As of this moment, my article has invoked 960 comments in four hours. I'm guessing the Telegraph online editor, counting the clicks, would give me A--. Maybe even A-.
1000+ would be a cinch with "Immigrant Gay Muslims Most Likely To Be Benefit Cheats". "New EU rules say Immigrant Gay Muslims To Receive Additional Integration Benefits From NHS Budget"
Fish. Barrel. Bang!
(apols for the formatting)
Yes, certainly needs an EU angle to hit the jackpot. However, I would suggest to 'Immigrant Gay Muslims to Receive Additional Integration Benefits from NHS budget ... after appeal to the Eurpoean Court of Human Rights'
Remember Hunchman and Plato continuously predicting the FT index's imminent collapse when it was trading around 5200? Surely the mantle of 'worst tipster on here' has now passed from me to a new generation of seriously dreadful tipsters?
I got on at 5802, and stand to make 14% tax free on a hefty wedge (providing it's >=5803 in October)...
The Markets, I would suggest, are near their top, Any buying would have to be picky and prudent.
Oh I agree. I'm hoping it drops a little, actually. But I've got a ~1000 point cushion between now and October...
William Hague has cooled any talk of arming the Syrian rebels, insisting that any such decision is for "a later stage".
The Foreign Secretary was speaking after the European Union agreed to lift its arms embargo - which prevented the shipment of weapons to either the Assad regime or the rebels.
But Russia has weighed into the conflict, agreeing to deliver anti-aircraft missiles to the Government as a "stabilising" measure to prevent foreign intervention.
After talks yesterday, EU foreign ministers agreed not to renew the embargo when it expires at the start of June.
Mr Hague welcomed the “clear signal” sent to the Assad regime, but stressed that any arming of the rebel forces would be for "a later stage".
“We haven’t reached that stage," he told the World at One. "This is a change in policy in the European Union."
He said the move "puts greater pressure on all concerned" to attend a planned peace conference in Geneva.
However he was clear that there would be no immediate arming of opposition groups, saying: “Any decision, as I made clear to the House of Commons last week, any decision to send arms is for a later stage.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov condemned the moves, saying they would cause “direct damage” to prospects of a negotiated resolution to the Syrian crisis.
“There remains a gap between the positions of Russia and the US regarding some issues and aspects of this major international crisis”, he added.
Mr Ryabkov later declared Russia would deliver a shipment of S-300 missiles to the Assad government, describing the supplies as a "stabilising factor".
The measure would "deter some hotheads from considering scenarios that would turn the conflict international with the involvement of outside forces", he claimed. ------------------- Ahah! As I said last night. Hague is all talk and no walk. The Russians have called his bluff in no uncertain terms as the shipping of S-300 ground to air missiles is a major escalation in the Syrian civil war.
Fair enough Charles, but I think over the longer term stocks will still go higher (after pullbacks).
When I first took out a pension in the 80s, the assumptions for equity performance were based on what had gone on since the war. And that performance was pretty stellar.
Of course those assumptions proved totally incorrect, and the expectation of the potentiality of stocks is way lower than it was.
I think expectations have been pared back too much though. When equities bull, they can really go some.
"To be honest I tend to take anything that Guido Fawkes writes with a large pinch of salt."
Does he even write it? I thought he has a ghostwriter these days. (Leaving aside the fact that he was burnt at the stake four centuries ago.)
I think he has that kid who used to be 'ToryBear' write it & it shows. Don't know what Paul Staines does with his time (and don't really care).
As an aside, I thought GF was hung, drawn & quartered rather than burnt at the stake?
Immediately before his execution on 31 January [1606], Fawkes jumped from the scaffold where he was to be hanged and broke his neck, thus avoiding the agony of the mutilation that followed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
Fair enough Charles, but I think over the longer term stocks will still go higher (after pullbacks).
When I first took out a pension in the 80s, the assumptions for equity performance were based on what had gone on since the war. And that performance was pretty stellar.
Of course those assumptions proved totally incorrect, and the expectation of the potentiality of stocks is way lower than it was.
I think expectations have been pared back too much though. When equities bull, they can really go some.
Debate is whether this is a reverse or a pause. I'm of the view that it's a pause - I tend to remain fully invested over cycles rather than try to time the market & then let the professionals deal with the specific asset allocation decisions. Glad that my guru talked me out of deinvesting back in April when I thought things were getting a little toppy, though!
Didn't a conviction for heresy result in burning at the stake for both sexes, and for treason for women? Whereas for men treason was punishable by hanging, drawing and quartering.
Treason doth never prosper; What's the reason. For if it prosper, none dare call it treason!
So if I've got this right part of the mystery here seems to be that the Westminster numbers and the Euro numbers are for different things: Westminster are 5-10 certain to vote, whereas Euros are 10/10 "absolutely certain to vote".
If you've absolutely certain to vote in a European Parliament election a year from now you're either disturbingly obsessed with Martin Schulz or you've misunderstood the question, so these numbers may not be very reliable.
I think I've voted in more than 9 out of 10 of the elections I've been eligible to vote in (not sure how many elections there have been though, 11 out of 12 perhaps?)
The only time I missed an opportunity to vote was when I missed my train home from a business meeting, and then the train I did catch was itself delayed so that I didn't arrive in my home town until just after 10pm. I'd even brought my polling card with me so that I could vote on my way home from the train station.
I feel quite confident about putting myself down as a 10/10 absolutely certain to vote, though I'll grant that 11/12 is closer to 9/10 than 10/10.
Edited to add: I even voted in the Police and Crime Commissioner elections. How's that for civic responsibility?
Hah - that's nothing. I have voted in every possible election since 1964 ; that includes General, European, local, parish, GLC, PCC. By my reckoning I've voted for myself 17 times!
Completely O/T but a request for help: does anyone on PB know how to get a therapist for a troubled 20-year old boy? (In North London ideally.) Or any experience of said profession?
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
Miss Cyclefree, I checked my old psych documents (they're rather disordered, alas). There's an organisation called The Marketplace, but that seems to only operate in Leeds, I'm afraid.
Completely O/T but a request for help: does anyone on PB know how to get a therapist for a troubled 20-year old boy? (In North London ideally.) Or any experience of said profession?
Cyclefree - I've messaged you a link that may be helpful.
The French consumer confidence sentiment index fell to 79 in May from a revised reading of 83 in April, matching a record low. Economists had expected the index to rise to 85.
According to French statistical office Insee, index components such as the households' assessment of their past financial situation, future financial conditions and expectations all worsened from the prior month.
French data does not yet show signs that the downturn has turned around even as the Bank of France holds on to a second-quarter economic growth forecast of 0.1%. The French economy contracted by 0.2% in each of the prior two quarters.
The perils of sustained austerity. By contrast, over in the US consumer confidence has risen to 76.2 - the highest since February 2008.
France's problems do not derive from domestically imposed austerity. Hollande has increased taxes causing widespread avoidance and capital flight and failed to implement sufficient spending cuts. Hence the French deficit is rising.
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balanced measures and optimal outcomes.
The French consumer confidence sentiment index fell to 79 in May from a revised reading of 83 in April, matching a record low. Economists had expected the index to rise to 85.
According to French statistical office Insee, index components such as the households' assessment of their past financial situation, future financial conditions and expectations all worsened from the prior month.
French data does not yet show signs that the downturn has turned around even as the Bank of France holds on to a second-quarter economic growth forecast of 0.1%. The French economy contracted by 0.2% in each of the prior two quarters.
The perils of sustained austerity. By contrast, over in the US consumer confidence has risen to 76.2 - the highest since February 2008.
France's problems do not derive from domestically imposed austerity. Hollande has increased taxes causing widespread avoidance and capital flight and failed to implement sufficient spending cuts. Hence the French deficit is rising.
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balance measures and optimal outcomes.
UK 10 year bond rates today 1.96% , France 2.01% , the markets value Osborne's helmsmanship over Hollande's at just 0.05% .
The French consumer confidence sentiment index fell to 79 in May from a revised reading of 83 in April, matching a record low. Economists had expected the index to rise to 85.
According to French statistical office Insee, index components such as the households' assessment of their past financial situation, future financial conditions and expectations all worsened from the prior month.
French data does not yet show signs that the downturn has turned around even as the Bank of France holds on to a second-quarter economic growth forecast of 0.1%. The French economy contracted by 0.2% in each of the prior two quarters.
The perils of sustained austerity. By contrast, over in the US consumer confidence has risen to 76.2 - the highest since February 2008.
France's problems do not derive from domestically imposed austerity. Hollande has increased taxes causing widespread avoidance and capital flight and failed to implement sufficient spending cuts. Hence the French deficit is rising.
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balance measures and optimal outcomes.
UK 10 year bond rates today 1.96% , France 2.01% , the markets value Osborne's helmsmanship over Hollande's at just 0.05% .
"Russia has said it is going to go ahead with a delivery of anti-aircraft missiles to the Syrian government in order to deter “hotheads” from getting involved in the country’s civil war."
The French consumer confidence sentiment index fell to 79 in May from a revised reading of 83 in April, matching a record low. Economists had expected the index to rise to 85.
According to French statistical office Insee, index components such as the households' assessment of their past financial situation, future financial conditions and expectations all worsened from the prior month.
French data does not yet show signs that the downturn has turned around even as the Bank of France holds on to a second-quarter economic growth forecast of 0.1%. The French economy contracted by 0.2% in each of the prior two quarters.
The perils of sustained austerity. By contrast, over in the US consumer confidence has risen to 76.2 - the highest since February 2008.
France's problems do not derive from domestically imposed austerity. Hollande has increased taxes causing widespread avoidance and capital flight and failed to implement sufficient spending cuts. Hence the French deficit is rising.
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balance measures and optimal outcomes.
UK 10 year bond rates today 1.96% , France 2.01% , the markets value Osborne's helmsmanship over Hollande's at just 0.05% .
The French consumer confidence sentiment index fell to 79 in May from a revised reading of 83 in April, matching a record low. Economists had expected the index to rise to 85.
According to French statistical office Insee, index components such as the households' assessment of their past financial situation, future financial conditions and expectations all worsened from the prior month.
French data does not yet show signs that the downturn has turned around even as the Bank of France holds on to a second-quarter economic growth forecast of 0.1%. The French economy contracted by 0.2% in each of the prior two quarters.
The perils of sustained austerity. By contrast, over in the US consumer confidence has risen to 76.2 - the highest since February 2008.
France's problems do not derive from domestically imposed austerity. Hollande has increased taxes causing widespread avoidance and capital flight and failed to implement sufficient spending cuts. Hence the French deficit is rising.
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balance measures and optimal outcomes.
UK 10 year bond rates today 1.96% , France 2.01% , the markets value Osborne's helmsmanship over Hollande's at just 0.05% .
How do those numbers compare with inflation?
Latest inflation rates UK 2.4% , France 0.7%
So the real cost of lending money to the governemnt is -0.44% in the UK and +1.31% in France
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
"although I find some posters irritating*, the main attraction of PB is the diverse range of views."
That calls to mind the Yes Prime Minister scene with twenty upper-middle class males in suits nodding furiously in agreement with each other that they represent a "true cross-section of the nation".
The French consumer confidence sentiment index fell to 79 in May from a revised reading of 83 in April, matching a record low. Economists had expected the index to rise to 85.
According to French statistical office Insee, index components such as the households' assessment of their past financial situation, future financial conditions and expectations all worsened from the prior month.
French data does not yet show signs that the downturn has turned around even as the Bank of France holds on to a second-quarter economic growth forecast of 0.1%. The French economy contracted by 0.2% in each of the prior two quarters.
The perils of sustained austerity. By contrast, over in the US consumer confidence has risen to 76.2 - the highest since February 2008.
France's problems do not derive from domestically imposed austerity. Hollande has increased taxes causing widespread avoidance and capital flight and failed to implement sufficient spending cuts. Hence the French deficit is rising.
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balance measures and optimal outcomes.
UK 10 year bond rates today 1.96% , France 2.01% , the markets value Osborne's helmsmanship over Hollande's at just 0.05% .
How do those numbers compare with inflation?
Latest inflation rates UK 2.4% , France 0.7%
So the real cost of lending money to the government is -0.44% in the UK and +1.31% in France
OK , let's put up the rate of inflation even more so that you can claim an even lower real cost .
Change in FTSE over the last 12 months Plus 22% Change in French CAC over the last 12 months Plus 30%
"although I find some posters irritating*, the main attraction of PB is the diverse range of views."
That calls to mind the Yes Prime Minister scene with twenty upper-middle class males in suits nodding furiously in agreement with each other that they represent a "true cross-section of the nation".
Rubbish. I'd say 40% of regular posters are left of centre. In terms of volume posted, probably higher than that given Mick's and Tim's prolificness (prolificalility?)
I alerted ComRes to the widespread scepticism about their poll. Keiran Pedley there replies:
Thank you for your enquiry today regarding our recent European Voting Intention poll on behalf of Open Europe.
We have investigated and can confirm there is nothing wrong with the poll and we are confident in the quality of the data provided.
Although true, the results you mention are surprising, it is possible that they can be explained by the fact that you had to be 10/10 certain to vote in the European elections in order to count in the European voting intention. This means the full Westminster voting intention sample would not count in this instance and therefore results might be produced that you would not expect.
I hope that clears things up,
Kind regards,
Keiran --------------- I remain very sceptical (the 10/10 Westminster results are not especially unusual) but credit to ComRes for responding promptly. Just a strange sample, perhaps.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
Ah yes the pointless aid agenda, why is an arbitrary target for giving money away good economics ?
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
The precision with which George managed to produce a reduction in borrowing in the last financial year was seriously impressive but what was even more impressive is that this government seems to have got a grip of what used to be unmanaged expenditure in a way that other governments of both persuasions failed.
Looking forward I think and hope that year end splurges and unexpected costs may well be much reduced in future. If so, that is an important contribution to us having government accounts which can actually be relied on.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
Ah yes the pointless aid agenda, why is an arbitrary target for giving money away good economics ?
It isn't good economics, Mr. Brooke. Or at least, it is arguably but not as a primary goal
It is simple decency.
Like giving away part of your pocket money to the down and outs of Windsor and Eton. The vast majority of the Cabinet and No 10 apparatus has been indoctrinated with such practices from a very early age.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
Ah yes the pointless aid agenda, why is an arbitrary target for giving money away good economics ?
It isn't good economics, Mr. Brooke. Or at least, it is arguably but not as a primary goal
It is simple decency.
Like giving away part of your pocket money to the down and outs of Windsor and Eton. The vast majority of the Cabinet and No 10 apparatus has been indoctrinated with such practices from a very early age.
Charles will explain..
No Mr Pole decency would be giving our children a good education. Rather than fund mercedes and consultants for overseas autocrats we should be giving our kids free tuition at university.
It makes a refreshing change to read something that provides a positive take on things even if some of it is spin, at least its a counter to the daily diet of negativity here that is often very depressing.
So if I've got this right part of the mystery here seems to be that the Westminster numbers and the Euro numbers are for different things: Westminster are 5-10 certain to vote, whereas Euros are 10/10 "absolutely certain to vote".
If you've absolutely certain to vote in a European Parliament election a year from now you're either disturbingly obsessed with Martin Schulz or you've misunderstood the question, so these numbers may not be very reliable.
I think I've voted in more than 9 out of 10 of the elections I've been eligible to vote in (not sure how many elections there have been though, 11 out of 12 perhaps?)
The only time I missed an opportunity to vote was when I missed my train home from a business meeting, and then the train I did catch was itself delayed so that I didn't arrive in my home town until just after 10pm. I'd even brought my polling card with me so that I could vote on my way home from the train station.
I feel quite confident about putting myself down as a 10/10 absolutely certain to vote, though I'll grant that 11/12 is closer to 9/10 than 10/10.
Edited to add: I even voted in the Police and Crime Commissioner elections. How's that for civic responsibility?
Hah - that's nothing. I have voted in every possible election since 1964 ; that includes General, European, local, parish, GLC, PCC. By my reckoning I've voted for myself 17 times!
Voted in every election but one since 1959. Missed one when I moved two months before an election and was heavily involved with a new home and buying a new business.
Lab or Lib/LibDem on every occasion except once when I was very young and my father was the Tory candidate!
I'm not sure there's an algorithm on the planet that would make 87 separate mistakes. I suspect there might be a touch of human agency at play here.
Quite the opposite.
I've no idea which in particular of his foibles might cause him to be banned, but for example, a spam-detection algoriithm which looked for idiotic name-calling might easily repeatedly ban Mr Pork. It would be by design, not a mistake, and certainly not a conspiracy.
What can we say, Jeremy Chum the homeopathy believer really needs to pull his finger out on this issue. Although one winter campaign of alternative flu vaccine could see the UKIP over 65's vote halve.
Jeremy Ffop-Chump has succeeded in alienating the 30,000 GPs that he needs to make the NHS reforms work. And I'm a life-long blue supporter, unable to support the fruit cakes, pathologically opposed to Labour and unconvinced by the LDs. Colour me disenfranchised.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
The precision with which George managed to produce a reduction in borrowing in the last financial year was seriously impressive but what was even more impressive is that this government seems to have got a grip of what used to be unmanaged expenditure in a way that other governments of both persuasions failed.
Looking forward I think and hope that year end splurges and unexpected costs may well be much reduced in future. If so, that is an important contribution to us having government accounts which can actually be relied on.
David
Seriously. You are right. The control by the Treasury of departmental spending in particular and public finances in general has been extraordinary.
It is very difficult to achieve even in good times. It is especially so when facing economic headwinds.
Osborne should get credit for this but the real praise is due to Danny Alexander whose primary responsibility in government is 'financial control'.
With regard to the diversity of posters and the disappearance of some since the change to Vanilla, I have to say that I found it harder to log in for a while, and being lazy, I just gave up. Now I've sussed it and I seem to be continually logged in, which is ideal.
But sometimes - aside from being busy or abroad (and I have no internet access on my phone) - I feel like I just have nothing to say. Especially if politics is going through a dry or boring spell. I certainly don't know a huge amount about politics like some here and it amazes me the breadth of knowledge some posters purport/pretend/actually have on other subjects.
Also, I'm too obvious to post spin, so that doesn't help my output.
During Gordon Brown's tenure I was far more agitated and compelled to post, mainly through irrational hatred. Clegg, Cameron and Miliband fail to enrage me the way Brown did. Politics is far more gentlemanly now.
I do think tthough - if the economy stays the way it is, ie: not getting greatly better/not greatly worse - that the next GE will be the most exciting in memory. Certainly the most exciting and hard to call since 1992. I don't believe the Labour poll lead is that strong, UKIP has thrown a spanner in the electoral-calculus works, Balls has an astronomically difficult task balancing economic reality with the desires of the unions and will face the heat to spell out policies during the GE, the Lib Dems (with Clegg or without) have to decide how they will pitch themselves to the electorate (go left, stay centre, or extol their work with the right?) and Cameron and Osborne have the gargantuan task of convincing the whole nation that a Tory-alone govt will be better for people of all classes, rich or poor or in-between.
Given the fickle and fed-up nature of the electorate and distrust of politicians on the whole, it'll be a huge task for any party to generate genuine enthusiasm. Yet, paradoxically, the next GE will be one the most important with regard to the UK's future in our history.
I suppose I'll be posting more in the run-up to that. A battle of who the public dislikes least!
"I've no idea which in particular of his foibles might cause him to be banned, but for example, a spam-detection algoriithm which looked for idiotic name-calling might easily repeatedly ban Mr Pork. It would be by design, not a mistake, and certainly not a conspiracy."
Come off it, Richard. I've been on the receiving end of these 'accidental' blockings myself - not 87 times, but enough to spot what the game is.
James - The Moderators banned Mick for 72 hours as he violated the site rule and the spirit of the rule about not talking about phone hacking on Sunday night.,
OGH has been quite clear to Mick on many occasions not to do so.
As the moderators aren't on the site 24/7 they cannot risk OGH's financial security being risk by any poster.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
The precision with which George managed to produce a reduction in borrowing in the last financial year was seriously impressive but what was even more impressive is that this government seems to have got a grip of what used to be unmanaged expenditure in a way that other governments of both persuasions failed.
Looking forward I think and hope that year end splurges and unexpected costs may well be much reduced in future. If so, that is an important contribution to us having government accounts which can actually be relied on.
David
Seriously. You are right. The control by the Treasury of departmental spending in particular and public finances in general has been extraordinary.
It is very difficult to achieve even in good times. It is especially so when facing economic headwinds.
Osborne should get credit for this but the real praise is due to Danny Alexander whose primary responsibility in government is 'financial control'.
So Osborne takes credit for someone else's work. No Surprise.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
The precision with which George managed to produce a reduction in borrowing in the last financial year was seriously impressive but what was even more impressive is that this government seems to have got a grip of what used to be unmanaged expenditure in a way that other governments of both persuasions failed.
Looking forward I think and hope that year end splurges and unexpected costs may well be much reduced in future. If so, that is an important contribution to us having government accounts which can actually be relied on.
David
Seriously. You are right. The control by the Treasury of departmental spending in particular and public finances in general has been extraordinary.
It is very difficult to achieve even in good times. It is especially so when facing economic headwinds.
Osborne should get credit for this but the real praise is due to Danny Alexander whose primary responsibility in government is 'financial control'.
I agree that Danny Alexander is a star who is determined to keep his light under a bushel. No doubt this reflects Lib Dem policy which is determined to stay away from the sharp ends of the cuts but it does seem a little unfair. Once there is a comfortable tory majority after 2015 and he has lost his seat they really should find him an appropriate job.
"I've no idea which in particular of his foibles might cause him to be banned, but for example, a spam-detection algoriithm which looked for idiotic name-calling might easily repeatedly ban Mr Pork. It would be by design, not a mistake, and certainly not a conspiracy."
Come off it, Richard. I've been on the receiving end of these 'accidental' blockings myself - not 87 times, but enough to spot what the game is.
In my experience, you don't get banned, you just get blocked for a while until you grow up! I've been blocked for calling Mr Pork 'autistic' and I noticed during the same argument that he also disappeared after calling me a 'tw*t".
This is - on the whole - a decent, thought-provoking, well-mannered site. Therefore the odd blocking through immature behaviour is perfectly acceptable to me, and there is no conspiracy about it. Behave like a dick (which I've done at times) and you get temporarily blocked.
Pork's problem is that he can't let anything go. He just goes on and on ensuring he gets the last word and it damages the integrity of the threads. If I was the host, I'd block him too.
May well be something in that. Easier - and more pleasurable - to support a winning team than a losing one. EDIT: The rise of 'out' kippers on here would seem to support this.
Apart from winning a few Council seats and having an increasingly higher poll rating UKIP has yet to win anything (and won't if you believe the establishment groupthink).
Now if your 'theory' had any credibility surely then people would be changing to Labour because all the polls and actual elections show it is Labour that is currently winning (hard to believe given the general media narrative I know).
However from my knowledge of the site apart from one or two switchers Labour has no new support and in fact there are probably less contributing Labour supporters than there were before the last election
TSE : Many thanks for clarifying the situation - it's just a pity you did so 48 hours too late. Would you care to comment on the reason for the previous 86 bannings?
On Disqus, a mixture of his repetitive postings and bad language set off the spam trap.
It effectively put posters in the cooler for a few hours, when certain verbtoen words were used or the same words are used over and over again by one poster.
Other posters have experienced similar situations.
TSE : Many thanks for clarifying the situation - it's just a pity you did so 48 hours too late. Would you care to comment on the reason for the previous 86 bannings?
On Disqus, a mixture of his repetitive postings and bad language set off the spam trap.
It effectively put posters in the cooler for a few hours, when certain verbtoen words were used.
Other posters have experienced similar situations.
TSE : Many thanks for clarifying the situation - it's just a pity you did so 48 hours too late. Would you care to comment on the reason for the previous 86 bannings?
On Disqus, a mixture of his repetitive postings and bad language set off the spam trap.
It effectively put posters in the cooler for a few hours, when certain verbtoen words were used.
Other posters have experienced similar situations.
Now this is the end of the matter.
I've always admired your unyielding optimism.
Having been the only Tory in South Yorkshire and now being the only Tory in Manchester (well until the end of next month), you have be optimistic.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
Ah yes the pointless aid agenda, why is an arbitrary target for giving money away good economics ?
It isn't good economics, Mr. Brooke. Or at least, it is arguably but not as a primary goal
It is simple decency.
Like giving away part of your pocket money to the down and outs of Windsor and Eton. The vast majority of the Cabinet and No 10 apparatus has been indoctrinated with such practices from a very early age.
Charles will explain..
No Mr Pole decency would be giving our children a good education. Rather than fund mercedes and consultants for overseas autocrats we should be giving our kids free tuition at university.
In most of our 'arguments' I half agree with you, or at least when I can't get to that impressive fraction, I at least understand your view and where you are coming from.
But fixing overseas aid at 0.7% of GNP as part of an agreement between nations with developed economies seems to me to be entirely unobjectionable.
OK we can argue about implementation and making sure that funds get to their proper destination but that is more about doing the thing right rather than doing the right thing.
As to all the other calls on public funds, whether educating our children or defending out country or providing diversity co-ordinators in Bethnal Green, if we can't do that on 99.3% of taxpayer receipts (yes, yes I know but let's assume we finally get rid of the deficit) then we might as well give up altogether and undertake a mass migration to China.
What can we say, Jeremy Chum the homeopathy believer really needs to pull his finger out on this issue. Although one winter campaign of alternative flu vaccine could see the UKIP over 65's vote halve.
Jeremy Ffop-Chump has succeeded in alienating the 30,000 GPs that he needs to make the NHS reforms work. And I'm a life-long blue supporter, unable to support the fruit cakes, pathologically opposed to Labour and unconvinced by the LDs. Colour me disenfranchised.
Hunts blundering around has gone largely uncommented on on here, for obvious reasons, the right wing posters are embarrassed by his promotion. But he's done some serious damage in the last few weeks. He's desperately trying to backtrack now after someone showed him the age profile of GPs and a few warning signs from CCGs on people pulling out. I get the impression he genuinely didn't understand what he was doing
It would seem particularly inept to adopt a policy (CCGs and a move to community care) then spend the next two months GP bashing to please the Daily Mail, when for better or worse you require these Doctors to engage.
I am at the National Commissioning meeting next week, should be some interesting shouting matches. Andy Burnham is speaking also, i may summon a few difficult questions for him also.
The French consumer confidence sentiment index fell to 79 in May from a revised reading of 83 in April, matching a record low. Economists had expected the index to rise to 85.
According to French statistical office Insee, index components such as the households' assessment of their past financial situation, future financial conditions and expectations all worsened from the prior month.
French data does not yet show signs that the downturn has turned around even as the Bank of France holds on to a second-quarter economic growth forecast of 0.1%. The French economy contracted by 0.2% in each of the prior two quarters.
The perils of sustained austerity. By contrast, over in the US consumer confidence has risen to 76.2 - the highest since February 2008.
France's problems do not derive from domestically imposed austerity. Hollande has increased taxes causing widespread avoidance and capital flight and failed to implement sufficient spending cuts. Hence the French deficit is rising.
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balance measures and optimal outcomes.
UK 10 year bond rates today 1.96% , France 2.01% , the markets value Osborne's helmsmanship over Hollande's at just 0.05% .
How do those numbers compare with inflation?
Latest inflation rates UK 2.4% , France 0.7%
So the real cost of lending money to the government is -0.44% in the UK and +1.31% in France
OK , let's put up the rate of inflation even more so that you can claim an even lower real cost .
Change in FTSE over the last 12 months Plus 22% Change in French CAC over the last 12 months Plus 30%
Don't be silly. If inflation was higher there would be a point at which future expectations of future inflation would effect current expectations of current interest rates.
Performance of indicies over a fixed time period don't really matter, especially as the FTSE is not representative of the UK economy.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
Ah yes the pointless aid agenda, why is an arbitrary target for giving money away good economics ?
It isn't good economics, Mr. Brooke. Or at least, it is arguably but not as a primary goal
It is simple decency.
Like giving away part of your pocket money to the down and outs of Windsor and Eton. The vast majority of the Cabinet and No 10 apparatus has been indoctrinated with such practices from a very early age.
Charles will explain..
No Mr Pole decency would be giving our children a good education. Rather than fund mercedes and consultants for overseas autocrats we should be giving our kids free tuition at university.
I'm not wild about 0.7% as a figure - plucked out of the air (at Gleneagles?). International development spending can have both financial and strategic benefits, but needs to be correctly spent on worthwhile projects. It should also be directly spent by the UK so the UK gets the benefit from it rather than handed over to multinational organisations.
There is an aspect to charitable giving - but I would rather do something simple like matching giving by individuals to incentivise it. Politicians shouldn't be gtiving charitable money to their favourite causes as a rule
The French consumer confidence sentiment index fell to 79 in May from a revised reading of 83 in April, matching a record low. Economists had expected the index to rise to 85.
According to French statistical office Insee, index components such as the households' assessment of their past financial situation, future financial conditions and expectations all worsened from the prior month.
French data does not yet show signs that the downturn has turned around even as the Bank of France holds on to a second-quarter economic growth forecast of 0.1%. The French economy contracted by 0.2% in each of the prior two quarters.
The perils of sustained austerity. By contrast, over in the US consumer confidence has risen to 76.2 - the highest since February 2008.
France's problems do not derive from domestically imposed austerity. Hollande has increased taxes causing widespread avoidance and capital flight and failed to implement sufficient spending cuts. Hence the French deficit is rising.
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balance measures and optimal outcomes.
UK 10 year bond rates today 1.96% , France 2.01% , the markets value Osborne's helmsmanship over Hollande's at just 0.05% .
How do those numbers compare with inflation?
Latest inflation rates UK 2.4% , France 0.7%
So the real cost of lending money to the government is -0.44% in the UK and +1.31% in France
OK , let's put up the rate of inflation even more so that you can claim an even lower real cost .
Change in FTSE over the last 12 months Plus 22% Change in French CAC over the last 12 months Plus 30%
Don't be silly. If inflation was higher there would be a point at which future expectations of future inflation would effect current expectations of current interest rates.
Performance of indicies over a fixed time period don't really matter, especially as the FTSE is not representative of the UK economy.
But you knew that, right?
Yes , of course I know that but do the Osborne fawners who use a rise in the FTSE to praise him when it suits them .
Any idea how true the rumour that some hospitals in poorer EU nations (Spain, Portugal & Greece) have refused to treat fellow EU citizens without up front payment?
From a very anti EU blog so not necessarily gospel
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
Ah yes the pointless aid agenda, why is an arbitrary target for giving money away good economics ?
It isn't good economics, Mr. Brooke. Or at least, it is arguably but not as a primary goal
It is simple decency.
Like giving away part of your pocket money to the down and outs of Windsor and Eton. The vast majority of the Cabinet and No 10 apparatus has been indoctrinated with such practices from a very early age.
Charles will explain..
No Mr Pole decency would be giving our children a good education. Rather than fund mercedes and consultants for overseas autocrats we should be giving our kids free tuition at university.
In most of our 'arguments' I half agree with you, or at least when I can't get to that impressive fraction, I at least understand your view and where you are coming from.
But fixing overseas aid at 0.7% of GNP as part of an agreement between nations with developed economies seems to me to be entirely unobjectionable.
OK we can argue about implementation and making sure that funds get to their proper destination but that is more about doing the thing right rather than doing the right thing.
As to all the other calls on public funds, whether educating our children or defending out country or providing diversity co-ordinators in Bethnal Green, if we can't do that on 99.3% of taxpayer receipts (yes, yes I know but let's assume we finally get rid of the deficit) then we might as well give up altogether and undertake a mass migration to China.
You haven't actually sat down and worked out what foreign aid is for nor who you are helping. It also strikes me that this "gesture" is a C20 idea in a C21 environment.
For the first time that I can remember all the world's regions are on the slow crawl out of abject poverty with Africa finally beginning to repeat the growth levels of Asia. It should be our aim to encourage and help this and the best way to do it is through opening trade, something the developed nations and Europe in particular have been loathe to do.
Aid can be part of this progress but needs to be targetted imo on set programmes such as immunisation. Funding the kind of programmes we have in the past such as big infrastucture achieves not very much, when developing nations do it for themselves there are much better results. Currently we have adopted an arbitrary figure to fund things we haven't worked out yet. This reflects little more than a european frame of mind that developed countries can't run themselves and it's a nonsense. Which benefits do we or they reap from such a programme ? In truth nobody knows.
The French consumer confidence sentiment index fell to 79 in May from a revised reading of 83 in April, matching a record low. Economists had expected the index to rise to 85.
According to French statistical office Insee, index components such as the households' assessment of their past financial situation, future financial conditions and expectations all worsened from the prior month.
French data does not yet show signs that the downturn has turned around even as the Bank of France holds on to a second-quarter economic growth forecast of 0.1%. The French economy contracted by 0.2% in each of the prior two quarters.
The perils of sustained austerity. By contrast, over in the US consumer confidence has risen to 76.2 - the highest since February 2008.
France's problems do not derive from domestically imposed austerity. Hollande has increased taxes causing widespread avoidance and capital flight and failed to implement sufficient spending cuts. Hence the French deficit is rising.
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balance measures and optimal outcomes.
UK 10 year bond rates today 1.96% , France 2.01% , the markets value Osborne's helmsmanship over Hollande's at just 0.05% .
How do those numbers compare with inflation?
Latest inflation rates UK 2.4% , France 0.7%
So the real cost of lending money to the government is -0.44% in the UK and +1.31% in France
OK , let's put up the rate of inflation even more so that you can claim an even lower real cost .
Change in FTSE over the last 12 months Plus 22% Change in French CAC over the last 12 months Plus 30%
Don't be silly. If inflation was higher there would be a point at which future expectations of future inflation would effect current expectations of current interest rates.
Performance of indicies over a fixed time period don't really matter, especially as the FTSE is not representative of the UK economy.
But you knew that, right?
Yes , of course I know that but do the Osborne fawners who use a rise in the FTSE to praise him when it suits them .
But I am not an Osborne fawner, and when I post about finance or investment it is usually with a degree of knowledge. So less of the BS, if you don't mind.
@tim 'I get the impression he genuinely didn't understand what he was doing.'
Oh, I don't think many SoSs really get to understand the complexities of their brief for many months or years. I think DC's habit of keeping people in post beyond their political sell by date has improved things a little.
However, there has been a major concerted effort to drive a wedge between primary and secondary care in the last few years and the hospital doctors are probably the stronger lobbyists. GPs, almost by their nature are pretty un-militant and - mostly - professionally committed to their patients, many of whom they have known for many years and genuinely care about. They won't do anything to put their patients' welfare at risk - they are, after all, really answerable to them - and so it is easy to paint them as uncaring if they ever raise their voices in protest. But note - GPs see 1 million patients a day, the NHS would rapidly disappear up its own fundament without them.
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
Ah yes the pointless aid agenda, why is an arbitrary target for giving money away good economics ?
It isn't good economics, Mr. Brooke. Or at least, it is arguably but not as a primary goal
It is simple decency.
Like giving away part of your pocket money to the down and outs of Windsor and Eton. The vast majority of the Cabinet and No 10 apparatus has been indoctrinated with such practices from a very early age.
Charles will explain..
No Mr Pole decency would be giving our children a good education. Rather than fund mercedes and consultants for overseas autocrats we should be giving our kids free tuition at university.
In most of our 'arguments' I half agree with you, or at least when I can't get to that impressive fraction, I at least understand your view and where you are coming from.
But fixing overseas aid at 0.7% of GNP as part of an agreement between nations with developed economies seems to me to be entirely unobjectionable.
OK we can argue about implementation and making sure that funds get to their proper destination but that is more about doing the thing right rather than doing the right thing.
As to all the other calls on public funds, whether educating our children or defending out country or providing diversity co-ordinators in Bethnal Green, if we can't do that on 99.3% of taxpayer receipts (yes, yes I know but let's assume we finally get rid of the deficit) then we might as well give up altogether and undertake a mass migration to China.
You haven't actually sat down and worked out what foreign aid is for nor who you are helping. It also strikes me that this "gesture" is a C20 idea in a C21 environment.
For the first time that I can remember all the world's regions are on the slow crawl out of abject poverty with Africa finally beginning to repeat the growth levels of Asia. It should be our aim to encourage and help this and the best way to do it is through opening trade, something the developed nations and Europe in particular have been loathe to do.
Aid can be part of this progress but needs to be targetted imo on set programmes such as immunisation. Funding the kind of programmes we have in the past such as big infrastucture achieves not very much, when developing nations do it for themselves there are much better results. Currently we have adopted an arbitrary figure to fund things we haven't worked out yet. This reflects little more than a european frame of mind that developed countries can't run themselves and it's a nonsense. Which benefits do we or they reap from such a programme ? In truth nobody knows.
Foreign aid to India: 300 million GBP p.a. Foreign aid to Pakistan: 170 million GBP p.a. Foreign aid to the EU: 18 BILLION GBP p.a.
Any idea how true the rumour that some hospitals in poorer EU nations (Spain, Portugal & Greece) have refused to treat fellow EU citizens without up front payment?
From a very anti EU blog so not necessarily gospel
@tim 'I get the impression he genuinely didn't understand what he was doing.'
Oh, I don't think many SoSs really get to understand the complexities of their brief for many months or years. I think DC's habit of keeping people in post beyond their political sell by date has improved things a little.
However, there has been a major concerted effort to drive a wedge between primary and secondary care in the last few years and the hospital doctors are probably the stronger lobbyists. GPs, almost by their nature are pretty un-militant and - mostly - professionally committed to their patients, many of whom they have known for many years and genuinely care about. They won't do anything to put their patients' welfare at risk - they are, after all, really answerable to them - and so it is easy to paint them as uncaring if they ever raise their voices in protest. But note - GPs see 1 million patients a day, the NHS would rapidly disappear up its own fundament without them.
I feel sorry for Norman Lamb, a genuinely decent guy who is on top of his brief. First he was kept out of the dept by Lansleys lack of mental balance, then he was put in there with Jeremy Hunt who is in post solely because he went to university with Cameron.
Lamb hasn't been that quick to redress the balance either. Rumour has it that the 'Inspector of GPs' idea has come from his office.
Any idea how true the rumour that some hospitals in poorer EU nations (Spain, Portugal & Greece) have refused to treat fellow EU citizens without up front payment?
From a very anti EU blog so not necessarily gospel
According to the article though, Brits in Spain don't get free treatment equal to that a spaniard would get in Britain... Is this the same for all EU countries?
Seems we have a kind of "excess" level similar to an insurance policy
"British travellers are not entitled to the same free treatments as the NHS would offer over here, but what local residents would get in their country."
So we obviously would pay more for Spaniards treatment than they pay for us, if this is true
Any idea how true the rumour that some hospitals in poorer EU nations (Spain, Portugal & Greece) have refused to treat fellow EU citizens without up front payment?
From a very anti EU blog so not necessarily gospel
I can believe it as it has happened to me in a number of different EU countries and also in Norway . Funnily enough the one country I have never had any trouble at all in is France - and their health system is miles better than ours in terms of front end customer service as well.
Any idea how true the rumour that some hospitals in poorer EU nations (Spain, Portugal & Greece) have refused to treat fellow EU citizens without up front payment?
From a very anti EU blog so not necessarily gospel
I see Osborne I still promising to ring-fence health and education and overseas aid past the election in his spending review despite the fact his manifesto commitment only obliges to protect them until 2015.
It appears the drive is to cut fixed departmental costs rather than variable expense in this spending review.
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
Ah yes the pointless aid agenda, why is an arbitrary target for giving money away good economics ?
It isn't good economics, Mr. Brooke. Or at least, it is arguably but not as a primary goal
It is simple decency.
Like giving away part of your pocket money to the down and outs of Windsor and Eton. The vast majority of the Cabinet and No 10 apparatus has been indoctrinated with such practices from a very early age.
Charles will explain..
No Mr Pole decency would be giving our children a good education. Rather than fund mercedes and consultants for overseas autocrats we should be giving our kids free tuition at university.
In most of our 'arguments' I half agree with you, or at least when I can't get to that impressive fraction, I at least understand your view and where you are coming from.
But fixing overseas aid at 0.7% of GNP as part of an agreement between nations with developed economies seems to me to be entirely unobjectionable.
OK we can argue about implementation and making sure that funds get to their proper destination but that is more about doing the thing right rather than doing the right thing.
As to all the other calls on public funds, whether educating our children or defending out country or providing diversity co-ordinators in Bethnal Green, if we can't do that on 99.3% of taxpayer receipts (yes, yes I know but let's assume we finally get rid of the deficit) then we might as well give up altogether and undertake a mass migration to China.
You haven't actually sat down and worked out what foreign aid is for nor who you are helping. It also strikes me that this "gesture" is a C20 idea in a C21 environment.
For the first time that I can remember all the world's regions are on the slow crawl out of abject poverty with Africa finally beginning to repeat the growth levels of Asia. It should be our aim to encourage and help this and the best way to do it is through opening trade, something the developed nations and Europe in particular have been loathe to do.
Aid can be part of this progress but needs to be targetted imo on set programmes such as immunisation. Funding the kind of programmes we have in the past such as big infrastucture achieves not very much, when developing nations do it for themselves there are much better results. Currently we have adopted an arbitrary figure to fund things we haven't worked out yet. This reflects little more than a european frame of mind that developed countries can't run themselves and it's a nonsense. Which benefits do we or they reap from such a programme ? In truth nobody knows.
There are some principles there with which I agree. 'Zero-budgeting', for example, where all expenditure needs to be justified in its own right rather than having a pre-allocated sum to spend and develop projects to match. But despite the attraction of 'zero-budgetting' it is very impractical to implement. Maybe the compromise is a culture which doesn't spend or release funds unless fully justified is the right compromise.
Similarly I am attracted to the purity of your principles when applied to pre-screening projects for support. Yet inevitably the business of government will sully the best intentions. If the FCO wants to support a project to advance women's rights in, say, Saudi Arabia which can be linked to a major arms deal, what should DFID do? Rule out support on ethical and an economic basis?
I am also attracted to some of Charles's ideas, Particularly the matching or double-matching of public donations but again I see limits and drawbacks. Popular charities tend to get all the attention even though they may not deliver the most 'cost-benefit'. Administrative distribution therefore has its place.
Finally, even 'soft' support can be beneficial. Private corporations demonstrate this in their willingness to sponsor sporting or cultural events where the benefit is hard to quantify financially. For example, MacDonalds sponsors the Olympic Games even though, or more likely because, its product has little direct connection to sporting activity.
In the end it is all a question of balancing interests to their best effect. Including of course the interests of the taxpayer. And here greater transparency and popular input to the dispersion of funds would help.
All a bit woolly I accept, but this is the nature of government. In a department like DFID almost all expenditure will be discretionary and few decisions to fund will be clear cut. Judgement, justification, communication, audit and appraisal is all.
My problem with aid is that I have never seen any positive correlation between the receipt of aid and the increase in the standard of living of the recipients. One of the greatest victories against poverty in history has been achieved in China and, to a lesser extent, the rest of east asia over the last 30 years. Aid has played no part in this achivement. Africa has been a huge recipient of aid over that time and remains an economic basket case in large part.
Emergency aid for famines and tsunami type disasters yes. Other aid? Really not sure that it is proven that it does more good than harm.
I also have a problem with us feeling good about borrowing from our grandchildren to pay aid now. We have not asked what the next generation think about the debt mountain we have created for them. We may come to regret this when we see the state of our nursing homes and what they are willing to pay for them.
Swedish authorities are notoriously tight-lipped about the connection between immigration and crime. Sweden does not report data on crimes by foreign-born people, only by foreign passport holders – meaning that an immigrant who has been naturalized will be counted as a Swede for statistical purposes. Even on that restrictive basis, it’s apparent there is a real problem. In 2010, almost 30% of the people in Swedish prisons held foreign passports. A broader study of crime statistics from 1997-2001 – that is, well before the recent immigration surge – found that immigrants and children of immigrants together committed more than 40% of all Swedish crime. In particular, immigrants and children of immigrants were five times more likely than native Swedes to be investigated for sex crimes, a rising Swedish concern.
AveryLP - So why can't he cut some fixed departmental costs in the likes of health and education instead of loading all the burden on other departments like defence, local government and justice
New Bankia shares tumble, wiping out family savings in Spain
My Spanish bank account is with Bankia, and there's a semi-permanent demonstration by smelly unemployed anti-capitalist locals (but I repeat myself) outside the entrance these days.
I'd move my account elsewhere but they all feel equally on thin ice.
Comments
Does he even write it? I thought he has a ghostwriter these days. (Leaving aside the fact that he was burnt at the stake four centuries ago.)
(apols for the formatting)
Yes, certainly needs an EU angle to hit the jackpot. However, I would suggest to 'Immigrant Gay Muslims to Receive Additional Integration Benefits from NHS budget ... after appeal to the Eurpoean Court of Human Rights'
As an aside, I thought GF was hung, drawn & quartered rather than burnt at the stake?
William Hague has cooled any talk of arming the Syrian rebels, insisting that any such decision is for "a later stage".
The Foreign Secretary was speaking after the European Union agreed to lift its arms embargo - which prevented the shipment of weapons to either the Assad regime or the rebels.
But Russia has weighed into the conflict, agreeing to deliver anti-aircraft missiles to the Government as a "stabilising" measure to prevent foreign intervention.
After talks yesterday, EU foreign ministers agreed not to renew the embargo when it expires at the start of June.
Mr Hague welcomed the “clear signal” sent to the Assad regime, but stressed that any arming of the rebel forces would be for "a later stage".
“We haven’t reached that stage," he told the World at One. "This is a change in policy in the European Union."
He said the move "puts greater pressure on all concerned" to attend a planned peace conference in Geneva.
However he was clear that there would be no immediate arming of opposition groups, saying: “Any decision, as I made clear to the House of Commons last week, any decision to send arms is for a later stage.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov condemned the moves, saying they would cause “direct damage” to prospects of a negotiated resolution to the Syrian crisis.
“There remains a gap between the positions of Russia and the US regarding some issues and aspects of this major international crisis”, he added.
Mr Ryabkov later declared Russia would deliver a shipment of S-300 missiles to the Assad government, describing the supplies as a "stabilising factor".
The measure would "deter some hotheads from considering scenarios that would turn the conflict international with the involvement of outside forces", he claimed.
-------------------
Ahah! As I said last night. Hague is all talk and no walk. The Russians have called his bluff in no uncertain terms as the shipping of S-300 ground to air missiles is a major escalation in the Syrian civil war.
When I first took out a pension in the 80s, the assumptions for equity performance were based on what had gone on since the war. And that performance was pretty stellar.
Of course those assumptions proved totally incorrect, and the expectation of the potentiality of stocks is way lower than it was.
I think expectations have been pared back too much though. When equities bull, they can really go some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
I assume he is referring to the same poll - certainly looks like it.
Treason doth never prosper;
What's the reason.
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10082809/David-Cameron-is-not-beautiful-like-Ed-Miliband-says-Nicky-Haslam.html
message.
Katie Ghose (chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society) www.katieghose.org.uk/
Nancy Platts (2010 Pavillion candidate) www.nancyplatts.org.uk/
Campaign spending returns for Cornwall & Devon PCC reported by local paper:
Con £26,292
Greenslade 12,252
UKIP £6,787
Morris £6,524
Lab £4,399
Calderwood 3,878
LD 2,552
Jordan £2,398
MacPherson 997
Smith £883
http://shatoetry.com/
The rising deficit, coupled with declining industrial output, exports and spending, has kept France in recession and is threatening its sovereign financing costs I have already posted today on how Standard & Poor's has warned that France faces a further downgrade in credit rating if it doesn't take budgetary measures to bring its deficit under control by 2014.
France is fast turning into a model of how not to manage an economy in a recessionary climate. In contrast, Osborne's helmsmanship is turning out to be a model of carefully balanced measures and optimal outcomes.
Thank you!
Do Chancellors get resignation honours lists? If so I hope George rewards your efforts in his!
I note that the £11.5 bn is due to be agreed in June, so before the OBR and external forecasts start showing plummeting deficits, escalating growth and rising government revenues.
Clever tactics by the boy genius.
The more variable and discretionary costs can be dealt with later as public finances improve. Welfare costs are a key example: why waste political capital on reducing welfare when a growing economy and reduced unemployment will do the job for you? Health and education budgets are where surplus money will be directed when available. Cutting 'waste' will still occur but resultant savings will be retained with the department. Aid will simply remain fixed as a 0.7% proportion of GNP with more voter friendly projects selected.
That calls to mind the Yes Prime Minister scene with twenty upper-middle class males in suits nodding furiously in agreement with each other that they represent a "true cross-section of the nation".
Change in FTSE over the last 12 months Plus 22%
Change in French CAC over the last 12 months Plus 30%
UK 10 year bond rates today 1.96% , France 2.01% , the markets value Osborne's helmsmanship over Hollande's at just 0.05% .
Latest inflation rates UK 2.4% , France 0.7%
You have just answered your own question, Mark.
France is borrowing at a premium of 1.31% to inflation, the UK at a discount of 0.44%.
I know which I would prefer to be,
Do you?
[Edit: I see Charles has got there first!]
So what? Stock markets have very little correlation with the domestic economy.
If you want to know what's really going on in France, look at the unemployment figures.
Thank you for your enquiry today regarding our recent European Voting Intention poll on behalf of Open Europe.
We have investigated and can confirm there is nothing wrong with the poll and we are confident in the quality of the data provided.
Although true, the results you mention are surprising, it is possible that they can be explained by the fact that you had to be 10/10 certain to vote in the European elections in order to count in the European voting intention. This means the full Westminster voting intention sample would not count in this instance and therefore results might be produced that you would not expect.
I hope that clears things up,
Kind regards,
Keiran
---------------
I remain very sceptical (the 10/10 Westminster results are not especially unusual) but credit to ComRes for responding promptly. Just a strange sample, perhaps.
"Although one winter campaign of alternative flu vaccine could see the UKIP over 65's vote halve. "
Brilliant.
Looking forward I think and hope that year end splurges and unexpected costs may well be much reduced in future. If so, that is an important contribution to us having government accounts which can actually be relied on.
It is simple decency.
Like giving away part of your pocket money to the down and outs of Windsor and Eton. The vast majority of the Cabinet and No 10 apparatus has been indoctrinated with such practices from a very early age.
Charles will explain..
It makes a refreshing change to read something that provides a positive take on things even if some of it is spin, at least its a counter to the daily diet of negativity here that is often very depressing.
Lab or Lib/LibDem on every occasion except once when I was very young and my father was the Tory candidate!
I've no idea which in particular of his foibles might cause him to be banned, but for example, a spam-detection algoriithm which looked for idiotic name-calling might easily repeatedly ban Mr Pork. It would be by design, not a mistake, and certainly not a conspiracy.
Seriously. You are right. The control by the Treasury of departmental spending in particular and public finances in general has been extraordinary.
It is very difficult to achieve even in good times. It is especially so when facing economic headwinds.
Osborne should get credit for this but the real praise is due to Danny Alexander whose primary responsibility in government is 'financial control'.
But sometimes - aside from being busy or abroad (and I have no internet access on my phone) - I feel like I just have nothing to say. Especially if politics is going through a dry or boring spell. I certainly don't know a huge amount about politics like some here and it amazes me the breadth of knowledge some posters purport/pretend/actually have on other subjects.
Also, I'm too obvious to post spin, so that doesn't help my output.
During Gordon Brown's tenure I was far more agitated and compelled to post, mainly through irrational hatred. Clegg, Cameron and Miliband fail to enrage me the way Brown did. Politics is far more gentlemanly now.
I do think tthough - if the economy stays the way it is, ie: not getting greatly better/not greatly worse - that the next GE will be the most exciting in memory. Certainly the most exciting and hard to call since 1992. I don't believe the Labour poll lead is that strong, UKIP has thrown a spanner in the electoral-calculus works, Balls has an astronomically difficult task balancing economic reality with the desires of the unions and will face the heat to spell out policies during the GE, the Lib Dems (with Clegg or without) have to decide how they will pitch themselves to the electorate (go left, stay centre, or extol their work with the right?) and Cameron and Osborne have the gargantuan task of convincing the whole nation that a Tory-alone govt will be better for people of all classes, rich or poor or in-between.
Given the fickle and fed-up nature of the electorate and distrust of politicians on the whole, it'll be a huge task for any party to generate genuine enthusiasm. Yet, paradoxically, the next GE will be one the most important with regard to the UK's future in our history.
I suppose I'll be posting more in the run-up to that. A battle of who the public dislikes least!
Come off it, Richard. I've been on the receiving end of these 'accidental' blockings myself - not 87 times, but enough to spot what the game is.
OGH has been quite clear to Mick on many occasions not to do so.
As the moderators aren't on the site 24/7 they cannot risk OGH's financial security being risk by any poster.
This is the end of the matter.
This is - on the whole - a decent, thought-provoking, well-mannered site. Therefore the odd blocking through immature behaviour is perfectly acceptable to me, and there is no conspiracy about it. Behave like a dick (which I've done at times) and you get temporarily blocked.
Pork's problem is that he can't let anything go. He just goes on and on ensuring he gets the last word and it damages the integrity of the threads. If I was the host, I'd block him too.
At least homeopathy will be cheap. As well as having no pharmaceutical effect, it will be 99.9999% water. An economical form of placebo, perhaps?
May well be something in that. Easier - and more pleasurable - to support a winning team than a losing one.
EDIT: The rise of 'out' kippers on here would seem to support this.
Apart from winning a few Council seats and having an increasingly higher poll rating UKIP has yet to win anything (and won't if you believe the establishment groupthink).
Now if your 'theory' had any credibility surely then people would be changing to Labour because all the polls and actual elections show it is Labour that is currently winning (hard to believe given the general media narrative I know).
However from my knowledge of the site apart from one or two switchers Labour has no new support and in fact there are probably less contributing Labour supporters than there were before the last election
It effectively put posters in the cooler for a few hours, when certain verbtoen words were used or the same words are used over and over again by one poster.
Other posters have experienced similar situations.
Now this is the end of the matter.
It effectively put posters in the cooler for a few hours, when certain verbtoen words were used.
Other posters have experienced similar situations.
Now this is the end of the matter."
If people believe that they'll believe anything.
Please note that my incredulity marks the end of this matter.
Please note this marks the end of the matter
This is the end of the matter.
But fixing overseas aid at 0.7% of GNP as part of an agreement between nations with developed economies seems to me to be entirely unobjectionable.
OK we can argue about implementation and making sure that funds get to their proper destination but that is more about doing the thing right rather than doing the right thing.
As to all the other calls on public funds, whether educating our children or defending out country or providing diversity co-ordinators in Bethnal Green, if we can't do that on 99.3% of taxpayer receipts (yes, yes I know but let's assume we finally get rid of the deficit) then we might as well give up altogether and undertake a mass migration to China.
I am at the National Commissioning meeting next week, should be some interesting shouting matches. Andy Burnham is speaking also, i may summon a few difficult questions for him also.
New Bankia shares tumble, wiping out family savings in Spain
Nationalised giant has now lost 99% of its stock exchange value since it was listed 22 months ago
Performance of indicies over a fixed time period don't really matter, especially as the FTSE is not representative of the UK economy.
But you knew that, right?
There is an aspect to charitable giving - but I would rather do something simple like matching giving by individuals to incentivise it. Politicians shouldn't be gtiving charitable money to their favourite causes as a rule
From a very anti EU blog so not necessarily gospel
http://www.th-eu-nit.com/index.php/articles/2346-thought-youd-get-free-care-if-you-fell-sick-in-spain-britons-held-hostage-by-foreign-hospitals
0.7% of GDP does not equal 0.7% of tax receipts unless you have a rather different worldview than I thought...
For the first time that I can remember all the world's regions are on the slow crawl out of abject poverty with Africa finally beginning to repeat the growth levels of Asia. It should be our aim to encourage and help this and the best way to do it is through opening trade, something the developed nations and Europe in particular have been loathe to do.
Aid can be part of this progress but needs to be targetted imo on set programmes such as immunisation. Funding the kind of programmes we have in the past such as big infrastucture achieves not very much, when developing nations do it for themselves there are much better results. Currently we have adopted an arbitrary figure to fund things we haven't worked out yet. This reflects little more than a european frame of mind that developed countries can't run themselves and it's a nonsense. Which benefits do we or they reap from such a programme ? In truth nobody knows.
'I get the impression he genuinely didn't understand what he was doing.'
Oh, I don't think many SoSs really get to understand the complexities of their brief for many months or years. I think DC's habit of keeping people in post beyond their political sell by date has improved things a little.
However, there has been a major concerted effort to drive a wedge between primary and secondary care in the last few years and the hospital doctors are probably the stronger lobbyists. GPs, almost by their nature are pretty un-militant and - mostly - professionally committed to their patients, many of whom they have known for many years and genuinely care about. They won't do anything to put their patients' welfare at risk - they are, after all, really answerable to them - and so it is easy to paint them as uncaring if they ever raise their voices in protest. But note - GPs see 1 million patients a day, the NHS would rapidly disappear up its own fundament without them.
0.7% of GDP does not equal 0.7% of tax receipts unless you have a rather different worldview than I thought...
Point taken. Principle unaltered.
Foreign aid to Pakistan: 170 million GBP p.a.
Foreign aid to the EU: 18 BILLION GBP p.a.
When are we going to get an 'Inspector of MPs'?
Keep this up sean,you proberly get promoted to do the paper reviews on sky/bbc ;-)
According to the article though, Brits in Spain don't get free treatment equal to that a spaniard would get in Britain... Is this the same for all EU countries?
Seems we have a kind of "excess" level similar to an insurance policy
"British travellers are not entitled to the same free treatments as the NHS would offer over here, but what local residents would get in their country."
So we obviously would pay more for Spaniards treatment than they pay for us, if this is true
Cue sick joke about pensioners from tim....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/travel/9960030/Holidaymakers-warned-as-Spain-blocks-EHIC-usage.html
Similarly I am attracted to the purity of your principles when applied to pre-screening projects for support. Yet inevitably the business of government will sully the best intentions. If the FCO wants to support a project to advance women's rights in, say, Saudi Arabia which can be linked to a major arms deal, what should DFID do? Rule out support on ethical and an economic basis?
I am also attracted to some of Charles's ideas, Particularly the matching or double-matching of public donations but again I see limits and drawbacks. Popular charities tend to get all the attention even though they may not deliver the most 'cost-benefit'. Administrative distribution therefore has its place.
Finally, even 'soft' support can be beneficial. Private corporations demonstrate this in their willingness to sponsor sporting or cultural events where the benefit is hard to quantify financially. For example, MacDonalds sponsors the Olympic Games even though, or more likely because, its product has little direct connection to sporting activity.
In the end it is all a question of balancing interests to their best effect. Including of course the interests of the taxpayer. And here greater transparency and popular input to the dispersion of funds would help.
All a bit woolly I accept, but this is the nature of government. In a department like DFID almost all expenditure will be discretionary and few decisions to fund will be clear cut. Judgement, justification, communication, audit and appraisal is all.
My problem with aid is that I have never seen any positive correlation between the receipt of aid and the increase in the standard of living of the recipients. One of the greatest victories against poverty in history has been achieved in China and, to a lesser extent, the rest of east asia over the last 30 years. Aid has played no part in this achivement. Africa has been a huge recipient of aid over that time and remains an economic basket case in large part.
Emergency aid for famines and tsunami type disasters yes. Other aid? Really not sure that it is proven that it does more good than harm.
I also have a problem with us feeling good about borrowing from our grandchildren to pay aid now. We have not asked what the next generation think about the debt mountain we have created for them. We may come to regret this when we see the state of our nursing homes and what they are willing to pay for them.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/27/the-riots-in-stockholm.html
I'd move my account elsewhere but they all feel equally on thin ice.