politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The main driver of the GE2015 outcome will be what 2010 LDs

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The main driver of the GE2015 outcome will be what 2010 LDs do: It’s looking very good for LAB

I’m still on holiday in Italy but that didn’t stop me getting into a wager challenge last night on Twitter with ConHome’s Harry Phibbs on the outcome of the general election.

Read the full story here

JohnLoony

We're still in mid-term, you dilly plonk. The direction-of-travel of former LibDem voters is skewed in mid-term opinion polls just as much as the overall totals are skewed in mid-term opinion polls.

The reality is of course that in 2015, all the ordinary normal sensible voters will realise that Ed Miliband is a frenziedly hysterical Maoist, that Nigel Farage is a nincompoopismatic saloon-bar fruitcake, and that we need a Conservative government to continue the economic recovery. If Labour gets any more than, say, 20% of the votes, it will be because the voters are stupid.

JohnLoony

I got up earlier than usual yesterday (9:30am) in order to watch the Coronation. How come I'm still awake now at 5:18am? Incidentally, I think it might be Robert Menzies and Sirimavo Bandaranaike.

JohnLoony

btw, I presume the blue slice of the char-bart is mis-labelled as "other" instead of "CON".

The precision of the percentages given (to the nearest multiple of 0.1) is also a bit suspicious in indicating a voodoo poll with an unadjusted small sample and hemi-semi-confuzzlism.

JohnLoony

Go fourth and multiply!

glassfet

@toadmeister: Good to see Ed Miliband do a 180 on universal benefits. When's he going to change his mind about free schools?

AndyJS

UKIP's highest share with each pollster:

ICM: 18%
YouGov: 17%
Survation: 22%
Opinium: 21%
ComRes: 20%
TNS BMRB: 18%
Ipsos MORI: 15%
Angus Reid: 16%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

SouthamObserver

tim said:

glassfet said:

@toadmeister: Good to see Ed Miliband do a 180 on universal benefits. When's he going to change his mind about free schools?

Difficult to judge free schools while their funding remains a secret isn't it?

Good to see Toby has missed the big story in the Balls speech.

[Deleted User]

Lol - Ed Balls being thrifty - you gotta hand it to him, he's really funny.

AlastairMeeks

@tim Labour need more than symbols. The coalition don't. Labour is not believable on spending cuts.

Ed Balls is giving a huge hostage to fortune if he is continuing with the line that "George Osborne's economic policies have "failed catastrophically", on growth, jobs and deficit reduction." It assumes that will be a defensible position in 2015. Right now, that looks doubtful. It's the sort of line that must give our host qualms about his bet (though like you, I see no reason not to make macho bets at highly favourable odds with the gullible).

And @SouthamObserver I would have thought that Labour abandoning universal benefits was indeed the big story in Ed Balls's speech.

CarlottaVance

Lab shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie not having much fun on Today when Humphries is challenging the change in policy on means testing Univeral Benefits - bus passes, TV licences - surely they will be means tested too? Wibble Wibble Wibble......

On topic - the other big question for 2015 is what Labour's 2010 vote strikers do - how many return to the fold, how many stay on strike - and how many vote for someone else - UKIP, for example. Of course more than a few 2010 LibDem voters may strike too....

JosiasJessop

A question which I have wondered for some time, but have been rather hesitant to ask as it is personal to an MP and possibly of a medical nature.

Douglas Carswell has just been interviewed on Radio 5. As most will have noticed, his face is rather obviously lop-sided. When I first saw it I thought it was the sign of a past stroke. However, my father recently suffered from a case of Bells Palsy (from which has thankfully almost fully recovered), and the symptoms are very similar.

Again, I am hesitant to ask, but has Carswell had a stroke, or suffered from Bells Palsy in the past?

If people tell me to p*** off, fair enough...

SquareRoot

@tim

Osborne has not achieved what he hoped, but to suggest that that means "failed catastrophically" is not a proper or fair representation of the situation.

CarlottaVance

antifrank said:

Labour abandoning universal benefits was indeed the big story in Ed Balls's speech.

So it proved on the first outing for the policy on R4 at 7 this morning.......

Pong

tim said:

Given that the deficit was projected to be £37 Billion next year and will be over £100 billion I think that the claim that Osborne has failed catastrophically is uncontroversial.

Depends on how you measure success, I guess.

Wiping £375bn off our debt without anyone noticing is quite an achievement.

DavidL

As @Neil pointed out last night that is 0.1% of the budget deficit sorted. On to the remaining 99.9%!

This shows the cleft stick that Labour has got themselves in and the consequential incoherence. Austerity is bad but we are going to have falling departmental budgets. Hmmm....

Universal benefits are sacred except when they aren't. Do they still oppose removing CB from HRT? If so, why?

Deficit reduction by cutting spending is self defeating except when we do it.

In fairness Ed Balls is not being daft enough to claim that a housebuilding boom (which they may well inherit from Osborne) is likely to have any measurable impact on HB within the foreseeable future but give him time.

By even starting to acknowledge these things Labour moves onto the Coalition's territory and on the Coalition's terms. They have tried this before and got their fingers burnt. It leads to the inevitable conclusion that Osborne (and Danny Alexander in fairness) are right and that they were wrong. I think the same will happen again. Back to the money tree!

DavidL

Pong said:

tim said:

Given that the deficit was projected to be £37 Billion next year and will be over £100 billion I think that the claim that Osborne has failed catastrophically is uncontroversial.

Depends on how you measure success, I guess.

Wiping £375bn off our debt without anyone noticing is quite an achievement.

And by the way it won't. If growth turns out better than projected this year, as looks increasingly likely, the deficit will be comfortably under £100bn next year. Still much too high mind.

another_richard

"The current polling is giving us an unequivocal message – Labour will be a much bigger beneficiary than the Tories. While that situation remains it’s hard to see a pathway for the blues to remain part of the government."

Oh dear.

Its not how many votes you get its where you get them which matters.

And all the evidence is that Labour are picking up most votes from the LibDems in areas where the Conservatives don't have MPs.

The next election will be decided - as they always are - in those middling towns which sound like a list of lower divison football clubs.

another_richard

I see Avery has been making economic predictions out to the year 2060.

Has he found time yet to predict as to when Britain will have a single month of trade surplus ?

CarlottaVance

Benedict Brogan tweets : Peril for Labour: it ditches universality for no return. Political pain for no credibility or economic gain. Maybe @edballsmp will say more

edmundintokyo

another_richard said:

And all the evidence is that Labour are picking up most votes from the LibDems in areas where the Conservatives don't have MPs

What evidence is that?

JosiasJessop

another_richard said:

I see Avery has been making economic predictions out to the year 2060.

Has he found time yet to predict as to when Britain will have a single month of trade surplus ?

Perhaps you should also ask when we last had a trade surplus:

May 1998, whilst Brown was still following Conservative policy.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

We had twelve years of trade deficits under Labour, and somehow things are going to be corrected overnight?

The trade balance problem is massively difficult to fix for any party, as so much of it is out of our hands.

Peter_the_Punter

Mike

As you would know, I'm not one to begrudge you money; nor do I think suckers should be given an even break.

But why is this Phibbs bloke giving you even money when he could have 15/8 on Betfair?

Can you send me his contact details?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I see Balls is trying to create/widen a Coalition divide. The Conservatives have clearly pledged to keep universality (can't go back on it after what Cameron said in the debates), and the Lib Dems would obviously like to cut benefits for wealthier pensioners.

For Labour, it's an interesting step. I wonder what else they'll promise to cut.

OldKingCole

On topic, I voted Liberal or LibDem for over 40 years because I believe that we should be governed in the interests of all, not just the interests of the fortunate.
So next time, as a protest against what the LibDems have gone along with, I'll probably vote Labour.
I would have probably put up with some of what has been done if there'd been some meaningful constititutional reform which would have given real hope for the future. But there hasn't been, apart from fixed term parliaments, which does seem to have taken some at least the heat out of speculation s to whether the govermnent will go for an election whenever it suits it!
Although it redues the gambling opportunities, of course!

another_richard

edmundintokyo said:

another_richard said:

And all the evidence is that Labour are picking up most votes from the LibDems in areas where the Conservatives don't have MPs

What evidence is that?

Actual election results.

CarlottaVance

Morris_Dancer said:

For Labour, it's an interesting step. I wonder what else they'll promise to cut.

Nick Robinson's comments earlier on R4 led with "the end to universality" - but the Leslie interview demonstrated that they won't make promises on ending other universal benefits - just get asked endless questions about them......

CarlottaVance

Robinson reporting Maude has said Lobby register will happen - but all that would have done would have made it easier for the MPs/Lords involved in the stings to spot that the BBC/Telegraph/STimes were not legit Lobby firms - not changed the behaviour....

Cyclefree

If Labour are going to take cold weather payments from pensioners paying HRT on what basis can they oppose taking child benefit from HRT or bus passes from pensioners etc etc?

Either we have a contributory system in which case those who have paid in get paid their benefits, regardless of their tax status, or it is a means-tested system in which case benefits are paid only to the poor regardless of whether they have made any contribution via their taxes. The former is what we started out with post-WW2 and would deal with the fairness issues of people getting something for nothing (including the extent of any benefits tourism) whereas the latter is superficially fair but does make those who pay feel like mugs because those who work and contribute get nothing whereas those who don't get.

Not an easy choice for any party.

CarlottaVance

In The Daily Mail Labour List:

"The Labour leadership's screeching u-turn on universal benefits"

http://labourlist.org/2013/06/the-labour-leaderships-screeching-u-turn-on-universal-benefits/

david_kendrick1

UKIP should be making a better pitch for unhappy LD voters from 2010. We backed them on AV (not because it is a great system; it seemed to be the only one on offer). But the LD leadership was too precious to accept UKIP's support and endorsement. The one constitutional change we would like to see is to go back to the old rules on Postal Voting. Right now, PV diminishes, not promotes democracy. PV 'farming' is a vital, but not an honest, political activity.

Back in the days when the LDs were nowhere near govt, they used to come up with a range of original thoughts. One idea that particularly appeals is to abolish the dept of Trade and Industry. Very little that the DTI does actually needs doing. A great idea, though hardly a vote winner.

another_richard

JosiasJessop said:

another_richard said:

I see Avery has been making economic predictions out to the year 2060.

Has he found time yet to predict as to when Britain will have a single month of trade surplus ?

Perhaps you should also ask when we last had a trade surplus:

May 1998, whilst Brown was still following Conservative policy.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

We had twelve years of trade deficits under Labour, and somehow things are going to be corrected overnight?

The trade balance problem is massively difficult to fix for any party, as so much of it is out of our hands.

I'm well aware of that.

But we're not talking 'overnight' are we. We're already three years into this government without the trade balance improving, how much longer do we have to wait ? One year, two years, five years, ten years ?

Now take a look at the graph on that site.

Look at how quickly we moved from deep deficit in the late 1980s to running an annual trade surplus in 1994-1997. Compare that with the lack of improvement since 2008.

As Britain has had a continuous trade deficit across an entire economic cycle and is looking like having a continuous trade deficit across the next then it suggests something is fundamentally wrong with the economy.

And that something fundamentally wrong is overconsumption.

The trade deficit (and for that matter the tourism deficit) is merely a sympton of this overconsumption, the cause of it is the £100bn+ Britain borrows to consume every year.

Our problem is that I see no evidence that the establishment politicians are willing to accept this or if they do are willing to do anything about it.

On the contrary they encourage it as it helps mask both our relative economic decline (though ast the cost of making things worse in the long term) and the wealth shift towards the rich and privileged which is happening within Britain.

CarlottaVance

George Eaton on the rationale behind Ed's ending of the principle of universality:

Why Labour has pledged to remove the winter fuel allowance from wealthy pensioners
Balls's announcement is an attempt to exploit the divide between the Tories and Lib Dems on this issue and to demonstrate his commitment to fiscal discipline.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/why-labour-has-pledged-remove-winter-fuel-allowance-wealthy-pensioners

At what price?

NickPalmer

Cyclefree, we don't have universality now, we have a confusing mixture, depending on the mood of the Government when tax or benefit change X was introduced. Changing one benefit to be means-tested doesn't change that. The political risk is that we're forced into confirming or denying positions on every other benefit, or sound evasive if we don't. The upside is that we're seen to be thinking about making savings that don't people in severe difficulty - yes, it's possible to be a higher rate taxpayer in difficulty, but it's not as acute as being on the breadline. And the debate is about "what Labour will do", which is an important change of gear.

On topic, another richard's belief that LibDem voters are only turning Labour in safe Tory or safe Labour seats is just mistaken. I know numerous 2010 LibDems in my patch who are almost keener on voting Labour at the GE than I am - I'm merely reliably Labour, they're seriously angry (and not remotely interested in UKIP - different demographic). Interestingly, though, they still make exceptions for LibDem councillors who they like personally,so perhaps LibDem MPs will still turn the tide.

AndyJS

IMO the universality argument re. benefits is hopping mad. What it boils down to is that the country risks going bankrupt so that any notion of "stigma" be absent from those who claim benefits.

AveryLP

tim said:

antifrank said:

@tim Labour need more than symbols. The coalition don't. Labour is not believable on spending cuts.

Ed Balls is giving a huge hostage to fortune if he is continuing with the line that "George Osborne's economic policies have "failed catastrophically", on growth, jobs and deficit reduction." It assumes that will be a defensible position in 2015. Right now, that looks doubtful. It's the sort of line that must give our host qualms about his bet (though like you, I see no reason not to make macho bets at highly favourable odds with the gullible).

And @SouthamObserver I would have thought that Labour abandoning universal benefits was indeed the big story in Ed Balls's speech.

Given that the deficit was projected to be £37 Billion next year and will be over £100 billion I think that the claim that Osborne has failed catastrophically is uncontroversial.

Oh dear, tim.

You are a year out of date.

In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £85.1 billion; this is £35.8 billion lower net borrowing than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £120.9 billion.

Carry on losing a year every week and you will be voting UKIP by Christmas.

CarlottaVance

NickPalmer said:

The political risk is that we're forced into confirming or denying positions on every other benefit, or sound evasive if we don't. .

That's exactly how Chris Leslie sounded on R4 at 7 this morning.

Benedict Brogan writes this morning:

"Mr Balls - and Chris Leslie, who was out and about earlier explaining the plan - is talking about 'tough decisions'. But is it? In fiscal terms, hardly. It raises very small peanuts; arguably, it makes no difference at all, in that the £105m/yr it raises barely qualifies as a rounding error compared to what's needed. So it has to be measured for its political impact. That's where I fear it may deliver more pain than benefit for Labour. Ed Miliband and Mr Balls have been under pressure for months to show they understand the economic task at hand. If they had hoped to improve their credibility, they will be disappointed: Westminster may conclude that it's too little to be worth taking them seriously. Instead, they will get flak from Labour colleagues for putting the principle of benefit universality on the block, and are not strong enough to be confident of withstanding the party backlash. Then there's the voters, specifically the elderly."

edmundintokyo

another_richard said:

edmundintokyo said:

another_richard said:

And all the evidence is that Labour are picking up most votes from the LibDems in areas where the Conservatives don't have MPs

What evidence is that?

Actual election results.

Has someone analysed some election results and found the LibDem defectors are in the wrong places?

Maybe you could link to the analysis or at least summarize or something?

edmundintokyo

another_richard said:

edmundintokyo said:

another_richard said:

And all the evidence is that Labour are picking up most votes from the LibDems in areas where the Conservatives don't have MPs

What evidence is that?

Actual election results.

Has someone analysed some election results and found the LibDem defectors are in the wrong places?

Maybe you could link to the analysis or at least summarize or something?

Morris_Dancer

F1: just read in the BBC F1 gossip column that Hankook has apparently ruled out becoming the tyre supplier in 2014 if Pirelli fails to get a new contract.

Some had suggested Hankook were being lined up to replace Pirelli, who have yet to agree a new contract and need to sort it pretty sharpish.

CarlottaVance

"Such speculation unnerved some Government figures — other than the affair highlighted yesterday, there are long-standing rumours suggesting extramarital affairs involving at least six senior people in or close to the Government."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10095158/Government-aides-fear-fallout-from-secret-affair-revelations.html

JosiasJessop

another_richard said:

JosiasJessop said:

another_richard said:

I see Avery has been making economic predictions out to the year 2060.

Has he found time yet to predict as to when Britain will have a single month of trade surplus ?

Perhaps you should also ask when we last had a trade surplus:

May 1998, whilst Brown was still following Conservative policy.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

We had twelve years of trade deficits under Labour, and somehow things are going to be corrected overnight?

The trade balance problem is massively difficult to fix for any party, as so much of it is out of our hands.

I'm well aware of that.

But we're not talking 'overnight' are we. We're already three years into this government without the trade balance improving, how much longer do we have to wait ? One year, two years, five years, ten years ?

Now take a look at the graph on that site.

Look at how quickly we moved from deep deficit in the late 1980s to running an annual trade surplus in 1994-1997. Compare that with the lack of improvement since 2008.

As Britain has had a continuous trade deficit across an entire economic cycle and is looking like having a continuous trade deficit across the next then it suggests something is fundamentally wrong with the economy.

And that something fundamentally wrong is overconsumption.

The trade deficit (and for that matter the tourism deficit) is merely a sympton of this overconsumption, the cause of it is the £100bn+ Britain borrows to consume every year.

Our problem is that I see no evidence that the establishment politicians are willing to accept this or if they do are willing to do anything about it.

On the contrary they encourage it as it helps mask both our relative economic decline (though ast the cost of making things worse in the long term) and the wealth shift towards the rich and privileged which is happening within Britain.

You make some good points, but comparing the improvements in the late 1980s and the mid 1990s with today is fallacious - many of our markets are still mired in recession, which makes exporting difficult. That was not the case in those two previous periods.

Overconsumption is a big problem, and one partially driven by the media that loves 'cool' things and advertising. IMHO there should be a 25% tax on iPhones - after all, the idiots buying them already pay a large surplus for the logo, so they might as well pay more.

But what is the solution to overconsumption? What can be done?

NickPalmer

Swedish poll - centre-left 49-39 ahead (or 49-42 if you include a party under the minimum 4% threshold). Anti-immigration party on 7%.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/politik/dnipsos-miljopartiet-den-stora-vinnaren

nigel4england

tim said:

antifrank said:

@tim Labour need more than symbols. The coalition don't. Labour is not believable on spending cuts.

Ed Balls is giving a huge hostage to fortune if he is continuing with the line that "George Osborne's economic policies have "failed catastrophically", on growth, jobs and deficit reduction." It assumes that will be a defensible position in 2015. Right now, that looks doubtful. It's the sort of line that must give our host qualms about his bet (though like you, I see no reason not to make macho bets at highly favourable odds with the gullible).

And @SouthamObserver I would have thought that Labour abandoning universal benefits was indeed the big story in Ed Balls's speech.

Given that the deficit was projected to be £37 Billion next year and will be over £100 billion I think that the claim that Osborne has failed catastrophically is uncontroversial.

The big stuff will come on housing benefit and housebuilding, this is symbolism in pointing out that Cameron will die in a ditch to protect wealthy pensioners while everyone else gets screwed by the Labour govt's economic mismanagement.

Corrected that for you.

AveryLP

another_richard said:

JosiasJessop said:

another_richard said:

I see Avery has been making economic predictions out to the year 2060.

Has he found time yet to predict as to when Britain will have a single month of trade surplus ?

Perhaps you should also ask when we last had a trade surplus:

May 1998, whilst Brown was still following Conservative policy.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

We had twelve years of trade deficits under Labour, and somehow things are going to be corrected overnight?

The trade balance problem is massively difficult to fix for any party, as so much of it is out of our hands.

I'm well aware of that.

But we're not talking 'overnight' are we. We're already three years into this government without the trade balance improving, how much longer do we have to wait ? One year, two years, five years, ten years ?

Now take a look at the graph on that site.

Look at how quickly we moved from deep deficit in the late 1980s to running an annual trade surplus in 1994-1997. Compare that with the lack of improvement since 2008.

As Britain has had a continuous trade deficit across an entire economic cycle and is looking like having a continuous trade deficit across the next then it suggests something is fundamentally wrong with the economy.

And that something fundamentally wrong is overconsumption.

The trade deficit (and for that matter the tourism deficit) is merely a sympton of this overconsumption, the cause of it is the £100bn+ Britain borrows to consume every year.

Our problem is that I see no evidence that the establishment politicians are willing to accept this or if they do are willing to do anything about it.

On the contrary they encourage it as it helps mask both our relative economic decline (though ast the cost of making things worse in the long term) and the wealth shift towards the rich and privileged which is happening within Britain.

ar

The "continuous trade deficit across an entire economic cycle" to which you refer is almost completely dependent on the Balance of Trade in Oil and Gas

Balance of Trade
Oil 
----------------
Year        £ bn
----------------
1998       3.050
1999       4.465
2000       6.572
2001       5.312
2002       5.128
2003       3.386
2004       0.924
2005      -2.159
2006      -2.896
2007      -4.698
2008      -6.501
2009      -3.426
2010      -4.719
2011     -11.511
2012     -14.160

There is little any government can do to stop the North Sea oil and gas fields depleting and what little can be done to increase the rate and efficiency with which the remaining 10% of reserves are extracted is being done.

Rebuilding a manufacturing base to replace the peak export surplus in oil and gas will take decades.

FluffyThoughts

tim said:

The Royal Mail pension transfer and all the printed money moving around is included in your deficit reduction?

I agree, which is why our bet excludes it.

Deficit £1 Billion up last year

Tsk!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/ben-chu-so-the-deficit-did-rise-last-year-after-all-8630206.html

To quote the section...:

Excluding the Royal Mail and gilts the 2012-13 deficit was £119.5bn. A minor fall. But extract those SLS profits from the 2012-13 deficit, as the Treasury now says we should, and you have an "underlying" deficit of £121.9bn. A rise.

It is placed in quotes for a reason; that is not what is being measured. The fact is that - as I bet - the deficit for FY2012/3 looks as though it will under-shoot the £120-billion target outlined by Me-Mate Ozzie.

Of course it may all change by the end of this month....

BenM

AndyJS said:

IMO the universality argument re. benefits is hopping mad. What it boils down to is that the country risks going bankrupt so that any notion of "stigma" be absent from those who claim benefits.

Nonsense.

The country only risks going bankrupt if it continues to think City of London spivvery is a substitute for proper work.

[Deleted User]

@Loony

If Labour gets any more than, say, 20% of the votes, it will be because the voters are stupid.

Is this in any way connected to 13 years of deliberate dumbing down of education?

BenM

Sigh.

This morning I think Labour have gone down the wrong road.

Again.

AlastairMeeks

@tim Hooray for the Conservatives. They realised the Patrick Mercer scandal was just too dreary for words and decided to produce something much more salacious. Better still, there's an injunction in place but with some tentative clues so we can all play our own guessing games.

If [REDACTED] wasn't smearing yoghurt over [REDACTED]'s [REDACTED], I shall be extremely disappointed.

TGOHF

£100M is a small number - but it's a start.

Only a matter of time before Labour start cutting other benefits.

OldKingCole

CarlottaVance said:

NickPalmer said:

The political risk is that we're forced into confirming or denying positions on every other benefit, or sound evasive if we don't. .

That's exactly how Chris Leslie sounded on R4 at 7 this morning.

Benedict Brogan writes this morning:

"Mr Balls - and Chris Leslie, who was out and about earlier explaining the plan - is talking about 'tough decisions'. But is it? In fiscal terms, hardly. It raises very small peanuts; arguably, it makes no difference at all, in that the £105m/yr it raises barely qualifies as a rounding error compared to what's needed. So it has to be measured for its political impact. That's where I fear it may deliver more pain than benefit for Labour. Ed Miliband and Mr Balls have been under pressure for months to show they understand the economic task at hand. If they had hoped to improve their credibility, they will be disappointed: Westminster may conclude that it's too little to be worth taking them seriously. Instead, they will get flak from Labour colleagues for putting the principle of benefit universality on the block, and are not strong enough to be confident of withstanding the party backlash. Then there's the voters, specifically the elderly."

If "we're all in it together" then why not? As a "fairly comfortable" OAP, with lots of similar friends I would put my heating allowance and indeed totally free bus pass into the pot IF it appeared that we were!

However while City bankers, directors of Network Rail etc seem able to avoid the logical consequences of their greed and incompetence, why should we?

TGOHF

antifrank said:

@tim Hooray for the Conservatives. They realised the Patrick Mercer scandal was just too dreary for words and decided to produce something much more salacious. Better still, there's an injunction in place but with some tentative clues so we can all play our own guessing games.

If [REDACTED] wasn't smearing yoghurt over [REDACTED]'s [REDACTED], I shall be extremely disappointed.

I was underwhelmed - neither were elected.

BenM

TGOHF said:

£100M is a small number - but it's a start.

Only a matter of time before Labour start cutting other benefits.

...to no great avail, as Osborne has amply demonstrated.

Government cuts != deficit reduction.

Theuniondivvie

antifrank said:

If [REDACTED] wasn't smearing yoghurt over [REDACTED]'s [REDACTED]

A Libdem involved then.

CarlottaVance

Farage on drink:

"And as for booze, Mr Farage added: “If you say ‘never again’ in the morning, then you don’t have a drink problem. But if you wake up and say ‘I need a drink’ then seek help.”

Also covers his run-in with Salmond

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/feeds/smartphone/scotland/4952658/Nigel-Farage-Ive-got-Salmond-rattled.html#ixzz2V8lMW5k1

Pulpstar

Has any other political party in Britain ever been as low as 30% of their last GE voters saying they will vote for same political party in a forthcoming GE ?

GeoffM

TGOHF said:

I was underwhelmed - neither were elected.

Yes, I was quite disappointed too. I was hoping for a decent scandal involving an MP, hookers, drugs, assassins, KGB spies and a haddock.

This story will get some traction but because of the cover-up, not the gossip itself. 'Twas ever thus.

CarlottaVance

Boris suggests naming CrossRail after HM QEII "swivel eyed loons" springs to mind reading the comments:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10094866/A-project-that-stands-tall-with-Everest-Look-under-your-feet.html#disqus_thread

FluffyThoughts

BenM said:

...to no great avail, as Osborne has amply demonstrated.

Government cuts != deficit reduction.

That statement - despite it's improper grammer - is not logical. Think about it (by engaging brain)....

Pulpstar

edmundintokyo said:

another_richard said:

edmundintokyo said:

another_richard said:

And all the evidence is that Labour are picking up most votes from the LibDems in areas where the Conservatives don't have MPs

What evidence is that?

Actual election results.

Has someone analysed some election results and found the LibDem defectors are in the wrong places?

Maybe you could link to the analysis or at least summarize or something?

Anywhre that was a hint of a Lib-Lab marginal in 2010 will be weighing the Labour vote in 2015, I await the size of the swing in Sheff Central with interest...

AlastairMeeks

The significance of the sex story is obvious isn't it? If it isn't, I'm not going to spell it out on here for reasons of libel law.

JosiasJessop

CarlottaVance said:

Boris suggests naming CrossRail after HM QEII "swivel eyed loons" springs to mind reading the comments:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10094866/A-project-that-stands-tall-with-Everest-Look-under-your-feet.html#disqus_thread

It amuses me that Crossrail gets lauded whilst HS2 is demonised. Crossrail costs exactly the same as the first stage of HS2 to Birmingham, and is in an area of the country with superb public transport links.

Perversely, Crossrail starts making more sense when integrated with Boris Island and a moved London main airport.

I am in favour of both, but the benefits of Crossrail are much more dubious.

Charles

tim said:

Mike should be reported to the League Against Cruel Sports for this, getting dumb animals to take evens on a 1/2 shot is just not fair.
I assume Toby Young will be following Hodges and Phibbs?

You are assuming that the only value is on the financial returns.

For a journalist/pundit making a point it could be embarassing not to respond to a public challenge. That has value in its own right.

CarlottaVance

BBC news story from yesterday on Edinburgh University poll of Scottish teenagers on independence getting wide coverage in this morning's Scottish papers:

"TEENAGERS have dealt a serious blow to Alex Salmond after a poll found an overwhelming majority are against independence.

The study showed only one in five of 14 to 17-year-olds plans to vote Yes in the referendum in September next year."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/edinburgh-university-poll-reveals-60-1928086

"In a significant blow to First Minister Alex Salmond, an Edinburgh University study found 60% of 14 to 17-year-olds were opposed to independence.

Just 21% were in favour, while 19% were undecided.

The findings – which also revealed teenagers were heavily engaged in the debate and highly likely to vote – emerged from a detailed survey of more than 1000 young people from across Scotland."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-2014-poll-blow-as-teenage-voters-back-union.21245652

AveryLP

tim said:

AveryLP said:

tim said:

antifrank said:

@tim Labour need more than symbols. The coalition don't. Labour is not believable on spending cuts.

Ed Balls is giving a huge hostage to fortune if he is continuing with the line that "George Osborne's economic policies have "failed catastrophically", on growth, jobs and deficit reduction." It assumes that will be a defensible position in 2015. Right now, that looks doubtful. It's the sort of line that must give our host qualms about his bet (though like you, I see no reason not to make macho bets at highly favourable odds with the gullible).

And @SouthamObserver I would have thought that Labour abandoning universal benefits was indeed the big story in Ed Balls's speech.

Given that the deficit was projected to be £37 Billion next year and will be over £100 billion I think that the claim that Osborne has failed catastrophically is uncontroversial.

Oh dear, tim.

You are a year out of date.

In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £85.1 billion; this is £35.8 billion lower net borrowing than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £120.9 billion.

Carry on losing a year every week and you will be voting UKIP by Christmas.

The Royal Mail pension transfer and all the printed money moving around is included in your deficit reduction?

Deficit £1 Billion up last year

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/ben-chu-so-the-deficit-did-rise-last-year-after-all-8630206.html

It all depends on how you define "deficit", tim.

The figure quoted in The Independent is hypothetical. It is what the government would have borrowed had certain events or cash receipts not taken place.

The ONS figures include the book value of actual government borrowing calculated on an accrual basis (PSND ex), i.e. with all the cash flows allocated and apportioned to relating time periods.

There is also an ONS cash borrowing figure, 'PSNB ex', to which the book value, 'PSND ex' reconciles. More like an 'bank overdraft balance' as it states the cash position at the time indicated in the report regardless of which periods the cash flows apply. .

There is no significant difference between PSND ex and the PSNB ex figure, so the £85.1 bn cash figure is appropriate as a headline for the 'deficit'.

All government borrowing and cash balance figures result from a combination of recurring and non-recurring transactions. If the government sells shares in the intervened banking groups it will be a non-recurring receipt of cash. When it floats the Royal Mail it will receive another non-recurring receipt. When it sells licences for radio spectrums or North Sea exploration it banks non-recurring cash.

What is important is the actual borrowing cash balance figure. That is the amount that needs servicing with gilt issues and interest payments.

A further deficit figure, the 'Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget' (CACB) is another way is measuring the 'deficit' and is the target metric for Osborne's fiscal mandate. It is close enough to the ONS Public Sector Current Budget (PSCB) for it to be used here. It was never forecast to be and did not turn out to be over £100 bn as evidenced from the most recent ONS Public Finances bulletin:

the public sector current budget deficit is showing a fall of 1.4% between the initial estimates for 2012/13 outturn and the 2011/12 outturn. The comparable OBR forecast is for a full year increase in the public sector current budget deficit of 0.3% between 2011/12 and 2012/13. This is as the forecasted 2012/13 public sector current budget deficit was £92.5 billion which is £1.6 billion higher than the latest outturn estimate for 2012/13 of £90.9 billion.

Conclusion: No reputable source is saying that current borrowing or the 'deficit' this year will be over £100 billion. However measured, it was (in 2012/3) and will be (in 2013/4) below the amount recorded for the previous year and well below £100 bn.

Banging on about Post Office pension assets etc. when talking about the deficit is rather like trying to explain to your bank manager that your overdraft is really a credit balance once you have taken into account your bets with PB Tories.

Charles

another_richard said:

The next election will be decided - as they always are - in those middling towns which sound like a list of lower divison football clubs.

If it had been Osborne who made that comment, tim would have been squealing that it proves how out of touch he is... ;-)

BenM

FluffyThoughts said:

BenM said:

...to no great avail, as Osborne has amply demonstrated.

Government cuts != deficit reduction.

That statement - despite it's improper grammer - is not logical. Think about it (by engaging brain)....

I think in some database code != means "does not equal"?

If so, then I'm right.

john_zims

Ed in his flip flops.

A couple of months ago benefits universality is a core Labour policy now it's junked,could be another u-turn though if the The Sun decides universality should be retained.

April 2013 Labourlist

'“Of course we look at all these issues but as Ed made clear twice in the interview Labour supports the Winter Fuel Allowance. Labour introduced the Winter Fuel Allowance. He made clear in his interview in January with James Landale in January that universality is “part of the bedrock” of our system. The position has not changed.”

June 2013

''A future Labour government would scrap the winter fuel allowance for over half a million richer pensioners, the shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, will announce on Monday, as part of attempts to prove the party is ready to take tough spending decisions.'

OblitusSumMe

BenM said:

FluffyThoughts said:

BenM said:

...to no great avail, as Osborne has amply demonstrated.

Government cuts != deficit reduction.

That statement - despite it's improper grammer - is not logical. Think about it (by engaging brain)....

I think in some database code != means "does not equal"?

If so, then I'm right.

That is standard Unix syntax used in utilities such as "test".

Sunil_Prasannan

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Boris suggests naming CrossRail after HM QEII "swivel eyed loons" springs to mind reading the comments:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10094866/A-project-that-stands-tall-with-Everest-Look-under-your-feet.html#disqus_thread

It amuses me that Crossrail gets lauded whilst HS2 is demonised. Crossrail costs exactly the same as the first stage of HS2 to Birmingham, and is in an area of the country with superb public transport links.

Perversely, Crossrail starts making more sense when integrated with Boris Island and a moved London main airport.

I am in favour of both, but the benefits of Crossrail are much more dubious.

Crossrail is a commuter route and so will be unlikely to have premium fares like they do on the current HS1 out to Kent.

Charles

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

NickPalmer said:

The political risk is that we're forced into confirming or denying positions on every other benefit, or sound evasive if we don't. .

That's exactly how Chris Leslie sounded on R4 at 7 this morning.

Benedict Brogan writes this morning:

"Mr Balls - and Chris Leslie, who was out and about earlier explaining the plan - is talking about 'tough decisions'. But is it? In fiscal terms, hardly. It raises very small peanuts; arguably, it makes no difference at all, in that the £105m/yr it raises barely qualifies as a rounding error compared to what's needed. So it has to be measured for its political impact. That's where I fear it may deliver more pain than benefit for Labour. Ed Miliband and Mr Balls have been under pressure for months to show they understand the economic task at hand. If they had hoped to improve their credibility, they will be disappointed: Westminster may conclude that it's too little to be worth taking them seriously. Instead, they will get flak from Labour colleagues for putting the principle of benefit universality on the block, and are not strong enough to be confident of withstanding the party backlash. Then there's the voters, specifically the elderly."

If "we're all in it together" then why not? As a "fairly comfortable" OAP, with lots of similar friends I would put my heating allowance and indeed totally free bus pass into the pot IF it appeared that we were!

However while City bankers, directors of Network Rail etc seem able to avoid the logical consequences of their greed and incompetence, why should we?

190,000 of my colleagues and competitors have lost their jobs over the last 5 years. Many (most?) will not work in the industry again. Most of them were no more greedy or incompetent than the average bear. And they certainly weren't responsible for the crash (even to the extent the City was responsible, it was a few hundred people, at most, not more)

How have they avoided the logical consequences again?

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:

Last year I warned on here that the contactless credit cards that the banks were encouraging us to get were insecure and bad for consumers.

Well, I was right:

http://www.channel4.com/news/fraud-fears-grow-over-contactless-bank-card-technology
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/money/Consumer/article1264049.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9163969/Barclays-contactless-cards-exposed-to-fraud.html

They are a very bad idea. If you've got one, ask your bank to change you back to a standard credit/debit card. They are also insecure, but the holes are much less glaring.

It is a technology that benefits the banks, not the consumers however glossy they make the adverts.

MarkSenior

Pulpstar said:

edmundintokyo said:

another_richard said:

edmundintokyo said:

another_richard said:

And all the evidence is that Labour are picking up most votes from the LibDems in areas where the Conservatives don't have MPs

What evidence is that?

Actual election results.

Has someone analysed some election results and found the LibDem defectors are in the wrong places?

Maybe you could link to the analysis or at least summarize or something?

Anywhre that was a hint of a Lib-Lab marginal in 2010 will be weighing the Labour vote in 2015, I await the size of the swing in Sheff Central with interest...

If you look at the results from Sheffield Central for the 2008 and 2012 local elections the Lib Dems lost around 1,750 votes to Labour , 1,000 to Greens and 250 to UKIP and 1,000 or so did not vote . Whilst Labour would be likely to win the seat comfortably in 2015 , weighing the Labour vote would not be true .
Ashfield , another 2010 Lab Lib marginal in 2010 would also see a Labour win in 2015 based on May's CC results but the Lib Dems would still be competitive and it would not be a Labour landslide.

Charles

CarlottaVance said:

BBC news story from yesterday on Edinburgh University poll of Scottish teenagers on independence getting wide coverage in this morning's Scottish papers:

"TEENAGERS have dealt a serious blow to Alex Salmond after a poll found an overwhelming majority are against independence.

The study showed only one in five of 14 to 17-year-olds plans to vote Yes in the referendum in September next year."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/edinburgh-university-poll-reveals-60-1928086

"In a significant blow to First Minister Alex Salmond, an Edinburgh University study found 60% of 14 to 17-year-olds were opposed to independence.

Just 21% were in favour, while 19% were undecided.

The findings – which also revealed teenagers were heavily engaged in the debate and highly likely to vote – emerged from a detailed survey of more than 1000 young people from across Scotland."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-2014-poll-blow-as-teenage-voters-back-union.21245652

But that can't POSSIBLY be right!!

I'm sure I remember certain of our Scottish compatriots telling us what a masterful move it was for Salmond to extend the voting age, and how he had completely outfoxed Cameron to let him do that.

FluffyThoughts

BenM said:

I think in some database code != means "does not equal"?

If so, then I'm right.

Bennie-boy

The evaluation != - or not-equal-to - is a test: It is not a statement! If it was logically-correct then your statement would evaluate as:

¬ deficit-reduction iff government-cuts.

Where:

¬ = not (and is evaluated last),
iff = if-and-only-if.

So your evaluation may prove correct for some tests, but not others. Logically your statement is false*.

* Or, more correctly, indetermined....

AlastairMeeks

@Charles Politicians can plan far less strategically for electoral advantage than we imagine. Doing so in relation to electoral reform is particularly silly. Many Conservatives opposed AV on the ground that it would be rigged against them: many Conservatives are now having regrets about having won that referendum so convincingly.

We're seeing another example today of the limitations of politicians' strategic planning as Labour are being marched back down the hill of universalism, a few short months after Ed Miliband gave it a ringing defence.

In truth, most politicians are buggering about groping in the dark most of the time.

Theuniondivvie

Charles said:

I'm sure I remember certain of our Scottish compatriots telling us what a masterful move it was for Salmond to extend the voting age, and how he had completely outfoxed Cameron to let him do that.

Your memory appears to be as flakey as your geography.

RichardNabavi

Morning all.

The problem Labour have with their piddling U-turn on winter fuel payments is not just that it is a U-turn, it is that their entire approach has been confused and shrill. When Osborne made the very straightforward and (one would have thought) completely uncontroversial observation that it's wasteful to spend nearly £3bn a year on welfare payments to the very well-off in the form of Child Benefit, they made a ridiculous fuss about the so-called 'principle' of universality. Of course that was bonkers. There's no such principle, instead there was a largely painless £3bn saving to be made which affects precisely zero lower-income families - and there aren't many measures available to the government which are simultaneously painless and save a chunky sum.

With the winter fuel allowance, we have an example of a measure which, though equally painless, saves tuppence-ha'penny and is hardly worth the administrative hassle. OK, one can argue that, though small, it's a saving we might as well have, but it blows the 'principle' out of the water. If you can save £100m by abandoning universality, why not save £3bn? It's just a completely incoherent position - and an excellent example of the mess Miliband has got himself into with his so-called blank piece of paper. As I've observed before, it's not blank, it's full of sensible measures which the coalition have proposed but which Miliband has crossed out. The problem is that the savings which haven't been crossed out don't amount to a hill of beans; Labour's remaining room for manoeuvre literally doesn't add up.

Charles

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

I'm sure I remember certain of our Scottish compatriots telling us what a masterful move it was for Salmond to extend the voting age, and how he had completely outfoxed Cameron to let him do that.

Your memory appears to be as flakey as your geography.

Not on this one. Definitely remember some gloating.

Blue_rog

Manufacturer's PMI 51.3 up on the optimistic 50.2 predicted

FluffyThoughts

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flakey

PendantsPedants; pfft....

OldKingCole

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

NickPalmer said:

The political risk is that we're forced into confirming or denying positions on every other benefit, or sound evasive if we don't. .

That's exactly how Chris Leslie sounded on R4 at 7 this morning.

Benedict Brogan writes this morning:

"Mr Balls - and Chris Leslie, who was out and about earlier explaining the plan - is talking about 'tough decisions'. But is it? In fiscal terms, hardly. It raises very small peanuts; arguably, it makes no difference at all, in that the £105m/yr it raises barely qualifies as a rounding error compared to what's needed. So it has to be measured for its political impact. That's where I fear it may deliver more pain than benefit for Labour. Ed Miliband and Mr Balls have been under pressure for months to show they understand the economic task at hand. If they had hoped to improve their credibility, they will be disappointed: Westminster may conclude that it's too little to be worth taking them seriously. Instead, they will get flak from Labour colleagues for putting the principle of benefit universality on the block, and are not strong enough to be confident of withstanding the party backlash. Then there's the voters, specifically the elderly."

If "we're all in it together" then why not? As a "fairly comfortable" OAP, with lots of similar friends I would put my heating allowance and indeed totally free bus pass into the pot IF it appeared that we were!

However while City bankers, directors of Network Rail etc seem able to avoid the logical consequences of their greed and incompetence, why should we?

190,000 of my colleagues and competitors have lost their jobs over the last 5 years. Many (most?) will not work in the industry again. Most of them were no more greedy or incompetent than the average bear. And they certainly weren't responsible for the crash (even to the extent the City was responsible, it was a few hundred people, at most, not more)

How have they avoided the logical consequences again?

A very fair point Charles, and one which is not always (see my post) appreciated. However, there is a very widespread perception that those at the very top are and have been overly protected from the effects of the austerity programme. And, taking your point, few if any of my ex-colleagues in the middle of the NHS, who have, so I'm assured, not received a pay rise for several years, or indeed, also lost their jobs, had any responsibility for the mess in which the country found itself.
They might, of course, have accepted one or more of the unsolicited credit card offers which poured through our letter boxes a few years ago. Or, seeking a roof over their heads, fallen for the assurances of the young man in the smart suit who, on the instructions of his management, persauded them that the increase in the value of the house they were thinking of buying would more than cover the high cost of the mortgage he was desparate to sell them.

TheScreamingEagles

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

I'm sure I remember certain of our Scottish compatriots telling us what a masterful move it was for Salmond to extend the voting age, and how he had completely outfoxed Cameron to let him do that.

Your memory appears to be as flakey as your geography.

That poll is very interesting for a variety of reasons

1) It's by Market Research UK, whose polling on past Scottish elections makes them as accurate as an American war movie or Braveheart

2) There's a perception that the youth of today aren't interested in politics or engaging in politics, but that poll shows Of those interviewed, 94% said they were aware the referendum will take place next year, with 69% intending to vote.

3) And my favourite finding, which shows that the referendum result can be swung by a decent campaign by the Yes side, The young people were then asked about the debate over Scottish independence so far. A third of them (32.8%) said they had enough information to make a decision, but 67.2% felt they would like more information making a final decision.

Financier

From LabourList:

Nearly half of all voters don’t trust Labour on the economy, our exclusive poll reveals

The mountain Labour still needs to climb in terms of economic credibility has been revealed by an exclusive LabourList/Survation poll, which shows that nearly half of all voters (46.8%) believe that Labour “cannot be trusted with the economy”. Less than one-third (30.1%) believe that Labour can be trusted with the nation’s finances. This question kicks off a set of polling data which we’ll be revealing each day this week on LabourList, as we seek to find a way towards “Securing Economic Credibility” for the party in a way that is also true to Labour values and electorally viable.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, even when he's on holiday.....

BenM

FluffyThoughts said:

BenM said:

I think in some database code != means "does not equal"?

If so, then I'm right.

Bennie-boy

The evaluation != - or not-equal-to - is a test: It is not a statement! If it was logically-correct then your statement would evaluate as:

¬ deficit-reduction iff government-cuts.

Where:

¬ = not (and is evaluated last),
iff = if-and-only-if.

So your evaluation may prove correct for some tests, but not others. Logically your statement is false*.

* Or, more correctly, indetermined....

The government is boasting about its cuts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/03/government-claims-10-billion-savings-past-year

So iff has been passed. As such we can conclude that austerity doesn't equal deficit reduction.

Neaqrly all the reduction thus far has been thanks to collapse in investment spending. That barrel is now well and truly scraped which is why the deficit reduction is projected to stall from here on in.

Charles

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

NickPalmer said:

The political risk is that we're forced into confirming or denying positions on every other benefit, or sound evasive if we don't. .

That's exactly how Chris Leslie sounded on R4 at 7 this morning.

Benedict Brogan writes this morning:

"Mr Balls - and Chris Leslie, who was out and about earlier explaining the plan - is talking about 'tough decisions'. But is it? In fiscal terms, hardly. It raises very small peanuts; arguably, it makes no difference at all, in that the £105m/yr it raises barely qualifies as a rounding error compared to what's needed. So it has to be measured for its political impact. That's where I fear it may deliver more pain than benefit for Labour. Ed Miliband and Mr Balls have been under pressure for months to show they understand the economic task at hand. If they had hoped to improve their credibility, they will be disappointed: Westminster may conclude that it's too little to be worth taking them seriously. Instead, they will get flak from Labour colleagues for putting the principle of benefit universality on the block, and are not strong enough to be confident of withstanding the party backlash. Then there's the voters, specifically the elderly."

If "we're all in it together" then why not? As a "fairly comfortable" OAP, with lots of similar friends I would put my heating allowance and indeed totally free bus pass into the pot IF it appeared that we were!

However while City bankers, directors of Network Rail etc seem able to avoid the logical consequences of their greed and incompetence, why should we?

190,000 of my colleagues and competitors have lost their jobs over the last 5 years. Many (most?) will not work in the industry again. Most of them were no more greedy or incompetent than the average bear. And they certainly weren't responsible for the crash (even to the extent the City was responsible, it was a few hundred people, at most, not more)

How have they avoided the logical consequences again?

A very fair point Charles, and one which is not always (see my post) appreciated. However, there is a very widespread perception that those at the very top are and have been overly protected from the effects of the austerity programme. And, taking your point, few if any of my ex-colleagues in the middle of the NHS, who have, so I'm assured, not received a pay rise for several years, or indeed, also lost their jobs, had any responsibility for the mess in which the country found itself.
They might, of course, have accepted one or more of the unsolicited credit card offers which poured through our letter boxes a few years ago. Or, seeking a roof over their heads, fallen for the assurances of the young man in the smart suit who, on the instructions of his management, persauded them that the increase in the value of the house they were thinking of buying would more than cover the high cost of the mortgage he was desparate to sell them.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not denying there were some shocking lending practices and very sloppy management.

The thing that people forget is that these were in the *retail* banking sector. It was Northern Rock, B&B, A&L, and now Britannia that messed up. Aggressive mortgages, foolish commercial property loans, poor funding decisions.

It wasn't the "City" who, in general, managed their risks reasonably well (with a few notable examples such as Lehman - over extended on Arch Properties - and Merrill - hanging is to good for you, Stan)

[Deleted User]

Re Scottish polling - I suspect the wee bairns are not old enough to have seen Braveheart (surely the single most impactful event in the history of recent Scottish nationalism).

If wee Eck is smart he'll distribute a gazillion free discs thereof with some blue face paint packs and 'FREEDOM' posters (with that letchy old English cad sliming and slicing his way into Mel's delightful and innocent hot Jock chick).

Theuniondivvie

Charles said:

Not on this one. Definitely remember some gloating.

I can't even be arsed asking for the most vestigial proof of that.
The only 'gloating' I can remember is one Nat poster betting against one of the smugger Tories that in his political judgement it was a point of principle for the SNP to have 16 & 17 year olds included in the referendum and it wouldn't be given up. He won his bet ergo some well deserved gloating.

AlastairMeeks

On the subject of Braveheart, last week I met a Cuban living in Sweden who rejoices in the name of William Wallace. When I get a free moment, I'm going to send him a picture of the plaque at Smithfields.

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, even when he's on holiday.....

You can take the man out of the blog but not the blog out of the man!

InMyHumOp

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22748914

Instead of meaningless symbolic gestures how about telling the truth for a change i.e. if labour get in they will as always increase spending probably using stealth and various off balance sheet methods. Whilst maintaining an illusion of dealing with the deficit that they created by using the above methods in the first place. Then as always they will increase taxes not just on the richest but on the vast majority in the middle (although like everything labour do this will not be done in a remotely honest way)

and as always they will probably get away with it because they have an incredibly friendly media and an incredibly unquestioning massively dependent core vote

FluffyThoughts

BenM said:

The government is boasting about its cuts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/03/government-claims-10-billion-savings-past-year

So iff has been passed. As such we can conclude that austerity doesn't equal deficit reduction.

Neaqrly all the reduction thus far has been thanks to collapse in investment spending. That barrel is now well and truly scraped which is why the deficit reduction is projected to stall from here on in.

BenM,

Your statement was wrong. For any piece of Grauniad Tuscan diatribe I can google a different answer. The key points [within this discussion] you are missing are these:

• You posted an evaluation as a statement,
• That evaluation cannot stand as a logical fact,
• I supplied a logical statement that shows that your evaluation fails,
and
• Nothing in the courses I studied at the LSE show any credance to your pontificating (but this does not effect the logical conclusion I made about your original post).

Its not rocket science, nor would any serious logician accept it as an oppurtunity for debate. You made a fundamental flaw in your statement (of which we all can do) and you are not able to prove it (any more than I can disprove it) so it must be assessed as logically false.

It only takes one exception to disprove a logical truism (or oxymoron). It is that simple and deserves no further discussion....

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

On the subject of Braveheart, last week I met a Cuban living in Sweden who rejoices in the name of William Wallace. When I get a free moment, I'm going to send him a picture of the plaque at Smithfields.

How about a picture of the tomb of Edward Longshanks to go with that picture?

Financier

KAVANAGH: Why Red Ed will never lead Britain

ED MILIBAND may not yet be seen by voters as a political joke but he is fast becoming Labour's new Neil Kinnock, which is almost as bad.

The accident-prone “Welsh Windbag” led his party to its knees in resounding election defeats, all the while convinced he was actually on the road to victory.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4952212/KAVANAGH-Why-Red-Ed-will-never-lead-Britain.html#ixzz2V90Tcfff

Theuniondivvie

TheScreamingEagles said:

That poll is very interesting for a variety of reasons

1) It's by Market Research UK, whose polling on past Scottish elections makes them as accurate as an American war movie or Braveheart

2) There's a perception that the youth of today aren't interested in politics or engaging in politics, but that poll shows Of those interviewed, 94% said they were aware the referendum will take place next year, with 69% intending to vote.

3) And my favourite finding, which shows that the referendum result can be swung by a decent campaign by the Yes side, The young people were then asked about the debate over Scottish independence so far. A third of them (32.8%) said they had enough information to make a decision, but 67.2% felt they would like more information making a final decision.

Yep, it's an interesting straw in the wind, and your third point is probably the most interesting.

I read an analysis somewhere (can't remember where unfortunately) that the 16 & 17 year old vote is only likely to make a difference if the result is within a 2% difference. I'd think that the No campaign would be a lot more unhappy with a 2% win than the Yes campaign.

AlastairMeeks

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

On the subject of Braveheart, last week I met a Cuban living in Sweden who rejoices in the name of William Wallace. When I get a free moment, I'm going to send him a picture of the plaque at Smithfields.

How about a picture of the tomb of Edward Longshanks to go with that picture?

Until I enlightened him, he had never heard of his namesake, or indeed the film Braveheart. He was delighted to hear of this obscure character.

TheScreamingEagles

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

That poll is very interesting for a variety of reasons

1) It's by Market Research UK, whose polling on past Scottish elections makes them as accurate as an American war movie or Braveheart

2) There's a perception that the youth of today aren't interested in politics or engaging in politics, but that poll shows Of those interviewed, 94% said they were aware the referendum will take place next year, with 69% intending to vote.

3) And my favourite finding, which shows that the referendum result can be swung by a decent campaign by the Yes side, The young people were then asked about the debate over Scottish independence so far. A third of them (32.8%) said they had enough information to make a decision, but 67.2% felt they would like more information making a final decision.

Yep, it's an interesting straw in the wind, and your third point is probably the most interesting.

I read an analysis somewhere (can't remember where unfortunately) that the 16 & 17 year old vote is only likely to make a difference if the result is within a 2% difference. I'd think that the No campaign would be a lot more unhappy with a 2% win than the Yes campaign.

I remember reading similar analysis, alongside the practical difficulties most pollsters are experiencing trying to find an appropriate number of 16 and 17 year olds, and those who will be 16 and 17 in September 2014.

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

On the subject of Braveheart, last week I met a Cuban living in Sweden who rejoices in the name of William Wallace. When I get a free moment, I'm going to send him a picture of the plaque at Smithfields.

How about a picture of the tomb of Edward Longshanks to go with that picture?

Until I enlightened him, he had never heard of his namesake, or indeed the film Braveheart. He was delighted to hear of this obscure character.

One of the reasons I hate Braveheart, is that Braveheart was the name of Robert The Bruce.

AlastairMeeks

@TheScreamingEagles Presumably all the pollsters' staff need to be CRB-vetted.