It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.
May 2016 will not be a very good time to be Jeremy Corbyn.
They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.
They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.
The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.
I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?
A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.
Losing the London Assembly election would be the worst result for Jezza. Labour won that in 2012 even though Boris beat Ken. Losing the mayoralty could be blamed on Khan, Jezza would own losing the Assembly.
Losing in Wales to the extent that they cannot form another coalition and therefore are not in government in Wales for the first time ever, could well be as important as the London Assembly.
Wales could actually end up ungovernable after 2016. If UKIP get three or four list seats and the Liberals vanish. Plaid won't do any deal involving UKIP (and probably vice versa) which could leave only a Grand Coalition as a viable option, which itself could be too much of a poison pill.
Corbyn can blame others for defeat in Wales. Not so London.
It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.
May 2016 will not be a very good time to be Jeremy Corbyn.
They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.
They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.
The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.
I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?
A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.
Losing the London Assembly election would be the worst result for Jezza. Labour won that in 2012 even though Boris beat Ken. Losing the mayoralty could be blamed on Khan, Jezza would own losing the Assembly.
It seems very unlikely. The thing is, in my experience approximately nobody in London actually cares about the assembly.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
Would it be possible, just once, for someone to mention English identity without this trolling? The truth, or not, does not even matter - it was an interesting discussion up to them. Such is life.
Of course the truth matters.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
When I talk about England I mean England. I do not mean The UK, Great Britain, England and Wales or any other combination. Aside from anything else I don't know enough about those other places to write about them and I would not insult them by pretending otherwise.
It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.
May 2016 will not be a very good time to be Jeremy Corbyn.
They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.
They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.
The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.
I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?
A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.
So you notice elections happening in Scotland, Wales, London Mayoralty and London Assembly.
But not the place where general elections are actually decided - England outside of London.
All the old favourites - Plymouth, Nuneaton, Hastings, Cannock, Amber Valley, Harlow, Great Yarmouth, Pendle, Rossendale, Ipswich, Lincoln, Derby, Southampton, Thurrock etc
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
It's all about the members. For them to understand what Corbyn is really about it's much better for him to fire Labour moderates rather than for them to walk out.
The members will probably cheer. People like you, whom they need, will despair. Personally I think there are times when self-respect requires one to tell those trying to humiliate you to stuff it.
Whether they resign or are sacked, those who do not support Corbyn will be blamed anyway. So they may as well take the initiative: either leave and explain why or fight to change. At the moment - and I have no insight into this - they appear to be doing nothing other than despairing and waiting for the axe to fall. It does not present a pretty picture.
The Labour party seems to be behaving like sappy Helen Archer as she's ground down into the dust by arch-villain, Rob Titchmarsh.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
Which is to say "not at all".
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
That's like saying that Berkshire or Cheshire don't exist. Or that Derby isn't in Derbyshire.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
It's all about the members. For them to understand what Corbyn is really about it's much better for him to fire Labour moderates rather than for them to walk out.
The members will probably cheer. People like you, whom they need, will despair. Personally I think there are times when self-respect requires one to tell those trying to humiliate you to stuff it.
Whether they resign or are sacked, those who do not support Corbyn will be blamed anyway. So they may as well take the initiative: either leave and explain why or fight to change. At the moment - and I have no insight into this - they appear to be doing nothing other than despairing and waiting for the axe to fall. It does not present a pretty picture.
The Labour party seems to be behaving like sappy Helen Archer as she's ground down into the dust by arch-villain, Rob Titchmarsh.
The Labour party is a stupid, stubborn beast, but most of its members are decent folk. They need to see the absurdity and the danger of Corbyn and his mates. Part of that process is for Corbyn to be forced into making decisions. Over time, these will reveal his true agenda even to the most wide-eyed of the useful idiots.
By the way, does anyone know how long before a Tory leadership contest one needs to be a party member in order to be eligible to vote?
Don't know. A reverse Corbyn just doens't really work though does it. LD's you used to have to wait a year for any election vote other than the leadership.
He is right to be optimistic. Let me sketch out a grand theory: there are periods when commodity exporters are in the ascendant, and commodity importers on their knees; and there are periods when the reverse is true.
In the late 1950s and 1960s, commodity prices were low, and the economies of importers such as Japan, the UK, continental Europe, and the US, boomed. By contrast, Latin America and Africa had very difficult times.
The 1970s were different as the prices of oil, copper, gold, iron ore and the like went through the roof. The fastest growing economies were in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, plus Australia and Canada. Essentially, high commodity prices diverted economic output from importers and sent it to exporters.
The 1980s and 1990s saw the pattern reversed again. Oil and the like fell back - in real terms - very sharply. Almost every commodity exporter in Latin America and Africa went bust (I think there were 48 sovereign bankrupcies in the years that followed the Mexican default of '82). The Soviet Union and South Africa - both resource economies - saw revolutions. By contrast, commodity importers did extremely well: the US, Europe, Japan (until the mid 90s), Korea and the like.
Into the 2000s, and the price of commodities swung upwards again. Who were the best performing economies from 2000 to 2015: Australia, Canada, China (which was a commodity exporter, believe it or not, at the start of the period), plus all the emerging market commodity driven economies: Russia, Brazil, the Middle East. By contrast, commodity importers - almost without exception - had a terrible time.
Fifteen years on, and the prices of oil, coal, iron ore and the like have collapsed. Commodities are long cycle, and I have no doubt we are in for at least a decade of low prices. Importers will benefit, and a lot of exporters will go bust. There will be revolutions and defaults aplenty among the exporters.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
Please would explain that last sentence? I am really struggling to understand what you are saying.
In any event our current account, which includes the value of our overseas investments, is firmly in the shitter is it not? The UK's biggest export is our wealth.
I thank my lucky stars I'm not as rabidly discontented as the Scot Nats that post on here, their every waking moment seems ravaged by hatred of all things English. It's all so irrational, plenty of Scots live in England perfectly happy and under no threat of any kind.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
Which is to say "not at all".
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
That's like saying that Berkshire or Cheshire don't exist. Or that Derby isn't in Derbyshire.
It's a brave line of argument.
Perhaps it's a case of Nationalistic Solipsism, where any entity not part of the Glorious Nation is considered not to exist, lest its presence in some way tarnish the purity of the Homeland.
It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.
May 2016 will not be a very good time to be Jeremy Corbyn.
They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.
They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.
The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.
I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?
A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.
Losing the London Assembly election would be the worst result for Jezza. Labour won that in 2012 even though Boris beat Ken. Losing the mayoralty could be blamed on Khan, Jezza would own losing the Assembly.
It seems very unlikely. The thing is, in my experience approximately nobody in London actually cares about the assembly.
The directly elected Mayor leaves a weird role for the Assembly, given they need a super-majority to overrule the Mayor so all they do is committees and auditing his work.
It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.
May 2016 will not be a very good time to be Jeremy Corbyn.
They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.
They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.
The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.
I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?
A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.
So you notice elections happening in Scotland, Wales, London Mayoralty and London Assembly.
But not the place where general elections are actually decided - England outside of London.
All the old favourites - Plymouth, Nuneaton, Hastings, Cannock, Amber Valley, Harlow, Great Yarmouth, Pendle, Rossendale, Ipswich, Lincoln, Derby, Southampton, Thurrock etc
All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.
Moreover, London is not Britain. Huge numbers of Corbynites are being signed up in London. This will only strengthen their ground game here.
It will certainly help Labour where turnout matters across London as a whole such as the Mayoral election.
But I'm not too sure that having Corbynistas knocking at the doors in the Hendons and Harrows (or Elthams and Dagenhams) will do Labour any good at a general election.
By the way, does anyone know how long before a Tory leadership contest one needs to be a party member in order to be eligible to vote?
Don't know. A reverse Corbyn just doens't really work though does it. LD's you used to have to wait a year for any election vote other than the leadership.
It's not likely Tory MPs would let anyone as unelectable as Corbyn on the ballot "to widen the debate". And they've already seen what happens if they put on the ballot someone they don't support to bump off a credible leader.
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
It's all about the members. For them to understand what Corbyn is really about it's much better for him to fire Labour moderates rather than for them to walk out.
The members will probably cheer. People like you, whom they need, will despair. Personally I think there are times when self-respect requires one to tell those trying to humiliate you to stuff it.
Whether they resign or are sacked, those who do not support Corbyn will be blamed anyway. So they may as well take the initiative: either leave and explain why or fight to change. At the moment - and I have no insight into this - they appear to be doing nothing other than despairing and waiting for the axe to fall. It does not present a pretty picture.
The Labour party seems to be behaving like sappy Helen Archer as she's ground down into the dust by arch-villain, Rob Titchmarsh.
The Labour party is a stupid, stubborn beast, but most of its members are decent folk. They need to see the absurdity and the danger of Corbyn and his mates. Part of that process is for Corbyn to be forced into making decisions. Over time, these will reveal his true agenda even to the most wide-eyed of the useful idiots.
I hope you are right. I am not hopeful, however. I think it was the reaction of the Denis Healey's and Shirley Williams's and people like them which really brought home the idiocies of Tony Benn, Militant and others, even though there had been plenty of evidence of those idiocies for years.
But you have better insight into Labour than I do. At any event, we can both hope that a decent Labour party does rise from the ashes eventually.
It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.
May 2016 will not be a very good time to be Jeremy Corbyn.
They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.
They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.
The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.
I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?
A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.
Losing the London Assembly election would be the worst result for Jezza. Labour won that in 2012 even though Boris beat Ken. Losing the mayoralty could be blamed on Khan, Jezza would own losing the Assembly.
It seems very unlikely. The thing is, in my experience approximately nobody in London actually cares about the assembly.
The directly elected Mayor leaves a weird role for the Assembly, given they need a super-majority to overrule the Mayor so all they do is committees and auditing his work.
The assembly was always a silly idea. Sadly Labour didn't allow us to choose to have a mayor without an assembly.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
What do you mean by overseas investment?
The foreign subsidiaries of British firms make remittances (payments) back to the UK; likewise, the British subsidiaries of foreign firms make remittances back to their parents. There are also other investment flows, such as interest payments on government debt to foreign investors, and - for example - the fact that I might own shares in a company in the US, and which pays me dividends.
Of late, this previously substantial flow has been quite weak.
There are a number of reasons for this (and it's a complex subjects), but the largest component is probably that the net investment position of the UK has worsened quite considerably over the past 30 years. More of Britain is owned by foreigners, and less of the rest of the world is owned by the British. Therefore what used to be a very significant flow of money into the UK has become much diminished.
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
It was a free vote, which by most definitions and precident means that MPs speak and vote according to their own views, on either side of the debate.
Corbyn's subsequent interpretation of it meaning free to agree with him or be fired is more usually associated with a three-line whip than a free vote, especially with reference to Mr Corbyn's attitude towards the whips over the last 30 years.
I'm sure Benn didn't expect to be looking at the sack for a very eloquent and well delivered speech.
That may well be the de jure position. It's not the de facto position and I think Benn must have known full well that Corbyn did not want a free vote, that he would not approve of someone voting in favour of military action and that he and his allies would move to oust those who disagreed with him. After all, he was removed from the NEC without any say so and for no very good reason as far as I know. Benn's not a fool. He - and others like him - know perfectly well how the Left operate and how they have tried to operate whenever they get their hands on the levers of power.
He'd have to have been very naïve to believe that voting against a leader like Corbyn on a free vote would somehow not have consequences.
The foreign subsidiaries of British firms make remittances (payments) back to the UK; likewise, the British subsidiaries of foreign firms make remittances back to their parents. There are also other investment flows, such as interest payments on government debt to foreign investors, and - for example - the fact that I might own shares in a company in the US, and which pays me dividends.
Of late, this previously substantial flow has been quite weak.
There are a number of reasons for this (and it's a complex subjects), but the largest component is probably that the net investment position of the UK has worsened quite considerably over the past 30 years. More of Britain is owned by foreigners, and less of the rest of the world is owned by the British. Therefore what used to be a very significant flow of money into the UK has become much diminished.
The Labour policy of offloading such a huge chunk of British business to foreign ownership was probably the most destructive act of terrorism ever inflicted on the British people.
It says something that it makes the folly of Tax Credits look insignificant in comparison.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
What do you mean by overseas investment?
The foreign subsidiaries of British firms make remittances (payments) back to the UK; likewise, the British subsidiaries of foreign firms make remittances back to their parents. There are also other investment flows, such as interest payments on government debt to foreign investors, and - for example - the fact that I might own shares in a company in the US, and which pays me dividends.
Of late, this previously substantial flow has been quite weak.
There are a number of reasons for this (and it's a complex subjects), but the largest component is probably that the net investment position of the UK has worsened quite considerably over the past 30 years. More of Britain is owned by foreigners, and less of the rest of the world is owned by the British. Therefore what used to be a very significant flow of money into the UK has become much diminished.
Thank you.
What I was trying to establish was what was meant by overseas investment in terms of whether it was private or public money. I hear people talk of foreign aid as investment but nobody ever gives me a specific example or calculations that it was money well spent. I want aid to be aid.
The reason that foreigners invest here is it's a bloody good place to live and do business: the language, climate, schools, laws and infrastructure are preferable to many places and long may it continue.
But Mr/Mrs flightpath is ambiguous when talking of overseas investment.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
Please would explain that last sentence? I am really struggling to understand what you are saying.
In any event our current account, which includes the value of our overseas investments, is firmly in the shitter is it not? The UK's biggest export is our wealth.
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Agree with all of that except I think Khan will win London which is more pro Corbyn than average. I think Trump will win the nomination but lose the presidency
I do wonder why people say London is more pro-Corbyn. London is at high risk of terrorism and Londoners are no keener than anyone else at being slaughtered by homicidal maniacs or at having their politicians stroke their chins while wondering whether to order the police to shoot those self-same maniacs. Nor are we particularly keen on politicians inviting in and/or being friendly with those who justify and excuse said maniacs
That's a good question which deserves a full answer. I have a couple of other posts in the pipeline to write but I shall add this to my list of future posts.
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
It was a free vote, which by most definitions and precident means that MPs speak and vote according to their own views, on either side of the debate.
Corbyn's subsequent interpretation of it meaning free to agree with him or be fired is more usually associated with a three-line whip than a free vote, especially with reference to Mr Corbyn's attitude towards the whips over the last 30 years.
I'm sure Benn didn't expect to be looking at the sack for a very eloquent and well delivered speech.
That may well be the de jure position. It's not the de facto position and I think Benn must have known full well that Corbyn did not want a free vote, that he would not approve of someone voting in favour of military action and that he and his allies would move to oust those who disagreed with him. After all, he was removed from the NEC without any say so and for no very good reason as far as I know. Benn's not a fool. He - and others like him - know perfectly well how the Left operate and how they have tried to operate whenever they get their hands on the levers of power.
He'd have to have been very naïve to believe that voting against a leader like Corbyn on a free vote would somehow not have consequences.
The lunatics really are taking over the asylum. Hopefully Benn's demotion will be the trigger that makes the moderate Labour MPs wake up and smell the coffee.
There must be a few Blairite businessmen or unions around that would be willing to bankroll SDP2 for a couple of years?
Jan. SNOW Feb. MORE SNOW Mar. EVEN MORE SNOW Apr. SNOW & SLUSH May. SLUSH AND SLEET. Jun. SNOW July. SUN Aug. SUN & SNOW Sep. SNOW & FROST 113 pro global Man Made Warming scientists commit mass suicide. Oct. FROST & SNOW 222 pro global Man Made Warming scientists commit mass suicide. Nov. DEEP FROST & SNOW Chief UN scientists says that we are at the start of Man Made Global cooling. Dec. SNOW Glaciers start to grow again. More mass suicides, this time it's politicians.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
Please would explain that last sentence? I am really struggling to understand what you are saying.
In any event our current account, which includes the value of our overseas investments, is firmly in the shitter is it not? The UK's biggest export is our wealth.
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Translates as - the UK is living ever more beyond its means and so is having to flog off more and more of its present and future assets to balance the books.
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
It was a free vote, which by most definitions and precident means that MPs speak and vote according to their own views, on either side of the debate.
Corbyn's subsequent interpretation of it meaning free to agree with him or be fired is more usually associated with a three-line whip than a free vote, especially with reference to Mr Corbyn's attitude towards the whips over the last 30 years.
I'm sure Benn didn't expect to be looking at the sack for a very eloquent and well delivered speech.
It was a load of pants , the man is a no-user. A faux socialist champagne swiller with no principles or backbone. Desperately toadying to Corbyn to get a shadow post and then whinging from the sidelines like a big jessie. Off with his head.
Jan. SNOW Feb. MORE SNOW Mar. EVEN MORE SNOW Apr. SNOW & SLUSH May. SLUSH AND SLEET. Jun. SNOW July. SUN Aug. SUN & SNOW Sep. SNOW & FROST 113 pro global Man Made Warming scientists commit mass suicide. Oct. FROST & SNOW 222 pro global Man Made Warming scientists commit mass suicide. Nov. DEEP FROST & SNOW Chief UN scientists says that we are at the start of Man Made Global cooling. Dec. SNOW Glaciers start to grow again. More mass suicides, this time it's politicians.
December 2010 and December 2015 must have been painful months for the pro and anti AGW respective bunches.
Of course they are both just single data points on a long run chart.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
He is right to be optimistic. Let me sketch out a grand theory: there are periods when commodity exporters are in the ascendant, and commodity importers on their knees; and there are periods when the reverse is true.
In the late 1950s and 1960s, commodity prices were low, and the economies of importers such as Japan, the UK, continental Europe, and the US, boomed. By contrast, Latin America and Africa had very difficult times.
The 1970s were different as the prices of oil, copper, gold, iron ore and the like went through the roof. The fastest growing economies were in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, plus Australia and Canada. Essentially, high commodity prices diverted economic output from importers and sent it to exporters.
The 1980s and 1990s saw the pattern reversed again. Oil and the like fell back - in real terms - very sharply. Almost every commodity exporter in Latin America and Africa went bust (I think there were 48 sovereign bankrupcies in the years that followed the Mexican default of '82). The Soviet Union and South Africa - both resource economies - saw revolutions. By contrast, commodity importers did extremely well: the US, Europe, Japan (until the mid 90s), Korea and the like.
Into the 2000s, and the price of commodities swung upwards again. Who were the best performing economies from 2000 to 2015: Australia, Canada, China (which was a commodity exporter, believe it or not, at the start of the period), plus all the emerging market commodity driven economies: Russia, Brazil, the Middle East. By contrast, commodity importers - almost without exception - had a terrible time.
Fifteen years on, and the prices of oil, coal, iron ore and the like have collapsed. Commodities are long cycle, and I have no doubt we are in for at least a decade of low prices. Importers will benefit, and a lot of exporters will go bust. There will be revolutions and defaults aplenty among the exporters.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
Please would explain that last sentence? I am really struggling to understand what you are saying.
In any event our current account, which includes the value of our overseas investments, is firmly in the shitter is it not? The UK's biggest export is our wealth.
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Translates as - the UK is living ever more beyond its means and so is having to flog off more and more of its present and future assets to balance the books.
Wonder how the annual monopoly game between Li and George went this year...
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Thank you.
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories) 2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury) 3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
Amazing how many respond to Dim Dair (and the Jockanese Clowns):
When it comes to trolling these folks could in-breed with Auntie-Hortence and still ignore the consequences....
Ouch.
In all seriousness we do have the one party state SGE2016 election to look forward to as well.
Brisket, you sound as if you are one of those rare Tory voters, or is it Lib Dem or Labour. Never happy unless they are whinging , unhappy that the SNP are popular and that they are doing it deliberately to boot.
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Thank you.
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories) 2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury) 3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
Not to mention Chinese building power stations. If you'd predicted that 50 years ago you'd have been laughed at.
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
Yup. He needs Eagle out of Defence.
He needs a united front when the Trident replacement vote comes up.
I wonder if the Tories can find one vote a month on something uncontentious to 75% of the population but that will split Labour in half between the Corbynites and the rest of the MPs. Trident could be your starter for 10, followed by votes on condemning some of Corbyn's international 'friends', prisoner voting etc. It would keep Labour splits in the news almost constantly if they can pull it off.
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Thank you.
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories) 2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury) 3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
Not to mention Chinese building power stations. If you'd predicted that 50 years ago you'd have been laughed at.
Now, now give credit where it's due - Hinkley point is a great deal.
Incidentally I've just received an email from Stronger in Europe complaining about "decades of anti EU propaganda" and inviting us to "stand up against UKIP donors".
Amazing how many respond to Dim Dair (and the Jockanese Clowns):
When it comes to trolling these folks could in-breed with Auntie-Hortence and still ignore the consequences....
Ouch.
In all seriousness we do have the one party state SGE2016 election to look forward to as well.
Brisket, you sound as if you are one of those rare Tory voters, or is it Lib Dem or Labour. Never happy unless they are whinging , unhappy that the SNP are popular and that they are doing it deliberately to boot.
I accept that many Yessers are also unhappy with their one party state if that's what you're after.
George Eaton @georgeeaton · 37m37 minutes ago Labour whip Grahame Morris has deleted tweet appearing to back sacking of shadow cabinet "mutineers".
Would Labour have been more or less disciplined in its use of twitter if it had been around in the 1980s?
What was it Dave said about Twitter?
The man's a visionary and practically a prophet.
If twitter were not likely to prove an ephemeral medium, that would probably be the only sentence that he'll be remembered for.
"Hug a hoodie" may live for many years but he didn't say that (Liam Byrne did).
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
I wonder if a note written with intended humour has contributed more to the end of a political career than the one Byrne wrote.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
Yup. He needs Eagle out of Defence.
He needs a united front when the Trident replacement vote comes up.
Why? He can't win the vote as the Conservatives have an overall majority and no Conservative MP is going to vote against buying four new submarines (which is all the squabble is about). So why the fuss about needing a united front? Who cares what Labour think on this issue, as on many others, they are as relevant as the SNP or the Lib Dems.
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Thank you.
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories) 2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury) 3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
Not to mention Chinese building power stations. If you'd predicted that 50 years ago you'd have been laughed at.
Now, now give credit where it's due - Hinkley point is a great deal.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
... I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
The balance of payments is many things and one aspect is the return on overseas investments. Perversely as we do better than the rest of the world our overseas investments do less well than foreign owned investments here.
What do you mean by overseas investment?
The foreign subsidiaries of British firms make remittances (payments) back to the UK; likewise, the British subsidiaries of foreign firms make remittances back to their parents. There are also other investment flows, such as interest payments on government debt to foreign investors, and - for example - the fact that I might own shares in a company in the US, and which pays me dividends.
Of late, this previously substantial flow has been quite weak.
There are a number of reasons for this (and it's a complex subjects), but the largest component is probably that the net investment position of the UK has worsened quite considerably over the past 30 years. More of Britain is owned by foreigners, and less of the rest of the world is owned by the British. Therefore what used to be a very significant flow of money into the UK has become much diminished.
In 2008, there was a surplus of £33.2bn from investment income. In 2011 Britain it was £22.7bn. There was a deficit of £17bn in 2013. Its good that people invest here. It creates jobs and prosperity. Its better here than elsewhere.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
Which is to say "not at all".
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
Wrong. There is such a thing as English Law. There is also English Criminal Law, English property law and English Trust law. All are separate from Scots law although both are ultimately subject to the UK Supreme Court.
Agree with all of that except I think Khan will win London which is more pro Corbyn than average. I think Trump will win the nomination but lose the presidency
I do wonder why people say London is more pro-Corbyn. London is at high risk of terrorism and Londoners are no keener than anyone else at being slaughtered by homicidal maniacs or at having their politicians stroke their chins while wondering whether to order the police to shoot those self-same maniacs. Nor are we particularly keen on politicians inviting in and/or being friendly with those who justify and excuse said maniacs
That's a good question which deserves a full answer. I have a couple of other posts in the pipeline to write but I shall add this to my list of future posts.
George Eaton @georgeeaton · 37m37 minutes ago Labour whip Grahame Morris has deleted tweet appearing to back sacking of shadow cabinet "mutineers".
Would Labour have been more or less disciplined in its use of twitter if it had been around in the 1980s?
What was it Dave said about Twitter?
The man's a visionary and practically a prophet.
If twitter were not likely to prove an ephemeral medium, that would probably be the only sentence that he'll be remembered for.
"Hug a hoodie" may live for many years but he didn't say that (Liam Byrne did).
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
I wonder if a note written with intended humour has contributed more to the end of a political career than the one Byrne wrote.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
That's a good example of how we on this board tend to forget more political stuff than the great British public will ever remember. It'll be the same with Corbyn and his hard left views & friends for GE2020.
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Thank you.
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories) 2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury) 3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
Don't forget the biggie, that makes all those numbers look small...
How much money Her Majesty's Government borrows from abroad each year through Gilt sales to pay the bills.
George Eaton @georgeeaton · 37m37 minutes ago Labour whip Grahame Morris has deleted tweet appearing to back sacking of shadow cabinet "mutineers".
Would Labour have been more or less disciplined in its use of twitter if it had been around in the 1980s?
What makes me chuckle about all the figures in the public eye who think deleting tweets make them go away. When will they learn that that internet never forgets...
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Thank you.
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories) 2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury) 3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
Not to mention Chinese building power stations. If you'd predicted that 50 years ago you'd have been laughed at.
Now, now give credit where it's due - Hinkley point is a great deal.
Amazing how many respond to Dim Dair (and the Jockanese Clowns):
When it comes to trolling these folks could in-breed with Auntie-Hortence and still ignore the consequences....
Ouch.
In all seriousness we do have the one party state SGE2016 election to look forward to as well.
Brisket, you sound as if you are one of those rare Tory voters, or is it Lib Dem or Labour. Never happy unless they are whinging , unhappy that the SNP are popular and that they are doing it deliberately to boot.
I accept that many Yessers are also unhappy with their one party state if that's what you're after.
Show us some proof then, the SNP remain popular because they are doing what people want. All these claims that people are unhappy and one state is just our grapes from losers. They are the democratically elected winners and will be again next year by a large margin. The weak minded useless opposition carp from the sidelines about one party states, they should be ashamed of themselves, long term losers with no policies and no principles.
George Eaton @georgeeaton · 37m37 minutes ago Labour whip Grahame Morris has deleted tweet appearing to back sacking of shadow cabinet "mutineers".
Would Labour have been more or less disciplined in its use of twitter if it had been around in the 1980s?
What was it Dave said about Twitter?
The man's a visionary and practically a prophet.
If twitter were not likely to prove an ephemeral medium, that would probably be the only sentence that he'll be remembered for.
"Hug a hoodie" may live for many years but he didn't say that (Liam Byrne did).
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
I wonder if a note written with intended humour has contributed more to the end of a political career than the one Byrne wrote.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
Edit: No Mr @Danny565 , the £1 option doesn't let you vote in the leadership contest.
Amazing how many respond to Dim Dair (and the Jockanese Clowns):
When it comes to trolling these folks could in-breed with Auntie-Hortence and still ignore the consequences....
Ouch.
In all seriousness we do have the one party state SGE2016 election to look forward to as well.
Brisket, you sound as if you are one of those rare Tory voters, or is it Lib Dem or Labour. Never happy unless they are whinging , unhappy that the SNP are popular and that they are doing it deliberately to boot.
I accept that many Yessers are also unhappy with their one party state if that's what you're after.
Show us some proof then, the SNP remain popular because they are doing what people want. All these claims that people are unhappy and one state is just our grapes from losers. They are the democratically elected winners and will be again next year by a large margin. The weak minded useless opposition carp from the sidelines about one party states, they should be ashamed of themselves, long term losers with no policies and no principles.
Don't worry Malky - elections not till next year - you never know what might happen. I can feel the great responsibility weighting heavily with your great power right now
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Thank you.
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories) 2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury) 3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
Not to mention Chinese building power stations. If you'd predicted that 50 years ago you'd have been laughed at.
Now, now give credit where it's due - Hinkley point is a great deal.
The French are the biggest investors. China is relatively small. Rolls Royce is one of the British companies getting contracts For myself I would like to see gas fired power stations, and gas from fracking.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
This isn't good for either the country in general or the Conservative party in particular:
' The percentage of young people in the UK who own their own home is at its joint lowest level since 1996, according to data obtained by Labour.
It suggests 44.9% of 20 to 30-year-olds are homeowners ...
... Labour's figures, which include shared ownership and are based on analysis of Labour Force Survey figures, show home ownership among the under 30s reached its peak in 1999, when it was 62.7 '
George Eaton @georgeeaton · 37m37 minutes ago Labour whip Grahame Morris has deleted tweet appearing to back sacking of shadow cabinet "mutineers".
Would Labour have been more or less disciplined in its use of twitter if it had been around in the 1980s?
What was it Dave said about Twitter?
The man's a visionary and practically a prophet.
If twitter were not likely to prove an ephemeral medium, that would probably be the only sentence that he'll be remembered for.
"Hug a hoodie" may live for many years but he didn't say that (Liam Byrne did).
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
I wonder if a note written with intended humour has contributed more to the end of a political career than the one Byrne wrote.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I actually think it's worse than that, I don't think he cared. Byrne is the epitome of a soundbite politician who loved the limelight but not the responsibility that goes with it.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
In all seriousness, I might make a serious vote on the basis of who I think would be the least-bad PM for the country. In which case I would probably vote Theresa May if she was on the ballot paper - I think she has a bit more integrity than the other leading candidates and, as far as Tories go, wouldn't be too bad.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
It was a free vote, which by most definitions and precident means that MPs speak and vote according to their own views, on either side of the debate.
Corbyn's subsequent interpretation of it meaning free to agree with him or be fired is more usually associated with a three-line whip than a free vote, especially with reference to Mr Corbyn's attitude towards the whips over the last 30 years.
I'm sure Benn didn't expect to be looking at the sack for a very eloquent and well delivered speech.
It was a load of pants , the man is a no-user. A faux socialist champagne swiller with no principles or backbone. Desperately toadying to Corbyn to get a shadow post and then whinging from the sidelines like a big jessie. Off with his head.
Now, that sounds harsh, but despite all that, would you say he is better or worse than most of the rest of the shadow cabinet?
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
Which is to say "not at all".
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
Wrong. There is such a thing as English Law. There is also English Criminal Law, English property law and English Trust law. All are separate from Scots law although both are ultimately subject to the UK Supreme Court.
You mean the Law of England and Wales. England does not have it's own legal system.
Comments
*kicks a badger*
When it comes to trolling these folks could in-breed with Auntie-Hortence and still ignore the consequences....
But not the place where general elections are actually decided - England outside of London.
All the old favourites - Plymouth, Nuneaton, Hastings, Cannock, Amber Valley, Harlow, Great Yarmouth, Pendle, Rossendale, Ipswich, Lincoln, Derby, Southampton, Thurrock etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2016
Whether they resign or are sacked, those who do not support Corbyn will be blamed anyway. So they may as well take the initiative: either leave and explain why or fight to change. At the moment - and I have no insight into this - they appear to be doing nothing other than despairing and waiting for the axe to fall. It does not present a pretty picture.
The Labour party seems to be behaving like sappy Helen Archer as she's ground down into the dust by arch-villain, Rob Titchmarsh.
It's a brave line of argument.
In the late 1950s and 1960s, commodity prices were low, and the economies of importers such as Japan, the UK, continental Europe, and the US, boomed. By contrast, Latin America and Africa had very difficult times.
The 1970s were different as the prices of oil, copper, gold, iron ore and the like went through the roof. The fastest growing economies were in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, plus Australia and Canada. Essentially, high commodity prices diverted economic output from importers and sent it to exporters.
The 1980s and 1990s saw the pattern reversed again. Oil and the like fell back - in real terms - very sharply. Almost every commodity exporter in Latin America and Africa went bust (I think there were 48 sovereign bankrupcies in the years that followed the Mexican default of '82). The Soviet Union and South Africa - both resource economies - saw revolutions. By contrast, commodity importers did extremely well: the US, Europe, Japan (until the mid 90s), Korea and the like.
Into the 2000s, and the price of commodities swung upwards again. Who were the best performing economies from 2000 to 2015: Australia, Canada, China (which was a commodity exporter, believe it or not, at the start of the period), plus all the emerging market commodity driven economies: Russia, Brazil, the Middle East. By contrast, commodity importers - almost without exception - had a terrible time.
Fifteen years on, and the prices of oil, coal, iron ore and the like have collapsed. Commodities are long cycle, and I have no doubt we are in for at least a decade of low prices. Importers will benefit, and a lot of exporters will go bust. There will be revolutions and defaults aplenty among the exporters.
In any event our current account, which includes the value of our overseas investments, is firmly in the shitter is it not? The UK's biggest export is our wealth.
Accrington Stanley? Who are they?
But I'm not too sure that having Corbynistas knocking at the doors in the Hendons and Harrows (or Elthams and Dagenhams) will do Labour any good at a general election.
In all seriousness we do have the one party state SGE2016 election to look forward to as well.
I think it's six months before the election is called, we certainly don't allow any old Tom, Dick or Trot to register after the election is called!
The MPs will give only two names to the members after their own preliminary contest.
Edit: It's three months.
Rules: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/files/snpc-01366-2-1.pdf
But you have better insight into Labour than I do. At any event, we can both hope that a decent Labour party does rise from the ashes eventually.
Linky here-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/5livesportsextra
Of late, this previously substantial flow has been quite weak.
There are a number of reasons for this (and it's a complex subjects), but the largest component is probably that the net investment position of the UK has worsened quite considerably over the past 30 years. More of Britain is owned by foreigners, and less of the rest of the world is owned by the British. Therefore what used to be a very significant flow of money into the UK has become much diminished.
He'd have to have been very naïve to believe that voting against a leader like Corbyn on a free vote would somehow not have consequences.
It says something that it makes the folly of Tax Credits look insignificant in comparison.
What I was trying to establish was what was meant by overseas investment in terms of whether it was private or public money. I hear people talk of foreign aid as investment but nobody ever gives me a specific example or calculations that it was money well spent. I want aid to be aid.
The reason that foreigners invest here is it's a bloody good place to live and do business: the language, climate, schools, laws and infrastructure are preferable to many places and long may it continue.
But Mr/Mrs flightpath is ambiguous when talking of overseas investment.
There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Labour whip Grahame Morris has deleted tweet appearing to back sacking of shadow cabinet "mutineers".
Would Labour have been more or less disciplined in its use of twitter if it had been around in the 1980s?
The man's a visionary and practically a prophet.
What a pathetic spectacle it's becoming, nobody comes out of it well, least of those who are backstabbing a legitimately elected leader.
He needs a united front when the Trident replacement vote comes up.
There must be a few Blairite businessmen or unions around that would be willing to bankroll SDP2 for a couple of years?
Jan. SNOW
Feb. MORE SNOW
Mar. EVEN MORE SNOW
Apr. SNOW & SLUSH
May. SLUSH AND SLEET.
Jun. SNOW
July. SUN
Aug. SUN & SNOW
Sep. SNOW & FROST 113 pro global Man Made Warming scientists commit mass suicide.
Oct. FROST & SNOW 222 pro global Man Made Warming scientists commit mass suicide.
Nov. DEEP FROST & SNOW Chief UN scientists says that we are at the start of Man Made Global cooling.
Dec. SNOW Glaciers start to grow again. More mass suicides, this time it's politicians.
Islington 14,735 /sq km.
Greater Manchester 2,105 / sq km
West Yorkshire 1098 / sq km.
Of course they are both just single data points on a long run chart.
"Hug a hoodie" may live for many years but he didn't say that (Liam Byrne did).
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
Obama's attempts to destroy America have made Trump the perfect candidate for patriotic Americans"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12072830/Donald-Trumps-supporters-are-not-racist-they-are-sick-of-being-let-down.html
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories)
2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury)
3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
My hope is slowly being replaced by optimism.
There was a deficit of £17bn in 2013.
Its good that people invest here. It creates jobs and prosperity. Its better here than elsewhere.
It'll be the same with Corbyn and his hard left views & friends for GE2020.
How much money Her Majesty's Government borrows from abroad each year through Gilt sales to pay the bills.
RIP Pav.
I do not care enough to pay the full £25 a year
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
Edit: No Mr @Danny565 , the £1 option doesn't let you vote in the leadership contest.
For myself I would like to see gas fired power stations, and gas from fracking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8688470.stm
And here's Liam Byrne still apologising for it five years later:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
One question: why did David Laws give the note to the Conservatives?
' The percentage of young people in the UK who own their own home is at its joint lowest level since 1996, according to data obtained by Labour.
It suggests 44.9% of 20 to 30-year-olds are homeowners ...
... Labour's figures, which include shared ownership and are based on analysis of Labour Force Survey figures, show home ownership among the under 30s reached its peak in 1999, when it was 62.7 '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35188627
Diane Abbott is the best example.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!