All political parties are toxic, if Labour were so great they would be in power or at least on course to win a majority, neither is the case.
If Dave is so great then why does he have the same leadership ratings as the supposedly 'divisive' Farage?
One is the incumbent Prime Minister inflicting austerity and annoying his base with unpopular things whilst the one is a populist not enacting anything unpopular.
So put it this way why is Farage polling behind Cameron?
Are the respondents in the leader satisfaction polls the same people who answered the VI poll?
Yes
Wouldn't that mean the leaders of parties with the best VI rating should easily beat those whose parties score around half their number? Would be amazing if a 3rd or 4th party leader scored as well as the leading parties leader, esp if their party was the most disliked/divisive
No.
For example in January 2010, Nick Clegg led David Cameron on the leader ratings by 13%, despite the Lib Dems trailing the Tories by 24% in the VI.
There are other examples.
What were the liked/disliked ratings for the lib dems at the time?
They didn't ask that question of the Lib Dems.
We if you can try and put aside personal dislike of me for a moment, I think you'd be wise to consider the relative VI of parties when analysing leader ratings, and also take the like/dislike factor into consideration.
Messi score more goals than Charlie Austin, but that doesn't mean his worth to Barca is more than austins to QPR because barca score more goals and create more chances. If you ignore that you'd miss out on value bets,
So you reckon Chelsea will pay the same price to sign Charlie Austin that they would pay for Messi?
We keep reading about 'the strength of the Labour brand" and how "Tories are toxic"
Today's YouGov:
Lab vs Con: Kind of society it wants broadly kind of society I want: -2 Led by people of real ability: -13 Prepared to take tough/unpopular decisions: -34 Seems to chop & change: -13
It's part of a set of pieces from the latest Wings poll.
And also that assertion that the Scots are very different from rUK is also wrong?
I'm sure Ed's inner Socialist would agree with those policies - just his outer politician wants to get elected & knows there is no where near enough money to pay for re-nationalisation of the utilities & national rail.....
WoS, the SNP and every Yes apologist are now utterly discredited given the current oil price. They should be filed under Gordon Brown and Labour post 2008.
So too are the Treasury and everyone else on that argument.
We keep reading about 'the strength of the Labour brand" and how "Tories are toxic"
Today's YouGov:
Lab vs Con: Kind of society it wants broadly kind of society I want: -2 Led by people of real ability: -13 Prepared to take tough/unpopular decisions: -34 Seems to chop & change: -13
It's part of a set of pieces from the latest Wings poll.
And also that assertion that the Scots are very different from rUK is also wrong?
I'm sure Ed's inner Socialist would agree with those policies - just his outer politician wants to get elected & knows there is no where near enough money to pay for re-nationalisation of the utilities & national rail.....
WoS, the SNP and every Yes apologist are now utterly discredited given the current oil price. They should be filed under Gordon Brown and Labour post 2008.
So too are the Treasury and everyone else on that argument.
Yes apart from the high profile speeches from Mark Carney, GO and DC they hardly mentioned it at all.
Can you imagine the wide spread panic that would be happening now if YES had won ?
All political parties are toxic, if Labour were so great they would be in power or at least on course to win a majority, neither is the case.
If Dave is so great then why does he have the same leadership ratings as the supposedly 'divisive' Farage?
One is the incumbent Prime Minister inflicting austerity and annoying his base with unpopular things whilst the one is a populist not enacting anything unpopular.
So put it this way why is Farage polling behind Cameron?
Are the respondents in the leader satisfaction polls the same people who answered the VI poll?
Yes
Wouldn't that mean the leaders of parties with the best VI rating should easily beat those whose parties score around half their number? Would be amazing if a 3rd or 4th party leader scored as well as the leading parties leader, esp if their party was the most disliked/divisive
No.
For example in January 2010, Nick Clegg led David Cameron on the leader ratings by 13%, despite the Lib Dems trailing the Tories by 24% in the VI.
There are other examples.
What were the liked/disliked ratings for the lib dems at the time?
They didn't ask that question of the Lib Dems.
We if you can try and put aside personal dislike of me for a moment, I think you'd be wise to consider the relative VI of parties when analysing leader ratings, and also take the like/dislike factor into consideration.
Messi score more goals than Charlie Austin, but that doesn't mean his worth to Barca is more than austins to QPR because barca score more goals and create more chances. If you ignore that you'd miss out on value bets,
So you reckon Chelsea will pay the same price to sign Charlie Austin that they would pay for Messi?
I take it you are mucking about of course
The point is that (in terms of goals alone) Austin would be a bigger loss to Rangers than Messi to Barcelona
Messi isn't a great example really, as there is so much more to his game than just goals. But in betting terms, when analysing goalscoring for betting opportunities, you don't just look at how many goals a player scores and say because one scores more than the other he is a better bet, you have to look at how many goals the team score as well
Yes apart from the high profile speeches from Mark Carney, GO and DC they hardly mentioned it at all.
Can you imagine the wide spread panic that would be happening now if YES had won ?
Scotland dodged a huge bullet - rejoice.
Can you imagine how the negotiations, which would be going on now, would have been affected? The entire YES economic argument is up in flames. YES forecast a windfall for Scotland, but in reality the SNP is right now calling for tax cuts and intervention to save the oil industry, and BP are forecasting oil could remain below $50 for the next three years.
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
We keep reading about 'the strength of the Labour brand" and how "Tories are toxic"
Today's YouGov:
Lab vs Con: Kind of society it wants broadly kind of society I want: -2 Led by people of real ability: -13 Prepared to take tough/unpopular decisions: -34 Seems to chop & change: -13
It's part of a set of pieces from the latest Wings poll.
And also that assertion that the Scots are very different from rUK is also wrong?
I'm sure Ed's inner Socialist would agree with those policies - just his outer politician wants to get elected & knows there is no where near enough money to pay for re-nationalisation of the utilities & national rail.....
Any country that votes 45% for the SNP is by definition very different from the one across the border
You'd better tell Wings Over Somerset that:
Of the 31 propositions that we put to people – asking whether they broadly agreed or disagreed or didn’t know – there were only two where the Scottish and rUK majority views found themselves on opposite sides of the divide
It's a stupid complaint as most students will be registered to vote at home, in any case.
The turnout rate could increase with lower numbers of votes, because the number of double registrations will decrease, and some students will not register to vote at their university and not sort out a postal ballot in time either.
"Even after taking all these points into consideration, some of the large movements look odd. Why are the Conservatives so poorly thought of in Portsmouth North? Why are Labour thought so likely to win Bristol North West from third? Why is Rugby seen as so safe for the Tories? None of the information available seems strong enough to justify large deviations from the norm. Betting against these anomalies seems sound."
Really interesting piece - thanks.
On the point I have quoted, the question that arises in my head is: who are you betting against?
The risk for you would be that there is a shrewd punter with relevant local knowledge.
That is the risk. I'm not a great believer in "relevant local knowledge" that is otherwise obscure from view. I'm prepared to be suckered every now and then.
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
You think pointing out the absurdity and recklessness of your opponents is without merit?
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
Indeed, all I've heard in interviews/attack lines on the SNP is "Your oil forecast was wrong." Do the unionists (And Labour in particular) have anything positive to say for Scotland ?
I think the Scottish electorate has turned a corner, for donkey's years they've voted Labour "to keep the Tories out" - a completely negative vote, whereas the SNP vote is a vote FOR the SNP, not simply a vote AGAINST the Conservatives (SLAB was that for years)
Really the oil price is a broken record.
Btw - Reading West, have a small amount on Labour there, I think 11-4 for them there is an ok price.
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
You think pointing out the absurdity and recklessness of your opponents is without merit?
It's fine as an incidental observation. It's not fine as the main thrust of an argument, which all too often it is.
You would be happy to have chilli sauce on your kebab. You would not be happy to be served only chilli sauce.
Playing about with the leader ratings and VI poll (IPSOS Mori), I think the best way of getting a true indicator is to take the number of people not voting for the party, then dividing by the leader satisfaction rating
So Cameron would be
Con VI -100 =-65 Cameron Satisfaction = -11
-65/-11=5.91
Clegg would be -92/-39 =2.36 Miliband -36/-35 = 1.86 Farage = -88/-13 = 6.77
So
Farage 6.77 Cameron 5.91 Clegg 2.36 Miliband 1.85
I will go through the last dozen or so IPSOS Mori's and see the trend
Confusion over Scottish Government oil forecasts sparks a fresh row over SNP's devo max plan Oil prices have become a central issue in the election fight in Scotland after Ms Sturgeon confirmed last week the SNP will demand devo max if her party holds the balance of power after May 7.
Under the constitutional set-up, also known as full fiscal autonomy, Westminster would retain control only of defence, foreign affairs and the currency.
Holyrood would take charge of all taxes in Scotland, including North Sea oil revenues, to fund public services and make a contribution towards shared UK functions such as the armed forces and overseas embassies.
The Scottish Government regularly published oil forecasts in the run-up to the referendum.
Its most recent, issued last May, predicted receipts of £20.2billion in the three years from 2016/17 to 2018/19, based on an oil price of $110 per barrel.
The UK Government has claimed that total would fall to just £1.6billion, a drop of £18.6billion, over the period if prices remain at the present level of $50 per barrel.
However, SNP ministers insist prices will recover.
I was once within a yard of Mrs T (short, waddled, heavily made up 'camera ready' I guess is the term), a yard of John Smith (Edinburgh Sleeper, he was holding forth to enraptured acolytes, evidently on his nth whisky), Gordon Brown (Glyndebourn, eating what looked like prawn cocktail), John Major (20 yards, at a dinner in London, very impressive in person), but as Princess Margaret said to me the other day - I'm such a name dropper!
I found myself standing next to the Mellorphant Man. A friend offered me £50 to throw my coffee over him.
So you've had the opportunity to push Brian Coleman in to a pool, and pour your coffee over David Mellor, and you didn't take up either opportunity.
For shame, Sean, For shame.
Anthony Eden, from my recollection, told the story that he discovered in the 30's at a dinner with Hitler that they had both been very close to each other indeed at one point in the trenches during WW1. He apparently recollected this to the Belgian PM after WW2 to which the Belgian wistfully replied, "and you missed him..."
We keep reading about 'the strength of the Labour brand" and how "Tories are toxic"
Today's YouGov:
Lab vs Con: Kind of society it wants broadly kind of society I want: -2 Led by people of real ability: -13 Prepared to take tough/unpopular decisions: -34 Seems to chop & change: -13
It's part of a set of pieces from the latest Wings poll.
And also that assertion that the Scots are very different from rUK is also wrong?
I'm sure Ed's inner Socialist would agree with those policies - just his outer politician wants to get elected & knows there is no where near enough money to pay for re-nationalisation of the utilities & national rail.....
Any country that votes 45% for the SNP is by definition very different from the one across the border
You'd better tell Wings Over Somerset that:
Of the 31 propositions that we put to people – asking whether they broadly agreed or disagreed or didn’t know – there were only two where the Scottish and rUK majority views found themselves on opposite sides of the divide
The question here is whether the SNP is actually closer to what people want than others. And UKIP, I should add - that's another marked difference. As well as past polling on the EU, come to think of it.
NHS in Wales....I guess none of the little Englanders on this site were able to listen to the phone in about A&E on Radio Wales this morning. A broad range of callers, with the majority appreciating that the problems in A&E were largely caused by people attending for minor ailments, drunks on Saturday nights, lack of exercise, access to GPs, bed blocking etc. So if I were you I would not pin your hopes on Wales turning its back on labour in May. We are a bit more sophisticated than that.
We keep reading about 'the strength of the Labour brand" and how "Tories are toxic"
Today's YouGov:
Lab vs Con: Kind of society it wants broadly kind of society I want: -2 Led by people of real ability: -13 Prepared to take tough/unpopular decisions: -34 Seems to chop & change: -13
It's part of a set of pieces from the latest Wings poll.
And also that assertion that the Scots are very different from rUK is also wrong?
I'm sure Ed's inner Socialist would agree with those policies - just his outer politician wants to get elected & knows there is no where near enough money to pay for re-nationalisation of the utilities & national rail.....
WoS, the SNP and every Yes apologist are now utterly discredited given the current oil price. They should be filed under Gordon Brown and Labour post 2008.
So too are the Treasury and everyone else on that argument.
Yes apart from the high profile speeches from Mark Carney, GO and DC they hardly mentioned it at all.
Can you imagine the wide spread panic that would be happening now if YES had won ?
Scotland dodged a huge bullet - rejoice.
No, it hasn't. Oil is perhaps the most heavily taxed industry in Britain (apart from alcohol and tobacco) and it was even more heavily taxed when Mr Osborne imposed that special raid a couple of years back. How the Union deals with this is now a very salient issue.
Playing about with the leader ratings and VI poll (IPSOS Mori), I think the best way of getting a true indicator is to take the number of people not voting for the party, then dividing by the leader satisfaction rating
So Cameron would be
Con VI -100 =-65 Cameron Satisfaction = -11
-65/-11=5.91
Clegg would be -92/-39 =2.36 Miliband -65/-35 = 1.86 Farage = -88/-13 = 6.77
So
Farage 6.77 Cameron 5.91 Clegg 2.36 Miliband 1.85
I will go through the last dozen or so IPSOS Mori's and see the trend
If anyone has a link that would be great cheers
Had to edit for a couple of ricks there.. work in progress
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
You think pointing out the absurdity and recklessness of your opponents is without merit?
It's fine as an incidental observation. It's not fine as the main thrust of an argument, which all too often it is.
But the main thrust of the SNP's argument is that 'we'll get DevoMax (including oil revenue) as the price for propping up a Labour government - and are running shy of spelling out what the consequences of that on public spending are - so I would argue that not only is their previous optimism fair game, so too is their current silence on the impact on Scottish public spending of the oil price....
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
Indeed, all I've heard in interviews/attack lines on the SNP is "Your oil forecast was wrong." Do the unionists (And Labour in particular) have anything positive to say for Scotland ?
I think the Scottish electorate has turned a corner, for donkey's years they've voted Labour "to keep the Tories out" - a completely negative vote, whereas the SNP vote is a vote FOR the SNP, not simply a vote AGAINST the Conservatives (SLAB was that for years)
Really the oil price is a broken record.
Btw - Reading West, have a small amount on Labour there, I think 11-4 for them there is an ok price.
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
You think pointing out the absurdity and recklessness of your opponents is without merit?
It's fine as an incidental observation. It's not fine as the main thrust of an argument, which all too often it is.
You would be happy to have chilli sauce on your kebab. You would not be happy to be served only chilli sauce.
We will see what the price is in 3 and 10 years - which is what counts.
Mr. Valleyboy, so the Welsh waiting times are due to strange and inexorable circumstances unrelated to the Welsh Labour Government, whereas the English waiting times are the sole responsibility of the baby-eating Tories?
I was once within a yard of Mrs T (short, waddled, heavily made up 'camera ready' I guess is the term), a yard of John Smith (Edinburgh Sleeper, he was holding forth to enraptured acolytes, evidently on his nth whisky), Gordon Brown (Glyndebourn, eating what looked like prawn cocktail), John Major (20 yards, at a dinner in London, very impressive in person), but as Princess Margaret said to me the other day - I'm such a name dropper!
I've been within 20 yards of Barack Obama, 10 yards of Prince Charles, and once shook the hand of David Cameron.
I'm a bit embarrassed about the last one.
Hey, I've met Mike Smithson! (And yeah, some of the others too)
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
Indeed, all I've heard in interviews/attack lines on the SNP is "Your oil forecast was wrong." Do the unionists (And Labour in particular) have anything positive to say for Scotland ?
I think the Scottish electorate has turned a corner, for donkey's years they've voted Labour "to keep the Tories out" - a completely negative vote, whereas the SNP vote is a vote FOR the SNP, not simply a vote AGAINST the Conservatives (SLAB was that for years)
Really the oil price is a broken record.
Btw - Reading West, have a small amount on Labour there, I think 11-4 for them there is an ok price.
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
You think pointing out the absurdity and recklessness of your opponents is without merit?
It's fine as an incidental observation. It's not fine as the main thrust of an argument, which all too often it is.
You would be happy to have chilli sauce on your kebab. You would not be happy to be served only chilli sauce.
We will see what the price is in 3 and 10 years - which is what counts.
Not if Scotland gets Devomax next year for propping up a Labour government.....
NHS in Wales....I guess none of the little Englanders on this site were able to listen to the phone in about A&E on Radio Wales this morning. A broad range of callers, with the majority appreciating that the problems in A&E were largely caused by people attending for minor ailments, drunks on Saturday nights, lack of exercise, access to GPs, bed blocking etc. So if I were you I would not pin your hopes on Wales turning its back on labour in May. We are a bit more sophisticated than that.
We have exactly the same problems in England but manage 89%, which I am not complaining about but the hyper hypocritical Labour supporters are.
Swiss 10 Year Goverment Bonds (the 1.25% of 2025) are currently priced at 117.17.
This means that you get a negative absolute yield for holding them. The total interest and principle payments over the next 10 years are less than the current price.
Not negative "real", but negative absolute. You would be better off taking your Swiss Francs in bank notes and getting a safe deposit box and putting them in that. Quite considerably better off.
But the main thrust of the SNP's argument is that 'we'll get DevoMax (including oil revenue) as the price for propping up a Labour government - and are running shy of spelling out what the consequences of that on public spending are - so I would argue that not only is their previous optimism fair game, so too is their current silence on the impact on Scottish public spending of the oil price....
No, no, you've totally understood the SNP position. It works like this: if tax revenues sharply decline because the oil price collapses, the rest of the UK has to make up the shortfall. If tax revenues rise because the oil price increases, the extra money goes straight to Scotland because it's Scotland's oil.
NHS in Wales....I guess none of the little Englanders on this site were able to listen to the phone in about A&E on Radio Wales this morning. A broad range of callers, with the majority appreciating that the problems in A&E were largely caused by people attending for minor ailments, drunks on Saturday nights, lack of exercise, access to GPs, bed blocking etc. So if I were you I would not pin your hopes on Wales turning its back on labour in May. We are a bit more sophisticated than that.
I agree Wales won't (though it's less monolithic than it was). The point is that the it's a counterpoint to Ed's argument that all would be sweetness and light under his stewardship, if voters in Corby, or Rugby, or Bury, or wherever, who will be following Welsh affairs barely at all, hear a vague noise that not all is not perfect west of Offa's dike and Labour are responsible.
I think the woes of the NHS here are overblown, and you are bang on the money as to the causes I'm sure, and again right it's unlikely to result in anything changing much in Wales. But Wales isn't the target audience.
I cannot wait to see what Big John has to say about this.
Labour are pinning their hopes on the NHS and the Tories have a chance to slaughter them over Wales and therefore kill Labour's chances.
They will need to tread carefully to avoid being suckered into an attack on Wales and the Welsh people generally. The Conservatives hold only one Scottish seat, down from two dozen before the poll tax debacle meant they became the anti-Scots party. There are eight Conservative seats in Wales that must be defended.
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
But the main thrust of the SNP's argument is that 'we'll get DevoMax (including oil revenue) as the price for propping up a Labour government - and are running shy of spelling out what the consequences of that on public spending are - so I would argue that not only is their previous optimism fair game, so too is their current silence on the impact on Scottish public spending of the oil price....
No, no, you've totally understood the SNP position. It works like this: if tax revenues sharply decline because the oil price collapses, the rest of the UK has to make up the shortfall. If tax revenues rise because the oil price increases, the money goes straight to Scotland because it's Scotland's oil.
As I understand it, the SNP are aiming to follow the DUP stratagem of selling their votes for pork barrel without any real pretence of fairness. Ambitiously, they are trying for a refinement of this process, by vowing only to sell their votes to a single bidder.
That seems to misunderstand the most efficient way of organising an auction, but we shall see how effective it is. If they get enough seats, it might just work.
As I understand it, the SNP are aiming to follow the DUP stratagem of selling their votes for pork barrel without any real pretence of fairness. Ambitiously, they are trying for a refinement of this process, by vowing only to sell their votes to a single bidder.
That seems to misunderstand the most efficient way of organising an auction, but we shall see how effective it is. If they get enough seats, it might just work.
Even better, they've vowed to sell their votes only to their principal adversary.
Somehow I can't see this working out very well for at least one of the parties to the transaction, and I'm pretty sure that the one who is going to get shafted is not the SNP.
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
Given what this is doing to pension scheme liabilities due to the insane laws we have relating to this, I imagine we're not far off revolver and a glass of whisky time for defined benefit scheme sponsors (oh and the taxpayer whose liabilities towards public sector pensions will similarly be soaring).
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election.
Not to the SNP 'DevoMax if we hold the balance of power' plan......
Why should that have anything to do with it? It's all within the Union anyway, and we've been told for 2-3 years how important it is to give all our oil money to London as we can't cope with it at all, whether oil piece is high, or low, or in the middle. The corollary, of course, is that London knows better, and that is what we are waiting to see demonstrated to us Scots.
N. B. Things like Mr Osborne's sudden tax of a year or two back Do Not Help.
we've been told for 2-3 years how important it is to give all our oil money to London as we can't cope with it at all, whether oil piece is high, or low, or in the middle. The corollary, of course, is that London knows better, and that is what we are waiting to see demonstrated to us Scots.
I'm not sure you fully grasped the arguments that were being made.
Playing about with the leader ratings and VI poll (IPSOS Mori), I think the best way of getting a true indicator is to take the number of people not voting for the party, then dividing by the leader satisfaction rating
So Cameron would be
Con VI -100 =-65 Cameron Satisfaction = -11
-65/-11=5.91
Clegg would be -92/-39 =2.36 Miliband -65/-35 = 1.86 Farage = -88/-13 = 6.77
So
Farage 6.77 Cameron 5.91 Clegg 2.36 Miliband 1.85
I will go through the last dozen or so IPSOS Mori's and see the trend
If anyone has a link that would be great cheers
Had to edit for a couple of ricks there.. work in progress
Hmmm if a satisfaction rating is 0 that nauses it... a work in progress!
I cannot wait to see what Big John has to say about this.
Labour are pinning their hopes on the NHS and the Tories have a chance to slaughter them over Wales and therefore kill Labour's chances.
They will need to tread carefully to avoid being suckered into an attack on Wales and the Welsh people generally. The Conservatives hold only one Scottish seat, down from two dozen before the poll tax debacle meant they became the anti-Scots party. There are eight Conservative seats in Wales that must be defended.
Why on earth would it be seen as an attack on the Welsh People?
It would just be making people aware that Labour's record on the NHS is far worse than the Coalition, which given the hyperbole of the likes of Big John and the Labour party in general could be crucial come May.
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
GOOD JOB WE'RE BORROWING AT 3.x% then !
They should do a deal "we'll give you these bonds at 3%, while you're alive. but, we reserve the right to shut off your life support to cut the government interest bill."
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election.
Not to the SNP 'DevoMax if we hold the balance of power' plan......
Why should that have anything to do with it? It's all within the Union anyway, and we've been told for 2-3 years how important it is to give all our oil money to London as we can't cope with it at all, whether oil piece is high, or low, or in the middle. The corollary, of course, is that London knows better, and that is what we are waiting to see demonstrated to us Scots.
N. B. Things like Mr Osborne's sudden tax of a year or two back Do Not Help.
Under devolution as it was I do not see what oil revenues any more than revenues from banking have to do with any particular part of the country. The oil is in the North Sea not the Trossachs. Any oil or gas revenues from fracking in the Midlands or Lancashire go to the UK Treasury. Rather shockingly I am proud to be living in the United Kingdom, proud to have Scotland part of the UK and proud to be assured that tax revenues drawn from the whole UK and its businesses will go to all parts of the UK according to a need for balance within that UK.
What I do not like under devolution is a 'devolved' MP voting on English matters which do not affect him or his constituents because they are devolved.
With Alex Salmond predicting an oil price of $150 / barrel then I do not think you can criticise Osborne, faced with a deficit of £150 billion from taxing North Sea oil. Fortunately for Aberdeen it is part of the wider UK and we can see the sense in offering tax concessions to the industry now in its time of trial.
I was once within a yard of Mrs T (short, waddled, heavily made up 'camera ready' I guess is the term), a yard of John Smith (Edinburgh Sleeper, he was holding forth to enraptured acolytes, evidently on his nth whisky), Gordon Brown (Glyndebourn, eating what looked like prawn cocktail), John Major (20 yards, at a dinner in London, very impressive in person), but as Princess Margaret said to me the other day - I'm such a name dropper!
I've been within 20 yards of Barack Obama, 10 yards of Prince Charles, and once shook the hand of David Cameron.
I'm a bit embarrassed about the last one.
I was on the Intercity going to work a few years ago, reading my newspaper, listening to the conversation I was sure Paddy Ashdown had just sat down opposite me. Lowering my paper to check, I was slightly surprised to find myself sitting opposite Rory Bremner and John Fortune rehearsing a script.
Swiss 10 Year Goverment Bonds (the 1.25% of 2025) are currently priced at 117.17.
This means that you get a negative absolute yield for holding them. The total interest and principle payments over the next 10 years are less than the current price.
Not negative "real", but negative absolute. You would be better off taking your Swiss Francs in bank notes and getting a safe deposit box and putting them in that. Quite considerably better off.
-0.75% interest rates will do that. My gf is looking at bringing the rest of her savings into the UK, her buying power has increased dramatically.
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
Given what this is doing to pension scheme liabilities due to the insane laws we have relating to this, I imagine we're not far off revolver and a glass of whisky time for defined benefit scheme sponsors (oh and the taxpayer whose liabilities towards public sector pensions will similarly be soaring).
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
GOOD JOB WE'RE BORROWING AT 3.x% then !
They should do a deal "we'll give you these bonds at 3%, while you're alive. but, we reserve the right to shut off your life support to cut the government interest bill."
Well joking aside the irony about the pensions crisis is that there is a silver bullet (at least in financial terms) in that it can be solved easily by us all working longer (less time being paid a pension, longer time for funds to grow, more time to contribute, and as a bonus for the country at large a bigger taxpaying workforce). Now the Govt is inching towards the bleedin' obvious by moving state pension age upwards but the whole concept of retirement needs to move upwards in age at a much faster rate of knots to make the sums work, in a society where the average 45 year old is now due to make it to nearly 90 according to the actuaries, and life expectancy continues to rise at about 18 months a decade.
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
As I understand it, the SNP are aiming to follow the DUP stratagem of selling their votes for pork barrel without any real pretence of fairness. Ambitiously, they are trying for a refinement of this process, by vowing only to sell their votes to a single bidder.
That seems to misunderstand the most efficient way of organising an auction, but we shall see how effective it is. If they get enough seats, it might just work.
Even better, they've vowed to sell their votes only to their principal adversary.
Somehow I can't see this working out very well for at least one of the parties to the transaction, and I'm pretty sure that the one who is going to get shafted is not the SNP.
A political party selling its votes for an ideal, a share of its political philosophy being enacted, is plausible. But as you say, 'pork barrel'?? The purchaser of this 'pork' has to think what effect that has on his votes.
The SNP promise in the referendum debate was that an independent Scotland would have more money to spend on public services and could therefore avoid all this nasty austerity that the horrible English tories were inflicting on us, just because they could.
So we had in the ridiculous White Paper a series of specific promises about how all this extra money was going to be spent and posters all over Scotland explaining how class sizes were going to be reduced, child poverty abolished, the bedroom tax abolished, how much extra money was going to be spent on the Health service etc.
All of this was based upon an oil price of at least $110 a barrel. What we have now seen, and the Governor has confirmed yesterday, is that Scotland is much, much safer and more prosperous as a part of the UK than it would have been as an independent state so dependent on such a volatile source of income. To me, this is a misjudgement on a par with Brown's assessment that the UK was the best placed economy to cope with the 2008 crash. In fact we were in many ways the worst.
The idea, from antifrank, that this catastrophic level of delusion is not a relevant point to make in determining whether representatives of the SNP should be looking out for Scottish interests strikes me as somewhat odd. Put bluntly only someone sharing their delusions and indifferent to the real world would believe a word they say about anything and even then they would surely have reservations about their judgement.
Antifrank is of course correct to point out that laughing at the SNP is not a campaign in itself and the unionist parties do indeed have to have a positive vision for where Scotland goes from here as a part of the UK. But the idea we should not laugh at these idiots goes way too far.
But the main thrust of the SNP's argument is that 'we'll get DevoMax (including oil revenue) as the price for propping up a Labour government - and are running shy of spelling out what the consequences of that on public spending are - so I would argue that not only is their previous optimism fair game, so too is their current silence on the impact on Scottish public spending of the oil price....
No, no, you've totally understood the SNP position. It works like this: if tax revenues sharply decline because the oil price collapses, the rest of the UK has to make up the shortfall. If tax revenues rise because the oil price increases, the extra money goes straight to Scotland because it's Scotland's oil.
Indeed. Complete hypocrisy.
And it seems the second party in Scotland also now have a policy of ripping off the English.
Between them these two parties represent 70% of the Scottish electorate. They should just leave.
Probably also worth thinking about the kind of seats that they might take enough votes off Lab/LDs to help the Tories hang on to e.g. Brighton Kemptown & Hove
Fairly solid polling for Labour this week with less than 16 weeks to go until the election (the ludicrous outlier from Ashy excluded!)
The Tory Green-ramping strategy is somewhat pathetic.
Some interesting debate this morning, for a change. I can only assume the thread will be high-jacked by deranged obsessives infatuated with muslims and immigration in short order.
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
But it's where we've arrived at. State Pension Age is going to increase so that the proportion of adult life spent over State Pension Age is kept constant (cancelling out longevity improvements). Public sector pensions are linked to State Pension Age (someone joining the civil service as a graduate today is probably looking at a pension age of 71 or more). And private sector workers, well, they're not going to be able to afford to retire until their 70s either.
Here's one for the climate change septics out there...
"A new paper by two Stanford University researchers contends that current government estimates of the "social cost of carbon" - a key metric of the economic damage caused by climate change used in cost-benefit analysis of regulations - could fall woefully short of reality.
The researchers contend in the paper published in the journal Nature that the social cost of carbon on the global economy is actually about $220 for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted, a far cry from the $37 calculated by the US government."
Current oil prices are completely irrelevant to May's election. If Scottish Labour and the Conservatives want to pursue that angle of attack, the Scottish public will reasonably wonder why they are saying nothing that affects the actual future as opposed to writing alternative histories.
Spot on, I think the Scottish public are more focused on the benefits of cheaper fuel. In terms of the North Sea oil industry, this is a long term sector well used to dealing with volatile oil prices. SLAB's and to a lesser extent the Tories banging on about the falling price of oil, are only being listened to by their dwindling band of supporters. They would be better served talking about tax measures to protect this strategic industry, instead of SNP bashing.
I think UKIP and the Greens are going to see increasing support in Scotland, particularly as they're committed to fielding candidates in most Scottish seats. This will be at SLAB's and Tory expense, SLAB heading towards 20% and Tories to 12%.
I was once within a yard of Mrs T (short, waddled, heavily made up 'camera ready' I guess is the term), a yard of John Smith (Edinburgh Sleeper, he was holding forth to enraptured acolytes, evidently on his nth whisky), Gordon Brown (Glyndebourn, eating what looked like prawn cocktail), John Major (20 yards, at a dinner in London, very impressive in person), but as Princess Margaret said to me the other day - I'm such a name dropper!
I found myself standing next to the Mellorphant Man. A friend offered me £50 to throw my coffee over him.
So you've had the opportunity to push Brian Coleman in to a pool, and pour your coffee over David Mellor, and you didn't take up either opportunity.
For shame, Sean, For shame.
Anthony Eden, from my recollection, told the story that he discovered in the 30's at a dinner with Hitler that they had both been very close to each other indeed at one point in the trenches during WW1. He apparently recollected this to the Belgian PM after WW2 to which the Belgian wistfully replied, "and you missed him..."
On the theme of historical closeness to evil my paternal grandmother had the unpleasant duty of dancing with Jaochim von Rippentrop, the Nazi Ambassador, at an embassy reception in London in 1937.
As this is a family show I'll not repeat her less than flattering appreciation of him, safe to say few tears were shed when breakfast was interrupted by an exultant cheer as "The Times" reported that the vile monster had been hanged for war crimes in 1946.
I think it's dangerous to mistake the surge in membership (and relatively good recent polls) for dramatically improved prospects under FPTP at GE constituency level (indeed I hope expectations arent such that all these new members are disappointed in May). I still cant see any other seats going Green. That said I think Bristol West, Sheffield Central and Norwich South are probably the best bets of second places and once second I would fancy the chances of converting that into a win in subsequent elections.
I was once within a yard of Mrs T (short, waddled, heavily made up 'camera ready' I guess is the term), a yard of John Smith (Edinburgh Sleeper, he was holding forth to enraptured acolytes, evidently on his nth whisky), Gordon Brown (Glyndebourn, eating what looked like prawn cocktail), John Major (20 yards, at a dinner in London, very impressive in person), but as Princess Margaret said to me the other day - I'm such a name dropper!
I found myself standing next to the Mellorphant Man. A friend offered me £50 to throw my coffee over him.
So you've had the opportunity to push Brian Coleman in to a pool, and pour your coffee over David Mellor, and you didn't take up either opportunity.
For shame, Sean, For shame.
Anthony Eden, from my recollection, told the story that he discovered in the 30's at a dinner with Hitler that they had both been very close to each other indeed at one point in the trenches during WW1. He apparently recollected this to the Belgian PM after WW2 to which the Belgian wistfully replied, "and you missed him..."
On the theme of historical closeness to evil my paternal grandmother had the unpleasant duty of dancing with Jaochim von Rippentrop, the Nazi Ambassador, at an embassy reception in London in 1937.
Fairly solid polling for Labour this week with less than 16 weeks to go until the election (the ludicrous outlier from Ashy excluded!)
The Tory Green-ramping strategy is somewhat pathetic.
Some interesting debate this morning, for a change. I can only assume the thread will be high-jacked by deranged obsessives infatuated with muslims and immigration in short order.
I think the Con 6 lead Ashcroft poll will be shown to be the biggest outlier poll this parliament compared to the moving average. His NHS poll with the massive sample size is the one to look at for national VI under the Ashcroft method.
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
The SNP promise in the referendum debate was that an independent Scotland would have more money to spend on public services and could therefore avoid all this nasty austerity that the horrible English tories were inflicting on us, just because they could.
So we had in the ridiculous White Paper a series of specific promises about how all this extra money was going to be spent and posters all over Scotland explaining how class sizes were going to be reduced, child poverty abolished, the bedroom tax abolished, how much extra money was going to be spent on the Health service etc.
All of this was based upon an oil price of at least $110 a barrel. What we have now seen, and the Governor has confirmed yesterday, is that Scotland is much, much safer and more prosperous as a part of the UK than it would have been as an independent state so dependent on such a volatile source of income. To me, this is a misjudgement on a par with Brown's assessment that the UK was the best placed economy to cope with the 2008 crash. In fact we were in many ways the worst.
The idea, from antifrank, that this catastrophic level of delusion is not a relevant point to make in determining whether representatives of the SNP should be looking out for Scottish interests strikes me as somewhat odd. Put bluntly only someone sharing their delusions and indifferent to the real world would believe a word they say about anything and even then they would surely have reservations about their judgement.
Antifrank is of course correct to point out that laughing at the SNP is not a campaign in itself and the unionist parties do indeed have to have a positive vision for where Scotland goes from here as a part of the UK. But the idea we should not laugh at these idiots goes way too far.
The SNP misjudged nothing; they were not deluded. They lied. They lied about the oil price, they lied about the currency, they lied about EU membership, they lied about the NHS. They knew what they were saying was rubbish, but they did not care. It was all about winning a referendum and nothing more. Currently, the SNP does not care what the price of oil is. The one and only goal is Scottish independence. They are a nationalist party. If that means Scots being worse off it is a price worth paying. But they are clever enough to know they cannot say that in public.
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
Given what this is doing to pension scheme liabilities due to the insane laws we have relating to this, I imagine we're not far off revolver and a glass of whisky time for defined benefit scheme sponsors (oh and the taxpayer whose liabilities towards public sector pensions will similarly be soaring).
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
GOOD JOB WE'RE BORROWING AT 3.x% then !
They should do a deal "we'll give you these bonds at 3%, while you're alive. but, we reserve the right to shut off your life support to cut the government interest bill."
Well joking aside the irony about the pensions crisis is that there is a silver bullet (at least in financial terms) in that it can be solved easily by us all working longer (less time being paid a pension, longer time for funds to grow, more time to contribute, and as a bonus for the country at large a bigger taxpaying workforce). Now the Govt is inching towards the bleedin' obvious by moving state pension age upwards but the whole concept of retirement needs to move upwards in age at a much faster rate of knots to make the sums work, in a society where the average 45 year old is now due to make it to nearly 90 according to the actuaries, and life expectancy continues to rise at about 18 months a decade.
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
What happens at the other end of the agescale? Absent expansion, what do we do with all the school leavers who can't get jobs because no-one is retiring?
I think it's dangerous to mistake the surge in membership (and relatively good recent polls) for dramatically improved prospects under FPTP at GE constituency level (indeed I hope expectations arent such that all these new members are disappointed in May). I still cant see any other seats going Green. That said I think Bristol West, Sheffield Central and Norwich South are probably the best bets of second places and once second I would fancy the chances of converting that into a win in subsequent elections.
Very good chance of beating the Lib Dems in Sheffield Central, the Greens have particular strength in Nether Edge and Broomhill. That said this seat is as safe a Labour hold as you'll see, and 1-25 for Labour there is a fair reflection of that.
The SNP misjudged nothing; they were not deluded. They lied. They lied about the oil price, they lied about the currency, they lied about EU membership, they lied about the NHS. They knew what they were saying was rubbish, but they did not care. It was all about winning a referendum and nothing more. Currently, the SNP does not care what the price of oil is. The one and only goal is Scottish independence. They are a nationalist party. If that means Scots being worse off it is a price worth paying. But they are clever enough to know they cannot say that in public.
Exactly.
The SNP promised a land of milk and honey funded by oil.
To say now that the fact they were lying (and knew it) has no bearing on the next election is even more wishful thinking from the fantasists
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
But it's where we've arrived at. State Pension Age is going to increase so that the proportion of adult life spent over State Pension Age is kept constant (cancelling out longevity improvements). Public sector pensions are linked to State Pension Age (someone joining the civil service as a graduate today is probably looking at a pension age of 71 or more). And private sector workers, well, they're not going to be able to afford to retire until their 70s either.
Trouble is it's going to take us (well not me I suppose!) 50 years to get there and the sums are still enormous between now and then, especially with gilt yields at under 2% for 15 year bonds and a legal insistence that ALL liabilities in a pension scheme are thus valued. It would make far more sense to value those within say 5 (or10 maybe) years of retirement at current yields and those with longer to go at some kind of moving long term average. Today's notional pension liability as measured by today's gilt yield clearly has relevance for calculating a 64 year old's pension liability but is frankly irrelevant for a 45 year old let alone a 25 year old. At present we are forcing payment of cash into an artificially created financial black holes and risk underfunding pensions in some notional future where gilt yields may be unusually high for some reason. (Don't laugh if you'd told someone in 1950 inflation would be 27% 25 years later or someone in 1990 that interest rates would be 0.5% in 2015 where they'd been for years already they would've sent for the straight jacket)
Populus pick up more 2010 Conservative voters (7) now intending to vote Green than 2010 Labour voters (6).
The big source of new Green voters is still the 2010 Lib Dems (28), some of whom would have previously told the pollsters they would vote Labour.
Well, there's small sample sizes and then there's this :-)
I know, but, though I haven't faithfully recorded all the numbers, this is something I've kept an eye on, and it's a fairly consistent difference between Populus and the other pollsters. An interesting little curiosity.
The SNP promise in the referendum debate was that an independent Scotland would have more money to spend on public services and could therefore avoid all this nasty austerity that the horrible English tories were inflicting on us, just because they could.
So we had in the ridiculous White Paper a series of specific promises about how all this extra money was going to be spent and posters all over Scotland explaining how class sizes were going to be reduced, child poverty abolished, the bedroom tax abolished, how much extra money was going to be spent on the Health service etc.
All of this was based upon an oil price of at least $110 a barrel. What we have now seen, and the Governor has confirmed yesterday, is that Scotland is much, much safer and more prosperous as a part of the UK than it would have been as an independent state so dependent on such a volatile source of income. To me, this is a misjudgement on a par with Brown's assessment that the UK was the best placed economy to cope with the 2008 crash. In fact we were in many ways the worst.
The idea, from antifrank, that this catastrophic level of delusion is not a relevant point to make in determining whether representatives of the SNP should be looking out for Scottish interests strikes me as somewhat odd. Put bluntly only someone sharing their delusions and indifferent to the real world would believe a word they say about anything and even then they would surely have reservations about their judgement.
Antifrank is of course correct to point out that laughing at the SNP is not a campaign in itself and the unionist parties do indeed have to have a positive vision for where Scotland goes from here as a part of the UK. But the idea we should not laugh at these idiots goes way too far.
The SNP misjudged nothing; they were not deluded. They lied. They lied about the oil price, they lied about the currency, they lied about EU membership, they lied about the NHS. They knew what they were saying was rubbish, but they did not care. It was all about winning a referendum and nothing more. Currently, the SNP does not care what the price of oil is. The one and only goal is Scottish independence. They are a nationalist party. If that means Scots being worse off it is a price worth paying. But they are clever enough to know they cannot say that in public.
You are probably right SO. I always just want to think the best of people.
I was once within a yard of Mrs T (short, waddled, heavily made up 'camera ready' I guess is the term), a yard of John Smith (Edinburgh Sleeper, he was holding forth to enraptured acolytes, evidently on his nth whisky), Gordon Brown (Glyndebourn, eating what looked like prawn cocktail), John Major (20 yards, at a dinner in London, very impressive in person), but as Princess Margaret said to me the other day - I'm such a name dropper!
I found myself standing next to the Mellorphant Man. A friend offered me £50 to throw my coffee over him.
So you've had the opportunity to push Brian Coleman in to a pool, and pour your coffee over David Mellor, and you didn't take up either opportunity.
For shame, Sean, For shame.
Anthony Eden, from my recollection, told the story that he discovered in the 30's at a dinner with Hitler that they had both been very close to each other indeed at one point in the trenches during WW1. He apparently recollected this to the Belgian PM after WW2 to which the Belgian wistfully replied, "and you missed him..."
On the theme of historical closeness to evil my paternal grandmother had the unpleasant duty of dancing with Jaochim von Rippentrop, the Nazi Ambassador, at an embassy reception in London in 1937.
As this is a family show I'll not repeat her less than flattering appreciation of him, safe to say few tears were shed when breakfast was interrupted by an exultant cheer as "The Times" reported that the vile monster had been hanged for war crimes in 1946.
If you read Romeo Dallaire's book, there's a very tragic recounting of when he was in a room negotiating with various Hutu politicians and militia leaders during the middle of the Rwandan genocide. During the meeting, he had a loaded revolver in a holster and seriously considered shooting them all there and then, knowing he would end up in prison the rest of his life. He decided not to on the basis that other leaders would likely replace them, but, to this day, he doesn't know whether he made the right choice.
I think it's dangerous to mistake the surge in membership (and relatively good recent polls) for dramatically improved prospects under FPTP at GE constituency level (indeed I hope expectations arent such that all these new members are disappointed in May). I still cant see any other seats going Green. That said I think Bristol West, Sheffield Central and Norwich South are probably the best bets of second places and once second I would fancy the chances of converting that into a win in subsequent elections.
Very good chance of beating the Lib Dems in Sheffield Central, the Greens have particular strength in Nether Edge and Broomhill. That said this seat is as safe a Labour hold as you'll see, and 1-25 for Labour there is a fair reflection of that.
No chance of winning it in 2015 but once second the "cant win here" argument is finished and anyone who wants to beat Labour will consider voting Green tactically. And it's not as if there are loads of other constituencies where we will be second to pour our new found resources into.
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
Given what this is doing to pension scheme liabilities due to the insane laws we have relating to this, I imagine we're not far off revolver and a glass of whisky time for defined benefit scheme sponsors (oh and the taxpayer whose liabilities towards public sector pensions will similarly be soaring).
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
GOOD JOB WE'RE BORROWING AT 3.x% then !
They should do a deal "we'll give you these bonds at 3%, while you're alive. but, we reserve the right to shut off your life support to cut the government interest bill."
Well joking aside the irony about the pensions crisis is that there is a silver bullet (at least in financial terms) in that it can be solved easily by us all working longer (less time being paid a pension, longer time for funds to grow, more time to contribute, and as a bonus for the country at large a bigger taxpaying workforce). Now the Govt is inching towards the bleedin' obvious by moving state pension age upwards but the whole concept of retirement needs to move upwards in age at a much faster rate of knots to make the sums work, in a society where the average 45 year old is now due to make it to nearly 90 according to the actuaries, and life expectancy continues to rise at about 18 months a decade.
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
What happens at the other end of the agescale? Absent expansion, what do we do with all the school leavers who can't get jobs because no-one is retiring?
There's not a "lump of work". Those 70 year olds will be paying tax, and generating more activity than they would have thereby expanding the economy creating jobs.
The SNP promise in the referendum debate was that an independent Scotland would have more money to spend on public services and could therefore avoid all this nasty austerity that the horrible English tories were inflicting on us, just because they could.
So we had in the ridiculous White Paper a series of specific promises about how all this extra money was going to be spent and posters all over Scotland explaining how class sizes were going to be reduced, child poverty abolished, the bedroom tax abolished, how much extra money was going to be spent on the Health service etc.
All of this was based upon an oil price of at least $110 a barrel. What we have now seen, and the Governor has confirmed yesterday, is that Scotland is much, much safer and more prosperous as a part of the UK than it would have been as an independent state so dependent on such a volatile source of income. To me, this is a misjudgement on a par with Brown's assessment that the UK was the best placed economy to cope with the 2008 crash. In fact we were in many ways the worst.
The idea, from antifrank, that this catastrophic level of delusion is not a relevant point to make in determining whether representatives of the SNP should be looking out for Scottish interests strikes me as somewhat odd. Put bluntly only someone sharing their delusions and indifferent to the real world would believe a word they say about anything and even then they would surely have reservations about their judgement.
Antifrank is of course correct to point out that laughing at the SNP is not a campaign in itself and the unionist parties do indeed have to have a positive vision for where Scotland goes from here as a part of the UK. But the idea we should not laugh at these idiots goes way too far.
The SNP misjudged nothing; they were not deluded. They lied. They lied about the oil price, they lied about the currency, they lied about EU membership, they lied about the NHS. They knew what they were saying was rubbish, but they did not care. It was all about winning a referendum and nothing more. Currently, the SNP does not care what the price of oil is. The one and only goal is Scottish independence. They are a nationalist party. If that means Scots being worse off it is a price worth paying. But they are clever enough to know they cannot say that in public.
You are probably right SO. I always just want to think the best of people.
The SNP leadership strikes me as being exceptionally switched on. I cannot believe they were as stupid as to believe what they were saying.
I was once within a yard of Mrs T (short, waddled, heavily made up 'camera ready' I guess is the term), a yard of John Smith (Edinburgh Sleeper, he was holding forth to enraptured acolytes, evidently on his nth whisky), Gordon Brown (Glyndebourn, eating what looked like prawn cocktail), John Major (20 yards, at a dinner in London, very impressive in person), but as Princess Margaret said to me the other day - I'm such a name dropper!
I found myself standing next to the Mellorphant Man. A friend offered me £50 to throw my coffee over him.
So you've had the opportunity to push Brian Coleman in to a pool, and pour your coffee over David Mellor, and you didn't take up either opportunity.
For shame, Sean, For shame.
Anthony Eden, from my recollection, told the story that he discovered in the 30's at a dinner with Hitler that they had both been very close to each other indeed at one point in the trenches during WW1. He apparently recollected this to the Belgian PM after WW2 to which the Belgian wistfully replied, "and you missed him..."
On the theme of historical closeness to evil my paternal grandmother had the unpleasant duty of dancing with Jaochim von Rippentrop, the Nazi Ambassador, at an embassy reception in London in 1937.
Dont you mean your granddaughter?!
You're remarkably sanguine for a chap shortly to be very personably associated with a famous brand of crusty comestible.
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
I am glad you popped up with advice as I have the ideas for this kind of thing but need help in fine tuning them
I thought it odd that Clegg was so close to Cameron.. but maybe we are just poo pooing an unexpected finding because it is unexpected?
92% of people aren't voting for the Lib Dems but only 39% of people are dissatisfied w Clegg
Makes me think Clegg wasnt as loved as we thought he was in 2010 and isn't as hated now as people might think
Actually I messed up as I used Mikes "England only" VI so the real figures should be
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
But it's where we've arrived at. State Pension Age is going to increase so that the proportion of adult life spent over State Pension Age is kept constant (cancelling out longevity improvements). Public sector pensions are linked to State Pension Age (someone joining the civil service as a graduate today is probably looking at a pension age of 71 or more). And private sector workers, well, they're not going to be able to afford to retire until their 70s either.
Trouble is it's going to take us (well not me I suppose!) 50 years to get there and the sums are still enormous between now and then, especially with gilt yields at under 2% for 15 year bonds and a legal insistence that ALL liabilities in a pension scheme are thus valued.
Not all liabilities. In fact a minority of liabilities at a guess. And this doesnt affect what the actual costs are.
You bemoaned the fact that no party is likely to do what it takes to manage pension costs but (1) in about 20 years time State Pension Age (and normal pension age for public sector workers) will be 68 (2) State Pension Age will increase as longevity improves (3) in about 50 years public sector pensions will cost about half what they do today as a percentage of GDP and (4) most private sector workers are in schemes that carry no risk for anyone else.
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
Given what this is doing to pension scheme liabilities due to the insane laws we have relating to this, I imagine we're not far off revolver and a glass of whisky time for defined benefit scheme sponsors (oh and the taxpayer whose liabilities towards public sector pensions will similarly be soaring).
In other news from the bond markets, the German government can borrow for 10 years at 0.45%, the French for 0.6%, the Irish at 1.2%, and the Brits and Spanish at 1.5%.
GOOD JOB WE'RE BORROWING AT 3.x% then !
They should do a deal "we'll give you these bonds at 3%, while you're alive. but, we reserve the right to shut off your life support to cut the government interest bill."
Well joking aside the irony about the pensions crisis is that there is a silver bullet (at least in financial terms) in that it can be solved easily by us all working longer (less time being paid a pension, longer time for funds to grow, more time to contribute, and as a bonus for the country at large a bigger taxpaying workforce). Now the Govt is inching towards the bleedin' obvious by moving state pension age upwards but the whole concept of retirement needs to move upwards in age at a much faster rate of knots to make the sums work, in a society where the average 45 year old is now due to make it to nearly 90 according to the actuaries, and life expectancy continues to rise at about 18 months a decade.
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
What happens at the other end of the agescale? Absent expansion, what do we do with all the school leavers who can't get jobs because no-one is retiring?
There's not a "lump of work". Those 70 year olds will be paying tax, and generating more activity than they would have thereby expanding the economy creating jobs.
Yes, we all know about the lump of labour fallacy, and you'll see I wrote, "absent expansion". (In some ways, this echoes the immigration debate.)
But the question is, will they create 1:1 jobs immediately? Probably not. We've already raised the school leaving age from 16 to 21 for much of the population, and maybe a future government will have a 50 per cent target for PhDs to mop up more otherwise unemployed people, but students aren't paying pension contributions or NI, of course.
Mr. Me, that reminds me of the hoop-jumping psychologists can go through.
Consider brain size. Elephants win, so that obviously can't be the best measure (we all know humans are smartest, right?).
So, they went for brain size as a percentage of mass. Except that means we get narrowly beaten by dolphins. Ahem.
So then they added encephalisation (basically, brain wrinkliness, I think). And then we were top. So that was the best measure.
It's worth noting encephalisation is a valid measure, as super-smart lab mice were found to have much wrinklier brains compared to their smooth-brained unexperimented-upon mousey brethren. It's also worth noting how scientists can sometimes decide on a conclusion and then seek the best way to 'prove' it, even though that's the exact opposite of the scientific method.
I was once within a yard of Mrs T (short, waddled, heavily made up 'camera ready' I guess is the term), a yard of John Smith (Edinburgh Sleeper, he was holding forth to enraptured acolytes, evidently on his nth whisky), Gordon Brown (Glyndebourn, eating what looked like prawn cocktail), John Major (20 yards, at a dinner in London, very impressive in person), but as Princess Margaret said to me the other day - I'm such a name dropper!
I found myself standing next to the Mellorphant Man. A friend offered me £50 to throw my coffee over him.
So you've had the opportunity to push Brian Coleman in to a pool, and pour your coffee over David Mellor, and you didn't take up either opportunity.
For shame, Sean, For shame.
Anthony Eden, from my recollection, told the story that he discovered in the 30's at a dinner with Hitler that they had both been very close to each other indeed at one point in the trenches during WW1. He apparently recollected this to the Belgian PM after WW2 to which the Belgian wistfully replied, "and you missed him..."
On the theme of historical closeness to evil my paternal grandmother had the unpleasant duty of dancing with Jaochim von Rippentrop, the Nazi Ambassador, at an embassy reception in London in 1937.
As this is a family show I'll not repeat her less than flattering appreciation of him, safe to say few tears were shed when breakfast was interrupted by an exultant cheer as "The Times" reported that the vile monster had been hanged for war crimes in 1946.
If you read Romeo Dallaire's book, there's a very tragic recounting of when he was in a room negotiating with various Hutu politicians and militia leaders during the middle of the Rwandan genocide. During the meeting, he had a loaded revolver in a holster and seriously considered shooting them all there and then, knowing he would end up in prison the rest of his life. He decided not to on the basis that other leaders would likely replace them, but, to this day, he doesn't know whether he made the right choice.
An interesting footnote, as indeed are the very many "what if" scenarios that would have had colossal implications but for a different moment in time, probably the greatest of which are the various different Hitler outcomes.
There's just one mention of Labour: "Before Christmas, a leaked document revealed plans to change response times which provoked criticism from Labour."
Not a word of Wales' NHS being devolved or Labour responsible for it.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 23s23 seconds ago Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
I told Mike on Tuesday night, that last week my father was phone polled about he intended to vote in Sheffield Hallam (he's a self identified Tory voter)
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
The only person I can tell who has correctly forecast the oil price is FluffyThoughts. If someone can point me to an analyst or company that had oil sub $50 (As a forecast at the time of the indyref) at the start of 2015, let me know.
The UK's Gov'ts own bloody figures were at ~ $100. The SNP got this wrong, but so did almost everyone else, including yours truly. That's why this simply won't work as an attack line.
Comments
"A&E waiting time targets worsen in Wales
The number of people waiting more than four hours to be seen at A&E units in Wales has risen after the target was missed again.
Only 81% of patients were treated within that time-frame at A&E in December. The Welsh government's target is 95%."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30842476
Can you imagine the wide spread panic that would be happening now if YES had won ?
Scotland dodged a huge bullet - rejoice.
The point is that (in terms of goals alone) Austin would be a bigger loss to Rangers than Messi to Barcelona
Messi isn't a great example really, as there is so much more to his game than just goals. But in betting terms, when analysing goalscoring for betting opportunities, you don't just look at how many goals a player scores and say because one scores more than the other he is a better bet, you have to look at how many goals the team score as well
It would have been hilarious.
Labour are pinning their hopes on the NHS and the Tories have a chance to slaughter them over Wales and therefore kill Labour's chances.
Of the 31 propositions that we put to people – asking whether they broadly agreed or disagreed or didn’t know – there were only two where the Scottish and rUK majority views found themselves on opposite sides of the divide
England has the same 95% target as Wales but figures are published weekly during winter. Its latest data stood at 89.8%.
Wonder when SNP run Scotland will publish their data? :|innocent face|:
I think the Scottish electorate has turned a corner, for donkey's years they've voted Labour "to keep the Tories out" - a completely negative vote, whereas the SNP vote is a vote FOR the SNP, not simply a vote AGAINST the Conservatives (SLAB was that for years)
Really the oil price is a broken record.
Btw - Reading West, have a small amount on Labour there, I think 11-4 for them there is an ok price.
You would be happy to have chilli sauce on your kebab. You would not be happy to be served only chilli sauce.
So Cameron would be
Con VI -100 =-65
Cameron Satisfaction = -11
-65/-11=5.91
Clegg would be -92/-39 =2.36
Miliband -36/-35 = 1.86
Farage = -88/-13 = 6.77
So
Farage 6.77
Cameron 5.91
Clegg 2.36
Miliband 1.85
I will go through the last dozen or so IPSOS Mori's and see the trend
If anyone has a link that would be great cheers
Oil prices have become a central issue in the election fight in Scotland after Ms Sturgeon confirmed last week the SNP will demand devo max if her party holds the balance of power after May 7.
Under the constitutional set-up, also known as full fiscal autonomy, Westminster would retain control only of defence, foreign affairs and the currency.
Holyrood would take charge of all taxes in Scotland, including North Sea oil revenues, to fund public services and make a contribution towards shared UK functions such as the armed forces and overseas embassies.
The Scottish Government regularly published oil forecasts in the run-up to the referendum.
Its most recent, issued last May, predicted receipts of £20.2billion in the three years from 2016/17 to 2018/19, based on an oil price of $110 per barrel.
The UK Government has claimed that total would fall to just £1.6billion, a drop of £18.6billion, over the period if prices remain at the present level of $50 per barrel.
However, SNP ministers insist prices will recover.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/confusion-over-scottish-government-oil-forecasts-sparks-a-fresh-row-over-.116226585
So if I were you I would not pin your hopes on Wales turning its back on labour in May. We are a bit more sophisticated than that.
% seen in 4 hours:
Labour: 81
Coalition: 90
This means that you get a negative absolute yield for holding them. The total interest and principle payments over the next 10 years are less than the current price.
Not negative "real", but negative absolute. You would be better off taking your Swiss Francs in bank notes and getting a safe deposit box and putting them in that. Quite considerably better off.
I think the woes of the NHS here are overblown, and you are bang on the money as to the causes I'm sure, and again right it's unlikely to result in anything changing much in Wales. But Wales isn't the target audience.
So not many (outside insomniac shift workers) in full time employment?
That seems to misunderstand the most efficient way of organising an auction, but we shall see how effective it is. If they get enough seats, it might just work.
Somehow I can't see this working out very well for at least one of the parties to the transaction, and I'm pretty sure that the one who is going to get shafted is not the SNP.
N. B. Things like Mr Osborne's sudden tax of a year or two back Do Not Help.
It would just be making people aware that Labour's record on the NHS is far worse than the Coalition, which given the hyperbole of the likes of Big John and the Labour party in general could be crucial come May.
So
Cameron = (100-35)* (1+(-11/100) =57.85
Farage 76.56
Clegg 56.12
Miliband 42.52
The big source of new Green voters is still the 2010 Lib Dems (28), some of whom would have previously told the pollsters they would vote Labour.
Rather shockingly I am proud to be living in the United Kingdom, proud to have Scotland part of the UK and proud to be assured that tax revenues drawn from the whole UK and its businesses will go to all parts of the UK according to a need for balance within that UK.
What I do not like under devolution is a 'devolved' MP voting on English matters which do not affect him or his constituents because they are devolved.
With Alex Salmond predicting an oil price of $150 / barrel then I do not think you can criticise Osborne, faced with a deficit of £150 billion from taxing North Sea oil. Fortunately for Aberdeen it is part of the wider UK and we can see the sense in offering tax concessions to the industry now in its time of trial.
Well joking aside the irony about the pensions crisis is that there is a silver bullet (at least in financial terms) in that it can be solved easily by us all working longer (less time being paid a pension, longer time for funds to grow, more time to contribute, and as a bonus for the country at large a bigger taxpaying workforce). Now the Govt is inching towards the bleedin' obvious by moving state pension age upwards but the whole concept of retirement needs to move upwards in age at a much faster rate of knots to make the sums work, in a society where the average 45 year old is now due to make it to nearly 90 according to the actuaries, and life expectancy continues to rise at about 18 months a decade.
However, "work longer you know it makes sense" isn't a vote winner of a slogan though is it?
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchspecialisms/socialresearch/specareas/politics/trends.aspx#vii
Leader ratings here
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchspecialisms/socialresearch/specareas/politics/trends.aspx#partyleaders1
So we had in the ridiculous White Paper a series of specific promises about how all this extra money was going to be spent and posters all over Scotland explaining how class sizes were going to be reduced, child poverty abolished, the bedroom tax abolished, how much extra money was going to be spent on the Health service etc.
All of this was based upon an oil price of at least $110 a barrel. What we have now seen, and the Governor has confirmed yesterday, is that Scotland is much, much safer and more prosperous as a part of the UK than it would have been as an independent state so dependent on such a volatile source of income. To me, this is a misjudgement on a par with Brown's assessment that the UK was the best placed economy to cope with the 2008 crash. In fact we were in many ways the worst.
The idea, from antifrank, that this catastrophic level of delusion is not a relevant point to make in determining whether representatives of the SNP should be looking out for Scottish interests strikes me as somewhat odd. Put bluntly only someone sharing their delusions and indifferent to the real world would believe a word they say about anything and even then they would surely have reservations about their judgement.
Antifrank is of course correct to point out that laughing at the SNP is not a campaign in itself and the unionist parties do indeed have to have a positive vision for where Scotland goes from here as a part of the UK. But the idea we should not laugh at these idiots goes way too far.
And it seems the second party in Scotland also now have a policy of ripping off the English.
Between them these two parties represent 70% of the Scottish electorate. They should just leave.
http://politicalbookie.com/2015/01/16/greens-go-from-1001-to-51-to-win-bristol-west/
Probably also worth thinking about the kind of seats that they might take enough votes off Lab/LDs to help the Tories hang on to e.g. Brighton Kemptown & Hove
Overall, basically supports the "Labour slightly ahead" theme.
The Tory Green-ramping strategy is somewhat pathetic.
Some interesting debate this morning, for a change. I can only assume the thread will be high-jacked by deranged obsessives infatuated with muslims and immigration in short order.
"A new paper by two Stanford University researchers contends that current government estimates of the "social cost of carbon" - a key metric of the economic damage caused by climate change used in cost-benefit analysis of regulations - could fall woefully short of reality.
The researchers contend in the paper published in the journal Nature that the social cost of carbon on the global economy is actually about $220 for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted, a far cry from the $37 calculated by the US government."
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2390589/the-real-social-cost-of-carbon-usd220-per-ton-report-finds
I think UKIP and the Greens are going to see increasing support in Scotland, particularly as they're committed to fielding candidates in most Scottish seats. This will be at SLAB's and Tory expense, SLAB heading towards 20% and Tories to 12%.
As this is a family show I'll not repeat her less than flattering appreciation of him, safe to say few tears were shed when breakfast was interrupted by an exultant cheer as "The Times" reported that the vile monster had been hanged for war crimes in 1946.
Adjusted rating = (satisfaction - dissatisfaction) - (VI - (100 - VI) ) = satisfaction - dissatisfaction - 2*VI + 100
...makes more sense. You are then measuring the extent to which a leader is out-performing their party - under the assumption that the neutral position would have all supporters of a party satisfied with their leader and dissatisfied with the leaders of all the other parties.. Using the "certain to vote" figures:
Cameron = -11 -2*33 + 100 = +23
Miliband = -35 -2*34 + 100 = -3
Farage = -13 -2*11 + 100 = +65
Clegg = -39 -2*8 + 100 = +44
I find it hard to accept a system that puts Clegg above Cameron, though, and I think your formula also puts Clegg too close to Cameron. The problem is that the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, and the popularity of the Conservatives, is at least partly because of their leader, and so one cannot use it to "adjust" the leader ratings.
Wm Hill says it has taken bets of $1600 and £600 on Clegg to hold his Sheffield Hallam seat. Odds cut from 2/7 to 1/4.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/brotherrichard/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-coverage-proves-msnbc-cnn-and-sky-news-are-hypocrites-and-cowards/
The SNP promised a land of milk and honey funded by oil.
To say now that the fact they were lying (and knew it) has no bearing on the next election is even more wishful thinking from the fantasists
Well to my mind anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30847730
I thought it odd that Clegg was so close to Cameron.. but maybe we are just poo pooing an unexpected finding because it is unexpected?
92% of people aren't voting for the Lib Dems but only 39% of people are dissatisfied w Clegg
Makes me think Clegg wasnt as loved as we thought he was in 2010 and isn't as hated now as people might think
Actually I messed up as I used Mikes "England only" VI so the real figures should be
59.63 Cam
42.9 Mili
56.12 Clegg
79.21 Farage
You bemoaned the fact that no party is likely to do what it takes to manage pension costs but (1) in about 20 years time State Pension Age (and normal pension age for public sector workers) will be 68 (2) State Pension Age will increase as longevity improves (3) in about 50 years public sector pensions will cost about half what they do today as a percentage of GDP and (4) most private sector workers are in schemes that carry no risk for anyone else.
What more do you want them to do?
But the question is, will they create 1:1 jobs immediately? Probably not. We've already raised the school leaving age from 16 to 21 for much of the population, and maybe a future government will have a 50 per cent target for PhDs to mop up more otherwise unemployed people, but students aren't paying pension contributions or NI, of course.
Consider brain size. Elephants win, so that obviously can't be the best measure (we all know humans are smartest, right?).
So, they went for brain size as a percentage of mass. Except that means we get narrowly beaten by dolphins. Ahem.
So then they added encephalisation (basically, brain wrinkliness, I think). And then we were top. So that was the best measure.
It's worth noting encephalisation is a valid measure, as super-smart lab mice were found to have much wrinklier brains compared to their smooth-brained unexperimented-upon mousey brethren. It's also worth noting how scientists can sometimes decide on a conclusion and then seek the best way to 'prove' it, even though that's the exact opposite of the scientific method.
There's just one mention of Labour:
"Before Christmas, a leaked document revealed plans to change response times which provoked criticism from Labour."
Not a word of Wales' NHS being devolved or Labour responsible for it.
And would he be willing to vote tactically to save Nick Clegg.
I think the results of this private poll have been leaked.
The UK's Gov'ts own bloody figures were at ~ $100. The SNP got this wrong, but so did almost everyone else, including yours truly. That's why this simply won't work as an attack line.