Hugh Pym @BBCHughPym But April borrowing not so good for Chancellor - £10.2 billion, up £1.3 bill fro preivous year, excl Royal Mail and B of E transfers
Hugh Pym selectivity using Labours figures ?
Not including SLS in the figures - why not leave out VAT receipts too ?
Don't panic tim the IMF report will be out soon slagging off the Uk economy - we shoukd look to more sucsessful European economies like Narnia or Liliput.
Osborne has to include the Special Liquidity Scheme in the figures or the deficit for 2012/3 is higher than it was for the previous year.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky On one measure of borrowing - deficit excluding SLS - Osborne still borrowed more last year than the previous one http://bit.ly/13HprF6
Don't be dumb tim.
The deficit for (PSNB) for 2012-13 was far lower than the prior year as is made clear by the ONS Key Findings:
In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £85.1 billion; this is £35.8 billion lower net borrowing than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £120.9 billion.
PSNB ex is the accrued rather than cash borrowing figure including non-recurring treasury receipts but excluding the effects of "financial interventions" (i.e. bank bailouts).
The better deficit figure is the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget which is the metric used in Osborne's Primary Fiscal Mandate, but this figure excludes all the non-recurring figures so is of less interest to mischief making journalists.
In other words, actual borrowing is very much less than the £120 billion hypothetical borrowing figures so beloved by the journalists and opposition.
You either take all the non-recurring figures out or keep them all in. Selectively including those that increase borrowing and omitting those that reduce it is just timfoolery.
Mr. Pork, I remember that chap. I feel some sympathy for him being fired for stupid tweeting, but it really wasn't clever.
On economic news: yeah, they do indeed sound dodgy. I remember when idiot economic correspondents were banging on about stripping out the very helpful Olympics tickets sales. They were bought, the money has to go in one quarter or another, and if you remove the boost from that quarter, then you can't consider the next one in the same light because the starting point would be lower, and the immediate post-ticket quarter would therefore look better by comparison.
Anyone who thinks that "As a father" Dave of chocolate oranges by the tills,padded bra's for children and Rihannas corset fame was a libertarian aint too smart.
He's not a libertarian. Too tempted by 'nudge' theory for my liking. but that's why you have Cabinet government - so different views are reflected.
I look at what government deos, not what individual ministers say, or what the media says they say.
The ONS borrowing document is almost impenetrable which is why I'd held off posting about April month's figures.
As for a single quarter's growth - in a recovery that should be sailing closer to 1.0% not sloshing around the bottom at 0.3%. Nothing to crow about there either.
When did the last government (or any government in, say, the last 30 years) achieve a sustainable annualised 4.0% growth rate in the UK? That's what you are setting as a benchmark - completely unrealistic.
1.2-1.5% annualised isn''t fantastic, but if they were at 2.5-3.0% that would be perfectly acceptable.
Listening to David Cameron on Radio4 just now. He was eloquent and heartfelt in his support for the Gay Marriage bill. And he will rightly win a place as a social reformer for that.
On the other stuff including Europe, Cameron again showed that amongst his contemporaries he really has no equal in dealing with these kinds of interviews. Very Blair like, though not quite as polished or as in control of events as the Great Tone.
Very fair even generous comment. TBH I thought that he was allowed to say what he wanted and Jim Naughtie really should give himself a shake. I heard an interview he gave to Alex Salmond yesterday and it was embarrassing. There must be some middle ground between interviewers who talk over the top of people and those who are doormats but I can only presume it is harder than it looks.
Dave needs asking what he's going to renegotiate in Europe. Thats where he can't answer and if he did would be ripped apart by his own side
Even as a supporter it seemed to me that was one of several obvious questions that he was not asked. The truth is that Cameron is waiting for the chips to fall in Europe. When the EZ members need treaty changes (and they will, big time, even if they stay together, let alone if they fall apart) he will be able to measure their desperation and see what he can get but it is not a question he wants to or even can answer at the moment.
He rather got away with the radical reforming government that seems to have pretty much run out of legislation in 3 years too.
A very poor effort by an interviewer who is past it.
If 61 year old Naughtie is "past it" what about 69 year old co-presenter Humphries or 74 year old David Dimblebore?
In any case I hardly think Cameron's troubles are behind him because of one friendly interview. Cameron has been criticised for acting like the patrician chairman of UK plc , just popping up now and then to reassure the troops and on the day after a You Gov poll gave the Tories their equal lowest voting share.
"In essence, gay marriage has redefined “social progress” to mean imposing an elite block on tyrannical public passions, to mean having the right-minded rulers of society keep in check the wrongheadedness of society’s inhabitants. This echoes the social engineering disguised as social progress that was promoted by Fabian types in the early 20th century far more than it does the true social progress pursued by the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks. It is not social progress at all, really – it is social demarcation, a way for the great and the good to distinguish themselves from the thick and the old..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100218031/congratulations-gay-marriage-campaigners-you-have-completely-destroyed-the-meaning-of-social-progress/
its just complete bobbins, isn't it? he doesn't actually have any coherent point at all. he, apparently is the uncomfortable one
The ONS borrowing document is almost impenetrable which is why I'd held off posting about April month's figures.
As for a single quarter's growth - in a recovery that should be sailing closer to 1.0% not sloshing around the bottom at 0.3%. Nothing to crow about there either.
When did the last government (or any government in, say, the last 30 years) achieve a sustainable annualised 4.0% growth rate in the UK? That's what you are setting as a benchmark - completely unrealistic.
1.2-1.5% annualised isn''t fantastic, but if they were at 2.5-3.0% that would be perfectly acceptable.
The High Court has overturned an order granting anonymity to a man who killed three children he was babysitting and impaled them on garden railings.
David McGreavy, 62, was jailed for life in 1973 for the murders of four-year-old Paul Ralph and his sisters Dawn, two, and nine-month-old Samantha.
He killed the children at a house at Gillam Street in Worcester and impaled them on railings in the garden.
McGreavy had applied for anonymity over fears his own life was in danger. 'Exceptionally horrific'
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and media organisations argued the application was legally flawed and wrongly prevented the public from knowing the full facts of the case.
Their counsel, Guy Vassall-Adams, told the court: "The full facts are exceptionally horrific by even the standard of murders.
"The order restricted the media to saying they were 'three sadistic murders' but that doesn't even give you the half of it."
Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting in London with Mr Justice Simon, ruled the anonymity order must be discharged.
To be fair, Nick Clegg has been entirely consistent about this since May 2010 - the Coalition is for a full five years and that's how it's going to be. One can almost hear the palpable groans from the UKIP-inclined as their moment starts to slip away from them.
It is, as always, "the economy, stupid" and many voters will forgive almost anything if there is a feeling about that on a personal level their financial situation is improving. If the Conservative backbenchers want to end the Coalition, they're going to have to grow a pair and stab the Prime Minister in the back and in the front at the same time. Clegg's speech makes it clear that they're going to have to do their own dirty work and frankly I doubt any of them have the stomach for it.
The coalition is one of the reasons for UKIP's rise, (not the only one of course). The more these ill sorted sides stick together, the greater the frustration of the tory rank and file and the L/dem conference. The fact that Cammo appeared reasonable on Radio 4 today, only proves that on occasion he comes through as a good speaker. There is no doubt that he and Clegg will use the parliamentary recess to expound all sorts of lovlies for the public and the future, without back-bench interference and with the cooperation of tame journalists.
Meanwhile another 20 months or so will be the time needed for UKIP to consolidate and then grow as a party and organisation. No Mr Stodge, the moment will not slip away for UKIP, 2014 will bring the EU elections and further big changes.
A shedload of wishful thinking, my friend. UKIP will of course do very well next year just as they did in 2009 and 2004 (for all the good it did them at the subsequent GE). The 30% or so who turned out at the start of the month and will turn out next June will ensure UKIP gets a good result and plenty of publicity.
The problem is all the other voters who will turn out on May 7th 2015 and what they will do after three or four weeks of being told what a vote for UKIP will really mean (as distinct from what Nigel Farage will say) which is a Labour Government and an even stronger commitment to Europe and the likelihood of neither re-negotiation nor a referendum. Once that has been drummed into the electorate, most of the party's current support which is, as with most midterm protest votes, a mile wide and an inch deep, will either run back whence it came or simply stay at home.
Yes, I can see UKIP polling 5% and they might even win a seat or two with luck but the idea of breaking any kind of mould isn't going to happen and as you and I watch Ed Miliband return to Downing Street from Buckingham Palace on the afternoon of Friday May 8th 2015, we can reflect on the fact that both our parties will be spending the next five years as irrelevancies on the political margins and derive such comfort as we can from that.
Who's doing the wishful thinking now, Stodgey?
So you're not going to try and argue that I might have a point and that the current high poll figures for UKIP might not be sustainable. I think you will do well in some areas and you made the not unreasonable point that UKIP's organisation is superior to what has been in the past which I happily concede so my point that 5% might win you a couple of seats isn't entirely invalid.
The fact remains that for all the current hype and hysteria and the turmoil it has produced on the Conservative side (most of it manifesting pre-existing inner tensions), we simply don't know how the UKIP vote will stand the sustained assault of a general election campaign and the message that the Conservative campaign will produce ad nauseam which, as you and everyone alse on here knows, will be "Vote UKIP get Labour" or you could have "A UKIP vote is a wasted vote". UKIP will have to stand and fight that in a way it hasn't had to thus far.
UKIP to poll 10% or less at GE2015 is 8/13 w Ladbrokes, I will lay you 8/11
Anyone who thinks that "As a father" Dave of chocolate oranges by the tills,padded bra's for children and Rihannas corset fame was a libertarian aint too smart.
He's not a libertarian. Too tempted by 'nudge' theory for my liking. but that's why you have Cabinet government - so different views are reflected.
I look at what government deos, not what individual ministers say, or what the media says they say.
Most of Dave's statements and actions on this stuff, chocolate oranges,Rihanna's corset, padded bra's open air porn filters etc are driven solely by pollsters teling him the public like (or liked) his "As a father" act.
It's the same reason he was so keen to use child crime victims so relentlessly to push his Broken Britain meme. I'll leave it to you imagination who was particularly advising him on positioning himself in that sorry two or three years of child victim exploitation
Indeed, trying to use the 'bully pulpit' not very effectively. But it's all piss and wind. Just ignore it and nothing changes.
BBC: Russia's foreign minister has called Azerbaijan's failure to award any points to Russia's entry in the Eurovision song contest "outrageous". Sergei Lavrov said the points had been "stolen" from Russia's Dina Garipova and "this outrageous action will not remain without a response .... Meanwhile, the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, has weighed in with his own accusations. Suspicious that the Belarusian singer did not receive a single point from Russia, he has claimed that the final was falsified.
................
I think the members of Azeri jury are in real danger now.....they clearly voted down Russian song......
To be fair, Nick Clegg has been entirely consistent about this since May 2010 - the Coalition is for a full five years and that's how it's going to be. One can almost hear the palpable groans from the UKIP-inclined as their moment starts to slip away from them.
It is, as always, "the economy, stupid" and many voters will forgive almost anything if there is a feeling about that on a personal level their financial situation is improving. If the Conservative backbenchers want to end the Coalition, they're going to have to grow a pair and stab the Prime Minister in the back and in the front at the same time. Clegg's speech makes it clear that they're going to have to do their own dirty work and frankly I doubt any of them have the stomach for it.
The coalition is one of the reasons for UKIP's rise, (not the only one of course). The more these ill sorted sides stick together, the greater the frustration of the tory rank and file and the L/dem conference. The fact that Cammo appeared reasonable on Radio 4 today, only proves that on occasion he comes through as a good speaker. There is no doubt that he and Clegg will use the parliamentary recess to expound all sorts of lovlies for the public and the future, without back-bench interference and with the cooperation of tame journalists.
Meanwhile another 20 months or so will be the time needed for UKIP to consolidate and then grow as a party and organisation. No Mr Stodge, the moment will not slip away for UKIP, 2014 will bring the EU elections and further big changes.
A shedload of wishful thinking, my friend. UKIP will of course do very well next year just as they did in 2009 and 2004 (for all the good it did them at the subsequent GE). The 30% or so who turned out at the start of the month and will turn out next June will ensure UKIP gets a good result and plenty of publicity.
The problem is all the other voters who will turn out on May 7th 2015 and what they will do after three or four weeks of being told what a vote for UKIP will really mean (as distinct from what Nigel Farage will say) which is a Labour Government and an even stronger commitment to Europe and the likelihood of neither re-negotiation nor a referendum. Once that has been drummed into the electorate, most of the party's current support which is, as with most midterm protest votes, a mile wide and an inch deep, will either run back whence it came or simply stay at home.
Yes, I can see UKIP polling 5% and they might even win a seat or two with luck but the idea of breaking any kind of mould isn't going to happen and as you and I watch Ed Miliband return to Downing Street from Buckingham Palace on the afternoon of Friday May 8th 2015, we can reflect on the fact that both our parties will be spending the next five years as irrelevancies on the political margins and derive such comfort as we can from that.
Who's doing the wishful thinking now, Stodgey?
So you're not going to try and argue that I might have a point and that the current high poll figures for UKIP might not be sustainable. I think you will do well in some areas and you made the not unreasonable point that UKIP's organisation is superior to what has been in the past which I happily concede so my point that 5% might win you a couple of seats isn't entirely invalid.
The fact remains that for all the current hype and hysteria and the turmoil it has produced on the Conservative side (most of it manifesting pre-existing inner tensions), we simply don't know how the UKIP vote will stand the sustained assault of a general election campaign and the message that the Conservative campaign will produce ad nauseam which, as you and everyone alse on here knows, will be "Vote UKIP get Labour" or you could have "A UKIP vote is a wasted vote". UKIP will have to stand and fight that in a way it hasn't had to thus far.
What you fail to understand Stodge, is that for kippers and supporters getting a Labour government will be no different from the coalition. In other words they couldn't care less and scare us not.
The three parties Lab/lib/CON are grouped thus, with the emphasis on CON, in that UKIP will fight the coming elections with the premise that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the above parties and all of them are the same, and it's all one big CON.
True that UKIP hasn't got the size and organisation of the main parties, but while they fight each other, UKIP will have a chance to make the difference.
"In essence, gay marriage has redefined “social progress” to mean imposing an elite block on tyrannical public passions, to mean having the right-minded rulers of society keep in check the wrongheadedness of society’s inhabitants. This echoes the social engineering disguised as social progress that was promoted by Fabian types in the early 20th century far more than it does the true social progress pursued by the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks. It is not social progress at all, really – it is social demarcation, a way for the great and the good to distinguish themselves from the thick and the old..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100218031/congratulations-gay-marriage-campaigners-you-have-completely-destroyed-the-meaning-of-social-progress/
its just complete bobbins, isn't it? he doesn't actually have any coherent point at all. he, apparently is the uncomfortable one
Brendan O'Neill doesn't make an uncomfortable point, he makes an incomprehensible one.
I started off not giving a flying to55 about gay marriage. But I must admit that the combination of Tebbitt and Howarth has driven me into the 'giving a sh1t' camp. For goodness sake: implement it and move on. It's not like legalising marriage between man and beast or father and daughter is next on Peter Tatchell's agenda.
Chris Leslie MP, Labour's Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, responding to today’s public sector finance figures, said:
“The Government’s failing economic policies continue to be self-defeating. A flatlining economy and high unemployment means lower tax revenues and more benefits spending, which is why deficit reduction has stalled.
“Underlying borrowing was £1.3 billion higher last month compared to a year ago and the Government is now set to borrow £245 billion more than planned. This is not more borrowing to invest in creating jobs for the future, but simply to pay for the costs of this government’s economic failure.
“After three years of failure the Chancellor must realise that we need strong and sustained growth to get the deficit down. Alongside sensible spending cuts and tax rises we need a jobs and growth plan, including building thousands of affordable homes and a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long term unemployed.”
We're now entering the fourth year of failing Austerity.
To be fair, Nick Clegg has been entirely consistent about this since May 2010 - the Coalition is for a full five years and that's how it's going to be. One can almost hear the palpable groans from the UKIP-inclined as their moment starts to slip away from them.
It is, as always, "the economy, stupid" and many voters will forgive almost anything if there is a feeling about that on a personal level their financial situation is improving. If the Conservative backbenchers want to end the Coalition, they're going to have to grow a pair and stab the Prime Minister in the back and in the front at the same time. Clegg's speech makes it clear that they're going to have to do their own dirty work and frankly I doubt any of them have the stomach for it.
The coalition is one of the reasons for UKIP's rise, (not the only one of course). The more these ill sorted sides stick together, the greater the frustration of the tory rank and file and the L/dem conference. The fact that Cammo appeared reasonable on Radio 4 today, only proves that on occasion he comes through as a good speaker. There is no doubt that he and Clegg will use the parliamentary recess to expound all sorts of lovlies for the public and the future, without back-bench interference and with the cooperation of tame journalists.
Meanwhile another 20 months or so will be the time needed for UKIP to consolidate and then grow as a party and organisation. No Mr Stodge, the moment will not slip away for UKIP, 2014 will bring the EU elections and further big changes.
A shedload of wishful thinking, my friend. UKIP will of course do very well next year just as they did in 2009 and 2004 (for all the good it did them at the subsequent GE). The 30% or so who turned out at the start of the month and will turn out next June will ensure UKIP gets a good result and plenty of publicity.
The problem is all the other voters who will turn out on May 7th 2015 and what they will do after three or four weeks of being told what a vote for UKIP will really mean (as distinct from what Nigel Farage will say) which is a Labour Government and an even stronger commitment to Europe and the likelihood of neither re-negotiation nor a referendum. Once that has been drummed into the electorate, most of the party's current support which is, as with most midterm protest votes, a mile wide and an inch deep, will either run back whence it came or simply stay at home.
Yes, I can see UKIP polling 5% and they might even win a seat or two with luck but the idea of breaking any kind of mould isn't going to happen and as you and I watch Ed Miliband return to Downing Street from Buckingham Palace on the afternoon of Friday May 8th 2015, we can reflect on the fact that both our parties will be spending the next five years as irrelevancies on the political margins and derive such comfort as we can from that.
Who's doing the wishful thinking now, Stodgey?
What you fail to understand Stodge, is that for kippers and supporters getting a Labour government will be no different from the coalition. In other words they couldn't care less and scare us not.
MikeK: I believe (and have bet) that UKIP will be above 10% at the general election. They may even reach 20%, although I suspect they'll end up in the 13-15% range.
And what you fail to understand is that while you may be a 'hard core' Kipper, probably half of the 23% of UKIP voters at the last election are not. If they are presented with the choice of Cameron (sans the LibDems) or Ed Milliband, they will reluctantly hold their nose and vote Cameron.
To be fair, Nick Clegg has been entirely consistent about this since May 2010 - the Coalition is for a full five years and that's how it's going to be. One can almost hear the palpable groans from the UKIP-inclined as their moment starts to slip away from them.
It is, as always, "the economy, stupid" and many voters will forgive almost anything if there is a feeling about that on a personal level their financial situation is improving. If the Conservative backbenchers want to end the Coalition, they're going to have to grow a pair and stab the Prime Minister in the back and in the front at the same time. Clegg's speech makes it clear that they're going to have to do their own dirty work and frankly I doubt any of them have the stomach for it.
The coalition is one of the reasons for UKIP's rise, (not the only one of course). The more these ill sorted sides stick together, the greater the frustration of the tory rank and file and the L/dem conference. The fact that Cammo appeared reasonable on Radio 4 today, only proves that on occasion he comes through as a good speaker. There is no doubt that he and Clegg will use the parliamentary recess to expound all sorts of lovlies for the public and the future, without back-bench interference and with the cooperation of tame journalists.
Meanwhile another 20 months or so will be the time needed for UKIP to consolidate and then grow as a party and organisation. No Mr Stodge, the moment will not slip away for UKIP, 2014 will bring the EU elections and further big changes.
A shedload of wishful thinking, my friend. UKIP will of course do very well next year just as they did in 2009 and 2004 (for all the good it did them at the subsequent GE). The 30% or so who turned out at the start of the month and will turn out next June will ensure UKIP gets a good result and plenty of publicity.
The problem is all the other voters who will turn out on May 7th 2015 and what they will do after three or four weeks of being told what a vote for UKIP will really mean (as distinct from what Nigel Farage will say) which is a Labour Government and an even stronger commitment to Europe and the likelihood of neither re-negotiation nor a referendum. Once that has been drummed into the electorate, most of the party's current support which is, as with most midterm protest votes, a mile wide and an inch deep, will either run back whence it came or simply stay at home.
Yes, I can see UKIP polling 5% and they might even win a seat or two with luck but the idea of breaking any kind of mould isn't going to happen and as you and I watch Ed Miliband return to Downing Street from Buckingham Palace on the afternoon of Friday May 8th 2015, we can reflect on the fact that both our parties will be spending the next five years as irrelevancies on the political margins and derive such comfort as we can from that.
Who's doing the wishful thinking now, Stodgey?
So you're not going to try and argue that I might have a point and that the current high poll figures for UKIP might not be sustainable. I think you will do well in some areas and you made the not unreasonable point that UKIP's organisation is superior to what has been in the past which I happily concede so my point that 5% might win you a couple of seats isn't entirely invalid.
The fact remains that for all the current hype and hysteria and the turmoil it has produced on the Conservative side (most of it manifesting pre-existing inner tensions), we simply don't know how the UKIP vote will stand the sustained assault of a general election campaign and the message that the Conservative campaign will produce ad nauseam which, as you and everyone alse on here knows, will be "Vote UKIP get Labour" or you could have "A UKIP vote is a wasted vote". UKIP will have to stand and fight that in a way it hasn't had to thus far.
What you fail to understand Stodge, is that for kippers and supporters getting a Labour government will be no different from the coalition. In other words they couldn't care less and scare us not.
The three parties Lab/lib/CON are grouped thus, with the emphasis on CON, in that UKIP wil fight the coming elections with the premise that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the above parties and all of them are the same.
True that UKIP hasn't got the size and organisation of the main parties, but while they fight each other, UKIP will have a chance to make the difference.
Exactly. The other parties assume that UKIP are scared of a Labour govt so will vote Tory..
How many lovers who have been lied to & let down by a partner have a one night (term) stand with someone their ex hates rather than get back with them?
UKIPpers see Dave & Ed as marginally different shades of grey, not the polar opposites they pretend to be
To be fair, Nick Clegg has been entirely consistent about this since May 2010 - the Coalition is for a full five years and that's how it's going to be. One can almost hear the palpable groans from the UKIP-inclined as their moment starts to slip away from them.
It is, as always, "the economy, stupid" and many voters will forgive almost anything if there is a feeling about that on a personal level their financial situation is improving. If the Conservative backbenchers want to end the Coalition, they're going to have to grow a pair and stab the Prime Minister in the back and in the front at the same time. Clegg's speech makes it clear that they're going to have to do their own dirty work and frankly I doubt any of them have the stomach for it.
The coalition is one of the reasons for UKIP's rise, (not the only one of course). The more these ill sorted sides stick together, the greater the frustration of the tory rank and file and the L/dem conference. The fact that Cammo appeared reasonable on Radio 4 today, only proves that on occasion he comes through as a good speaker. There is no doubt that he and Clegg will use the parliamentary recess to expound all sorts of lovlies for the public and the future, without back-bench interference and with the cooperation of tame journalists.
Meanwhile another 20 months or so will be the time needed for UKIP to consolidate and then grow as a party and organisation. No Mr Stodge, the moment will not slip away for UKIP, 2014 will bring the EU elections and further big changes.
A shedload of wishful thinking, my friend. UKIP will of course do very well next year just as they did in 2009 and 2004 (for all the good it did them at the subsequent GE). The 30% or so who turned out at the start of the month and will turn out next June will ensure UKIP gets a good result and plenty of publicity.
The problem is all the other voters who will turn out on May 7th 2015 and what they will do after three or four weeks of being told what a vote for UKIP will really mean (as distinct from what Nigel Farage will say) which is a Labour Government and an even stronger commitment to Europe and the likelihood of neither re-negotiation nor a referendum. Once that has been drummed into the electorate, most of the party's current support which is, as with most midterm protest votes, a mile wide and an inch deep, will either run back whence it came or simply stay at home.
Yes, I can see UKIP polling 5% and they might even win a seat or two with luck but the idea of breaking any kind of mould isn't going to happen and as you and I watch Ed Miliband return to Downing Street from Buckingham Palace on the afternoon of Friday May 8th 2015, we can reflect on the fact that both our parties will be spending the next five years as irrelevancies on the political margins and derive such comfort as we can from that.
Who's doing the wishful thinking now, Stodgey?
What you fail to understand Stodge, is that for kippers and supporters getting a Labour government will be no different from the coalition. In other words they couldn't care less and scare us not.
MikeK: I believe (and have bet) that UKIP will be above 10% at the general election. They may even reach 20%, although I suspect they'll end up in the 13-15% range.
And what you fail to understand is that while you may be a 'hard core' Kipper, probably half of the 23% of UKIP voters at the last election are not. If they are presented with the choice of Cameron (sans the LibDems) or Ed Milliband, they will reluctantly hold their nose and vote Cameron.
(And don't forget, there may be anti-UKIP tactical voting by LibDems and Labour-ites in some places. The joys of FPTP, eh?)
BBC: Russia's foreign minister has called Azerbaijan's failure to award any points to Russia's entry in the Eurovision song contest "outrageous". Sergei Lavrov said the points had been "stolen" from Russia's Dina Garipova and "this outrageous action will not remain without a response .... Meanwhile, the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, has weighed in with his own accusations. Suspicious that the Belarusian singer did not receive a single point from Russia, he has claimed that the final was falsified.
................
I think the members of Azeri jury are in real danger now.....they clearly voted down Russian song......
But which countries can the UK blame for only getting 23 points?
BBC: Russia's foreign minister has called Azerbaijan's failure to award any points to Russia's entry in the Eurovision song contest "outrageous". Sergei Lavrov said the points had been "stolen" from Russia's Dina Garipova and "this outrageous action will not remain without a response .... Meanwhile, the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, has weighed in with his own accusations. Suspicious that the Belarusian singer did not receive a single point from Russia, he has claimed that the final was falsified.
................
I think the members of Azeri jury are in real danger now.....they clearly voted down Russian song......
But which countries can the UK blame for only getting 23 points?
This seemed pretty inevitable once the immediate crisis is past. Why on Earth would it want to abrogate its Free Trade Agreements with China, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Gulf Co-operation Council, Mexico, South Africa, etc etc to join the EU, when it already has access to the EU's single market?
The ONS borrowing document is almost impenetrable which is why I'd held off posting about April month's figures.
As for a single quarter's growth - in a recovery that should be sailing closer to 1.0% not sloshing around the bottom at 0.3%. Nothing to crow about there either.
When did the last government (or any government in, say, the last 30 years) achieve a sustainable annualised 4.0% growth rate in the UK? That's what you are setting as a benchmark - completely unrealistic.
1.2-1.5% annualised isn''t fantastic, but if they were at 2.5-3.0% that would be perfectly acceptable.
I said closer to 1pc. And the point still stands.
you criticised quarterly growth of 0.3% - 1.2-1.5% [allowing for compounding] on an annualised basis. 1% on a quartlerly basis would be greater than 4% annualised.
Another massive anti-Gay marriage demo being organised Paris this weekend - last one attracted 800k people
@DanHannanMEP Iceland has now formally halted its EU application. Those mad, swivel-eyed loons evidently prefer prosperity and democracy to immiseration.
@paulwaugh Here's a thing. Just heard Govt slipped in formal 1st Reading of SameSex Marriage Bill in Lords last night, rather than wait til today.
"In essence, gay marriage has redefined “social progress” to mean imposing an elite block on tyrannical public passions, to mean having the right-minded rulers of society keep in check the wrongheadedness of society’s inhabitants. This echoes the social engineering disguised as social progress that was promoted by Fabian types in the early 20th century far more than it does the true social progress pursued by the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks. It is not social progress at all, really – it is social demarcation, a way for the great and the good to distinguish themselves from the thick and the old..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100218031/congratulations-gay-marriage-campaigners-you-have-completely-destroyed-the-meaning-of-social-progress/
its just complete bobbins, isn't it? he doesn't actually have any coherent point at all. he, apparently is the uncomfortable one
He seems to have two coherent points.
1) He's not looked at polling on the popularity of the issue
2) He's puzzled why in the 21st century people aren't campaigning for things as the same way as in the 19th century
To be fair, Nick Clegg has been entirely consistent about this since May 2010 - the Coalition is for a full five years and that's how it's going to be. One can almost hear the palpable groans from the UKIP-inclined as their moment starts to slip away from them.
It is, as always, "the economy, stupid" and many voters will forgive almost anything if there is a feeling about that on a personal level their financial situation is improving. If the Conservative backbenchers want to end the Coalition, they're going to have to grow a pair and stab the Prime Minister in the back and in the front at the same time. Clegg's speech makes it clear that they're going to have to do their own dirty work and frankly I doubt any of them have the stomach for it.
The coalition is one of the reasons for UKIP's rise, (not the only one of course). The more these ill sorted sides stick together, the greater the frustration of the tory rank and file and the L/dem conference. The fact that Cammo appeared reasonable on Radio 4 today, only proves that on occasion he comes through as a good speaker. There is no doubt that he and Clegg will use the parliamentary recess to expound all sorts of lovlies for the public and the future, without back-bench interference and with the cooperation of tame journalists.
Meanwhile another 20 months or so will be the time needed for UKIP to consolidate and then grow as a party and organisation. No Mr Stodge, the moment will not slip away for UKIP, 2014 will bring the EU elections and further big changes.
A shedload of wishful thinking, my friend. UKIP will of course do very well next year just as they did in 2009 and 2004 (for all the good it did them at the subsequent GE). The 30% or so who turned out at the start of the month and will turn out next June will ensure UKIP gets a good result and plenty of publicity.
The problem is all the other voters who will turn out on May 7th 2015 and what they will do after three or four weeks of being told what a vote for UKIP will really mean (as distinct from what Nigel Farage will say) which is a Labour Government and an even stronger commitment to Europe and the likelihood of neither re-negotiation nor a referendum. Once that has been drummed into the electorate, most of the party's current support which is, as with most midterm protest votes, a mile wide and an inch deep, will either run back whence it came or simply stay at home.
Yes, I can see UKIP polling 5% and they might even win a seat or two with luck but the idea of breaking any kind of mould isn't going to happen and as you and I watch Ed Miliband return to Downing Street from Buckingham Palace on the afternoon of Friday May 8th 2015, we can reflect on the fact that both our parties will be spending the next five years as irrelevancies on the political margins and derive such comfort as we can from that.
Who's doing the wishful thinking now, Stodgey?
What you fail to understand Stodge, is that for kippers and supporters getting a Labour government will be no different from the coalition. In other words they couldn't care less and scare us not.
MikeK: I believe (and have bet) that UKIP will be above 10% at the general election. They may even reach 20%, although I suspect they'll end up in the 13-15% range.
And what you fail to understand is that while you may be a 'hard core' Kipper, probably half of the 23% of UKIP voters at the last election are not. If they are presented with the choice of Cameron (sans the LibDems) or Ed Milliband, they will reluctantly hold their nose and vote Cameron.
But this is also where vote distribution comes in. In reality the kippers can only impact an election in about 100-150 seats. The Blues can afford to lose about 5% of the vote share if it's in the right seats as they tend to pile up votes where it doesn't count under FPTP. In some of those safe seats the best thing to do is not vote Blue as it's the only way of keeping pressure on Cameron.
“Why on the front page of newspapers when houses go up 10% [does] everyone say it is good news?” says Bloom. “Why then is the price of bread going up 10% bad news? […] It is good for a certain type of person but not another. […]
Berlin is drawing up plans for treaty changes to streamline decision-making in the eurozone, while stopping short of any wholesale renegotiation that would allow the UK to repatriate powers from Brussels.
Although Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has expressed her desire to keep the UK inside the EU, the move being discussed in Berlin would thwart a plan by David Cameron, UK prime minister, to piggyback on eurozone reforms to renegotiate the British relationship with Brussels.
(1) It's the hundredth bit of evidence that Cameron won't get his renegotiation (2) PM Miliband will have to make a decision of whether we sign a new treaty without a referendum
The Ed Miliband speech is thought-provoking. One of the thoughts that it provokes in me is: "what are you going to do in practice Mr Miliband if companies in general turn around and say: we're not desperately interested in what you think of as responsible capitalism? Or, still more awkwardly, but rather likely, if they politely pay lip service to the idea and then do exactly what they would have done anyway?"
“Why on the front page of newspapers when houses go up 10% [does] everyone say it is good news?” says Bloom. “Why then is the price of bread going up 10% bad news? […] It is good for a certain type of person but not another. […]
That's good they've reduced their 31% flat tax to 25% since the election. Given that none of it is serious why not just go for 2.5%?
Dont shoot the messenger.
I posted it despite knowing people would knock UKIP for it
I dont work for UKIP and I dont know their policies inside out, I am just an average joe with an interest in politics.
My guess is that 25% of a lot is better than 45% of nothing
Berlin is drawing up plans for treaty changes to streamline decision-making in the eurozone, while stopping short of any wholesale renegotiation that would allow the UK to repatriate powers from Brussels.
Although Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has expressed her desire to keep the UK inside the EU, the move being discussed in Berlin would thwart a plan by David Cameron, UK prime minister, to piggyback on eurozone reforms to renegotiate the British relationship with Brussels.
(1) It's the hundredth bit of evidence that Cameron won't get his renegotiation (2) PM Miliband will have to make a decision of whether we sign a new treaty without a referendum
The Ed Miliband speech is thought-provoking. One of the thoughts that it provokes in me is: "what are you going to do in practice Mr Miliband if companies in general turn around and say: we're not desperately interested in what you think of as responsible capitalism? Or, still more awkwardly, but rather likely, if they politely pay lip service to the idea and then do exactly what they would have done anyway?"
It provokes the thought that he is a hopelessly naive wally who has no idea about the economy.
Godfrey Bloom really is not an asset for UKIP. Why on Earth are they putting him, rather than people like Diane James and Paul Nuttall, forward on economic matters?
To be fair, Nick Clegg has been entirely consistent about this since May 2010 - the Coalition is for a full five years and that's how it's going to be. One can almost hear the palpable groans from the UKIP-inclined as their moment starts to slip away from them.
It is, as always, "the economy, stupid" and many voters will forgive almost anything if there is a feeling about that on a personal level their financial situation is improving. If the Conservative backbenchers want to end the Coalition, they're going to have to grow a pair and stab the Prime Minister in the back and in the front at the same time. Clegg's speech makes it clear that they're going to have to do their own dirty work and frankly I doubt any of them have the stomach for it.
The coalition is one of the reasons for UKIP's rise, (not the only one of course). The more these ill sorted sides stick together, the greater the frustration of the tory rank and file and the L/dem conference. The fact that Cammo appeared reasonable on Radio 4 today, only proves that on occasion he comes through as a good speaker. There is no doubt that he and Clegg will use the parliamentary recess to expound all sorts of lovlies for the public and the future, without back-bench interference and with the cooperation of tame journalists.
Meanwhile another 20 months or so will be the time needed for UKIP to consolidate and then grow as a party and organisation. No Mr Stodge, the moment will not slip away for UKIP, 2014 will bring the EU elections and further big changes.
A shedload of wishful thinking, my friend. UKIP will of course do very well next year just as they did in 2009 and 2004 (for all the good it did them at the subsequent GE). The 30% or so who turned out at the start of the month and will turn out next June will ensure UKIP gets a good result and plenty of publicity.
The problem is all the other voters who will turn out on May 7th 2015 and what they will do after three or four weeks of being told what a vote for UKIP will really mean (as distinct from what Nigel Farage will say) which is a Labour Government and an even stronger commitment to Europe and the likelihood of neither re-negotiation nor a referendum. Once that has been drummed into the electorate, most of the party's current support which is, as with most midterm protest votes, a mile wide and an inch deep, will either run back whence it came or simply stay at home.
Yes, I can see UKIP polling 5% and they might even win a seat or two with luck but the idea of breaking any kind of mould isn't going to happen and as you and I watch Ed Miliband return to Downing Street from Buckingham Palace on the afternoon of Friday May 8th 2015, we can reflect on the fact that both our parties will be spending the next five years as irrelevancies on the political margins and derive such comfort as we can from that.
Who's doing the wishful thinking now, Stodgey?
So you're not going to try and argue that I might have a point and that the current high poll figures for UKIP might not be sustainable. I think you will do well in some areas and you made the not unreasonable point that UKIP's organisation is superior to what has been in the past which I happily concede so my point that 5% might win you a couple of seats isn't entirely invalid.
The fact remains that for all the current hype and hysteria and the turmoil it has produced on the Conservative side (most of it manifesting pre-existing inner tensions), we simply don't know how the UKIP vote will stand the sustained assault of a general election campaign and the message that the Conservative campaign will produce ad nauseam which, as you and everyone alse on here knows, will be "Vote UKIP get Labour" or you could have "A UKIP vote is a wasted vote". UKIP will have to stand and fight that in a way it hasn't had to thus far.
What you fail to understand Stodge, is that for kippers and supporters getting a Labour government will be no different from the coalition. In other words they couldn't care less and scare us not.
The three parties Lab/lib/CON are grouped thus, with the emphasis on CON, in that UKIP will fight the coming elections with the premise that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the above parties and all of them are the same, and it's all one big CON.
True that UKIP hasn't got the size and organisation of the main parties, but while they fight each other, UKIP will have a chance to make the difference.
Edited
It's the height of hubris to assume that the people who have leant you their vote have exactly the same view as the party activists. I understand the UKIP message at the next election and it will get some traction but you will also realise that none of the other parties will give you a free ride. The slightest inconsistency in policy, the slightest off-message comment by a candidate will be jumped on fiercely. You talk about organisation - successful political parties need discipline.
The other point is how many of your 130+ County Councillors have any serious power. Have UKIP gone into coalition with any other parties ? My understanding is that UKIP HQ has decreed "no deals". Fine but the artithmetic won't always allow that and you might have to sully your clean hands with the reality of power and taking decisions at which point you will cease to be part of the solution and you will become part of the problem.
Another massive anti-Gay marriage demo being organised Paris this weekend - last one attracted 800k people
@DanHannanMEP Iceland has now formally halted its EU application. Those mad, swivel-eyed loons evidently prefer prosperity and democracy to immiseration.
@paulwaugh Here's a thing. Just heard Govt slipped in formal 1st Reading of SameSex Marriage Bill in Lords last night, rather than wait til today.
It is extraordinary that people are still not fully aware of the connection between Europe and same sex marriage, France as well as the U.K are pushing through the European Council recommendation at great haste. While Cameron is undoubtedly doing right by the Lesbian & Gay communities traditional Tory supporters continue to be astonished by the apparent energy he pours into this while remaining aloof to more prosaic bread and butter concerns. The HoC should have been open to business today and he should have been there facing down his enemies and answering questions on for example why the deficit figures released today are so poor.
(1) It's the hundredth bit of evidence that Cameron won't get his renegotiation (2) PM Miliband will have to make a decision of whether we sign a new treaty without a referendum
Actually, if you read the whole article, it is quite clear that Germany is on a sticky wicket with that one:
Berlin hopes to avoid such a time-consuming and freewheeling process. ...EU treaties do provide for “simplified” changes that do not require a full-scale convention. But such procedures can only be used to change the internal running of the EU and not to transfer powers from national governments to Brussels.
'Hopes' is the operative word here. I don't see it myself - the changes they want are just too far-reaching and a clear violation of Lisbon. I'm sure we could wreck them if necessary, but more likely this is all shadow-boxing. Basically, Germany, the UK and everyone else have no choice but to to sit down and renegotiate the whole shebang, as Cameron has realised.
Also, note the point about Germany agreeing with Cameron on some of the points he is making about improving competitiveness and on decision-making in the EU. We are not dealing with a united block of 26 other countries.
[Incidentally: the FT article can be read for free, you just need to sign up to the basic level which gives you a number of free articles per month].
Red banging on about Willy Wonka - who was a big fan of cheap immigrant workers - Loompaland is outside the EU.
I pity Scotland, Salmond yesterday ( the english stole all our money ) and Ed today ( big corporates are really nice guys ) , both making up economic policy on the hoof and with no chance of delivering anything they say.
The ONS borrowing document is almost impenetrable which is why I'd held off posting about April month's figures.
As for a single quarter's growth - in a recovery that should be sailing closer to 1.0% not sloshing around the bottom at 0.3%. Nothing to crow about there either.
When did the last government (or any government in, say, the last 30 years) achieve a sustainable annualised 4.0% growth rate in the UK? That's what you are setting as a benchmark - completely unrealistic.
1.2-1.5% annualised isn''t fantastic, but if they were at 2.5-3.0% that would be perfectly acceptable.
I said closer to 1pc. And the point still stands.
you criticised quarterly growth of 0.3% - 1.2-1.5% [allowing for compounding] on an annualised basis. 1% on a quartlerly basis would be greater than 4% annualised.
Care to revist your point?
Charles, the growth figures are very important to Ben. He has to judge the point at which the government stops spending more because growth is below trend and starts spending more because growth is above trend.
And you are entirely missing my point here. If Mr Cameron had his way - we'd have all of them.
Yes. Saying that "he has failed in his attempts to do the wrong things so that's all right then" amounts to saying you should vote Tory because even though you disapprove of their programme, they're too inept to implement it anyway.
And you are entirely missing my point here. If Mr Cameron had his way - we'd have all of them.
Yes. Saying that "he has failed in his attempts to do the wrong things so that's all right then" amounts to saying you should vote Tory because even though you disapprove of their programme, they're too inept to implement it anyway.
It's a pretty abject argument.
My argument is they considered them - which a responsbile government should do - and decided not to implement them.
They didn't bring forward legislation, or make a formal proposal.
To be fair, Nick Clegg has been entirely consistent about this since May 2010 - the Coalition is for a full five years and that's how it's going to be. One can almost hear the palpable groans from the UKIP-inclined as their moment starts to slip away from them.
It is, as always, "the economy, stupid" and many voters will forgive almost anything if there is a feeling about that on a personal level their financial situation is improving. If the Conservative backbenchers want to end the Coalition, they're going to have to grow a pair and stab the Prime Minister in the back and in the front at the same time. Clegg's speech makes it clear that they're going to have to do their own dirty work and frankly I doubt any of them have the stomach for it.
The coalition is one of the reasons for UKIP's rise, (not the only one of course). The more these ill sorted sides stick together, the greater the frustration of the tory rank and file and the L/dem conference. The fact that Cammo appeared reasonable on Radio 4 today, only proves that on occasion he comes through as a good speaker. There is no doubt that he and Clegg will use the parliamentary recess to expound all sorts of lovlies for the public and the future, without back-bench interference and with the cooperation of tame journalists.
Meanwhile another 20 months or so will be the time needed for UKIP to consolidate and then grow as a party and organisation. No Mr Stodge, the moment will not slip away for UKIP, 2014 will bring the EU elections and further big changes.
A shedload of wishful thinking, my friend. UKIP will of course do very well next year just as they did in 2009 and 2004 (for all the good it did them at the subsequent GE). The 30% or so who turned out at the start of the month and will turn out next June will ensure UKIP gets a good result and plenty of publicity.
The problem is all the other voters who will turn out on May 7th 2015 and what they will do after three or four weeks of being told what a vote for UKIP will really mean (as distinct from what Nigel Farage will say) which is a Labour Government and an even stronger commitment to Europe and the likelihood of neither re-negotiation nor a referendum. Once that has been drummed into the electorate, most of the party's current support which is, as with most midterm protest votes, a mile wide and an inch deep, will either run back whence it came or simply stay at home.
Yes, I can see UKIP polling 5% and they might even win a seat or two with luck but the idea of breaking any kind of mould isn't going to happen and as you and I watch Ed Miliband return to Downing Street from Buckingham Palace on the afternoon of Friday May 8th 2015, we can reflect on the fact that both our parties will be spending the next five years as irrelevancies on the political margins and derive such comfort as we can from that.
Who's doing the wishful thinking now, Stodgey?
So you're not going to try and argue that I might have a point and that the current high poll figures for UKIP might not be sustainable. I think you will do well in some areas and you made the not unreasonable point that UKIP's organisation is superior to what has been in the past which I happily concede so my point that 5% might win you a couple of seats isn't entirely invalid.
The fact remains that for all the current hype and hysteria and the turmoil it has produced on the Conservative side (most of it manifesting pre-existing inner tensions), we simply don't know how the UKIP vote will stand the sustained assault of a general election campaign and the message that the Conservative campaign will produce ad nauseam which, as you and everyone alse on here knows, will be "Vote UKIP get Labour" or you could have "A UKIP vote is a wasted vote". UKIP will have to stand and fight that in a way it hasn't had to thus far.
What you fail to understand Stodge, is that for kippers and supporters getting a Labour government will be no different from the coalition. In other words they couldn't care less and scare us not.
The three parties Lab/lib/CON are grouped thus, with the emphasis on CON, in that UKIP will fight the coming elections with the premise that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the above parties and all of them are the same, and it's all one big CON.
True that UKIP hasn't got the size and organisation of the main parties, but while they fight each other, UKIP will have a chance to make the difference.
Edited
It's the height of hubris to assume that the people who have leant you their vote have exactly the same view as the party activists. I understand the UKIP message at the next election and it will get some traction but you will also realise that none of the other parties will give you a free ride. The slightest inconsistency in policy, the slightest off-message comment by a candidate will be jumped on fiercely. You talk about organisation - successful political parties need discipline.
The other point is how many of your 130+ County Councillors have any serious power. Have UKIP gone into coalition with any other parties ? My understanding is that UKIP HQ has decreed "no deals". Fine but the artithmetic won't always allow that and you might have to sully your clean hands with the reality of power and taking decisions at which point you will cease to be part of the solution and you will become part of the problem.
Three points and then I'll leave it; this discussion is getting too large for my screen:
1. UKIP policy on deals with other parties are that while local alliances are permissible, a general alliance with another party is a definite no, no. 2. No one in UKIP expects a free ride. 3. Several UKIP policies are still in flux and will be worked out by the autumn conference season.
“Why on the front page of newspapers when houses go up 10% [does] everyone say it is good news?” says Bloom. “Why then is the price of bread going up 10% bad news? […] It is good for a certain type of person but not another. […]
UKIP is not the only party which doesn't distinguish between a fixed asset (a house) and a consumable expense (a loaf of bread).
Gordon Brown's "investment" policy was predicated on a similar belief, except he went one step further by equating liabilities with income.
My argument is they considered them - which a responsbile government should do - and decided not to implement them.
Perhaps, but my rejoinder would be, WTF was a Conservative PM doing giving even thought space to alcohol unit pricing in the first place?
You can't imagine Maggie thinking aloud about whether it would be a good idea to raise taxes so as to have more money to give BL so as to keep the Austin Allegro in production. And then deciding it wouldn't be, and then expecting applause for having arrived at the right answer to the wrong question.
I think Cameron shares Blair and Brown's undoing failing of wanting to be Prime Minister far more than they want to do anything in particular.
@faisalislam: IMF: "Help to Buy" risks "ultimately be mostly house price increases that would work against the aim of boosting access to housing".
What a surprise.
I tend to agree with this and I hope you do to and are not just making a party political point to beat the coalition government with. The last thing this country needs is rising house prices when they are still vastly overvalued. A massive expansion of social and low cost private housing is required.
Perhaps, but my rejoinder would be, WTF was a Conservative PM doing giving even thought space to alcohol unit pricing in the first place?
Much the same as Maggie was doing when (against massive opposition from some) her government introduced compulsory wearing of seat-belts: balancing pros and cons.
@faisalislam: IMF: "Help to Buy" risks "ultimately be mostly house price increases that would work against the aim of boosting access to housing".
What a surprise.
It's astonishingly stupid, in a Gordon Brown way.
Instead of cooking up some stupid little scheme, he could have just abolished stamp duty.
If you live in a 3 bedroom house and you need a 4 bedroom house, in many parts of London that's going to cost you £50,000 in stamp duty even if you relocate at the same price.
So what people do instead is convert the loft, for a fraction of the cost and hassle. So they don't sell their houses. So there's an undersupply.
Abolish SDLT and suddenly there are more houses for sale at a net lower cost. The state still gets its piece of the pie through IHT anyway.
(1) It's the hundredth bit of evidence that Cameron won't get his renegotiation (2) PM Miliband will have to make a decision of whether we sign a new treaty without a referendum
Actually, if you read the whole article, it is quite clear that Germany is on a sticky wicket with that one:
Berlin hopes to avoid such a time-consuming and freewheeling process. ...EU treaties do provide for “simplified” changes that do not require a full-scale convention. But such procedures can only be used to change the internal running of the EU and not to transfer powers from national governments to Brussels.
'Hopes' is the operative word here. I don't see it myself - the changes they want are just too far-reaching and a clear violation of Lisbon. I'm sure we could wreck them if necessary, but more likely this is all shadow-boxing. Basically, Germany, the UK and everyone else have no choice but to to sit down and renegotiate the whole shebang, as Cameron has realised.
Also, note the point about Germany agreeing with Cameron on some of the points he is making about improving competitiveness and on decision-making in the EU. We are not dealing with a united block of 26 other countries.
[Incidentally: the FT article can be read for free, you just need to sign up to the basic level which gives you a number of free articles per month].
The key point about it is this:
Senior German officials acknowledged that they were isolated on treaty change, which is fraught with political landmines in several countries – particularly France, which would probably require a national referendum if major changes were made to EU law.
The EU had a hard enough time passing Maastricht and Lisbon, the substance of which were largely uncontroversial, and that was in reasonably favourable economic weather, with fewer member states than they have now.
How on earth are they going to do it when voters everywhere are mad as hell and not going to take it any more, and the south thinks they're being screwed by Germany while the north thinks they're being taken for a ride by the feckless south? They won't be able to pass a treaty until the crisis is over, and at that point they won't need it any more. Everyone seems to understand this except Schäuble, and there's the suspicion that he's only advocating a treaty because it's the easiest way to stop anything concrete that'll make Germany responsible for everybody's debts from actually happening.
In the meantime they'll proceed by institutions making up powers for themselves and everybody going along with it because the alternatives are worse.
Whenever I read a Dan Hodges piece, and the lambasting that results on here, I always think back to 2009-10 when I was posting similar comments on here about Dave not doing enough to win an overall majority, treading water too much, coasting to an assumed easy win, and the pillorying I got on here as a result for my "doom-laden" predictions of Tory "falling at the final fence".
Whilst I was proved right though, I can't see Hodges being right. As much as the Great British Public will continue to think Miliband a dead loss, we're not electing a PM in May 2015, but electing a Parliament and the chances of the Tories avoiding a near massacre, even if UKIP only retain half their current voiced support, is pretty slim.
So the Accidental Labour Leader WILL become the Accidental PM. I'm convinced of that now.
Thing is, with an ever improving economic climate, he might surprisingly and against all expectations also accidentally prove to be rather good at it!
@tnewtondunn: Osborne does a runner from IMF press conference just as questions begin. Funny that.
PMQ's, monthly pressers, he's learned from Dave
It is pure modesty, tim.
When you receive a congratulatory first and note that your examiners are copying large chunks from your papers, it is time to make a dignified and magnanimous exit.
Poor old Blancmange and Conway. Back to square one for those two.
Much the same as Maggie was doing when (against massive opposition from some) her government introduced compulsory wearing of seat-belts: balancing pros and cons.
Not really, Richard. There were no practical arguments in favour of letting people drive without seat belts. There was principle but the principle gained you nothing.
I recall one newspaper asking its readers if anyone had ever heard of at first hand - or been - the canonical person spared from serious injury in a car crash because, being unsrestrained, they were flung clear by the impact. Nobody came forward.
It's a bit like Labour finally agreeing with trade union legislation, or that CND was a bad influence on policy. Or like Paul Weller whining about Eton rifles but sensibly sending his own children to independent schools. Or like most pols in about 10 years' time, admitting that the Climate Change Act was profoundly wicked and should be repealed.
There is no virtue in arriving, after years of being wrong, at the right answer that smarter and more thoughtful people worked out straight away.
As for the "Coalition to continue to the death" theme in the thread - has anyone SERIOUSLY ever doubted it?
I hardly think this is news, and likewise the "now loveless marriage" bit. It was only EVER a marriage of convenience. When did any Tory or LD MP express undying love and devotion to another? Sure, we had the "bromance" in the rose garden, but that was two leaders taking their parties into Government. I think they still feel the "frisson" that results from being PM and Dep PM.
Much the same as Maggie was doing when (against massive opposition from some) her government introduced compulsory wearing of seat-belts: balancing pros and cons.
Not really, Richard. There were no practical arguments in favour of letting people drive without seat belts. There was principle but the principle gained you nothing.
I recall one newspaper asking its readers if anyone had ever heard of at first hand - or been - the canonical person spared from serious injury in a car crash because, being unsrestrained, they were flung clear by the impact. Nobody came forward.
It's a bit like Labour finally agreeing with trade union legislation, or that CND was a bad influence on policy. Or like Paul Weller whining about Eton rifles but sensibly sending his own children to independent schools. Or like most pols in about 10 years' time, admitting that the Climate Change Act was profoundly wicked and should be repealed.
There is no virtue in arriving, after years of being wrong, at the right answer that smarter and more thoughtful people worked out straight away.
"Scots MP Eric Joyce has been arrested in connection with an alleged breach of the peace at Edinburgh Airport.
Mr Joyce is believed to have become involved in a row with airport staff while trying to retrieve his mobile phone, which he had left on a plane on Sunday. He was unable to tell staff which flight he had arrived on."
@edmundintokyo - I don't disagree with much of that. Certainly they'll try to do everything they can to fudge things. In particular, I agree that they are desperate to avoid referendums in Eurozone countries.
However: if they can fudge things in one direction, they can fudge them in another direction, and there's absolutely no reason why they can't fudge things in the direction we want. It all comes down to haggling, doesn't it? As I've posted before, the way to get things done in international relations is to apply one or more of the three Bs: Bribery, Blackmail and Brinkmanship.
Of course, in an ideal world we wouldn't start from here. But we do start from here. In any case, exactly the same considerations apply to haggling even if we leave the EU: we'd still need to have exactly the same discussion with our EU friends.
Mr Joyce is believed to have become involved in a row with airport staff while trying to retrieve his mobile phone, which he had left on a plane on Sunday. He was unable to tell staff which flight he had arrived on."
What a pity the bet available at the New Year was on whether an MP would get arrested in 2013, rather than a spread bet on the number of arrests.
Mr Joyce is believed to have become involved in a row with airport staff while trying to retrieve his mobile phone, which he had left on a plane on Sunday. He was unable to tell staff which flight he had arrived on."
What a pity the bet available at the New Year was on whether an MP would get arrested in 2013, rather than a spread bet on the number of arrests.
Shadsy's MP arrest market for 2014 will exclude Eric Joyce.
Mr Joyce is believed to have become involved in a row with airport staff while trying to retrieve his mobile phone, which he had left on a plane on Sunday. He was unable to tell staff which flight he had arrived on."
What a pity the bet available at the New Year was on whether an MP would get arrested in 2013, rather than a spread bet on the number of arrests.
What is needed, Richard, is a spread bet on the number of arrests for a single MP.
Mr Joyce is believed to have become involved in a row with airport staff while trying to retrieve his mobile phone, which he had left on a plane on Sunday. He was unable to tell staff which flight he had arrived on."
What a pity the bet available at the New Year was on whether an MP would get arrested in 2013, rather than a spread bet on the number of arrests.
Sad. Dude's got a serious problem. Presume he was 'tired and emotional' at the time'?
Whereas he had encouraged people to think he was campaigning for it.
I don't think it will harm his chances at all. Firstly he might have had a good reason for being absent (he appears to have supported the bill in the Feb 2013 vote). Secondly I like to think the Lib Dems are a tolerant party, in other words they will respect different viewpoints and unlike the Tories will not commit fratricide over them. Fortunately we are also not prone to publishing New Statesman type lists (for future reference) of Liberal (and Labour) MPs who opposed or abstained in the vote. Lastly even if he did postively abstain this is supposedly a representative democracy and maybe he felt in that way he was better representing the views of his constituents in Westmoreland.
Poor Ed Balls, he was so hoping the IMF would criticise Osborne's position. In fact, it's a well-balanced report, pointing out the pitfalls in both directions:
Whenever I read a Dan Hodges piece, and the lambasting that results on here, I always think back to 2009-10 when I was posting similar comments on here about Dave not doing enough to win an overall majority, treading water too much, coasting to an assumed easy win, and the pillorying I got on here as a result for my "doom-laden" predictions of Tory "falling at the final fence".
Whilst I was proved right though, I can't see Hodges being right. As much as the Great British Public will continue to think Miliband a dead loss, we're not electing a PM in May 2015, but electing a Parliament and the chances of the Tories avoiding a near massacre, even if UKIP only retain half their current voiced support, is pretty slim.
So the Accidental Labour Leader WILL become the Accidental PM. I'm convinced of that now.
Thing is, with an ever improving economic climate, he might surprisingly and against all expectations also accidentally prove to be rather good at it!
I think you are right. Expectations are so low of a Labour govt that they can hardly fall short.
I think Ed Balls is way past his sell by date, with a VAT cut that is just a repeat of the one four years ago, and that did little at the time. When Ed Milliband jetisons him the prospect of a Labour govt would frighten me less. Indeed I could even be supporting them come 2015.
There will be a palpable lack of enthusiasm though, and low turnouts particularly for the three main parties.
Given that the IMF is partly responsible for what is happening in the economies of Southern Europe, one wonder why anybody gives a f8ck what it thinks anyway.
Poor Ed Balls, he was so hoping the IMF would criticise Osborne's position. In fact, it's a well-balanced report, pointing out the pitfalls in both directions:
Is it my imagination but has Ed Balls been extremely quiet recently? I can't recall any major contributions he's made over the last couple of weeks or so.
Some have been arguing that the Tories would get back in 2015 because of a bad economy and that the electorate would hold on to nurse for fear of worse, and conversely that left of centre parties are only elected when times are good and people are feeling optimistic. There are going to be a few bumps on the road for all parties between now and 2015.
From the Times piece, One of the reasons why the Lib Dems don't want to leave the coalition is the expectation barring black swans, is that the economic news is going to be largely positive between now and the general election and the governing parties should get a boost from that.
Poor Ed Balls, he was so hoping the IMF would criticise Osborne's position. In fact, it's a well-balanced report, pointing out the pitfalls in both directions:
Is it my imagination but has Ed Balls been extremely quiet recently? I can't recall any major contributions he's made over the last couple of weeks or so.
Keeping his head down, and hoping he doesn't get the chop.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders has reported today that UK mortgage lending grew by 4% during April when compared with March. This is much welcome news that the housing market is beginning to stabilise under prudent stimulus by the Chancellor.
The trade association for the mortgage lending industry said total gross mortgage lending came to around £12.1bn last month, up from £11.6bn in March. It compared to £9.9bn in April 2012.
But swivel-eyed loons, tabloid economists and closet Blairites should be cautious at getting so excited that all they can see ahead is Boy George blowing bubbles.
The 21% year on year increase is an anomaly caused by the end of stamp duty concessions which depressed April 2012's figures.
CML's Chief Economist, Bob Parnella cautioned:
"The true underlying position is that April is likely to have been one of the strongest months for lending activity since late 2008, but not as strong as the year-earlier comparison suggests.
Gross lending on a seasonally adjusted basis has been running comfortably above £12bn for several months, but it is still barely half the average level of lending seen in 2003-4."
This is soft-hand-on-the-tiller helmsmanship from Commodore George: reviving growth but not inflating the asset bubble.
If only George had been at the helm in the early noughties!
Or maybe the IMF is headed by a woman that got the job because of George and thus is taming its criticism?
Now you're sounding like Tapestry!
It's hardly Tapestry! I know people who work for the IMF, and the OECD, and ratings agencies, etc. They're almost always diplomatic with their language in reports, as they don't want to upset VIPs, particularly VIPs that are known to be close allies with their boss!
Should I be worried that I'm turning into Dan Hodges?
I've written three pieces for the weekend and all three of them are Ed is crap pieces.
Two of them weren't meant to be Ed is crap pieces but the conclusions leads one to think Ed is sub optimal.
Hmmm... Have you done any Dave is crap pieces?
BTW - it's DM-day minus 7!
Yes I've got a couple of Dave is crap threads in the pipeline.
It DM day minus 24 for me alas.
Oh I forget you're seeing them in Paris too!
And in Manchester in November.
I just can't get enough of Depeche Mode.
Didn't you get a ticket for Wednesday at the O2? I remember you saying you found one.
I did but my plans have changed again.
So alas can't make it.
That's a shame - oh, well, Antifrank and I can give you reviews/setlist info for Tuesday and Wednesday respectively! He already mentioned Budapest in this morning's thread.
Should I be worried that I'm turning into Dan Hodges?
I've written three pieces for the weekend and all three of them are Ed is crap pieces.
Two of them weren't meant to be Ed is crap pieces but the conclusions leads one to think Ed is sub optimal.
Hmmm... Have you done any Dave is crap pieces?
BTW - it's DM-day minus 7!
Yes I've got a couple of Dave is crap threads in the pipeline.
It DM day minus 24 for me alas.
Oh I forget you're seeing them in Paris too!
And in Manchester in November.
I just can't get enough of Depeche Mode.
Didn't you get a ticket for Wednesday at the O2? I remember you saying you found one.
I did but my plans have changed again.
So alas can't make it.
That's a shame - oh, well, Antifrank and I can give you reviews/setlist info for Tuesday and Wednesday respectively! He already mentioned Budapest in this morning's thread.
He did.
He confirmed they didn't play my favourite Mode track.
Some nice political work done by Osborne there. Labour will be disappointed. OTH the IMF looked in even more serious danger than normal of looking ridiculous when criticising the fatest growing large economy in Europe for, eh, not encouraging growth. I suspect their version might have been different but for Q1 and the exepectations of Q2.
True but the IMF is part of a troika imposing a draconian austerity in Southern Europe, and yet the very same institution is arguing the UK's much less severe austerity is too severe.
Its a completely inconsistent position, it seems to me...
@faisalislam: IMF: "Help to Buy" risks "ultimately be mostly house price increases that would work against the aim of boosting access to housing".
What a surprise.
I tend to agree with this and I hope you do to and are not just making a party political point to beat the coalition government with. The last thing this country needs is rising house prices when they are still vastly overvalued. A massive expansion of social and low cost private housing is required.
But Rob that is completely unrealistic. What the IMF said was that it could lead to higher house prices unless it stimulated supply. That is what it is intended to do. Our housebuilders are sitting on a huge bank of development land with PP but have been reluctant to invest in a falling or stagnant market with low demand. Lenders demand large deposits because they are apprehensive that prices will fall further.
Tim has argued persuasively on here that what we need is more housebuilding and that this is a good way to accelerate growth and in the (very) long term reduce HB. I agree. But unless there is new demand and some prospect of capital appreciation in the system that simply won't happen.
Criticising the risk that houses may go up in value and also complaining about the lack of housebuilding at the same time is economically illiterate. One is the solution to the other as the IMF has acknowledged.
Comments
The deficit for (PSNB) for 2012-13 was far lower than the prior year as is made clear by the ONS Key Findings:
In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £85.1 billion; this is £35.8 billion lower net borrowing than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £120.9 billion.
PSNB ex is the accrued rather than cash borrowing figure including non-recurring treasury receipts but excluding the effects of "financial interventions" (i.e. bank bailouts).
The better deficit figure is the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget which is the metric used in Osborne's Primary Fiscal Mandate, but this figure excludes all the non-recurring figures so is of less interest to mischief making journalists.
In other words, actual borrowing is very much less than the £120 billion hypothetical borrowing figures so beloved by the journalists and opposition.
You either take all the non-recurring figures out or keep them all in. Selectively including those that increase borrowing and omitting those that reduce it is just timfoolery.
On economic news: yeah, they do indeed sound dodgy. I remember when idiot economic correspondents were banging on about stripping out the very helpful Olympics tickets sales. They were bought, the money has to go in one quarter or another, and if you remove the boost from that quarter, then you can't consider the next one in the same light because the starting point would be lower, and the immediate post-ticket quarter would therefore look better by comparison.
I look at what government deos, not what individual ministers say, or what the media says they say.
1.2-1.5% annualised isn''t fantastic, but if they were at 2.5-3.0% that would be perfectly acceptable.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804421/
Dan Cruickshank is a bit irritating in the surrounding commentary though.
In any case I hardly think Cameron's troubles are behind him because of one friendly interview. Cameron has been criticised for acting like the patrician chairman of UK plc , just popping up now and then to reassure the troops and on the day after a You Gov poll gave the Tories their equal lowest voting share.
its just complete bobbins, isn't it? he doesn't actually have any coherent point at all. he, apparently is the uncomfortable one
The High Court has overturned an order granting anonymity to a man who killed three children he was babysitting and impaled them on garden railings.
David McGreavy, 62, was jailed for life in 1973 for the murders of four-year-old Paul Ralph and his sisters Dawn, two, and nine-month-old Samantha.
He killed the children at a house at Gillam Street in Worcester and impaled them on railings in the garden.
McGreavy had applied for anonymity over fears his own life was in danger.
'Exceptionally horrific'
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and media organisations argued the application was legally flawed and wrongly prevented the public from knowing the full facts of the case.
Their counsel, Guy Vassall-Adams, told the court: "The full facts are exceptionally horrific by even the standard of murders.
"The order restricted the media to saying they were 'three sadistic murders' but that doesn't even give you the half of it."
Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting in London with Mr Justice Simon, ruled the anonymity order must be discharged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22623176
Sergei Lavrov said the points had been "stolen" from Russia's Dina Garipova and "this outrageous action will not remain without a response
....
Meanwhile, the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, has weighed in with his own accusations. Suspicious that the Belarusian singer did not receive a single point from Russia, he has claimed that the final was falsified.
................
I think the members of Azeri jury are in real danger now.....they clearly voted down Russian song......
The three parties Lab/lib/CON are grouped thus, with the emphasis on CON, in that UKIP will fight the coming elections with the premise that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the above parties and all of them are the same, and it's all one big CON.
True that UKIP hasn't got the size and organisation of the main parties, but while they fight each other, UKIP will have a chance to make the difference.
Edited
I started off not giving a flying to55 about gay marriage. But I must admit that the combination of Tebbitt and Howarth has driven me into the 'giving a sh1t' camp. For goodness sake: implement it and move on. It's not like legalising marriage between man and beast or father and daughter is next on Peter Tatchell's agenda.
http://www.labour.org.uk/governments-failing-economic-policies-self-defeating,2013-05-22 We're now entering the fourth year of failing Austerity.
And what you fail to understand is that while you may be a 'hard core' Kipper, probably half of the 23% of UKIP voters at the last election are not. If they are presented with the choice of Cameron (sans the LibDems) or Ed Milliband, they will reluctantly hold their nose and vote Cameron.
How many lovers who have been lied to & let down by a partner have a one night (term) stand with someone their ex hates rather than get back with them?
UKIPpers see Dave & Ed as marginally different shades of grey, not the polar opposites they pretend to be
More wonky than Wonka.
http://euobserver.com/enlargement/120194
This seemed pretty inevitable once the immediate crisis is past. Why on Earth would it want to abrogate its Free Trade Agreements with China, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Gulf Co-operation Council, Mexico, South Africa, etc etc to join the EU, when it already has access to the EU's single market?
Care to revist your point?
Poor form when a shadow treasury minister doesn't understand the public borrowing figures.
Another massive anti-Gay marriage demo being organised Paris this weekend - last one attracted 800k people
@DanHannanMEP
Iceland has now formally halted its EU application. Those mad, swivel-eyed loons evidently prefer prosperity and democracy to immiseration.
@paulwaugh
Here's a thing. Just heard Govt slipped in formal 1st Reading of SameSex Marriage Bill in Lords last night, rather than wait til today.
@politicshomeuk
In a speech to Google's Big Tent, Ed Miliband sets out his visions of 'responsible capitalism' http://polho.me/14Qg20F
The last tweet points to a millipede mumble.
1) He's not looked at polling on the popularity of the issue
2) He's puzzled why in the 21st century people aren't campaigning for things as the same way as in the 19th century
http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/politics/meet-godfrey-bloom-the-osborne-of-ukip-i-hope-thousands-of-public-sector-jobs-will-be-lost/5559.article
and other musings...
“Why on the front page of newspapers when houses go up 10% [does] everyone say it is good news?” says Bloom. “Why then is the price of bread going up 10% bad news? […] It is good for a certain type of person but not another. […]
Although Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has expressed her desire to keep the UK inside the EU, the move being discussed in Berlin would thwart a plan by David Cameron, UK prime minister, to piggyback on eurozone reforms to renegotiate the British relationship with Brussels.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48509516-c161-11e2-9767-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TxCnoafu
Two thoughts:
(1) It's the hundredth bit of evidence that Cameron won't get his renegotiation
(2) PM Miliband will have to make a decision of whether we sign a new treaty without a referendum
Does anyone know the what the piano music is from 4:00 onwards?
I posted it despite knowing people would knock UKIP for it
I dont work for UKIP and I dont know their policies inside out, I am just an average joe with an interest in politics.
My guess is that 25% of a lot is better than 45% of nothing
The other point is how many of your 130+ County Councillors have any serious power. Have UKIP gone into coalition with any other parties ? My understanding is that UKIP HQ has decreed "no deals". Fine but the artithmetic won't always allow that and you might have to sully your clean hands with the reality of power and taking decisions at which point you will cease to be part of the solution and you will become part of the problem.
Berlin hopes to avoid such a time-consuming and freewheeling process. ...EU treaties do provide for “simplified” changes that do not require a full-scale convention. But such procedures can only be used to change the internal running of the EU and not to transfer powers from national governments to Brussels.
'Hopes' is the operative word here. I don't see it myself - the changes they want are just too far-reaching and a clear violation of Lisbon. I'm sure we could wreck them if necessary, but more likely this is all shadow-boxing. Basically, Germany, the UK and everyone else have no choice but to to sit down and renegotiate the whole shebang, as Cameron has realised.
Also, note the point about Germany agreeing with Cameron on some of the points he is making about improving competitiveness and on decision-making in the EU. We are not dealing with a united block of 26 other countries.
[Incidentally: the FT article can be read for free, you just need to sign up to the basic level which gives you a number of free articles per month].
It's a pretty abject argument.
They didn't bring forward legislation, or make a formal proposal.
1. UKIP policy on deals with other parties are that while local alliances are permissible, a general alliance with another party is a definite no, no.
2. No one in UKIP expects a free ride.
3. Several UKIP policies are still in flux and will be worked out by the autumn conference season.
IMF dont slag off GO.
I've written three pieces for the weekend and all three of them are Ed is crap pieces.
Two of them weren't meant to be Ed is crap pieces but the conclusions leads one to think Ed is sub optimal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/22/imf-george-osborne-austerity-annual-check
BTW - it's DM-day minus 7!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2013/may/22/dishes-olive-oil-banned-restaurants-eu
This must be an entry in some competition to see which bureaucrat can get the most absurd piece of nonsense into an EU directive.
It DM day minus 24 for me alas.
I just can't get enough of Depeche Mode.
Gordon Brown's "investment" policy was predicated on a similar belief, except he went one step further by equating liabilities with income.
You can't imagine Maggie thinking aloud about whether it would be a good idea to raise taxes so as to have more money to give BL so as to keep the Austin Allegro in production. And then deciding it wouldn't be, and then expecting applause for having arrived at the right answer to the wrong question.
I think Cameron shares Blair and Brown's undoing failing of wanting to be Prime Minister far more than they want to do anything in particular.
Goes with deficit DOWN (by less than 2%) and Growth UP (if you ignore the previous quarter).
Instead of cooking up some stupid little scheme, he could have just abolished stamp duty.
If you live in a 3 bedroom house and you need a 4 bedroom house, in many parts of London that's going to cost you £50,000 in stamp duty even if you relocate at the same price.
So what people do instead is convert the loft, for a fraction of the cost and hassle. So they don't sell their houses. So there's an undersupply.
Abolish SDLT and suddenly there are more houses for sale at a net lower cost. The state still gets its piece of the pie through IHT anyway.
http://christopherlovell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/tim-farron-and-his-equal-marriage.html
Whereas he had encouraged people to think he was campaigning for it.
How on earth are they going to do it when voters everywhere are mad as hell and not going to take it any more, and the south thinks they're being screwed by Germany while the north thinks they're being taken for a ride by the feckless south? They won't be able to pass a treaty until the crisis is over, and at that point they won't need it any more. Everyone seems to understand this except Schäuble, and there's the suspicion that he's only advocating a treaty because it's the easiest way to stop anything concrete that'll make Germany responsible for everybody's debts from actually happening.
In the meantime they'll proceed by institutions making up powers for themselves and everybody going along with it because the alternatives are worse.
Paolo Di Canio: the Sunderland manager who would be Tory leader?
With growing discord at Sunderland and within the Conservative party, perhaps a Trading Places-style job swap would be in order
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/may/22/paolo-di-canio-sunderland-tory-leader
Whilst I was proved right though, I can't see Hodges being right. As much as the Great British Public will continue to think Miliband a dead loss, we're not electing a PM in May 2015, but electing a Parliament and the chances of the Tories avoiding a near massacre, even if UKIP only retain half their current voiced support, is pretty slim.
So the Accidental Labour Leader WILL become the Accidental PM. I'm convinced of that now.
Thing is, with an ever improving economic climate, he might surprisingly and against all expectations also accidentally prove to be rather good at it!
When you receive a congratulatory first and note that your examiners are copying large chunks from your papers, it is time to make a dignified and magnanimous exit.
Poor old Blancmange and Conway. Back to square one for those two.
I recall one newspaper asking its readers if anyone had ever heard of at first hand - or been - the canonical person spared from serious injury in a car crash because, being unsrestrained, they were flung clear by the impact. Nobody came forward.
It's a bit like Labour finally agreeing with trade union legislation, or that CND was a bad influence on policy. Or like Paul Weller whining about Eton rifles but sensibly sending his own children to independent schools. Or like most pols in about 10 years' time, admitting that the Climate Change Act was profoundly wicked and should be repealed.
There is no virtue in arriving, after years of being wrong, at the right answer that smarter and more thoughtful people worked out straight away.
I hardly think this is news, and likewise the "now loveless marriage" bit. It was only EVER a marriage of convenience. When did any Tory or LD MP express undying love and devotion to another? Sure, we had the "bromance" in the rose garden, but that was two leaders taking their parties into Government. I think they still feel the "frisson" that results from being PM and Dep PM.
Silly thread.
https://campaigns.labour.org.uk/email/web/bf283474-5ae3-43e6-b502-69fd8e5c4eb5/519bd79f536de318fbcfd063/
"Scots MP Eric Joyce has been arrested in connection with an alleged breach of the peace at Edinburgh Airport.
Mr Joyce is believed to have become involved in a row with airport staff while trying to retrieve his mobile phone, which he had left on a plane on Sunday. He was unable to tell staff which flight he had arrived on."
No mention of the words Ex Labour!
However: if they can fudge things in one direction, they can fudge them in another direction, and there's absolutely no reason why they can't fudge things in the direction we want. It all comes down to haggling, doesn't it? As I've posted before, the way to get things done in international relations is to apply one or more of the three Bs: Bribery, Blackmail and Brinkmanship.
Of course, in an ideal world we wouldn't start from here. But we do start from here. In any case, exactly the same considerations apply to haggling even if we leave the EU: we'd still need to have exactly the same discussion with our EU friends.
Does he have a brother called Fabio, who is always on the fiddle?
Perhaps their posture will improve, as well....
http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2013/052213.htm
I think Ed Balls is way past his sell by date, with a VAT cut that is just a repeat of the one four years ago, and that did little at the time. When Ed Milliband jetisons him the prospect of a Labour govt would frighten me less. Indeed I could even be supporting them come 2015.
There will be a palpable lack of enthusiasm though, and low turnouts particularly for the three main parties.
There are going to be a few bumps on the road for all parties between now and 2015.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders has reported today that UK mortgage lending grew by 4% during April when compared with March. This is much welcome news that the housing market is beginning to stabilise under prudent stimulus by the Chancellor.
The trade association for the mortgage lending industry said total gross mortgage lending came to around £12.1bn last month, up from £11.6bn in March. It compared to £9.9bn in April 2012.
But swivel-eyed loons, tabloid economists and closet Blairites should be cautious at getting so excited that all they can see ahead is Boy George blowing bubbles.
The 21% year on year increase is an anomaly caused by the end of stamp duty concessions which depressed April 2012's figures.
CML's Chief Economist, Bob Parnella cautioned:
"The true underlying position is that April is likely to have been one of the strongest months for lending activity since late 2008, but not as strong as the year-earlier comparison suggests.
Gross lending on a seasonally adjusted basis has been running comfortably above £12bn for several months, but it is still barely half the average level of lending seen in 2003-4."
This is soft-hand-on-the-tiller helmsmanship from Commodore George: reviving growth but not inflating the asset bubble.
If only George had been at the helm in the early noughties!
The IMF is in a hard position in Southern Europe. It only has so much money to lend, and it has to deal with the nature of the monetary union.
So alas can't make it.
He confirmed they didn't play my favourite Mode track.
Master & Servant.
True but the IMF is part of a troika imposing a draconian austerity in Southern Europe, and yet the very same institution is arguing the UK's much less severe austerity is too severe.
Its a completely inconsistent position, it seems to me...
Tim has argued persuasively on here that what we need is more housebuilding and that this is a good way to accelerate growth and in the (very) long term reduce HB. I agree. But unless there is new demand and some prospect of capital appreciation in the system that simply won't happen.
Criticising the risk that houses may go up in value and also complaining about the lack of housebuilding at the same time is economically illiterate. One is the solution to the other as the IMF has acknowledged.