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.'
Sanders is actually Hillary's most dangerous rival in my view as he has change on his side, from both Obama and Hillary, Biden would simply be a continuation of the status quo. In some ways Sanders benefits from the leftwing populism boosting Corbyn and Syriza and Podemos. If Biden were to look a better general election prospect that may change, and as VP he would have history on his side for the nomination, but for now the momentum is with Sanders
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.
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.
Does the Osborne deficit include interest charges?
HYUFD -- '' It is not a done deal, but Osborne and Hammond start at the front of the pack''
Unless you are talking about Richard Hammond (45), Hammond is 59, ie 64 at next election. Clearly this gives him a big edge on Corbyn, but other than that the Tory Party may be looking for somebody a bit younger. However if Hammond thinks he should stand to ensure a proper spectrum of views are considered then he will not be scaring the animals...
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
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?
I was answering the point "Just print as much money as you need and live happily ever after". With a reserve currency, that is what the USA does. The US debt held by China is mainly in dollars.
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?
If or when the Chinese stop buying and start selling there will be a few more ripples.
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.
I don't see why it would cause hyperinflation. The money used to purchase gilts in QE is already in circulation, so if the Bank cancelled the gilts, no more money is entering the general economy.
EDIT: Oh, I see now that there was the suggestion that the Bank engage in additional QE beyond what monetary policy needs. People are correct that this would cause excess inflation.
Sanders is actually Hillary's most dangerous rival in my view as he has change on his side, from both Obama and Hillary, Biden would simply be a continuation of the status quo. In some ways Sanders benefits from the leftwing populism boosting Corbyn and Syriza and Podemos. If Biden were to look a better general election prospect that may change, and as VP he would have history on his side for the nomination, but for now the momentum is with Sanders
I would not be so ready to compare the political field in the US to Spain and Greece. This is a country that is inherently more conservative with a small c than any West European country. Sanders has no chance at all in the GE unless he is up against Trump. None. Not even against Cruz. Although personally I would prefer Sanders to either Trump or Cruz.
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.
Glad to hear that Heidi is going strong. Will she grace us with a prediction for the presidential election?
Losing pets, though, is just awful. As I get older I begin to wonder if the pain of loss actually outweighs the pleasure of love during their lifetime.
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.
The USA has not printed as much money as it can to cancel its debt. They have just bought up T-bills as was needed to ward off deflation when they couldn't cut interest rates any more.
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.
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.
Germany post ww1?
Before the Wall Street crash they weren't doing too badly in relative terms, (albeit dancing on the lip of a volcano as I think Stresemann put it).
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
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
Worrying numbers, but we must remember that there are many more Democrats than Republicans, so she does not need to win a majority of Independents. Obama lost Independents to Romney.
The USA has not printed as much money as it can to cancel its debt. They have just bought up T-bills as was needed to ward off deflation when they couldn't cut interest rates any more.
Indeed, the US national debt continues to grow, even through QE. It stands at over $18 trillion, up from $16 trillion in 2012. If you want some morbid pleasure, watch the debt clock at http://www.usdebtclock.org The debt is now $154,432 per taxpayer.
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.
Glad to hear that Heidi is going strong. Will she grace us with a prediction for the presidential election?
Losing pets, though, is just awful. As I get older I begin to wonder if the pain of loss actually outweighs the pleasure of love during their lifetime.
Mr Llama. A puppy will answer that question in a nanosecond. I say that even as I know Zopher is my once-in-a-lifetime dog.
Sanders is actually Hillary's most dangerous rival in my view as he has change on his side, from both Obama and Hillary, Biden would simply be a continuation of the status quo. In some ways Sanders benefits from the leftwing populism boosting Corbyn and Syriza and Podemos. If Biden were to look a better general election prospect that may change, and as VP he would have history on his side for the nomination, but for now the momentum is with Sanders
I would not be so ready to compare the political field in the US to Spain and Greece. This is a country that is inherently more conservative with a small c than any West European country. Sanders has no chance at all in the GE unless he is up against Trump. None. Not even against Cruz. Although personally I would prefer Sanders to either Trump or Cruz.
The US has just elected Obama twice, most of Western Europe has conservative governments outside of France and Greece and Italy. But where the left have won in recent years, Obama, Hollande, Syriza, Podemos, the SNP, it has been on a populist message. Corbyn's rise to the top of the Labour leadership polls has been the same phenomonon
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.
To be pedantic it was post-university, either when he was a journalist or a Conservative researcher (take your pick which you think more stereotypically likely to be going in for sex and drugs).
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Isn't that just that governments tend to get voted out when things are going wrong? The last Tory government managed to limp on after economic collapse for a while into a recovery, but that was just a matter of timing.
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?
The most confusing thing is how similar your political views are. All jokes aside, is there some major difference between you I can use to remember which is which?
Hillary's numbers are apparently sinking especially quickly with white voters, while holding up reasonably well with ethnic minorities (ironically her Achilles heel in her battle with Obama).
The bad news for her though is that the first two primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire, are overwhelmingly white. If her downwards trend with whites continues, she could lose one or both of them.
Hillary's numbers are apparently sinking especially quickly with white voters, while holding up reasonably well with ethnic minorities (ironically her Achilles heel in her battle with Obama).
The bad news for her though is that the first two primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire, are overwhelmingly white. If her downwards trend with whites continues, she could lose one or both of them.
Sanders is just 13% behind Hillary in New Hampshire in the latest poll
The USA has not printed as much money as it can to cancel its debt. They have just bought up T-bills as was needed to ward off deflation when they couldn't cut interest rates any more.
Indeed, the US national debt continues to grow, even through QE. It stands at over $18 trillion, up from $16 trillion in 2012. If you want some morbid pleasure, watch the debt clock at http://www.usdebtclock.org The debt is now $154,432 per taxpayer.
It is a bit lower than that in practical terms, however, as some government debt is owned by the social security trust fund. I think the UK and the US end up as a similar share of GDP when you look at what is owned by the public.
It also seems to be levelling off, before long term costs starting hitting it again:
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.
Sanders is actually Hillary's most dangerous rival in my view as he has change on his side, from both Obama and Hillary, Biden would simply be a continuation of the status quo. In some ways Sanders benefits from the leftwing populism boosting Corbyn and Syriza and Podemos. If Biden were to look a better general election prospect that may change, and as VP he would have history on his side for the nomination, but for now the momentum is with Sanders
I would not be so ready to compare the political field in the US to Spain and Greece. This is a country that is inherently more conservative with a small c than any West European country. Sanders has no chance at all in the GE unless he is up against Trump. None. Not even against Cruz. Although personally I would prefer Sanders to either Trump or Cruz.
The US has just elected Obama twice, most of Western Europe has conservative governments outside of France and Greece and Italy. But where the left have won in recent years, Obama, Hollande, Syriza, Podemos, the SNP, it has been on a populist message. Corbyn's rise to the top of the Labour leadership polls has been the same phenomonon
We'll just have to disagree on this one. Sanders is simply unelectable at the national level, as much as Corbyn is in the UK.
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?
The most confusing thing is how similar your political views are. All jokes aside, is there some major difference between you I can use to remember which is which?
Seriously can't think of any major policy issue where we disagree. And it's not like we have long off-line discussions to coordinate before logging into PB. Eerie.
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?
The most confusing thing is how similar your political views are. All jokes aside, is there some major difference between you I can use to remember which is which?
Seriously can't think of any major policy issue where we disagree. And it's not like we have long off-line discussions to coordinate before logging into PB. Eerie.
The USA has not printed as much money as it can to cancel its debt. They have just bought up T-bills as was needed to ward off deflation when they couldn't cut interest rates any more.
Indeed, the US national debt continues to grow, even through QE. It stands at over $18 trillion, up from $16 trillion in 2012. If you want some morbid pleasure, watch the debt clock at http://www.usdebtclock.org The debt is now $154,432 per taxpayer.
It is a bit lower than that in practical terms, however, as some government debt is owned by the social security trust fund. I think the UK and the US end up as a similar share of GDP when you look at what is owned by the public.
It also seems to be levelling off, before long term costs starting hitting it again:
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?
The most confusing thing is how similar your political views are. All jokes aside, is there some major difference between you I can use to remember which is which?
Seriously can't think of any major policy issue where we disagree. And it's not like we have long off-line discussions to coordinate before logging into PB. Eerie.
Do you at least work in different jobs?
Yes. TimB comes from an IT background I believe. I am in the security and safety business, ex-diplomat. He's from Yorkshire, I'm from the Southwest
Sanders is actually Hillary's most dangerous rival in my view as he has change on his side, from both Obama and Hillary, Biden would simply be a continuation of the status quo. In some ways Sanders benefits from the leftwing populism boosting Corbyn and Syriza and Podemos. If Biden were to look a better general election prospect that may change, and as VP he would have history on his side for the nomination, but for now the momentum is with Sanders
I would not be so ready to compare the political field in the US to Spain and Greece. This is a country that is inherently more conservative with a small c than any West European country. Sanders has no chance at all in the GE unless he is up against Trump. None. Not even against Cruz. Although personally I would prefer Sanders to either Trump or Cruz.
The US has just elected Obama twice, most of Western Europe has conservative governments outside of France and Greece and Italy. But where the left have won in recent years, Obama, Hollande, Syriza, Podemos, the SNP, it has been on a populist message. Corbyn's rise to the top of the Labour leadership polls has been the same phenomonon
We'll just have to disagree on this one. Sanders is simply unelectable at the national level, as much as Corbyn is in the UK.
People said the same about Obama in 2008. On a balance of probabilities he would lose, but the polls show his candidacy would certainly not be George McGovern 2, and if Trump goes third party all bets are off!
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
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.
Glad to hear that Heidi is going strong. Will she grace us with a prediction for the presidential election?
Losing pets, though, is just awful. As I get older I begin to wonder if the pain of loss actually outweighs the pleasure of love during their lifetime.
She might, if we can devise a double blind unbiased, rigorous scientific way to do so.
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.
The really sad thing is that none of the Labour candidates come close to matching his very ordinary levels of ability.
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.
snip for length
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.
Callaghan was a poor Chancellor, an average Home Secretary and a pointless Foreign Secretary. He was however a friend of the Unions, as Barbara Castle found out to her cost. It all helps.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
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.
Glad to hear that Heidi is going strong. Will she grace us with a prediction for the presidential election?
Losing pets, though, is just awful. As I get older I begin to wonder if the pain of loss actually outweighs the pleasure of love during their lifetime.
When Heidi's time comes, her ashes will join Max and Rommel on my mantelpiece, and her collar and leash will join theirs. Their will be another German Shepherd who will be his or her own person.
Sanders is actually Hillary's most dangerous rival in my view as he has change on his side, from both Obama and Hillary, Biden would simply be a continuation of the status quo. In some ways Sanders benefits from the leftwing populism boosting Corbyn and Syriza and Podemos. If Biden were to look a better general election prospect that may change, and as VP he would have history on his side for the nomination, but for now the momentum is with Sanders
I would not be so ready to compare the political field in the US to Spain and Greece. This is a country that is inherently more conservative with a small c than any West European country. Sanders has no chance at all in the GE unless he is up against Trump. None. Not even against Cruz. Although personally I would prefer Sanders to either Trump or Cruz.
The US has just elected Obama twice, most of Western Europe has conservative governments outside of France and Greece and Italy. But where the left have won in recent years, Obama, Hollande, Syriza, Podemos, the SNP, it has been on a populist message. Corbyn's rise to the top of the Labour leadership polls has been the same phenomonon
We'll just have to disagree on this one. Sanders is simply unelectable at the national level, as much as Corbyn is in the UK.
People said the same about Obama in 2008. On a balance of probabilities he would lose, but the polls show his candidacy would certainly not be George McGovern 2, and if Trump goes third party all bets are off!
Uncanny: here's an excellent piece on Corbyn as McGovern from earlier tonight:
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.
The really sad thing is that none of the Labour candidates come close to matching his very ordinary levels of ability.
At least Johnston could have offered a song a dance and a witty quip to go with the dunce's cap on his head.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
Was that pre the booze and the fags or post? If you cannot afford things don't buy em. When my wife died I was skint. I stopped smoking and saved myself £300 a month at LEAST. I haven't smoked for 2 yrs plus..
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?
The most confusing thing is how similar your political views are. All jokes aside, is there some major difference between you I can use to remember which is which?
Seriously can't think of any major policy issue where we disagree. And it's not like we have long off-line discussions to coordinate before logging into PB. Eerie.
Do you at least work in different jobs?
Yes. TimB comes from an IT background I believe. I am in the security and safety business, ex-diplomat. He's from Yorkshire, I'm from the Southwest
I only have 1 pet, and yes I'm an IT guy. I also have probably a sicker sense of humor.
But the killer, ultimate, way to tell us apart - his PB handle ends in T, and mine ends with a B.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
Was that pre the booze and the fags or post? If you cannot afford things don't buy em. When my wife died I was skint. I stopped smoking and saved myself £300 a month at LEAST. I haven't smoked for 2 yrs plus..
It never amazes me the comments on here which contain anecdotal content like this...WTF has your smoking habit got to do with levels of child poverty? Suggest you start again to reduce those stress levels mate
HYUFD -- '' It is not a done deal, but Osborne and Hammond start at the front of the pack''
Unless you are talking about Richard Hammond (45), Hammond is 59, ie 64 at next election. Clearly this gives him a big edge on Corbyn, but other than that the Tory Party may be looking for somebody a bit younger. However if Hammond thinks he should stand to ensure a proper spectrum of views are considered then he will not be scaring the animals...
A couple of days ago someone here on pb.com suggested that if Osborne became PM then Cameron might become CoE. I think Cameron would be better suited to the FCO, he has the smoothness required for diplomacy. For CoE I might choose Hammond who was known as "Mtr Spreadsheet" at the MOD.
Oh political nutters - I hope when the time for Tory chaos comes it will be this amusing (the LD position was so bad it was just sad rather than funny). Very few people taking it up yet I see, but a very good one nonetheless.
From 2010 until the 2015 election he made constant appearances in the media trying to get Ed Miliband replaced as Labour leader, and was no doubt partly responsible for Labour losing the election in 2015
Yes of course - if only John Mann, MP for Bassetlaw, has been less publicly dissatisfied with Ed M, why it could have saved the party 5, 10 or even 20 seats no doubt.
I like how the site says 'This petition made change with x'. Yes, signing a petition is making change alright (look, it's not nothing, but come on)
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.
Contrary to much hype interest on the National Debt as a % of GDP - currently 2.5% - is not high at all in recent historical terms. It is lower than throughout. almost the entire period 1955 - 2001. Only compared with the years 2001 to 2009 does the % figure appear high.Doubtless this partly reflects very low interest rates.
Sanders is actually Hillary's most dangerous rival in my view as he has change on his side, from both Obama and Hillary, Biden would simply be a continuation of the status quo. In some ways Sanders benefits from the leftwing populism boosting Corbyn and Syriza and Podemos. If Biden were to look a better general election prospect that may change, and as VP he would have history on his side for the nomination, but for now the momentum is with Sanders
I would not be so ready to compare the political field in the US to Spain and Greece. This is a country that is inherently more conservative with a small c than any West European country. Sanders has no chance at all in the GE unless he is up against Trump. None. Not even against Cruz. Although personally I would prefer Sanders to either Trump or Cruz.
The US has just elected Obama twice, most of Western Europe has conservative governments outside of France and Greece and Italy. But where the left have won in recent years, Obama, Hollande, Syriza, Podemos, the SNP, it has been on a populist message. Corbyn's rise to the top of the Labour leadership polls has been the same phenomonon
We'll just have to disagree on this one. Sanders is simply unelectable at the national level, as much as Corbyn is in the UK.
People said the same about Obama in 2008. On a balance of probabilities he would lose, but the polls show his candidacy would certainly not be George McGovern 2, and if Trump goes third party all bets are off!
Uncanny: here's an excellent piece on Corbyn as McGovern from earlier tonight:
America is a different nation from 1972, with more voters being graduates and ethnic minorities, a similar tale is true in the UK. Corbyn and Sanders are still unlikely to win, but stranger things have happened
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.
QE is indeed something of a black box mystery but it is probable that the fact that it was almost exclusively used to buy government debt by the BoE meant that it was "sterilised" and did not feed into general circulation limiting the damage it might have done.
Sterling weakened very sharply at the time of the crash so it was already on the floor before QE got going. Had it been higher I think it is probable that it would have fallen.
The question of why QE on that level (and indeed on the massive levels carried out in the US) did not cause inflation is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting questions in economics at the present time.
My theory, FWIW is that 2007/8 was a deflationary tsunami of such incredible proportions (as trillions of pounds and dollars were wiped out from the CDOs, futures and other fantastical financial products that the Financial sector was selling to each other at ever more absurd "profits") that everything that governments have done since (whether enormous fiscal deficits, QE or zero interest rate policies all of which should be inflationary) has done no more than hold that pressure at bay.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Well if we can't eat babies and force children up chimneys when in power, when can we do it.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
What were the medians? This is a crap measure. People earn less, less kids living in poverty.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Well if we can't eat babies and force children up chimneys when in power, when can we do it.
and harvests children for body parts for profit. Very important.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Well if we can't eat babies and force children up chimneys when in power, when can we do it.
and harvests children for body parts for profit. Very important.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Well if we can't eat babies and force children up chimneys when in power, when can we do it.
Hee hee...why do you refer to the Tories as "we"? You are not in Government, you know. You're sitting on a laptop tippy-tapping out a mantra along with your like-minded folk desparately trying to give the impression that you have the ear of Dave or George or Boris...get a grip, man!
Fascinating. He seems to be saying that holding a second independence referendum is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and that he would be prepared to challenge any enactment of the said Parliament providing for such a referendum in court. That doesn't seem particularly controversial. Whether he is also saying that he would introduce legislation at Westminster to prevent a second referendum were he to lose in court is an open question.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Well if we can't eat babies and force children up chimneys when in power, when can we do it.
and harvests children for body parts for profit. Very important.
Fascinating. He seems to be saying that holding a second independence referendum is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and that he would be prepared to challenge any enactment of the said Parliament providing for such a referendum in court. That doesn't seem particularly controversial. Whether he is also saying that he would introduce legislation at Westminster to prevent a second referendum were he to lose in court is an open question.
I am delighted that Cameron has said that and hope that Labour and the LibDems back his position. Personally I would go further and declare that there is no justification for a further Referendum until the 2030s.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
Yes...I was on here in the last years of the Gordon Brown Government and they were all on here saying how awful it was that Brown was letting down the armed forces...and then the Tories come in and cut it even more and they all shut up!
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Isn't that just that governments tend to get voted out when things are going wrong? The last Tory government managed to limp on after economic collapse for a while into a recovery, but that was just a matter of timing.
Fascinating. He seems to be saying that holding a second independence referendum is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and that he would be prepared to challenge any enactment of the said Parliament providing for such a referendum in court.
It is outwith the competence.
The interesting bit about "once in a generation" is that not only did Eck and Nicola say it, it's written in the White Paper, so the SNP line would have to be "the contents of the White Paper were not true..."
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
There's nothing about equality in this Government - it's about securing the best outcome for the 40% of the voting population who they need to win an election...no need to worry too much about the others
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
When did the UK change the definition it uses for 'poverty'? Wasn't it in that timeframe? I think PB has had the definitional debate a few times already, so I am not eager to reignite it.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
Was that pre the booze and the fags or post? If you cannot afford things don't buy em. When my wife died I was skint. I stopped smoking and saved myself £300 a month at LEAST. I haven't smoked for 2 yrs plus..
It never amazes me the comments on here which contain anecdotal content like this...WTF has your smoking habit got to do with levels of child poverty? Suggest you start again to reduce those stress levels mate
If your parent smokes 20 a day that is 60 quid a week not going on feeding and clothing the children, not difficult is it?
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.
QE is indeed something of a black box mystery but it is probable that the fact that it was almost exclusively used to buy government debt by the BoE meant that it was "sterilised" and did not feed into general circulation limiting the damage it might have done.
Sterling weakened very sharply at the time of the crash so it was already on the floor before QE got going. Had it been higher I think it is probable that it would have fallen.
The question of why QE on that level (and indeed on the massive levels carried out in the US) did not cause inflation is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting questions in economics at the present time.
My theory, FWIW is that 2007/8 was a deflationary tsunami of such incredible proportions (as trillions of pounds and dollars were wiped out from the CDOs, futures and other fantastical financial products that the Financial sector was selling to each other at ever more absurd "profits") that everything that governments have done since (whether enormous fiscal deficits, QE or zero interest rate policies all of which should be inflationary) has done no more than hold that pressure at bay.
Is that another way of saying 'were it not for QE, we'd have had massive deflation'?
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
Was that pre the booze and the fags or post? If you cannot afford things don't buy em. When my wife died I was skint. I stopped smoking and saved myself £300 a month at LEAST. I haven't smoked for 2 yrs plus..
It never amazes me the comments on here which contain anecdotal content like this...WTF has your smoking habit got to do with levels of child poverty? Suggest you start again to reduce those stress levels mate
If your parent smokes 20 a day that is 60 quid a week not going on feeding and clothing the children, not difficult is it?
Oh, i am so sorry...I had no idea that poverty only exists in families where the parents smoke. ..award for the dick of the week is in to post!
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
Unfortunately, not everywhere in the world does the right embrace equality of opportunity. In American schools, I have read, poor kids get less spent on them than rich kids. I can not imagine many Republicans supporting changing that.
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
That's a non-sequitur if poverty is defined relatively: people can get richer (or more broadly, their incomes might stagnate), yet move from "out of poverty" to "in poverty" if there was a shift in the median. If you want to understand why Thatcher was not so fussed about inequality, then have a look at her final PMQs where she put her case very eloquently when Simon Hughes confronts her on the issue.
I'd far prefer to be in poverty in 2015 than in 1945, because "in poverty" means something very different in different time periods, and for that reason alone the "percentage of households in poverty" measure is not directly comparable across time periods.
Note that not all Tories are so sanguine about inequality, and some believe that limiting inequality is necessary for economic growth (increases the consumer base) or simply for consent to a market-based system of economics (too stark an inequality may lead to public backlash).
Also worth mentioning: there are substantial temporal and geographic aspects to "poverty" in the UK that are underplayed in most discussions of the issue. Many people in low-income households (bottom decile) later end up in much higher deciles because earnings vary over lifespans: put bluntly, students are skint, but middle-aged graduates are on average high-earners. Even when we say "poverty numbers are static" there is still substantial churn between categories. And there is large scale geographic variation in wages, but also in local living costs. A pound in Hull goes a lot further than a pound in London: £15k per year would enable an entirely different quality of life in the two places.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
Too much truth for one post. You need to spread it out.
The interesting bit about "once in a generation" is that not only did Eck and Nicola say it, it's written in the White Paper, so the SNP line would have to be "the contents of the White Paper were not true..."
I agree about the nationalists' hypocrisy and that a second referendum on independence is, on a sensible construction of section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998, outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That conclusion cannot, however, be stated with certainty unless and until a court resolves the matter. There are also some interesting alternative questions which don't look as clear cut as the question on the ballot paper last year: "should the Scottish Government begin independence negotiations with the United Kingdom Parliament and Government?", for example.
Very true. Every Labour government leaves office with unemployment higher then when they came into office and crashes the economy. Every single one of them every single time.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
Was that pre the booze and the fags or post? If you cannot afford things don't buy em. When my wife died I was skint. I stopped smoking and saved myself £300 a month at LEAST. I haven't smoked for 2 yrs plus..
It never amazes me the comments on here which contain anecdotal content like this...WTF has your smoking habit got to do with levels of child poverty? Suggest you start again to reduce those stress levels mate
If your parent smokes 20 a day that is 60 quid a week not going on feeding and clothing the children, not difficult is it?
Oh, i am so sorry...I had no idea that poverty only exists in families where the parents smoke. ..award for the dick of the week is in to post!
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.
QE is indeed something of a black box mystery but it is probable that the fact that it was almost exclusively used to buy government debt by the BoE meant that it was "sterilised" and did not feed into general circulation limiting the damage it might have done.
Sterling weakened very sharply at the time of the crash so it was already on the floor before QE got going. Had it been higher I think it is probable that it would have fallen.
The question of why QE on that level (and indeed on the massive levels carried out in the US) did not cause inflation is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting questions in economics at the present time.
My theory, FWIW is that 2007/8 was a deflationary tsunami of such incredible proportions (as trillions of pounds and dollars were wiped out from the CDOs, futures and other fantastical financial products that the Financial sector was selling to each other at ever more absurd "profits") that everything that governments have done since (whether enormous fiscal deficits, QE or zero interest rate policies all of which should be inflationary) has done no more than hold that pressure at bay.
Is that another way of saying 'were it not for QE, we'd have had massive deflation'?
Not necessarily but the combination of all 3 policies has staved it off for now. I still think it remains a massive risk though. If there were a collapse of demand in China, for example, we would have major problems, problems we are already seeing in the commodities markets. The economy remains far more fragile and vulnerable than those in charge would have us think.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation (sic), but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
I have to agree that we don't all start in the same place. That needs some work.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1h1 hour ago Worth noting there isn't all that much of the campaign to go: ballots drop week beginning the 12th. Most people will have voted by the 21st.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation (sic), but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
I have to agree that we don't all start in the same place. That needs some work.
I agree with your comments about the left.
Perfection is an impossible goal.
Certainly so far as my spelling is concerned. I would love to be able to claim that was deliberate but sadly not.
The interesting bit about "once in a generation" is that not only did Eck and Nicola say it, it's written in the White Paper, so the SNP line would have to be "the contents of the White Paper were not true..."
I agree about the nationalists' hypocrisy and that a second referendum on independence is, on a sensible construction of section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998, outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That conclusion cannot, however, be stated with certainty unless and until a court resolves the matter. There are also some interesting alternative questions which don't look as clear cut as the question on the ballot paper last year: "should the Scottish Government begin independence negotiations with the United Kingdom Parliament and Government?", for example.
Reading that in all its glory, it's easy to see how lawyers make their money at everyone else's expense.
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
That's a non-sequitur if poverty is defined relatively: people can get richer (or more broadly, their incomes might stagnate), yet move from "out of poverty" to "in poverty" if there was a shift in the median. If you want to understand why Thatcher was not so fussed about inequality, then have a look at her final PMQs where she put her case very eloquently when Simon Hughes confronts her on the issue.
I'd far prefer to be in poverty in 2015 than in 1945, because "in poverty" means something very different in different time periods, and for that reason alone the "percentage of households in poverty" measure is not directly comparable across time periods.
Note that not all Tories are so sanguine about inequality, and some believe that limiting inequality is necessary for economic growth (increases the consumer base) or simply for consent to a market-based system of economics (too stark an inequality may lead to public backlash).
Also worth mentioning: there are substantial temporal and geographic aspects to "poverty" in the UK that are underplayed in most discussions of the issue. Many people in low-income households (bottom decile) later end up in much higher deciles because earnings vary over lifespans: put bluntly, students are skint, but middle-aged graduates are on average high-earners. Even when we say "poverty numbers are static" there is still substantial churn between categories. And there is large scale geographic variation in wages, but also in local living costs. A pound in Hull goes a lot further than a pound in London: £15k per year would enable an entirely different quality of life in the two places.
As far as I'm aware it was Labour who changed how poverty was defined, so the figures shouldn't be relative poverty.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
I agree with you on the Right, though you appear to think not many in politics want to deal with inequality.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation (sic), but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
I have to agree that we don't all start in the same place. That needs some work.
I agree with your comments about the left.
Perfection is an impossible goal.
It's impossible, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
@Tim and Apocalypse The right wants equality of opportunity- so how do public schools fit into that equation? If they wanted equality of opportunity they would put all the kids into the same system and look for the best to succeed.
The thing that I have noticed is that people with money are obsessed by money- accumulating it, and protecting it, looking at it, checking portfolios, getting their assets valued- and hating any minimal attempt to lose any. Thus the rich always get richer because they hold all the power.
And once they have money they have to be a complete idiot to lose it. Everything is stacked in their favour. Everything- and if there is a tiny bit of redistribution for a period- the door gets shut in the faces of the poor as the right come back and shift the pendulum full tilt.
As far as I'm aware it was Labour who changed how poverty was defined, so the figures shouldn't be relative poverty.
I'm not an expert on this - you'd have to quote which particular figures you're using to show whether you're looking at a relative or absolute stat - but the use of "relative poverty" figures is not new.
This IFS paper from 1999 uses "income below half the mean" (which if you remember your high school statistics, will clearly be more affected by changes in inequality than one based on the median) with various adjustments, for instance. It does show a steep rise in the 1980s, which the authors largely attribute to the rise in unemployment.
Myburningears .... ''Many people in low-income households (bottom decile) later end up in much higher deciles because earnings vary over lifespans: put bluntly, students are skint, but middle-aged graduates are on average high-earners. ''
Correct - along with your other comments. Young people with mortgages are asset poor as well - once the mortgage is paid off you are asset rich. Once the parents die off then the young start to become asset rich. But relative poverty is a non guide to the problem.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation (sic), but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
I have to agree that we don't all start in the same place. That needs some work.
I agree with your comments about the left.
Perfection is an impossible goal.
It's impossible, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
Perfectly true, but if you try too hard, you can do damage. The goal is to grow the economy as much as possible.
Comments
'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.'
Biden did actually lead some of the GOP field in 2013, but his ratings have declined since then and he does less well in hypothetical general election polls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016
Sanders is actually Hillary's most dangerous rival in my view as he has change on his side, from both Obama and Hillary, Biden would simply be a continuation of the status quo. In some ways Sanders benefits from the leftwing populism boosting Corbyn and Syriza and Podemos. If Biden were to look a better general election prospect that may change, and as VP he would have history on his side for the nomination, but for now the momentum is with Sanders
Unless you are talking about Richard Hammond (45), Hammond is 59, ie 64 at next election. Clearly this gives him a big edge on Corbyn, but other than that the Tory Party may be looking for somebody a bit younger. However if Hammond thinks he should stand to ensure a proper spectrum of views are considered then he will not be scaring the animals...
EDIT: Oh, I see now that there was the suggestion that the Bank engage in additional QE beyond what monetary policy needs. People are correct that this would cause excess inflation.
Losing pets, though, is just awful. As I get older I begin to wonder if the pain of loss actually outweighs the pleasure of love during their lifetime.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/625772440015257600
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016
The US has just elected Obama twice, most of Western Europe has conservative governments outside of France and Greece and Italy. But where the left have won in recent years, Obama, Hollande, Syriza, Podemos, the SNP, it has been on a populist message. Corbyn's rise to the top of the Labour leadership polls has been the same phenomonon
Better not talk about the global glut in diesel. Sadly this means that duty is bound to go up at the next budget.
PS
Actually we need some certainty about the future of diesel v. petrol.
The bad news for her though is that the first two primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire, are overwhelmingly white. If her downwards trend with whites continues, she could lose one or both of them.
It also seems to be levelling off, before long term costs starting hitting it again:
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/49xxx/49892-home-sumfig1.png
I dare say the collapse isn't.
Ours is $39 000 ish
Greece is $35 000 ish
Of course as long as you can pay the interest you are not bankrupt. When the music stops however...
Figures from:
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org
@MrHarryCole: Gold: "Petitioning The Labour Party
Expel John Mann MP" https://t.co/bVYqIituk2 Surely he should be sent to the gulag?
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
https://medium.com/@davidbutler100/jeremy-corbyn-labour-s-george-mcgovern-60b52a98bbfc
But the killer, ultimate, way to tell us apart - his PB handle ends in T, and mine ends with a B.
Subtle, huh?
From 2010 until the 2015 election he made constant appearances in the media trying to get Ed Miliband replaced as Labour leader, and was no doubt partly responsible for Labour losing the election in 2015
Yes of course - if only John Mann, MP for Bassetlaw, has been less publicly dissatisfied with Ed M, why it could have saved the party 5, 10 or even 20 seats no doubt.
I like how the site says 'This petition made change with x'. Yes, signing a petition is making change alright (look, it's not nothing, but come on)
Sterling weakened very sharply at the time of the crash so it was already on the floor before QE got going. Had it been higher I think it is probable that it would have fallen.
The question of why QE on that level (and indeed on the massive levels carried out in the US) did not cause inflation is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting questions in economics at the present time.
My theory, FWIW is that 2007/8 was a deflationary tsunami of such incredible proportions (as trillions of pounds and dollars were wiped out from the CDOs, futures and other fantastical financial products that the Financial sector was selling to each other at ever more absurd "profits") that everything that governments have done since (whether enormous fiscal deficits, QE or zero interest rate policies all of which should be inflationary) has done no more than hold that pressure at bay.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
20 quarters of uninterrupted economic growth...
The interesting bit about "once in a generation" is that not only did Eck and Nicola say it, it's written in the White Paper, so the SNP line would have to be "the contents of the White Paper were not true..."
@GildayJohn: @scotsmum1966 @david_gould_ from the white paper, once in a lifetime http://t.co/BRK5mXt9dZ
And told Nicola to stop messing around and get on with sorting out the mess in Scotland.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lSIdJlSHQQ
I'd far prefer to be in poverty in 2015 than in 1945, because "in poverty" means something very different in different time periods, and for that reason alone the "percentage of households in poverty" measure is not directly comparable across time periods.
Note that not all Tories are so sanguine about inequality, and some believe that limiting inequality is necessary for economic growth (increases the consumer base) or simply for consent to a market-based system of economics (too stark an inequality may lead to public backlash).
Also worth mentioning: there are substantial temporal and geographic aspects to "poverty" in the UK that are underplayed in most discussions of the issue. Many people in low-income households (bottom decile) later end up in much higher deciles because earnings vary over lifespans: put bluntly, students are skint, but middle-aged graduates are on average high-earners. Even when we say "poverty numbers are static" there is still substantial churn between categories. And there is large scale geographic variation in wages, but also in local living costs. A pound in Hull goes a lot further than a pound in London: £15k per year would enable an entirely different quality of life in the two places.
I agree with your comments about the left.
Perfection is an impossible goal.
Worth noting there isn't all that much of the campaign to go: ballots drop week beginning the 12th. Most people will have voted by the 21st.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5t6rC6yvg
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108256
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
@Tim and Apocalypse
The right wants equality of opportunity- so how do public schools fit into that equation? If they wanted equality of opportunity they would put all the kids into the same system and look for the best to succeed.
The thing that I have noticed is that people with money are obsessed by money- accumulating it, and protecting it, looking at it, checking portfolios, getting their assets valued- and hating any minimal attempt to lose any. Thus the rich always get richer because they hold all the power.
And once they have money they have to be a complete idiot to lose it. Everything is stacked in their favour. Everything- and if there is a tiny bit of redistribution for a period- the door gets shut in the faces of the poor as the right come back and shift the pendulum full tilt.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/fs/articles/0004a.pdf
This IFS paper from 1999 uses "income below half the mean" (which if you remember your high school statistics, will clearly be more affected by changes in inequality than one based on the median) with various adjustments, for instance. It does show a steep rise in the 1980s, which the authors largely attribute to the rise in unemployment.
Correct - along with your other comments. Young people with mortgages are asset poor as well - once the mortgage is paid off you are asset rich. Once the parents die off then the young start to become asset rich. But relative poverty is a non guide to the problem.
So that is a BBC presenter and a current well known Labourite...some awkward questions going to be asked at certain people's homes.
Because that is exactly what the wider electorate did last May to leave Labour in the position of needing a new leader....