Is there a single case of a party losing an election because the public opposed their policies despite liking the leader?
Callaghan had better PM ratings than Thatcher did, apparently.
And Callaghan would clearly have won if he'd had called the election in October 1978, as too would Brown (possibly) in 2008.
Big Jim was the only future PM I ever met. Time flies, big man, big prescence. Never met Ed but cannot believe he had Big Jim's charisma. Question though. I am sorely tempted to vote Corbyn but would be self indulgent? He is highly unlikely to lead my party to victory, so should i go with one of the two safer options? Still not made my mind up.Wish Big Jim was still alive.
Someone like Callaghan (who I also met) would never get through the selection procedures to become a parliamentary candidate these days let alone leader.
As to your options, why worry about an election in five years time? Wouldn't it be best to vote for the person you want to see lead the Party?
Jim Callaghan was one of only 2 party leaders to lose despite polling better as preferred PM (the other was Wilson in 1970). Although Churchill too may have led Attlee in 1945 and 1950
Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?
Boris Johnson - 32% Theresa May - 28% Andy Burnham - 27% George Osborne - 23% Yvette Cooper - 22% Jeremy Corbyn - 17% Liz Kendall - 16% Michael Gove - 13%
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Finally.... to all of us that knew. All this nonsense that Labour lost the last election because it lost touch, too left wing bla, bla, bla bloody bla. Liz Kendell can bloody well sod off because she is almost on par with Ed Miliband on the credibility count.
The 2015 election manifestos- noone could have told the different between any of them, aside from the SNP.
Labour lost the last election because Ed Miliband was a nob with bells and whistles attached to his head. Sorry Ed- but you were hopelessly out of your depth, your were a geeky, dweeby, nerd, and simply not credible to lead a pissup in a brewery.
I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Miliband was not the only problem Labour had, though all the problems seep into each other. In as far as Labour's manifesto might have resembled the others, frankly I can't remember. But Labour - under Miliband - spent the last five years opposing all the spending cuts and service reforms the government made, so it certainly gave the impression of wanting to run the country differently. To then say 'but we sign up to the deficit reduction plan bar a mansion tax', was just not credible.
Replacing the leader with a more credible alternative would have made a difference - though I'm not convinced one was on offer once EdM won. Even bad policies will be given some credit by the public if people believe the government will act half-competently, or if they believe the government really believes in them. But it wouldn't have solved the problem that the coalition of voters that Labour was looking to put together has too many divergent priorities. The lefty intellectual Guardian-reader, the ex-council estate WWC, the ethnic minority voter, the benefits / tax credits recipients and the rest not only want different things from the government but too often they want diametrically opposed things. That Labour - up until May 2015, at least, was run almost exclusively by the Guardian wing didn't help.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
The lefty intellectual Guardian-reader, the ex-council estate WWC, the ethnic minority voter, the benefits / tax credits recipients and the rest not only want different things from the government but too often they want diametrically opposed things.
But the SNP have managed to hoover up all these diametrically-opposed demographics (and more besides).
The lefty intellectual Guardian-reader, the ex-council estate WWC, the ethnic minority voter, the benefits / tax credits recipients and the rest not only want different things from the government but too often they want diametrically opposed things.
But the SNP have managed to hoover up all these diametrically-opposed demographics (and more besides).
By trumping it with an overriding argument. If a party has one of them, all well and good. It'll still fall apart in time but it binds the coalition until then.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
What's the expression "past performance is no guarantee of future benefits"? Something like that. There is no rule that says what has happened before must happen again.
I have to say if you think Javid is too dull, how on earth do you come up with Hammond as a candidate? Hammond would win the Mr. Dull contest even if his opponents limited to chartered accountants.
The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.
Good luck trying to get that message across. We're running a higher deficit than Greece at a time of decent economic growth. If we're not going to look at the deficit now, when?
Do you really believe this is a meaningful comparison? Because it really isn't. When Greece is brought up as though it were in any way analagous to the UK, economically speaking, it makes me think the person doing it is more concerned with pushing their point of view than in debating honestly.
There are two very problematic issues with saying that the deficit can be put off da-de-da.
1. Interest payments on it are massive - they're bigger than every penny spent on Education and Defence put together. Not eliminating it is a false economy - that leads to the next one >
2. Putting it off shovels our spending onto the shoulders of our children and if another downturn comes - leaves us very vulnerable to yet another 2008-style recession as we are carrying too much weight. Interest rates won't stay low forever either.
It's seductive to think it can be ignored or put off - but it can't unless we're prepared to take a big gamble.
Sure, the interest payments are substantial - but as long as our economy is growing we can manage them. We put our growth at risk by cutting too far and too fast - as far as I can tell most economists agree on that, as did the IMF when they warned Osborne that his cuts were doing just that in early 2013.
As for point 2): this emotive language is something I've seen a lot - but what exactly does it mean? Whose children will be shouldering the burden - and what about the children now whose life changes are impaired because of policies that increase inequality and child poverty?
Child poverty is through the floor. The very worst projections (which have all been wrong so far) say that child poverty will shoot up to exactly what it was in 2010.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
There were several other occasions when someone other than the Chancellor or F Sec came within an inch of the leadership to suggest that's more a rule of thumb rather than a natural law.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
What's the expression "past performance is no guarantee of future benefits"? Something like that. There is no rule that says what has happened before must happen again.
I have to say if you think Javid is too dull, how on earth do you come up with Hammond as a candidate? Hammond would win the Mr. Dull contest even if his opponents limited to chartered accountants.
The job of actuary was invented for those without the charisma and outgoing personality to be accountants.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
Agreed. Osborne has been slowly building up a base within the Conservative Party too.
Mr. Llama, I hope Priti Patel (or Justine Greening) gets it. And not just because I backed them at 50/1.
Just imagine the babbling contortions as Labour has to face a Conservative Party led by a woman. Again.
Miss Plato, Patel is a bit too hardline for most, even in the Conservative Party. So I don't think she will be a serious contender, if indeed she even wants the job.
As for Mr. Dancer's suggestion of Justine Greening, I confess I once had high hopes for her and still follow her twitter feed. However, since she got posted to the DfID she has shown zero backbone and appears to have been completely housetrained. A leader that is led by their civil servants is a non-starter.
Mr. Llama, you're half-wrong on Greening. The aid spending is dictated by Cameron, not the Civil Service. Greening wanted to slash it, but found her hands were tied.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
What's the expression "past performance is no guarantee of future benefits"? Something like that. There is no rule that says what has happened before must happen again.
I have to say if you think Javid is too dull, how on earth do you come up with Hammond as a candidate? Hammond would win the Mr. Dull contest even if his opponents limited to chartered accountants.
Hammond is Foreign Sec and I was going on historic precedent that either the Chancellor or Foreign Sec gets it.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
Agreed. Osborne has been slowly building up a base within the Conservative Party too.
Mr. Llama, I hope Priti Patel (or Justine Greening) gets it. And not just because I backed them at 50/1.
Just imagine the babbling contortions as Labour has to face a Conservative Party led by a woman. Again.
The Left can take comfort that they've been the ones leading women's rights for most of the 20th century, and are the reason people like Priti Patel can become Tory leader.
Think there's ammo for the Corbynistas right there.
Interesting thing I saw on facebook: Foot lost because of the SDP splitters, and Thatcher's adventure in the Falklands rescuing her from a poor position in the polls. The manifesto was not a "suicide note" at all.
Moreover, Corbyn, unlike Foot, "has the advantage of social media".
That last statement is the kind of bubbleworld, methinks, that led to the Millifans wondering how on earth their party could possibly have lost the election, when clearly everybody supports Labour...
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
There were several other occasions when someone other than the Chancellor or F Sec came within an inch of the leadership to suggest that's more a rule of thumb rather than a natural law.
Yet they didn't. You have to go back to Churchill to find a Tory leader in power who did not come straight from one of those roles and he was a former Chancellor anyway
It works for Labour too, Brown and Callaghan were both Chancellor when they became PM
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
What's the expression "past performance is no guarantee of future benefits"? Something like that. There is no rule that says what has happened before must happen again.
I have to say if you think Javid is too dull, how on earth do you come up with Hammond as a candidate? Hammond would win the Mr. Dull contest even if his opponents limited to chartered accountants.
The job of actuary was invented for those without the charisma and outgoing personality to be accountants.
My late grandfather was an actuary and became a building society chairman, it can be good training (though admittedly you are unlikely to make the transition to Hollywood)
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
Agreed. Osborne has been slowly building up a base within the Conservative Party too.
Indeed and Javid is an ally of his
He has allies everywhere in that party. I think Pickles' replacement - Greg Clark is another Osborne ally.
The lefty intellectual Guardian-reader, the ex-council estate WWC, the ethnic minority voter, the benefits / tax credits recipients and the rest not only want different things from the government but too often they want diametrically opposed things.
But the SNP have managed to hoover up all these diametrically-opposed demographics (and more besides).
I think if Corbyn wins he will study very closely how the SNP were able to mine votes from virtually every demographic. I see no reason why he couldn't go after a few million votes from the DNV and not registered segment - which is around 20 million. Which would way out balance the loss of the Blairite vote - with 240,000 members these guys are going to be able to hit the streets hard and better harness social media.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
Agreed. Osborne has been slowly building up a base within the Conservative Party too.
Indeed and Javid is an ally of his
He's allies everywhere in that party. I think Pickles' replacement - Greg Clark is another Osborne ally.
I have campaigned for Greg when living in Tunbridge Wells, he is a good chap and son of a milkman. Yes, Osborne has allies everywhere, he is far better at networking and promoting allies than Boris
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Think there's ammo for the Corbynistas right there.
Interesting thing I saw on facebook: Foot lost because of the SDP splitters, and Thatcher's adventure in the Falklands rescuing her from a poor position in the polls. The manifesto was not a "suicide note" at all.
Moreover, Corbyn, unlike Foot, "has the advantage of social media".
That last statement is the kind of bubbleworld, methinks, that led to the Millifans wondering how on earth their party could possibly have lost the election, when clearly everybody supports Labour...
I think they have missed the point. The SDP splitters departed because of the leftward swing of the party. It was not a pure co-incidence that the manifesto was left wing. (Incidentally it was not just Corbyn that was first elected on that ticket, so was a certain Anthony Blair).
The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.
To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.
Polling over the weekend had Bernie Sanders with the highest favourables of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, and CNN had him beating all GOP contendors except Bush, who led him by 1%, so if Hillary collapses you may end up with President Sanders!
Preferable to President Trump. But if that looks like it is becoming likely, I think you'll have nominee Biden or some other.
Re Priti Patel. Far too hardline for my tastes and I think too much for the electorate to swallow. But she has spirit.
My long-retired mother has become increasingly ambitious in her claims about former pupils she had taught (any of the nurses who visit her is almost certainly an ex-student, for instance, though "obviously her surname was different now and I didn't want to embarrass her by asking") or had known in some other respect (any random person on the TV, particularly if not at all famous, has a non-zero chance of having attended a family funeral, and even the famous might have been served by her as a teenage Woolworths assistant so long as they are elderly enough).
Priti Patel, I have been repeatedly assured, was a most diligent student and displayed reasonable aptitude at needlework, but was always a very quiet girl - not like she is now at all! Her looks have barely changed though. Sadly I do tend to spoil the effect by pointing out that Ms Patel spent her childhood years many counties distant from where mum was teaching at the time.
Mr. Llama, I hope Priti Patel (or Justine Greening) gets it. And not just because I backed them at 50/1.
Just imagine the babbling contortions as Labour has to face a Conservative Party led by a woman. Again.
The Left can take comfort that they've been the ones leading women's rights for most of the 20th century, and are the reason people like Priti Patel can become Tory leader.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
Agreed. Osborne has been slowly building up a base within the Conservative Party too.
Indeed and Javid is an ally of his
He's allies everywhere in that party. I think Pickles' replacement - Greg Clark is another Osborne ally.
I have campaigned for Greg when living in Tunbridge Wells, he is a good chap and son of a milkman. Yes, Osborne has allies everywhere, he is far better at networking and promoting allies than Boris
The final vote, however, will be among the membership. Unless Osborne can manoeuvre an unacceptable alternative onto that ballot, he still has to win the wider vote on merit.
That, of course, assumes that Osborne wants to be leader. I'm still not convinced.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
Agreed. Osborne has been slowly building up a base within the Conservative Party too.
Indeed and Javid is an ally of his
He's allies everywhere in that party. I think Pickles' replacement - Greg Clark is another Osborne ally.
I have campaigned for Greg when living in Tunbridge Wells, he is a good chap and son of a milkman. Yes, Osborne has allies everywhere, he is far better at networking and promoting allies than Boris
Are all the stereotypes about Tunbridge Wells true?
It would make sense that Osborne is better at networking than Boris - he's always come off as aloof and isolated in the Tory party. Also nearly all of Osborne's staff - Hancock (previously), Shawcross, Harrison, Javid, have all been talked up as the future big hitters in the Tort party.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
Agreed. Osborne has been slowly building up a base within the Conservative Party too.
Indeed and Javid is an ally of his
He's allies everywhere in that party. I think Pickles' replacement - Greg Clark is another Osborne ally.
I have campaigned for Greg when living in Tunbridge Wells, he is a good chap and son of a milkman. Yes, Osborne has allies everywhere, he is far better at networking and promoting allies than Boris
The final vote, however, will be among the membership. Unless Osborne can manoeuvre an unacceptable alternative onto that ballot, he still has to win the wider vote on merit.
That, of course, assumes that Osborne wants to be leader. I'm still not convinced.
I think he's testing the waters for a leadership bid - until really the GE result I don't think many people considered his chances, but he has the allies and position for it, and it's time to see if he can step up with members and the public; if he gets the impression he does not have much of a chance, I should think he'd be happy to be the power behind the throne for one of the new guard.
Mr. Llama, I hope Priti Patel (or Justine Greening) gets it. And not just because I backed them at 50/1.
Just imagine the babbling contortions as Labour has to face a Conservative Party led by a woman. Again.
The Left can take comfort that they've been the ones leading women's rights for most of the 20th century, and are the reason people like Priti Patel can become Tory leader.
Womens' suffrage was not introduced by the Left.
They were the ones who campaigned for it, that's my point. Without their campaigning, the political elite at the time wouldn't have given women the vote.
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Which ear, or which Tim?
There was a photo - it was the right ear if the dog was looking toward the camera and the left he/she wasn't. Though why one of you posted a picture giving a back view of your dog I can't imagine, maybe my memory is just addled.
The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.
To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.
Polling over the weekend had Bernie Sanders with the highest favourables of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, and CNN had him beating all GOP contendors except Bush, who led him by 1%, so if Hillary collapses you may end up with President Sanders!
Preferable to President Trump. But if that looks like it is becoming likely, I think you'll have nominee Biden or some other.
Sanders has higher ratings than Biden who would be too close to Obama's third term
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
Agreed. Osborne has been slowly building up a base within the Conservative Party too.
Indeed and Javid is an ally of his
He's allies everywhere in that party. I think Pickles' replacement - Greg Clark is another Osborne ally.
I have campaigned for Greg when living in Tunbridge Wells, he is a good chap and son of a milkman. Yes, Osborne has allies everywhere, he is far better at networking and promoting allies than Boris
The final vote, however, will be among the membership. Unless Osborne can manoeuvre an unacceptable alternative onto that ballot, he still has to win the wider vote on merit.
That, of course, assumes that Osborne wants to be leader. I'm still not convinced.
Conservativehome's members' polls have shown Osbone has slashed Boris' lead and overtaken May in the race to succeed Cameron
The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.
To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.
Polling over the weekend had Bernie Sanders with the highest favourables of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, and CNN had him beating all GOP contendors except Bush, who led him by 1%, so if Hillary collapses you may end up with President Sanders!
Preferable to President Trump. But if that looks like it is becoming likely, I think you'll have nominee Biden or some other.
Sanders has higher ratings than Biden who would be too close to Obama's third term
Hillary has long been branded as Obama's third term.
A stunning stat just flashed on CNN - Hillary's favorability among independent voters has dropped from 56% last November to 37% now. Don't have attribution for the poll.
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
Agreed. Osborne has been slowly building up a base within the Conservative Party too.
Indeed and Javid is an ally of his
He's allies everywhere in that party. I think Pickles' replacement - Greg Clark is another Osborne ally.
I have campaigned for Greg when living in Tunbridge Wells, he is a good chap and son of a milkman. Yes, Osborne has allies everywhere, he is far better at networking and promoting allies than Boris
Are all the stereotypes about Tunbridge Wells true?
It would make sense that Osborne is better at networking than Boris - he's always come off as aloof and isolated in the Tory party. Also nearly all of Osborne's staff - Hancock (previously), Shawcross, Harrison, Javid, have all been talked up as the future big hitters in the Tort party.
It is a bit more chic than it was and less Old Colonel, Osborne will have a Cabinet ready and waiting before Boris has finished getting enough support to get on the ballot
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. In power the Tories have either selected the Chancellor (Macmillan or Major) or the Foreign Secretary (Eden or Home) as their next leader so on that basis it will either be Osborne or Philip Hammond
There were several other occasions when someone other than the Chancellor or F Sec came within an inch of the leadership to suggest that's more a rule of thumb rather than a natural law.
Yet they didn't. You have to go back to Churchill to find a Tory leader in power who did not come straight from one of those roles and he was a former Chancellor anyway
It works for Labour too, Brown and Callaghan were both Chancellor when they became PM
Callaghan was actually FSec but your point stands there.
True, though we shouldn't confuse cause and effect. People often get made Ch/Ex or FS because they are senior party figures (and hence, potential leadership contenders), rather than the other way round.
But Butler could easily have succeeded Macmillan (indeed, he was favourite to do so until almost the last minute), and had he not, then Hogg was a serious alternative; Heseltine only failed to become PM because Thatcher stood down in the second ballot; had Major fallen in 1995 - as he very nearly did - it was Heseltine (again) or Portillo who were the leading contenders, not Hurd or Clarke (or Redwood).
Clearly, there are several reasons why those who are Chancellor or Foreign Secretary stand very good chances of replacing an outgoing PM. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't take it as read.
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
That would be Aoife of the Floppy Ear, a member of the MTimT household.
A right-wing nut job, eh? Well, not as bad as being accused by the Baghdad Times of being guilty of child genocide, but I'll take it as a badge of honour.
For the record, I am an atheist, pro-immigration, socially liberal (women and gay rights etc...), anti war on drugs, pro-choice, against the militarization of the police and having over 2 million people in jail, and pro selective gun control (particularly in cities). I freely admit that I am for small government and fiscal responsibility, and am somewhat a hawk on foreign policy matters, but also believe that the first question that should be asked in foreign ventures is why any blood and treasure should be spilled over this issue.
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Which ear, or which Tim?
There was a photo - it was the right ear if the dog was looking toward the camera and the left he/she wasn't. Though why one of you posted a picture giving a back view of your dog I can't imagine, maybe my memory is just addled.
Mr. Llama, I hope Priti Patel (or Justine Greening) gets it. And not just because I backed them at 50/1.
Just imagine the babbling contortions as Labour has to face a Conservative Party led by a woman. Again.
I would put money on her backing Cameron's renegotiation. Not sure how much of an impact that will have on any shot at being leader. It is interesting to see Boris is now making Eurosceptic noises though.
"Sadly I do tend to spoil the effect by pointing out that Ms Patel spent her childhood years many counties distant from where mum was teaching at the time."
She was born in London and was educated in or near the same, though she did, I think, become as Essex girl by adoption at University.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)
All very true, Mr. Hyufd. That said, I am not sure that any of the three Conservatives you mention will be the next leader. Osborne is almost as bad as Brown in trying to manipulate his party but even then I am not sure that enough Conservative MPs will fall into line let alone the wider membership. May and Johnson are yesterday's people and won't command enough support.
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Javid has a good backstory, but sadly he is painfully dull. [...]
There were several other occasions when someone other than the Chancellor or F Sec came within an inch of the leadership to suggest that's more a rule of thumb rather than a natural law.
Yet they didn't. You have to go back to Churchill to find a Tory leader in power who did not come straight from one of those roles and he was a former Chancellor anyway
It works for Labour too, Brown and Callaghan were both Chancellor when they became PM
Callaghan was actually FSec but your point stands there.
True, though we shouldn't confuse cause and effect. People often get made Ch/Ex or FS because they are senior party figures (and hence, potential leadership contenders), rather than the other way round.
But Butler could easily have succeeded Macmillan (indeed, he was favourite to do so until almost the last minute), and had he not, then Hogg was a serious alternative; Heseltine only failed to become PM because Thatcher stood down in the second ballot; had Major fallen in 1995 - as he very nearly did - it was Heseltine (again) or Portillo who were the leading contenders, not Hurd or Clarke (or Redwood).
Clearly, there are several reasons why those who are Chancellor or Foreign Secretary stand very good chances of replacing an outgoing PM. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't take it as read.
He was both!
Continuity candidates do very well from long periods at the top of government. Outsiders do not.
"Sadly I do tend to spoil the effect by pointing out that Ms Patel spent her childhood years many counties distant from where mum was teaching at the time."
She was born in London and was educated in or near the same, though she did, I think, become as Essex girl by adoption at University.
She went to Watford Grammar School at the same time as Liz Kendall. Despite the name this was a non-selective school at the time.
The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.
To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.
Polling over the weekend had Bernie Sanders with the highest favourables of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, and CNN had him beating all GOP contendors except Bush, who led him by 1%, so if Hillary collapses you may end up with President Sanders!
Preferable to President Trump. But if that looks like it is becoming likely, I think you'll have nominee Biden or some other.
Sanders has higher ratings than Biden who would be too close to Obama's third term
Hillary has long been branded as Obama's third term.
A stunning stat just flashed on CNN - Hillary's favorability among independent voters has dropped from 56% last November to 37% now. Don't have attribution for the poll.
I think she's getting into trouble.
Hillary was Obama's opponent in 2008 of course. CNN at the weekend had her doing a little better against the GOP than Sanders, she led Bush, Sanders trailed him fractionally. If Sanders starts looking the more electable of the 2 then she would be done for, yes
The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.
To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.
Polling over the weekend had Bernie Sanders with the highest favourables of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, and CNN had him beating all GOP contendors except Bush, who led him by 1%, so if Hillary collapses you may end up with President Sanders!
Preferable to President Trump. But if that looks like it is becoming likely, I think you'll have nominee Biden or some other.
Sanders has higher ratings than Biden who would be too close to Obama's third term
Biden is getting comparable rating to Sanders without either being in the race or campaigning. That would change in a hurry if he became drafted by the grandees.
Mr. Llama, I hope Priti Patel (or Justine Greening) gets it. And not just because I backed them at 50/1.
Just imagine the babbling contortions as Labour has to face a Conservative Party led by a woman. Again.
The Left can take comfort that they've been the ones leading women's rights for most of the 20th century, and are the reason people like Priti Patel can become Tory leader.
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Which ear, or which Tim?
There was a photo - it was the right ear if the dog was looking toward the camera and the left he/she wasn't. Though why one of you posted a picture giving a back view of your dog I can't imagine, maybe my memory is just addled.
It was "other Tim".
Mr Llama. Had to go and check! It's the right ear.
Alas, her brother - 5 years her senior - Mr Zopher is not doing well, very poorly today. He has hemangiosarcoma and I fear only a few more days left. Today was the first day he could not manage the steps up onto the back porch. He took a dip in the pool, but is now collapsed in the bedroom, somewhat bedraggled.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the interest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
That would be Aoife of the Floppy Ear, a member of the MTimT household.
A right-wing nut job, eh? Well, not as bad as being accused by the Baghdad Times of being guilty of child genocide, but I'll take it as a badge of honour.
For the record, I am an atheist, pro-immigration, socially liberal (women and gay rights etc...), anti war on drugs, pro-choice, against the militarization of the police and having over 2 million people in jail, and pro selective gun control (particularly in cities). I freely admit that I am for small government and fiscal responsibility, and am somewhat a hawk on foreign policy matters, but also believe that the first question that should be asked in foreign ventures is why any blood and treasure should be spilled over this issue.
To save any confusion, I agree with all the above, except for the floppy ear of course. Heidi would be most upset
For those on PB who don't know, the two of us know each other.
'Callaghan was actually FSec but your point stands there.
True, though we shouldn't confuse cause and effect. People often get made Ch/Ex or FS because they are senior party figures (and hence, potential leadership contenders), rather than the other way round.
But Butler could easily have succeeded Macmillan (indeed, he was favourite to do so until almost the last minute), and had he not, then Hogg was a serious alternative; Heseltine only failed to become PM because Thatcher stood down in the second ballot; had Major fallen in 1995 - as he very nearly did - it was Heseltine (again) or Portillo who were the leading contenders, not Hurd or Clarke (or Redwood).
Clearly, there are several reasons why those who are Chancellor or Foreign Secretary stand very good chances of replacing an outgoing PM. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't take it as read.'
Yes, apologies Callaghan was Chancellor from 1964-67. Osborne and Hammond are both clearly senior figures so will be contendors. In 1964 you have a point (although Butler was a former Chancellor too), in 1990 had Major not stood Hurd as Foreign Secretary could well have beaten Heseltine instead. In 1995 Major was the sitting PM so it is unlikely his Chancellor or Foreign Secretary would have challenged him direct, same with Thatcher in 1990 and it is unlikely Cameron will face a leadership challenge. It is not a done deal, but Osborne and Hammond start at the front of the pack
The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.
To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.
Polling over the weekend had Bernie Sanders with the highest favourables of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, and CNN had him beating all GOP contendors except Bush, who led him by 1%, so if Hillary collapses you may end up with President Sanders!
Preferable to President Trump. But if that looks like it is becoming likely, I think you'll have nominee Biden or some other.
Sanders has higher ratings than Biden who would be too close to Obama's third term
Hillary has long been branded as Obama's third term.
A stunning stat just flashed on CNN - Hillary's favorability among independent voters has dropped from 56% last November to 37% now. Don't have attribution for the poll.
I think she's getting into trouble.
The Cillizza article has Hillary at a net -24 amongst Independents
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Which ear, or which Tim?
There was a photo - it was the right ear if the dog was looking toward the camera and the left he/she wasn't. Though why one of you posted a picture giving a back view of your dog I can't imagine, maybe my memory is just addled.
It was "other Tim".
Mr Llama. Had to go and check! It's the right ear.
Alas, her brother - 5 years her senior - Mr Zopher is not doing well, very poorly today. He has hemangiosarcoma and I fear only a few more days left. Today was the first day he could not manage the steps up onto the back porch. He took a dip in the pool, but is now collapsed in the bedroom, somewhat bedraggled.
Thats a bummer, Mr. T. and I am sorry that you are going to join Mr. Dancer and I in the weeping over lost pets club.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
It would in theory be possible to QE all the gilts and effectively for the entire national debt to be owned by the BoE. This may well have a few ripple effects!
Today is the anniversary of the founding of the BoE in 1694, btw.
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Which ear, or which Tim?
There was a photo - it was the right ear if the dog was looking toward the camera and the left he/she wasn't. Though why one of you posted a picture giving a back view of your dog I can't imagine, maybe my memory is just addled.
It was "other Tim".
Mr Llama. Had to go and check! It's the right ear.
Alas, her brother - 5 years her senior - Mr Zopher is not doing well, very poorly today. He has hemangiosarcoma and I fear only a few more days left. Today was the first day he could not manage the steps up onto the back porch. He took a dip in the pool, but is now collapsed in the bedroom, somewhat bedraggled.
After what you told me about his improvement the other day, this is bad news. It doesn't look good.
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Which ear, or which Tim?
There was a photo - it was the right ear if the dog was looking toward the camera and the left he/she wasn't. Though why one of you posted a picture giving a back view of your dog I can't imagine, maybe my memory is just addled.
It was "other Tim".
Mr Llama. Had to go and check! It's the right ear.
Alas, her brother - 5 years her senior - Mr Zopher is not doing well, very poorly today. He has hemangiosarcoma and I fear only a few more days left. Today was the first day he could not manage the steps up onto the back porch. He took a dip in the pool, but is now collapsed in the bedroom, somewhat bedraggled.
Thats a bummer, Mr. T. and I am sorry that you are going to join Mr. Dancer and I in the weeping over lost pets club.
Thanks. Commiserations to the Dancer and Llama households.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge (larger than defence and education) is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
The problem is twofold. The BoE would give the bondholders a lot of pounds. So other people's pounds would be worth less. The exchange rate would fall and prices in sterling would rise. (The quantity of sterling in circulation and bank accounts (M4 money supply) would go up by two-thirds.) There are also problems with the BoE generally being in the business of buying government debts directly in the sense that the above scenario would be expected to continue on a more gradual basis indefinitely, since sterling debts would be doubtful.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
It would in theory be possible to QE all the gilts and effectively for the entire national debt to be owned by the BoE. This may well have a few ripple efects!
The Government wouldn't have to worry about upsetting the money markets. The advantages might outweigh the ripples. And it would significantly reduce the deficit (for those who care about such things).
The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.
To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.
Polling over the weekend had Bernie Sanders with the highest favourables of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, and CNN had him beating all GOP contendors except Bush, who led him by 1%, so if Hillary collapses you may end up with President Sanders!
Preferable to President Trump. But if that looks like it is becoming likely, I think you'll have nominee Biden or some other.
Sanders has higher ratings than Biden who would be too close to Obama's third term
Biden is getting comparable rating to Sanders without either being in the race or campaigning. That would change in a hurry if he became drafted by the grandees.
Mr. Wisemann, there are indeed two insightful and delightful chaps who live in the US called Tim who post here.
And both have GSDs and like NFL and are GOPers - and ex-pats, it's difficult to understand how anyone could confuse them.
I seem to recall posting some time ago a summary of how it was impossible to confuse us. Remember?
I remember! One of you has/had a GSD with a floppy ear. Can't remember which one though.
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Which ear, or which Tim?
There was a photo - it was the right ear if the dog was looking toward the camera and the left he/she wasn't. Though why one of you posted a picture giving a back view of your dog I can't imagine, maybe my memory is just addled.
It was "other Tim".
Mr Llama. Had to go and check! It's the right ear.
Alas, her brother - 5 years her senior - Mr Zopher is not doing well, very poorly today. He has hemangiosarcoma and I fear only a few more days left. Today was the first day he could not manage the steps up onto the back porch. He took a dip in the pool, but is now collapsed in the bedroom, somewhat bedraggled.
Thats a bummer, Mr. T. and I am sorry that you are going to join Mr. Dancer and I in the weeping over lost pets club.
Unfortunately I'm a member too - I've lost 2 previous much loved German Shepherds, Max and Rommel. Thankfully Heidi is healthy.
Well it appears the Greeks did have a sort of plan B
Greece's former finance minister is 'awaiting treason charges' after admitting hacking into the country's banking system in a secret plot so the country could switch from euro to drachma at a moment's notice. Former Greek Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis and former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis are accused of the 'Plan B'. Both ministers lost their jobs in the Greek government earlier this month. They are accused of hacking taxpayer accounts and using bank reserves
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
It would in theory be possible to QE all the gilts and effectively for the entire national debt to be owned by the BoE. This may well have a few ripple efects!
The Government wouldn't have to worry about upsetting the money markets. The advantages might outweigh the ripples. And it would significantly reduce the deficit (for those who care about such things).
Hmmmm. Just print as much money as you need and live happily ever after? I can't imagine why some country hasn't already tried it.
The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.
To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.
Polling over the weekend had Bernie Sanders with the highest favourables of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, and CNN had him beating all GOP contendors except Bush, who led him by 1%, so if Hillary collapses you may end up with President Sanders!
Preferable to President Trump. But if that looks like it is becoming likely, I think you'll have nominee Biden or some other.
Sanders has higher ratings than Biden who would be too close to Obama's third term
Biden is getting comparable rating to Sanders without either being in the race or campaigning. That would change in a hurry if he became drafted by the grandees.
But Sanders has led some of the GOP candidates in recent polls, something Biden has yet to do
But not surprising as he is not in the race.
The point is not where the polls are now, but where we think they will be when it matters. Sanders upside in both the Democratic party and the GE is very limited. He is very unlikely to beat Hillary.
However, he does not have to overtake Hillary in the polls for grandees to become very worried, only to get closer than he should (and he is very close to that point). That would be an indication that Hillary would have problems at the GE, and hence that they need to recruit someone else. Biden is about the only one who is pret a porter, with the name recognition.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
It would in theory be possible to QE all the gilts and effectively for the entire national debt to be owned by the BoE. This may well have a few ripple efects!
The Government wouldn't have to worry about upsetting the money markets. The advantages might outweigh the ripples. And it would significantly reduce the deficit (for those who care about such things).
Ask Mr Mugabe about that one.
Money is only a means of exchange and the only things of real value are what it buys. QE is the right policy when money is doing a disappearing trick, as it does in a bursting bubble scenario as banks tighten on lending. However, as things begin to return to normal, QE should be unwound otherwise prices will rise, forcing interest rates up.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge (larger than defence and education) is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
The problem is twofold. The BoE would give the bondholders a lot of pounds. So other people's pounds would be worth less. The exchange rate would fall and prices in sterling would rise. (The quantity of sterling in circulation and bank accounts (M4 money supply) would go up by two-thirds.) There are also problems with the BoE generally being in the business of buying government debts directly in the sense that the above scenario would be expected to continue on a more gradual basis indefinitely, since sterling debts would be doubtful.
Recent QE didn't cause inflation or weaken sterling. You wouldn't want to overdo it although weaker sterling would help exports and the economy generally.
My general point is that the concept of a deficit including debt interest charges is a slippery concept that is easy to misuse.
This "lady" claims it happened when GO was at University.. That would be a very long time ago and before GO had any representation politically speaking.. so an epic fail.
"tim" ex of this parish used to troll this story regularly .Interesting how history repeats itself.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
It would in theory be possible to QE all the gilts and effectively for the entire national debt to be owned by the BoE. This may well have a few ripple efects!
The Government wouldn't have to worry about upsetting the money markets. The advantages might outweigh the ripples. And it would significantly reduce the deficit (for those who care about such things).
Hmmmm. Just print as much money as you need and live happily ever after? I can't imagine why some country hasn't already tried it.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge (larger than defence and education) is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
The problem is twofold. The BoE would give the bondholders a lot of pounds. So other people's pounds would be worth less. The exchange rate would fall and prices in sterling would rise. (The quantity of sterling in circulation and bank accounts (M4 money supply) would go up by two-thirds.) There are also problems with the BoE generally being in the business of buying government debts directly in the sense that the above scenario would be expected to continue on a more gradual basis indefinitely, since sterling debts would be doubtful.
Recent QE didn't cause inflation or weaken sterling. You wouldn't want to overdo it although weaker sterling would help exports and the economy generally.
My general point is that the concept of a deficit including debt interest charges is a slippery concept that is easy to misuse.
Mostly people target a primary deficit, i.e. without including interest charges.
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Something puzzles me about the interest on our debt.
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
It would in theory be possible to QE all the gilts and effectively for the entire national debt to be owned by the BoE. This may well have a few ripple efects!
The Government wouldn't have to worry about upsetting the money markets. The advantages might outweigh the ripples. And it would significantly reduce the deficit (for those who care about such things).
Hmmmm. Just print as much money as you need and live happily ever after? I can't imagine why some country hasn't already tried it.
They have. The USA.
I don't think so. How much US debt does China own?
Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
The interest on the government bonds held by the BoE gets remitted to the Treasury. As this is about 30% of the debt, the interest payment on this 30% gets recycled.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
If it is recycled does it reduce the deficit? Is the interest figure we hear about gross or nett?
A solution to the high interest charge is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the intersest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
It would in theory be possible to QE all the gilts and effectively for the entire national debt to be owned by the BoE. This may well have a few ripple efects!
The Government wouldn't have to worry about upsetting the money markets. The advantages might outweigh the ripples. And it would significantly reduce the deficit (for those who care about such things).
Hmmmm. Just print as much money as you need and live happily ever after? I can't imagine why some country hasn't already tried it.
Comments
If it's Corbyn v Johnson GE run off,don't write off corbyn doing well.
This is why it's stupid when people talk about "what the country wants" as if it's one homogenous mass. Or that "the reason we lost is....."
Sajid Javid is the man on whom my money will be riding. Providing he doesn't foul up as a minister, I think he will take the crown and, all things being equal, will be hard for Labour to beat in 2020, especially if they persist with any of the current four leadership candidates.
Replacing the leader with a more credible alternative would have made a difference - though I'm not convinced one was on offer once EdM won. Even bad policies will be given some credit by the public if people believe the government will act half-competently, or if they believe the government really believes in them. But it wouldn't have solved the problem that the coalition of voters that Labour was looking to put together has too many divergent priorities. The lefty intellectual Guardian-reader, the ex-council estate WWC, the ethnic minority voter, the benefits / tax credits recipients and the rest not only want different things from the government but too often they want diametrically opposed things. That Labour - up until May 2015, at least, was run almost exclusively by the Guardian wing didn't help.
Just imagine the babbling contortions as Labour has to face a Conservative Party led by a woman. Again.
Edited extra bit: not sure, Miss Plato. One suspects Conservatives might go a bit weak-kneed for a hardline woman
https://www.fabians.org.uk/what-labours-next-leader-must-do/
I have to say if you think Javid is too dull, how on earth do you come up with Hammond as a candidate? Hammond would win the Mr. Dull contest even if his opponents limited to chartered accountants.
I've no idea about Javid - I couldn't say I've ever heard him say anything at all.
Miss Plato, what a saucy imagination you have
As for Mr. Dancer's suggestion of Justine Greening, I confess I once had high hopes for her and still follow her twitter feed. However, since she got posted to the DfID she has shown zero backbone and appears to have been completely housetrained. A leader that is led by their civil servants is a non-starter.
Think there's ammo for the Corbynistas right there.
Interesting thing I saw on facebook: Foot lost because of the SDP splitters, and Thatcher's adventure in the Falklands rescuing her from a poor position in the polls. The manifesto was not a "suicide note" at all.
Moreover, Corbyn, unlike Foot, "has the advantage of social media".
That last statement is the kind of bubbleworld, methinks, that led to the Millifans wondering how on earth their party could possibly have lost the election, when clearly everybody supports Labour...
It works for Labour too, Brown and Callaghan were both Chancellor when they became PM
As for actuaries, years ago I played in a bridge league which included a team of actuaries from the Prudential. They were as boring as watching paint dry but they had the odds down pat and so seldom lost a match.
Burnham 2.02 / 2.04
Corbyn 3.55 / 3.6
Cooper 5.2 / 5.9
Kendall 44 / 50
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.103946886
My long-retired mother has become increasingly ambitious in her claims about former pupils she had taught (any of the nurses who visit her is almost certainly an ex-student, for instance, though "obviously her surname was different now and I didn't want to embarrass her by asking") or had known in some other respect (any random person on the TV, particularly if not at all famous, has a non-zero chance of having attended a family funeral, and even the famous might have been served by her as a teenage Woolworths assistant so long as they are elderly enough).
Priti Patel, I have been repeatedly assured, was a most diligent student and displayed reasonable aptitude at needlework, but was always a very quiet girl - not like she is now at all! Her looks have barely changed though. Sadly I do tend to spoil the effect by pointing out that Ms Patel spent her childhood years many counties distant from where mum was teaching at the time.
That, of course, assumes that Osborne wants to be leader. I'm still not convinced.
It would make sense that Osborne is better at networking than Boris - he's always come off as aloof and isolated in the Tory party. Also nearly all of Osborne's staff - Hancock (previously), Shawcross, Harrison, Javid, have all been talked up as the future big hitters in the Tort party.
Stephen Hestor ex RBS - “What the Bank of England does in quantitative easing is it prints money to buy government debt, and so what has happened is the government has run a huge deficit over the past three years, but instead of having to find other people to lend it that money, the Bank of England has printed money to pay for the government deficit."
http://www.itv.com/news/2012-05-11/hester-quantitative-easing-funds-bigger-budget-deficit/
In practice the Bank of England is not allowed to directly buy Government debt so it buys bonds from banks and other bodies who use the proceeds to buy government debt making a turn in the process.
We know Quantitative Easing is the famous money tree. What puzzles me is what does the Bank of England do with all the interest the Government indirectly pays to it? This really is funny money.
We think we all know what the deficit is. But we really don't. It is a useful story to pursue a particular ideology.
A stunning stat just flashed on CNN - Hillary's favorability among independent voters has dropped from 56% last November to 37% now. Don't have attribution for the poll.
I think she's getting into trouble.
True, though we shouldn't confuse cause and effect. People often get made Ch/Ex or FS because they are senior party figures (and hence, potential leadership contenders), rather than the other way round.
But Butler could easily have succeeded Macmillan (indeed, he was favourite to do so until almost the last minute), and had he not, then Hogg was a serious alternative; Heseltine only failed to become PM because Thatcher stood down in the second ballot; had Major fallen in 1995 - as he very nearly did - it was Heseltine (again) or Portillo who were the leading contenders, not Hurd or Clarke (or Redwood).
Clearly, there are several reasons why those who are Chancellor or Foreign Secretary stand very good chances of replacing an outgoing PM. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't take it as read.
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy
A right-wing nut job, eh? Well, not as bad as being accused by the Baghdad Times of being guilty of child genocide, but I'll take it as a badge of honour.
For the record, I am an atheist, pro-immigration, socially liberal (women and gay rights etc...), anti war on drugs, pro-choice, against the militarization of the police and having over 2 million people in jail, and pro selective gun control (particularly in cities). I freely admit that I am for small government and fiscal responsibility, and am somewhat a hawk on foreign policy matters, but also believe that the first question that should be asked in foreign ventures is why any blood and treasure should be spilled over this issue.
She was born in London and was educated in or near the same, though she did, I think, become as Essex girl by adoption at University.
If only ALP was here to explain with a yellow box...
Continuity candidates do very well from long periods at the top of government. Outsiders do not.
Latest CNN poll Sanders 19, Biden 15:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
Huzzah! My memory still does function, age and booze has not destroyed it. Well not yet.
Alas, her brother - 5 years her senior - Mr Zopher is not doing well, very poorly today. He has hemangiosarcoma and I fear only a few more days left. Today was the first day he could not manage the steps up onto the back porch. He took a dip in the pool, but is now collapsed in the bedroom, somewhat bedraggled.
A solution to the high interest charge is for the Bank of England to print enough money to buy up all outstanding government debt and remit the interest charge back to the government. Bingo. No net interest charge. And it would boost the economy with an influx of cash into the banks.
The fact we can do this thought experiment illustrates that money is funny.
Those who use the analogy of a household managing within its means have forgotton that households don't have printing presses. Those who state "there isn't a magic money tree" are mistaken.
For those on PB who don't know, the two of us know each other.
'Callaghan was actually FSec but your point stands there.
True, though we shouldn't confuse cause and effect. People often get made Ch/Ex or FS because they are senior party figures (and hence, potential leadership contenders), rather than the other way round.
But Butler could easily have succeeded Macmillan (indeed, he was favourite to do so until almost the last minute), and had he not, then Hogg was a serious alternative; Heseltine only failed to become PM because Thatcher stood down in the second ballot; had Major fallen in 1995 - as he very nearly did - it was Heseltine (again) or Portillo who were the leading contenders, not Hurd or Clarke (or Redwood).
Clearly, there are several reasons why those who are Chancellor or Foreign Secretary stand very good chances of replacing an outgoing PM. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't take it as read.'
Yes, apologies Callaghan was Chancellor from 1964-67. Osborne and Hammond are both clearly senior figures so will be contendors. In 1964 you have a point (although Butler was a former Chancellor too), in 1990 had Major not stood Hurd as Foreign Secretary could well have beaten Heseltine instead. In 1995 Major was the sitting PM so it is unlikely his Chancellor or Foreign Secretary would have challenged him direct, same with Thatcher in 1990 and it is unlikely Cameron will face a leadership challenge. It is not a done deal, but Osborne and Hammond start at the front of the pack
Today is the anniversary of the founding of the BoE in 1694, btw.
Greece's former finance minister is 'awaiting treason charges' after admitting hacking into the country's banking system in a secret plot so the country could switch from euro to drachma at a moment's notice. Former Greek Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis and former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis are accused of the 'Plan B'. Both ministers lost their jobs in the Greek government earlier this month. They are accused of hacking taxpayer accounts and using bank reserves
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3175899/Greece-s-former-finance-minister-awaiting-treason-charges-admitting-hacking-country-s-banking-secret-plot-country-switch-euro-drachma-moment-s-notice.html#ixzz3h7tYMBoV
The point is not where the polls are now, but where we think they will be when it matters. Sanders upside in both the Democratic party and the GE is very limited. He is very unlikely to beat Hillary.
However, he does not have to overtake Hillary in the polls for grandees to become very worried, only to get closer than he should (and he is very close to that point). That would be an indication that Hillary would have problems at the GE, and hence that they need to recruit someone else. Biden is about the only one who is pret a porter, with the name recognition.
Money is only a means of exchange and the only things of real value are what it buys. QE is the right policy when money is doing a disappearing trick, as it does in a bursting bubble scenario as banks tighten on lending. However, as things begin to return to normal, QE should be unwound otherwise prices will rise, forcing interest rates up.
My general point is that the concept of a deficit including debt interest charges is a slippery concept that is easy to misuse.
This "lady" claims it happened when GO was at University.. That would be a very long time ago and before GO had any representation politically speaking.. so an epic fail.
"tim" ex of this parish used to troll this story regularly .Interesting how history repeats itself.
They have. The USA.