The problem is that there are very few competent people in the HoC. There may be one or two LDs, a few more from Labour (but not their front bench who would want a piece of the action) and some from the Cons. Are there enough competent MPs to form a Cabinet - seems like the voters think not.
The problem IMO is not competence, it's the electoral and media climate. There are lots of senior people who see the difficulties clearly and would be willing to tackle them one way or another, but much of the electorate doesn't appear to be willing to entertain anything unpleasant and the media will certainly exaggerate anything, so anyone who suggests any non-trivial kind of saving or tax rise is slaughtered at once.
Which you were fully complicit in following the entirely sensible 2012 budget, which tried to make small adjustments here & there.
In my opinion, the problem is an unvirtuous circle: you need to be well media trained and politically connected to get nominated and elected in the first place, but this 'professionalisation' of politics puts ordinary people off both voting and standing for parliament, who'd struggle to get elected in any event due to their lack of polish and surety as to how to play the game. If they had any real individualism they probably wouldn't get selected either.
The two factors reinforce each other. A final factor is that many good talented and reasonable people don't want to run the risk of having their reputation potentially hauled through the mud for ungrateful electors and colleagues, who don't respect them, for unimpressive pay and rewards.
As we wait to see how many more burgers are being flipped in Osborne's jobs 'miracle'...
BBC:
09:47: UNEMPLOYMENT
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith says the latest unemployment figures are "somewhat better than encouraging - they are rather remarkable". He adds: "If you take out bonuses, which are usually due to the financial sector and distort the figure, they show pay is rising above inflation and will continue to do so." Two thirds of jobs are managerial and professional and almost all of the new jobs added in the three months to the end of September were full time,
Sir Charlie Mayfield, chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, has said that Britain’s workforce must undergo radical change if the nation is to achieve a much-needed overhaul of its productivity....
“Over the past 20 years, Britain has created something like 2.3m more jobs in higher-skilled technology-enabled roles but at the same time, for the people in the middle, there’s been a 1.2m reduction in the number of jobs, while at the bottom we’ve created about another 2m jobs,” he said. “All the signs are that this is a pretty big shift in the anatomy of the workplace and that it’s going to accelerate.”
He added: “Possibly the career ladder may just become a little bit harder to climb and it may become a little bit more difficult for the workplace to facilitate social mobility just at a time when we need more of that, not less.” .....
It’s basically been a job-rich and wages-poor recovery to date,” he said. “But in terms of productivity, the UK lags some of our competitors, such as the US, Germany and France, by as much as 30pc.”
He said that 22pc of British jobs require only the academic educational attainment expected of an 11-year-old. The equivalent percentages in the US and Germany are 10pc and 5pc respectively.
On education, Sir Charlie said 272,000 students started undergraduate courses in the UK this year, against only 3,000 people starting higher apprenticeships - a ratio of 90-1. “That gives us every reason to look for a step change in the number of people earning and learning,” he said.
Some people have been suggesting all that for a while. You’d think that on a site like this more people would look beyond the headline statistics.
Interesting about higher level apprenticeships. When I were a lad, the “normal” means of qualification for such people as accountants, solicitors and bank staff was by “articles” usually started at 16, leading to a professional qualification, usually supported by day release. Pharmacists were slightly odd in that we had a two-year F/T course plus a year’s articles to the professional diploma. About the only people who “had” to go to Uni were medics and dentists and they spent all their time in schools associated with big hospital rather than a university itself.
The problem for the Tories if the parliament is really "hung" is that most of the small parties would be killed among their voters if they were seen to be associating with the toxic Tories. Even the DUP to some extent, I believe even among the Northern Ireland Protestants the Tories are seen economically as heartless. Will even any UKIP MPs be willing to vote for cuts, since UKIP's support is going to overwhelmingly come from poor people who will be hit by such cuts?
Actually, the idea of a completely gridlocked Parliament with no major legislation being able to get through appeals to me. It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms". Things are bad now, but if the politicians are physically prevented from making things worse (which is what I fear would happen even with a Labour majority government if Ed Balls's idiot posturing about how Labour will be slashing spending is true) might be the best of a bunch of bad options.
. It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms".
Aka the public sector gravy train would roll on ?
Gridlock would mean fudge - and porkbarrelling.
We need a big maj government right now - whether single party or strong coalition like this one.
The problem for the Tories if the parliament is really "hung" is that most of the small parties would be killed among their voters if they were seen to be associating with the toxic Tories. Even the DUP to some extent, I believe even among the Northern Ireland Protestants the Tories are seen economically as heartless. Will even any UKIP MPs be willing to vote for cuts, since they're going to be overwhelmingly supported by poor people who will be hit by such cuts?
Actually, the idea of a completely gridlocked Parliament with no major legislation being able to get through appeals to me. It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms". Things are bad now, but if the politicians are physically prevented from making things worse (which is what I fear would happen even with a Labour majority government if Ed Balls's idiot posturing about how Labour will be slashing spending is true) might be the best of a bunch of bad options.
It's a good point. The LibDems got a little good press initially in 2010 but it's been unremittingly awful since. The Tory press ensuring no small party will want to go into coalition with the Tories again.
The problem for the Tories if the parliament is really "hung" is that most of the small parties would be killed among their voters if they were seen to be associating with the toxic Tories. Even the DUP to some extent, I believe even among the Northern Ireland Protestants the Tories are seen economically as heartless. Will even any UKIP MPs be willing to vote for cuts, since UKIP's support is going to overwhelmingly come from poor people who will be hit by such cuts?
Actually, the idea of a completely gridlocked Parliament with no major legislation being able to get through appeals to me. It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms". Things are bad now, but if the politicians are physically prevented from making things worse (which is what I fear would happen even with a Labour majority government if Ed Balls's idiot posturing about how Labour will be slashing spending is true) might be the best of a bunch of bad options.
You're obviously a nice guy but like so many well-meaning on the left in total denial about the need for further significant cuts in public services and at best very modest rises in wages. The size of state you want is way beyond our means without continued massive borrowing.
We've taken a bit of money on the Lab/SNP as well as the Lab/SNP/LD options.
The maths makes some sense, but given that our rules say that the parties named have to have at least one full cabinet seat for it to count as a coalition, there's an obvious problem with the SNP.
I suppose it might make sense for them to take the Secretary of State for Scotland, but will that even exist if the devolution plans get anywhere?
In any case, even if the SNP got any arrangement to above 325 seats, that government might not have a parliamentary majority for "English" legislation, given that the SNP would presumably continue to abstain.
We've taken a bit of money on the Lab/SNP as well as the Lab/SNP/LD options.
The maths makes some sense, but given that our rules say that the parties named have to have at least one full cabinet seat for it to count as a coalition, there's an obvious problem with the SNP.
I suppose it might make sense for them to take the Secretary of State for Scotland, but will that even exist if the devolution plans get anywhere?
In any case, even if the SNP got any arrangement to above 325 seats, that government might not have a parliamentary majority for "English" legislation, given that the SNP would presumably continue to abstain.
In summary you have fleeced some mug punters ? Good work carry on
We've taken a bit of money on the Lab/SNP as well as the Lab/SNP/LD options.
The maths makes some sense, but given that our rules say that the parties named have to have at least one full cabinet seat for it to count as a coalition, there's an obvious problem with the SNP.
I suppose it might make sense for them to take the Secretary of State for Scotland, but will that even exist if the devolution plans get anywhere?
In any case, even if the SNP got any arrangement to above 325 seats, that government might not have a parliamentary majority for "English" legislation, given that the SNP would presumably continue to abstain.
That's a very good point, Shadsy. Thanks. And thanks also on the clarification on the parameters of the bet.
' When I were a lad, the “normal” means of qualification for such people as accountants, solicitors and bank staff was by “articles” usually started at 16, leading to a professional qualification, usually supported by day release.'
Any idea why this stopped?
Would save young people a fortune not having to go the University route.
The problem is that there are very few competent people in the HoC. There may be one or two LDs, a few more from Labour (but not their front bench who would want a piece of the action) and some from the Cons. Are there enough competent MPs to form a Cabinet - seems like the voters think not.
The problem IMO is not competence, it's the electoral and media climate. There are lots of senior people who see the difficulties clearly and would be willing to tackle them one way or another, but much of the electorate doesn't appear to be willing to entertain anything unpleasant and the media will certainly exaggerate anything, so anyone who suggests any non-trivial kind of saving or tax rise is slaughtered at once.
The electorate always does not like bad news, especially after they have been given a lot of non-affordable sweeties by the previous administration.
However, events happen and is it not better to be up front and honest with people and explain the brutal truth and reality of the situation? Churchill had no problem with doing that.
So if you are saying it is best for a politician not to reveal the whole truth to the electorate and to keep some of it hidden so that a politician can be re-elected, then surely that is a form of deceit and leads to distrust of politicians, which is where we are now.
So may I ask you that when you are canvassing, do you follow the Ed Balls' economic message, just not mention the economy or just say that things will be better in the future without saying how they will get better?
As employers in the private sector, we are honour bound to reveal the truth to employees - so why should politicians be the exception?
We've taken a bit of money on the Lab/SNP as well as the Lab/SNP/LD options.
The maths makes some sense, but given that our rules say that the parties named have to have at least one full cabinet seat for it to count as a coalition, there's an obvious problem with the SNP.
I suppose it might make sense for them to take the Secretary of State for Scotland, but will that even exist if the devolution plans get anywhere?
In any case, even if the SNP got any arrangement to above 325 seats, that government might not have a parliamentary majority for "English" legislation, given that the SNP would presumably continue to abstain.
No party would enter a coalition without a cabinet seat. I can't think of a reason why SNP shouldn't have one of the non-devolved areas, say, something in treasury or international development.
' When I were a lad, the “normal” means of qualification for such people as accountants, solicitors and bank staff was by “articles” usually started at 16, leading to a professional qualification, usually supported by day release.'
Any idea why this stopped?
Would save young people a fortune not having to go the University route.
And the same happened to people who were learning a skill/trade and worked and went to 'night school' to get their HNC and HND.
It went wrong when many technical colleges were 'converted' to universities followed by TB saying that 50% should go to university.
Now costs are making it all unravel, and some of those new universities should be changed back to local technical colleges where people can be trained locally and not have the expense of living away from home. (Of course more screams from academia).
It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms".
You are Mr Magic Money Tree personified. We can't afford the welfare state we have. We can't increase forever our debt as a share of GDP. In the fantasy bankruptopia of your imagination we can spend spend spend and nothing will ever happen to make that impossible. Back in the real world the gilt market will collapse long before we get there. We might go the Japanese route and force our central bank to buy all the government debt issuance. But that debauches the currency. Look at the abject collapse of the Yen. What you are (I hope out of ignorance) proposing is the destruction of Sterling and our national wealth.
There's really no point engaging with lefties in economic debate. The only sensible course of action is to keep their hands away from the levers of power.
Already in and out of this market for a whopping profit of all of £16 (backed at average of 20, laid at average of 10). Wish I'd known OGH was going to tip this...
No party would enter a coalition without a cabinet seat. I can't think of a reason why SNP shouldn't have one of the non-devolved areas, say, something in treasury or international development.
Anecdotal: Rotherham sounds like its gone from awful to even worse than awful according to my colleagues, apparently riots/EDL demos there every Saturday.
"The problem IMO is not competence, it's the electoral and media climate. There are lots of senior people who see the difficulties clearly and would be willing to tackle them one way or another, but much of the electorate doesn't appear to be willing to entertain anything unpleasant and the media will certainly exaggerate anything, so anyone who suggests any non-trivial kind of saving or tax rise is slaughtered at once."
Do you not think the parties might be responsible for this to some extent? What I really mean, is your lot and their hysterical (in pretty much every sense of the word) to anything the Coalition has even suggested.
That's before we get to the useful idiots of 38 degrees etc.
We've taken a bit of money on the Lab/SNP as well as the Lab/SNP/LD options.
The maths makes some sense, but given that our rules say that the parties named have to have at least one full cabinet seat for it to count as a coalition, there's an obvious problem with the SNP.
I suppose it might make sense for them to take the Secretary of State for Scotland, but will that even exist if the devolution plans get anywhere?
In any case, even if the SNP got any arrangement to above 325 seats, that government might not have a parliamentary majority for "English" legislation, given that the SNP would presumably continue to abstain.
No party would enter a coalition without a cabinet seat. I can't think of a reason why SNP shouldn't have one of the non-devolved areas, say, something in treasury or international development.
Our rules specify a full cabinet seat. There aren't very many that are going to be completely non-devolved. They are not going to get Defence ,Foreign Office, Chancellor or Chief Secretary. Maybe International Development could work as you say.
Have the BBC given up on their conspiracy theories yet? At first it was all temp jobs, then part time ones, then fake self employment ones. Have they come up with a new one yet?
Obviously they are still pushing the real wages aren't any good line, again something that apparently only started under the nasty Tories, not 10 years ago.
It like how they now like to bleat about how GDP isn't really better, because of if you look at it per capita. Strange how under Labour they weren't interested in that.
The electorate always does not like bad news, especially after they have been given a lot of non-affordable sweeties by the previous administration.
However, events happen and is it not better to be up front and honest with people and explain the brutal truth and reality of the situation? Churchill had no problem with doing that.
So if you are saying it is best for a politician not to reveal the whole truth to the electorate and to keep some of it hidden so that a politician can be re-elected, then surely that is a form of deceit and leads to distrust of politicians, which is where we are now.
So may I ask you that when you are canvassing, do you follow the Ed Balls' economic message, just not mention the economy or just say that things will be better in the future without saying how they will get better?
As employers in the private sector, we are honour bound to reveal the truth to employees - so why should politicians be the exception?
Churchill didn't have to explain anything. The British people were well aware German tanks were 25 miles from Dover and the prospect of invasion (though some historians have argued the likelihood was much smaller than is generally believed) seemed very real.
The debt/deficit issue is different. Amounts like £100 billion mean nothing to most people and they tune out. In addition, most people regularly "live beyond their means" - people borrow to buy a house and the building society allows them to live in "their" house without problem as long as they are able to service the debt.
It seems to me that countries function on the same basis. As long as the markets are confident we can service the debt, we will be fine. That is NOT an argument for increasing the debt further but nor is it an argument for a slash-and-burn approach to public services just to get the debt down a bit quicker.
Of course, we don't want to throw a great chunk of our tax revenue into just servicing the debt though George "for Britain" Osborne's song-and-dance over paying off WW1 debt suggests we have to think in the long term. Closing down tax loopholes and making sure every penny due is collected (especially from business) would be a good start but we will always need to borrow for capital investment (as even the most successful companies do) but as long as that borrowing is secured at a favourable rate the return from increased economic activity makes such borrowing wholly justifiable.
One of the things the hoopla over the jobs-led recovery has been the fall in that key capital investment and the consequent fall in productivity as we invest in Roberts rather than robots.
An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)
In that case, you would get something like 311 seats for the Tories. With losses to the SNP, Labour would be only slightly up on 2010GE, notwithstanding Lib Dem gains themselves. Say, mid-260s for seats. The Lib Dems would be around the mid-20s.
In that case, the Tories would have 2 x options: a second coalition (wafer-thin overall majority of around 10) or they could do a confidence & supply deal with the DUP/UKIP.
Why the latter over the former? The House of Commons would have an effective eurosceptic majority: 311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance.
So, if Cameron wants to aid his party management and guarantee its passage, he could conceivably go for that. But it would still count as 'Con Min' IMHO.
Cloud - cuckoo land. But giving it credence for a moment, it would depend on the makeup of Tory MPs and how far Cameron is prepared to compromise principles for power. Would the Tories want to move to the right and off the centre ground? Would Cameron accept that / would the Tory MPs replace him. I'm all for counterfactuals but this one stretches things a bit too far.
I don't think so. It's a perfectly plausible scenario for next May.
"311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance."
Leaving aside your assumptions on how this comes about, which I think would repay consideration, we have a minority Tory government with DUP plus UKIP in supply and confidence.
We've heard a lot from the Eurosceptics in the Tory party and a couple have even jumped ship. But if 10% of Tory MPs are Europhiles when will they speak up? Could they even stay in a Tory party committed to leaving the EU?
'It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms".'
And if as a consequence of not making cuts,the markets will only lend at higher interest rates, you would be happy that funds were diverted from public services to fund the additional interest payments?
On topic, the main possibilities if there's a hung Parliament are Conservative minority government and Labour minority government. The Lib Dems look set to reject any further coalition with the Conservatives (the rank and file won't stand for it twice) and Labour look set to reject any coalition with the Lib Dems. UKIP won't want to support either main party in a formal coalition and neither will the SNP or the DUP.
For what it's worth, I expect that a minority government would be surprisingly stable, as the example of Scotland in 2007 shows. It's rarely in a majority's interest to see a minority government fall.
Apologies for the non appearance of my ARSE yesterday. Mrs JackW was taken poorly on Sunday evening and whilst my fine nursing has ensured an early recovery I was unable to attend to my PB duties whilst implementing a full scale leech and ice cold bath treatment.
Such was the attendant recovery that Mrs JackW has vowed never to be ill again whilst I live .... Hhmmm.
My ARSE will appear on Tuesday 18th November at 9:00am
The problem is that there are very few competent people in the HoC. There may be one or two LDs, a few more from Labour (but not their front bench who would want a piece of the action) and some from the Cons. Are there enough competent MPs to form a Cabinet - seems like the voters think not.
The problem IMO is not competence, it's the electoral and media climate. There are lots of senior people who see the difficulties clearly and would be willing to tackle them one way or another, but much of the electorate doesn't appear to be willing to entertain anything unpleasant and the media will certainly exaggerate anything, so anyone who suggests any non-trivial kind of saving or tax rise is slaughtered at once.
As employers in the private sector, we are honour bound to reveal the truth to employees -
There are stronger single words I could to use that mean the same thing as the phrase "you are stretching credulity with this remark!"
On topic: I think David H's analysis here is spot-on, and Mike has got it wrong.
What you have to be very careful about in this sort of market is the exact definition. Betfair are a bit vague (as ever), but the definition of a coalition government must surely exclude Confidence & Supply. In other words, the key question is whether there will be ministers from the Greens, SNP, DUP or other smaller parties in the government. Is that likely? I don't see it. The SNP, for example, might well prop up a Labour administration, perhaps in some formal arrangement, but that is not the same as entering a coalition.
In other words, I think the Mike has the politics right, but the bet wrong. Yes, there are many possible combinations, but most of them would be settled as Con or Lab minority government.
Apologies for the non appearance of my ARSE yesterday. Mrs JackW was taken poorly on Sunday evening and whilst my fine nursing has ensured an early recovery I was unable to attend to my PB duties whilst implementing a full scale leech and ice cold bath treatment.
Such was the attendant recovery that Mrs JackW has vowed never to be ill again whilst I live .... Hhmmm.
My ARSE will appear on Tuesday 18th November at 9:00am
On topic, the main possibilities if there's a hung Parliament are Conservative minority government and Labour minority government. The Lib Dems look set to reject any further coalition with the Conservatives (the rank and file won't stand for it twice) and Labour look set to reject any coalition with the Lib Dems. UKIP won't want to support either main party in a formal coalition and neither will the SNP or the DUP.
For what it's worth, I expect that a minority government would be surprisingly stable, as the example of Scotland in 2007 shows. It's rarely in a majority's interest to see a minority government fall.
A good argument. If Labour were one or two seats behind the Tories would they be able to stand back and let a weakened Cameron continue as PM or would they talk to the LibDems?
Apologies for the non appearance of my ARSE yesterday. Mrs JackW was taken poorly on Sunday evening and whilst my fine nursing has ensured an early recovery I was unable to attend to my PB duties whilst implementing a full scale leech and ice cold bath treatment.
Such was the attendant recovery that Mrs JackW has vowed never to be ill again whilst I live .... Hhmmm.
My ARSE will appear on Tuesday 18th November at 9:00am
Hurrah to that!
Thank you Nabbers.
I shall pass on to Mrs JackW your good wishes for her illness free term in my lifetime.
An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)
.
Cloud - cuckoo land. But giving it credence for a moment, it would depend on the makeup of Tory MPs and how far Cameron is prepared to compromise principles for power. Would the Tories want to move to the right and off the centre ground? Would Cameron accept that / would the Tory MPs replace him. I'm all for counterfactuals but this one stretches things a bit too far.
I don't think so. It's a perfectly plausible scenario for next May.
"311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance."
Leaving aside your assumptions on how this comes about, which I think would repay consideration, we have a minority Tory government with DUP plus UKIP in supply and confidence.
We've heard a lot from the Eurosceptics in the Tory party and a couple have even jumped ship. But if 10% of Tory MPs are Europhiles when will they speak up? Could they even stay in a Tory party committed to leaving the EU?
I've lost my response to you twice on my iPhone due to the website crashing.
(1) 10% of Tory MPs are not Europhiles, although 10% may favour EU membership. There are no more than 7 Tory MPs who are actively Europhile. Another 85 are probably 'euro-realist', there's 146 mainstream eurosceptics and around 65 BOOers. The article you link to refers to a Tory campaign group that may potentially be set up to campaign in favour of our EU membership, not to deny an EU referendum vote. No doubt Ken Clarke and Heseltine would never have offered one, but they are not calling the shots.
An EU referendum vote is a manifesto promise. I cannot think of a single Tory MP who would actively vote against it in the next parliament, if re-elected on that platform, although a handful may absent themselves, through pairing, or otherwise abstain. That would not affect the passage of the bill.
(2) I'll be direct: do you want a bet? You say I'm in cloud-cuckoo land, so I'll be generous and offer you £20 at 10/1. Tory seat totals hit 310 seats or above, you pay me £200. If they are lower, I pay you £20.
Given you think my forecasts are fantasy, this is a great bet for you.
On topic, the main possibilities if there's a hung Parliament are Conservative minority government and Labour minority government. The Lib Dems look set to reject any further coalition with the Conservatives (the rank and file won't stand for it twice) and Labour look set to reject any coalition with the Lib Dems. UKIP won't want to support either main party in a formal coalition and neither will the SNP or the DUP.
For what it's worth, I expect that a minority government would be surprisingly stable, as the example of Scotland in 2007 shows. It's rarely in a majority's interest to see a minority government fall.
A good argument. If Labour were one or two seats behind the Tories would they be able to stand back and let a weakened Cameron continue as PM or would they talk to the LibDems?
The Lib Dems would struggle to help a Labour party into government where Labour had fewer votes and fewer seats and where the Lib Dem seat count had fallen sharply and the Lib Dem vote share had crashed. It would look like foisting a government of losers onto the British public.
The problem for the Tories if the parliament is really "hung" is that most of the small parties would be killed among their voters if they were seen to be associating with the toxic Tories. Even the DUP to some extent, I believe even among the Northern Ireland Protestants the Tories are seen economically as heartless. Will even any UKIP MPs be willing to vote for cuts, since UKIP's support is going to overwhelmingly come from poor people who will be hit by such cuts?
Actually, the idea of a completely gridlocked Parliament with no major legislation being able to get through appeals to me. It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms". Things are bad now, but if the politicians are physically prevented from making things worse (which is what I fear would happen even with a Labour majority government if Ed Balls's idiot posturing about how Labour will be slashing spending is true) might be the best of a bunch of bad options.
You're obviously a nice guy but like so many well-meaning on the left in total denial about the need for further significant cuts in public services and at best very modest rises in wages. The size of state you want is way beyond our means without continued massive borrowing.
On topic, the main possibilities if there's a hung Parliament are Conservative minority government and Labour minority government. The Lib Dems look set to reject any further coalition with the Conservatives (the rank and file won't stand for it twice) and Labour look set to reject any coalition with the Lib Dems. UKIP won't want to support either main party in a formal coalition and neither will the SNP or the DUP.
For what it's worth, I expect that a minority government would be surprisingly stable, as the example of Scotland in 2007 shows. It's rarely in a majority's interest to see a minority government fall.
Fully agree. I wrote a guest post on this for pb.com over a month ago, although it didn't go up in the end. I got on Con Min at 10/1 and Lab Min at 9/1.
I'm keeping a hawkeye on Betfair for any good prices that reappear.
The Betfair rules are "This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election. As the market is complete, any majority or minority government or coalition formed that is not explicitly stated as a market selection will be settled as "Any Other Government/ Coalition". If assent is not given to any party or coalition to form a government, and a second general election is called, then this market will be made void."
I agree that this is a bit vague but I also agree that the definition of a coalition government must surely exclude confidence and supply, - otherwise what does a minority government mean.
I also agree that a Con or Lab minority government is the most likely immediate outcome i.e. the first ministry for the reasons I gave earlier.
Apologies for the non appearance of my ARSE yesterday. Mrs JackW was taken poorly on Sunday evening and whilst my fine nursing has ensured an early recovery I was unable to attend to my PB duties whilst implementing a full scale leech and ice cold bath treatment.
Such was the attendant recovery that Mrs JackW has vowed never to be ill again whilst I live .... Hhmmm.
My ARSE will appear on Tuesday 18th November at 9:00am
norman smith @BBCNormanS 1m1 minute ago Pay (excluding bonuses) now outstripping inflation say ONS. 1.3% increase in pay. Inflation at 1.2%
Statistically insignificant. The poll the other day showed most people aren't feeling the recovery. The Tories need to accept that and work around it.
What about this ?
Earnings for those who have been in work for more than a year increasing by 3.7 per cent a year
Well then, the situation must be equally bad for those who haven't been in work for over a year. That's how averages work. You can always pick out particular groups doing better than average, it's a mugs game.
Apologies for the non appearance of my ARSE yesterday. Mrs JackW was taken poorly on Sunday evening and whilst my fine nursing has ensured an early recovery I was unable to attend to my PB duties whilst implementing a full scale leech and ice cold bath treatment.
Such was the attendant recovery that Mrs JackW has vowed never to be ill again whilst I live .... Hhmmm.
My ARSE will appear on Tuesday 18th November at 9:00am
The Bank of England has warned that inflation could fall below 1% in the next six months, due to sluggish growth in the European economy, and other downward pressures.
Well then, the situation must be equally bad for those who haven't been in work for over a year. That's how averages work. You can always pick out particular groups doing better than average, it's a mugs game.
Sigh...
No, this has been explained every the figures come out.
The average is being dragged down by the fact that the unemployed are becoming employed. When people move into the employment market, especially youngsters, they are unlikely to be taking high-paid jobs. That is dragging down the mean, but it does NOT imply that on average a given worker has only seen a 1.3% rise in wages over the year.
In the short term, we could easily increase average earnings by policies designed to make it uneconomic to employ youngsters. Is that what you're advocating?
On topic, the main possibilities if there's a hung Parliament are Conservative minority government and Labour minority government. The Lib Dems look set to reject any further coalition with the Conservatives (the rank and file won't stand for it twice) and Labour look set to reject any coalition with the Lib Dems. UKIP won't want to support either main party in a formal coalition and neither will the SNP or the DUP.
For what it's worth, I expect that a minority government would be surprisingly stable, as the example of Scotland in 2007 shows. It's rarely in a majority's interest to see a minority government fall.
A good argument. If Labour were one or two seats behind the Tories would they be able to stand back and let a weakened Cameron continue as PM or would they talk to the LibDems?
Of course we would. I've no idea where antifrank gets the idea that we wouldn't - naturally we would like an overall Labour majority, but if there isn't one, we'll talk to anyone who we think potentially reasonable.
So may I ask you that when you are canvassing, do you follow the Ed Balls' economic message, just not mention the economy or just say that things will be better in the future without saying how they will get better?
As employers in the private sector, we are honour bound to reveal the truth to employees - so why should politicians be the exception?
I'm pretty frank with constituents and say what I think, noting that I can only speak for myself. Sometimes that includes disagreeing with the party or with the constituents themselves. I find they don't mind - at a retail level, one to one, people appreciate a straight answer even if it's "No, I wouldn't vote for that because...". But I'm aware of the media risk of rushing out with ideas that don't represent the party and will inevitably get distorted, so I don't do it outside the constituency.
I will say that all Labour candidates have been asked not to promise any spending rises or tax cut commitments whatsoever beyond the ones published. That's a matter of political as well as financial discipline.
Wages rising at 1.3% really is dreadful given the levels of debt we have to service. We'd be far better off with 3% wage growth and inflation.
So "3% wage-growth" and "inflation" (which we have) would result in what within the real world? If incomes rise by 3% and inflation rises by 6% workers and savers will be hurt (unless they are feckless debtors).
Earnings for those who have been in work for more than a year increasing by 3.7 per cent a year
Wow.
Cameron has had a very good 24 hours.
Unemployment plummets, wages rising, EU says benefit tourism can be legislated against.
Big important issues.
Big important issues?
Are they the ones sold by self employed Romanian beggars while they claim £550 a week benefits?
Can you please flag when you are joking or when you are trolling a UKIP/BNP-light minority stereotype or indeed both - it's very hard to know for we 'thread dippers'.
On topic, the main possibilities if there's a hung Parliament are Conservative minority government and Labour minority government. The Lib Dems look set to reject any further coalition with the Conservatives (the rank and file won't stand for it twice) and Labour look set to reject any coalition with the Lib Dems. UKIP won't want to support either main party in a formal coalition and neither will the SNP or the DUP.
For what it's worth, I expect that a minority government would be surprisingly stable, as the example of Scotland in 2007 shows. It's rarely in a majority's interest to see a minority government fall.
A good argument. If Labour were one or two seats behind the Tories would they be able to stand back and let a weakened Cameron continue as PM or would they talk to the LibDems?
The Lib Dems would struggle to help a Labour party into government where Labour had fewer votes and fewer seats and where the Lib Dem seat count had fallen sharply and the Lib Dem vote share had crashed. It would look like foisting a government of losers onto the British public.
Whereas the Tories would almost certainly have fewer votes than the Lab/Lib coalition and fewer MPs. So who lost?
Earnings for those who have been in work for more than a year increasing by 3.7 per cent a year
Wow.
Cameron has had a very good 24 hours.
Unemployment plummets, wages rising, EU says benefit tourism can be legislated against.
Big important issues.
Big important issues?
Are they the ones sold by self employed Romanian beggars while they claim £550 a week benefits?
Can you please flag when you are joking or when you are trolling a UKIP/BNP-light minority stereotype or indeed both - it's very hard to know for we 'thread dippers'.
Come on we are not communists yet, think for yourself!
Sadly I fear Mr Wilson may edge a tight election and lead to the demise of Sir Alec as PM. Will the latter be the last Scottish noble as Prime Minister, I rather think it will.
An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)
.
Cloud - cuckoo land.
I don't think so. It's a perfectly plausible scenario for next May.
"311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance."
Leaving aside your assumptions on how this comes about, which I think would repay consideration, we have a minority Tory government with DUP plus UKIP in supply and confidence.
We've heard a lot from the Eurosceptics in the Tory party and a couple have even jumped ship. But if 10% of Tory MPs are Europhiles when will they speak up? Could they even stay in a Tory party committed to leaving the EU?
I've lost my response to you twice on my iPhone due to the website crashing.
(1) 10% of Tory MPs are not Europhiles, although 10% may favour EU membership. There are no more than 7 Tory MPs who are actively Europhile. Another 85 are probably 'euro-realist', there's 146 mainstream eurosceptics and around 65 BOOers. The article you link to refers to a Tory campaign group that may potentially be set up to campaign in favour of our EU membership, not to deny an EU referendum vote. No doubt Ken Clarke and Heseltine would never have offered one, but they are not calling the shots.
An EU referendum vote is a manifesto promise. I cannot think of a single Tory MP who would actively vote against it in the next parliament, if re-elected on that platform, although a handful may absent themselves, through pairing, or otherwise abstain. That would not affect the passage of the bill.
(2) I'll be direct: do you want a bet? You say I'm in cloud-cuckoo land, so I'll be generous and offer you £20 at 10/1. Tory seat totals hit 310 seats or above, you pay me £200. If they are lower, I pay you £20.
Given you think my forecasts are fantasy, this is a great bet for you.
That's not a great bet, I think it quite likely that the Tories will get 310 MPs. In any case my upside is £20 and the downside is £200. Do you normally get any takers for your bet proposals?
I'll offer you £20 at evens that following the 2105 election we don't have a Tory/DUP/UKIP government either coalition or supply and confidence.
Well then, the situation must be equally bad for those who haven't been in work for over a year. That's how averages work. You can always pick out particular groups doing better than average, it's a mugs game.
Sigh...
No, this has been explained every the figures come out.
The average is being dragged down by the fact that the unemployed are becoming employed. When people move into the employment market, especially youngsters, they are unlikely to be taking high-paid jobs. That is dragging down the mean, but it does NOT imply that on average a given worker has only seen a 1.3% rise in wages over the year.
In the short term, we could easily increase average earnings by policies designed to make it uneconomic to employ youngsters. Is that what you're advocating?
You always have the issue of young people entering the workplace that's nothing new and each yearly cohort can't represent more than a couple of % points. The fall in unemployment is quite large but you might question the validity of some of these new self employed jobs. And 2m unemployed was considered a lot a generation ago. How often throughout our history has wage inflation been as low as 1.3%? And we've never had so much debt. Its coming to something when Jeremy Warner in The Telegraph is desperate for some wage inflation.
An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)
.
Cloud - cuckoo land.
I don't think so. It's a perfectly plausible scenario for next May.
"311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance."
Leaving aside your assumptions on how this comes about, which I think would repay consideration, we have a minority Tory government with DUP plus UKIP in supply and confidence.
We've heard a lot from the Eurosceptics in the Tory party and a couple have even jumped ship. But if 10% of Tory MPs are Europhiles when will they speak up? Could they even stay in a Tory party committed to leaving the EU?
I've lost my response to you twice on my iPhone due to the website crashing.
(1) 10% of Tory MPs are not Europhiles, although 10% may favour EU membership. There are no more than 7 Tory MPs who are actively Europhile. Another 85 are probably 'euro-realist', there's 146 mainstream eurosceptics and around 65 BOOers. The article you link to refers to a Tory campaign group that may potentially be set up to campaign in favour of our EU membership, not to deny an EU referendum vote. No doubt Ken Clarke and Heseltine would never have offered one, but they are not calling the shots.
An EU referendum vote is a manifesto promise. I cannot think of a single Tory MP who would actively vote against it in the next parliament, if re-elected on that platform, although a handful may absent themselves, through pairing, or otherwise abstain. That would not affect the passage of the bill.
(2) I'll be direct: do you want a bet? You say I'm in cloud-cuckoo land, so I'll be generous and offer you £20 at 10/1. Tory seat totals hit 310 seats or above, you pay me £200. If they are lower, I pay you £20.
Given you think my forecasts are fantasy, this is a great bet for you.
That's not a great bet, I think it quite likely that the Tories will get 310 MPs. In any case my upside is £20 and the downside is £200. Do you normally get any takers for your bet proposals?
I'll offer you £20 at evens that following the 2105 election we don't have a Tory/DUP/UKIP government either coalition or supply and confidence.
Has the economic extravagance [sans 1997] unleashed by Cronie; the Gormlessness of McBruin; and the careful - and yet sometimes crass - management of Ozzie and Beaker resulted in a paradigm-shift within the UK economy? Whilst the 'minimum-wage' constrains the "Marginal-Utility-of-Labour" if, like me, you follow a belief in the Friedman 'Price-adjusted Phillips Curve' then we could be seeing the UK's "natural-rate-of-unemployment" approach the 4.5 - 5% band.
A lot of reform is still needed: Not least in the hidden unemployed and dire outputs from education. If we can control price-expectations whilst increasing productivity then the future is bright. Sadly the biggest constraint is the awful public-sector (and those who feed upon that bloated carcass)....
On topic, the main possibilities if there's a hung Parliament are Conservative minority government and Labour minority government. The Lib Dems look set to reject any further coalition with the Conservatives (the rank and file won't stand for it twice) and Labour look set to reject any coalition with the Lib Dems. UKIP won't want to support either main party in a formal coalition and neither will the SNP or the DUP.
For what it's worth, I expect that a minority government would be surprisingly stable, as the example of Scotland in 2007 shows. It's rarely in a majority's interest to see a minority government fall.
A good argument. If Labour were one or two seats behind the Tories would they be able to stand back and let a weakened Cameron continue as PM or would they talk to the LibDems?
The Lib Dems would struggle to help a Labour party into government where Labour had fewer votes and fewer seats and where the Lib Dem seat count had fallen sharply and the Lib Dem vote share had crashed. It would look like foisting a government of losers onto the British public.
Whereas the Tories would almost certainly have fewer votes than the Lab/Lib coalition and fewer MPs. So who lost?
I don't rule it out of court. The optics would not be good though.
And there isn't much love for senior Lib Dems in Labour ranks. Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister to Prime Minister Miliband would cause huge umbrage on the left, but Labour couldn't credibly simultaneously seek a coalition with the Lib Dems and demand Nick Clegg's head, especially not if it were behind in the seat count. Would the Labour party collectively decide that Paris was worth a mass? The Owen Jones op-ed pieces write themselves (come to think of it, a random Owen Jones op-ed generator would explain a lot).
It would look like a blighted government from the start.
Saw a spot of Sky News just now. The political chap, Jason Somebodyorother, referred to the 'Conservative Government'. I don't want to sound harsh, but a chap whose job is to know and report about political matters might take a care to know that we have a coalition in power, and have for the last 4 years or so.
The problem for the Tories if the parliament is really "hung" is that most of the small parties would be killed among their voters if they were seen to be associating with the toxic Tories. Even the DUP to some extent, I believe even among the Northern Ireland Protestants the Tories are seen economically as heartless. Will even any UKIP MPs be willing to vote for cuts, since UKIP's support is going to overwhelmingly come from poor people who will be hit by such cuts?
Actually, the idea of a completely gridlocked Parliament with no major legislation being able to get through appeals to me. It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms". Things are bad now, but if the politicians are physically prevented from making things worse (which is what I fear would happen even with a Labour majority government if Ed Balls's idiot posturing about how Labour will be slashing spending is true) might be the best of a bunch of bad options.
Given a choice between tax rises, and government spending cuts voters tend to choose the spending cuts.
Throwing the kitchen sink + bending every rule = failure?
"A consultancy founded by Jim Messina, a former White House official [who was Barack Obama's 2012 Campaign Manager and is now working for the Conservative Party], has surveyed voters in key marginal seats, by-election contests and the Scottish referendum.
The Conservatives insist that they have not commissioned the work by Messina Quantitative Research, describing it as an independent company. However, a party spokesman refused to deny that the business was sharing its findings with Tory strategists.
Ukip suggested that the Conservatives had reached an arm’s-length arrangement with MQR in order to bypass the £100,000 spending limit for by-election campaigns, including that in Rochester and Strood.
“It’s very odd that Jim Messina is calling people and saying that it’s for independent purposes,” a Ukip source said. “What are they doing with this information? He’s not polling Rochester and Strood on behalf of Barack Obama.”… "
An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)
.
Cloud - cuckoo land.
I don't think so. It's a perfectly plausible scenario for next May.
"311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance."
Leaving aside your assumptions on how this comes about, which I think would repay consideration, we have a minority Tory government with DUP plus UKIP in supply and confidence.
We've heard a lot from the Eurosceptics in the Tory party and a couple have even jumped ship. But if 10% of Tory MPs are Europhiles when will they speak up? Could they even stay in a Tory party committed to leaving the EU?
(2) I'll be direct: do you want a bet? You say I'm in cloud-cuckoo land, so I'll be generous and offer you £20 at 10/1. Tory seat totals hit 310 seats or above, you pay me £200. If they are lower, I pay you £20.
Given you think my forecasts are fantasy, this is a great bet for you.
That's not a great bet, I think it quite likely that the Tories will get 310 MPs. In any case my upside is £20 and the downside is £200. Do you normally get any takers for your bet proposals?
I'll offer you £20 at evens that following the 2105 election we don't have a Tory/DUP/UKIP government either coalition or supply and confidence.
Typo 2015
Ah, so you don't think my forecast is cloud-cuckoo land then? Funny how views change when money is involved.
Your offer at evens is not attractive. I can get much better odds elsewhere. Besides which, that eventuality is a Con Min government - propped up up DUP/UKIP for key votes only, and others such as the EU ref - and would be covered by my Con Min bet at 10/1.
For reference, I've never said a formal Tory/UKIP/DUP coalition would happen.
You always have the issue of young people entering the workplace that's nothing new and each yearly cohort can't represent more than a couple of % points. The fall in unemployment is quite large but you might question the validity of some of these new self employed jobs. And 2m unemployed was considered a lot a generation ago. How often throughout our history has wage inflation been as low as 1.3%? And we've never had so much debt. Its coming to something when Jeremy Warner in The Telegraph is desperate for some wage inflation.
Still it's good for savers, who tend to be older and Tory voting.
Well, that's a good entry for the PB 2014 Most Irrelevant Answer competition.
I particularly liked the last sentence, which is magnificent in its irrelevance, and wonderfully distorted in its worldview. Savers, whether Tory-voting or not, are hardly celebrating at current negative real interest rates.
An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)
.
Cloud - cuckoo land.
I don't think so. It's a perfectly plausible scenario for next May.
"311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance."
Leaving aside your assumptions on how this comes about, which I think would repay consideration, we have a minority Tory government with DUP plus UKIP in supply and confidence.
We've heard a lot from the Eurosceptics in the Tory party and a couple have even jumped ship. But if 10% of Tory MPs are Europhiles when will they speak up? Could they even stay in a Tory party committed to leaving the EU?
(2) I'll be direct: do you want a bet? You say I'm in cloud-cuckoo land, so I'll be generous and offer you £20 at 10/1. Tory seat totals hit 310 seats or above, you pay me £200. If they are lower, I pay you £20.
Given you think my forecasts are fantasy, this is a great bet for you.
That's not a great bet, I think it quite likely that the Tories will get 310 MPs. In any case my upside is £20 and the downside is £200. Do you normally get any takers for your bet proposals?
I'll offer you £20 at evens that following the 2105 election we don't have a Tory/DUP/UKIP government either coalition or supply and confidence.
Typo 2015
Ah, so you don't think my forecast is cloud-cuckoo land then? Funny how views change when money is involved.
Your offer at evens is not attractive. I can get much better odds elsewhere. Besides which, that eventuality is a Con Min government - propped up up DUP/UKIP for key votes only, and others such as the EU ref - and would be covered by my Con Min bet at 10/1.
For reference, I've never said a formal Tory/UKIP/DUP coalition would happen.
You are moving the goalposts. The cloud-cuckoo part wasn't Tories getting 310 MPs it was the rest of your post.
An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)
.
Cloud - cuckoo land.
I don't think so. It's a perfectly plausible scenario for next May.
(2) I'll be direct: do you want a bet? You say I'm in cloud-cuckoo land, so I'll be generous and offer you £20 at 10/1. Tory seat totals hit 310 seats or above, you pay me £200. If they are lower, I pay you £20.
Given you think my forecasts are fantasy, this is a great bet for you.
That's not a great bet, I think it quite likely that the Tories will get 310 MPs.
Typo 2015
Ah, so you don't think my forecast is cloud-cuckoo land then? Funny how views change when money is involved.
Your offer at evens is not attractive. I can get much better odds elsewhere. Besides which, that eventuality is a Con Min government - propped up up DUP/UKIP for key votes only, and others such as the EU ref - and would be covered by my Con Min bet at 10/1.
For reference, I've never said a formal Tory/UKIP/DUP coalition would happen.
You are moving the goalposts. The cloud-cuckoo part wasn't Tories getting 310 MPs it was the rest of your post.
Not at all. You replied cloud-cuckoo land to the *whole* of my original post, you didn't specify which bits. Your subsequent replies here have demonstrated you didn't understand what I was saying, and that you don't really know what you're talking about.
I don't mind having a debate, but if you dismiss out-of-hand what I consider to be a carefully thought out political scenario, with analysis behind it, as fantasy (without understanding it, or having any analysis of your own to back it up) expect to be called out on it. I post on here what I consider to be carefully thought through posts. I do expect to be challenged but I don't expect to be patronised.
Throwing the kitchen sink + bending every rule = failure?
"A consultancy founded by Jim Messina, a former White House official [who was Barack Obama's 2012 Campaign Manager and is now working for the Conservative Party], has surveyed voters in key marginal seats, by-election contests and the Scottish referendum.
The Conservatives insist that they have not commissioned the work by Messina Quantitative Research, describing it as an independent company. However, a party spokesman refused to deny that the business was sharing its findings with Tory strategists.
Ukip suggested that the Conservatives had reached an arm’s-length arrangement with MQR in order to bypass the £100,000 spending limit for by-election campaigns, including that in Rochester and Strood.
“It’s very odd that Jim Messina is calling people and saying that it’s for independent purposes,” a Ukip source said. “What are they doing with this information? He’s not polling Rochester and Strood on behalf of Barack Obama.”… "
Well, what with the open primary and now this, it certainly appears the Tories are being true to their word about throwing the kitchen-sink at Rochester....full of money, of course.
I think we are seeing the results of David Cameron's dispensing with his party membership; no locals to fight a local election so instead relying on centralised resources. I noticed this in the Euros, all Facebook and Tweets to smear UKIP, but no local UKIP leaflets or local newspaper reports on UKIP candidates.
The prices above for a Lab majority government are not particularly tempting at the moment. The likelihood must be they will lengthen as time goes on. Lab minority looks best value to me as I suspect Lab could function quite well with potentially a large wedge of new SNP MPs holding the balance. LDs may not be that unhappy to go into opposition.
Comments
Which you were fully complicit in following the entirely sensible 2012 budget, which tried to make small adjustments here & there.
In my opinion, the problem is an unvirtuous circle: you need to be well media trained and politically connected to get nominated and elected in the first place, but this 'professionalisation' of politics puts ordinary people off both voting and standing for parliament, who'd struggle to get elected in any event due to their lack of polish and surety as to how to play the game. If they had any real individualism they probably wouldn't get selected either.
The two factors reinforce each other. A final factor is that many good talented and reasonable people don't want to run the risk of having their reputation potentially hauled through the mud for ungrateful electors and colleagues, who don't respect them, for unimpressive pay and rewards.
09:47: UNEMPLOYMENT
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith says the latest unemployment figures are "somewhat better than encouraging - they are rather remarkable". He adds: "If you take out bonuses, which are usually due to the financial sector and distort the figure, they show pay is rising above inflation and will continue to do so." Two thirds of jobs are managerial and professional and almost all of the new jobs added in the three months to the end of September were full time,
Interesting about higher level apprenticeships. When I were a lad, the “normal” means of qualification for such people as accountants, solicitors and bank staff was by “articles” usually started at 16, leading to a professional qualification, usually supported by day release. Pharmacists were slightly odd in that we had a two-year F/T course plus a year’s articles to the professional diploma.
About the only people who “had” to go to Uni were medics and dentists and they spent all their time in schools associated with big hospital rather than a university itself.
Actually, the idea of a completely gridlocked Parliament with no major legislation being able to get through appeals to me. It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms". Things are bad now, but if the politicians are physically prevented from making things worse (which is what I fear would happen even with a Labour majority government if Ed Balls's idiot posturing about how Labour will be slashing spending is true) might be the best of a bunch of bad options.
Gridlock would mean fudge - and porkbarrelling.
We need a big maj government right now - whether single party or strong coalition like this one.
The maths makes some sense, but given that our rules say that the parties named have to have at least one full cabinet seat for it to count as a coalition, there's an obvious problem with the SNP.
I suppose it might make sense for them to take the Secretary of State for Scotland, but will that even exist if the devolution plans get anywhere?
In any case, even if the SNP got any arrangement to above 325 seats, that government might not have a parliamentary majority for "English" legislation, given that the SNP would presumably continue to abstain.
' When I were a lad, the “normal” means of qualification for such people as accountants, solicitors and bank staff was by “articles” usually started at 16, leading to a professional qualification, usually supported by day release.'
Any idea why this stopped?
Would save young people a fortune not having to go the University route.
The electorate always does not like bad news, especially after they have been given a lot of non-affordable sweeties by the previous administration.
However, events happen and is it not better to be up front and honest with people and explain the brutal truth and reality of the situation? Churchill had no problem with doing that.
So if you are saying it is best for a politician not to reveal the whole truth to the electorate and to keep some of it hidden so that a politician can be re-elected, then surely that is a form of deceit and leads to distrust of politicians, which is where we are now.
So may I ask you that when you are canvassing, do you follow the Ed Balls' economic message, just not mention the economy or just say that things will be better in the future without saying how they will get better?
As employers in the private sector, we are honour bound to reveal the truth to employees - so why should politicians be the exception?
It went wrong when many technical colleges were 'converted' to universities followed by TB saying that 50% should go to university.
Now costs are making it all unravel, and some of those new universities should be changed back to local technical colleges where people can be trained locally and not have the expense of living away from home. (Of course more screams from academia).
There's really no point engaging with lefties in economic debate. The only sensible course of action is to keep their hands away from the levers of power.
Do you not think the parties might be responsible for this to some extent? What I really mean, is your lot and their hysterical (in pretty much every sense of the word) to anything the Coalition has even suggested.
That's before we get to the useful idiots of 38 degrees etc.
Obviously they are still pushing the real wages aren't any good line, again something that apparently only started under the nasty Tories, not 10 years ago.
It like how they now like to bleat about how GDP isn't really better, because of if you look at it per capita. Strange how under Labour they weren't interested in that.
The debt/deficit issue is different. Amounts like £100 billion mean nothing to most people and they tune out. In addition, most people regularly "live beyond their means" - people borrow to buy a house and the building society allows them to live in "their" house without problem as long as they are able to service the debt.
It seems to me that countries function on the same basis. As long as the markets are confident we can service the debt, we will be fine. That is NOT an argument for increasing the debt further but nor is it an argument for a slash-and-burn approach to public services just to get the debt down a bit quicker.
Of course, we don't want to throw a great chunk of our tax revenue into just servicing the debt though George "for Britain" Osborne's song-and-dance over paying off WW1 debt suggests we have to think in the long term. Closing down tax loopholes and making sure every penny due is collected (especially from business) would be a good start but we will always need to borrow for capital investment (as even the most successful companies do) but as long as that borrowing is secured at a favourable rate the return from increased economic activity makes such borrowing wholly justifiable.
One of the things the hoopla over the jobs-led recovery has been the fall in that key capital investment and the consequent fall in productivity as we invest in Roberts rather than robots.
'It might prevent yet more major, unnecessary cuts going through, and will stop politicians meddling with public services with their ill-thought-through "reforms".'
And if as a consequence of not making cuts,the markets will only lend at higher interest rates, you would be happy that funds were diverted from public services to fund the additional interest payments?
For what it's worth, I expect that a minority government would be surprisingly stable, as the example of Scotland in 2007 shows. It's rarely in a majority's interest to see a minority government fall.
Apologies for the non appearance of my ARSE yesterday. Mrs JackW was taken poorly on Sunday evening and whilst my fine nursing has ensured an early recovery I was unable to attend to my PB duties whilst implementing a full scale leech and ice cold bath treatment.
Such was the attendant recovery that Mrs JackW has vowed never to be ill again whilst I live .... Hhmmm.
My ARSE will appear on Tuesday 18th November at 9:00am
What you have to be very careful about in this sort of market is the exact definition. Betfair are a bit vague (as ever), but the definition of a coalition government must surely exclude Confidence & Supply. In other words, the key question is whether there will be ministers from the Greens, SNP, DUP or other smaller parties in the government. Is that likely? I don't see it. The SNP, for example, might well prop up a Labour administration, perhaps in some formal arrangement, but that is not the same as entering a coalition.
In other words, I think the Mike has the politics right, but the bet wrong. Yes, there are many possible combinations, but most of them would be settled as Con or Lab minority government.
If Labour were one or two seats behind the Tories would they be able to stand back and let a weakened Cameron continue as PM or would they talk to the LibDems?
twitter.com/alexmassie/status/531834093039001601
I shall pass on to Mrs JackW your good wishes for her illness free term in my lifetime.
(1) 10% of Tory MPs are not Europhiles, although 10% may favour EU membership. There are no more than 7 Tory MPs who are actively Europhile. Another 85 are probably 'euro-realist', there's 146 mainstream eurosceptics and around 65 BOOers. The article you link to refers to a Tory campaign group that may potentially be set up to campaign in favour of our EU membership, not to deny an EU referendum vote. No doubt Ken Clarke and Heseltine would never have offered one, but they are not calling the shots.
An EU referendum vote is a manifesto promise. I cannot think of a single Tory MP who would actively vote against it in the next parliament, if re-elected on that platform, although a handful may absent themselves, through pairing, or otherwise abstain. That would not affect the passage of the bill.
(2) I'll be direct: do you want a bet? You say I'm in cloud-cuckoo land, so I'll be generous and offer you £20 at 10/1. Tory seat totals hit 310 seats or above, you pay me £200. If they are lower, I pay you £20.
Given you think my forecasts are fantasy, this is a great bet for you.
I'm keeping a hawkeye on Betfair for any good prices that reappear.
I agree that this is a bit vague but I also agree that the definition of a coalition government must surely exclude confidence and supply, - otherwise what does a minority government mean.
I also agree that a Con or Lab minority government is the most likely immediate outcome i.e. the first ministry for the reasons I gave earlier.
Cameron has had a very good 24 hours.
Unemployment plummets, wages rising, EU says benefit tourism can be legislated against.
Big important issues.
Ros Altmann@rosaltmann·35 mins35 minutes ago
ONS figs show gd labour mkt:
Gross earnings median f-t £481pw +3.2% y/y
Men £519pw, women £423pw
Ros Altmann@rosaltmann·37 mins37 minutes ago
Median hourly f-t earnings Q3'14: £11.95ph +3.5% y/y
Median hourly p-t earnings Q3'14: £7.86ph +3.4% y/y
Econ doing quite well!
OGH was hot on the trail when Carswell first mentioned it
Earnings for those who have been in work for more than a year increasing by 3.7 per cent a year
BBC Parliament .... Developing
Are they the ones sold by self employed Romanian beggars while they claim £550 a week benefits?
...........................................................
BBC predicting a Labour majority of 40.
Looks incredulous to me unless we are talking about FTSE 100 Directors
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30020565
No, this has been explained every the figures come out.
The average is being dragged down by the fact that the unemployed are becoming employed. When people move into the employment market, especially youngsters, they are unlikely to be taking high-paid jobs. That is dragging down the mean, but it does NOT imply that on average a given worker has only seen a 1.3% rise in wages over the year.
In the short term, we could easily increase average earnings by policies designed to make it uneconomic to employ youngsters. Is that what you're advocating?
The economic good news can make people make an R's of it.
I will say that all Labour candidates have been asked not to promise any spending rises or tax cut commitments whatsoever beyond the ones published. That's a matter of political as well as financial discipline.
Harold Wilson will never be PM?
:crawl-back-t'under-your-stone:
con 4/6
lab evs
'My ARSE will appear on Tuesday 18th November at 9:00am'
And not a moment too soon.
Welcome back.
Ed Miliband: "How much change do you want?"
Beggar Girl: "Well, I'd prefer Alan Johnson, but I'll settle for Yvette Cooper"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2PKK2vIAAADWk7.jpg
I'll offer you £20 at evens that following the 2105 election we don't have a Tory/DUP/UKIP government either coalition or supply and confidence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11220695/Only-a-good-old-fashioned-bout-of-wage-inflation-can-save-the-public-finances.html
Still it's good for savers, who tend to be older and Tory voting.
They turfed him out as he wasn't 21 and they also don't take wagers on such a ridiculous outcome.
Has the economic extravagance [sans 1997] unleashed by Cronie; the Gormlessness of McBruin; and the careful - and yet sometimes crass - management of Ozzie and Beaker resulted in a paradigm-shift within the UK economy? Whilst the 'minimum-wage' constrains the "Marginal-Utility-of-Labour" if, like me, you follow a belief in the Friedman 'Price-adjusted Phillips Curve' then we could be seeing the UK's "natural-rate-of-unemployment" approach the 4.5 - 5% band.
A lot of reform is still needed: Not least in the hidden unemployed and dire outputs from education. If we can control price-expectations whilst increasing productivity then the future is bright. Sadly the biggest constraint is the awful public-sector (and those who feed upon that bloated carcass)....
And there isn't much love for senior Lib Dems in Labour ranks. Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister to Prime Minister Miliband would cause huge umbrage on the left, but Labour couldn't credibly simultaneously seek a coalition with the Lib Dems and demand Nick Clegg's head, especially not if it were behind in the seat count. Would the Labour party collectively decide that Paris was worth a mass? The Owen Jones op-ed pieces write themselves (come to think of it, a random Owen Jones op-ed generator would explain a lot).
It would look like a blighted government from the start.
Job Seekers: 931,700
"A consultancy founded by Jim Messina, a former White House official [who was Barack Obama's 2012 Campaign Manager and is now working for the Conservative Party], has surveyed voters in key marginal seats, by-election contests and the Scottish referendum.
The Conservatives insist that they have not commissioned the work by Messina Quantitative Research, describing it as an independent company. However, a party spokesman refused to deny that the business was sharing its findings with Tory strategists.
Ukip suggested that the Conservatives had reached an arm’s-length arrangement with MQR in order to bypass the £100,000 spending limit for by-election campaigns, including that in Rochester and Strood.
“It’s very odd that Jim Messina is calling people and saying that it’s for independent purposes,” a Ukip source said. “What are they doing with this information? He’s not polling Rochester and Strood on behalf of Barack Obama.”… "
http://www.markpack.org.uk/87787/mystery-phone-polling-tories-say-isnt-done/
Your offer at evens is not attractive. I can get much better odds elsewhere. Besides which, that eventuality is a Con Min government - propped up up DUP/UKIP for key votes only, and others such as the EU ref - and would be covered by my Con Min bet at 10/1.
For reference, I've never said a formal Tory/UKIP/DUP coalition would happen.
I particularly liked the last sentence, which is magnificent in its irrelevance, and wonderfully distorted in its worldview. Savers, whether Tory-voting or not, are hardly celebrating at current negative real interest rates.
Using your son as a political football. Hows your mum's local bus-service?
:a-man-with-no-shame:
* Not a request to :tumbleweed: but an exasperation to a Higher-Authority...!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula-one/30020798
It'd only be free practice, it seems, but still significant.
I don't mind having a debate, but if you dismiss out-of-hand what I consider to be a carefully thought out political scenario, with analysis behind it, as fantasy (without understanding it, or having any analysis of your own to back it up) expect to be called out on it. I post on here what I consider to be carefully thought through posts. I do expect to be challenged but I don't expect to be patronised.
Right, now I have some proper work to do.
Good day.
Just when you thought Ed Miliband's poll ratings could only get better ..... stand by for @ipsosMORI in tonight's @eveningstandard
I think we are seeing the results of David Cameron's dispensing with his party membership; no locals to fight a local election so instead relying on centralised resources. I noticed this in the Euros, all Facebook and Tweets to smear UKIP, but no local UKIP leaflets or local newspaper reports on UKIP candidates.