...and just look at the comments section! Typical UKIPgraph etc etc etc... oh its the Independent?!
Wheres the angle to disagree with UKIP here? Indy bias?
And if you look down the comments you will find one detailed (and a rare sane) one which points out that the govt and the previous govt are doing and have done precicely that. As an example - ''Theresa May has spent a great deal of this year pushing through changes in the law to extend who we can strip of their citizenship. Only last month she was pushing through a change to the Immigration Bill.''
Cutting to the point the commentator says ''So Nigel's comments this morning do appear to be a cynical attempt to win votes in light of recent events. Either that or he has demonstrated a total lack of political knowledge in this area, whilst simultaneously possessing the arrogance to still speak on the matter.''
The commentator closes ''So here we have a politician in the run up to the election suggestion that this and that should be done, where this and that is very much already being done. He goes on to tell us he would like to do more, when we are already doing more. The government is actually doing a lot more. Anyone can find this information, it's all the internet. I'm a little surprised the author of this article didn't feel the need to check. It certainly would have provided a better insight into the workings of the Ukip promotional machine. Which for some of us, is the real story here.''
And to think that in the beggining of the year it was just me, SeanT and some others here taking a realist approach on Syria, ISIS and Assad and now even Rifkind is taking the same approach.
@SouthamObserver We were wealthy before the "crash", so where did all that wealth go to? Interesting thought for those that take off their blinkers, is it not?
This has probably been pointed out before ... but we were not wealthy before. Brown was running a £80 billion structural deficit. ie borowing money to create an illusion of wealth. Banks/ building societies were borrowing money on the retail market and giving it out in 120% self assessed mortgages and then bundling it up, securitised them, into 'special vehicles' and reselling to other banks. Home owners were re-mortgaging and taking money out of the value of their homes.
All smoke and mirrors from Gordon Brown
Brown was securitising mortgage debt?!! The rotter!
There's no such thing as a structural deficit. You really need to get over this abstract construction if you want to understand why Osborne is failing so badly.
If you are saying there is no such thing as the structural deficit then its you who are living in the abstract. Nowhere did I say 'Brown was securitising mortgage debt'. You are incapable of English comprehension.
Osborne is not failing badly. You are in fact quite incapable of rationalising the outside world.
Some of you may remember me posting last Friday of my experiences of being dragooned into a UKIP leafleting effort in the local High Street. A little while ago I drove up to the village to get some urgently needed supplies and the lady in the tobacconist said, "Have you got any more membership forms because Mrs X and Miss Y want to sign up?"
OK, this is pure anecdote stuff, but nonetheless true. Last week in two hours I signed up four new members because they asked me for the forms. Today, two more, again without me putting in any effort or even asking. Trivial numbers in a trivial, if traditionally strong, Conservative territory, but straws in the wind.
The other thing that is interesting is where this support is coming from. We are a village, though really these days a small town and the UKIP support I am picking up is coming from two places in the main. The early 1970s three bed semi-developments and, even more interestingly, the post-war council estate. The Oiks are on the march? Too early to tell, but maybe.
The big problem with cutting the civil service by applying private sector type efficiency drives to it is that those responsible for making it happen are themselves civil servants. The Sir Humphrey resistance to change is visceral and deep rooted. An iron political will to enforce is needed - but that then erodes government/civil service relationships. And for a Labour government with strong public sector union funding it's pretty much undoable.
In my previous role I was accountable for running the monthly/quarterly financial closing and reporting activity of my employer (a multinational). About 1,000 staff involved worldwide. I was based in Manila. The UK government could centralise finance, HR, IT, office services, legal support, contracting and procurement, etc, etc, Put the service centres somewhere less expensive than London (not Manila but, say, Newcastle!) . And stop doing this is in an unco-ordinated and fragmented way across departments.
Hey Dave (or Francis Maude) put me in charge. Really. OGH host knows who I am. Give me free rein to manage and I'll save you at least a billion quid a year in admin costs.
(The civil service would have a cow).
I can't imagine the treasury being relocated to Newcastle.
No. But you can imagine the treasury's payroll, reporting, stationery, purchasing, IT support, etc, etc being merged with that of other depts and done in Newcastle. That is the point. Do in London only that which needs to be done in London.
Anyway, as another poster points out, this is starting to happen. Faster please.
That merger smells like an another IT disaster awaiting to happen. Its best to keep it separate in order to reduce costs and complexity (and also in case something goes wrong with the computers which always happens in the end). The NHS IT fiasco is a roadmap in what not to do.
Frontline delivery systems - fully agree. Back office admin systems - buy them off the shelf.
Just not keep them in the same single system, keep them in separate systems, so that the government can do its daily business in case the computers in one of the systems crash so it would effect only one department not all.
You think it runs on one system
The suggestion was to merge them and put them in Newcastle.
Yes but they would still run on multiple physical servers/virtual servers and would have redundancy built in to ensure no single point of failure blah blah blah
On the issue of passports - and as an example --- A Home office 'Standard Note: SN/HA/6820 Last updated:8 May 2014 Author:Melanie Gower' says...
''There has been an increasing use of powers to deprive people of their British citizenship and withdraw British passport facilities in recent years, particularly in respect of those who may be involved in fighting, extremist activity or terrorist training overseas. Under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended), an order to deprive a person of their British citizenship can be made if the Home Secretary is satisfied that: 1 - it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of their British nationality and to do so would not render them stateless; or 2 - the person acquired their citizenship through naturalisation or registration, and it was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact.
In the second scenario, a person may be deprived of their British citizenship even if this would leave them stateless. “Conducive to the public good” means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours. At Commons Report stage of the Immigration Bill, a controversial new government clause allowing the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised person of their British citizenship if their conduct was “seriously prejudicial” to the interests of the UK (even if they would become stateless) was approved. Questions have been raised about whether the clause would put the UK in breach of its international obligations, and how the powers would be used in practice. The Government was defeated on the clause at Lords Report stage. Peers voted for an amendment that provided for a Parliamentary Committee to consider the case for extending the deprivation powers. On 7 May the Commons disagreed with the Lords amendment, and agreed to government amendments to the original clause. These were intended to address concerns about individuals being left stateless, and to provide for independent scrutiny of the Home Secretary’s exercise of the deprivation powers. Ping-pong continues in the Lords on 12 May. The Home Secretary also has powers to issue, withdraw and refuse to issue British passports.''
This does once again call into question the value and purpose of the House of Lords. But the point is the govt have taken and are taking such powers as they might need.
@SouthamObserver We were wealthy before the "crash", so where did all that wealth go to? Interesting thought for those that take off their blinkers, is it not?
This has probably been pointed out before ... but we were not wealthy before. Brown was running a £80 billion structural deficit. ie borowing money to create an illusion of wealth. Banks/ building societies were borrowing money on the retail market and giving it out in 120% self assessed mortgages and then bundling it up, securitised them, into 'special vehicles' and reselling to other banks. Home owners were re-mortgaging and taking money out of the value of their homes.
All smoke and mirrors from Gordon Brown
Brown was securitising mortgage debt?!! The rotter!
There's no such thing as a structural deficit. You really need to get over this abstract construction if you want to understand why Osborne is failing so badly.
If you are saying there is no such thing as the structural deficit then its you who are living in the abstract. Nowhere did I say 'Brown was securitising mortgage debt'. You are incapable of English comprehension.
Osborne is not failing badly. You are in fact quite incapable of rationalising the outside world.
There is no such thing as a structural deficit.
The structural deficit was not "£80bn" as you claim.
The structural deficit is not a hard number, it is an estimate based on many estimates - of what the so-called "output gap" might be for example, which in itself is a subjective concept (estimates vary wildly between different economists).
Some of you may remember me posting last Friday of my experiences of being dragooned into a UKIP leafleting effort in the local High Street. A little while ago I drove up to the village to get some urgently needed supplies and the lady in the tobacconist said, "Have you got any more membership forms because Mrs X and Miss Y want to sign up?"
The discourse on here gets more Socratic by the day.
We havent discussed how terrible muslims are in ages!
Or do you mean something else by that?
I really am worried about Muslims here.
I heard something on the news last night, that most British Jihadis, earlier in their life, were bad Muslims, who engaged in bad things like fornication, drinking and other un-Islamic things, saw the error of their ways and repented, and thus became Jihadis,
Am I a future Jihadi?
Extremely good letter in the Times yday from some one I assume was Muslim, from some foundation or other, doing what many people say "muslims" never do - ie wholly repudiating Islamist extremist ideology and actions.
Yes, the Quilliam Foundation have been very active over the last few years. One of the their spokesmen, Maajid Nawaz is standing for parliament in 2015. Unfortunately, as an LD in Hampstead and Kilburn, so he's unlikely to get elected.
The more I read about Maajid Nawaz, the more I like him.
@Flightpath I would imagine they would be less of an outflow on the banks balance sheets, and become part of the overall profits with some of it going to the shareholders. More interesting is where the banks got the money from in the first place?
@HurstLlama In the Falklands at the landing point there was, and still probably is, a pile of discarded "issue" waterproofs, with lighter and more fold-able versions being handed out, (where they came from is a mystery). The Royal Marines could also purchase bergens, but they had to be a specific design (Blacks green ones) Some of the other units there, altered the "58"? webbing, but only as much as they were allowed to by their officers. A "blind eye" can help morale of course ;-)
You don't half talk some bollocks, old boy. "Only as much as they were allowed to by their officers", indeed!" As if the Rupert would have noticed or cared if he had, given that he was also, almost certainly, using non-issue kit.
Do please put up the source for this pile of waterproof kit that was being a handed at at San Carlos.
UK government debt-to-GDP will probably peak in 3Q next year. From that point on, while our debt pile will continue to grow, it will be diminishing in size relative to the economy.
As you know debt will continue to rise until the deficit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than the growth. I fear that particular crossover is going to be further delayed.
This is of course true. As long as GDP grows forever. In the real world where we get recessions every decade or so it means debt/GDP creeps down for a while and then skyrockets and then creeps down for a while and then skyrockets again. The cumulative effect over decades is a very steady up trend. We need to eleiminate deficits.
Every 7-9 years. Debt to GDP levels are too elevated to cope next time.
Some of you may remember me posting last Friday of my experiences of being dragooned into a UKIP leafleting effort in the local High Street. A little while ago I drove up to the village to get some urgently needed supplies and the lady in the tobacconist said, "Have you got any more membership forms because Mrs X and Miss Y want to sign up?"
You have a tobacconist?
And a wine shop as well as the off-licence. The tobacconist also sells newspapers, magazines, sweeties and sundry stuff. So what you call the shop depends I guess on where your interest lies. Locally we normally just refer to it as "Jan's" after the name of the, formidable, lady owner.
UK government debt-to-GDP will probably peak in 3Q next year. From that point on, while our debt pile will continue to grow, it will be diminishing in size relative to the economy.
As you know debt will continue to rise until the deficit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than the growth. I fear that particular crossover is going to be further delayed.
This is of course true. As long as GDP grows forever. In the real world where we get recessions every decade or so it means debt/GDP creeps down for a while and then skyrockets and then creeps down for a while and then skyrockets again. The cumulative effect over decades is a very steady up trend. We need to eleiminate deficits.
Every 7-9 years. Debt to GDP levels are too elevated to cope next time.
Well at least we can print money to repay debt and devalue our currency. The Eurozoners don't get that choice.
There will be Quantitative Easing (i.e money printing) in the Eurozone before year end.
Please do not make any personal financial choices based on anything I say!
From any number of perspectives I think the equity markets are grossly overvalued, sustained only by the Fed's liquidity and quite irrational. But, as the saying goes: 'the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent'. I've got out of equities completely. And bought some gold.
I find Grant Williams at Mauldin Economics' blog called 'Things that make you go hmmm...' is a fabulous place to understand what's going on - and quite amusing. Here's why I think gold is a great hedge against a looming macro nasty:
@SouthamObserver We were wealthy before the "crash", so where did all that wealth go to? Interesting thought for those that take off their blinkers, is it not?
This has probably been pointed out before ... but we were not wealthy before. Brown was running a £80 billion structural deficit. ie borowing money to create an illusion of wealth. Banks/ building societies were borrowing money on the retail market and giving it out in 120% self assessed mortgages and then bundling it up, securitised them, into 'special vehicles' and reselling to other banks. Home owners were re-mortgaging and taking money out of the value of their homes.
All smoke and mirrors from Gordon Brown
Brown was securitising mortgage debt?!! The rotter!
There's no such thing as a structural deficit. You really need to get over this abstract construction if you want to understand why Osborne is failing so badly.
If you are saying there is no such thing as the structural deficit then its you who are living in the abstract. Nowhere did I say 'Brown was securitising mortgage debt'. You are incapable of English comprehension.
Osborne is not failing badly. You are in fact quite incapable of rationalising the outside world.
There is no such thing as a structural deficit.
The structural deficit was not "£80bn" as you claim.
The structural deficit is not a hard number, it is an estimate based on many estimates - of what the so-called "output gap" might be for example, which in itself is a subjective concept (estimates vary wildly between different economists).
The structural deficit is as per what the OBR estimates. It is also clearly set out on a BBC graph on the subject which I have linked tpo befpore - ie 80 billion. One minute you say there is no such thing and the next you say it is not a hard number. Make your mind up. (None of which is to say that the number is not bigger rather than smaller)
The structural defict is a well known economic concept and can be measured. Between 2002 and 2008 when we had growth Brown added 230 billion to the debt, whilst before, when following tory plans, we had a surplus not deficit. That in itself points to him running a massive structural defict since at that period in the cycle he should have been running surpluses.
@HurstLlama The comments on the webbing were from a veterans blog I came across while searching for something else, (they were discussing how much they managed to get away with), The Blacks bergens I know because we were asked to phone one of the marines if we came across them in the camping stores. The pile of discarded waterproofs? You are a military historian, go do some research?
The other thing that is interesting is where this support is coming from.
V. Interesting Mr Llama. How much does UKIP charge to sign a member up, out of interest?
Mr. Taffys, from the form the standard membership is £30. There are various discounts (e.g. members of our armed services are only charged a fiver and for those under 22 the fee is but £2). There is also the option of registering as a supporter, no fee but give your contact details.
I think many people in jobs of that type would report similar experiences; I’m sure Dr Fox has met admin people who make similar statements. or demonstrate a similar attitude.
Having said that I was, a couple of years ago at a talk where a senior Fire Officer (firefighter) explained that a major part of their job nowadays was prevention. He asserted that it was possible, from a knowledge of the demographics (including who among the elderly population was using a particular sort of leg ulcer dressing) to identify risk and that doing this work had not only become his major duty, but was resulting in a decrease in the “fire and rescue” work.
Whether that is true or not I’m not qualified to judge and I’d be interested in advice on the matter.
In fact they will die because of the attitude that has meant admin people have taken over and made admin more important that the delivery of the service the organisation exists for.
Look at the MoD, where civil servants massively outnumber the fighting men and women. No doubt for them providing a proper health and safety assessment of the new design of female Petty Officer uniforms is more important than - erm - having aircraft on an aircraft carrier.
I was being a bit grumpy earlier about public sector waste. Much of this is back office / administrative. It's not the front line that needs to be cut. We've lost what 1 million, 2 million civil servants since 2010? Who apart from the civil servants themselves has noticed? WTF were they doing before? How many more are there? I bet a disciplined CEO could find 15,000 jobs at the MoD and still improve the nation's fighting capabilities.
Just this last week, for example, the Prime Minister announced that every government policy has to pass a "family friendly" test in future.
How many hours of work will that generate do you think?
...and just look at the comments section! Typical UKIPgraph etc etc etc... oh its the Independent?!
Wheres the angle to disagree with UKIP here? Indy bias?
And if you look down the comments you will find one detailed (and a rare sane) one which points out that the govt and the previous govt are doing and have done precicely that. As an example - ''Theresa May has spent a great deal of this year pushing through changes in the law to extend who we can strip of their citizenship. Only last month she was pushing through a change to the Immigration Bill.''
Cutting to the point the commentator says ''So Nigel's comments this morning do appear to be a cynical attempt to win votes in light of recent events. Either that or he has demonstrated a total lack of political knowledge in this area, whilst simultaneously possessing the arrogance to still speak on the matter.''
The commentator closes ''So here we have a politician in the run up to the election suggestion that this and that should be done, where this and that is very much already being done. He goes on to tell us he would like to do more, when we are already doing more. The government is actually doing a lot more. Anyone can find this information, it's all the internet. I'm a little surprised the author of this article didn't feel the need to check. It certainly would have provided a better insight into the workings of the Ukip promotional machine. Which for some of us, is the real story here.''
Good. My first instinct isn't to disagree with points just because other parties made them.
UK government debt-to-GDP will probably peak in 3Q next year. From that point on, while our debt pile will continue to grow, it will be diminishing in size relative to the economy.
As you know debt will continue to rise until the deficit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than the growth. I fear that particular crossover is going to be further delayed.
This is of course true. As long as GDP grows forever. In the real world where we get recessions every decade or so it means debt/GDP creeps down for a while and then skyrockets and then creeps down for a while and then skyrockets again. The cumulative effect over decades is a very steady up trend. We need to eleiminate deficits.
Every 7-9 years. Debt to GDP levels are too elevated to cope next time.
Well at least we can print money to repay debt and devalue our currency. The Eurozoners don't get that choice.
There will be Quantitative Easing (i.e money printing) in the Eurozone before year end.
You're probably right. But whose bonds will they be buying? What is Germany's opinion of this? My point was that Eurozone countries themselves have no ability to devalue or to decide to devalue. They all need to go through Draghi and Merkel. Italy is a spectator.
I think many people in jobs of that type would report similar experiences; I’m sure Dr Fox has met admin people who make similar statements. or demonstrate a similar attitude.
Having said that I was, a couple of years ago at a talk where a senior Fire Officer (firefighter) explained that a major part of their job nowadays was prevention. He asserted that it was possible, from a knowledge of the demographics (including who among the elderly population was using a particular sort of leg ulcer dressing) to identify risk and that doing this work had not only become his major duty, but was resulting in a decrease in the “fire and rescue” work.
Whether that is true or not I’m not qualified to judge and I’d be interested in advice on the matter.
In fact they will die because of the attitude that has meant admin people have taken over and made admin more important that the delivery of the service the organisation exists for.
Look at the MoD, where civil servants massively outnumber the fighting men and women. No doubt for them providing a proper health and safety assessment of the new design of female Petty Officer uniforms is more important than - erm - having aircraft on an aircraft carrier.
I was being a bit grumpy earlier about public sector waste. Much of this is back office / administrative. It's not the front line that needs to be cut. We've lost what 1 million, 2 million civil servants since 2010? Who apart from the civil servants themselves has noticed? WTF were they doing before? How many more are there? I bet a disciplined CEO could find 15,000 jobs at the MoD and still improve the nation's fighting capabilities.
Just this last week, for example, the Prime Minister announced that every government policy has to pass a "family friendly" test in future.
How many hours of work will that generate do you think?
UK government debt-to-GDP will probably peak in 3Q next year. From that point on, while our debt pile will continue to grow, it will be diminishing in size relative to the economy.
As you know debt will continue to rise until the deficit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than the growth. I fear that particular crossover is going to be further delayed.
This is of course true. As long as GDP grows forever. In the real world where we get recessions every decade or so it means debt/GDP creeps down for a while and then skyrockets and then creeps down for a while and then skyrockets again. The cumulative effect over decades is a very steady up trend. We need to eleiminate deficits.
Every 7-9 years. Debt to GDP levels are too elevated to cope next time.
More than 90% leads to retardation of growth, we aren't coming out of war with rationing, and I doubt we will be posting many surpluses before the next slowdown. Perhaps the biggest issue is the public sector pensions liabilities looming on the horizon.
@HurstLlama The comments on the webbing were from a veterans blog I came across while searching for something else, (they were discussing how much they managed to get away with), The Blacks bergens I know because we were asked to phone one of the marines if we came across them in the camping stores. The pile of discarded waterproofs? You are a military historian, go do some research?
"The pile of discarded waterproofs? You are a military historian, go do some research?"
You have no idea how much that sort of reply winds me up. Do you know why? Because such stuff, time after time, is put up by someone who was just posting some, at best, third hand bollocks (and often just made up bullshit) and trying to run down the truth or otherwise of such allegations can just suck hours, even days and, when it comes to the XIVth century, weeks out of my life. So either you have some real information in which case you can give me a source (doesn't have to be on-line) or you don't.
Please do not make any personal financial choices based on anything I say!
From any number of perspectives I think the equity markets are grossly overvalued, sustained only by the Fed's liquidity and quite irrational. But, as the saying goes: 'the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent'. I've got out of equities completely. And bought some gold.
I find Grant Williams at Mauldin Economics' blog called 'Things that make you go hmmm...' is a fabulous place to understand what's going on - and quite amusing. Here's why I think gold is a great hedge against a looming macro nasty:
@SouthamObserver We were wealthy before the "crash", so where did all that wealth go to? Interesting thought for those that take off their blinkers, is it not?
This has probably been pointed out before ... but we were not wealthy before. Brown was running a £80 billion structural deficit. ie borowing money to create an illusion of wealth. Banks/ building societies were borrowing money on the retail market and giving it out in 120% self assessed mortgages and then bundling it up, securitised them, into 'special vehicles' and reselling to other banks. Home owners were re-mortgaging and taking money out of the value of their homes.
All smoke and mirrors from Gordon Brown
Brown was securitising mortgage debt?!! The rotter!
There's no such thing as a structural deficit. You really need to get over this abstract construction if you want to understand why Osborne is failing so badly.
If you are saying there is no such thing as the structural deficit then its you who are living in the abstract. Nowhere did I say 'Brown was securitising mortgage debt'. You are incapable of English comprehension.
Osborne is not failing badly. You are in fact quite incapable of rationalising the outside world.
There is no such thing as a structural deficit.
The structural deficit was not "£80bn" as you claim.
The structural deficit is not a hard number, it is an estimate based on many estimates - of what the so-called "output gap" might be for example, which in itself is a subjective concept (estimates vary wildly between different economists).
The structural deficit is as per what the OBR estimates. It is also clearly set out on a BBC graph on the subject which I have linked tpo befpore - ie 80 billion. One minute you say there is no such thing and the next you say it is not a hard number. Make your mind up. (None of which is to say that the number is not bigger rather than smaller)
The structural defict is a well known economic concept and can be measured. Between 2002 and 2008 when we had growth Brown added 230 billion to the debt, whilst before, when following tory plans, we had a surplus not deficit. That in itself points to him running a massive structural defict since at that period in the cycle he should have been running surpluses.
Wasn't Brown's pre-crisis debt less than he'd inherited from the Conservatives?
I think many people in jobs of that type would report similar experiences; I’m sure Dr Fox has met admin people who make similar statements. or demonstrate a similar attitude.
Having said that I was, a couple of years ago at a talk where a senior Fire Officer (firefighter) explained that a major part of their job nowadays was prevention. He asserted that it was possible, from a knowledge of the demographics (including who among the elderly population was using a particular sort of leg ulcer dressing) to identify risk and that doing this work had not only become his major duty, but was resulting in a decrease in the “fire and rescue” work.
Whether that is true or not I’m not qualified to judge and I’d be interested in advice on the matter.
In fact they will die because of the attitude that has meant admin people have taken over and made admin more important that the delivery of the service the organisation exists for.
Look at the MoD, where civil servants massively outnumber the fighting men and women. No doubt for them providing a proper health and safety assessment of the new design of female Petty Officer uniforms is more important than - erm - having aircraft on an aircraft carrier.
I was being a bit grumpy earlier about public sector waste. Much of this is back office / administrative. It's not the front line that needs to be cut. We've lost what 1 million, 2 million civil servants since 2010? Who apart from the civil servants themselves has noticed? WTF were they doing before? How many more are there? I bet a disciplined CEO could find 15,000 jobs at the MoD and still improve the nation's fighting capabilities.
Just this last week, for example, the Prime Minister announced that every government policy has to pass a "family friendly" test in future.
How many hours of work will that generate do you think?
@HurstLlama Go take it up with them then, show them your true metal by calling out those lying scum that know nothing! Because you have read a book, and it was almost nearly the real thing. Oddly, the other time I heard about the waterproofs was years ago from some of my mates,and I would strongly advise you not to call them a liars should you meet. Also, that's the the third link I have posted at your request, that you haven't bothered bothered to read, but instead meebled some half arsed reply, like your last one.
Please do not make any personal financial choices based on anything I say!
From any number of perspectives I think the equity markets are grossly overvalued, sustained only by the Fed's liquidity and quite irrational. But, as the saying goes: 'the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent'. I've got out of equities completely. And bought some gold.
I find Grant Williams at Mauldin Economics' blog called 'Things that make you go hmmm...' is a fabulous place to understand what's going on - and quite amusing. Here's why I think gold is a great hedge against a looming macro nasty:
Your analyst may be right I don't know. But the price of gold has fallen 7% in the last year - so it might be a good time to buy. Only trouble is last Christmas it was even lower. Longer term of course it has risen, but it has been far higher than its current $1275/oz... Just 3 years ago it was about $1990/oz. So suggestions of a rise is not terribly clever or original. As an indication of fluctiuations which still left the worlds financial institutions in one piece --- in Aug 2009 it was $944/oz. In Aug 2011 it was $1889/oz (nearly double). In Jan 2014 it was $1202/oz (down about a third). Now its $1277/oz.
UK government debt-to-GDP will probably peak in 3Q next year. From that point on, while our debt pile will continue to grow, it will be diminishing in size relative to the economy.
As you know debt will continue to rise until the deficit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than the growth. I fear that particular crossover is going to be further delayed.
This is of course true. As long as GDP grows forever. In the real world where we get recessions every decade or so it means debt/GDP creeps down for a while and then skyrockets and then creeps down for a while and then skyrockets again. The cumulative effect over decades is a very steady up trend. We need to eleiminate deficits.
Every 7-9 years. Debt to GDP levels are too elevated to cope next time.
More than 90% leads to retardation of growth, we aren't coming out of war with rationing, and I doubt we will be posting many surpluses before the next slowdown. Perhaps the biggest issue is the public sector pensions liabilities looming on the horizon.
In the last hundred years, debt was above the current level 75% of the time.
Let us assume for a minute that we have six more years of economic growth this cycle. Let's randomly assume that we average 2.5% economic growth and 2% inflation in that time. If we ran a balanced budget (no surpluses here), we would reduce debt-to-GDP by 25% - solely on the back of nominal GDP growth. Of course, we're not there yet, but history suggests that in economic upswings, deficits come down rather faster than people anticipate.
Re public sector pensions, don't forget that many of them are funded. There are hundreds of billions sitting in investments with fund managers from local governments alone. And I think we all know that retirement ages are going to rise. Increasing average retirement age by 5 years cuts the total pensions liability by almost a quarter.
@HurstLlama Go take it up with them then, show them your true metal by calling out those lying scum that know nothing! Because you have read a book, and it was almost nearly the real thing. Oddly, the other time I heard about the waterproofs was years ago from some of my mates,and I would strongly advise you not to call them a liars should you meet. Also, that's the the third link I have posted at your request, that you haven't bothered bothered to read, but instead meebled some half arsed reply, like your last one.
You claimed there were piles of discarded UK issued waterproofs at the landing point- this may be true or not, but you have provided no evidence to back this up.
UK government debt-to-GDP will probably peak in 3Q next year. From that point on, while our debt pile will continue to grow, it will be diminishing in size relative to the economy.
As you know debt will continue to rise until the deficit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than the growth. I fear that particular crossover is going to be further delayed.
This is of course true. As long as GDP grows forever. In the real world where we get recessions every decade or so it means debt/GDP creeps down for a while and then skyrockets and then creeps down for a while and then skyrockets again. The cumulative effect over decades is a very steady up trend. We need to eleiminate deficits.
Every 7-9 years. Debt to GDP levels are too elevated to cope next time.
Well at least we can print money to repay debt and devalue our currency. The Eurozoners don't get that choice.
There will be Quantitative Easing (i.e money printing) in the Eurozone before year end.
You're probably right. But whose bonds will they be buying? What is Germany's opinion of this? My point was that Eurozone countries themselves have no ability to devalue or to decide to devalue. They all need to go through Draghi and Merkel. Italy is a spectator.
It's worth remembering that 10 year borrowing rates for Ireland are sub 2%, and are c. 2.5% for Italy and Spain, and only just over 3% for Portugal. So, QE for Europe is not about lowering the cost of government debt.
Rather it is about trying inject inflation into the system, and to persuade corporates and consumers to stop paying back debts and start spending.
So, I would suspect QE will be about lowering the interest rates on corporate debt - and that we will see a lot of purchasing of A/A-/BBB corporate paper.
@SimonStClare You did read that blog? it shouldn't take you that long, then you too can post on it that they are talking "a right load of old bollocks" Me?.... You are confusing me with someone who gives a damn about what you believe or don't
Not the biggest surprise in the world if true (it's Blair McD so no guarantees).
Blair McDougall @blairmcdougall 3 mins Just heard from impeccable source that Henry McLeish endorsing Yes on Monday. Hardly a surprise but he's entitled to his view. #indyref
UK government debt-to-GDP will probably peak in 3Q next year. From that point on, while our debt pile will continue to grow, it will be diminishing in size relative to the economy.
As you know debt will continue to rise until the deficit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than the growth. I fear that particular crossover is going to be further delayed.
This is of course true. As long as GDP grows forever. In the real world where we get recessions every decade or so it means debt/GDP creeps down for a while and then skyrockets and then creeps down for a while and then skyrockets again. The cumulative effect over decades is a very steady up trend. We need to eleiminate deficits.
Every 7-9 years. Debt to GDP levels are too elevated to cope next time.
Well at least we can print money to repay debt and devalue our currency. The Eurozoners don't get that choice.
There will be Quantitative Easing (i.e money printing) in the Eurozone before year end.
You're probably right. But whose bonds will they be buying? What is Germany's opinion of this? My point was that Eurozone countries themselves have no ability to devalue or to decide to devalue. They all need to go through Draghi and Merkel. Italy is a spectator.
It is worth remembering that you can't always choose to devalue in a floating exchange rate environment either: one of the reasons why UK unemployment went so high in the early 1980s is that Sterling strengthened from 1.90 to 2.45 against the dollar (before falling down to just above parity...)
(Mr Market correctly saw that Maggie would impose fiscal discipline and slay the inflationary dragon. That was little consolation to dock and factory workers who lost their jobs as a direct consequence of sterling's appreciation.)
Not the biggest surprise in the world if true (it's Blair McD so no guarantees).
Blair McDougall @blairmcdougall 3 mins Just heard from impeccable source that Henry McLeish endorsing Yes on Monday. Hardly a surprise but he's entitled to his view. #indyref
He certainly sounded hacked off with Bitter Together and Labour on the Big Debate today , when asked how he was voting but did say he was a NO voter. However we do know how they are careful how they use words.
@SimonStClare You did read that blog? it shouldn't take you that long, then you too can post on it that they are talking "a right load of old bollocks" Me?.... You are confusing me with someone who gives a damn about what you believe or don't
Oh dear - your usual supercilious response when asked to back up your claims.
@HurstLlama Go take it up with them then, show them your true metal by calling out those lying scum that know nothing! Because you have read a book, and it was almost nearly the real thing. Oddly, the other time I heard about the waterproofs was years ago from some of my mates,and I would strongly advise you not to call them a liars should you meet. Also, that's the the third link I have posted at your request, that you haven't bothered bothered to read, but instead meebled some half arsed reply, like your last one.
You claimed there were piles of discarded UK issued waterproofs at the landing point- this may be true or not, but you have provided no evidence to back this up.
Bit of a mystery why having had since Southampton to adjust your wardrobe, you'd wait till a potentially defended landing to do it.
@HurstLlama Go take it up with them then, show them your true metal by calling out those lying scum that know nothing! Because you have read a book, and it was almost nearly the real thing. Oddly, the other time I heard about the waterproofs was years ago from some of my mates,and I would strongly advise you not to call them a liars should you meet. Also, that's the the third link I have posted at your request, that you haven't bothered bothered to read, but instead meebled some half arsed reply, like your last one.
@HurstLlama Go take it up with them then, show them your true metal by calling out those lying scum that know nothing! Because you have read a book, and it was almost nearly the real thing. Oddly, the other time I heard about the waterproofs was years ago from some of my mates,and I would strongly advise you not to call them a liars should you meet. Also, that's the the third link I have posted at your request, that you haven't bothered bothered to read, but instead meebled some half arsed reply, like your last one.
You claimed there were piles of discarded UK issued waterproofs at the landing point- this may be true or not, but you have provided no evidence to back this up.
Bit of a mystery why having had since Southampton to adjust your wardrobe, you'd wait till a potentially defended landing to do it.
If Smarmeron had bothered reading the link he's wibbling on about, he'd notice that the alleged pile of waterproofs were at South Cerney in Gloucestershire, rather than the Falkland Islands.
@HurstLlama Go take it up with them then, show them your true metal by calling out those lying scum that know nothing! Because you have read a book, and it was almost nearly the real thing. Oddly, the other time I heard about the waterproofs was years ago from some of my mates,and I would strongly advise you not to call them a liars should you meet. Also, that's the the third link I have posted at your request, that you haven't bothered bothered to read, but instead meebled some half arsed reply, like your last one.
You claimed there were piles of discarded UK issued waterproofs at the landing point- this may be true or not, but you have provided no evidence to back this up.
Bit of a mystery why having had since Southampton to adjust your wardrobe, you'd wait till a potentially defended landing to do it.
@HurstLlama Go take it up with them then, show them your true metal by calling out those lying scum that know nothing! Because you have read a book, and it was almost nearly the real thing. Oddly, the other time I heard about the waterproofs was years ago from some of my mates,and I would strongly advise you not to call them a liars should you meet. Also, that's the the third link I have posted at your request, that you haven't bothered bothered to read, but instead meebled some half arsed reply, like your last one.
You claimed there were piles of discarded UK issued waterproofs at the landing point- this may be true or not, but you have provided no evidence to back this up.
Bit of a mystery why having had since Southampton to adjust your wardrobe, you'd wait till a potentially defended landing to do it.
The Marines and the Para wore what they arrived in - the link below shows the kit they used and webbing Pat 58 it most certainly is not.
The blog Smarmy referred to discussed the use of Military pattern 58 webbing belt with modified pouch configuration. – to claim they were all issued pat 58 is misleading, it’s like claiming because the wore lanyards, they were issued suits of armour.
@SouthamObserver We were wealthy before the "crash", so where did all that wealth go to? Interesting thought for those that take off their blinkers, is it not?
This has probably been pointed out before ... but we were not wealthy before. Brown was running a £80 billion structural deficit. ie borowing money to create an illusion of wealth. Banks/ building societies were borrowing money on the retail market and giving it out in 120% self assessed mortgages and then bundling it up, securitised them, into 'special vehicles' and reselling to other banks. Home owners were re-mortgaging and taking money out of the value of their homes.
All smoke and mirrors from Gordon Brown
Brown was securitising mortgage debt?!! The rotter!
There's no such thing as a structural deficit. You really need to get over this abstract construction if you want to understand why Osborne is failing so badly.
If you are saying there is no such thing as the structural deficit then its you who are living in the abstract. Nowhere did I say 'Brown was securitising mortgage debt'. You are incapable of English comprehension.
Osborne is not failing badly. You are in fact quite incapable of rationalising the outside world.
There is no such thing as a structural deficit.
The structural deficit was not "£80bn" as you claim.
..
..
Wasn't Brown's pre-crisis debt less than he'd inherited from the Conservatives?
I was careful to point out that Brown increased debt to 2008. The figures are quite plain. In 2002 Debt was 315 billion. In 2008 it was £525 billion. So that was actually an increase of debt (ie runnung deficits) of 210 billion. The debt in 1997 was £348 billion. That came down (deficits were falling anyway) in the early Labour years because Brown followed Tory spending plans. After 2001 election things changed - instead of continuing to run a surplus he ran deficits again. Brown was helped in the early labour years by £20 billion of G3 licence sales IIRC So as you can see the debt was much higher than the level Brown inherited. During that time we had growth which should have been used to pay off debt, but in fact Brown actually added to the debt. So as I say evidence to my eye of a massive structural deficit.
I'm a vested interest. Of course I am, I don't want to lose my job at the age of 48 or 49. The FBU use the tired old phrase "Cuts Cost Lives" too often, but genuinely, the cuts proposed in my brigade are the closest to that cliché that we've ever come.
4 firefighters on one pump to cover a patch with a population of approximately 100000. 4 riders aren't enough to implement standard safety procedures at a house fire with persons reported, and the nearest backup pumps will be 10 minutes away, if they're available, putting the initial crew under pressure to commit BA without proper safety considerations in place. That puts us, and the public in danger, because we might not commit until a second pump arrives, or we might commit when we should have waited. Government stats say that 80% of fatalities in domestic property fires are dead before we arrive. Looks like we've given up on the other 20% too.
I remember a conversation with a deputy fire chief in which she said dealing with fires and rescuing people was a minor part of her brigade's job and was growing ever smaller and less and less important. She got quite sniffy when I said that the general public probably wouldn't agree with her idea of what was important. She had of course never been a fire-fighter, but she was a senior decision maker.
I suspect I know exactly who you are talking about... One of a breed of highly paid public sector executives one increasingly met from about 2000 onwards... Highly political and willing to sell her grandmother if it led to a promotion...
I'm a vested interest. Of course I am, I don't want to lose my job at the age of 48 or 49. The FBU use the tired old phrase "Cuts Cost Lives" too often, but genuinely, the cuts proposed in my brigade are the closest to that cliché that we've ever come.
4 firefighters on one pump to cover a patch with a population of approximately 100000. 4 riders aren't enough to implement standard safety procedures at a house fire with persons reported, and the nearest backup pumps will be 10 minutes away, if they're available, putting the initial crew under pressure to commit BA without proper safety considerations in place. That puts us, and the public in danger, because we might not commit until a second pump arrives, or we might commit when we should have waited. Government stats say that 80% of fatalities in domestic property fires are dead before we arrive. Looks like we've given up on the other 20% too.
I remember a conversation with a deputy fire chief in which she said dealing with fires and rescuing people was a minor part of her brigade's job and was growing ever smaller and less and less important. She got quite sniffy when I said that the general public probably wouldn't agree with her idea of what was important. She had of course never been a fire-fighter, but she was a senior decision maker.
I suspect I know exactly who you are talking about... One of a breed of highly paid public sector executives one increasingly met from about 2000 onwards... Highly political and willing to sell her grandmother if it led to a promotion...
"I suspect I know exactly who you are talking about"
I hope I haven't been indiscreet, Mr 56. More likely I think that we have both met examples of the same breed.
@HurstLlama Nowhere near as sad as you. 40 years reading military history, and you still waffle on about "genius" high command, and how the soldiers went into the Falklands fully equipped with all the latest and most effective gear when in fact it was a scramble to put together working equipment from the junk they had been issued with. Because only the Labour party would send ill equipped troops into battle. Have you read up about "heavy machine guns" in WW1, and the lack thereof on the British side?
@SimonStClare Not all used 58 webbing but many did. And did you smile about the 1944 helmets that made it practically impossible to fire an SLR prone, while wearing the issue large pack? I bet the boys larfed and larfed when they first discovered it.
I'm a vested interest. Of course I am, I don't want to lose my job at the age of 48 or 49. The FBU use the tired old phrase "Cuts Cost Lives" too often, but genuinely, the cuts proposed in my brigade are the closest to that cliché that we've ever come.
4 firefighters on one pump to cover a patch with a population of approximately 100000. 4 riders aren't enough to implement standard safety procedures at a house fire with persons reported, and the nearest backup pumps will be 10 minutes away, if they're available, putting the initial crew under pressure to commit BA without proper safety considerations in place. That puts us, and the public in danger, because we might not commit until a second pump arrives, or we might commit when we should have waited. Government stats say that 80% of fatalities in domestic property fires are dead before we arrive. Looks like we've given up on the other 20% too.
I remember a conversation with a deputy fire chief in which she said dealing with fires and rescuing people was a minor part of her brigade's job and was growing ever smaller and less and less important. She got quite sniffy when I said that the general public probably wouldn't agree with her idea of what was important. She had of course never been a fire-fighter, but she was a senior decision maker.
I suspect I know exactly who you are talking about... One of a breed of highly paid public sector executives one increasingly met from about 2000 onwards... Highly political and willing to sell her grandmother if it led to a promotion...
"I suspect I know exactly who you are talking about"
I hope I haven't been indiscreet, Mr 56. More likely I think that we have both met examples of the same breed.
I suspect it is just noise on the upside, though it does reinforce the notion that Labour does fundamentally have a ~ 3% lead right now.
Yes, there seems to be a consistent Labour lead of around 3% to 4% and that hasn't changed for about three months. Nor do I expect it to change in the next few weeks, barring something extraordinary, since there are unlikely to be any drivers of change until IndyRef is out of the way and we have the Conference season. After the conferences is the time to start watching for any emerging trends.
Overall the national polls in Germany show extremely little change, except for the FDP (free-market liberals) dropping further below 5%. Compared with our bouncy polls it's amazing how stable German polls are:
Comments
Cutting to the point the commentator says
''So Nigel's comments this morning do appear to be a cynical attempt to win votes in light of recent events. Either that or he has demonstrated a total lack of political knowledge in this area, whilst simultaneously possessing the arrogance to still speak on the matter.''
The commentator closes
''So here we have a politician in the run up to the election suggestion that this and that should be done, where this and that is very much already being done. He goes on to tell us he would like to do more, when we are already doing more. The government is actually doing a lot more.
Anyone can find this information, it's all the internet. I'm a little surprised the author of this article didn't feel the need to check. It certainly would have provided a better insight into the workings of the Ukip promotional machine. Which for some of us, is the real story here.''
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/syrian-regime-punished-chemical-weapons
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e95e2e8-2934-11e4-9d5d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3B7s8Oy4M
And to think that in the beggining of the year it was just me, SeanT and some others here taking a realist approach on Syria, ISIS and Assad and now even Rifkind is taking the same approach.
Nowhere did I say 'Brown was securitising mortgage debt'. You are incapable of English comprehension.
Osborne is not failing badly. You are in fact quite incapable of rationalising the outside world.
Some of you may remember me posting last Friday of my experiences of being dragooned into a UKIP leafleting effort in the local High Street. A little while ago I drove up to the village to get some urgently needed supplies and the lady in the tobacconist said, "Have you got any more membership forms because Mrs X and Miss Y want to sign up?"
OK, this is pure anecdote stuff, but nonetheless true. Last week in two hours I signed up four new members because they asked me for the forms. Today, two more, again without me putting in any effort or even asking. Trivial numbers in a trivial, if traditionally strong, Conservative territory, but straws in the wind.
The other thing that is interesting is where this support is coming from. We are a village, though really these days a small town and the UKIP support I am picking up is coming from two places in the main. The early 1970s three bed semi-developments and, even more interestingly, the post-war council estate. The Oiks are on the march? Too early to tell, but maybe.
http://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/financial-services-products/insurance/payment-protection-insurance/ppi-compensation-refunds
A Home office 'Standard Note: SN/HA/6820 Last updated:8 May 2014 Author:Melanie Gower'
says...
''There has been an increasing use of powers to deprive people of their British citizenship and withdraw British passport facilities in recent years, particularly in respect of those who may be involved in fighting, extremist activity or terrorist training overseas.
Under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended), an order to deprive a person of their British citizenship can be made if the Home Secretary is satisfied that:
1 - it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of their British nationality and to do so would not render them stateless; or
2 - the person acquired their citizenship through naturalisation or registration, and it was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact.
In the second scenario, a person may be deprived of their British citizenship even if this would leave them stateless. “Conducive to the public good” means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours.
At Commons Report stage of the Immigration Bill, a controversial new government clause allowing the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised person of their British citizenship if their conduct was “seriously prejudicial” to the interests of the UK (even if they would become stateless) was approved. Questions have been raised about whether the clause would put the UK in breach of its international obligations, and how the powers would be used in practice.
The Government was defeated on the clause at Lords Report stage. Peers voted for an amendment that provided for a Parliamentary Committee to consider the case for extending the deprivation powers. On 7 May the Commons disagreed with the Lords amendment, and agreed to government amendments to the original clause. These were intended to address concerns about individuals being left stateless, and to provide for independent scrutiny of the Home Secretary’s exercise of the deprivation powers. Ping-pong continues in the Lords on 12 May.
The Home Secretary also has powers to issue, withdraw and refuse to issue British passports.''
This does once again call into question the value and purpose of the House of Lords. But the point is the govt have taken and are taking such powers as they might need.
“Conducive to the public good”
I do hope that will include failure to pick up your dogs poo.
V. Interesting Mr Llama. How much does UKIP charge to sign a member up, out of interest?
The structural deficit was not "£80bn" as you claim.
The structural deficit is not a hard number, it is an estimate based on many estimates - of what the so-called "output gap" might be for example, which in itself is a subjective concept (estimates vary wildly between different economists).
I would imagine they would be less of an outflow on the banks balance sheets, and become part of the overall profits with some of it going to the shareholders.
More interesting is where the banks got the money from in the first place?
Do please put up the source for this pile of waterproof kit that was being a handed at at San Carlos.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1692_2015UKp_XXc1li111tcn_G0t
Please do not make any personal financial choices based on anything I say!
From any number of perspectives I think the equity markets are grossly overvalued, sustained only by the Fed's liquidity and quite irrational. But, as the saying goes: 'the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent'. I've got out of equities completely. And bought some gold.
I find Grant Williams at Mauldin Economics' blog called 'Things that make you go hmmm...' is a fabulous place to understand what's going on - and quite amusing. Here's why I think gold is a great hedge against a looming macro nasty:
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ttmygh/thinker-trader-holder-why
One minute you say there is no such thing and the next you say it is not a hard number. Make your mind up. (None of which is to say that the number is not bigger rather than smaller)
The structural defict is a well known economic concept and can be measured.
Between 2002 and 2008 when we had growth Brown added 230 billion to the debt, whilst before, when following tory plans, we had a surplus not deficit. That in itself points to him running a massive structural defict since at that period in the cycle he should have been running surpluses.
The comments on the webbing were from a veterans blog I came across while searching for something else, (they were discussing how much they managed to get away with), The Blacks bergens I know because we were asked to phone one of the marines if we came across them in the camping stores.
The pile of discarded waterproofs? You are a military historian, go do some research?
Here, since you are a bit slow with google.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/webbing-used-in-1982-during-the-falklands-war.189052/
Were you in charge of the tactical Christmas puddings when you were in the army?
No apologies this time by the way, you have tried this cr*p once too often.
How many hours of work will that generate do you think?
You have no idea how much that sort of reply winds me up. Do you know why? Because such stuff, time after time, is put up by someone who was just posting some, at best, third hand bollocks (and often just made up bullshit) and trying to run down the truth or otherwise of such allegations can just suck hours, even days and, when it comes to the XIVth century, weeks out of my life. So either you have some real information in which case you can give me a source (doesn't have to be on-line) or you don't.
Fair play to the Guardian for giving this some prominence.
Thanks Mr Llama
Cameron is a cock, isn't he?
Go take it up with them then, show them your true metal by calling out those lying scum that know nothing! Because you have read a book, and it was almost nearly the real thing.
Oddly, the other time I heard about the waterproofs was years ago from some of my mates,and I would strongly advise you not to call them a liars should you meet.
Also, that's the the third link I have posted at your request, that you haven't bothered bothered to read, but instead meebled some half arsed reply, like your last one.
But the price of gold has fallen 7% in the last year - so it might be a good time to buy. Only trouble is last Christmas it was even lower.
Longer term of course it has risen, but it has been far higher than its current $1275/oz... Just 3 years ago it was about $1990/oz.
So suggestions of a rise is not terribly clever or original.
As an indication of fluctiuations which still left the worlds financial institutions in one piece --- in Aug 2009 it was $944/oz. In Aug 2011 it was $1889/oz (nearly double). In Jan 2014 it was $1202/oz (down about a third). Now its $1277/oz.
Let us assume for a minute that we have six more years of economic growth this cycle. Let's randomly assume that we average 2.5% economic growth and 2% inflation in that time. If we ran a balanced budget (no surpluses here), we would reduce debt-to-GDP by 25% - solely on the back of nominal GDP growth. Of course, we're not there yet, but history suggests that in economic upswings, deficits come down rather faster than people anticipate.
Re public sector pensions, don't forget that many of them are funded. There are hundreds of billions sitting in investments with fund managers from local governments alone. And I think we all know that retirement ages are going to rise. Increasing average retirement age by 5 years cuts the total pensions liability by almost a quarter.
Is Eck a big feartie?
Rather it is about trying inject inflation into the system, and to persuade corporates and consumers to stop paying back debts and start spending.
So, I would suspect QE will be about lowering the interest rates on corporate debt - and that we will see a lot of purchasing of A/A-/BBB corporate paper.
You did read that blog? it shouldn't take you that long, then you too can post on it that they are talking "a right load of old bollocks"
Me?.... You are confusing me with someone who gives a damn about what you believe or don't
Blair McDougall @blairmcdougall 3 mins
Just heard from impeccable source that Henry McLeish endorsing Yes on Monday. Hardly a surprise but he's entitled to his view. #indyref
(Mr Market correctly saw that Maggie would impose fiscal discipline and slay the inflationary dragon. That was little consolation to dock and factory workers who lost their jobs as a direct consequence of sterling's appreciation.)
The blog Smarmy referred to discussed the use of Military pattern 58 webbing belt with modified pouch configuration. – to claim they were all issued pat 58 is misleading, it’s like claiming because the wore lanyards, they were issued suits of armour.
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g422/delta0one/rmfalklands.jpg
The figures are quite plain.
In 2002 Debt was 315 billion. In 2008 it was £525 billion. So that was actually an increase of debt (ie runnung deficits) of 210 billion.
The debt in 1997 was £348 billion. That came down (deficits were falling anyway) in the early Labour years because Brown followed Tory spending plans. After 2001 election things changed - instead of continuing to run a surplus he ran deficits again.
Brown was helped in the early labour years by £20 billion of G3 licence sales IIRC
So as you can see the debt was much higher than the level Brown inherited. During that time we had growth which should have been used to pay off debt, but in fact Brown actually added to the debt. So as I say evidence to my eye of a massive structural deficit.
I hope I haven't been indiscreet, Mr 56. More likely I think that we have both met examples of the same breed.
Nowhere near as sad as you. 40 years reading military history, and you still waffle on about "genius" high command, and how the soldiers went into the Falklands fully equipped with all the latest and most effective gear when in fact it was a scramble to put together working equipment from the junk they had been issued with.
Because only the Labour party would send ill equipped troops into battle.
Have you read up about "heavy machine guns" in WW1, and the lack thereof on the British side?
Not all used 58 webbing but many did. And did you smile about the 1944 helmets that made it practically impossible to fire an SLR prone, while wearing the issue large pack?
I bet the boys larfed and larfed when they first discovered it.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/landtage/index.htm
(click on the ones with dates in Aug/Sept in column 1 to see how the polls have evolved).
However, all is not well within the AfD as some like Putin and some don't:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/russia-ukraine-conflict-divides-germanys-eurosceptics-307920?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=18aaef2c00-newsletter_weekly_update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-18aaef2c00-245514803
Overall the national polls in Germany show extremely little change, except for the FDP (free-market liberals) dropping further below 5%. Compared with our bouncy polls it's amazing how stable German polls are:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/junckers-commission-looks-become-politically-one-sided-gender-unbalanced?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=18aaef2c00-newsletter_weekly_update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-18aaef2c00-245514803