Over the last five years, the finalised deficit has almost always been considerably lower than the initially reported deficit.
2009/2010 £163.4 bn is now £153.0 bn = £10.4bn less 2010/2011 £141.1 bn is now £133.9 bn = £7.2 bn less 2011/2012 £126.0 bn is now £112.4 bn = £13.6 bn less 2012/2013 £120.6 bn is now £119.4 bn = £1.2 bn less 2013/2014 £107.7 bn is now £ 97.5 bn = £10.2 bn less
Is that something Balls could use to argue against whatever additional cuts the government is likely to impose, and the scenario Osborne is likely to frame?
By talking up the scale of the deficit, the scope for spending or reining in cuts is simultaneously talked down.
And of course every time a "new" figure is release it is compared to a figure which is being revised down.
I've been a lone voice (I think) in here in calling for an inquiry into why infrastructure costs (housing, roads and yes, HS2) are so high in this country, especially compared to our European friends.
Well, another case to point: there are plans to create a garden footbridge over the Thames (a bit, I think, like the Green Bridge at Mile End). The bridge is to cost a staggering £175 million, and will have £3.5 million annual maintenance costs.
Think about that for a minute: £3.5 million maintenance. Per year. For a footbridge. As a comparison, the Millennium footbridge cost just £18.2 million to build. Even given the Millennium bridge's rather wobbly opening and alterations, it was still, apparently, a steal.
Are you sure it is that much? I thought they were targetting £100m? I hosted a dinner for Mervyn & a contact of his that they were trying to get to support the programme - I'm a bit hazy on the details, but surprised I'd be £75m out!
Part of it is how quickly they need to do it (before the work on the supersewer starts - once this happens there can be no digging in the Thames). They are also planning to effectively rebuild Temple Tube station.
Looked at it in more detail now.
The £175m includes the trust fund that they are setting up to cover the maintenance costs going forward. Additionally, you need to remember (this reflects in both the initial cost and the maintenance cost) that they view the bridge as a park / public space (like the Hi Line in New York). They explicitly didn't want to have a functional bridge like Waterloo or Blackfriars).
Additionally, the government contribution is £60m (some of which is in tax rebates rather than cash and which will also help with other improvements - eg the Temple rebuild).
£120m is coming from public donations and, as far as I'm concerned, the public can spend their money on whatever they want
To call this thing a 'footbridge' is a total misnomer for a start. Its a visitor attraction, a leisure facility, the art of it may be in the eye of the beholder thats true. But the usual misery guts soon come out when anything 'artistic' surfaces. Paris can have the Eiffel Tower which was derided likewise when it was built. There is in fact a similar attraction to the Hi Line in Paris as well.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
I suspect Ukip's policies are being firmed up as they go along. A reasonable thing for a fledgling party to do when they're attracting support from a range of people. That's why the strident nastiness against their non-existent policies is so silly.
"I don't like policy A, I don't like Ukip, therefore they must support policy A. My justification - someone who claimed to be a Ukip voter once said it."
An analytical man like you, must surely see the flaws in that one.
No only that, but since they are not going to form the government, and probably won't even be the junior partner in a coalition, their policies are completely besides the points, except as a place to score cheap points. The public aren't stupid and know this, what is important to the public in those sorts of parties is "understand people like us".Plaid Cymru might be part of a coalition as well, they might have a similar number of seats to UKIP, anyone know what their immigration policy is, is it fully fleshed out in all its details, or are people just being a little bit silly ?
As we await Scottish Constituency polling, as an SNP ex-Labour supporter from Central Scotland, I thought I would give you my perspective on the SNP surge and its likely impact in May 2015.
My background, I’m Scottish but spent 20 years working in the City of London and witnessed the re-gentrification of London from the mid-1980s onwards, along with the massive infrastructure investment which enabled London to become an economic power house. I moved back to Scotland when my kids were of school age and I now live in the Stirling area.
Politics wise I had been a lifelong Labour supporter but started voting SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election and I voted Yes in the referendum based on my own research and conclusion that an independent Scotland would be better able to revitalise its economy, much like I witnessed in London during the 80s and 90s.
After the referendum, I joined the SNP, as the campaign had energized my interest in politics. The majority of people joining the SNP are motivated, working, new to politics, aged 25 to 55 and from a range of socio-economic backgrounds. Therefore, I think the media portrayal of the SNP surge as being driven by blind faith cyber-Nats is way off the mark and if anything will only keep driving up SNP membership. Similarly the SLAB demonising of the SNP is counterproductive as around 40 % of its traditional support base are currently supporting the SNP.
Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9 and SNP at 13/8. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Currently, UKIP and the Greens are each around the 5% mark.
Looking at Scotland more broadly, I think the SNP membership surge is pretty much across the board. The focus on Yes v No %s is only relevant in a small number of seats, as the No/Unionist vote in most seats is too dispersed to combat the SNP. For example, even in the Borders where the Yes vote was lowest at 33%, the SNP will still be nipping at David Mundel’s heels in Dumfries, particularly if UKIP field a candidate.
In terms of the incumbency factor, for many Unionist MPs this could end up being negative even for the vast majority of sitting Labour/LibDem MPs who were mainly silent during most of the referendum campaign.
@Callum Thanks for that analysis - I've placed a pony on the SNP there and a fiver on the Tories (50-1 surely can't be bad...) off the back of it.
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Proof that the article is right... It's worked on you!
Impressive. Especially considering I haven't read it ;-)
"vote for Nigel, I'm a good bloke, and you can trust me to come up with good policies in due course, once I've smoked enough fags to write them all on enough fag packets".
I suspect Ukip's policies are being firmed up as they go along. A reasonable thing for a fledgling party to do when they're attracting support from a range of people. That's why the strident nastiness against their non-existent policies is so silly.
"I don't like policy A, I don't like Ukip, therefore they must support policy A. My justification - someone who claimed to be a Ukip voter once said it."
An analytical man like you, must surely see the flaws in that one.
No only that, but since they are not going to form the government, and probably won't even be the junior partner in a coalition, their policies are completely besides the points, except as a place to score cheap points. The public aren't stupid and know this, what is important to the public in those sorts of parties is "understand people like us".Plaid Cymru might be part of a coalition as well, they might have a similar number of seats to UKIP, anyone know what their immigration policy is, is it fully fleshed out in all its details, or are people just being a little bit silly ?
I don't understand why UKIP are bothering with a manifesto.
If we left the EU but had a free trade agreement with it, it would be much, much worse.
Amazon would simply move all its UK operations to Luxembourg. When the choice came between you buying from Joe Bloggs of Birmingham (20% VAT) or Amazon of Luxembourg (5% or 0% VAT), people would choose the latter and save 15% on all their purchases.
Of course, you could get rid of the Free Trade Agreement part, but that's not UKIP (or any other BOO-ers) policy.
Precisely.
I keep telling them, but they don't seem to be able to get their heads around the point that leaving the EU is not a magic bullet which means you suddenly get everything you want with zero downside.
In practice, it is absolutely inconceivable that we would not retain 100% integration with EU VAT law, so I think nothing at all would change on this particular point if we were to leave the EU.
The fact that leaving the EU wouldn't be a magic bullet is no reason not to do it. Self-government is bound to be a bumpy ride, but at least the British electorate would have a government that was accountable to them.
If we left the EU but had a free trade agreement with it, it would be much, much worse.
Amazon would simply move all its UK operations to Luxembourg. When the choice came between you buying from Joe Bloggs of Birmingham (20% VAT) or Amazon of Luxembourg (5% or 0% VAT), people would choose the latter and save 15% on all their purchases.
Of course, you could get rid of the Free Trade Agreement part, but that's not UKIP (or any other BOO-ers) policy.
Precisely.
I keep telling them, but they don't seem to be able to get their heads around the point that leaving the EU is not a magic bullet which means you suddenly get everything you want with zero downside.
In practice, it is absolutely inconceivable that we would not retain 100% integration with EU VAT law, so I think nothing at all would change on this particular point if we were to leave the EU.
I never said it would. I said that the sort of arrangements that people are complaining about are a fact of life with the sort of modern trade agreements that are occurring, and that the chances of governments being able to do much about it are pretty remote, so they need to be realistic and think about other ways to raise money, or put up with less money.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
Farage seems to say 50,000 a year net is his maximum.. but really it is impossible to set a target that can be stuck to because circumstances change.
Australia seems to be the model UKIP are basing it on and here is the system and a list of their valued skills
But I wouldn't take that as a rigid list. As Carswell says, if we have a shortage of Doctors then we will recruit from wherever we can find good doctors, and the same would go for any skilled job I would have thought.
Unskilled Labour is probably what is sought to be deterred, along with criminal records
The record employment you speak of consists of "self employed" "zero hours" work, and is it is farcical to pay too much respect to the headline claim.
Really though, it is futile for us to have this debate... all that needs to be said is that you don't like UKIP, and we knew that anyway. What is your preferred immigration policy?
I suspect Ukip's policies are being firmed up as they go along. A reasonable thing for a fledgling party to do when they're attracting support from a range of people. That's why the strident nastiness against their non-existent policies is so silly.
"I don't like policy A, I don't like Ukip, therefore they must support policy A. My justification - someone who claimed to be a Ukip voter once said it."
An analytical man like you, must surely see the flaws in that one.
So, the pitch is: "vote for Nigel, I'm a good bloke, and you can trust me to come up with good policies in due course, once I've smoked enough fags to write them all on enough fag packets".
I suppose it might work for some.
Worked for David Koresh, Charles Manson and Alex Salmond - why not Nige ?
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Proof that the article is right... It's worked on you!
Impressive. Especially considering I haven't read it ;-)
No sorry, I meant Osborne's political trickery has worked on you
I suspect Ukip's policies are being firmed up as they go along. A reasonable thing for a fledgling party to do when they're attracting support from a range of people. That's why the strident nastiness against their non-existent policies is so silly.
"I don't like policy A, I don't like Ukip, therefore they must support policy A. My justification - someone who claimed to be a Ukip voter once said it."
An analytical man like you, must surely see the flaws in that one.
No only that, but since they are not going to form the government, and probably won't even be the junior partner in a coalition, their policies are completely besides the points, except as a place to score cheap points. The public aren't stupid and know this, what is important to the public in those sorts of parties is "understand people like us".Plaid Cymru might be part of a coalition as well, they might have a similar number of seats to UKIP, anyone know what their immigration policy is, is it fully fleshed out in all its details, or are people just being a little bit silly ?
I don't understand why UKIP are bothering with a manifesto.
They don't actually want power, do they?
Well.. Farage doesn't, he said so, he wants the UK out of Europe, but you need votes and seats before people take you seriously.
Leaving that to one side, what they want is besides the points, they won't get it this time around, they might in 2020, by then I would expect the manifesto and the policies to be rather better fleshed out. The Green Party's policies are crackers, but it doesn't stop 8% of people voting for them in polls, everyone knows they won't be in government next time, if they started getting 30-40 seats people might start to care what their policies are in detail, the same with UKIP.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
LADBROKES ON THE HUNT FOR NEW CHIEF Richard Glynn has had plenty of questions about his position since taking charge of Britain's second-biggest bookie in 2010, and it seems he is finally on the way out.
Ladbrokes says it will begin a search for a successor in the New Year, and that Mr Glynn will remain in the post to ensure "an orderly transition".
Step forward Shadsy, your time has come!
No doubt Richard Glynn will find soon find a new seat on the gravy train. Top people usually do. First priority for Shadsy when he is appointed CEO is to sort out Ladbroke's calamitous web site.
LADBROKES ON THE HUNT FOR NEW CHIEF Richard Glynn has had plenty of questions about his position since taking charge of Britain's second-biggest bookie in 2010, and it seems he is finally on the way out.
Ladbrokes says it will begin a search for a successor in the New Year, and that Mr Glynn will remain in the post to ensure "an orderly transition".
Step forward Shadsy, your time has come!
No doubt Richard Glynn will find soon find a new seat on the gravy train. Top people usually do. First priority for Shadsy when he is appointed CEO is to sort out Ladbroke's calamitous web site.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
Or they find that they can get more willing workers from other countries for less money, while the government picks up the tab for the guy left on JSA. Then once they get here and sign up for in-work benefits, the government pays again.
I suspect Ukip's policies are being firmed up as they go along. A reasonable thing for a fledgling party to do when they're attracting support from a range of people. That's why the strident nastiness against their non-existent policies is so silly.
"I don't like policy A, I don't like Ukip, therefore they must support policy A. My justification - someone who claimed to be a Ukip voter once said it."
An analytical man like you, must surely see the flaws in that one.
No only that, but since they are not going to form the government, and probably won't even be the junior partner in a coalition, their policies are completely besides the points, except as a place to score cheap points. The public aren't stupid and know this, what is important to the public in those sorts of parties is "understand people like us".Plaid Cymru might be part of a coalition as well, they might have a similar number of seats to UKIP, anyone know what their immigration policy is, is it fully fleshed out in all its details, or are people just being a little bit silly ?
I don't understand why UKIP are bothering with a manifesto.
They don't actually want power, do they?
Well.. Farage doesn't, he said so, he wants the UK out of Europe, but you need votes and seats before people take you seriously.
Leaving that to one side, what they want is besides the points, they won't get it this time around, they might in 2020, by then I would expect the manifesto and the policies to be rather better fleshed out. The Green Party's policies are crackers, but it doesn't stop 8% of people voting for them in polls, everyone knows they won't be in government next time, if they started getting 30-40 seats people might start to care what their policies are in detail, the same with UKIP.
People don't even worry about the manifestos of the main Parties. Why would they worry about UKIP's.
And the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. And one of the top performers now in the world. He can continue to be useless if thats what the outcomes are. One really wonders what you must have thought of that colossus of No 11 Gordon when he started to place the country in trouble in 2003 and onwards finally slamming the UK into the fiscal brick wall in 2008?
Don't take my word for it just check all the warnings form the IMF and EU and others from 2003 onwards.
I hit a low yesterday when I found myself largely agreeing with a french bank on their view of the UK; read it and weep.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
Farage seems to say 50,000 a year net is his maximum.. but really it is impossible to set a target that can be stuck to because circumstances change.
Australia seems to be the model UKIP are basing it on and here is the system and a list of their valued skills
But I wouldn't take that as a rigid list. As Carswell says, if we have a shortage of Doctors then we will recruit from wherever we can find good doctors, and the same would go for any skilled job I would have thought.
Unskilled Labour is probably what is sought to be deterred, along with criminal records
The record employment you speak of consists of "self employed" "zero hours" work, and is it is farcical to pay too much respect to the headline claim.
Really though, it is futile for us to have this debate... all that needs to be said is that you don't like UKIP, and we knew that anyway. What is your preferred immigration policy?
Why would you deter unskilled labour when we urgently need it?
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
Or they find that they can get more willing workers from other countries for less money, while the government picks up the tab for the guy left on JSA. Then once they get here and sign up for in-work benefits, the government pays again.
Ah, so you want more expensive sandwiches. You should come out and say it directly though.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
Farage seems to say 50,000 a year net is his maximum.. but really it is impossible to set a target that can be stuck to because circumstances change.
Australia seems to be the model UKIP are basing it on and here is the system and a list of their valued skills
But I wouldn't take that as a rigid list. As Carswell says, if we have a shortage of Doctors then we will recruit from wherever we can find good doctors, and the same would go for any skilled job I would have thought.
Unskilled Labour is probably what is sought to be deterred, along with criminal records
The record employment you speak of consists of "self employed" "zero hours" work, and is it is farcical to pay too much respect to the headline claim.
Really though, it is futile for us to have this debate... all that needs to be said is that you don't like UKIP, and we knew that anyway. What is your preferred immigration policy?
Why would you deter unskilled labour when we urgently need it?
We don't need it unless there is zero unemployment
If we have that, and still have a shortage of unskilled labour, then we will recruit from overseas
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
Farage seems to say 50,000 a year net is his maximum.. but really it is impossible to set a target that can be stuck to because circumstances change.
Australia seems to be the model UKIP are basing it on and here is the system and a list of their valued skills
But I wouldn't take that as a rigid list. As Carswell says, if we have a shortage of Doctors then we will recruit from wherever we can find good doctors, and the same would go for any skilled job I would have thought.
Unskilled Labour is probably what is sought to be deterred, along with criminal records
The record employment you speak of consists of "self employed" "zero hours" work, and is it is farcical to pay too much respect to the headline claim.
Really though, it is futile for us to have this debate... all that needs to be said is that you don't like UKIP, and we knew that anyway. What is your preferred immigration policy?
Why would you deter unskilled labour when we urgently need it?
This appears to be going around in circles... we dont urgently need it, we urgently need to get the British unskilled labour off their backsides and into a job so they can supported themselves and their families without the taxpayer paying twice for it. If at some later date there weren't enough unskilled labourers then obviously being an unskilled labourer would score enough points to get a visa, its really not a terribly difficult concept unless you are willfully trying to misunderstand it - surely not.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
Or they find that they can get more willing workers from other countries for less money, while the government picks up the tab for the guy left on JSA. Then once they get here and sign up for in-work benefits, the government pays again.
Ah, so you want more expensive sandwiches. You should come out and say it directly though.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
Farage seems to say 50,000 a year net is his maximum.. but really it is impossible to set a target that can be stuck to because circumstances change.
Australia seems to be the model UKIP are basing it on and here is the system and a list of their valued skills
But I wouldn't take that as a rigid list. As Carswell says, if we have a shortage of Doctors then we will recruit from wherever we can find good doctors, and the same would go for any skilled job I would have thought.
Unskilled Labour is probably what is sought to be deterred, along with criminal records
The record employment you speak of consists of "self employed" "zero hours" work, and is it is farcical to pay too much respect to the headline claim.
Really though, it is futile for us to have this debate... all that needs to be said is that you don't like UKIP, and we knew that anyway. What is your preferred immigration policy?
I would have thought Carwell knew it's impossible to have shortages in a free market system. Prices adjust lowering/raising supply/demand. Zero immigration is the answer.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
Making a sandwich is hardly rocket science. We must be in a bad way indeed, if we need to source people all over the world to make sandwiches.
The fact that leaving the EU wouldn't be a magic bullet is no reason not to do it. Self-government is bound to be a bumpy ride, but at least the British electorate would have a government that was accountable to them.
But not one which could take decisions on everything, such as (to take this specific example) how VAT law would work. That would be passed, as it is now, to the EU, under the terms of the trade treaty which we would sign up to. In that sense, the UKIP position is thoroughly disinguenuous: they pretend the government would be 'accountable to the British people', when in most material respects it would be no more accountable than it is now. They are not being straight about this point.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
Making a sandwich is hardly rocket science. We must be in a bad way indeed, if we need to source people all over the world to make sandwiches.
Must be utterly utterly mind numbing and boring to do the job though.
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Proof that the article is right... It's worked on you!
Impressive. Especially considering I haven't read it ;-)
No sorry, I meant Osborne's political trickery has worked on you
Not really.
You make your living from watching the betting markets. I like to have a view on macro trends.
For what it is worth, I am long the US, long emerging markets, market weight in Japan, light on Europe. I do have an overweight position in the UK, but that is more related to hedging my future liabilities than a view on performance. I tend to follow a bar bell strategy with looking on one hand for high quality assets that will maintain their value, dividend yield (and illiquid debt instruments that I am willing to hold to maturity thereby capitalising the liquidity discount). For fun I invest in disruptive technologies
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Proof that the article is right... It's worked on you!
Impressive. Especially considering I haven't read it ;-)
No sorry, I meant Osborne's political trickery has worked on you
Not really.
You make your living from watching the betting markets. I like to have a view on macro trends.
For what it is worth, I am long the US, long emerging markets, market weight in Japan, light on Europe. I do have an overweight position in the UK, but that is more related to hedging my future liabilities than a view on performance. I tend to follow a bar bell strategy with looking on one hand for high quality assets that will maintain their value, dividend yield (and illiquid debt instruments that I am willing to hold to maturity thereby capitalising the liquidity discount). For fun I invest in disruptive technologies
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
Farage seems to say 50,000 a year net is his maximum.. but really it is impossible to set a target that can be stuck to because circumstances change.
Australia seems to be the model UKIP are basing it on and here is the system and a list of their valued skills
But I wouldn't take that as a rigid list. As Carswell says, if we have a shortage of Doctors then we will recruit from wherever we can find good doctors, and the same would go for any skilled job I would have thought.
Unskilled Labour is probably what is sought to be deterred, along with criminal records
The record employment you speak of consists of "self employed" "zero hours" work, and is it is farcical to pay too much respect to the headline claim.
Really though, it is futile for us to have this debate... all that needs to be said is that you don't like UKIP, and we knew that anyway. What is your preferred immigration policy?
Why would you deter unskilled labour when we urgently need it?
Unskilled labourers ultimately receive the social security benefits that unskilled labour commands.
The fact that leaving the EU wouldn't be a magic bullet is no reason not to do it. Self-government is bound to be a bumpy ride, but at least the British electorate would have a government that was accountable to them.
But not one which could take decisions on everything, such as (to take this specific example) how VAT law would work. That would be passed, as it is now, to the EU, under the terms of the trade treaty which we would sign up to. In that sense, the UKIP position is thoroughly disinguenuous: they pretend the government would be 'accountable to the British people', when in most material respects it would be no more accountable than it is now. They are not being straight about this point.
But, our government would be taking decisions on a good deal more than it does at present.
Would you say that it would make no difference if Scotland voted for independence, on the basis that on some issues, the Scottish government would have to negotiate with RUK and the EU?
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
Or they find that they can get more willing workers from other countries for less money, while the government picks up the tab for the guy left on JSA. Then once they get here and sign up for in-work benefits, the government pays again.
Companies in the modern economy have a simple flowchart when it comes to recruitment, supply and demand in a free market.
Trouble recruiting at the bottom? Increase supply by looking abroad. Trouble recruiting at the top? Increase demand by raising salary.
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
Or they find that they can get more willing workers from other countries for less money, while the government picks up the tab for the guy left on JSA. Then once they get here and sign up for in-work benefits, the government pays again.
Ah, so you want more expensive sandwiches. You should come out and say it directly though.
I have more expensive sandwiches now, those sandwiches are being supported by my payments towards one employees JSA and another employees WFTC, plus a share of all the costs of running those two systems. If the first employee was paid more and got off JSA, and the second employe didn't come to take the job, the label on my sandwich might have a bigger number on it, but the government wouldn't need to put up my taxes as much.
Making a sandwich is hardly rocket science. We must be in a bad way indeed, if we need to source people all over the world to make sandwiches.
Thats because the argument is disingenuous nonsense, we source people all over the world to trim 30p off the cost of making the sandwich, either to increase the sandwich companies profits by 30p (likely) or to reduce the cost of the sandwich by 30p (optimistic). Either way its at the expenses of the country having to pay for someones JSA.
The benefit system is basically being used to support corporate profits, you would think some of the lefties around here might disapprove of that, but apparently it scores less "right-on" points than railing against people who criticize open borders. *Shrug* - 76% of voters want to reduce immigration by a bit, 52% by a lot, I know who is on the wrong side of the argument.
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Proof that the article is right... It's worked on you!
Impressive. Especially considering I haven't read it ;-)
No sorry, I meant Osborne's political trickery has worked on you
Not really.
You make your living from watching the betting markets. I like to have a view on macro trends.
For what it is worth, I am long the US, long emerging markets, market weight in Japan, light on Europe. I do have an overweight position in the UK, but that is more related to hedging my future liabilities than a view on performance. I tend to follow a bar bell strategy with looking on one hand for high quality assets that will maintain their value, dividend yield (and illiquid debt instruments that I am willing to hold to maturity thereby capitalising the liquidity discount). For fun I invest in disruptive technologies
I will defer to your greater knowledge ( aka I have no idea what you are talking about!)
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Proof that the article is right... It's worked on you!
Impressive. Especially considering I haven't read it ;-)
No sorry, I meant Osborne's political trickery has worked on you
Not really.
You make your living from watching the betting markets. I like to have a view on macro trends.
For what it is worth, I am long the US, long emerging markets, market weight in Japan, light on Europe. I do have an overweight position in the UK, but that is more related to hedging my future liabilities than a view on performance. I tend to follow a bar bell strategy with looking on one hand for high quality assets that will maintain their value, dividend yield (and illiquid debt instruments that I am willing to hold to maturity thereby capitalising the liquidity discount). For fun I invest in disruptive technologies
This appears to be going around in circles... we dont urgently need it, we urgently need to get the British unskilled labour off their backsides and into a job so they can supported themselves and their families without the taxpayer paying twice for it. If at some later date there weren't enough unskilled labourers then obviously being an unskilled labourer would score enough points to get a visa, its really not a terribly difficult concept unless you are willfully trying to misunderstand it - surely not.
Actual existing visa systems don't work like that. In practice the government issues no visas for labourers until about ten years after there's a shortage of labourers, then they'd decide there were shortages of labourers in Milton Keynes and issue hundreds of thousands of Milton Keynes labourer visas.
For extra managed migration points, they do it the Japanese way and actually pay people to come over and work where their grand central migration plan says they should have people working, then realise the plan was wrong and pay them to go away again.
To call this thing a 'footbridge' is a total misnomer for a start. Its a visitor attraction, a leisure facility, the art of it may be in the eye of the beholder thats true. But the usual misery guts soon come out when anything 'artistic' surfaces. Paris can have the Eiffel Tower which was derided likewise when it was built. There is in fact a similar attraction to the Hi Line in Paris as well.
My complaint is nothing to do with the bridge's artistic merits, whatever they might be. In fact, I believe engineering is at its best when it combines both form and function: a perfect modern example being the Falkirk Wheel (a Butterley creation (*)). Or, as mentioned earlier, the Green Bridge at Mile End.
My complaint is to do with the cost, and especially the ongoing maintenance costs that will last for generations. It is obscene for what we will get.
We should not get into the situation where many millions of pounds from the public purse get sunk into a project just because someone claims it has artistic merit. I am yet to be convinced that the function of this bridge is worthy of the price, whatever those merits.
Can anyone explain the relationship between developers, redevelopment areas and this project?
Under Ukip you would have to use employees from the same street as your business. Only if they were all in work could you expand to the local area. In the event that they were all in work then the entire town. Then region then country. By then the factory would have moved to Ireland.
But, our government would be taking decisions on a good deal more than it does at present.
Would you say that it would make no difference if Scotland voted for independence, on the basis that on some issues, the Scottish government would have to negotiate with RUK and the EU?
I didn't say it would make no difference. The point is that the BOOers, inasmuch as they've thought about it at all (which I have to say seems to be worryingly little) have completely unrealistic expectations about how much difference leaving the EU would make in practice.
The fact that leaving the EU wouldn't be a magic bullet is no reason not to do it. Self-government is bound to be a bumpy ride, but at least the British electorate would have a government that was accountable to them.
But not one which could take decisions on everything, such as (to take this specific example) how VAT law would work. That would be passed, as it is now, to the EU, under the terms of the trade treaty which we would sign up to. In that sense, the UKIP position is thoroughly disinguenuous: they pretend the government would be 'accountable to the British people', when in most material respects it would be no more accountable than it is now. They are not being straight about this point.
Are we harmonising VAT rules with the USA under TTIP then ? I must have missed it.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
Making a sandwich is hardly rocket science. We must be in a bad way indeed, if we need to source people all over the world to make sandwiches.
Trouble is we need people who can afford to live near and commute into the City of London to make sandwiches. Pret A Manger's smoked salmon sandwich is a thing of beauty.
And the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. And one of the top performers now in the world. He can continue to be useless if thats what the outcomes are. One really wonders what you must have thought of that colossus of No 11 Gordon when he started to place the country in trouble in 2003 and onwards finally slamming the UK into the fiscal brick wall in 2008?
Don't take my word for it just check all the warnings form the IMF and EU and others from 2003 onwards.
I hit a low yesterday when I found myself largely agreeing with a french bank on their view of the UK; read it and weep.
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Proof that the article is right... It's worked on you!
Impressive. Especially considering I haven't read it ;-)
No sorry, I meant Osborne's political trickery has worked on you
Not really.
You make your living from watching the betting markets. I like to have a view on macro trends.
For what it is worth, I am long the US, long emerging markets, market weight in Japan, light on Europe. I do have an overweight position in the UK, but that is more related to hedging my future liabilities than a view on performance. I tend to follow a bar bell strategy with looking on one hand for high quality assets that will maintain their value, dividend yield (and illiquid debt instruments that I am willing to hold to maturity thereby capitalising the liquidity discount). For fun I invest in disruptive technologies
I will defer to your greater knowledge ( aka I have no idea what you are talking about!)
Translation: Osborne is best of a bad lot (in Europe). But still not interesting long-term. Only reason why I have a significant position in the UK is that, at some point, I'll want to buy a house and pay school fees.
And in a cruddy investment environment, I see risk on the downside (QE has inflated the price of mediocre assets) hence the focus on quality. But to make significant returns over the long term you need to take risk on new technologies.
The problem is its not politics, its arithmetic, fairly soon people are going to stop lending us money and we are going to be forced into that level of cut, it wont be a question of trimming back a bit here and there, it will be a question of the government just not doing things in whole areas it currently does stuff. I firmly believe we are approaching a Canada 1995 moment.
The Japanese economy has been stagnant for 20 years, and the working age population there is in (ahem) terminal decline.
Japanese government debt-to-GDP is (give or take) 250% and they have a larger budget deficit than us.
They can borrow for 10 years at under 1% per year.
I think people will stop lending to the Japanese before they stop lending to us.
They'll let immigrants in eventually to fix the working age population issue. If you thought the Black Ships produced a turnaround, wait until you see what arithmetic can do.
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Proof that the article is right... It's worked on you!
Impressive. Especially considering I haven't read it ;-)
No sorry, I meant Osborne's political trickery has worked on you
Not really.
You make your living from watching the betting markets. I like to have a view on macro trends.
For what it is worth, I am long the US, long emerging markets, market weight in Japan, light on Europe. I do have an overweight position in the UK, but that is more related to hedging my future liabilities than a view on performance. I tend to follow a bar bell strategy with looking on one hand for high quality assets that will maintain their value, dividend yield (and illiquid debt instruments that I am willing to hold to maturity thereby capitalising the liquidity discount). For fun I invest in disruptive technologies
Long on Keynesian expansion: short on austerity?
No: long on countries with a sustainable competitive advantage (in the US: technological capabilities, in emerging markets: low cost and increasing per capita income).
But it's the protein demand curve correlation that gets me excited
The fact that leaving the EU wouldn't be a magic bullet is no reason not to do it. Self-government is bound to be a bumpy ride, but at least the British electorate would have a government that was accountable to them.
But not one which could take decisions on everything, such as (to take this specific example) how VAT law would work. That would be passed, as it is now, to the EU, under the terms of the trade treaty which we would sign up to. In that sense, the UKIP position is thoroughly disingenuous: they pretend the government would be 'accountable to the British people', when in most material respects it would be no more accountable than it is now. They are not being straight about this point.
And where you want open competition and open markets you get joint decisions. You can fairly argue about just where you draw the line, but as you say UKIP are not being straight - not that I think they are particularly intelligent or knowledgeable about it anyway. I imagine non-EU Norway complies with it like we do, minus the votes.
And the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. And one of the top performers now in the world. He can continue to be useless if thats what the outcomes are. One really wonders what you must have thought of that colossus of No 11 Gordon when he started to place the country in trouble in 2003 and onwards finally slamming the UK into the fiscal brick wall in 2008?
Don't take my word for it just check all the warnings form the IMF and EU and others from 2003 onwards.
I hit a low yesterday when I found myself largely agreeing with a french bank on their view of the UK; read it and weep.
Mr. M, hard to take an economics editor seriously when he used a Budget interview with the Chancellor to repeatedly ask him whether he'd travelled second class on a train.
There's a lot of fair criticism that can be thrown at Osborne. But just writing 'the deficit's too big, hahahaha' does not amount to a critique. Nothing in the excerpt refers to reasoning (eurozone sovereign debt crisis, tax receipts suffering due to wage stagnation and personal allowance rising, etc).
And the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. And one of the top performers now in the world. He can continue to be useless if thats what the outcomes are. One really wonders what you must have thought of that colossus of No 11 Gordon when he started to place the country in trouble in 2003 and onwards finally slamming the UK into the fiscal brick wall in 2008?
Don't take my word for it just check all the warnings form the IMF and EU and others from 2003 onwards.
I hit a low yesterday when I found myself largely agreeing with a french bank on their view of the UK; read it and weep.
Mr. M, hard to take an economics editor seriously when he used a Budget interview with the Chancellor to repeatedly ask him whether he'd travelled second class on a train.
There's a lot of fair criticism that can be thrown at Osborne. But just writing 'the deficit's too big, hahahaha' does not amount to a critique. Nothing in the excerpt refers to reasoning (eurozone sovereign debt crisis, tax receipts suffering due to wage stagnation and personal allowance rising, etc).
His forecast is a touch out, and I'm sure he'd be claiming all kinds of credit had it happened though :P
Mr. M, hard to take an economics editor seriously when he used a Budget interview with the Chancellor to repeatedly ask him whether he'd travelled second class on a train.
That interview was probably the reason he didn't get the Jeff Randall show.
They're reconciled to losing Scotland and are now trying to head up a left wing coalition. He's trying to make UKIP's case in the hope he slips through the gap by dividing the right.
Mr. Pulpstar, quite. But as nobody predicted the eurozone sovereign debt crisis (which I believe includes Conway) it's illegitimate not to consider that at least a partial, and valid, reason why the performance has been below expectations.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), seems fair enough. If a Defence editor had an interview with the Defence Secretary on the day a strategic review was published and repeatedly asked him if he'd ever bought a second hand car it wouldn't cover the journalist in glory.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
...
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
It begs every single important question. How is the points based system to operate? Is a particular level of immigration to be targeted? What skills are to be valued? What is sought to be deterred? Given we have record employment at present, who is going to make our sandwiches if not immigrants?
The other day you posted a link to the ONS that said we have 5 million working age adults on out of work benefits.
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
That's a very confident assertion that those who are actually contractually obliged to source such people find not to be the case.
Or they find that they can get more willing workers from other countries for less money, while the government picks up the tab for the guy left on JSA. Then once they get here and sign up for in-work benefits, the government pays again.
Unemployment is falling and close to the level where you would say it is 'full'. Its a bit pathetic to echo Ed Balls and moan about pay and 'zero hours'.
There will always be a level of unemployed, due to the churn of jobs. Its not people on the register but people not on anything or on some other benefit who are the problem. Judging by Farage's attitude to women in the city I imagine that he would find most of these people unemployable. But this is the real UK problem, lack of education and willpower for the available work by these people. Its yet another savage Labour legacy. A disgrace. Thats why immigrant workers are so attractive to employers. These people are good for Britain and if Farage were honest he would admit they would still be here under a UKIP govt. Its not something that can be put right overnight. We can make life on benefits less attractive and thats what the govt will continue to do, but to make the people themselves a desirable employment proposition is a different matter.
Unemployment is falling and close to the level where you would say it is 'full'. Its a bit pathetic to echo Ed Balls and moan about pay and 'zero hours'.
There will always be a level of unemployed, due to the churn of jobs. Its not people on the register but people not on anything or on some other benefit who are the problem. Judging by Farage's attitude to women in the city I imagine that he would find most of these people unemployable. But this is the real UK problem, lack of education and willpower for the available work by these people. Its yet another savage Labour legacy. A disgrace. Thats why immigrant workers are so attractive to employers. These people are good for Britain and if Farage were honest he would admit they would still be here under a UKIP govt. Its not something that can be put right overnight. We can make life on benefits less attractive and thats what the govt will continue to do, but to make the people themselves a desirable employment proposition is a different matter.
As I have said before I am not (yet) a kipper, and I firmly a pissed-off Tory at the moment, pissed off with Cameron that is. I know a number of my colleagues disagree, but as a teacher and part owner of a school I was a huge fan of Gove, and ditching him to pander to a group of leftie teachers that would never have voted Tory anyway was not clever, and symptomatic of Camerons whole approach, like ditching traditional Tory voters to pander to Guardian reader, who similarly would never vote Tory, he never seems to miss an opportunity to either make a pledge he is conspicuously not able to keep, or alienate a group of Tory voters to purse a group of other voters who would never vote Tory.
Mr. M, hard to take an economics editor seriously when he used a Budget interview with the Chancellor to repeatedly ask him whether he'd travelled second class on a train.
There's a lot of fair criticism that can be thrown at Osborne. But just writing 'the deficit's too big, hahahaha' does not amount to a critique. Nothing in the excerpt refers to reasoning (eurozone sovereign debt crisis, tax receipts suffering due to wage stagnation and personal allowance rising, etc).
I think you are right Mr Dancer. People just spout about the deficit and ignore its different componments. The govt has cut spending (significantly) it is continuing to cut spending but it has not over reacted to the Euro crisis and needlessly and dangerously cut too steeply to maintain an out of date target for political reasons. It is controlling its own spending but not destroying the economy in the process. It has reacted to outside events sensibly. In short it has cut back the excessive spending it inherited from Labour. People can criticise it if they want but that criticism has to centre on not taxing us enough. Any takers?
Unemployment is falling and close to the level where you would say it is 'full'. Its a bit pathetic to echo Ed Balls and moan about pay and 'zero hours'.
There will always be a level of unemployed, due to the churn of jobs. Its not people on the register but people not on anything or on some other benefit who are the problem. Judging by Farage's attitude to women in the city I imagine that he would find most of these people unemployable. But this is the real UK problem, lack of education and willpower for the available work by these people. Its yet another savage Labour legacy. A disgrace. Thats why immigrant workers are so attractive to employers. These people are good for Britain and if Farage were honest he would admit they would still be here under a UKIP govt. Its not something that can be put right overnight. We can make life on benefits less attractive and thats what the govt will continue to do, but to make the people themselves a desirable employment proposition is a different matter.
As I have said before I am not (yet) a kipper, and I firmly a pissed-off Tory at the moment, pissed off with Cameron that is. I know a number of my colleagues disagree, but as a teacher and part owner of a school I was a huge fan of Gove, and ditching him to pander to a group of leftie teachers that would never have voted Tory anyway was not clever, and symptomatic of Camerons whole approach, like ditching traditional Tory voters to pander to Guardian reader, who similarly would never vote Tory, he never seems to miss an opportunity to either make a pledge he is conspicuously not able to keep, or alienate a group of Tory voters to purse a group of other voters who would never vote Tory.
Interesting point in the Autumn Statement: "1.100 The Smith Commission has confirmed the Barnett formula will continue to be used to determine changes in the Scottish Government’s block grant in relation to public services. A deduction will be applied to the block grant to reflect the Scottish Government’s tax powers. As a result, the importance of the Barnett formula will effectively be reduced by around two- thirds, with changes in the Scottish Government’s budget increasingly determined by changes in Scottish tax receipts."
As the Barnett Formula is AFAIK the only measure designed to bring about gradual convergence of Scottish and UK levels of public expenditure, this means essentially those differences will last far longer (unless the Tories have other plans.....).
Labour meanwhile have committed themselves to a wholesale overhaul of assessing regional needs and spending levels should they win the election - could be a big stick to beat them with here in Scotland During the GE2015 campaign.
Comments
Perhaps they need better estimators ?
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Callum.
"vote for Nigel, I'm a good bloke, and you can trust me to come up with good policies in due course, once I've smoked enough fags to write them all on enough fag packets".
You're just convinced me.
They don't actually want power, do they?
There is no shortage of people capable of making a sandwich.
Australia seems to be the model UKIP are basing it on and here is the system and a list of their valued skills
http://www.workpermit.com/australia/point_calculator.htm
http://www.workpermit.com/australia/skilled/occupation_list.htm
But I wouldn't take that as a rigid list. As Carswell says, if we have a shortage of Doctors then we will recruit from wherever we can find good doctors, and the same would go for any skilled job I would have thought.
Unskilled Labour is probably what is sought to be deterred, along with criminal records
The record employment you speak of consists of "self employed" "zero hours" work, and is it is farcical to pay too much respect to the headline claim.
Really though, it is futile for us to have this debate... all that needs to be said is that you don't like UKIP, and we knew that anyway. What is your preferred immigration policy?
Should I shop him ?
Leaving that to one side, what they want is besides the points, they won't get it this time around, they might in 2020, by then I would expect the manifesto and the policies to be rather better fleshed out. The Green Party's policies are crackers, but it doesn't stop 8% of people voting for them in polls, everyone knows they won't be in government next time, if they started getting 30-40 seats people might start to care what their policies are in detail, the same with UKIP.
Seriously, it's losing you customers.
It never hurts to keep a regulator happy... ;-)
If we have that, and still have a shortage of unskilled labour, then we will recruit from overseas
Entire loaf £1
Doesn't put people off at the moment :P
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30306145
You make your living from watching the betting markets. I like to have a view on macro trends.
For what it is worth, I am long the US, long emerging markets, market weight in Japan, light on Europe. I do have an overweight position in the UK, but that is more related to hedging my future liabilities than a view on performance. I tend to follow a bar bell strategy with looking on one hand for high quality assets that will maintain their value, dividend yield (and illiquid debt instruments that I am willing to hold to maturity thereby capitalising the liquidity discount). For fun I invest in disruptive technologies
You make your living from watching the betting markets. I like to have a view on macro trends.
For what it is worth, I am long the US, long emerging markets, market weight in Japan, light on Europe. I do have an overweight position in the UK, but that is more related to hedging my future liabilities than a view on performance. I tend to follow a bar bell strategy with looking on one hand for high quality assets that will maintain their value, dividend yield (and illiquid debt instruments that I am willing to hold to maturity thereby capitalising the liquidity discount). For fun I invest in disruptive technologies
Would you say that it would make no difference if Scotland voted for independence, on the basis that on some issues, the Scottish government would have to negotiate with RUK and the EU?
Trouble recruiting at the bottom? Increase supply by looking abroad.
Trouble recruiting at the top? Increase demand by raising salary.
The benefit system is basically being used to support corporate profits, you would think some of the lefties around here might disapprove of that, but apparently it scores less "right-on" points than railing against people who criticize open borders. *Shrug* - 76% of voters want to reduce immigration by a bit, 52% by a lot, I know who is on the wrong side of the argument.
For extra managed migration points, they do it the Japanese way and actually pay people to come over and work where their grand central migration plan says they should have people working, then realise the plan was wrong and pay them to go away again.
My complaint is to do with the cost, and especially the ongoing maintenance costs that will last for generations. It is obscene for what we will get.
We should not get into the situation where many millions of pounds from the public purse get sunk into a project just because someone claims it has artistic merit. I am yet to be convinced that the function of this bridge is worthy of the price, whatever those merits.
Can anyone explain the relationship between developers, redevelopment areas and this project?
(*) RIP.
http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/why-theresa-may-was-right-to-ignore-david-aaronvitch-over-child-sex-abuse-in-north-wales/
And in a cruddy investment environment, I see risk on the downside (QE has inflated the price of mediocre assets) hence the focus on quality. But to make significant returns over the long term you need to take risk on new technologies.
Is that clearer?
But it's the protein demand curve correlation that gets me excited
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/540082542129717248
The unions run the Labour party?
Ed McCluskey wants an EU referendum... are Labour proposing one?
There's a lot of fair criticism that can be thrown at Osborne. But just writing 'the deficit's too big, hahahaha' does not amount to a critique. Nothing in the excerpt refers to reasoning (eurozone sovereign debt crisis, tax receipts suffering due to wage stagnation and personal allowance rising, etc).
Mr. Flashman (deceased), seems fair enough. If a Defence editor had an interview with the Defence Secretary on the day a strategic review was published and repeatedly asked him if he'd ever bought a second hand car it wouldn't cover the journalist in glory.
There will always be a level of unemployed, due to the churn of jobs. Its not people on the register but people not on anything or on some other benefit who are the problem. Judging by Farage's attitude to women in the city I imagine that he would find most of these people unemployable.
But this is the real UK problem, lack of education and willpower for the available work by these people. Its yet another savage Labour legacy. A disgrace. Thats why immigrant workers are so attractive to employers. These people are good for Britain and if Farage were honest he would admit they would still be here under a UKIP govt.
Its not something that can be put right overnight. We can make life on benefits less attractive and thats what the govt will continue to do, but to make the people themselves a desirable employment proposition is a different matter.
The govt has cut spending (significantly) it is continuing to cut spending but it has not over reacted to the Euro crisis and needlessly and dangerously cut too steeply to maintain an out of date target for political reasons.
It is controlling its own spending but not destroying the economy in the process. It has reacted to outside events sensibly. In short it has cut back the excessive spending it inherited from Labour. People can criticise it if they want but that criticism has to centre on not taxing us enough. Any takers?
Its politics Jim, but not as we know it.
"1.100
The Smith Commission has confirmed the Barnett formula will continue to be used to
determine changes in the Scottish Government’s block grant in relation to public services. A
deduction will be applied to the block grant to reflect the Scottish Government’s tax powers.
As a result, the importance of the Barnett formula will effectively be reduced by around two-
thirds, with changes in the Scottish Government’s budget increasingly determined by changes in Scottish tax receipts."
As the Barnett Formula is AFAIK the only measure designed to bring about gradual convergence of Scottish and UK levels of public expenditure, this means essentially those differences will last far longer (unless the Tories have other plans.....).
Labour meanwhile have committed themselves to a wholesale overhaul of assessing regional needs and spending levels should they win the election - could be a big stick to beat them with here in Scotland During the GE2015 campaign.