Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some of the headlines after the big statement are not quite

2

Comments

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited June 2013
    Has Osborne actually ever used the words "Idle Scroungers" in relation to people who have lost their jobs, or in reference to anyone really..it is quoted repeatedly on PB but I have never seen a link
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304

    rcs1000 said:

    "New estimates of the UK's reserves of shale gas will be published on Thursday, and are expected to be much larger than originally thought – potentially supplying the UK with decades' worth of natural gas, if a high proportion of the gas in the rocks can be extracted at a low cost. However that key question that cannot yet be answered due to the lack of experimental wells drilled so far and the challenges posed by the UK's high density of population."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/27/uk-shale-gas-survey-fracking?CMP=twt_fd

    You beat me to it: the number is apparently 1,300 trillion cubic feet
    "It said there could be 1,300 trillion cubic feet at one site alone, but it is unclear how much could be extracted."


    Hello: not for one site, but for one field - the Bowland Shale. While there are almost certainly further shales in the UK (the Weald shale in the south downs, for example), this is the major one being drilled by Cuadrilla and others.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441

    Since when is a 10 quid burger that newsworthy... pretty sure a meal in Mcdonalds costs about £6...not much difference.

    Not on this planet. I have a leaflet from my local McDonalds on the table in front of me - £1.99 for a Big Mac and fries.

    But it wouldn't matter in the least if it was £20 - Osborne is clearly not short of a bob or too and I don't care if he spends his dosh on burgers or Burberry coats or gambles it away at Aspers. The stupidity is in Ozzy's office making a point of it.

    Nick you're now showing you're a middle class snob. £1.99 is a special offer. A standard maccie meal will cost between £3.50 and £5.50 outside London. I do laugh at how PBers like to pretend they wouldn't eat a McD, I eat them reguarly if I'm out and in a hurry and quite enjoy a sit down with the newspaper.

    Since most of the english middle class snobs clearly think this is chav food, it contrasts bizarrely with France where a McDo is seen as cool. My daughter worked in St Germain and on a weekend night the queues at the local McD were out the door as it was a treat for the local poshos.

    I suppose we'll have to wait for Jackie Ashley to say it's cool and cultured before the english french imitators all jump on board the bandwagon and proclaim it the new in thing.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413

    Has Osborne actually ever used the words "Idle Scroungers" in trelation to peopel who have lost their jobs, or in reference to anyone really..it is quoted repeatedly on PB but I have never seen a link

    Nope, he's never used the phrase or anything like it, nor has IDS. It's a Guardian invention, pure synthetic indignation.

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413


    It's bizarre then that this new consensus against "deficit denial" has resulted in such little progress in actually reducing the fiscal deficit, with no reduction at all between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, despite all the rhetoric and a degree of economic expansion.

    It's not in the least bit bizarre, given the world economic conditions and the fact that it takes years to turn an economy round.
  • BenM said:

    Patrick said:

    I know what Ben - let's just spend more, borrow more and hope all is well. I'm sure that's a low risk strategy.

    That's what Osborne has been doing despite the bluster.
    Which is why I am a regular criticiser of Osborne on both spending and banks.

    You keep calling me a Tory but I'm not - I'd say I'm more 'ex-Tory, very disillusioned with Dave, like UKIP but don't have a natural party to vote for, pissed off right winger'. I want to leave the EU, balance budgets, sound money, socially tolerant. I'm starved of choice.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971

    @JosiasJessop
    That is all very well. One is still left with the impression that AR is right insofar as if HS2 were about benefiting the north, then construction would not be set to start in the south.

    Have you considered how that would work? Where are the major capacity problems at the moment, and what would happen when you put high-speed services from the north onto existing lines between Birmingham and London?

    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    The Sun is being silly, of course, but so was whoever decided that tweeting the picture was a good way of countering the champers-and-foie-gras image. People respect authenticity and despise transparent PR stunts. Image massaging only works if the audience doesn't realise it's happening.

    What should worry the Tories more is that the CSR has had so little positive coverage - if it had done anything worthwhile, we wouldn't be debating burgers. And Southam Observer is right about the despicable 7 day stuff, kicking people at precisely their most vulnerable moment. Ed Balls struck a good note with the reference to Wonga but Labour really needs to stop equivocating on this one and oppose it outright. I get that we are not committing to stuff until about April 30 2015, but mood music matters too.

    Bang on Nick. If Labour play this right Osborne has handed them an open goal. The pitiful saving this makes, plus the language Osborne used yesterday shows up this policy for exactly what it is: an attemt to demonise people who have just been thrown out of work in order to create a dividing line with Labour. It is despicable and if Labour play along it would be a disgrace. Voters know when they are being played for fools and the Chancellor has overstepped here.


  • It's bizarre then that this new consensus against "deficit denial" has resulted in such little progress in actually reducing the fiscal deficit, with no reduction at all between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, despite all the rhetoric and a degree of economic expansion.

    It's not in the least bit bizarre, given the world economic conditions and the fact that it takes years to turn an economy round.
    But you would have thought that the combination of a small amount of growth and what you paint as relentless fiscal consolidation would have had some effect on the deficit?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited June 2013

    Since when is a 10 quid burger that newsworthy... pretty sure a meal in Mcdonalds costs about £6...not much difference.

    Not much difference. Or, put another way, nearly twice the price. And it became newsworthy when -- and because -- GO had it tweeted.
    The point isn't the burger. The point is that the Sun feels it has to put the boot in to George Osborne even though they like a lot of his policies. Instead of praising him for his benefit crackdown - and asking for more - they have to find a way of going after him because he is so toxic with their readers.

    That may be true but that isn't the real reason they are going after him.

    All will be revealed in the fullness of time. :)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    Has Osborne actually ever used the words "Idle Scroungers" in trelation to peopel who have lost their jobs, or in reference to anyone really..it is quoted repeatedly on PB but I have never seen a link

    Nope, he's never used the phrase or anything like it, nor has IDS. It's a Guardian invention, pure synthetic indignation.

    What do you thnk he meant by saying that peole who get thrown out of work should spend their first week looking for a new job, not looking to get benefits?

    Do you think it is impossible to sign on and look for work at the same time?

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413


    But you would have thought that the combination of a small amount of growth and what you paint as relentless fiscal consolidation would have had some effect on the deficit?

    Of course, it has had an enormous effect compared with what would have happened if no action had been taken in 2010.

  • The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.

    I don't know anything about railways, but I don't see why it necessarily follows from the fact that you have built the first section of HS2 in the north that more services on the southern section of the West Coast mainline would be the inevitable result.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Richard Nabavi.If Osborne has never used that term "Idle Scroungers" why do some PB'ers keep saying he has, are they just stupid or malicious.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366

    This burger escapade serves Osborne right. He's posh, Cameron's posh, EdM is posh, Cleggy is posh and so is Farage. And that Caroline Lucas was posh too. But trying to be artificial is a huge hostage to fortune.

    Can someone tell the children (Spads or whatever they call themselves) it's not a clever wheeze, it just looks silly.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    Richard Nabavi.If Osborne has never used that term "Idle Scroungers" why do some PB'ers keep saying he has, are they just stupid or malicious.

    Can you provide a quote from any PB poster claiming that Osborne has used that phrase?

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441

    Patrick is right: the big news is just how comprehensively Osborne has won the argument. It's a complete sea-change from 2010, when deficit denial was still a mainstream position amongst many people. There are no deficit-deniers left (well, just BenM and Paul Krugman). This bodes very well for getting the political consensus needed to complete the job of getting our public finances back into sanity.

    Gruss Gott Herr Nabavi.

    I'll qualify your claim. Osborne hasn't won the argument, it's that the left doesn't have one and have at no point advanced a viable alternative. Osborne's argument comes more from people on the right who challenge his reluctance to tackle supply side reforms and accelerate the pace of deficit reduction. That argument is still ongoing. But the Left have effectively thrown in the towel on the economy by signing up to Osbornism and their only contribution is to carp from the sidelines.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    What do you thnk he meant by saying that peole who get thrown out of work should spend their first week looking for a new job, not looking to get benefits?

    Do you think it is impossible to sign on and look for work at the same time?

    If Osborne really does think that, he has paradoxically made it harder for claimants to find work, by requiring them to go to the JobCentre more often and for longer.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @NickPalmer

    Your confidence is touching Nick and I dare say you're betting the house on a return to the HoC ?!? .... No ... Ah .... 2015 GE - Con HOLD Broxtowe - Will it be the Basildon 1992 moment of 2015 ?!?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    The Sun is being silly, of course, but so was whoever decided that tweeting the picture was a good way of countering the champers-and-foie-gras image. People respect authenticity and despise transparent PR stunts. Image massaging only works if the audience doesn't realise it's happening.

    What should worry the Tories more is that the CSR has had so little positive coverage - if it had done anything worthwhile, we wouldn't be debating burgers. And Southam Observer is right about the despicable 7 day stuff, kicking people at precisely their most vulnerable moment. Ed Balls struck a good note with the reference to Wonga but Labour really needs to stop equivocating on this one and oppose it outright. I get that we are not committing to stuff until about April 30 2015, but mood music matters too.

    the Chancellor has overstepped here.
    Like he did with the benefits cap or the spare room subsidy?

    One aspect of the CSR has been overlooked - the effectiveness with which the Coalition worked yesterday - getting Danny to play the hard man - very few leaks - and Danny gets to announce the "new" toys today.....

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    There are no deficit-deniers left (well, just BenM and Paul Krugman).

    I can't have ever denied the deficit - I was the first person to notice it had gone up last year!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    What do you thnk he meant by saying that peole who get thrown out of work should spend their first week looking for a new job, not looking to get benefits?

    Do you think it is impossible to sign on and look for work at the same time?

    If Osborne really does think that, he has paradoxically made it harder for claimants to find work, by requiring them to go to the JobCentre more often and for longer.

    Osborne is not remotely interested in that. He wants dividing lines. And if that makes life harder for people who have just been thrown out of work so be it. As long as it makes Ed Balls uncomfortable the job is done.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,658
    So am I right in thinking that if you're made redundant you wont be able to claim benefits for a week?

    If so that sounds very mean and petty with the people being hit being those who struggle to find permanent employment but are able to pick up various temp jobs for a few weeks at a time.

    This measure would actively discourage them from taking on those sorts of jobs.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited June 2013

    Has Osborne actually ever used the words "Idle Scroungers" in trelation to peopel who have lost their jobs, or in reference to anyone really..it is quoted repeatedly on PB but I have never seen a link

    Nope, he's never used the phrase or anything like it, nor has IDS. It's a Guardian invention, pure synthetic indignation.

    What do you thnk he meant by saying that peole who get thrown out of work should spend their first week looking for a new job, not looking to get benefits?

    Do you think it is impossible to sign on and look for work at the same time?

    Southam, you really are being silly on this. You are simply making up words which Osborne never used. How in heaven's name do you manage to twist the words Osborne used about helping people to find work more quickly, increasing the availability of JobCentre advisors, and speeding up the process of getting CVs organised, into a 'shameful' labelling of people as 'idle scroungers'?

    On the substantive point, the measure is simply redirecting a small part of the DWP budget from paying benefits to increased help in getting people back to work faster. I take it you object to that?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,658

    @JosiasJessop
    That is all very well. One is still left with the impression that AR is right insofar as if HS2 were about benefiting the north, then construction would not be set to start in the south.

    Have you considered how that would work? Where are the major capacity problems at the moment, and what would happen when you put high-speed services from the north onto existing lines between Birmingham and London?

    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.
    So why not build it from both south and north simultaneously?

    If HS2 is going to be so marvellous then getting it complete 5+ years earlier would be a good thing wouldn't it?

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    The Sun is being silly, of course, but so was whoever decided that tweeting the picture was a good way of countering the champers-and-foie-gras image. People respect authenticity and despise transparent PR stunts. Image massaging only works if the audience doesn't realise it's happening.

    What should worry the Tories more is that the CSR has had so little positive coverage - if it had done anything worthwhile, we wouldn't be debating burgers. And Southam Observer is right about the despicable 7 day stuff, kicking people at precisely their most vulnerable moment. Ed Balls struck a good note with the reference to Wonga but Labour really needs to stop equivocating on this one and oppose it outright. I get that we are not committing to stuff until about April 30 2015, but mood music matters too.

    the Chancellor has overstepped here.
    Like he did with the benefits cap or the spare room subsidy?

    One aspect of the CSR has been overlooked - the effectiveness with which the Coalition worked yesterday - getting Danny to play the hard man - very few leaks - and Danny gets to announce the "new" toys today.....

    Nope, those were vindictive but clever moves politically because you can always find peole who are gaming the system and get them in the Daily Mail to cause general outrage. This one is so palpably unfair and political that it can effectively be argued against. There is no actual argument for it. Osborne's claim that it helps peole get back in to work is risible.
  • Err - I think Deficit Denial menas those who foolishly deny that deficits are a big problem, not those who deny they exist.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971


    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.

    I don't know anything about railways, but I don't see why it necessarily follows from the fact that you have built the first section of HS2 in the north that more services on the southern section of the West Coast mainline would be the inevitable result.
    Because it is a network, not individual lines. The same reason why WCML and ECML high-speed trains run from the north to London, not the north to Birmingham alone (*).

    You are also linking Britain's biggest and second-biggest conurbations. By building the northern section first, you would be linking the second, third and fourth biggest conurbations.

    (*) From memory, aside from a few limited exceptions.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304
    By the way, today at 11:30 the Department of Energy and Climate Change (and OfGem) will warn again of an impending generating shortfall.

    The market will, again, shrug its shoulders and generators will continue to mothball older gas generators. The problem is that it is simply not profitable to keep older gas generators running, as imported LNG is very expensive, and 'load factors' for the UK's CCGT fleet were less than 25% last year. (Some older CCGTs and open cycle gas generators have been running for a few hours or days in a year. That's clearly not economic.)

    That said, as I've said before, panic is not necessary. Firstly, most of this older gas plant is only being mothballed, not dismantled. When gas prices come down (and they will come down), some of it will be de-mothballed. Secondly, electricity demand (both in the UK and generally) is being dramatically constrained by a combination of new legislation (no more incadecent bulbs) and the fact that modern TVs, monitors, computers, washing machines, dryers, etc., are simply so much more efficient than the ones they replace. This trend looks likely to continue.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    Has Osborne actually ever used the words "Idle Scroungers" in trelation to peopel who have lost their jobs, or in reference to anyone really..it is quoted repeatedly on PB but I have never seen a link

    Nope, he's never used the phrase or anything like it, nor has IDS. It's a Guardian invention, pure synthetic indignation.

    What do you thnk he meant by saying that peole who get thrown out of work should spend their first week looking for a new job, not looking to get benefits?

    Do you think it is impossible to sign on and look for work at the same time?

    Southam, you really are being silly on this. You are simply making up words which Osborne never used. How in heaven's name do you manage to twist the words Osborne used about helping people to find work more quickly, increasing the availability of JobCentre advisors, and speeding up the process of getting CVs organised, into a 'shameful' labelling of people as 'idle scroungers'?

    On the substantive point, the measure is simply redirecting a small part of the DWP budget from paying benefits to increased help in getting people back to work faster. I take it you object to that?

    A direct quote:

    "And we’re going to introduce a new seven day wait before people can claim benefits.

    Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on.

    We’re doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get back into work faster."

    As if you can't sign on and lookk for work at the same time. They are the words of someone who has never had t look for work and who has never worried about making ends meet.

    He could have framed his argument in the way that you did. He chose not to.


  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    SO.."Idle Scrounger" and the name Osborne has appeared in the same sentence or post on numerous occasions, and you are guilty of that in this thresad, The phrase is in danger of becoming synonymous with Osborne, who has never said it, So why put the two together, it is very close to being a smear, but you would never do that would you .
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    The Sun is being silly, of course, but so was whoever decided that tweeting the picture was a good way of countering the champers-and-foie-gras image. People respect authenticity and despise transparent PR stunts. Image massaging only works if the audience doesn't realise it's happening.

    What should worry the Tories more is that the CSR has had so little positive coverage - if it had done anything worthwhile, we wouldn't be debating burgers. And Southam Observer is right about the despicable 7 day stuff, kicking people at precisely their most vulnerable moment. Ed Balls struck a good note with the reference to Wonga but Labour really needs to stop equivocating on this one and oppose it outright. I get that we are not committing to stuff until about April 30 2015, but mood music matters too.

    the Chancellor has overstepped here.
    Like he did with the benefits cap or the spare room subsidy?

    One aspect of the CSR has been overlooked - the effectiveness with which the Coalition worked yesterday - getting Danny to play the hard man - very few leaks - and Danny gets to announce the "new" toys today.....

    This one is so palpably unfair and political that it can effectively be argued against.
    So why doesn't Ed Balls argue against it?

    On R4 he pointed out that Labour introduced a 3 day wait - so the principle of a wait is already Labour policy.

    Why is 3 days fine, and 7 days uniquely wicked?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    What do you thnk he meant by saying that peole who get thrown out of work should spend their first week looking for a new job, not looking to get benefits?

    Do you think it is impossible to sign on and look for work at the same time?

    If Osborne really does think that, he has paradoxically made it harder for claimants to find work, by requiring them to go to the JobCentre more often and for longer.

    Osborne is not remotely interested in that. He wants dividing lines. And if that makes life harder for people who have just been thrown out of work so be it. As long as it makes Ed Balls uncomfortable the job is done.

    Indeed. In practical terms, most people made redundant will be given notice, so Osborne's false dichotomy never really exists.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    tim said:


    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.

    I don't know anything about railways, but I don't see why it necessarily follows from the fact that you have built the first section of HS2 in the north that more services on the southern section of the West Coast mainline would be the inevitable result.
    Because it is a network, not individual lines. The same reason why WCML and ECML high-speed trains run from the north to London, not the north to Birmingham alone (*).

    You are also linking Britain's biggest and second-biggest conurbations. By building the northern section first, you would be linking the second, third and fourth biggest conurbations.

    (*) From memory, aside from a few limited exceptions.
    Then start building it at both ends.

    Greater Manchester is bigger than the West Midlands conurbation by the way.

    not by population it isn't. Maybe if you stuck GM and Merseyside together. All trains stop at Wigan or St Helens.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    Patrick is right: the big news is just how comprehensively Osborne has won the argument. It's a complete sea-change from 2010, when deficit denial was still a mainstream position amongst many people. There are no deficit-deniers left (well, just BenM and Paul Krugman). This bodes very well for getting the political consensus needed to complete the job of getting our public finances back into sanity.

    Gruss Gott Herr Nabavi.

    I'll qualify your claim. Osborne hasn't won the argument, it's that the left doesn't have one and have at no point advanced a viable alternative. Osborne's argument comes more from people on the right who challenge his reluctance to tackle supply side reforms and accelerate the pace of deficit reduction. That argument is still ongoing. But the Left have effectively thrown in the towel on the economy by signing up to Osbornism and their only contribution is to carp from the sidelines.
    I never doubted that Nabavi and the other usual suspect PB tories would fail to understand how to correctly respond to little Ed and Balls tory triangulation, but I thought you might have at least grasped the obvious.

    I trust you at least acknowledge the truth that the next election for the tories is going to be all about Cammie and Osbrowne (if they are stupid enough to keep him chancellor) saying little Ed and Balls can't be trusted with the economy? And doing so all day every day.

    Given that obvious fact is the correct response to tory triangulation to say

    A/ This proves Osbrowne is right and they are signing up to all out policies.

    or

    B/ They cannot be trusted on the economy so don't mean it.

    I know why Osbrowne's adoring fans think that shoring up their incompetent toxic chancellor makes A/ seem more attractive to them. Unwise though it self-evidently it is to reinforce labour's triangulation. However, I would have thought your more measured appraisal of Osbowne and his obvious weakness would have led you to B/

    Of course this is all academic because what neither party seems to have learned about political triangulation is you cannot do it on a moving target.

    As demonstrated here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0



  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Have I just walked into the stupidest thread argument so far this year? The price of a burger?

    I know there isn't much going on bar the CSR that was only yesterday and a very substantive bit of HMG policy setting - but really - arguing about fast food pricing?
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @SouthamObserver - I think he framed it the way he did because he wants to shift the whole emphasis towards getting a new job rather than sinking into hopelessness and benefit dependency. Read the whole passage including the paragraphs before the bit you quoted, and you'll see that's the whole thrust of what he is saying.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971

    @JosiasJessop
    That is all very well. One is still left with the impression that AR is right insofar as if HS2 were about benefiting the north, then construction would not be set to start in the south.

    Have you considered how that would work? Where are the major capacity problems at the moment, and what would happen when you put high-speed services from the north onto existing lines between Birmingham and London?

    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.
    So why not build it from both south and north simultaneously?

    If HS2 is going to be so marvellous then getting it complete 5+ years earlier would be a good thing wouldn't it?

    That is a better question. I'm guessing (and it is just a guess) that such a strategy would cost more. There is a limited number of skilled people and equipment to work on such a project, and staff and plant can be shifted from phase 1 to phase 2 as the work goes on.

    For instance: tunnellers working on Crossrail can move onto HS2/1, and then on to HS2/2 later. Doing both HS2/1 and HS2/2 at the same time would require many more trained staff and plant (*)

    This is the same reason why Network Rail's electrification scheme is being staggered rather than being done in one go - there is a limited amount of staff and equipment.

    (*) Although much plant for such schemes is purchased brand-new, and sold at the end of the contract. New equipment is more reliable.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699


    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.

    I don't know anything about railways, but I don't see why it necessarily follows from the fact that you have built the first section of HS2 in the north that more services on the southern section of the West Coast mainline would be the inevitable result.
    Because it is a network, not individual lines. The same reason why WCML and ECML high-speed trains run from the north to London, not the north to Birmingham alone (*).

    You are also linking Britain's biggest and second-biggest conurbations. By building the northern section first, you would be linking the second, third and fourth biggest conurbations.

    (*) From memory, aside from a few limited exceptions.
    On the WCML Glasgow/Edinburgh to London services alternate with Glasgow/Edinburgh to Birmingham services 1 each per hour . The London services are 10 coaches and Birmingham 5 coaches . There are also hourly services from Glasgow/Edinburgh to Manchester run by Trans Pennine .
    There is plenty of capacity on the WCML but only north of Crewe . Recently Virgin's application to reintroduce a direct Blackpool to London service was rejected by Network Rail as they said there was no path available .
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Oh dear - his last tick in the positive column is about to be rubbed out

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/10143752/Did-Gordon-Brown-really-keep-us-out-of-the-euro.html

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    Mick_Pork said:

    Patrick is right: the big news is just how comprehensively Osborne has won the argument. It's a complete sea-change from 2010, when deficit denial was still a mainstream position amongst many people. There are no deficit-deniers left (well, just BenM and Paul Krugman). This bodes very well for getting the political consensus needed to complete the job of getting our public finances back into sanity.

    Gruss Gott Herr Nabavi.

    I'll qualify your claim. Osborne hasn't won the argument, it's that the left doesn't have one and have at no point advanced a viable alternative. Osborne's argument comes more from people on the right who challenge his reluctance to tackle supply side reforms and accelerate the pace of deficit reduction. That argument is still ongoing. But the Left have effectively thrown in the towel on the economy by signing up to Osbornism and their only contribution is to carp from the sidelines.
    I never doubted that Nabavi and the other usual suspect PB tories would fail to understand how to correctly respond to little Ed and Balls tory triangulation, but I thought you might have at least grasped the obvious.

    I trust you at least acknowledge the truth that the next election for the tories is going to be all about Cammie and Osbrowne (if they are stupid enough to keep him chancellor) saying little Ed and Balls can't be trusted with the economy? And doing so all day every day.

    Given that obvious fact is the correct response to tory triangulation to say

    A/ This proves Osbrowne is right and they are signing up to all out policies.

    or

    B/ They cannot be trusted on the economy so don't mean it.

    I know why Osbrowne's adoring fans think that shoring up their incompetent toxic chancellor makes A/ seem more attractive to them. Unwise though it self-evidently it is to reinforce labour's triangulation. However, I would have thought your more measured appraisal of Osbowne and his obvious weakness would have led you to B/

    Of course this is all academic because what neither party seems to have learned about political triangulation is you cannot do it on a moving target.

    As demonstrated here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0



    Mick

    can I abridge that post to Osborne's mediocre and an electoral liability ?

    if so I agree.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    Plato said:

    Have I just walked into the stupidest thread argument so far this year? The price of a burger?

    I know there isn't much going on bar the CSR that was only yesterday and a very substantive bit of HMG policy setting - but really - arguing about fast food pricing?

    Yes but last year it was pasties so I think we're making progress.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    The Sun is being silly, of course, but so was whoever decided that tweeting the picture was a good way of countering the champers-and-foie-gras image. People respect authenticity and despise transparent PR stunts. Image massaging only works if the audience doesn't realise it's happening.

    What should worry the Tories more is that the CSR has had so little positive coverage - if it had done anything worthwhile, we wouldn't be debating burgers. And Southam Observer is right about the despicable 7 day stuff, kicking people at precisely their most vulnerable moment. Ed Balls struck a good note with the reference to Wonga but Labour really needs to stop equivocating on this one and oppose it outright. I get that we are not committing to stuff until about April 30 2015, but mood music matters too.

    the Chancellor has overstepped here.
    Like he did with the benefits cap or the spare room subsidy?

    One aspect of the CSR has been overlooked - the effectiveness with which the Coalition worked yesterday - getting Danny to play the hard man - very few leaks - and Danny gets to announce the "new" toys today.....

    This one is so palpably unfair and political that it can effectively be argued against.
    On R4 he pointed out that Labour introduced a 3 day wait - so the principle of a wait is already Labour policy.


    I had wondered why no one was mentioning the current 3 day wait. It would be interesting to know the rationale behind the increase to 7 days. Is there a problem of lots of short term claims in JSA? Sadly the ONS figures only classify JSA claims of 3 months or less so its difficult to find out what is happening. Maybe there are alot of claims that are started but then never finished because the person finds a job within the first couple of weeks.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971
    tim said:


    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.

    I don't know anything about railways, but I don't see why it necessarily follows from the fact that you have built the first section of HS2 in the north that more services on the southern section of the West Coast mainline would be the inevitable result.
    Because it is a network, not individual lines. The same reason why WCML and ECML high-speed trains run from the north to London, not the north to Birmingham alone (*).

    You are also linking Britain's biggest and second-biggest conurbations. By building the northern section first, you would be linking the second, third and fourth biggest conurbations.

    (*) From memory, aside from a few limited exceptions.
    Then start building it at both ends.

    Greater Manchester is bigger than the West Midlands conurbation by the way.
    Not according to Wiki, although they are close, and they are 2001 census figures:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
  • Amazing numbers from the British Geological Survey, estimating 1,300 TCF of shale gas in just the Bowland. There are at lest two other shale formations in the UK and possibly one in Ireland that covers part of NI.

    That 1300 TCF is such a big number, that even if a tiny % is recoverable, it is still a massive boon for the country.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    I suspect that the bulk of PB Tories will agree with this.

    Spending Review: Has George Osborne's caution condemned Britain to a lost decade?

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/8947021/george-osbornes-spending-review-shows-how-deeply-he-has-failed/

    And now all we have left is a chancellor trying to pump up a housing bubble with taxpayer subsidies and reannouncing infrastructure plans that should have happened in 2010.

    As the Spectator is now universal truth and wisdom, I see they are also calling for a £5 fee to visit a GP...

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,939
    My understanding, and no doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong, is that you currently don't get benefits for the period covered by your notice period. So if you receive the statutory minimum of a week's notice you will not get benefits for that week. Similarly, if you get more notice you won't qualify for that either. Letters are sent by the DSS to the former employers where the reason for the termination are stated as well as any payments in lieu that might have been made.

    If I am right in that then the effect of this is that you will not be able to start the process of applying for benefits in that week. This might ultimately delay the receipt of money by a few days but the entitlement would run from the same day, the day the notice payment expired.

    In some cases where people find a job in that week they will never register at all and that, as I understand it, is where the saving is supposed to be. Unless I am missing something the alleged saving of £320m IIRC (not a large sum at all in government terms) looks pretty optimistic.

    Why people think this is an attack on the poor I really don't get. But there is no doubt that a theme of yesterday is that the day when the state was the universal and unqualified provider of all are coming to an end. The cap will have a far greater effect on the processing and payment of claims than this will.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    Mick_Pork said:

    Patrick is right: the big news is just how comprehensively Osborne has won the argument. It's a complete sea-change from 2010, when deficit denial was still a mainstream position amongst many people. There are no deficit-deniers left (well, just BenM and Paul Krugman). This bodes very well for getting the political consensus needed to complete the job of getting our public finances back into sanity.

    Gruss Gott Herr Nabavi.

    I'll qualify your claim. Osborne hasn't won the argument, it's that the left doesn't have one and have at no point advanced a viable alternative. Osborne's argument comes more from people on the right who challenge his reluctance to tackle supply side reforms and accelerate the pace of deficit reduction. That argument is still ongoing. But the Left have effectively thrown in the towel on the economy by signing up to Osbornism and their only contribution is to carp from the sidelines.
    I never doubted that Nabavi and the other usual suspect PB tories would fail to understand how to correctly respond to little Ed and Balls tory triangulation, but I thought you might have at least grasped the obvious.

    I trust you at least acknowledge the truth that the next election for the tories is going to be all about Cammie and Osbrowne (if they are stupid enough to keep him chancellor) saying little Ed and Balls can't be trusted with the economy? And doing so all day every day.

    Given that obvious fact is the correct response to tory triangulation to say

    A/ This proves Osbrowne is right and they are signing up to all out policies.

    or

    B/ They cannot be trusted on the economy so don't mean it.

    I know why Osbrowne's adoring fans think that shoring up their incompetent toxic chancellor makes A/ seem more attractive to them. Unwise though it self-evidently it is to reinforce labour's triangulation. However, I would have thought your more measured appraisal of Osbowne and his obvious weakness would have led you to B/

    Of course this is all academic because what neither party seems to have learned about political triangulation is you cannot do it on a moving target.

    As demonstrated here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0



    Mick

    can I abridge that post to Osborne's mediocre and an electoral liability ?

    if so I agree.
    It makes a pleasant change from the usual vapid accusations on here from certain PB tories about refusing to debate the substance, but by all means do so since that statement of the obvious is backed up by the polling and will not change any more than Clegg's toxicity will.
  • goodbye double-dip
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited June 2013

    Since when is a 10 quid burger that newsworthy... pretty sure a meal in Mcdonalds costs about £6...not much difference.

    Not on this planet. I have a leaflet from my local McDonalds on the table in front of me - £1.99 for a Big Mac and fries.

    But it wouldn't matter in the least if it was £20 - Osborne is clearly not short of a bob or too and I don't care if he spends his dosh on burgers or Burberry coats or gambles it away at Aspers. The stupidity is in Ozzy's office making a point of it.

    Nick you're now showing you're a middle class snob. £1.99 is a special offer. A standard maccie meal will cost between £3.50 and £5.50 outside London. I do laugh at how PBers like to pretend they wouldn't eat a McD, I eat them reguarly if I'm out and in a hurry and quite enjoy a sit down with the newspaper.

    Since most of the english middle class snobs clearly think this is chav food, it contrasts bizarrely with France where a McDo is seen as cool. My daughter worked in St Germain and on a weekend night the queues at the local McD were out the door as it was a treat for the local poshos.

    I suppose we'll have to wait for Jackie Ashley to say it's cool and cultured before the english french imitators all jump on board the bandwagon and proclaim it the new in thing.
    I'm rather partial to KFC - McD's and BurgerKing - no thanks, they repeat on me something chronic and those weird alien looking pickles - urgh. Does anyone think Oh Yummy!?

    Now curly fries? They're yummy...
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Plato said:

    Have I just walked into the stupidest thread argument so far this year? The price of a burger?

    No, that was 'Blackbusters' as you should remember as you were beside yourself with glee over it at the time.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    goodbye double-dip

    Q1 also unrevised at +0.3%

  • "The peak to trough fall of the economic downturn in 2008/09 is now estimated to be 7.2%.

    GDP growth between Q4 2011 and Q1 2012 has been revised from a fall of 0.1% to flat, thereby removing the phenomenon of two consecutive quarters of negative growth

    In Q1 2013, GDP was estimated to have been 3.9% lower than the pre-financial crisis peak in Q1 2008. Previously GDP was estimated to have been 2.6% lower for the same period.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/naa2/quarterly-national-accounts/q1-2013/index.html
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    But 2009 recession revised down ! 7.2% !

    Labour were even crapper than we thought.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Plato said:

    Have I just walked into the stupidest thread argument so far this year? The price of a burger?

    Despite a lot of competition for 2013 title, having endured the thread so far I think you're right. *sigh*

    Part of me wishes someone will bite at SO's trolling just to relieve the tedium.

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    AB,

    "Maybe if you stuck GM and Merseyside together"

    Brilliant, we could call it the West Lancashire Collective.

    As tim well knows, that would go down like a cup of cold sick.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    Mick_Pork said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Patrick is right: the big news is just how comprehensively Osborne has won the argument. It's a complete sea-change from 2010, when deficit denial was still a mainstream position amongst many people. There are no deficit-deniers left (well, just BenM and Paul Krugman). This bodes very well for getting the political consensus needed to complete the job of getting our public finances back into sanity.

    Gruss Gott Herr Nabavi.

    I'll qualify your claim. Osborne hasn't won the argument, it's that the left doesn't have one and have at no point advanced a viable alternative. Osborne's argument comes more from people on the right who challenge his reluctance to tackle supply side reforms and accelerate the pace of deficit reduction. That argument is still ongoing. But the Left have effectively thrown in the towel on the economy by signing up to Osbornism and their only contribution is to carp from the sidelines.
    I never doubted that Nabavi and the other usual suspect PB tories would fail to understand how to correctly respond to little Ed and Balls tory triangulation, but I thought you might have at least grasped the obvious.

    I trust you at least acknowledge the truth that the next election for the tories is going to be all about Cammie and Osbrowne (if they are stupid enough to keep him chancellor) saying little Ed and Balls can't be trusted with the economy? And doing so all day every day.

    Given that obvious fact is the correct response to tory triangulation to say

    A/ This proves Osbrowne is right and they are signing up to all out policies.

    or

    B/ They cannot be trusted on the economy so don't mean it.

    I know why Osbrowne's adoring fans think that shoring up their incompetent toxic chancellor makes A/ seem more attractive to them. Unwise though it self-evidently it is to reinforce labour's triangulation. However, I would have thought your more measured appraisal of Osbowne and his obvious weakness would have led you to B/

    Of course this is all academic because what neither party seems to have learned about political triangulation is you cannot do it on a moving target.

    As demonstrated here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0



    Mick

    can I abridge that post to Osborne's mediocre and an electoral liability ?

    if so I agree.
    It makes a pleasant change from the usual vapid accusations on here from certain PB tories about refusing to debate the substance, but by all means do so since that statement of the obvious is backed up by the polling and will not change any more than Clegg's toxicity will.
    currently the blues get out of jail card is labour are fielding the only man with similar levels of toxicity to face GO. Until that changes what choice do the voters have ? I suspect there's an electoral bonus for first to change their chancellor.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Big revision to 2008-09 recession - 7.2% fall compared to 6.3% previously thought.

    Wow. Just wow.

    Shocking for Labour.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited June 2013
    BenM said:

    I can't have ever denied the deficit - I was the first person to notice it had gone up last year!

    Revisions, hey Ben: You bank on revisions to "prove" that you are right? Do you see a slight flaw in that plan...?

    :muppet-watch:
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    @ DavidL

    "My understanding, and no doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong"

    David you make it sound as if PBers could find pleasure in smart-arsing and nit-picking pedantry :-)
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773
    Labour: even crappier than anyone thought before:

    No double dip..

    Oh dear, poor old Ed Balls.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    tim said:

    tim said:


    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.

    I don't know anything about railways, but I don't see why it necessarily follows from the fact that you have built the first section of HS2 in the north that more services on the southern section of the West Coast mainline would be the inevitable result.
    Because it is a network, not individual lines. The same reason why WCML and ECML high-speed trains run from the north to London, not the north to Birmingham alone (*).

    You are also linking Britain's biggest and second-biggest conurbations. By building the northern section first, you would be linking the second, third and fourth biggest conurbations.

    (*) From memory, aside from a few limited exceptions.
    Then start building it at both ends.

    Greater Manchester is bigger than the West Midlands conurbation by the way.
    Not according to Wiki, although they are close, and they are 2001 census figures:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_conurbation


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


    One is using 2001 and the other 2009, not sure what the 2011 census says.


    tim said:

    tim said:


    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.

    I don't know anything about railways, but I don't see why it necessarily follows from the fact that you have built the first section of HS2 in the north that more services on the southern section of the West Coast mainline would be the inevitable result.
    Because it is a network, not individual lines. The same reason why WCML and ECML high-speed trains run from the north to London, not the north to Birmingham alone (*).

    You are also linking Britain's biggest and second-biggest conurbations. By building the northern section first, you would be linking the second, third and fourth biggest conurbations.

    (*) From memory, aside from a few limited exceptions.
    Then start building it at both ends.

    Greater Manchester is bigger than the West Midlands conurbation by the way.
    Not according to Wiki, although they are close, and they are 2001 census figures:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_conurbation


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


    One is using 2001 and the other 2009, not sure what the 2011 census says.


    those boundaries are odd as I traditionally think WM includes Coventry which it does in the county definition. WM county had a poulation of 2.74m in 2011

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(county)
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621
    BenM said:

    Big revision to 2008-09 recession - 7.2% fall compared to 6.3% previously thought.

    Wow. Just wow.

    Shocking for Labour.

    Shocking for the people elected to get us out of it. Shocking that some people continued to vote Labour. Education, Education, Education is needed.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Those figs for the crash recession are awful - but remember when this was a daily diet in the news?

    This is an article at random for early 2009

    "Last month, UK unemployment as a whole rose above two million for the first time since 1997.

    During the three months to January, the number of people unemployed totalled 2.03 million, up by 165,000, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

    For February, the number of people getting jobseeker's allowance added a record 138,400 to reach 1.39 million.

    The ONS added that the unemployment rate jumped to 6.5% between November and January. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7996866.stm
  • Bad news is the saving ratio fell steeply in Q1 as households spent more but employees compensation fell slightly.

    Also the current account deficit was even worse that Q4's shocker.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    CD13 said:

    AB,

    "Maybe if you stuck GM and Merseyside together"

    Brilliant, we could call it the West Lancashire Collective.

    As tim well knows, that would go down like a cup of cold sick.

    could we have a people's assembly to go with it ?
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    BenM said:

    Big revision to 2008-09 recession - 7.2% fall compared to 6.3% previously thought.

    Wow. Just wow.

    Shocking for Labour.



    BenM, the peak to trough recession was revised to -7.1% quite a while ago (2011), so the change to -7.2% is not that dramatic. It is worth noting however that at -7.2% we did alot worse than every other major economy except Japan

    http://www.citywire.co.uk/money/uk-economic-growth-even-worse-than-thought/a529841
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    TGOHF said:

    Labour were even crapper than we thought.

    I'm not sure that is possible, except on some sort of quantum level.

    I like the idea of a measurable sliding scale of Labour crapitude though - the SI unit being the Band, giving you units of milli-bands.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    BenM said:

    Big revision to 2008-09 recession - 7.2% fall compared to 6.3% previously thought.

    Wow. Just wow.

    Shocking for Labour.

    2001 also gets a -0.7% downgrade, 1999 -0.3%

    2005 gets a +0.4 though - must have been a few extra 125% mortgages...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Tim Montgomerie re-tweets: "Byron Burgers website has just crashed. You cannot buy this kind of publicity."
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    Oh dear, the invective against George Osborne is reaching new heights today.

    If only we had listened to the poster who condemned those who use events as an excuse on PB to drip bile on those whom they oppose.

    Now who was it said that? Tim?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Shocking that some people continued to vote Labour.

    Shocking that some people still do. But for every person on the upper half of the intelligence bell-curve, there have to be poor unfortunates on the lower half. No amount of free schools can save the thickest in society.

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    I can see why the Sun made this into a daft political 'point' -its a daft newsapaper that panders to dumbing down but I really don't see why Evan Davis seriously questioned the Chancellor on it on Today on Radio 4 this morning .I am glad GO dismissed the questions with the contempt it deserved.

    BTW how much does Nick Clegg/other political smokers spend on cigs .? Is that ok because its workin class innit!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - his last tick in the positive column is about to be rubbed out

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/10143752/Did-Gordon-Brown-really-keep-us-out-of-the-euro.html

    The conclusion appears to be that, yes, Gordon Brown really did keep us out of the Euro.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Biased BBC again !

    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 10m

    Latest figures show number of claimants finding jobs through Work Programme has risen sharply from 9,000 last march to 132,000

    Back to the burgers though eh ?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    More coalition unity:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23077801

    "Mr Osborne's choice of restaurant was echoed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, after he was asked when he had last bought a burger, during his weekly radio phone-in.

    After thinking for a while Mr Clegg said it had been "quite an expensive one", recalling that he had gone to a "a burger place called Byron" after taking his children to the cinema."
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Tim

    'Just further proof that the comedy fops never ever learn that their "men of the people" attempts will always backfire.'

    Just like millionaire Ed posing with fish & chips on the Shields ferry or Ed on a train after his staff had removed the first class signs.
  • MikeSoleMikeSole Posts: 19
    Byron - get one free
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited June 2013

    Mick_Pork said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Patrick is right: the big news is just how comprehensively Osborne has won the argument. It's a complete sea-change from 2010, when deficit denial was still a mainstream position amongst many people. There are no deficit-deniers left (well, just BenM and Paul Krugman). This bodes very well for getting the political consensus needed to complete the job of getting our public finances back into sanity.

    Gruss Gott Herr Nabavi.

    I'll qualify your claim. Osborne hasn't won the argument, it's that the left doesn't have one and have at no point advanced a viable alternative. Osborne's argument comes more from people on the right who challenge his reluctance to tackle supply side reforms and accelerate the pace of deficit reduction. That argument is still ongoing. But the Left have effectively thrown in the towel on the economy by signing up to Osbornism and their only contribution is to carp from the sidelines.
    I never doubted that Nabavi and the other usual suspect PB tories would fail to understand how to correctly respond to little Ed and Balls tory triangulation, but I thought you might have at least grasped the obvious.

    I trust you at least acknowledge the truth that the next election for the tories is going to be all about Cammie and Osbrowne (if they are stupid enough to keep him chancellor) saying little Ed and Balls can't be trusted with the economy? And doing so all day every day.

    Given that obvious fact is the correct response to tory triangulation to say

    A/ This proves Osbrowne is right and they are signing up to all out policies.

    or

    B/ They cannot be trusted on the economy so don't mean it.

    I know why Osbrowne's adoring fans think that shoring up their incompetent toxic chancellor makes A/ seem more attractive to them. Unwise though it self-evidently it is to reinforce labour's triangulation. However, I would have thought your more measured appraisal of Osbowne and his obvious weakness would have led you to B/

    Of course this is all academic because what neither party seems to have learned about political triangulation is you cannot do it on a moving target.

    As demonstrated here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0



    Mick

    can I abridge that post to Osborne's mediocre and an electoral liability ?

    if so I agree.
    It makes a pleasant change from the usual vapid accusations on here from certain PB tories about refusing to debate the substance, but by all means do so since that statement of the obvious is backed up by the polling and will not change any more than Clegg's toxicity will.
    I suspect there's an electoral bonus for first to change their chancellor.
    Absolutely right.

    Little Ed also has the handicap that to lose one shadow chancellor may be considered careless but to lose two is not so easily glossed over.

    The problem for both however if that you can't just parachute a new chancellor into place mere months or weeks away from the election. It has to be done a bit further out than that since it is a position that requires a period of 'bedding in'. That allows them to reinforce the overall message of sticking to the broad policy areas while being different enough to nullify the toxicity and negativity that the likes of Osbrowne and Balls engender.

    Of all the major cabinet posts the chancellor is the one that should be the most reassuring and least partisan and divisive to help persuade floating voters and undecideds. It's why being boring but dependable trumps the idiocy of political master strategies or triangulation and posturing during harsh and endless austerity.

    Does anyone seriously doubt that Hammond or even May would slot into place and immediately reinforce Cammie's overall message on the economy? Of course they would. Would they be better placed to attack labour's economic plans by seeming far less rabid and partisan than Osbrowne or Balls? Again the answer is yes.

    The tories real problem is that being Cammie's chum is far more important to Cammie than the desire to win appears to be. That requires a certain ruthlessness and drive that Cammie just doesn't seem to have.

    You can boil it all down to one simple question. Is Osbrowne more important and necessary to the tories than Cammie is?

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Back to bovine sandwiches - did Jamie Oliver not try an punt a £20 steak sandwich during the cricket at Lords earlier in the summer ? And sold about 5.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971
    tim said:

    tim said:


    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.

    I don't know anything about railways, but I don't see why it necessarily follows from the fact that you have built the first section of HS2 in the north that more services on the southern section of the West Coast mainline would be the inevitable result.
    Because it is a network, not individual lines. The same reason why WCML and ECML high-speed trains run from the north to London, not the north to Birmingham alone (*).

    You are also linking Britain's biggest and second-biggest conurbations. By building the northern section first, you would be linking the second, third and fourth biggest conurbations.

    (*) From memory, aside from a few limited exceptions.
    Then start building it at both ends.

    Greater Manchester is bigger than the West Midlands conurbation by the way.
    Not according to Wiki, although they are close, and they are 2001 census figures:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_conurbation


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


    One is using 2001 and the other 2009, not sure what the 2011 census says.
    It'll be interesting to see what the 2011 census states. If it does show GM having overtaken Brum, then it'll be a bit of a shift for me - at school I was taught that Birmingham was our second city, and the fact stuck in my mind.

    Although we should also avoid confusing cities with conurbations.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    I personally don't think the Chancellor is that unpopular as a person (beyond raving obsessives found on here) . Its the office that is not popular. Whoever was Chancellor during these years would be subject to 'why isn't he eating scraps from wheelie bins instead of buying bugers that cost a huge £10' type rubbish. I think Mr Osbourne handles it quite well in not pandering to the mentality in pretending he holidays in Skeggie and luvs it!!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    A possibly over-optimistic James Forsyth:

    An outbreak of peace among the Tories puts the pressure on Miliband

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/8946581/an-outbreak-of-peace-among-the-tories-puts-the-pressure-on-miliband/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    tim said:

    tim said:


    The biggest crunch is on the southern section. Putting more services onto existing lines into London would be next to impossible. By building the southern section first, you create extra capacity that can handle the other services from the north.

    As is often the case, dreams and ideals are vanquished by hard engineering and reality.

    I don't know anything about railways, but I don't see why it necessarily follows from the fact that you have built the first section of HS2 in the north that more services on the southern section of the West Coast mainline would be the inevitable result.
    Because it is a network, not individual lines. The same reason why WCML and ECML high-speed trains run from the north to London, not the north to Birmingham alone (*).

    You are also linking Britain's biggest and second-biggest conurbations. By building the northern section first, you would be linking the second, third and fourth biggest conurbations.

    (*) From memory, aside from a few limited exceptions.
    Then start building it at both ends.

    Greater Manchester is bigger than the West Midlands conurbation by the way.
    Not according to Wiki, although they are close, and they are 2001 census figures:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_conurbation


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


    One is using 2001 and the other 2009, not sure what the 2011 census says.
    If it does show GM having overtaken Brum, then it'll be a bit of a shift for me - at school I was taught that Birmingham was our second city, and the fact stuck in my mind.
    The Victorian burgers of Glasgow fiddled with her boundaries for years to hang on to the title 'Second City of the Empire'.....

  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621



    It'll be interesting to see what the 2011 census states. If it does show GM having overtaken Brum, then it'll be a bit of a shift for me - at school I was taught that Birmingham was our second city, and the fact stuck in my mind.

    Although we should also avoid confusing cities with conurbations.

    Birmingham is the second city. Manchester is first.
  • ONS have not been able to reconcile expenditure based estimates of GDP with income/output estimates, since Q1 2012. Before that they are pretty much perfectly reconciled.

    The expenditure account is at a higher level than income/output, which means the ONS is seeing more spent, than earned or produced.

    More revisions on the way then. Numbers below start in q1 12, are GDP estimates adjusted for inflation and seasonality. Expenditure based first column, then income, output last.

    101.7 101.4 101.4
    101.3 100.8 100.9
    102.2 101.6 101.6
    101.9 101.4 101.4
    102.2 101.6 101.6
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    I personally don't think the Chancellor is that unpopular as a person

    I personally think you should have a look at his polling and the VI polling following his omnishambles.

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    I would hate Manchester to overtake Birmingham -They brag so much . Birmingham is not a bragging city, it is polite and reserved and displays chivalry to smaller sized cities in not lording it . Manchester is so much more unpleasant and would be larging it at every opportunity -Oasis reunion concerts , Abu Dahbi FC matches ,banners at the Trafford centre etc
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The best burger I've ever tasted was at Djuret, a restaurant in Stockholm. Any visitors to Sweden, thank me later.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Since tim's missed it - but will make his day, bless his little cotton socks, Byron Burgers was founded by an old-Etonian:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/the-burger-king-tom-byng-byron-founder-8227640.html
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    errr Tim , not sure it takes into account the fact that Go has to do it for real and EB does not. I find many people who dont like Cameron for instance personally but less so for Osbourne. I am alwasy a bit sceptical about these types of polls as it askes you to think on the spot about something you have probably never really thought of before (or certianly had any real opinion on) and you have to decide there and then.

    Soemtimes much better to rely on your own real interaction with the world and see what people say in voluntary conversation imo. opion polls about who youwoudl vote for are different as they are something most people do think about (at least close to an election) .
  • @ASOD

    Is that discrepancy caused by the black economy - which inevitably expands during a recession?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Bad news is the saving ratio fell steeply in Q1 as households spent more but employees compensation fell slightly.

    Also the current account deficit was even worse that Q4's shocker.

    The ONS says:

    "Real household disposable income increased by 1.4% between 2011 and 2012. This is the highest growth since 2009 when it rose by 1.6%."

    I presume this is due to the increase in employment, since average wages have fallen in real terms. Or is it because of further decreases in mortgage rates?
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    tim said:




    PB Tory anecdote vs polling

    A false dichotomy, overgeneralised from medical science. Even in medicine anecdotal evidence underpins the science; frinstance the MHRA Yellow Card scheme positively begs everyone, including laymen, to send in their anecdotes about drug side effects. There is no equivalent to properly conducted medical trials in politics. Anything other than VI polls never gets objectively tested. So anecdotes have a great deal of value.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    YouGov poll on relationships between teachers & pupils - both above & below 16. Below 16 both unacceptable and should be illegal. Above 16 unacceptable - but people more split on whether it should be illegal (47:40)

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/bke0b76pf5/YouGov-survey-student-teacher-relationships-130626.pdf
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    @GuidoFawkes

    LISTEN: Clegg confesses to eating at Byron as well, is partial to their Oreo milkshake http://guyfawk.es/18hQ5Md
    -------------
    I must admit I eat my burgers at MacDonalds. these burgers vary in quality depending on which branch you sit in.
  • Patrick said:

    @ASOD

    Is that discrepancy caused by the black economy - which inevitably expands during a recession?

    Think it more likely a statistical artifact of the ONS's calculation of GDP and GVA. Not sure to be honest and I've looked.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    well Tim some things don't really add up with these types of polls do they? -If Gove, Cameron ,Osbourne are so hated (they are not -most people beyond political fanatics really don't think one way or the other about them -except (and this is crucial) when they are forced to give an opinion in a poll like this) why are the tories (despite UKIP ) only about 6% behind labour in a time of big cuts and mid term ?

    The only answer I can think of is that people dont really care about personalities (or have strong opinions on the character or eating habits of Osbourne or Gove) but care about the country they live in .When asked that more seriosu question about who they will vote for there real opinion comes to the fore and you find that the tories do quite well considering.

    I knwo you cling to theswe type of personality polls more than most as you want comfort in the fact that 60% of the whole population really really really hate Gove or Osbourne personally but they don't
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    tim said:

    I personally don't think the Chancellor is that unpopular as a person (beyond raving obsessives found on here) . Its the office that is not popular. Whoever was Chancellor during these years would be subject to 'why isn't he eating scraps from wheelie bins instead of buying bugers that cost a huge £10' type rubbish. I think Mr Osbourne handles it quite well in not pandering to the mentality in pretending he holidays in Skeggie and luvs it!!


    PB Tory anecdote vs polling

    Adding the names of the politicians made a dramatic difference to the way people responded. When Osborne and Balls were not mentioned, voters backed the austerity policies by 52 per cent to 41 — an 11-point lead for the Coalition.

    But when Mr Osborne and Mr Balls were identified as the authors, support for the Coalition policy fell to 37 per cent, and support for Labour’s policy jumped to 53 per cent — some 16 points ahead.


    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/george-osbornes-name-on-economy-policies-proves-toxic-to-voters-new-poll-shows-8534396.html
    That's not what that statistic shows at all. You can't compare named-Osborne to Mr Unamed Chancellor. You've got to compare him to somebody else because, as we know, the public display a remarkable tendency to support one proposition in the abstract and another in the eventuality.

This discussion has been closed.