Regarding these polls, I'm pretty impressed with the British people that 74% recognise Angela Merkel, 23% can recognise Jose Barroso, and 23% can recognise Cathy Ashton!
The power most Brits want Cameron to repatriate is control of immigration. I think this should be the yardstick of whether his repatriation will be seen as successful or not.
23% recognize Ashton and Barroso??!! - have they missed the decimal point between the 2 and 3? I'm sure Survation is an commendably ethical outfit but I would trust my sturdy barge pole than their polling.
With regard to wanting to leave the EU, I wonder how much impact holidaying in Spain/Greece/Cyprus etc has on the attitude of the average British voter.
I was in Andalusia a few weeks back, swanning off on a golf trip/p*ss up (an excuse to get away with the boys) to a place just outside Jerez. We were collectively stunned by all the empty properties and aura of abandonment. Hollywood Hills style homes adorning the brush hillsides and overlooking the fairways, with nobody living in them. And Jerez was eerie; quiet, full of empty shops and yet plenty of cocaine and prostitutes on offer!?!
It was easy to see that the economy has tanked and driving cross-country back to Malaga through the hilly olive farms southern Spain looked nothing short of third world. All pretty desperate.
If we in the UK - with all our muscle and might - are staring into the abyss economy-wise and struggling to dig ourselves out you have to wonder how Spain or Greece will manage to do so.
Perhaps untacking ourselves from the relentless mess that those countries are going to find themselves in is becoming more and more appealing to the holidaying Brits. Like me, they are probably returning thinking, geez, what a mess. Broadly speaking, despite it's myriad faults, I'm not that keen on just upping and leaving the EU, but it is all a worry.
That reminds me of Ben Franklin becoming a supporter of independence after travelling round Ireland and witnessing the poverty that the enforced navigation effects were having there. It would be an interesting argument for UKIP to use: "Look what is happening to Spain and Greece - that's what could lie in store for Britain if the Ken Clarkes and Peter Mandelsons of this world have their way."
Regarding these polls, I'm pretty impressed with the British people that 74% recognise Angela Merkel, 23% can recognise Jose Barroso, and 23% can recognise Cathy Ashton!
The power most Brits want Cameron to repatriate is control of immigration. I think this should be the yardstick of whether his repatriation will be seen as successful or not.
23% recognize Ashton and Barroso??!! - have they missed the decimal point between the 2 and 3? I'm sure Survation is an commendably ethical outfit but I would trust my sturdy barge pole than their polling.
It does suggest that people are much more informed about EU issues than commonly appreciated, and that those claiming euroscepticism is just a knee-jerk reaction don't know what they're talking about.
That might explain UKIP's strength. I've certainly found on here that the eurosceptics seem to know far more about the EU than the eurofederalists.
So, in summary, the UK economy is recovering slowly but is in better shape that our most comparable competitor countries, even though Osborne inherited the worst public finances of the lot, whilst the scorecard of Labour U-turns so far is:
1) Accept the independence of the OBR and seek its seal of approval on spending plans: TICK 2) Accept that Osborne was right about Child Benefit: TICK 3) Accept that Balls was wrong about cutting VAT: Not yet confirmed, but signalled yesterday 4) Abandon the 'principle' of universal benefits: TICK 5) Accept Osborne's spending plans: TICK 6) Accept the £26K benefits cap: AWAITED 7) Accept that IDS was right about the spare-room subsidy: AWAITED
At this rate I think we can expect Balls to accept that Osborne's strategy has been near-perfect some time in 2014.
The power most Brits want Cameron to repatriate is control of immigration. I think this should be the yardstick of whether his repatriation will be seen as successful or not.
Don't tell me you actually believe any of this 'repatriation' posturing nonsense?
Dear, oh dear, oh dear.
No wonder Cammie can string along gullible eurosceptics so easily.
It doesn't matter what laughable scraps he might get if any. He'd have to repackage and spin them as a eurosceptic victory regardless because he has no choice in the matter and is hardly going to say he failed.
His eurosceptic MPs will also just have to like it because Cammie knows from previous experience they just don't have the balls to get rid of him no matter how many times he makes a fool of them over his EU posturing.
An excellent article from Harvard Business Review on the EU. It just goes to show how academic institutions in other parts of the world are outside the European group think consensus and can see the results for what they are:
The lofty purposes the EU originally set for itself included: to give Europeans the convenience of one currency, to enhance mutual prosperity, and to reduce political tensions after centuries of animosity and war.
We've seen how mutual prosperity is coming along. As for political tensions, a system whose officials are responsible for the region's faltering economies but who are not accountable to the tens of millions of unemployed people in them, is obviously exacerbating those tensions rather than alleviating them.
Meanwhile the costs and risks of the EU system are enormous. To take just one example, fiscal debt or banking problems in tiny countries like Greece and Cyprus have touched off major crises for the EU.
As I've said dozens of times on here that I don't expect Cameron to get any more than a fig leaf of a repatriation, I'm going to conclude that you don't read my posts and that there's thus not much point in debating this further with you.
Regarding these polls, I'm pretty impressed with the British people that 74% recognise Angela Merkel, 23% can recognise Jose Barroso, and 23% can recognise Cathy Ashton!
The power most Brits want Cameron to repatriate is control of immigration. I think this should be the yardstick of whether his repatriation will be seen as successful or not.
23% recognize Ashton and Barroso??!! - have they missed the decimal point between the 2 and 3? I'm sure Survation is an commendably ethical outfit but I would trust my sturdy barge pole than their polling.
It does suggest that people are much more informed about EU issues than commonly appreciated, and that those claiming euroscepticism is just a knee-jerk reaction don't know what they're talking about.
That might explain UKIP's strength. I've certainly found on here that the eurosceptics seem to know far more about the EU than the eurofederalists.
Sorry, I just don't buy it, at least not from Survation. From memory - and I appreciate surveys on this are few and far between - don't polls show that photo recognition of even senior Cabinet Ministers is often below 50%? So the notion that almost 25% can identify a figure of the utmost obscurity as Lady Ashton, beggars belief. And that's no reflection on the Great British Public, more a gentle indictment of we political obsessives!
But happy to eat my words were say, YouGov, MORI or ICM to find the same.
Be warned, for one year only and doesn't preclude raising taxes hugely for a splurge in subsequent years. From memory even GB pledged to follow Tory plans for TWO years after getting elected in '97 - probably the most successful 2 years that regime had!
How can this be?! I've been told - nay, mocked - many times on here with the argument that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.
Oh wait, I know why: Europhiles don't know what they're talking about.
It is possible that the head of the ECHR is getting above his station, of course. The two things are legally unrelated and any attempt to make them politically linked is a different matter which will only work as far as we let it. If we treat them as separate then there is nothing the EU or the ECHR can do to stop us.
The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by what Labour has said and chosen to intimate/leak this week. For anyone listening it was always going to be the case.
So we should assume that everything that Labour has not explicitly said it would reverse, just denounced as bringing about the end of civilised society as we know it, will not be reversed?
And the procession of "U-turns" from here to 2015 will help their economic credibility how exactly?
At least posh folk are more prepared to believe Labour - it's their traditional working class supporters who are more unforgiving.
We should assume that Labour believes that Osborne has made a series a very poor calls that have made a bad situation even worse than it had to be, but that at the same time we are where we are and we have to live with that as much as we would not want to in the ideal world.
SO - we know Labour are given more of the 'benefit of the doubt' among ABs like your good self - how are they going to persuade the C1/C2 and DE's - many of whom supported the Welfare reforms Labour so vociferously opposed, but are now U-turning on?
I thnk that is a very good question and one that I do not have a fully thought-through answer for. However, my preference would be for Labour to accept that there are major problems with welfare abuse, but that cracking down on that does not mean you have to penalise the majority who do not abuse the system ands who use it temporarily or at the same time as working. This needs to be coupled with a focus on job creation through capital projects, such as housebuilding, so that the welfare bill can be reduced in terms of both unemployment payments and housing benefit.
Oh wait, I know why: Europhiles don't know what they're talking about.
"Technically, the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are separate institutions, with the ECHR overseen by the 47-member Council of Europe."
*Sigh*
Ok, this shouldn't be difficult. Yes, they are separate institutions, but you have to sign up to the latter to be part of the former. Thus they are inextricably linked.
As I've said dozens of times on here that I don't expect Cameron to get any more than a fig leaf of a repatriation
Yet you hold it up as some kind of possibility and also conclude that it is somehow the yardstick he will be judged on?
"The power most Brits want Cameron to repatriate is control of immigration. I think this should be the yardstick of whether his repatriation will be seen as successful or not."
If you know it's all posturing presumably you only do so because you want to paint Cammie as a failure under a repatriation of immigration powers that he would have absolutely no chance of attaining. A curious strategy since by almost any yardstick it would be impossible to pretend these imaginary 'repatriations' were anything other than window dressing to save face. Better safe than sorry, is that it?
I'm going to conclude that kippers have even less chance of actually delivering anything substantive on Europe than Cammie because we all know under FPTP it's the truth.
Keep banging on about Europe by all means though since that never stops being hilarious as the right wing vote splits and Cammie's gullible supporters run about like headless chickens.
Regarding these polls, I'm pretty impressed with the British people that 74% recognise Angela Merkel, 23% can recognise Jose Barroso, and 23% can recognise Cathy Ashton!
The power most Brits want Cameron to repatriate is control of immigration. I think this should be the yardstick of whether his repatriation will be seen as successful or not.
23% recognize Ashton and Barroso??!! - have they missed the decimal point between the 2 and 3? I'm sure Survation is an commendably ethical outfit but I would trust my sturdy barge pole than their polling.
It does suggest that people are much more informed about EU issues than commonly appreciated, and that those claiming euroscepticism is just a knee-jerk reaction don't know what they're talking about.
That might explain UKIP's strength. I've certainly found on here that the eurosceptics seem to know far more about the EU than the eurofederalists.
Sorry, I just don't buy it, at least not from Survation. From memory - and I appreciate surveys on this are few and far between - don't polls show that photo recognition of even senior Cabinet Ministers is often below 50%? So the notion that almost 25% can identify a figure of the utmost obscurity as Lady Ashton, beggars belief. And that's no reflection on the Great British Public, more a gentle indictment of we political obsessives!
But happy to eat my words were say, YouGov, MORI or ICM to find the same.
I thought that when I read it yesterday! 23% recognition of Cathy Ashton I saw. Lol, I bet 23% of our MPs wouldn't recognise her.
How can this be?! I've been told - nay, mocked - many times on here with the argument that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.
Oh wait, I know why: Europhiles don't know what they're talking about.
It is possible that the head of the ECHR is getting above his station, of course. The two things are legally unrelated and any attempt to make them politically linked is a different matter which will only work as far as we let it. If we treat them as separate then there is nothing the EU or the ECHR can do to stop us.
The European Union became a party to the Convention by the terms of the Lisbon Treaty. Thus, even if a nation tried to opt out, it is still obliged to abide by rulings as part of the EU.
'A future Labour government would not reverse cuts to child benefit made by the coalition, the BBC has learned."
How many u-turns so far this week?
They opposed it when it was made, but that is something quite different.
Not to a headline writer, journalist or opponent its not......
Of course. The Tories will call it a u-turn, so will much of the press. Labour has to live with that, just as it always has to live with opponents putting the most negative spin possible on anything it does. That's politics.
All I'm saying is that, in the absence of Cameron stating up front what he wants to negotiate, which he refuses to do, the yardstick for a successful repatriation needs to be something objective. It should be compared to what the British public want back, and with how many powers are actually staying with Brussels.
'A future Labour government would not reverse cuts to child benefit made by the coalition, the BBC has learned."
How many u-turns so far this week?
They opposed it when it was made, but that is something quite different.
Not to a headline writer, journalist or opponent its not......
Of course. The Tories will call it a u-turn, so will much of the press. Labour has to live with that, just as it always has to live with opponents putting the most negative spin possible on anything it does. That's politics.
@RicHolden: Ed Balls's "Iron Discipline" seems to be melting away rather swiftly at the moment. Timeline of latest u-turn to follow...
More or less on topic, the Government has had two major successes in the EU in the last month, but for reasons of political positioning, is unable to trumpet them.
1) The apparent evisceration of the Financial Transaction Tax. If confirmed, this will be a major victory for the City of London and for George Osborne in particular.
2) The Commission's decision not to apply Solvency II to pension schemes. This will allow British defined benefit pension schemes (and their sponsoring employers) much more flexibility in how they meet their funding obligations. If Solvency II had been applied to pension schemes, the EU Commission had assessed that it would have a capital cost for UK employers of £450 billion. Despite this, it was a major surprise that the Commission had backed down so soon on this.
On the one hand, if the Government cannot make play of its successes in the EU now, how is it going to lead a positive campaign to stay in the EU later on?
On the other hand, contrary to some of the doom-mongering, the elevated threat of a British exit from the EU has not seemed to diminish its influence on matters that are of direct concern to it. If anything, the opposite seems to have happened.
Of course. The Tories will call it a u-turn, so will much of the press. Labour has to live with that, just as it always has to live with opponents putting the most negative spin possible on anything it does. That's politics.
For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea as one of the PB tories favourite politicians once wrote.
'A future Labour government would not reverse cuts to child benefit made by the coalition, the BBC has learned."
How many u-turns so far this week?
They opposed it when it was made, but that is something quite different.
Not to a headline writer, journalist or opponent its not......
It's a ridiculously thin argument. As – it has to be said – is the "near-perfect" 'checklist' from the often wise and balanced Richard N I read below.
What exactly is Labour supposed to do FFS? Say: "oh yes, Ozzy has presided over a barely touched deficit, anaemic growth and spiralling debt during his utter mismanagement of the last five years. However, we will splurge anyway, regardless of the fact he has bequeathed us with the inheritance from hell."
This is not a partisan point: I find the idea that Cameron is somehow "weak" and "embarrassed" for chasing Labour votes to get gay marriage through similarly risible. He did the right thing - was determined to do it - and used the means necessary to make sure it happened. He can't help it if his backbench is populated by ill-disciplined, mean-spirited misanthropes.
On the other hand, the European Commission has begun proceedings against the government on benefits for EU immigrants, the ECHR is upping the confrontation on votes for prisoners, and the UK has been unable to stop the EU starting the beginnings of a trade war with China over solar panels. So swings and roundabouts.
Oh wait, I know why: Europhiles don't know what they're talking about.
"Technically, the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are separate institutions, with the ECHR overseen by the 47-member Council of Europe."
Yes, they are separate institutions, but you have to sign up to the latter to be part of the former.
But not the other way round.....are you suggesting we leave the ECHR but not the EU? Only then is it a problem.....
Right, but that's exactly the sort of situation Theresa May has been alluding to. If we wish to avoid giving votes for prisoners, we need to leave the ECHR, and to do that we need to leave the EU.
The bringing of our welfare state into the affordable / sustainable territory will require the state to withdraw from some areas of activity and a radical rethink of costing and value for money everywhere. Raising taxes as per Cyclefree below will only kill growth. We just need to spend less. Alot less. And that includes benefits.
I wasn't proposing them as sensible policies merely suggesting that I expect Labour to adopt some or all of them, particularly if they have to accept cuts in benefits. On the face of it they will appear popular because everyone thinks that the rich are people who earn more than they do.
But I expect any such policies to hit middle England i.e. people who are not and do not consider themselves rich and that's when the fun starts because Labour have - until now, anyway - given the impression that a few taxes on bankers are all that's needed.
What exactly is Labour supposed to do FFS? Say: "oh yes, Ozzy has presided over a barely touched deficit, anaemic growth and spiralling debt during his utter mismanagement of the last five years. However, we will splurge anyway, regardless of the fact he has bequeathed us with the inheritance from hell."
That is Labour's line. They continually decry everything that has been done, claim catastrophic consequences, and are still planning to borrow and spend more
George Osborne's scheme to boost the housing market through state mortgage subsidies has been dubbed one of the "most stupid economic ideas" of the past 30 years by a leading City commentator.
"The question for Ukip then is what level it will sink back to in a general election campaign when the main parties and leaders are getting more attention. Will it be six per cent? 10 percent? 12 per cent?
Ukippers, or those online anyway, seem to be poor judges of these matters. With the zeal of true believers, they accuse anyone applying normal analytical techniques to their beloved insurgent movement of being part of some traitorous EU-sponsored plot. They are convinced that the rise will continue and that there is a great cleansing cataclysm coming. But actually, even if that doesn't happen, which history suggests it won't, Ukip could still have a very powerful impact on election day with just half the support it is getting now in polls."
So, in summary, the UK economy is recovering slowly but is in better shape that our most comparable competitor countries, even though Osborne inherited the worst public finances of the lot, whilst the scorecard of Labour U-turns so far is:
1) Accept the independence of the OBR and seek its seal of approval on spending plans: TICK 2) Accept that Osborne was right about Child Benefit: TICK 3) Accept that Balls was wrong about cutting VAT: Not yet confirmed, but signalled yesterday 4) Abandon the 'principle' of universal benefits: TICK 5) Accept Osborne's spending plans: TICK 6) Accept the £26K benefits cap: AWAITED 7) Accept that IDS was right about the spare-room subsidy: AWAITED
At this rate I think we can expect Balls to accept that Osborne's strategy has been near-perfect some time in 2014.
When Ed Balls cuts the 45% tax rate and puts his kids names down for Eton then final victory has been made. The middle of next week at the current rate of U turns!
Jame's Caan defence of jobs for his daughters this morning is totally unbeleiveable.
Personally I think it's natural to help your offspring, but just be open about it.
I agree that it is natural to help out people you know, including your family, but I wouldn't limit it to just your offspring.
The reason this appears to be a problem is that Western Society has abandoned an approach of "broadly try to look after everyone", in favour of an increasingly ruthless meritocracy.
Helping out the people you know is a natural part of a society that looks to find a respectable place for everyone to contribute and be fairly rewarded for that contribution, but in a meritocracy where those that "fail" are left struggling on zero-hours contracts, etc, such assistance is cheating.
There is no way to resolve such a contradiction. One has to choose.
The reality is that very few (non-private) companies can afford to take people on in significant roles if they don't merit the position. Connections will get you an interview, but they won't get you the job anymore.
More or less on topic, the Government has had two major successes in the EU in the last month, but for reasons of political positioning, is unable to trumpet them.
1) The apparent evisceration of the Financial Transaction Tax. If confirmed, this will be a major victory for the City of London and for George Osborne in particular.
2) The Commission's decision not to apply Solvency II to pension schemes. This will allow British defined benefit pension schemes (and their sponsoring employers) much more flexibility in how they meet their funding obligations. If Solvency II had been applied to pension schemes, the EU Commission had assessed that it would have a capital cost for UK employers of £450 billion. Despite this, it was a major surprise that the Commission had backed down so soon on this.
On the one hand, if the Government cannot make play of its successes in the EU now, how is it going to lead a positive campaign to stay in the EU later on?
On the other hand, contrary to some of the doom-mongering, the elevated threat of a British exit from the EU has not seemed to diminish its influence on matters that are of direct concern to it. If anything, the opposite seems to have happened.
But these are proposals that the EU made that are against the UK's interests, of course we should oppose them. If we weren't a part of the EU we wouldn't have to bother and we could watch, popcorn in hand, as the rump EU went to hell in a handcart.
the yardstick for a successful repatriation needs to be something objective. It should be compared to what the British public want back, and with how many powers are actually staying with Brussels.
Objective for whom?
For Farage? Nothing Cammie could possibly come back with will satisfy him or the kippers so we can rule that out immediately.
For his own MPs? Some of them have said they want it spelled out right now yet Cammie shows no sign of doing so even for the mildest of supposed 'repatriation victories', never mind how far some of them want to push him.
For the public it would be an exercise in "who do you believe?" as the spin would be wall to wall with Cameron claiming the EU were moving his way even on the most superficial of repatriations.
Since Cammie hardly wants to enter an election campaign starting a full scale bidding war over EU powers, with UKIP and his more excitable backbenchers and grassroots, it's a fairly safe bet he's going to keep silent on specifics and shift things to the economy which the election campaign will inevitably do anyway.
Oh wait, I know why: Europhiles don't know what they're talking about.
"Technically, the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are separate institutions, with the ECHR overseen by the 47-member Council of Europe."
Yes, they are separate institutions, but you have to sign up to the latter to be part of the former.
But not the other way round.....are you suggesting we leave the ECHR but not the EU? Only then is it a problem.....
If we wish to avoid giving votes for prisoners, we need to leave the ECHR,
No we don't. We need just need to end the blanket ban - each case should be considered on its merits - much as it is when it applies to bail:
"there is no need to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights; and there is certainly no need to give all or most of serving prisoners the vote. There simply needs to be an end to a blanket ban, and that could be easily done."
Do Labour really want to get into an argument about tuogh choices because of the weak economy they may inherit - might just remind the electorate if their own track record. This is a party that has criticised each and every tough choice the coalition has taken after all.
Lets be honest Labour pinned its hopes on a triple-dip, now that that has been averted and the economic data continues to improve they have panicked, realised that on the big issues they are on the wrong side of the British people, and are rowing back desperately. I suspect it wont end well.
they have panicked, realised that on the big issues they are on the wrong side of the British people, and are rowing back desperately. I suspect it wont end well.
What could possibly go wrong?
@RicHolden: Monday - Ed Balls "we've always struck a balance, some thigns universal like child benefit...I agree" (Sky, 03.06.2013) #MoltenIron
@RicHolden: Today - Labour Briefing to BBC "A future Labour government would not reverse cuts to child benefit." (BBC Online, 05.06.2013) #MoltenIron
@RicHolden: NOW - Labour aren't so sure - "I'm told Ed Mili won't be specific re child benefit cuts tmrw...But they won't be reversed" via @paulwaugh
Oh wait, I know why: Europhiles don't know what they're talking about.
"Technically, the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are separate institutions, with the ECHR overseen by the 47-member Council of Europe."
Yes, they are separate institutions, but you have to sign up to the latter to be part of the former.
But not the other way round.....are you suggesting we leave the ECHR but not the EU? Only then is it a problem.....
If we wish to avoid giving votes for prisoners, we need to leave the ECHR,
No we don't. We need just need to end the blanket ban - each case should be considered on its merits - much as it is when it applies to bail:
"there is no need to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights; and there is certainly no need to give all or most of serving prisoners the vote. There simply needs to be an end to a blanket ban, and that could be easily done."
With all respect, you don't seem to be following basic logic here. "Ending the blanket ban", means giving votes to some prisoners. If we wish to avoid giving votes to prisoners that menas disobeying the ECHR. That means, ultimately, we'd have to leave the EU.
I've been looking at a map and I never realised that Sandwich in Kent is as far away from London as Peterborough. I always assumed it was a lot closer.
Also, it looks like the proposed Boris island airport is on the same arc as Stanstead. Why don't we have a massive increase in Stanstead plus high speed transport links to Lodon there instead of spending more billions on the SE corner?
Of course. The Tories will call it a u-turn, so will much of the press. Labour has to live with that, just as it always has to live with opponents putting the most negative spin possible on anything it does. That's politics.
For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea as one of the PB tories favourite politicians once wrote.
Stormy waters ahead for the fops.
An excellent quote, what else would you expect?
But PB Tory?
Only ever voted Labour (1997-2010) and now will vote UKIP so you have got that one wrong.
Markit published two of its PMIs this morning. their Composite Eurozone PMI and a UK Services PMI. Both for May.
The Eurozone PMI made for depressing reading. The only consolation was that the rate of decline abated slightly in May, but even this was offset by negative forward trends.
The key findings were:
Eurozone downturn eases to slowest in three months in May
• Final Eurozone Composite Output Index: 47.7 (Flash 47.7, April 46.9)
• Final Eurozone Services Business Activity Index: 47.2 (Flash 47.5, April 47.0)
• Germany ekes out marginal growth, while downturns ease in Spain and France
The downturn in the eurozone economy eased for the second month running in May. Rates of decline eased for both manufacturing production and service sector business activity, reaching 15- and three-month lows respectively.
At 47.7, the final Markit Eurozone PMI® Composite Output Index was in line with its earlier flash estimate and above April’s 46.9.
Germany edged out of contraction territory in May, as an improvement in its manufacturing sector offset a slight decrease in service sector business activity. Although the downturns in France, Spain and Italy all remained marked, rates of contraction eased to a five-month low in France, 23-month low in Spain and stabilised in Italy.
The outlook for eurozone output is likely to be impacted by the ongoing deterioration in new order inflows, as new business contracted for the twenty-second successive month. Service sector new business fell at a sharper pace than the prior month, whereas the downturn in manufacturing new orders moderated to a slight pace.
New order inflows declined across the big-four eurozone nations. Rates of decline eased sharply in Spain, moderated in Germany and France, but gathered pace in Italy.
Job losses were reported for the seventeenth successive month during May. This reflected payroll numbers falling further in France, Italy and Spain, and declining for the first time in four months in Germany. Spare capacity remained available despite job losses, as signalled by further depletion of backlogs of work.
stodge accused me yesterday of "clinging to lifebelts" in announcing every tiny piece of good news published about the UK economy. No stodge, this Markit report is an example of what you meant.
There may be a small glimpse of light cast on the waves by the lighthouse of hope, but the shore is far away and the swimmers weak.
It was left to Chris Williamson, Chief Economist of Markit, to set out the reality:
“The final PMI confirms the message from the earlier flash reading that the eurozone remains gripped in the longest recession since the birth of the single currency, set to endure a seventh successive quarter of decline in the second quarter. The survey points to GDP falling by 0.2%, similar to the decline seen in the first quarter.
“Policymakers and politicians will nevertheless seek solace in the fact that the rate of decline has now eased for two consecutive months, and that Germany is stabilising. Downturns have also eased in France, Italy and especially Spain since earlier in the year.
“However, the reality is that the region lacks any growth drivers, making it difficult to believe that anything better than a mere stabilisation of economic activity remains unlikely for the foreseeable future.”
The UK Services PMI had better be the subject of a separate post.
The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by what Labour has said and chosen to intimate/leak this week. For anyone listening it was always going to be the case.
So we should assume that everything that Labour has not explicitly said it would reverse, just denounced as bringing about the end of civilised society as we know it, will not be reversed?
And the procession of "U-turns" from here to 2015 will help their economic credibility how exactly?
At least posh folk are more prepared to believe Labour - it's their traditional working class supporters who are more unforgiving.
We should assume that Labour believes that Osborne has made a series a very poor calls that have made a bad situation even worse than it had to be, but that at the same time we are where we are and we have to live with that as much as we would not want to in the ideal world.
SO - we know Labour are given more of the 'benefit of the doubt' among ABs like your good self - how are they going to persuade the C1/C2 and DE's - many of whom supported the Welfare reforms Labour so vociferously opposed, but are now U-turning on?
I thnk that is a very good question and one that I do not have a fully thought-through answer for. However, my preference would be for Labour to accept that there are major problems with welfare abuse, but that cracking down on that does not mean you have to penalise the majority who do not abuse the system ands who use it temporarily or at the same time as working. This needs to be coupled with a focus on job creation through capital projects, such as housebuilding, so that the welfare bill can be reduced in terms of both unemployment payments and housing benefit.
I know there is some differentiation already, but perhaps the route to go down is that we should design different structures for different needs.
For instance, someone who loses their job needs income support for (hopefully) a short period of time so they can maintain their job-readiness, don't lose their house, etc. So perhaps a higher income element but not much other support
However, someone who is long-term unemployed needs social housing and training rather than necessarily a higher income.
Similarly someone who with a disability might find capital up front (e.g. for house conversions) more useful than a slightly higher income over time.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to set up effectively individual welfare allowances that people can draw on as they need? For the sake of argument (percentages made up), perhaps 75% of an individuals 'welfare contributions' go into an individual pot, while 25% goes to a central pot than can be used to subsidise those who haven't yet had the chance to build up reserves.
(Of course the government's track record in major projects like this isn't, shall we say, stellar)
On the other hand, contrary to some of the doom-mongering, the elevated threat of a British exit from the EU has not seemed to diminish its influence on matters that are of direct concern to it. If anything, the opposite seems to have happened.
In a shock development, threatening to take his ball home meant that young Dave got to play centre forward.
And our erosion of free speech continues. Apparently telling people to "obey our laws, respect our beliefs or get out of our country" is now inciting racial hatred.
Meanwhile a "Liberal" Democrat and a "liberal" Conservative in power, do nothing about this crap. No wonder the backbenchers are ticked off. Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher standing by and doing nothing while shopkeepers are threatened with arrest over a perfectly reasonable viewpoint?
I've been looking at a map and I never realised that Sandwich in Kent is as far away from London as Peterborough. I always assumed it was a lot closer.
Also, it looks like the proposed Boris island airport is on the same arc as Stanstead. Why don't we have a massive increase in Stanstead plus high speed transport links to Lodon there instead of spending more billions on the SE corner?
Standsted has expansion problems as well, although an order of magnitude less than Heathrow. Such a move would also require a great deal of transport infrastructure: a better rail link from the south, the M11 to Cambridge being made at least three lane, and the thorny problem of the A14 (much of the traffic to such a hub airport would come along the A1/A14/M11).
The campaigners against Stansted expansion are also well-practiced.
What Labour won't be able to explain is why cutting spending in 2010 was supposed to be evidence of Osborne's rank incompetence or was ideologically-driven, but cutting spending in 2015 is noble, progressive and sound economics.
There is of course a very good reason for this, which is that Osborne was right. He'll still be right in 2015, and Balls is wriggling because he knows he has to admit this without admitting it.
What Labour is now trying to do was of course inevitable and obvious from the start; the only mystery is why it doesn't seem to have been obvious to Labour, with the result that every time they saw a hostage to fortune they said 'Yep, we'll go for that one'.
They'll now get up caught up in a triple lock of confusion: U-turns, 'clarification' of their U-turns, and disgruntled supporters bitching at every move towards admission of reality.
But the real fun starts with the unions. When Balls made an effort on the subject of public sector pay in January 2012, he was quickly reprimanded by Labour's union paymasters. We can expect a repeat, and it's already begun:
The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by what Labour has said and chosen to intimate/leak this week. For anyone listening it was always going to be the case.
So we should assume that everything that Labour has not explicitly said it would reverse, just denounced as bringing about the end of civilised society as we know it, will not be reversed?
And the procession of "U-turns" from here to 2015 will help their economic credibility how exactly?
At least posh folk are more prepared to believe Labour - it's their traditional working class supporters who are more unforgiving.
We should assume that Labour believes that Osborne has made a series a very poor calls that have made a bad situation even worse than it had to be, but that at the same time we are where we are and we have to live with that as much as we would not want to in the ideal world.
SO - we know Labour are given more of the 'benefit of the doubt' among ABs like your good self - how are they going to persuade the C1/C2 and DE's - many of whom supported the Welfare reforms Labour so vociferously opposed, but are now U-turning on?
I thnk that is a very good question and one that I do not have a fully thought-through answer for. However, my preference would be for Labour to accept that there are major problems with welfare abuse, but that cracking down on that does not mean you have to penalise the majority who do not abuse the system ands who use it temporarily or at the same time as working. This needs to be coupled with a focus on job creation through capital projects, such as housebuilding, so that the welfare bill can be reduced in terms of both unemployment payments and housing benefit.
I know there is some differentiation already, but perhaps the route to go down is that we should design different structures for different needs.
For instance, someone who loses their job needs income support for (hopefully) a short period of time so they can maintain their job-readiness, don't lose their house, etc. So perhaps a higher income element but not much other support
However, someone who is long-term unemployed needs social housing and training rather than necessarily a higher income.
Similarly someone who with a disability might find capital up front (e.g. for house conversions) more useful than a slightly higher income over time.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to set up effectively individual welfare allowances that people can draw on as they need? For the sake of argument (percentages made up), perhaps 75% of an individuals 'welfare contributions' go into an individual pot, while 25% goes to a central pot than can be used to subsidise those who haven't yet had the chance to build up reserves.
(Of course the government's track record in major projects like this isn't, shall we say, stellar)
I like pretty much everything you've said there Charles. In addition, I can't find much wrong with removing VAT on house refurbishments as long as it's returning said houses to the market (rental or sale) and using a one time bond issue to fund infra-structure development, especially power generation. Add in my support for fracking then tell me which party I lean towards :-)
The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by what Labour has said and chosen to intimate/leak this week. For anyone listening it was always going to be the case.
So we should assume that everything that Labour has not explicitly said it would reverse, just denounced as bringing about the end of civilised society as we know it, will not be reversed?
And the procession of "U-turns" from here to 2015 will help their economic credibility how exactly?
At least posh folk are more prepared to believe Labour - it's their traditional working class supporters who are more unforgiving.
We should assume that Labour believes that Osborne has made a series a very poor calls that have made a bad situation even worse than it had to be, but that at the same time we are where we are and we have to live with that as much as we would not want to in the ideal world.
SO - we know Labour are given more of the 'benefit of the doubt' among ABs like your good self - how are they going to persuade the C1/C2 and DE's - many of whom supported the Welfare reforms Labour so vociferously opposed, but are now U-turning on?
I thnk that is a very good question and one that I do not have a fully thought-through answer for. However, my preference would be for Labour to accept that there are major problems with welfare abuse, but that cracking down on that does not mean you have to penalise the majority who do not abuse the system ands who use it temporarily or at the same time as working. This needs to be coupled with a focus on job creation through capital projects, such as housebuilding, so that the welfare bill can be reduced in terms of both unemployment payments and housing benefit.
I know there is some differentiation already, but perhaps the route to go down is that we should design different structures for different needs.
For instance, someone who loses their job needs income support for (hopefully) a short period of time so they can maintain their job-readiness, don't lose their house, etc. So perhaps a higher income element but not much other support
However, someone who is long-term unemployed needs social housing and training rather than necessarily a higher income.
Similarly someone who with a disability might find capital up front (e.g. for house conversions) more useful than a slightly higher income over time.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to set up effectively individual welfare allowances that people can draw on as they need? For the sake of argument (percentages made up), perhaps 75% of an individuals 'welfare contributions' go into an individual pot, while 25% goes to a central pot than can be used to subsidise those who haven't yet had the chance to build up reserves.
(Of course the government's track record in major projects like this isn't, shall we say, stellar)
I was unemployed for three months in 1992. During that time I got unemployment benefit, my mortgage payments were covered and we got milk vouchers (basically food stamps) for our two year old. It meant that I had the space to look for a decent job, rather than having to get the first one that came along. As a result, I entered a new market, thrived and ended up doing pretty well both for myself and the governemnt (as a taxpayer). My circumstances are clearly not the typical ones, but I suspect that most unemployed people went through the same general process back then, whereas nowadays they are forced into the first job that comes up - which can often have serious adverse consequences for their long-term futures career-wise, housing-wise and so on.
All of which is a very roundabout way of saying that I may agree with a lot of what you say, as long as the minimal protections are not punitive. A yoing person with a family who has bought a flat on the back of getting their first job out of university should not face losing everything just because he/she has not had time to build up a decent amount of social security insurance.
Oh wait, I know why: Europhiles don't know what they're talking about.
"Technically, the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are separate institutions, with the ECHR overseen by the 47-member Council of Europe."
Yes, they are separate institutions, but you have to sign up to the latter to be part of the former.
But not the other way round.....are you suggesting we leave the ECHR but not the EU? Only then is it a problem.....
If we wish to avoid giving votes for prisoners, we need to leave the ECHR,
No we don't. We need just need to end the blanket ban - each case should be considered on its merits - much as it is when it applies to bail:
"there is no need to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights; and there is certainly no need to give all or most of serving prisoners the vote. There simply needs to be an end to a blanket ban, and that could be easily done."
"The question for Ukip then is what level it will sink back to in a general election campaign when the main parties and leaders are getting more attention. Will it be six per cent? 10 percent? 12 per cent?
Ukippers, or those online anyway, seem to be poor judges of these matters. With the zeal of true believers, they accuse anyone applying normal analytical techniques to their beloved insurgent movement of being part of some traitorous EU-sponsored plot. They are convinced that the rise will continue and that there is a great cleansing cataclysm coming. But actually, even if that doesn't happen, which history suggests it won't, Ukip could still have a very powerful impact on election day with just half the support it is getting now in polls."
I don't think that applies to those on this blog. I think most UKIPers on here expect them to drop back at the election. 8-12% seems to be most likely.
I've been looking at a map and I never realised that Sandwich in Kent is as far away from London as Peterborough. I always assumed it was a lot closer.
Also, it looks like the proposed Boris island airport is on the same arc as Stanstead. Why don't we have a massive increase in Stanstead plus high speed transport links to Lodon there instead of spending more billions on the SE corner?
Standsted has expansion problems as well, although an order of magnitude less than Heathrow. Such a move would also require a great deal of transport infrastructure: a better rail link from the south, the M11 to Cambridge being made at least three lane, and the thorny problem of the A14 (much of the traffic to such a hub airport would come along the A1/A14/M11).
The campaigners against Stansted expansion are also well-practiced.
And the RSPB campaigners? What about shouting from the rooftops about the 60 000 direct and support jobs (I think that's the figure Boris bandied about) for the area. I don't have a problem with a 6(each way) lane M11 plus high speed trains and a 4 lane (each way) A (M) 14. That's what compulsory purchase orders are for. Let's get the UK to change gear and get moving. We did it for HS1 why not this?
The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by what Labour has said and chosen to intimate/leak this week. For anyone listening it was always going to be the case.
So we should assume that everything that Labour has not explicitly said it would reverse, just denounced as bringing about the end of civilised society as we know it, will not be reversed?
And the procession of "U-turns" from here to 2015 will help their economic credibility how exactly?
At least posh folk are more prepared to believe Labour - it's their traditional working class supporters who are more unforgiving.
We should assume that Labour believes that Osborne has made a series a very poor calls that have made a bad situation even worse than it had to be, but that at the same time we are where we are and we have to live with that as much as we would not want to in the ideal world.
SO - we know Labour are given more of the 'benefit of the doubt' among ABs like your good self - how are they going to persuade the C1/C2 and DE's - many of whom supported the Welfare reforms Labour so vociferously opposed, but are now U-turning on?
I thnk that is a very good question and one that I do not have a fully thought-through answer for. However, my preference would be for Labour to accept that there are major problems with welfare abuse, but that cracking down on that does not mean you have to penalise the majority who do not abuse the system ands who use it temporarily or at the same time as working. This needs to be coupled with a focus on job creation through capital projects, such as housebuilding, so that the welfare bill can be reduced in terms of both unemployment payments and housing benefit.
I know there is some differentiation already, but perhaps the route to go down is that we should design different structures for different needs.
For instance, someone who loses their job needs income support for (hopefully) a short period of time so they can maintain their job-readiness, don't lose their house, etc. So perhaps a higher income element but not much other support
However, someone who is long-term unemployed needs social housing and training rather than necessarily a higher income.
Similarly someone who with a disability might find capital up front (e.g. for house conversions) more useful than a slightly higher income over time.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to set up effectively individual welfare allowances that people can draw on as they need? For the sake of argument (percentages made up), perhaps 75% of an individuals 'welfare contributions' go into an individual pot, while 25% goes to a central pot than can be used to subsidise those who haven't yet had the chance to build up reserves.
(Of course the government's track record in major projects like this isn't, shall we say, stellar)
I was unemployed for three months in 1992. During that time I got unemployment benefit, my mortgage payments were covered and we got milk vouchers (basically food stamps) for our two year old. It meant that I had the space to look for a decent job, rather than having to get the first one that came along. As a result, I entered a new market, thrived and ended up doing pretty well both for myself and the governemnt (as a taxpayer). My circumstances are clearly not the typical ones, but I suspect that most unemployed people went through the same general process back then, whereas nowadays they are forced into the first job that comes up - which can often have serious adverse consequences for their long-term futures career-wise, housing-wise and so on.
All of which is a very roundabout way of saying that I may agree with a lot of what you say, as long as the minimal protections are not punitive. A yoing person with a family who has bought a flat on the back of getting their first job out of university should not face losing everything just because he/she has not had time to build up a decent amount of social security insurance.
There's no intention to be punitive. It doesn't help anyone - someone who wants to work and make a contribution should be supported in that aim. That said, the case of the person who buys a flat and then loses their first job is a good one. There is a case for supporting them for a period - may be 6 months (plucked out of the air) - but at some point the taxpayer shouldn't be funding their lifestyle/property ownership.
May be there would be a model whereby the flat could be taken into social housing? If not then, at some point, the family will need to sell and move somewhere they can afford.
O/T but would appreciate people's input. Have a new trustee for the foundation - scarily high powered (partner at one of the most successful but least well known private investment firms in the world). He's set me homework of writing a mission statement. Draft below... be gentle...
Principal objectives:
(1) Helping inspirational leaders execute on their charitable vision through provision of advice, mentoring and financial and practical support
(2) Removing roadblocks that prevent individuals from achieving what they are capable of doing
(3) Assisting individuals who have taken a wrong turn in life to get back on track
(4) Encouraging the spread and development of key practical skills and abilities
(5) Promoting cultural development, in particular with a focus on awareness of art from regional collections and encouraging an interest in art and culture among young people
Examples (non-exhaustive) could include:
(1) Venture philanthropy efforts / focus on smaller/start-up charities. Particular interest in pilot schemes and developing new ideas
(2) Education, care leavers, other disadvantaged children & young adults. Also includes health related causes, especially where these are either natural disabilities or disabilities/injuries incurred in the service of others
(3) Adult literacy, recividism, etc
(4) Primarily the bursary scheme - would like to focus on practical skills; also could include supporting organisations like New England Ballet and Campaign for Drawing
(5) Primarily the Winter Exhibition, including the Schools programme
The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by what Labour has said and chosen to intimate/leak this week. For anyone listening it was always going to be the case.
So we should assume that everything that Labour has not explicitly said it would reverse, just denounced as bringing about the end of civilised society as we know it, will not be reversed?
And the procession of "U-turns" from here to 2015 will help their economic credibility how exactly?
At least posh folk are more prepared to believe Labour - it's their traditional working class supporters who are more unforgiving.
We should assume that Labour believes that Osborne has made a series a very poor calls that have made a bad situation even worse than it had to be, but that at the same time we are where we are and we have to live with that as much as we would not want to in the ideal world.
SO - we know Labour are given more of the 'benefit of the doubt' among ABs like your good self - how are they going to persuade the C1/C2 and DE's - many of whom supported the Welfare reforms Labour so vociferously opposed, but are now U-turning on?
I thnk that is a very good question and one that I do not have a fully thought-through answer for. However, my preference would be for Labour to accept that there are major problems with welfare abuse, but that cracking down on that does not mean you have to penalise the majority who do not abuse the system ands who use it temporarily or at the same time as working. This needs to be coupled with a focus on job creation through capital projects, such as housebuilding, so that the welfare bill can be reduced in terms of both unemployment payments and housing benefit.
I know there is some differentiation already, but perhaps the route to go down is that we should design different structures for different needs.
For instance, someone who loses their job needs income support for (hopefully) a short period of time so they can maintain their job-readiness, don't lose their house, etc. So perhaps a higher income element but not much other support
However, someone who is long-term unemployed needs social housing and training rather than necessarily a higher income.
Similarly someone who with a disability might find capital up front (e.g. for house conversions) more useful than a slightly higher income over time.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to set up effectively individual welfare allowances that people can draw on as they need? For the sake of argument (percentages made up), perhaps 75% of an individuals 'welfare contributions' go into an individual pot, while 25% goes to a central pot than can be used to subsidise those who haven't yet had the chance to build up reserves.
(Of course the government's track record in major projects like this isn't, shall we say, stellar)
I was unemployed for three months in 1992. During that time I got unemployment benefit, my mortgage payments were covered and we got milk vouchers (basically food stamps) for our two year old. It meant that I had the space to look for a decent job, rather than having to get the first one that came along. As a result, I entered a new market, thrived and ended up doing pretty well both for myself and the governemnt (as a taxpayer). My circumstances are clearly not the typical ones, but I suspect that most unemployed people went through the same general process back then, whereas nowadays they are forced into the first job that comes up - which can often have serious adverse consequences for their long-term futures career-wise, housing-wise and so on.
All of which is a very roundabout way of saying that I may agree with a lot of what you say, as long as the minimal protections are not punitive. A yoing person with a family who has bought a flat on the back of getting their first job out of university should not face losing everything just because he/she has not had time to build up a decent amount of social security insurance.
There's no intention to be punitive. It doesn't help anyone - someone who wants to work and make a contribution should be supported in that aim. That said, the case of the person who buys a flat and then loses their first job is a good one. There is a case for supporting them for a period - may be 6 months (plucked out of the air) - but at some point the taxpayer shouldn't be funding their lifestyle/property ownership.
May be there would be a model whereby the flat could be taken into social housing? If not then, at some point, the family will need to sell and move somewhere they can afford.
I agree. You can't expect the state to subsidise you forever and that at some stage (within a year for sure) you need to recognise your changed circumstances and act accordingly. But the state also needs to understand that a bit of flexibility can end up paying dividends in a number of ways - tangible and more intangible - and that most people who claim benefits do so because they have to, not because they are making a lifestyle choice.
I also want to see a LOT more nuclear power stations - not PWR.
Out of the EU
HS2
Roll back the stupid remuneration deals with NHS doctors - how stupid to let GP's opt out of house/night call outs. Why should a GP 'earn £200 000+/year?
Reduce the HoL to 250 and keep it there. Elected on 5 - 10 year terms and paid, they're not really peers of the realm anymore just political hacks that have brown nosed themselves into a job.
Reduce the HoC to 550 - 600 with equal numbered constituencies reviewed before every GE - a constant standing boundary commission?
Increase MP's (both HoL and HoC salary to approx. £125 000/year NO expenses.
Ensure UK rule of law in ALL communities get rid of anyone preaching racial hatred if non UK citizens. Get rid of Non UK citizens convicted of a violent criminal offence.
It would be wonderful if the shopkeeper told them to get stuffed and it went to court. Seeing a prosecuting lawyer trying to argue in court that, under the law, it is illegal to say that if you want to live in this country you should obey the law would be a fine way of discrediting the whole nonsense.
The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by what Labour has said and chosen to intimate/leak this week. For anyone listening it was always going to be the case.
So we should assume that everything that Labour has not explicitly said it would reverse, just denounced as bringing about the end of civilised society as we know it, will not be reversed?
And the procession of "U-turns" from here to 2015 will help their economic credibility how exactly?
At least posh folk are more prepared to believe Labour - it's their traditional working class supporters who are more unforgiving.
We should assume that Labour believes that Osborne has made a series a very poor calls that have made a bad situation even worse than it had to be, but that at the same time we are where we are and we have to live with that as much as we would not want to in the ideal world.
SO - we know Labour are given more of the 'benefit of the doubt' among ABs like your good self - how are they going to persuade the C1/C2 and DE's - many of whom supported the Welfare reforms Labour so vociferously opposed, but are now U-turning on?
I thnk that is a very good question and one that I do not have a fully thought-through answer for. However, my preference would be for Labour to accept that there are major problems with welfare abuse, but that cracking down on that does not mean you have to penalise the majority who do not abuse the system ands who use it temporarily or at the same time as working. This needs to be coupled with a focus on job creation through capital projects, such as housebuilding, so that the welfare bill can be reduced in terms of both unemployment payments and housing benefit.
I know there is some differentiation already, but perhaps the route to go down is that we should design different structures for different needs.
For instance, someone who loses their job needs income support for (hopefully) a short period of time so they can maintain their job-readiness, don't lose their house, etc. So perhaps a higher income element but not much other support
However, someone who is long-term unemployed needs social housing and training rather than necessarily a higher income.
Similarly someone who with a disability might find capital up front (e.g. for house conversions) more useful than a slightly higher income over time.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to set up effectively individual welfare allowances that people can draw on as they need? For the sake of argument (percentages made up), perhaps 75% of an individuals 'welfare contributions' go into an individual pot, while 25% goes to a central pot than can be used to subsidise those who haven't yet had the chance to build up reserves.
(Of course the government's track record in major projects like this isn't, shall we say, stellar)
I was unemployed for three months in 1992. During that time I got unemployment benefit, my mortgage payments were covered and we got milk vouchers (basically food stamps) for our two year old. It meant that I had the space to look for a decent job, rather than having to get the first one that came along. As a result, I entered a new market, thrived and ended up doing pretty well both for myself and the governemnt (as a taxpayer). My circumstances are clearly not the typical ones, but I suspect that most unemployed people went through the same general process back then, whereas nowadays they are forced into the first job that comes up - which can often have serious adverse consequences for their long-term futures career-wise, housing-wise and so on.
All of which is a very roundabout way of saying that I may agree with a lot of what you say, as long as the minimal protections are not punitive. A yoing person with a family who has bought a flat on the back of getting their first job out of university should not face losing everything just because he/she has not had time to build up a decent amount of social security insurance.
There's no intention to be punitive. It doesn't help anyone - someone who wants to work and make a contribution should be supported in that aim. That said, the case of the person who buys a flat and then loses their first job is a good one. There is a case for supporting them for a period - may be 6 months (plucked out of the air) - but at some point the taxpayer shouldn't be funding their lifestyle/property ownership.
May be there would be a model whereby the flat could be taken into social housing? If not then, at some point, the family will need to sell and move somewhere they can afford.
I agree. You can't expect the state to subsidise you forever and that at some stage (within a year for sure) you need to recognise your changed circumstances and act accordingly. But the state also needs to understand that a bit of flexibility can end up paying dividends in a number of ways - tangible and more intangible - and that most people who claim benefits do so because they have to, not because they are making a lifestyle choice.
Absolutely. Part of the problem is that the state seeks to control and impose central policy. To the extent that they trusted professionals and gave them some degree of flexibility that would be a good thing. Of course, then, everyone would complain about a 'post code lottery' and it being unfair.
" Earlier in the week I discussed Labour’s welfare stance on Twitter with the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, and later at a an IEA public meeting with Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston.
Both of them are from the Blairite wing of the party, and neither is a shrinking violet when it comes to taking tough political decisions. But both of them staunchly advocated the reversal of the Tory child benefit cut, with Gisela Stuart going so far as to urge women to “get out on the streets” to fight it.
Now it’s Ed Miliband who needs to be ready to face the protestors' wrath. If Harriet Harman isn’t outside the Labour leader’s door with a pitchfork and an angry mob by noon, it will be a miracle. And I understand Yvette Cooper, who holds the Women and Equalities brief, isn’t exactly doing somersaults over the announcement."
Good news that the economy is returning to growth (as I've stated our small construction business has noticed a definite upturn in activity this spring) so I'm not surprised. I reakon 2013 GDP could well surprise on the positive side for once.
Labour's U-Turn's this week appear to be tacit confirmation that the coalition has got the economic strategy correct and Labour will be fighting the next election on Tory territory - The Ed's staked everything on the economy not recovering, sadly for them, it looks like they've got it wrong.
Good news that the economy is returning to growth (as I've stated out small construction business has noticed a definite upturn in activity this spring) so I'm not surprised. I reakon 2013 GDP could well surprise on the positive side for once.
Labour's U-Turn's this week appear to be tacit confirmation that the coalition has got the economic strategy correct and Labour will be fighting the next election on Tory territory - The Ed's staked everything on the economy not recovering, sadly for them, it looks like they've got it wrong.
Labour's 2015 GE strategy has been revealed " Same cuts as those guys but our pained expression is straight from the heart honest gov.."
It would be wonderful if the shopkeeper told them to get stuffed and it went to court. Seeing a prosecuting lawyer trying to argue in court that, under the law, it is illegal to say that if you want to live in this country you should obey the law would be a fine way of discrediting the whole nonsense.
@Charles Far too long. If it's longer than three lines, it's too long.
I very much doubt that your first objective is to help inspirational leaders. In fact, your only real objective in what you've drafted is (3). The rest is just how you achieve that objective.
The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by what Labour has said and chosen to intimate/leak this week. For anyone listening it was always going to be the case.
So we should assume that everything that Labour has not explicitly said it would reverse, just denounced as bringing about the end of civilised society as we know it, will not be reversed?
And the procession of "U-turns" from here to 2015 will help their economic credibility how exactly?
At least posh folk are more prepared to believe Labour - it's their traditional working class supporters who are more unforgiving.
We should assume that Labour believes that Osborne has made a series a very poor calls that have made a bad situation even worse than it had to be, but that at the same time we are where we are and we have to live with that as much as we would not want to in the ideal world.
SO - we know Labour are given more of the 'benefit of the doubt' among ABs like your good self - how are they going to persuade the C1/C2 and DE's - many of whom supported the Welfare reforms Labour so vociferously opposed, but are now U-turning on?
I thnk that is a very good question and one that I do not have a fully thought-through answer for. However, my preference would be for Labour to accept that there are major problems with welfare abuse, but that cracking down on that does not mean you have to penalise the majority who do not abuse the system ands who use it temporarily or at the same time as working. This needs to be coupled with a focus on job creation through capital projects, such as housebuilding, so that the welfare bill can be reduced in terms of both unemployment payments and housing benefit.
I know there is some differentiation already, but perhaps the route to go down is that we should design different structures for different needs.
For instance, someone who loses their job needs income support for (hopefully) a short period of time so they can maintain their job-readiness, don't lose their house, etc. So perhaps a higher income element but not much other support
However, someone who is long-term unemployed needs social housing and training rather than necessarily a higher income.
Similarly someone who with a disability might find capital up front (e.g. for house conversions) more useful than a slightly higher income over time.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to set up effectively individual welfare allowances that people can draw on as they need? For the sake of argument (percentages made up), perhaps 75% of an individuals 'welfare contributions' go into an individual pot, while 25% goes to a central pot than can be used to subsidise those who haven't yet had the chance to build up reserves.
(Of course the government's track record in major projects like this isn't, shall we say, stellar)
I was unemployed for three months in 1992. During that time I got unemployment benefit, my mortgage payments were covered and we got milk vouchers (basically food stamps) for our two year old. It meant that I had the space to look for a decent job, rather than having to get the first one that came along. As a result, I entered a new market, thrived and ended up doing pretty well both for myself and the governemnt (as a taxpayer). My circumstances are clearly not the typical ones, but I suspect that most unemployed people went through the same general process back then, whereas nowadays they are forced into the first job that comes up - which can often have serious adverse consequences for their long-term futures career-wise, housing-wise and so on.
All of which is a very roundabout way of saying that I may agree with a lot of what you say, as long as the minimal protections are not punitive. A yoing person with a family who has bought a flat on the back of getting their first job out of university should not face losing everything just because he/she has not had time to build up a decent amount of social security insurance.
There's no intention to be punitive. It doesn't help anyone - someone who wants to work and make a contribution should be supported in that aim. That said, the case of the person who buys a flat and then loses their first job is a good one. There is a case for supporting them for a period - may be 6 months (plucked out of the air) - but at some point the taxpayer shouldn't be funding their lifestyle/property ownership.
May be there would be a model whereby the flat could be taken into social housing? If not then, at some point, the family will need to sell and move somewhere they can afford.
I agree. You can't expect the state to subsidise you forever and that at some stage (within a year for sure) you need to recognise your changed circumstances and act accordingly. But the state also needs to understand that a bit of flexibility can end up paying dividends in a number of ways - tangible and more intangible - and that most people who claim benefits do so because they have to, not because they are making a lifestyle choice.
Absolutely. Part of the problem is that the state seeks to control and impose central policy. To the extent that they trusted professionals and gave them some degree of flexibility that would be a good thing. Of course, then, everyone would complain about a 'post code lottery' and it being unfair.
I am going for a lie down! I imagine that on the nitty gritty we may disagree, but I have no problems with the general principle of what you say. Having depended on social security once, and knowing how it can help those who need it in times of trouble, I yield to no-one in my utter and absolute disdain for those who abuse the system. They are beneath contempt. Anything that deals with them, while not penalising the vast majority of good faith welfare recipients is worth serious consideraiton in my books.
O/T but would appreciate people's input. Have a new trustee for the foundation - scarily high powered (partner at one of the most successful but least well known private investment firms in the world). He's set me homework of writing a mission statement. Draft below... be gentle...
Principal objectives:
(1) Helping inspirational leaders execute on their charitable vision through provision of advice, mentoring and financial and practical support
(2) Removing roadblocks that prevent individuals from achieving what they are capable of doing
(3) Assisting individuals who have taken a wrong turn in life to get back on track
(4) Encouraging the spread and development of key practical skills and abilities
(5) Promoting cultural development, in particular with a focus on awareness of art from regional collections and encouraging an interest in art and culture among young people
Examples (non-exhaustive) could include:
(1) Venture philanthropy efforts / focus on smaller/start-up charities. Particular interest in pilot schemes and developing new ideas
(2) Education, care leavers, other disadvantaged children & young adults. Also includes health related causes, especially where these are either natural disabilities or disabilities/injuries incurred in the service of others
(3) Adult literacy, recividism, etc
(4) Primarily the bursary scheme - would like to focus on practical skills; also could include supporting organisations like New England Ballet and Campaign for Drawing
(5) Primarily the Winter Exhibition, including the Schools programme
None of those are a mission statement Charles, but your new trustee may not have been that literally minded.
Mission statements combine a statement of core values and purpose in a single sentence.
The best ever written is Walt's mission for Disney:
To bring happiness, through entertainment
You could borrow from St. Ignatius of Loyola:
to give without counting the cost; to fight without fear of being wounded; to work without seeking rest;
Good news that the economy is returning to growth (as I've stated our small construction business has noticed a definite upturn in activity this spring) so I'm not surprised. I reakon 2013 GDP could well surprise on the positive side for once.
Labour's U-Turn's this week appear to be tacit confirmation that the coalition has got the economic strategy correct and Labour will be fighting the next election on Tory territory - The Ed's staked everything on the economy not recovering, sadly for them, it looks like they've got it wrong.
What was the IMF prediction for the UK economy in 2013 - +0.6%? If Markit is right then we could exceed that in the first two quarters alone if we hit +0.5% this quarter.
"Chris Williamson, chief economist at survey-compiler Markit, hailed May's growth across all sectors as a sign the British economy has "moved up a gear":
The UK economy has moved up a gear with all cylinders now firing.
The data suggest that economic growth will have picked up in the second quarter compared to the 0.3pc increase in GDP seen in the first quarter, shaping up to reach 0.5pc if June sees sustained growth.
There's good reason to believe growth can accelerate further. Across all three sectors, new business showed the largest jump for three years in May. Firms are also taking on staff in increased numbers, responding to the brightening outlook."
@Charles Far too long. If it's longer than three lines, it's too long.
I very much doubt that your first objective is to help inspirational leaders. In fact, your only real objective in what you've drafted is (3). The rest is just how you achieve that objective.
Thanks. The second half is just internal notes - it is the first half that are mission statement (although really objectives. The mission statament is "no stone unturned").
The first objective is the real one. We backed MERLIN (http://www.merlin.org.uk/) as a start-up for instance [the key bit in their history is 'an office set up in the spare bedroom of a London house' which slightly understates the facilities at Townsend House...] . There was a great group of doctors with an amazing vision and no idea how to turn it into a practical organisation.
We have a great network, and ability to persuade people to help, plus some money & want to help people do worthwhile things.
Good news that the economy is returning to growth (as I've stated our small construction business has noticed a definite upturn in activity this spring) so I'm not surprised. I reakon 2013 GDP could well surprise on the positive side for once.
Labour's U-Turn's this week appear to be tacit confirmation that the coalition has got the economic strategy correct and Labour will be fighting the next election on Tory territory - The Ed's staked everything on the economy not recovering, sadly for them, it looks like they've got it wrong.
What was the IMF prediction for the UK economy in 2013 - +0.6%? If Markit is right then we could exceed that in the first two quarters alone if we hit +0.5% this quarter.
"Chris Williamson, chief economist at survey-compiler Markit, hailed May's growth across all sectors as a sign the British economy has "moved up a gear":
The UK economy has moved up a gear with all cylinders now firing.
The data suggest that economic growth will have picked up in the second quarter compared to the 0.3pc increase in GDP seen in the first quarter, shaping up to reach 0.5pc if June sees sustained growth.
There's good reason to believe growth can accelerate further. Across all three sectors, new business showed the largest jump for three years in May. Firms are also taking on staff in increased numbers, responding to the brightening outlook."
Confidence tends to breed confidence.
Once you start doing better with growth than people expect, it can feedback on itself - That's what happened in the early 80's and mid 90's I think.
It's amazing how quickly recovery can accelerate once the spark is lit.
Labour's best hope is that the split between Cameron and the Conservative Party continues.
I think the next election is very winnable for the Tories, but obviously if they decide that they would rather lose the next election than than see Cameron and Osborne win, then The Ed's will win by default.
O/T but would appreciate people's input. Have a new trustee for the foundation - scarily high powered (partner at one of the most successful but least well known private investment firms in the world). He's set me homework of writing a mission statement. Draft below... be gentle...
Principal objectives:
(1) Helping inspirational leaders execute on their charitable vision through provision of advice, mentoring and financial and practical support
(2) Removing roadblocks that prevent individuals from achieving what they are capable of doing
(3) Assisting individuals who have taken a wrong turn in life to get back on track
(4) Encouraging the spread and development of key practical skills and abilities
(5) Promoting cultural development, in particular with a focus on awareness of art from regional collections and encouraging an interest in art and culture among young people
Examples (non-exhaustive) could include:
(1) Venture philanthropy efforts / focus on smaller/start-up charities. Particular interest in pilot schemes and developing new ideas
(2) Education, care leavers, other disadvantaged children & young adults. Also includes health related causes, especially where these are either natural disabilities or disabilities/injuries incurred in the service of others
(3) Adult literacy, recividism, etc
(4) Primarily the bursary scheme - would like to focus on practical skills; also could include supporting organisations like New England Ballet and Campaign for Drawing
(5) Primarily the Winter Exhibition, including the Schools programme
None of those are a mission statement Charles, but your new trustee may not have been that literally minded.
Mission statements combine a statement of core values and purpose in a single sentence.
The best ever written is Walt's mission for Disney:
To bring happiness, through entertainment
You could borrow from St. Ignatius of Loyola:
to give without counting the cost; to fight without fear of being wounded; to work without seeking rest;
Sorry Charles, but I nodded off at "roadblock" - wearying cliche.
How would you describe a programme that covers everything from recidivism to wounded veterens and adult literacy programmes?
The purpose is to take people with talent who have a major obstacle that prevents them from making proper contribution to society and fixing it.
It would be wonderful if the shopkeeper told them to get stuffed and it went to court. Seeing a prosecuting lawyer trying to argue in court that, under the law, it is illegal to say that if you want to live in this country you should obey the law would be a fine way of discrediting the whole nonsense.
Absolutely agree. But they know he's just a poor shop keeper who probably can not afford to risk such things. But even if he did win, the laws are still on the books banning speech that should be protected, even if that speech is offensive. Unless you're encouraging a lynching, you should be able to say what you like about any group, be it white people, Buddhists or toffs. The best way to defeat racism is not to ban it, but to put it in a spotlight and debate it: look how the BNP collapsed after Griffin was put on Question Time.
O/T but would appreciate people's input. Have a new trustee for the foundation - scarily high powered (partner at one of the most successful but least well known private investment firms in the world). He's set me homework of writing a mission statement. Draft below... be gentle...
Principal objectives:
(1) Helping inspirational leaders execute on their charitable vision through provision of advice, mentoring and financial and practical support
(2) Removing roadblocks that prevent individuals from achieving what they are capable of doing
(3) Assisting individuals who have taken a wrong turn in life to get back on track
(4) Encouraging the spread and development of key practical skills and abilities
(5) Promoting cultural development, in particular with a focus on awareness of art from regional collections and encouraging an interest in art and culture among young people
Examples (non-exhaustive) could include:
(1) Venture philanthropy efforts / focus on smaller/start-up charities. Particular interest in pilot schemes and developing new ideas
(2) Education, care leavers, other disadvantaged children & young adults. Also includes health related causes, especially where these are either natural disabilities or disabilities/injuries incurred in the service of others
(3) Adult literacy, recividism, etc
(4) Primarily the bursary scheme - would like to focus on practical skills; also could include supporting organisations like New England Ballet and Campaign for Drawing
(5) Primarily the Winter Exhibition, including the Schools programme
None of those are a mission statement Charles, but your new trustee may not have been that literally minded.
Mission statements combine a statement of core values and purpose in a single sentence.
The best ever written is Walt's mission for Disney:
To bring happiness, through entertainment
You could borrow from St. Ignatius of Loyola:
to give without counting the cost; to fight without fear of being wounded; to work without seeking rest;
Sorry Charles, but I nodded off at "roadblock" - wearying cliche.
Once you start doing better with growth than people expect, it can feedback on itself - That's what happened in the early 80's and mid 90's I think.
It's amazing how quickly recovery can accelerate once the spark is lit.
Of course, the key is to make sure the new economic growth is sustainable and not based on homeowners remortgaging to buy a new iPad and going on a foreign holiday. It also doesn't mean the growth has to all happen in manufacturing - there are plenty of services that are knowledge intensive and highly productive. We do need to start seeing the trade balance correcting however.
@Charles Far too long. If it's longer than three lines, it's too long.
Agree.
Take the 'mission' of a leading FMCG multinational:
"We will provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world’s consumers.
As a result, consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profit and value creation, allowing our people, our shareholders, and the communities in which we live and work to prosper."
Good news that the economy is returning to growth (as I've stated our small construction business has noticed a definite upturn in activity this spring) so I'm not surprised. I reakon 2013 GDP could well surprise on the positive side for once.
Labour's U-Turn's this week appear to be tacit confirmation that the coalition has got the economic strategy correct and Labour will be fighting the next election on Tory territory - The Ed's staked everything on the economy not recovering, sadly for them, it looks like they've got it wrong.
What was the IMF prediction for the UK economy in 2013 - +0.6%? If Markit is right then we could exceed that in the first two quarters alone if we hit +0.5% this quarter.
"Chris Williamson, chief economist at survey-compiler Markit, hailed May's growth across all sectors as a sign the British economy has "moved up a gear":
The UK economy has moved up a gear with all cylinders now firing.
The data suggest that economic growth will have picked up in the second quarter compared to the 0.3pc increase in GDP seen in the first quarter, shaping up to reach 0.5pc if June sees sustained growth.
There's good reason to believe growth can accelerate further. Across all three sectors, new business showed the largest jump for three years in May. Firms are also taking on staff in increased numbers, responding to the brightening outlook."
What is remarkable about the UK recovery - if that is what it is, and it looks promising - is how it is happening despite ongoing gloom across the Channel. Indeed some data show that eurogeddon is deepening:
May Services PMI
Italy: 46.5 (expected 47.5, prior 47.0)
France: 44.3 (expected 44.3, prior 44.3)
Germany: 49.7 (expected 49.8, prior 49.8)
Eurozone: 47.2 (expected 47.5, prior 47.5)
We appear to have decoupled from the eurozone. Fingers x'd.
Uk economy : consumers and businesses were sitting on their hands EU economy : hands chopped off.
I've been looking at a map and I never realised that Sandwich in Kent is as far away from London as Peterborough. I always assumed it was a lot closer.
Also, it looks like the proposed Boris island airport is on the same arc as Stanstead. Why don't we have a massive increase in Stanstead plus high speed transport links to Lodon there instead of spending more billions on the SE corner?
Standsted has expansion problems as well, although an order of magnitude less than Heathrow. Such a move would also require a great deal of transport infrastructure: a better rail link from the south, the M11 to Cambridge being made at least three lane, and the thorny problem of the A14 (much of the traffic to such a hub airport would come along the A1/A14/M11).
The campaigners against Stansted expansion are also well-practiced.
And the RSPB campaigners? What about shouting from the rooftops about the 60 000 direct and support jobs (I think that's the figure Boris bandied about) for the area. I don't have a problem with a 6(each way) lane M11 plus high speed trains and a 4 lane (each way) A (M) 14. That's what compulsory purchase orders are for. Let's get the UK to change gear and get moving. We did it for HS1 why not this?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - I want increased airport capacity, it's just that I think expansion of Heathrow is not ideal long term. What we need is an airport that will cope with traffic levels going as far as 2060 (especially considering it will take 10+ years to anything opening).
As many know, I'm in favour of Boris Island. We should do it.
Sometime we need a more sensible attitude to nation-critical infrastructure. If it is something that is seen as being absolutely critical to the nation (e.g. the Severn Barrage) it is put forward for a national referendum. If a majority vote for it, then it goes ahead without a planning process. This would only be used very occasionally, on items such as a new airport.
A full referendum would probably be cheaper than the public inquiry (for instance 4 years and £80m for Heathrow T5, compared to the £75 million for the AV referendum)
MERLIN is a good example. They wanted to build a medical charity and were great at getting out and solving the problem. They were terrible at administration. We came in, gave them an office and a very talented chief administrative officer. Helped them increase the proportion of funds that got to where the need is from about 20% to just over 90%.
Another example is readeasy - a fantastic charity started by a wonderful individual but only in 2-3 towns). We introduced her to a mentor (former director of John Lewis) and have provided funds to pay the CEO a salary (she's worked upaid for 3 years but can't afford to any more) and hire an assistant. The objective is to roll the programme out into 20 new towns over the next 3 years.
Three years ago, we made a promise: to bring immigration back under control. The latest set of independent statistics show we’re doing just that. Since the election, we have cut net immigration by more than a third. The number of immigrants coming to the UK is now lower than it has been for over a decade. After years of uncontrolled immigration under Labour, the Conservatives are building an immigration system which works in our national interest. We want this country to attract people who will contribute to our national life – but those who will not should be deterred.
We have closed down bogus colleges and made students who want to come to the UK prove they’re coming here to study, not to work.
We have made sure people can only bring in a spouse or partner from outside Europe if they can support them financially.
We have rewritten the ‘Life in the UK’ test for new citizens, putting British values and British history at its heart.
Labour have opposed every single one of these reforms.
But we know there is more to do. It is still too easy for illegal immigrants to access public services which they’re not entitled to – and too hard for immigration officials to remove them from the UK. Our new Immigration Bill will clamp down on those from overseas who abuse our public services, make Britain less of a soft touch, and make it easier for us to remove people who should not be here. It will take time to clear up the mess we inherited from Labour. But these figures show that we can do it. Best wishes,
Good news that the economy is returning to growth (as I've stated our small construction business has noticed a definite upturn in activity this spring) so I'm not surprised. I reakon 2013 GDP could well surprise on the positive side for once.
Labour's U-Turn's this week appear to be tacit confirmation that the coalition has got the economic strategy correct and Labour will be fighting the next election on Tory territory - The Ed's staked everything on the economy not recovering, sadly for them, it looks like they've got it wrong.
What was the IMF prediction for the UK economy in 2013 - +0.6%? If Markit is right then we could exceed that in the first two quarters alone if we hit +0.5% this quarter.
"Chris Williamson, chief economist at survey-compiler Markit, hailed May's growth across all sectors as a sign the British economy has "moved up a gear":
The UK economy has moved up a gear with all cylinders now firing.
The data suggest that economic growth will have picked up in the second quarter compared to the 0.3pc increase in GDP seen in the first quarter, shaping up to reach 0.5pc if June sees sustained growth.
There's good reason to believe growth can accelerate further. Across all three sectors, new business showed the largest jump for three years in May. Firms are also taking on staff in increased numbers, responding to the brightening outlook."
What is remarkable about the UK recovery - if that is what it is, and it looks promising - is how it is happening despite ongoing gloom across the Channel. Indeed some data show that eurogeddon is deepening:
May Services PMI
Italy: 46.5 (expected 47.5, prior 47.0)
France: 44.3 (expected 44.3, prior 44.3)
Germany: 49.7 (expected 49.8, prior 49.8)
Eurozone: 47.2 (expected 47.5, prior 47.5)
We appear to have decoupled from the eurozone. Fingers x'd.
What is also remarkable is how the liberal media are still failing to recognise the Eurogeddon.
Bloomberg were yesterday hailing the first positive balance of trade in Spain since the 1970s as evidence of Eurozone recovery.
But when you read the article the truth was that imports had fallen by 15% due to fall in consumption and exports had risen by 2%.
MERLIN is a good example. They wanted to build a medical charity and were great at getting out and solving the problem. They were terrible at administration. We came in, gave them an office and a very talented chief administrative officer. Helped them increase the proportion of funds that got to where the need is from about 20% to just over 90%.
Another example is readeasy - a fantastic charity started by a wonderful individual but only in 2-3 towns). We introduced her to a mentor (former director of John Lewis) and have provided funds to pay the CEO a salary (she's worked upaid for 3 years but can't afford to any more) and hire an assistant. The objective is to roll the programme out into 20 new towns over the next 3 years.
Thanks, that explanation I can understand.
"Helping inspirational leaders help others" doesn't convey that message to me, not that I have any better suggestions instantly. If I do I will let you know.
Comments
They may as well be hung for a sheep than a farmy farm lamb.
That might explain UKIP's strength. I've certainly found on here that the eurosceptics seem to know far more about the EU than the eurofederalists.
1) Accept the independence of the OBR and seek its seal of approval on spending plans: TICK
2) Accept that Osborne was right about Child Benefit: TICK
3) Accept that Balls was wrong about cutting VAT: Not yet confirmed, but signalled yesterday
4) Abandon the 'principle' of universal benefits: TICK
5) Accept Osborne's spending plans: TICK
6) Accept the £26K benefits cap: AWAITED
7) Accept that IDS was right about the spare-room subsidy: AWAITED
At this rate I think we can expect Balls to accept that Osborne's strategy has been near-perfect some time in 2014.
Dear, oh dear, oh dear.
No wonder Cammie can string along gullible eurosceptics so easily.
It doesn't matter what laughable scraps he might get if any. He'd have to repackage and spin them as a eurosceptic victory regardless because he has no choice in the matter and is hardly going to say he failed.
His eurosceptic MPs will also just have to like it because Cammie knows from previous experience they just don't have the balls to get rid of him no matter how many times he makes a fool of them over his EU posturing.
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/06/the_european_union_a_failed_ex.html
The lofty purposes the EU originally set for itself included: to give Europeans the convenience of one currency, to enhance mutual prosperity, and to reduce political tensions after centuries of animosity and war.
We've seen how mutual prosperity is coming along. As for political tensions, a system whose officials are responsible for the region's faltering economies but who are not accountable to the tens of millions of unemployed people in them, is obviously exacerbating those tensions rather than alleviating them.
Meanwhile the costs and risks of the EU system are enormous. To take just one example, fiscal debt or banking problems in tiny countries like Greece and Cyprus have touched off major crises for the EU.
As I've said dozens of times on here that I don't expect Cameron to get any more than a fig leaf of a repatriation, I'm going to conclude that you don't read my posts and that there's thus not much point in debating this further with you.
But happy to eat my words were say, YouGov, MORI or ICM to find the same.
5) Accept Osborne's spending plans: TICK
Be warned, for one year only and doesn't preclude raising taxes hugely for a splurge in subsequent years. From memory even GB pledged to follow Tory plans for TWO years after getting elected in '97 - probably the most successful 2 years that regime had!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336021/Britain-obey-Strasbourg-judges-quit-EU-warns-new-chief-European-Court-Human-Rights.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
How can this be?! I've been told - nay, mocked - many times on here with the argument that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.
Oh wait, I know why: Europhiles don't know what they're talking about.
Ok, this shouldn't be difficult. Yes, they are separate institutions, but you have to sign up to the latter to be part of the former. Thus they are inextricably linked.
"The power most Brits want Cameron to repatriate is control of immigration. I think this should be the yardstick of whether his repatriation will be seen as successful or not."
If you know it's all posturing presumably you only do so because you want to paint Cammie as a failure under a repatriation of immigration powers that he would have absolutely no chance of attaining. A curious strategy since by almost any yardstick it would be impossible to pretend these imaginary 'repatriations' were anything other than window dressing to save face. Better safe than sorry, is that it?
I'm going to conclude that kippers have even less chance of actually delivering anything substantive on Europe than Cammie because we all know under FPTP it's the truth.
Keep banging on about Europe by all means though since that never stops being hilarious as the right wing vote splits and Cammie's gullible supporters run about like headless chickens.
All I'm saying is that, in the absence of Cameron stating up front what he wants to negotiate, which he refuses to do, the yardstick for a successful repatriation needs to be something objective. It should be compared to what the British public want back, and with how many powers are actually staying with Brussels.
1) The apparent evisceration of the Financial Transaction Tax. If confirmed, this will be a major victory for the City of London and for George Osborne in particular.
2) The Commission's decision not to apply Solvency II to pension schemes. This will allow British defined benefit pension schemes (and their sponsoring employers) much more flexibility in how they meet their funding obligations. If Solvency II had been applied to pension schemes, the EU Commission had assessed that it would have a capital cost for UK employers of £450 billion. Despite this, it was a major surprise that the Commission had backed down so soon on this.
On the one hand, if the Government cannot make play of its successes in the EU now, how is it going to lead a positive campaign to stay in the EU later on?
On the other hand, contrary to some of the doom-mongering, the elevated threat of a British exit from the EU has not seemed to diminish its influence on matters that are of direct concern to it. If anything, the opposite seems to have happened.
Stormy waters ahead for the fops.
What exactly is Labour supposed to do FFS? Say: "oh yes, Ozzy has presided over a barely touched deficit, anaemic growth and spiralling debt during his utter mismanagement of the last five years. However, we will splurge anyway, regardless of the fact he has bequeathed us with the inheritance from hell."
This is not a partisan point: I find the idea that Cameron is somehow "weak" and "embarrassed" for chasing Labour votes to get gay marriage through similarly risible. He did the right thing - was determined to do it - and used the means necessary to make sure it happened. He can't help it if his backbench is populated by ill-disciplined, mean-spirited misanthropes.
On the other hand, the European Commission has begun proceedings against the government on benefits for EU immigrants, the ECHR is upping the confrontation on votes for prisoners, and the UK has been unable to stop the EU starting the beginnings of a trade war with China over solar panels. So swings and roundabouts.
But I expect any such policies to hit middle England i.e. people who are not and do not consider themselves rich and that's when the fun starts because Labour have - until now, anyway - given the impression that a few taxes on bankers are all that's needed.
False conclusion.
The commentator called the scheme stupid, not Osborne
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100219568/what-level-of-support-will-ukip-sink-back-to/
"The question for Ukip then is what level it will sink back to in a general election campaign when the main parties and leaders are getting more attention. Will it be six per cent? 10 percent? 12 per cent?
Ukippers, or those online anyway, seem to be poor judges of these matters. With the zeal of true believers, they accuse anyone applying normal analytical techniques to their beloved insurgent movement of being part of some traitorous EU-sponsored plot. They are convinced that the rise will continue and that there is a great cleansing cataclysm coming. But actually, even if that doesn't happen, which history suggests it won't, Ukip could still have a very powerful impact on election day with just half the support it is getting now in polls."
Objective for whom?
For Farage? Nothing Cammie could possibly come back with will satisfy him or the kippers so we can rule that out immediately.
For his own MPs? Some of them have said they want it spelled out right now yet Cammie shows no sign of doing so even for the mildest of supposed 'repatriation victories', never mind how far some of them want to push him.
For the public it would be an exercise in "who do you believe?" as the spin would be wall to wall with Cameron claiming the EU were moving his way even on the most superficial of repatriations.
Since Cammie hardly wants to enter an election campaign starting a full scale bidding war over EU powers, with UKIP and his more excitable backbenchers and grassroots, it's a fairly safe bet he's going to keep silent on specifics and shift things to the economy which the election campaign will inevitably do anyway.
"there is no need to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights; and there is certainly no need to give all or most of serving prisoners the vote. There simply needs to be an end to a blanket ban, and that could be easily done."
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/02/prisoner-european-mps-vote
@MrHarryCole: RT @GeneralBoles: @Con_Voice Not my finest hour but probably as good as it's going to get. http://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/342211940371812353/photo/1
Lets be honest Labour pinned its hopes on a triple-dip, now that that has been averted and the economic data continues to improve they have panicked, realised that on the big issues they are on the wrong side of the British people, and are rowing back desperately. I suspect it wont end well.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-983250
Do Cameron, Miliband and Clegg still want them to join the EU?
@RicHolden: Monday - Ed Balls "we've always struck a balance, some thigns universal like child benefit...I agree" (Sky, 03.06.2013) #MoltenIron
@RicHolden: Today - Labour Briefing to BBC "A future Labour government would not reverse cuts to child benefit." (BBC Online, 05.06.2013) #MoltenIron
@RicHolden: NOW - Labour aren't so sure - "I'm told Ed Mili won't be specific re child benefit cuts tmrw...But they won't be reversed" via @paulwaugh
@RicHolden: Remember @Ed_Miliband's 1st PMQs? EM: "The PM has no defence for child benefit policy and should think again" Hansard http://ww.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101013/debtext/101013-0001.htm#10101328002976
I've been looking at a map and I never realised that Sandwich in Kent is as far away from London as Peterborough. I always assumed it was a lot closer.
Also, it looks like the proposed Boris island airport is on the same arc as Stanstead. Why don't we have a massive increase in Stanstead plus high speed transport links to Lodon there instead of spending more billions on the SE corner?
But PB Tory?
Only ever voted Labour (1997-2010) and now will vote UKIP so you have got that one wrong.
Markit published two of its PMIs this morning. their Composite Eurozone PMI and a UK Services PMI. Both for May.
The Eurozone PMI made for depressing reading. The only consolation was that the rate of decline abated slightly in May, but even this was offset by negative forward trends.
The key findings were:
Eurozone downturn eases to slowest in three months in May
• Final Eurozone Composite Output Index: 47.7 (Flash 47.7, April 46.9)
• Final Eurozone Services Business Activity Index: 47.2 (Flash 47.5, April 47.0)
• Germany ekes out marginal growth, while downturns ease in Spain and France
The downturn in the eurozone economy eased for the second month running in May. Rates of decline eased for both manufacturing production and service sector business activity, reaching 15- and three-month lows respectively.
At 47.7, the final Markit Eurozone PMI® Composite Output Index was in line with its earlier flash estimate and above April’s 46.9.
Germany edged out of contraction territory in May, as an improvement in its manufacturing sector offset a slight decrease in service sector business activity. Although the downturns in France, Spain and Italy all remained marked, rates of contraction eased to a five-month low in France, 23-month low in Spain and stabilised in Italy.
The outlook for eurozone output is likely to be impacted by the ongoing deterioration in new order inflows, as new business contracted for the twenty-second successive month. Service sector new business fell at a sharper pace than the prior month, whereas the downturn in manufacturing new orders moderated to a slight pace.
New order inflows declined across the big-four eurozone nations. Rates of decline eased sharply in Spain, moderated in Germany and France, but gathered pace in Italy.
Job losses were reported for the seventeenth successive month during May. This reflected payroll numbers falling further in France, Italy and Spain, and declining for the first time in four months in Germany. Spare capacity remained available despite job losses, as signalled by further depletion of backlogs of work.
stodge accused me yesterday of "clinging to lifebelts" in announcing every tiny piece of good news published about the UK economy. No stodge, this Markit report is an example of what you meant.
There may be a small glimpse of light cast on the waves by the lighthouse of hope, but the shore is far away and the swimmers weak.
It was left to Chris Williamson, Chief Economist of Markit, to set out the reality:
“The final PMI confirms the message from the earlier flash reading that the eurozone remains gripped in the longest recession since the birth of the single currency, set to endure a seventh successive quarter of decline in the second quarter. The survey points to GDP falling by 0.2%, similar to the decline seen in the first quarter.
“Policymakers and politicians will nevertheless seek solace in the fact that the rate of decline has now eased for two consecutive months, and that Germany is stabilising. Downturns have also eased in France, Italy and especially Spain since earlier in the year.
“However, the reality is that the region lacks any growth drivers, making it difficult to believe that anything better than a mere stabilisation of economic activity remains unlikely for the foreseeable future.”
The UK Services PMI had better be the subject of a separate post.
For instance, someone who loses their job needs income support for (hopefully) a short period of time so they can maintain their job-readiness, don't lose their house, etc. So perhaps a higher income element but not much other support
However, someone who is long-term unemployed needs social housing and training rather than necessarily a higher income.
Similarly someone who with a disability might find capital up front (e.g. for house conversions) more useful than a slightly higher income over time.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to set up effectively individual welfare allowances that people can draw on as they need? For the sake of argument (percentages made up), perhaps 75% of an individuals 'welfare contributions' go into an individual pot, while 25% goes to a central pot than can be used to subsidise those who haven't yet had the chance to build up reserves.
(Of course the government's track record in major projects like this isn't, shall we say, stellar)
@DPJHodges: Weird. Apparently I'm now a Tory for backing Ed Miliband on child benefit. I though I was a Tory because I was always undermining him.
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/10448618.Newport_shopkeeper_told_to_remove____obey_our_laws____T_shirt/
Meanwhile a "Liberal" Democrat and a "liberal" Conservative in power, do nothing about this crap. No wonder the backbenchers are ticked off. Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher standing by and doing nothing while shopkeepers are threatened with arrest over a perfectly reasonable viewpoint?
The campaigners against Stansted expansion are also well-practiced.
There is of course a very good reason for this, which is that Osborne was right. He'll still be right in 2015, and Balls is wriggling because he knows he has to admit this without admitting it.
What Labour is now trying to do was of course inevitable and obvious from the start; the only mystery is why it doesn't seem to have been obvious to Labour, with the result that every time they saw a hostage to fortune they said 'Yep, we'll go for that one'.
They'll now get up caught up in a triple lock of confusion: U-turns, 'clarification' of their U-turns, and disgruntled supporters bitching at every move towards admission of reality.
But the real fun starts with the unions. When Balls made an effort on the subject of public sector pay in January 2012, he was quickly reprimanded by Labour's union paymasters. We can expect a repeat, and it's already begun:
http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/gmb-on-balls-speech
All of which is a very roundabout way of saying that I may agree with a lot of what you say, as long as the minimal protections are not punitive. A yoing person with a family who has bought a flat on the back of getting their first job out of university should not face losing everything just because he/she has not had time to build up a decent amount of social security insurance.
I shall be unhappy if my comment is gone
I think this would be a great subject for one of your blog posts:
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/10448618.Newport_shopkeeper_told_to_remove____obey_our_laws____T_shirt/
Fret not, it will go up later on this afternoon, and your comment will still be first.
May be there would be a model whereby the flat could be taken into social housing? If not then, at some point, the family will need to sell and move somewhere they can afford.
Principal objectives:
(1) Helping inspirational leaders execute on their charitable vision through provision of advice, mentoring and financial and practical support
(2) Removing roadblocks that prevent individuals from achieving what they are capable of doing
(3) Assisting individuals who have taken a wrong turn in life to get back on track
(4) Encouraging the spread and development of key practical skills and abilities
(5) Promoting cultural development, in particular with a focus on awareness of art from regional collections and encouraging an interest in art and culture among young people
Examples (non-exhaustive) could include:
(1) Venture philanthropy efforts / focus on smaller/start-up charities. Particular interest in pilot schemes and developing new ideas
(2) Education, care leavers, other disadvantaged children & young adults. Also includes health related causes, especially where these are either natural disabilities or disabilities/injuries incurred in the service of others
(3) Adult literacy, recividism, etc
(4) Primarily the bursary scheme - would like to focus on practical skills; also could include supporting organisations like New England Ballet and Campaign for Drawing
(5) Primarily the Winter Exhibition, including the Schools programme
I also want to see a LOT more nuclear power stations - not PWR.
Out of the EU
HS2
Roll back the stupid remuneration deals with NHS doctors - how stupid to let GP's opt out of house/night call outs. Why should a GP 'earn £200 000+/year?
Reduce the HoL to 250 and keep it there. Elected on 5 - 10 year terms and paid, they're not really peers of the realm anymore just political hacks that have brown nosed themselves into a job.
Reduce the HoC to 550 - 600 with equal numbered constituencies reviewed before every GE - a constant standing boundary commission?
Increase MP's (both HoL and HoC salary to approx. £125 000/year NO expenses.
Ensure UK rule of law in ALL communities get rid of anyone preaching racial hatred if non UK citizens. Get rid of Non UK citizens convicted of a violent criminal offence.
I could go on
Gallup poll shows 55% in U.K. favor EU exit, 25% want to stay.
You pays your money you take your choice over the polls
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100220315/ed-miliband-sees-the-light-now-harriet-harman-will-be-outside-his-office-with-a-pitchfork/
" Earlier in the week I discussed Labour’s welfare stance on Twitter with the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, and later at a an IEA public meeting with Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston.
Both of them are from the Blairite wing of the party, and neither is a shrinking violet when it comes to taking tough political decisions. But both of them staunchly advocated the reversal of the Tory child benefit cut, with Gisela Stuart going so far as to urge women to “get out on the streets” to fight it.
Now it’s Ed Miliband who needs to be ready to face the protestors' wrath. If Harriet Harman isn’t outside the Labour leader’s door with a pitchfork and an angry mob by noon, it will be a miracle. And I understand Yvette Cooper, who holds the Women and Equalities brief, isn’t exactly doing somersaults over the announcement."
Labour's U-Turn's this week appear to be tacit confirmation that the coalition has got the economic strategy correct and Labour will be fighting the next election on Tory territory - The Ed's staked everything on the economy not recovering, sadly for them, it looks like they've got it wrong.
I very much doubt that your first objective is to help inspirational leaders. In fact, your only real objective in what you've drafted is (3). The rest is just how you achieve that objective.
Mission statements combine a statement of core values and purpose in a single sentence.
The best ever written is Walt's mission for Disney:
To bring happiness, through entertainment
You could borrow from St. Ignatius of Loyola:
to give without counting the cost;
to fight without fear of being wounded;
to work without seeking rest;
Wear it as a rusty sherrif's badge of honour.
What was the IMF prediction for the UK economy in 2013 - +0.6%? If Markit is right then we could exceed that in the first two quarters alone if we hit +0.5% this quarter.
"Chris Williamson, chief economist at survey-compiler Markit, hailed May's growth across all sectors as a sign the British economy has "moved up a gear":
The UK economy has moved up a gear with all cylinders now firing.
The data suggest that economic growth will have picked up in the second quarter compared to the 0.3pc increase in GDP seen in the first quarter, shaping up to reach 0.5pc if June sees sustained growth.
There's good reason to believe growth can accelerate further. Across all three sectors, new business showed the largest jump for three years in May. Firms are also taking on staff in increased numbers, responding to the brightening outlook."
If you want to see more nukes anytime soon then they will need to be PWRs.
The first objective is the real one. We backed MERLIN (http://www.merlin.org.uk/) as a start-up for instance [the key bit in their history is 'an office set up in the spare bedroom of a London house' which slightly understates the facilities at Townsend House...] . There was a great group of doctors with an amazing vision and no idea how to turn it into a practical organisation.
We have a great network, and ability to persuade people to help, plus some money & want to help people do worthwhile things.
Once you start doing better with growth than people expect, it can feedback on itself - That's what happened in the early 80's and mid 90's I think.
It's amazing how quickly recovery can accelerate once the spark is lit.
Labour's best hope is that the split between Cameron and the Conservative Party continues.
I think the next election is very winnable for the Tories, but obviously if they decide that they would rather lose the next election than than see Cameron and Osborne win, then The Ed's will win by default.
Come clean, moderator.
Is tim on the naughty step?
"Helping inspirational leaders help others"?
The purpose is to take people with talent who have a major obstacle that prevents them from making proper contribution to society and fixing it.
Of course, the key is to make sure the new economic growth is sustainable and not based on homeowners remortgaging to buy a new iPad and going on a foreign holiday. It also doesn't mean the growth has to all happen in manufacturing - there are plenty of services that are knowledge intensive and highly productive. We do need to start seeing the trade balance correcting however.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/405188/British-shopkeeper-banned-from-selling-obey-our-laws-or-get-out-slogan-T-shirt
Will any of the broadsheets have the balls to go near it, and stand up for free speech?
Why do 'Inspirational Leaders' need help?
Take the 'mission' of a leading FMCG multinational:
"We will provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that
improve the lives of the world’s consumers.
As a result, consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profit and value
creation, allowing our people, our shareholders, and the communities in which we
live and work to prosper."
Hasn't changed in decades....
EU economy : hands chopped off.
As many know, I'm in favour of Boris Island. We should do it.
Sometime we need a more sensible attitude to nation-critical infrastructure. If it is something that is seen as being absolutely critical to the nation (e.g. the Severn Barrage) it is put forward for a national referendum. If a majority vote for it, then it goes ahead without a planning process. This would only be used very occasionally, on items such as a new airport.
A full referendum would probably be cheaper than the public inquiry (for instance 4 years and £80m for Heathrow T5, compared to the £75 million for the AV referendum)
Another example is readeasy - a fantastic charity started by a wonderful individual but only in 2-3 towns). We introduced her to a mentor (former director of John Lewis) and have provided funds to pay the CEO a salary (she's worked upaid for 3 years but can't afford to any more) and hire an assistant. The objective is to roll the programme out into 20 new towns over the next 3 years.
Three years ago, we made a promise: to bring immigration back under control.
The latest set of independent statistics show we’re doing just that.
Since the election, we have cut net immigration by more than a third. The number of immigrants coming to the UK is now lower than it has been for over a decade.
After years of uncontrolled immigration under Labour, the Conservatives are building an immigration system which works in our national interest.
We want this country to attract people who will contribute to our national life – but those who will not should be deterred.
We have closed down bogus colleges and made students who want to come to the UK prove they’re coming here to study, not to work.
We have made sure people can only bring in a spouse or partner from outside Europe if they can support them financially.
We have rewritten the ‘Life in the UK’ test for new citizens, putting British values and British history at its heart.
Labour have opposed every single one of these reforms.
But we know there is more to do. It is still too easy for illegal immigrants to access public services which they’re not entitled to – and too hard for immigration officials to remove them from the UK. Our new Immigration Bill will clamp down on those from overseas who abuse our public services, make Britain less of a soft touch, and make it easier for us to remove people who should not be here.
It will take time to clear up the mess we inherited from Labour. But these figures show that we can do it.
Best wishes,
The Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP
Home Secretary
Bloomberg were yesterday hailing the first positive balance of trade in Spain since the 1970s as evidence of Eurozone recovery.
But when you read the article the truth was that imports had fallen by 15% due to fall in consumption and exports had risen by 2%.
Some evidence of recovery!
another richard will be cheering though.
"Helping inspirational leaders help others" doesn't convey that message to me, not that I have any better suggestions instantly. If I do I will let you know.