent saver / those on fixed incomes to bail out the irresponsible. But overall he's done ok.
A VAT cut, for instance, would have made the figures look good (higher GDP) but would have cost a lot and achieved the square root of bugger all.
It's fairly self-evident that cutting government spending is going to reduce GDP - that's just maths.
Govt spending hasn't been cut
The fact is that GO has managed to reduce the deficit significantly without crashing the economy.
Any deficit reduction in the first two years came from the growth he inherited and tax rises. Now he's given up.
Only if you look at the aggregate levels. Plenty of the increase in spending is on interest, for example, which doesn't have a positive impact on the UK economy. In real terms the spending on many areas of governemnt has been trimmed.
The deficit reduction in the first two years was predominantly from tax rises - not from the growth because that was just a drag forward effect. That was always the plan. The last year wasn't great in terms of deficit reduction, but just about kept on track. Signs were that there is significant slack that will lead to decent reduction in deficit this year.;
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Even more ridiculous for Osborne to have based his 2010 fantasy on a booming Eurozone offsetting domestic austerity then wasn't it. And now he's shifted to trying to ramp up house price inflation instead.
Few people realised how bad it was going to be.
I suspect he has done a better job than you would have done.
Oh dear, all those school fees well spent with responses like that.
Hope you kept the receipts.
I was dumbing it down so you understood.
It is very easy to criticise with hindsight. That means you are looking today at decisions made 3 years ago and saying they were the wrong decision.
At the time, few people realised how bad the Eurozone economy was going to be. The politicians have been very good a kicking the can down the road, with the result that the car crash is playing out in slow motion. That absolutely has a drag on confidence, export potential and growth.
Whilst hindsight's always a great advantage, the thing here is that many commentators on the left were predicting that Osborne's policies would have had exactly the effect that they have had. So really it comes down to the hypothetical argument of whether or not the alternatives proposed at the time would have done better or worse and that becomes a faith-based evidence-free discussion confirming the prejudices of all parties pretty quickly.
The fact that Osborne's now opted for reinflating the private debt bubble rather than relying on public sector austerity and unassisted market processes suggests that he's come to the conclusion that there needs to be an alternative to his original plan.
It's fairly self-evident that cutting government spending is going to reduce GDP - that's just maths. The fact is that GO has managed to reduce the deficit significantly without crashing the economy. He's not gone cold turkey - like some on the right would have liked him to do - but there has been a trade off between growth being +/- 0 and a reduced rate of incremental borrowing.
I don't like the fact that QE has created an asset price bubble, I'm not wild about the mortgage support scheme, I think it is terrible that he is shafting the prudent saver / those on fixed incomes to bail out the irresponsible. But overall he's done ok.
A VAT cut, for instance, would have made the figures look good (higher GDP) but would have cost a lot and achieved the square root of bugger all.
What evidence is there that QE has created an asset price bubble in the UK or the US? Or is it just your own assumptions?
1. House prices in the UK are only just off 2007 highs (and have exceeded them by a large margin in London), despite incomes still be well off the levels achieved at that time.
2. Fixed income securities (aka bonds) keep reaching ever more ridiculous lows. In the UK, 10 year Gilts yield 1.9%. That's below the rate of inflation. Low interest rates (below inflation) mean people have an economic incentive to 'leverage up'.
3. The same is true in the US, with even 30 years yielding just 3.2%. Statistically, the chance of there being no five year period with inflation averaging over 6% in the next 30 years is very, very low. That will be a disaster for the pension fund holding 30 year fixed interest bonds.
4. Even in equities, we now see global 'blur chip' growth companies (Unilever, Nestle, etc.) trading at P/E multiples that are in the top decile of long-term averages.
It's one thing to argue that mainstream climate science is mistaken, as Richard Tyndall does, but when people like Helmer call it "hysteria" it puts off many of us centre-right moderates that would otherwise be inclined to vote UKIP. You need to realise that if you want to be a large party, you need to be a broad tent and be respectful of those with different views. Otherwise you will piss off people that could be your supporters, as Cameron has done.
I can understand your point that language and words have a potency to alarm or even dissuade if one doesn't agree with the premise in the first place. But you must admit that the "man is to blame for global warming climate changers" are at times very hysterical in their propaganda and statements. I think that Helmer was just alluding to that. I can only speak for myself, that there is a time for intemperate words and sometimes they must be used.
And GO has played a blinder, yes he has Tim look at the economy and forecast for the economy and, yes: it’s the economy, Stupid.
Of course he has.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Compared to what?
- his original plan? You may have noticed that the economic environment is tougher at the moment thatn expected
- Darling's "plan"? Was written on the back of a fag packet and would never have been delivered so is not a meaningful basis for comparison.
Even more ridiculous for Osborne to have based his 2010 fantasy on a booming Eurozone offsetting domestic austerity then wasn't it. And now he's shifted to trying to ramp up house price inflation instead.
To be fair, few expected the Eurozone to be so horrifically mismanaged as it had been. Most forecasters expected it to do better than it has, but the policy mistakes were not anticipated.
That said, when it became clear Eurozone politicians were out of their depth, some of us changed our views and called for policy changes.
There's an extent to which that is true, but I have a few problems with it.
Firstly, in 2010 Clegg claimed that it was the Greek debt crisis that convinced him of the need to follow Osborne's austerity policies, so it is clear that the Eurozone crisis as a factor is not entirely new.
Secondly, in 2010 there were those among us - myself included - who pointed to other over optimistic elements of the Osborne/OBR forecasts. Most importantly these forecasts assumed that the British consumer would massively increase their personal debt levels.
That this has failed to occur is probably a good thing, but it was a big reason why Osborne's sums added up in 2010, and so the policy always looked like a sham from the very beginning.
"Government borrowing is expected to hit around £175bn in 2009/10 – up from £38bn predicted in the 2008 Budget, and a revised pre-Budget estimate of £118bn. "
All these sockets on here giving GO grief for relying on the Eurozone - well your chap got it utterly utterly wrong - in a SINGLE YEAR.
It never did hit £175bn. It came in much LOWER.
Where Osborne's borrowing figures always get revised UP, Darling's got revised DOWN. Because he got growth in the system.
How much lower ? Was he only out by £40Bn - in a single year ?
Uk borrowing for last year was revised down - this year. You're on your plums here Ben.
GO may be the Aston Villa of CoTE's - but Darling is Rotheram U-11s second XI.
And Brown is Third Lanark.
Osborne's figure was revised down at the very last gasp from a forecast already substantially higher than any plan!!
Osborne is useless, Aston Villa under 8s playing in a man's league.
As I said, despite the large initial forecast, GROWTH meant borrowing undershot the forecast under Darling.
Darling's plan may have been back-of-fag-packet but it was miles better than Osborne's economically illiterate plan.
And facts and history have now found Osborne out.
The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.
Ben
Do you genuinely mean this or are you just spouting Labour propaganda. Given the economy he inherited, the worldwide economic slowdown, and the euro crisis, is having 7.8% unemployment, record employment and a mildly recovering economy really an indication of the worst chancellor in modern UK history. Spain currently has 27.2% unemployment. Are you really suggesting that with the ongoing worldwide/euro economic issues that if Labour had won in 2010 we would have unemployment below 5%, the economy growing at 3% per year and no deficit? Given Labours economic record in Government is that really likely? They were borrowing huge amounts in a booming worldwide economy, how do you think they would be able to borrow less in an worldwide economic downturn with the euro crisis still in full effect.
Rather than Labour propaganda nonsense please give some reasoned responses as I am sure there are lots of people genuinely interested in how Labour would have managed the economy to ensure huge growth, low unemployment and wipe out the deficit
Had Labour won in 2010:
- Unemployment would be lower - The deficit would be lower - Growth would have been higher - Leadership in Europe would have been stronger (maybe averting the crisis we have seen)
A bit like the experience of the US.
Under Osborne we've had disaster after disaster and now a flatlining economy - which the Tories seem to want to crow about.
Such is the miserably low expectations of your average Tory voter.
"Some people in every voluntary organisation hold eccentric opinions; but it tells us something about our metropolitan elites that they use the term 'swivel-eyed' almost exclusively to describe mainstream Tory Eurosceptics (the term is a particular favourite of that pitiable old boob Michael White at the Guardian.) Wanting a referendum on leaving the EU is routinely described by bien pensant commentators as 'swivel-eyed' – which makes 82 per cent of the population mad. But hankering after membership of the euro as, say, Peter Mandelson does, is apparently perfectly reasonable.
Not that this is a blog about who said what: an aspect of politics that has always bored me. No, the far larger matter is the vertiginous collapse in the memberships of all parties. Our current model dates from the late nineteenth century. It predates the universal franchise, and casts members in an externally supportive role, like flying buttresses on a cathedral. Activists are supposed to back whatever their MPs do, without expecting much in return.
That model doesn't work any more. The Internet has broken the old monoliths, allowing people to swarm together on an ad hoc, issue-by-issue basis. Voters will gladly join campaigns for 'trade justice', or lower fuel duty, or a referendum on the EU. But they will no longer unconditionally back a political party. The old deference has gone – and not before time.
All party leaders talk about increasing membership. None has succeeded. The only constituencies where the trend is being reversed are those whose local MPs understand that politics has to be open-source. Frinton's Douglas Carswell, for example, who has written a book on what he calls iDemocracy, has doubled the membership of his local Conservative Association – and, significantly, was not affected by the Essex-wide swing to Ukip.
What ought parties to be doing? They should abandon the present model, where members are expected loyally to pay their subscriptions every year, come what may. Instead, they should look at having registered supporters, on the US model, who are able to choose local and national candidates in primaries.
I'll never get tired of saying it: primaries will solve most of our political problems. They will tip power back from the executive to the legislature. They will abolish safe seats, and the complacency that goes with them. They will ensure that we have a genuinely diverse House of Commons. (I don't mean diversity in the BBC sense – people of different colours who all believe more or less the same thing – but genuine pluralism of age, sex, accent, geography, professional background and, above all, opinion.) They will weaken Whips and strengthen voters. They will increase turnout. They will disperse power from remote elites to the general population. They will improve the quality of policy-making. And, for what it's worth, they will ensure that any swivel-eyed people in political parties are even more heavly outnumbered by ordinary citizens than at present.
It's cost £250bn extra borrowing to play this "blinder".
But when you're a blinkered Tory open to easy propaganda, that is cheap.
Young Ben,
How is your guesstimate that 2005 -> 2010 growth figures will out-shine 2010 -> 2015 going? Have you now done "Recession 101" and understood why there is no such thing as a double/triple-dip yet...?
You're one of the few decent leftards on here; so man-up! You were wrong, are wrong and are floundering for another five-years in opposition. Go-on son; let-it-out....
Let’s start with the labour market data, which showed a rise in the number of unemployed to 2,518,000. Most worryingly, there was a rise in the number of long-term unemployed, which really hurts. There are now 900,000 people who have been unemployed for more than a year – 35.8 per cent of the total. This includes over half a million youngsters under the age of 25.
When the Coalition took office in May 2010 there were 800,000 long-term unemployed, or 32.3 per cent of the total. The last time we saw the proportion of long-term unemployed as high as this was in May 1997, at 36.3 per cent, under the last Tory government. Tony Blair took office on 2 May 1997. It was lower than this during the entire period that Labour was in power. Same old Tories.
You would have thought that Blanchflower would have the good grace not to comment on UK labour market data. Unemployment is still half the level he was warning about.
'Professor David Blanchflower launched an attack on the economic plans of George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, claiming they would create a "lost generation" of workers.
He said that any cuts in public spending could force unemployment up from its current 2.5 million to four million over the coming years.'
You must be the only one that takes that idiot seriously.
Let’s start with the labour market data, which showed a rise in the number of unemployed to 2,518,000. Most worryingly, there was a rise in the number of long-term unemployed, which really hurts. There are now 900,000 people who have been unemployed for more than a year – 35.8 per cent of the total. This includes over half a million youngsters under the age of 25.
When the Coalition took office in May 2010 there were 800,000 long-term unemployed, or 32.3 per cent of the total. The last time we saw the proportion of long-term unemployed as high as this was in May 1997, at 36.3 per cent, under the last Tory government. Tony Blair took office on 2 May 1997. It was lower than this during the entire period that Labour was in power. Same old Tories.
Blanchflower is citing a small difference of a few percentage points, and 100,000 long-term unemployed to make a point. Did you not see the graph Socrates linked to, which showed a near doubling of Total UK debt during the last Labour government (1997-2010)?
You would have thought that Blanchflower would have the good grace not to comment on UK labour market data. Unemployment is still half the level he was warning about.
The five million unemployed comment was caveated by: if the usual stabilisers weren't allowed to work.
More OT - just started watching Eureka, and the opening scenes involve not running over a dog in the road. A friend of mine said the best way to avoid running an animal over is not to avoid it, but aim for it if far enough away as you're more likely to miss it - as it'll have moved left or right by then.
@RogerHelmerMEP There are rumours that the EU is back-tracking on climate hysteria: http://is.gd/LHF81E . Seems the sceptics are winning the argument.
Will wind farms now get short shrift? I somehow doubt it while Cammo and co rule GB.
Let's hope the UK political class' energy policy of making energy in Britain the most expensive in the world - guaranteeing economic suicide - will follow suit.
The Times of London @thetimes The average asking price for a home in London has broken through £500,000 for the first time http://thetim.es/18XvI5n
What we need most of all in this country is an incompetent chum of Cameron's stoking up house prices with taxpayer subsidies.
None of which is anything to do with Osborne's programme. It is driven by instability in other markets, devaluation and limited supply in prime areas.
Moreover, Osborne's plan will have minimal effect in London as it is capped at £600,000. It's going to be more use in the rest of the country where house prices have performed significantly less well.
The important thing, however, is that it is only a temporary measure and allowed to expire when the sunset comes into play
Eventually the political parties are all going to realise that the only way that the public sector deficit can be curbed is by an across the board wage cut of all public sector workers.
This would include armed forces, teachers, NHS staff, GP contracts, and local goverment - no exceptions.
This has the benefit of reducing the wage bill without increasing unemployment.
The coalition should have done it straight after the last election when most people might have accepted there was a crisis. They are not going to do it between now and the election when people don't realise there is a crisis. But who ever wins the election will find the accumulated public debt has reached a level where the bond market will not allow them to add to it with continued annual deficits.
Labour supporters say this will not work because it will be offset by reduced growth.
If they believe this then they should be recommending increasing wages to all public sector workers by 10% in order to cut the deficit.
What is supposed to be indicated by the relative sizes of the slices in the pie chart in the article? I thought the betting odds were supposed to be an approximate indication of the proportion of people betting on something (i.e. the proportion of money being bet on something), which would mean Cameron 9% (10/1), None 58% (8/11), Nick Clegg 36% (7/4), and Ed Miliband 11% (8/1).... But the actual proportions in the pie chart are more like 35%, 25%, 24% and 21% respectively.
What am I misunderstanding?
The slices of the pie are an indication of the amount of money put on each runner.. so it looks like about 30% of the money has gone on Cameron, 25% on Clegg and None, and 20% on Miliband. The slices of pie are nothing to do with the odds
So if the bookies have taken a total of a grand on this market it would be £300 Cam, £250 each on Clegg and None , and £200 on EdM
"Some people in every voluntary organisation hold eccentric opinions; but it tells us something about our metropolitan elites that they use the term 'swivel-eyed' almost exclusively to describe mainstream Tory Eurosceptics (the term is a particular favourite of that pitiable old boob Michael White at the Guardian.) Wanting a referendum on leaving the EU is routinely described by bien pensant commentators as 'swivel-eyed'
If Hannan thinks it is Guardian journalists throwing terms like "swivel-eyed" and "loons" around, he really ought to read the papers.
Let's hope the UK political class' energy policy of making energy in Britain the most expensive in the world - guaranteeing economic suicide - will follow suit.
Price per kw/h of eletricity (all number current USD):
Denmark $0.41 Brazil $0.34 Germany $0.31 Belgium $0.29 Netherlands $0.29 Italy $0.28 Ireland $0.28 Sweden $0.27 Australia $0.22-0.56 (averages $0.26) California $0.15-0.46 (averages $0.25) Singapore $0.22 Japan $0.21 France $0.20 New Zealand $0.19 UK $0.19 Mexico $0.19 USA $0.08 to $0.37 (averages $0.15) Iceland $0.09
There are people with lower priced electricity, but these places (Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia) achieve this through subsidies. Among largely free-market countries we are amongst the cheapest in the world.
Let's hope the UK political class' energy policy of making energy in Britain the most expensive in the world - guaranteeing economic suicide - will follow suit.
Price per kw/h of eletricity (all number current USD):
Denmark $0.41 Brazil $0.34 Germany $0.31 Belgium $0.29 Netherlands $0.29 Italy $0.28 Ireland $0.28 Sweden $0.27 Australia $0.22-0.56 (averages $0.26) California $0.15-0.46 (averages $0.25) Singapore $0.22 Japan $0.21 France $0.20 New Zealand $0.19 UK $0.19 Mexico $0.19 USA $0.08 to $0.37 (averages $0.15) Iceland $0.09
There are people with lower priced electricity, but these places (Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia) achieve this through subsidies. Among largely free-market countries we are amongst the cheapest in the world.
Sorry, I left Canada out which also has very cheap electricity. It's around the $0.10 level, which makes it the cheapest large economy in the world. (AECO gas is sub $3/mmcf)
Let's hope the UK political class' energy policy of making energy in Britain the most expensive in the world - guaranteeing economic suicide - will follow suit.
Price per kw/h of eletricity (all number current USD):
Denmark $0.41 Brazil $0.34 Germany $0.31 Belgium $0.29 Netherlands $0.29 Italy $0.28 Ireland $0.28 Sweden $0.27 Australia $0.22-0.56 (averages $0.26) California $0.15-0.46 (averages $0.25) Singapore $0.22 Japan $0.21 France $0.20 New Zealand $0.19 UK $0.19 Mexico $0.19 USA $0.08 to $0.37 (averages $0.15) Iceland $0.09
There are people with lower priced electricity, but these places (Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia) achieve this through subsidies. Among largely free-market countries we are amongst the cheapest in the world.
I'd assume that Iceland is largely geothermal (minimal running cost, non-transportable), so not really comparable to any other country on the list.
The Times of London @thetimes The average asking price for a home in London has broken through £500,000 for the first time http://thetim.es/18XvI5n
What we need most of all in this country is an incompetent chum of Cameron's stoking up house prices with taxpayer subsidies.
None of which is anything to do with Osborne's programme. It is driven by instability in other markets, devaluation and limited supply in prime areas.
Moreover, Osborne's plan will have minimal effect in London as it is capped at £600,000.
But if the average price in London is £500k and Help to Buy is available up to £600k then it will apply to the majority of houses in London and so it would be reasonable to assume it will have much more than a "minimal effect."
An anecdote - when I first bought a house in London, 32 years ago, it cost £20k, which was about 4 times my then salary as a new graduate. Now that same house would be worth at least £250k - or about ten times the salary of a new graduate. And Osborne's answer to our economic problems is to force prices even higher. Madness.
Let's hope the UK political class' energy policy of making energy in Britain the most expensive in the world - guaranteeing economic suicide - will follow suit.
Price per kw/h of eletricity (all number current USD):
Denmark $0.41 Brazil $0.34 Germany $0.31 Belgium $0.29 Netherlands $0.29 Italy $0.28 Ireland $0.28 Sweden $0.27 Australia $0.22-0.56 (averages $0.26) California $0.15-0.46 (averages $0.25) Singapore $0.22 Japan $0.21 France $0.20 New Zealand $0.19 UK $0.19 Mexico $0.19 USA $0.08 to $0.37 (averages $0.15) Iceland $0.09
There are people with lower priced electricity, but these places (Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia) achieve this through subsidies. Among largely free-market countries we are amongst the cheapest in the world.
I'd assume that Iceland is largely geothermal (minimal running cost, non-transportable), so not really comparable to any other country on the list.
What's interesting about this list is that even energy exporters like Australia (massive gas and coal reserves, don't really believe in global warming) are more expensive than the UK. Also, that despite being all (fully depreciated) nuclear, France has marginally more expensive electricity than us.
The dominant theme in British politics at present is "we're going to the dogs", and it's what's fuelling UKIP's current surge. Some things are getting worse, but other things are demonstrably pretty good in Britain. But the UKIPpers are quite immune to that idea, and inoculated against all demonstrations to the contrary, no matter how conclusive.
The Times of London @thetimes The average asking price for a home in London has broken through £500,000 for the first time http://thetim.es/18XvI5n
What we need most of all in this country is an incompetent chum of Cameron's stoking up house prices with taxpayer subsidies.
None of which is anything to do with Osborne's programme. It is driven by instability in other markets, devaluation and limited supply in prime areas.
Moreover, Osborne's plan will have minimal effect in London as it is capped at £600,000.
But if the average price in London is £500k and Help to Buy is available up to £600k then it will apply to the majority of houses in London and so it would be reasonable to assume it will have much more than a "minimal effect."
An anecdote - when I first bought a house in London, 32 years ago, it cost £20k, which was about 4 times my then salary as a new graduate. Now that same house would be worth at least £250k - or about ten times the salary of a new graduate. And Osborne's answer to our economic problems is to force prices even higher. Madness.
Possibly, although to be honest house prices in London are set by cash buyers, so I suspect given the market dynamics those buyers using this scheme will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Basically, the problem is that in the centre it will have no effect (prices are too high), while in the outlying flats market the competition is from BTL buyers who won't qualify for this scheme. Where it may have an impact is in the spillover areas - where normal people are forced out into looking for houses. These are typically much cheaper than the £600,000 (or even the £500,000)
I suspect the impact wikll be much greater on the *median* house price rather than the average
Let's hope the UK political class' energy policy of making energy in Britain the most expensive in the world - guaranteeing economic suicide - will follow suit.
Price per kw/h of eletricity (all number current USD):
Denmark $0.41 Brazil $0.34 Germany $0.31 Belgium $0.29 Netherlands $0.29 Italy $0.28 Ireland $0.28 Sweden $0.27 Australia $0.22-0.56 (averages $0.26) California $0.15-0.46 (averages $0.25) Singapore $0.22 Japan $0.21 France $0.20 New Zealand $0.19 UK $0.19 Mexico $0.19 USA $0.08 to $0.37 (averages $0.15) Iceland $0.09
There are people with lower priced electricity, but these places (Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia) achieve this through subsidies. Among largely free-market countries we are amongst the cheapest in the world.
I'd assume that Iceland is largely geothermal (minimal running cost, non-transportable), so not really comparable to any other country on the list.
What's interesting about this list is that even energy exporters like Australia (massive gas and coal reserves, don't really believe in global warming) are more expensive than the UK. Also, that despite being all (fully depreciated) nuclear, France has marginally more expensive electricity than us.
But presumably you believe in the free market, so that is entirely logical.
The UK's price is set by prevailing world prices + local taxes.
I think UKIP's view is that the relatively low taxes we have enjoyed in the past are undermining a competitive advantage that we have. The other question I'd ask - assuming your prices are wholesale - is whether they reflect stuff like the climate levy that get added to retail bills & (I think) fuel (sorry) a lot of the anger.
The dominant theme in British politics at present is "we're going to the dogs", and it's what's fuelling UKIP's current surge. Some things are getting worse, but other things are demonstrably pretty good in Britain. But the UKIPpers are quite immune to that idea, and inoculated against all demonstrations to the contrary, no matter how conclusive.
I think it is fair to say that "UKIPpers" think there are quite a lot of pretty good things in Britain that they dont want to be changed by "progressives", and plenty that have been changed for the worse
- Unemployment would be lower - The deficit would be lower - Growth would have been higher - Leadership in Europe would have been stronger (maybe averting the crisis we have seen)
A bit like the experience of the US.
Under Osborne we've had disaster after disaster and now a flatlining economy - which the Tories seem to want to crow about.
Such is the miserably low expectations of your average Tory voter.
Ben
What is the point in this reply. What not say that all men would look like George Clooney if Labour had won.
What would labour have done to facilitate this economic miracle that you refer to. If you are going to say increase spending, can you please explain why an increase in spending did not lead to above average growth or a reduction in the deficit (it lead to an increase ) during the economic boom years of 2001-2007. Its very easy to criticize and say things would be so much better under labour, but you need an economic argument. Please also detail the disaster after disaster under Osborne that you refer to? Record employment? Reducing deficit? I am not claiming that Osborne has been an economic genius but to say that he is the worst chancellor of modern history is absurd. If our economy was like spain's is as the moment then your argument would have some credence, but it is not.
But if the average price in London is £500k and Help to Buy is available up to £600k then it will apply to the majority of houses in London and so it would be reasonable to assume it will have much more than a "minimal effect."
An anecdote - when I first bought a house in London, 32 years ago, it cost £20k, which was about 4 times my then salary as a new graduate. Now that same house would be worth at least £250k - or about ten times the salary of a new graduate. And Osborne's answer to our economic problems is to force prices even higher. Madness.
Possibly, although to be honest house prices in London are set by cash buyers, so I suspect given the market dynamics those buyers using this scheme will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Basically, the problem is that in the centre it will have no effect (prices are too high), while in the outlying flats market the competition is from BTL buyers who won't qualify for this scheme. Where it may have an impact is in the spillover areas - where normal people are forced out into looking for houses.
Normal people? Are you saying the London market should be out of reach of "normal people?" Do we want a city owned entirely by bankers and foreign oligarchs?
The Times of London @thetimes The average asking price for a home in London has broken through £500,000 for the first time http://thetim.es/18XvI5n
What we need most of all in this country is an incompetent chum of Cameron's stoking up house prices with taxpayer subsidies.
None of which is anything to do with Osborne's programme. It is driven by instability in other markets, devaluation and limited supply in prime areas.
Moreover, Osborne's plan will have minimal effect in London as it is capped at £600,000. It's going to be more use in the rest of the country where house prices have performed significantly less well.
The important thing, however, is that it is only a temporary measure and allowed to expire when the sunset comes into play
You don't appear to have understood the term "average"
The average asking price for a home in London has broken through £500,000 for the first time
The real genius of Osborne's plan is that it applies to remortgaging, has schemes that apply to buy to let and that the taxpayer also gets to pick up the tab for massive increases in housing benefit in London as rents are forced up.
I suspect that I have a far better understanding of the specific dynamics of the London property market that you do. Companies I am on the Board of invest in residential, retail, commercial and trophy segments within the market.
Leaving aside the political dressing, there are three really important bits in this:
"In my column for The Independent on Sunday today I have some exclusive revelations from recent focus groups that were shown videos of Miliband and asked what they thought. The reports of these groups say it is still “difficult to test Miliband’s message and arguments” because people are so dismissive of him."
"Where groups used to describe him as “weird”, they now tend to call him “weak”."
"The report also says: “In most focus groups now people also spontaneously make the point that he wants to borrow more.”... the focus groups seemed to know about the plan to borrow more now to borrow less later.
This is seen as a sign of a “lack of seriousness and absence of the steeliness to take difficult decisions”. The groups, perhaps surprisingly, resist the Tory argument that Labour are to blame for the country’s economic problems, but a phrase that has cropped up recently is: “He’d take us back to square one.” "
The Times of London @thetimes The average asking price for a home in London has broken through £500,000 for the first time http://thetim.es/18XvI5n
What we need most of all in this country is an incompetent chum of Cameron's stoking up house prices with taxpayer subsidies.
None of which is anything to do with Osborne's programme. It is driven by instability in other markets, devaluation and limited supply in prime areas.
Moreover, Osborne's plan will have minimal effect in London as it is capped at £600,000.
But if the average price in London is £500k and Help to Buy is available up to £600k then it will apply to the majority of houses in London and so it would be reasonable to assume it will have much more than a "minimal effect."
An anecdote - when I first bought a house in London, 32 years ago, it cost £20k, which was about 4 times my then salary as a new graduate. Now that same house would be worth at least £250k - or about ten times the salary of a new graduate. And Osborne's answer to our economic problems is to force prices even higher. Madness.
Possibly, although to be honest house prices in London are set by cash buyers, so I suspect given the market dynamics those buyers using this scheme will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Basically, the problem is that in the centre it will have no effect (prices are too high), while in the outlying flats market the competition is from BTL buyers who won't qualify for this scheme. Where it may have an impact is in the spillover areas - where normal people are forced out into looking for houses. These are typically much cheaper than the £600,000 (or even the £500,000)
I suspect the impact wikll be much greater on the *median* house price rather than the average
BTL purchasers use another taxpayer subsidised scheme
BoE opens Funding for Lending door to buy-to-let landlords
Buy-to-let landlords could be the biggest beneficiaries of the Bank of England’s expanded Funding for Lending Scheme
For the first time in 20yrs - I didn't watch Eurovision - Bonnie Tyler on top of Englebert were just too much for me to endure.
This however made me LOL as its so right.
Cameron Yarde Jnr @CameronYardeJnr In my quest to become BBC1 Controller I have various proposals. My latest is to ask Right Said Fred to represent the UK at Eurovision.
Let's hope the UK political class' energy policy of making energy in Britain the most expensive in the world - guaranteeing economic suicide - will follow suit.
Price per kw/h of eletricity (all number current USD):
Denmark $0.41 Brazil $0.34 Germany $0.31 Belgium $0.29 Netherlands $0.29 Italy $0.28 Ireland $0.28 Sweden $0.27 Australia $0.22-0.56 (averages $0.26) California $0.15-0.46 (averages $0.25) Singapore $0.22 Japan $0.21 France $0.20 New Zealand $0.19 UK $0.19 Mexico $0.19 USA $0.08 to $0.37 (averages $0.15) Iceland $0.09
There are people with lower priced electricity, but these places (Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia) achieve this through subsidies. Among largely free-market countries we are amongst the cheapest in the world.
Even if those figures are true - which i doubt very much - how is that relevant to my point which was
"Let's hope the UK political class' energy policy of making energy in Britain the most expensive in the world - guaranteeing economic suicide - will follow suit."
But if the average price in London is £500k and Help to Buy is available up to £600k then it will apply to the majority of houses in London and so it would be reasonable to assume it will have much more than a "minimal effect."
An anecdote - when I first bought a house in London, 32 years ago, it cost £20k, which was about 4 times my then salary as a new graduate. Now that same house would be worth at least £250k - or about ten times the salary of a new graduate. And Osborne's answer to our economic problems is to force prices even higher. Madness.
Possibly, although to be honest house prices in London are set by cash buyers, so I suspect given the market dynamics those buyers using this scheme will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Basically, the problem is that in the centre it will have no effect (prices are too high), while in the outlying flats market the competition is from BTL buyers who won't qualify for this scheme. Where it may have an impact is in the spillover areas - where normal people are forced out into looking for houses.
Normal people? Are you saying the London market should be out of reach of "normal people?" Do we want a city owned entirely by bankers and foreign oligarchs?
No - I am saying that it *is* out of reach of "normal people" - at least inside zone 1. A 3 bedroom house in my part of town (admittedly superprime) is now more than £5m. If I hadn't bought my flat 10 years ago and completely refurbished it there would be no way I could afford to buy it today.
I think this is very bad for the long-term development of central London. If you walk around parts of Kensington or Belgravia in the evening they are practically deserted.
The Times of London @thetimes The average asking price for a home in London has broken through £500,000 for the first time http://thetim.es/18XvI5n
What we need most of all in this country is an incompetent chum of Cameron's stoking up house prices with taxpayer subsidies.
None of which is anything to do with Osborne's programme. It is driven by instability in other markets, devaluation and limited supply in prime areas.
Moreover, Osborne's plan will have minimal effect in London as it is capped at £600,000.
But if the average price in London is £500k and Help to Buy is available up to £600k then it will apply to the majority of houses in London and so it would be reasonable to assume it will have much more than a "minimal effect."
An anecdote - when I first bought a house in London, 32 years ago, it cost £20k, which was about 4 times my then salary as a new graduate. Now that same house would be worth at least £250k - or about ten times the salary of a new graduate. And Osborne's answer to our economic problems is to force prices even higher. Madness.
My parents bought the house I grew up in for £20k in 1979 with a 10% deposit. When my Dad sold the house in 1997 to move in with his new wife - who refused to live in "downmarket" Streatham - it was sold for about £140k (I thought to a developer who would break it up into flats).
A google search finds that it has been extensively renovated but survives as a semi-detached house on sale for £50 short of a million. RPI would have taken the house value to £85,700.
House prices in Britain are insanely high, but in London they are far beyond the realms of mere insanity.
But if the average price in London is £500k and Help to Buy is available up to £600k then it will apply to the majority of houses in London and so it would be reasonable to assume it will have much more than a "minimal effect."
An anecdote - when I first bought a house in London, 32 years ago, it cost £20k, which was about 4 times my then salary as a new graduate. Now that same house would be worth at least £250k - or about ten times the salary of a new graduate. And Osborne's answer to our economic problems is to force prices even higher. Madness.
Possibly, although to be honest house prices in London are set by cash buyers, so I suspect given the market dynamics those buyers using this scheme will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Basically, the problem is that in the centre it will have no effect (prices are too high), while in the outlying flats market the competition is from BTL buyers who won't qualify for this scheme. Where it may have an impact is in the spillover areas - where normal people are forced out into looking for houses.
Normal people? Are you saying the London market should be out of reach of "normal people?" Do we want a city owned entirely by bankers and foreign oligarchs?
No - I am saying that it *is* out of reach of "normal people" - at least inside zone 1. A 3 bedroom house in my part of town (admittedly superprime) is now more than £5m. If I hadn't bought my flat 10 years ago and completely refurbished it there would be no way I could afford to buy it today.
I think this is very bad for the long-term development of central London. If you walk around parts of Kensington or Belgravia in the evening they are practically deserted.
I remember walking through Docklands one sunday (en route to Greenwich foot tunnel). Ghost town!
Good to see Tristram Hunt on Daily Politics showing that Labour MPs are aware of the hypocrisy of the "equality" argument regarding Civil Partnerships and Marriage.
Sorry to join rcs100 in bringing facts into the debate, but this 'Osborne stokes housing boom' meme really is the most ridiculous load of garbage.
That's the housing boom which (according to the latest Land Registry figures) has resulted in house prices rising in a year by 0.9% in nominal terms, i.e. falling in real terms. Even that figure is misleading because it is distorted by London +9.6%. Compare with South East -0.3%, East Midlands +0.3%, North East -1.8%, North West -2.5% etc.
More important is the collapse of transaction volumes, which means the market is largely seized up in many areas, which in turn has a knock-on effect in labour mobility and, more importantly, other economic activity linked to house moves. See graph on page 12:
Craig @CAPriors Marriage and "Gay" Marriage are like bikini tops and bras. Exactly the same thing, yet only one is allowed in public.
I can't say I've ever seen Eric Pickles in either but I dare I'm sure some members of the public will have enjoyed the sight - those with guide dogs spring to mind .... although as some blind folk enjoy touch and feel .... er ....
The Times of London @thetimes The average asking price for a home in London has broken through £500,000 for the first time http://thetim.es/18XvI5n
What we need most of all in this country is an incompetent chum of Cameron's stoking up house prices with taxpayer subsidies.
None of which is anything to do with Osborne's programme. It is driven by instability in other markets, devaluation and limited supply in prime areas.
Moreover, Osborne's plan will have minimal effect in London as it is capped at £600,000. It's going to be more use in the rest of the country where house prices have performed significantly less well.
The important thing, however, is that it is only a temporary measure and allowed to expire when the sunset comes into play
You don't appear to have understood the term "average"
The average asking price for a home in London has broken through £500,000 for the first time
The real genius of Osborne's plan is that it applies to remortgaging, has schemes that apply to buy to let and that the taxpayer also gets to pick up the tab for massive increases in housing benefit in London as rents are forced up.
I suspect that I have a far better understanding of the specific dynamics of the London property market that you do. Companies I am on the Board of invest in residential, retail, commercial and trophy segments within the market.
I realise your family will have been involved in every segment of the economy for 8000 years, still doesn't help you understand what an average is, or that BTL landlords are having taxpayer subsidies being thrown at them.
My experience is based on the investment decisions that I make with my brother and sister. You can bet we take them seriously.
My point - which you have entirely missed - is that there is no "london property market". There is super-prime / prime (driven by international buyers), the central flat market (driven by BTL) and the rest (where this scheme may impact - but where the average price is far lower than £500K).
I also made the point that the *median* price (not the average) would be the most affected.
Additionally, the benefit to BTL investors is minimal - banks already charge what the market will bear. The scheme is about derisking balance sheets rather than subsidising mortgages.
But none of this matters. You think you have found a point where (wrongly) you can go 'nah nah na nah nah' your stupid. But that's because you don't want to reflect on the actual facts - because you know that you don't have a f*cking clue about the actual impact of the scheme beyond your talking points. You are a sad, sad man.
Leaving aside the political dressing, there are three really important bits in this:
"In my column for The Independent on Sunday today I have some exclusive revelations from recent focus groups that were shown videos of Miliband and asked what they thought. The reports of these groups say it is still “difficult to test Miliband’s message and arguments” because people are so dismissive of him."
"Where groups used to describe him as “weird”, they now tend to call him “weak”."
"The report also says: “In most focus groups now people also spontaneously make the point that he wants to borrow more.”... the focus groups seemed to know about the plan to borrow more now to borrow less later.
This is seen as a sign of a “lack of seriousness and absence of the steeliness to take difficult decisions”. The groups, perhaps surprisingly, resist the Tory argument that Labour are to blame for the country’s economic problems, but a phrase that has cropped up recently is: “He’d take us back to square one.” "
During the general election campaign I think the massive increase in the national debt is going to be an issue. Square one would be an improvement.
Comments
Why are Labour playing games with gay marriage? This morning this paper quotes Labour sources who are claiming “many Labour MPs” are preparing to support plans from rebel Tory MPs for a “wrecking amendment” to the same-sex marriage bill. The amendment, tabled by former children’s minister Tim Loughton, would extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, potentially adding as much as £4 billion to the cost of the legislation, and significantly delaying the timetable for its implementation.
The same-sex marriage bill is a simple piece of legislation, based around a simple principle; providing equality to members of our society that have been denied it under the law. And as usually happens with simple pieces of legislation based around simple principles, it is about to be swamped beneath a tidal wave of hypocrisy, false morality and cant.
Look no further than the Loughton amendment itself. Mr Loughton claims his amendment is based on the purest of motives. It “addresses a real inequality that will be created if the Bill becomes law,” he told Conservative Home, and seeks to end the anomaly whereby “opposite sex couples will only have the option to marry, albeit in a wider range of religious or civil institutions. A Bill which is being pushed through (wrongly in my view) as an equality measure will therefore actually create a new and substantial inequality.”
Who does Tim Loughton think he’s kidding? At the very start of the same Conservative Home article in which he makes his impassioned plea for equality, he approvingly points his readers to an “excellent piece” by his colleague David Burrows, which he says “sets out the stall for those of us who have opposed the Same Sex Marriage bill”...
There are rumours that the EU is back-tracking on climate hysteria: http://is.gd/LHF81E . Seems the sceptics are winning the argument.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/130518/eu-dial-back-measures-against-global-warming
Will wind farms now get short shrift? I somehow doubt it while Cammo and co rule GB.
Darling's plan may have been back-of-fag-packet but it was miles better than Osborne's economically illiterate plan.
And facts and history have now found Osborne out.
The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.
Why will more fo the same change this?
The fact that Osborne's now opted for reinflating the private debt bubble rather than relying on public sector austerity and unassisted market processes suggests that he's come to the conclusion that there needs to be an alternative to his original plan.
That said, when it became clear Eurozone politicians were out of their depth, some of us changed our views and called for policy changes.
If they are not available for everyone, and marriage is, simply upgrade all civil partnerships to the status of marriage, and make them unavailable from then on..
Im sure there wouldnt be gay people moaning that civil partnerships were something special "just for us", that would be too hypocritical
We are writing to make clear our concerns about the implications for business if the Government rules out membership of the euro for the lifetime of this parliament. Such a decision would be damaging for British-based businesses, British employees and the British economy as a whole.
Since the Chancellor's statement on the euro in October 1997, the working assumption of business has been that Britain is a 'pre-entry' country. If it becomes apparent that this is no longer the case, the Government must be aware that this will constitute a significant change in the business climate of this country. Although in many respects, Britain is a good place to do business; non-membership of the euro is damaging that position.
Inward investment in Britain has already fallen substantially. According to the United Nations, Britain attracted 29% of foreign direct investment in the EU over the 20 years to 1999. But since the launch of the euro in that year, the share has fallen to 16%. The UN estimates that it collapsed to 5% in 2002.
By removing the barriers of separate currencies, the creation of the euro has led to a rapid increase in cross-border trade in the euro-zone. Germany's trade with the EU has leapt from 27% of national output in 1998 to 32% in 2001. France's trade with the EU has risen from 28% of GDP to 31%. Overall, the average rise in euro-zone countries is 3 percentage points. Meanwhile, Britain's trade with Europe has stagnated.
The weight of independent economic evidence suggests that the conditions for entry are right. Commercial reality strongly dictates that the risks of staying outside the euro far outweigh any risks of joining. The European single market has moved on and we are no longer full members. We hope that the Government will have the courage of its convictions and recognise that membership of the euro is in our long-term national interest. To do otherwise would have serious consequences for Britain's future prosperity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3019519.stm
Oh, wait, that was the 2003 one arguing to join the Euro...
See France for rEd's plans - doing better than the Uk ?
I don't like the fact that QE has created an asset price bubble, I'm not wild about the mortgage support scheme, I think it is terrible that he is shafting the prudent saver / those on fixed incomes to bail out the irresponsible. But overall he's done ok.
A VAT cut, for instance, would have made the figures look good (higher GDP) but would have cost a lot and achieved the square root of bugger all.
'The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.'
Yes, Brown's got the exclusivity of that award,worst economic crash,longest period without any growth,worst regulation,country on the edge of economic collapse,no more boom just bust, nobody will ever match his record.
Can't remember his name - bearded grey haired Scottish type - with glasses.
Could be wrong, often am.
By the way I loved Prison Break. First Series best show Id seen in years. Thought the second was pretty good, but couldnt stomach them keep not escaping and didnt watch again. Last I remember the fat prison guard was fighting, and the pretty Dr (Trintedi?) was dead... or am I misremembering?
Police collect a DNA sample from a child every ten minutes, it emerged last night.
Officers took nearly 54,000 swabs of genetic material from under 18s last year.
On average, 27 primary school children had their DNA taken by the police every week to put on the national database.
The figures were uncovered by anti-prison campaign group the Howard League for Penal Reform using the Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327269/Police-DNA-27-primary-children-week.html?ico=news^headlines
That's why Osborne comes above Brown in the pecking order of lousy chancellors. Lamont is up there too, above Brown.
It's one thing to argue that mainstream climate science is mistaken, as Richard Tyndall does, but when people like Helmer call it "hysteria" it puts off many of us centre-right moderates that would otherwise be inclined to vote UKIP. You need to realise that if you want to be a large party, you need to be a broad tent and be respectful of those with different views. Otherwise you will piss off people that could be your supporters, as Cameron has done.
It gradually gets a little bit odd and spooky, until it ends up sort-of like The Prisoner.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/global_capital_markets/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/insights and pubs/mgi/research/financial markets/debt and deleveraging - uneven path to growth/debt_and_deleveraging_in_ten_developed_economies.ashx
No other chancellor has been so far out in a single year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/5194928/Budget-2009-what-to-expect.html
"Government borrowing is expected to hit around £175bn in 2009/10 – up from £38bn predicted in the 2008 Budget, and a revised pre-Budget estimate of £118bn. "
All these sockets on here giving GO grief for relying on the Eurozone - well your chap got it utterly utterly wrong - in a SINGLE YEAR.
Where Osborne's borrowing figures always get revised UP, Darling's got revised DOWN. Because he got growth in the system.
On the topic you raise, it occurs to me that at least one or two significant unexpected financial events took place between his forecast and final figures.
9:22AM
You're missing the point.
Darling's plan may have been back-of-fag-packet but it was miles better than Osborne's economically illiterate plan.
And facts and history have now found Osborne out.
The worst chancellor in modern UK political history bar none.
Ben
Do you genuinely mean this or are you just spouting Labour propaganda. Given the economy he inherited, the worldwide economic slowdown, and the euro crisis, is having 7.8% unemployment, record employment and a mildly recovering economy really an indication of the worst chancellor in modern UK history. Spain currently has 27.2% unemployment. Are you really suggesting that with the ongoing worldwide/euro economic issues that if Labour had won in 2010 we would have unemployment below 5%, the economy growing at 3% per year and no deficit? Given Labours economic record in Government is that really likely? They were borrowing huge amounts in a booming worldwide economy, how do you think they would be able to borrow less in an worldwide economic downturn with the euro crisis still in full effect.
Rather than Labour propaganda nonsense please give some reasoned responses as I am sure there are lots of people genuinely interested in how Labour would have managed the economy to ensure huge growth, low unemployment and wipe out the deficit
Uk borrowing for last year was revised down - this year. You're on your plums here Ben.
GO may be the Aston Villa of CoTE's - but Darling is Rotheram U-11s second XI.
And Brown is Third Lanark.
I see the IMF experts have arrived so they can find out how Osborne has managed to run the economy so successfully, and so much better than any of our main European competitors, despite inheriting the worst deficit of any European country other than Greece and despite the worst peacetime world economic conditions since the 1930s.
I said at the beginning of the year that I expected the UK economy would surprise on the upside in 2013, for which I got much flak from the usual suspects. My hunch is looking quite good now.
I thought S3 was a bit peculiar but it came good and was vicious in places, but S4 was pretty annoying as it felt rather recycled characterism...trying not to spoil the plot here. I saw the two extra episodes that covered the bit explaining the story end - I thought it was okay but left me feeling a bit empty.
The deficit reduction in the first two years was predominantly from tax rises - not from the growth because that was just a drag forward effect. That was always the plan. The last year wasn't great in terms of deficit reduction, but just about kept on track. Signs were that there is significant slack that will lead to decent reduction in deficit this year.;
2. Fixed income securities (aka bonds) keep reaching ever more ridiculous lows. In the UK, 10 year Gilts yield 1.9%. That's below the rate of inflation. Low interest rates (below inflation) mean people have an economic incentive to 'leverage up'.
3. The same is true in the US, with even 30 years yielding just 3.2%. Statistically, the chance of there being no five year period with inflation averaging over 6% in the next 30 years is very, very low. That will be a disaster for the pension fund holding 30 year fixed interest bonds.
4. Even in equities, we now see global 'blur chip' growth companies (Unilever, Nestle, etc.) trading at P/E multiples that are in the top decile of long-term averages.
But you must admit that the "man is to blame for global warming climate changers" are at times very hysterical in their propaganda and statements. I think that Helmer was just alluding to that. I can only speak for myself, that there is a time for intemperate words and sometimes they must be used.
Edited
Kippers have had oodles of them over the last few weeks - the Tories a lot too, Labour not so much...
@leftytips
#Lefty tip: Always call a UKIPer a Nazi. Even if they've never said anything remotely to do with Nazism.
Even as a parody or joke, this is pretty disgusting.
Firstly, in 2010 Clegg claimed that it was the Greek debt crisis that convinced him of the need to follow Osborne's austerity policies, so it is clear that the Eurozone crisis as a factor is not entirely new.
Secondly, in 2010 there were those among us - myself included - who pointed to other over optimistic elements of the Osborne/OBR forecasts. Most importantly these forecasts assumed that the British consumer would massively increase their personal debt levels.
That this has failed to occur is probably a good thing, but it was a big reason why Osborne's sums added up in 2010, and so the policy always looked like a sham from the very beginning.
Osborne is useless, Aston Villa under 8s playing in a man's league.
As I said, despite the large initial forecast, GROWTH meant borrowing undershot the forecast under Darling.
http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/1602285/uk-government-debt-hits-record-levels
- Unemployment would be lower
- The deficit would be lower
- Growth would have been higher
- Leadership in Europe would have been stronger (maybe averting the crisis we have seen)
A bit like the experience of the US.
Under Osborne we've had disaster after disaster and now a flatlining economy - which the Tories seem to want to crow about.
Such is the miserably low expectations of your average Tory voter.
"Some people in every voluntary organisation hold eccentric opinions; but it tells us something about our metropolitan elites that they use the term 'swivel-eyed' almost exclusively to describe mainstream Tory Eurosceptics (the term is a particular favourite of that pitiable old boob Michael White at the Guardian.) Wanting a referendum on leaving the EU is routinely described by bien pensant commentators as 'swivel-eyed' – which makes 82 per cent of the population mad. But hankering after membership of the euro as, say, Peter Mandelson does, is apparently perfectly reasonable.
Not that this is a blog about who said what: an aspect of politics that has always bored me. No, the far larger matter is the vertiginous collapse in the memberships of all parties. Our current model dates from the late nineteenth century. It predates the universal franchise, and casts members in an externally supportive role, like flying buttresses on a cathedral. Activists are supposed to back whatever their MPs do, without expecting much in return.
That model doesn't work any more. The Internet has broken the old monoliths, allowing people to swarm together on an ad hoc, issue-by-issue basis. Voters will gladly join campaigns for 'trade justice', or lower fuel duty, or a referendum on the EU. But they will no longer unconditionally back a political party. The old deference has gone – and not before time.
All party leaders talk about increasing membership. None has succeeded. The only constituencies where the trend is being reversed are those whose local MPs understand that politics has to be open-source. Frinton's Douglas Carswell, for example, who has written a book on what he calls iDemocracy, has doubled the membership of his local Conservative Association – and, significantly, was not affected by the Essex-wide swing to Ukip.
What ought parties to be doing? They should abandon the present model, where members are expected loyally to pay their subscriptions every year, come what may. Instead, they should look at having registered supporters, on the US model, who are able to choose local and national candidates in primaries.
I'll never get tired of saying it: primaries will solve most of our political problems. They will tip power back from the executive to the legislature. They will abolish safe seats, and the complacency that goes with them. They will ensure that we have a genuinely diverse House of Commons. (I don't mean diversity in the BBC sense – people of different colours who all believe more or less the same thing – but genuine pluralism of age, sex, accent, geography, professional background and, above all, opinion.) They will weaken Whips and strengthen voters. They will increase turnout. They will disperse power from remote elites to the general population. They will improve the quality of policy-making. And, for what it's worth, they will ensure that any swivel-eyed people in political parties are even more heavly outnumbered by ordinary citizens than at present.
Both rely on copying jokes that Viz were doing 25 years ago
They probably both get their material from reading this site!
How is your guesstimate that 2005 -> 2010 growth figures will out-shine 2010 -> 2015 going? Have you now done "Recession 101" and understood why there is no such thing as a double/triple-dip yet...?
You're one of the few decent leftards on here; so man-up! You were wrong, are wrong and are floundering for another five-years in opposition. Go-on son; let-it-out....
Same old Tories indeed!
'Good old David Blanchflower:'
Telegraph September 2009.
'Professor David Blanchflower launched an attack on the economic plans of George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, claiming they would create a "lost generation" of workers.
He said that any cuts in public spending could force unemployment up from its current 2.5 million to four million over the coming years.'
You must be the only one that takes that idiot seriously.
Drop and give me twenty...
You really have not got a clue, have you. Go fetch a conical-hat, grab a stool and sit in the corner. There is a good troll....
Same old Tories indeed!Ben,
Blanchflower is citing a small difference of a few percentage points, and 100,000 long-term unemployed to make a point. Did you not see the graph Socrates linked to, which showed a near doubling of Total UK debt during the last Labour government (1997-2010)?
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/108398.html
Not as team principal, though. I wonder if they're going to end up with too many chiefs.
Is this true? I can see merit in the argument.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22594328
:no-comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
Moreover, Osborne's plan will have minimal effect in London as it is capped at £600,000. It's going to be more use in the rest of the country where house prices have performed significantly less well.
The important thing, however, is that it is only a temporary measure and allowed to expire when the sunset comes into play
If they believe this then they should be recommending increasing wages to all public sector workers by 10% in order to cut the deficit.
I can't believe they're going to put a Tim in space. Disaster waiting to happen. #AstroTim
The Coalition did apply an across the board wage cut to public sector workers - they called it a pension contribution increase.
So if the bookies have taken a total of a grand on this market it would be £300 Cam, £250 each on Clegg and None , and £200 on EdM
Denmark $0.41
Brazil $0.34
Germany $0.31
Belgium $0.29
Netherlands $0.29
Italy $0.28
Ireland $0.28
Sweden $0.27
Australia $0.22-0.56 (averages $0.26)
California $0.15-0.46 (averages $0.25)
Singapore $0.22
Japan $0.21
France $0.20
New Zealand $0.19
UK $0.19
Mexico $0.19
USA $0.08 to $0.37 (averages $0.15)
Iceland $0.09
There are people with lower priced electricity, but these places (Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia) achieve this through subsidies. Among largely free-market countries we are amongst the cheapest in the world.
An anecdote - when I first bought a house in London, 32 years ago, it cost £20k, which was about 4 times my then salary as a new graduate. Now that same house would be worth at least £250k - or about ten times the salary of a new graduate. And Osborne's answer to our economic problems is to force prices even higher. Madness.
The dominant theme in British politics at present is "we're going to the dogs", and it's what's fuelling UKIP's current surge. Some things are getting worse, but other things are demonstrably pretty good in Britain. But the UKIPpers are quite immune to that idea, and inoculated against all demonstrations to the contrary, no matter how conclusive.
Craig @CAPriors
Marriage and "Gay" Marriage are like bikini tops and bras. Exactly the same thing, yet only one is allowed in public.
'Well never know will we because Osborne failed to cut spending'
Strange that lefties have spent the past three years whining about non existent cuts.
Basically, the problem is that in the centre it will have no effect (prices are too high), while in the outlying flats market the competition is from BTL buyers who won't qualify for this scheme. Where it may have an impact is in the spillover areas - where normal people are forced out into looking for houses. These are typically much cheaper than the £600,000 (or even the £500,000)
I suspect the impact wikll be much greater on the *median* house price rather than the average
CLAPS - can't have the cake and eat it...
The UK's price is set by prevailing world prices + local taxes.
I think UKIP's view is that the relatively low taxes we have enjoyed in the past are undermining a competitive advantage that we have. The other question I'd ask - assuming your prices are wholesale - is whether they reflect stuff like the climate levy that get added to retail bills & (I think) fuel (sorry) a lot of the anger.
All depends on ones perspective
11:12AM
Had Labour won in 2010:
- Unemployment would be lower
- The deficit would be lower
- Growth would have been higher
- Leadership in Europe would have been stronger (maybe averting the crisis we have seen)
A bit like the experience of the US.
Under Osborne we've had disaster after disaster and now a flatlining economy - which the Tories seem to want to crow about.
Such is the miserably low expectations of your average Tory voter.
Ben
What is the point in this reply. What not say that all men would look like George Clooney if Labour had won.
What would labour have done to facilitate this economic miracle that you refer to. If you are going to say increase spending, can you please explain why an increase in spending did not lead to above average growth or a reduction in the deficit (it lead to an increase ) during the economic boom years of 2001-2007. Its very easy to criticize and say things would be so much better under labour, but you need an economic argument. Please also detail the disaster after disaster under Osborne that you refer to? Record employment? Reducing deficit?
I am not claiming that Osborne has been an economic genius but to say that he is the worst chancellor of modern history is absurd. If our economy was like spain's is as the moment then your argument would have some credence, but it is not.
Basically, the problem is that in the centre it will have no effect (prices are too high), while in the outlying flats market the competition is from BTL buyers who won't qualify for this scheme. Where it may have an impact is in the spillover areas - where normal people are forced out into looking for houses.
Normal people? Are you saying the London market should be out of reach of "normal people?" Do we want a city owned entirely by bankers and foreign oligarchs?
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/05/19/what-focus-groups-say-about-ed-miliband/
Leaving aside the political dressing, there are three really important bits in this:
"In my column for The Independent on Sunday today I have some exclusive revelations from recent focus groups that were shown videos of Miliband and asked what they thought. The reports of these groups say it is still “difficult to test Miliband’s message and arguments” because people are so dismissive of him."
"Where groups used to describe him as “weird”, they now tend to call him “weak”."
"The report also says: “In most focus groups now people also spontaneously make the point that he wants to borrow more.”... the focus groups seemed to know about the plan to borrow more now to borrow less later.
This is seen as a sign of a “lack of seriousness and absence of the steeliness to take difficult decisions”. The groups, perhaps surprisingly, resist the Tory argument that Labour are to blame for the country’s economic problems, but a phrase that has cropped up recently is: “He’d take us back to square one.” "
This however made me LOL as its so right.
Cameron Yarde Jnr @CameronYardeJnr
In my quest to become BBC1 Controller I have various proposals. My latest is to ask Right Said Fred to represent the UK at Eurovision.
"Let's hope the UK political class' energy policy of making energy in Britain the most expensive in the world - guaranteeing economic suicide - will follow suit."
"Where groups used to describe him as “weird”, they now tend to call him “weak”.
I think you mean *ruthless* if OGH's antennae are correct here... or not.
No - I am saying that it *is* out of reach of "normal people" - at least inside zone 1. A 3 bedroom house in my part of town (admittedly superprime) is now more than £5m. If I hadn't bought my flat 10 years ago and completely refurbished it there would be no way I could afford to buy it today.
I think this is very bad for the long-term development of central London. If you walk around parts of Kensington or Belgravia in the evening they are practically deserted.
A google search finds that it has been extensively renovated but survives as a semi-detached house on sale for £50 short of a million. RPI would have taken the house value to £85,700.
House prices in Britain are insanely high, but in London they are far beyond the realms of mere insanity.
That's the housing boom which (according to the latest Land Registry figures) has resulted in house prices rising in a year by 0.9% in nominal terms, i.e. falling in real terms. Even that figure is misleading because it is distorted by London +9.6%. Compare with South East -0.3%, East Midlands +0.3%, North East -1.8%, North West -2.5% etc.
More important is the collapse of transaction volumes, which means the market is largely seized up in many areas, which in turn has a knock-on effect in labour mobility and, more importantly, other economic activity linked to house moves. See graph on page 12:
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/40277/HPIReport20130423.pdf
Basically Osborne is just trying to get the market back a little bit towards normal after a long slump.
Sorry about that thought PBers !!
As you've just accused me of lying, presumably you'd want to place a bet on the veracity of those numbers.
My point - which you have entirely missed - is that there is no "london property market". There is super-prime / prime (driven by international buyers), the central flat market (driven by BTL) and the rest (where this scheme may impact - but where the average price is far lower than £500K).
I also made the point that the *median* price (not the average) would be the most affected.
Additionally, the benefit to BTL investors is minimal - banks already charge what the market will bear. The scheme is about derisking balance sheets rather than subsidising mortgages.
But none of this matters. You think you have found a point where (wrongly) you can go 'nah nah na nah nah' your stupid. But that's because you don't want to reflect on the actual facts - because you know that you don't have a f*cking clue about the actual impact of the scheme beyond your talking points. You are a sad, sad man.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327394/Elmbridge-The-Surrey-borough-pays-1-18BILLION-income-tax.html
(It's on page 3 of the Times too)