So a minority Labour adminsitration or a coalition with Clegg? Eek! The markets will love that. Not.
Assuming they have a reasonable majority between them it's hard to see the policy mix being substantially different from the current one, as far as anything that would affect the markets goes.
Do you believe Ed Balls?
Do you feel lucky, punk?
It's been obvious that's what they're going to do since well before Ed Balls started saying it.
Then might it have been wiser not to oppose every single cut? That behaviour has given plenty of ammunition to the Tories/LibDems:
"Nick Clegg, starting a new schedule of monthly press conferences on Monday, will step up his efforts to win back former Liberal Democrats who have defected to Labour.
Referring to Labour's recent decision to take government spending plans for 2015-16 as its starting point, Clegg will claim that Labour "has gone from taking no position on the economy to every position".
He is hopeful that after three years of Labour criticism over accepting Tory austerity, he can now go on the front foot and win back his disilusioned former supporters."
No, it wouldn't have been wiser not to oppose [almost] every single cut. It might have been wiser in a world of voters who are paying a lot of attention, and greatly value consistency, but in the actual world we live in, the opposition is usually better opposing pretty much everything, then doing a clear-out a while before the election and slimming that down to a few cheap, symbolic things that they'll argue about in the campaign.
Clegg's attack is not particularly powerful, and Clegg is left trying to get back the voters he's already lost, which he'll only be able to do partly, if at all.
Seriously? 19 out of a team of 20 firefighters in a specialist unit die fighting this blaze and that doesn't merit front page placement? In just about any country?
Disagree.
You think it would get top billing if the firefighters were Chinese?
It's a news story, possibly top billing in America, but we (and the BBC) aren't in America
Seriously? 19 out of a team of 20 firefighters in a specialist unit die fighting this blaze and that doesn't merit front page placement? In just about any country?
Disagree.
You think it would get top billing if the firefighters were Chinese?
It's a news story, possibly top billing in America, but we (and the BBC) aren't in America
There are times when I can see why a news story gets a lot of attention such as the Chilean miners trapped underground - or if there are pix which are particularly rubbernecking/newsworthy such as tornado aftermath - but otherwise nope.
If its a moral crusade, and there's no money left, why not tax divorce rather than incentivising second and third marriages?
It's not a moral crusade. Marriage has positive externalities. Children in married units do better than children with unmarried parents in a couple. For retired people loneliness leads to a much great dependence on charity / state provision (often just for company).
The government encourages something that is positive for society.
Manufacturing PMI up to 52.5 and Q2 GDP growth up to 0.5% or more. IMF prediction for the whole year was 0.8% so if we get 0.5% this quarter we'll have had all of the predicted growth in half of the year.
"“The survey suggests that manufacturing output rose by around 0.5% over the second quarter. Taken with recent signs of service sector strength and a stabilising construction industry it paints a picture of UK economic growth picking up from the opening quarter’s 0.3% to at least 0.5%.
Manufacturing PMI up to 52.5 and Q2 GDP growth up to 0.5% or more. IMF prediction for the whole year was 0.8% so if we get 0.5% this quarter we'll have had all of the predicted growth in half of the year.
"“The survey suggests that manufacturing output rose by around 0.5% over the second quarter. Taken with recent signs of service sector strength and a stabilising construction industry it paints a picture of UK economic growth picking up from the opening quarter’s 0.3% to at least 0.5%.
It's not a moral crusade. Marriage has positive externalities. Children in married units do better than children with unmarried parents in a couple. For retired people loneliness leads to a much great dependence on charity / state provision (often just for company).
The government encourages something that is positive for society.
Is there any evidence of positive externalities for the relevant people here, namely people who wouldn't have got married except for the tax break? Marriage ending in divorce probably has quite serious negative effects compared to not getting married at all, and it seems plausible that nudging people with a tax break will result in more of those, to the extent that it makes a difference at all.
Manufacturing PMI up to 52.5 and Q2 GDP growth up to 0.5% or more. IMF prediction for the whole year was 0.8% so if we get 0.5% this quarter we'll have had all of the predicted growth in half of the year.
"“The survey suggests that manufacturing output rose by around 0.5% over the second quarter. Taken with recent signs of service sector strength and a stabilising construction industry it paints a picture of UK economic growth picking up from the opening quarter’s 0.3% to at least 0.5%.
Manufacturing PMI up to 52.5 and Q2 GDP growth up to 0.5% or more. IMF prediction for the whole year was 0.8% so if we get 0.5% this quarter we'll have had all of the predicted growth in half of the year.
"“The survey suggests that manufacturing output rose by around 0.5% over the second quarter. Taken with recent signs of service sector strength and a stabilising construction industry it paints a picture of UK economic growth picking up from the opening quarter’s 0.3% to at least 0.5%.
Manufacturing PMI up to 52.5 and Q2 GDP growth up to 0.5% or more. IMF prediction for the whole year was 0.8% so if we get 0.5% this quarter we'll have had all of the predicted growth in half of the year.
"“The survey suggests that manufacturing output rose by around 0.5% over the second quarter. Taken with recent signs of service sector strength and a stabilising construction industry it paints a picture of UK economic growth picking up from the opening quarter’s 0.3% to at least 0.5%.
Would any of those attacking the suggestion of a (very modest) recognition of marriage in the tax system - as happens in most other Europeans countries, BTW - care to explain why they don't lay into Labour for Darling's IHT tax break for married couples? Double standards, perhaps?
Con 296 .. Lab 270 .. LibDem 44 .. SNP 12 .. PC 3 .. Ukip 3 .. NI 18 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1
No Overall Control - Conservatives 30 seats short of a majority.
That would induce severe headaches in the leadership of all three of the biggest parties.
Whilst I think the projection could well be in the right ballpark, I wonder whether the Con and UKIP figures are consistent? Surely if UKIP are doing well enough to start winning a few seats, it's unlikely that the Conservatives will do as well as 296?
Con 296 .. Lab 270 .. LibDem 44 .. SNP 12 .. PC 3 .. Ukip 3 .. NI 18 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1
No Overall Control - Conservatives 30 seats short of a majority.
That would induce severe headaches in the leadership of all three of the biggest parties.
Whilst I think the projection could well be in the right ballpark, I wonder whether the Con and UKIP figures are consistent? Surely if UKIP are doing well enough to start winning a few seats, it's unlikely that the Conservatives will do as well as 296?
I guess the trick would have to be for UKIP to take a lot of votes off Labour to match what they took from the Tories.
If its a moral crusade, and there's no money left, why not tax divorce rather than incentivising second and third marriages?
It's not a moral crusade. Marriage has positive externalities. Children in married units do better than children with unmarried parents in a couple. For retired people loneliness leads to a much great dependence on charity / state provision (often just for company).
The government encourages something that is positive for society.
Now it's about children again? So why give cash to people on their second and third marriages when they have no children?
As for giving people £2.88 a week to help with their loneliness in old age, but making it conditional on getting married,words fail.
You are either deliberately misunderstanding me or you are very dense today.
Marriage is a good thing for society. It has different benefits at different ages. Children benefit, as do old people, but for different reasons.
The amount of the money is unimportant. What is important is sending a signal that society values marriage as a structure for relationships.
Any PBer got an informed view on the Beeb's "White Queen" that Mrs Jack W has taped ?
People were complaining that they had zips on their frocks and were wearing wellie boots etc , directors comment was that it was not meant to be authentic.
This is a very important question, because it's very hard to imagine the Tories to get a majority without persuading lots of people who voted for Brown to not vote for Miliband.
I think what the analysis really needs is some examples of the kinds of voters who voted for Brown who aren't going to vote for Miliband.
OT -- the BBC's website leads on an American domestic story -- the tragic deaths of American firefighters. Has July given the BBC a new crop of graduate editors taking their cue from American news broadcasts?
The BBC has a curious interest in things that appear to be local news stories - the case of Mr Zimmerman who shot a black youth got acres of coverage - why I have no idea. White man shoots black kid whilst doing neighbourhood watch patrol isn't exactly Rodney King/LA riots territory.
If you followed the US news you'd realise that there was a lot more to the story than that. AIUI, Zimmerman attacked an unarmed kid on the basis of unfounded suspicion. And shot him. That's a story.
I'm well aware of the story - white man shoots black man who isn't carrying, what does this have to do with the UK news? If it was black man shoots unarmed white man, it'd never be on the telly here.
The fact that we live in a global society? That it's a human interest story? That the BBC gets to feel morally superior to poor white Americans?
I suspect that some BBCers are looking for the next Rodney King and see this as it - frankly, I disagree.
Be interesting to see how it goes, no explanation yet how the guy who did the shootings face looked like a bus had hit him, so unless he did a great job on himself there seems at least a good chance they had a set to of some sort before the shooting
It's not a moral crusade. Marriage has positive externalities. Children in married units do better than children with unmarried parents in a couple. For retired people loneliness leads to a much great dependence on charity / state provision (often just for company).
The government encourages something that is positive for society.
Is there any evidence of positive externalities for the relevant people here, namely people who wouldn't have got married except for the tax break? Marriage ending in divorce probably has quite serious negative effects compared to not getting married at all, and it seems plausible that nudging people with a tax break will result in more of those, to the extent that it makes a difference at all.
Quick google got me this, which looks a sensible summary. (tim, look away, this is about children. It doesn't cover all possible scenarios).
The key is low conflict relationships. It's possible marriage is a proxy for these factors that would have existed anyway. Additionally these factors do exist outside marriage, but are less frequently observed.
I doubt there are many people who would get married solely for £2.88 per week as tim would put it. Sending a signal that marriage is normal, and a good thing, will probably increase the incidence of marriage (indeed, I recall an article a while ago saying that the younger generation - think 20-29 - is more interested in marriage generally than their older peers)
Despite the wording of the article, the main thing I take away from this is that there are a lot of people still out there who have still to make up their minds - which is the opposite of what is commonly assumed.
Any PBer got an informed view on the Beeb's "White Queen" that Mrs Jack W has taped ?
People were complaining that they had zips on their frocks and were wearing wellie boots etc , directors comment was that it was not meant to be authentic.
I haven't seen it, but I understand from Twitter that it's full of people not wearing hats, including women in church or men out in the snow, and I'd like to know what the coalition is going to do about it - either make them wear hats or defund the BBC.
I think what the analysis really needs is some examples of the kinds of voters who voted for Brown who aren't going to vote for Miliband.
Those who believed Brown's 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts' nonsense and who are slowly beginning to realise that the two Eds have actually got round to admitting, grudgingly, that they agree with everything Osborne is doing.
Why vote Labour to get a housing benefit cap, the ending to child benefit for the rich, a public-sector pay freeze, a seven-day wait on entitlement to unemployment benefits, the ending of the spare-room subsidy, etc etc? Every single one of these was denounced as ideological madness by Labour, but they are now saying they'd do the same. It's perfectly possible to imagine that those who were planning to vote Labour because they think money grows on trees, or who think proposals for savings on public spending are just an evil Tory plot, will be a bit demoralised by this massive U-turn. At least Gordon Brown was consistent in the fantasies he peddled.
Edit: You can see what I mean in this article by Owen Jones:
And here is the fatal flaw in the Labour leadership’s strategy. They think they are buying back credibility, rather than shoring up policies that should be seen as sunk, ruinous, shredded. By failing to offer a coherent message, they risk a sense of “at least you know where you are with the Tories” bedding in.
Despite the wording of the article, the main thing I take away from this is that there are a lot of people still out there who have still to make up their minds - which is the opposite of what is commonly assumed.
The problem is that the SNP/Yes campaign has been all over the place. It's been shown up as unprepared and superficial. It's no surprise that that the electorate is confused.
Con 296 .. Lab 270 .. LibDem 44 .. SNP 12 .. PC 3 .. Ukip 3 .. NI 18 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1
No Overall Control - Conservatives 30 seats short of a majority.
That would induce severe headaches in the leadership of all three of the biggest parties.
Whilst I think the projection could well be in the right ballpark, I wonder whether the Con and UKIP figures are consistent? Surely if UKIP are doing well enough to start winning a few seats, it's unlikely that the Conservatives will do as well as 296?
Jacks UKIP projections are a nonsense for the reason you give, he's slowly backing out of them and hoping nobody notices.
The idea that UKIP would take 3-5 seats without damaging the Tories more is a nonsense. He'll be down to zero before the year ends.
I think one or two seats could be gained without affecting Tory totals. I think that most projections fundamentally overestimate the necessary vote share required for UKIP to start gaining seats, primarily because they have as a starting point UKIP's 2010 result, which is based off a vote share of 3%. The character and layout of the party has changed considerably since then. The local elections showed how localised UKIP support can be (if you compare Lincolnshire at the top end with not dissimilar neighbouring counties). So I think UKIP could win a seat, or couple of seats, on as little as 9%, if they can utilise their 2014 Euros performance and put the right people in the right places.
However I agree that "He'll be down to zero before the year ends." because I think UKIP will sink to around 8 or 9% by year end, go up a little in the Euros, but down again before the next election.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
EdM is safe . He's the best they've got . Labour's talent larder is bare.
It's not a moral crusade. Marriage has positive externalities. Children in married units do better than children with unmarried parents in a couple. For retired people loneliness leads to a much great dependence on charity / state provision (often just for company).
The government encourages something that is positive for society.
Is there any evidence of positive externalities for the relevant people here, namely people who wouldn't have got married except for the tax break? Marriage ending in divorce probably has quite serious negative effects compared to not getting married at all, and it seems plausible that nudging people with a tax break will result in more of those, to the extent that it makes a difference at all.
Quick google got me this, which looks a sensible summary. (tim, look away, this is about children. It doesn't cover all possible scenarios).
The key is low conflict relationships. It's possible marriage is a proxy for these factors that would have existed anyway. Additionally these factors do exist outside marriage, but are less frequently observed.
I doubt there are many people who would get married solely for £2.88 per week as tim would put it. Sending a signal that marriage is normal, and a good thing, will probably increase the incidence of marriage (indeed, I recall an article a while ago saying that the younger generation - think 20-29 - is more interested in marriage generally than their older peers)
That doesn't seem to make your case very well. Basically the upshot seems to be that children do better given stable relationships without parents fighting all the time (doh), and they don't seem to have any evidence that marriage is actually causing more stable relationships. And that's before we even start trying to establish that: a) The tax break "signalling" is effective in causing more marriages b) Those extra marriages that wouldn't have happened but for the signal are stabler than what would have happened otherwise - which has to take into account the possibility of backfiring if those marriages end in divorce.
If that's as good as the evidence for the policy gets, it makes me think the whole thing is about political messaging rather than actual outcomes.
@tim - Whether these things are smart or not, Labour seem to be saying they'd do exactly the same. Or at least that was last week's message.
This is exactly why I think Ed M has made a massive strategic blunder in attacking every saving, no matter how harmless. It has just left an overall impression of utter confusion, since it was inevitably not going to survive even cursory scrutiny. As concerns about their economic credibility come into sharper focus, they are likely to retreat even more into accepting Osborne's baseline.
Really excellent PMIs for June. The new Governor of the Bank must be wondering what all the fuss is about on his first day. "You think you are doing badly?" he might ask. "Have you seen the rest of Europe recently?"
One of the points that stood out for me in the report is that completed stocks have now been falling for 15 consecutive months. This bodes very well for the remainder of the year and should result in a pick up in employment too.
The slowness with which well paid economists have been revising their predictions of GDP are truly odd. They either think a wheel is coming off in H2 or they are missing a major revision.
It's not a moral crusade. Marriage has positive externalities. Children in married units do better than children with unmarried parents in a couple. For retired people loneliness leads to a much great dependence on charity / state provision (often just for company).
The government encourages something that is positive for society.
Is there any evidence of positive externalities for the relevant people here, namely people who wouldn't have got married except for the tax break? Marriage ending in divorce probably has quite serious negative effects compared to not getting married at all, and it seems plausible that nudging people with a tax break will result in more of those, to the extent that it makes a difference at all.
Quick google got me this, which looks a sensible summary. (tim, look away, this is about children. It doesn't cover all possible scenarios).
The key is low conflict relationships. It's possible marriage is a proxy for these factors that would have existed anyway. Additionally these factors do exist outside marriage, but are less frequently observed.
I doubt there are many people who would get married solely for £2.88 per week as tim would put it. Sending a signal that marriage is normal, and a good thing, will probably increase the incidence of marriage (indeed, I recall an article a while ago saying that the younger generation - think 20-29 - is more interested in marriage generally than their older peers)
That doesn't seem to make your case very well. Basically the upshot seems to be that children do better given stable relationships without parents fighting all the time (doh), and they don't seem to have any evidence that marriage is actually causing more stable relationships. And that's before we even start trying to establish that: a) The tax break "signalling" is effective in causing more marriages b) Those extra marriages that wouldn't have happened but for the signal are stabler than what would have happened otherwise - which has to take into account the possibility of backfiring if those marriages end in divorce.
If that's as good as the evidence for the policy gets, it makes me think the whole thing is about political messaging rather than actual outcomes.
Sadly I've got work - my google search was based on children doing better...
edit: and ignoring the papers published by advocacy groups - was looking for something vaguely neutral sounding
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
The last time IIRC Labour were behind the Tories was around Vetogasm - and it lasted about a month. That the average lead is about 8pts - midterm and things are generally looking up, I wonder how Labour will pull away bar a massive black swan.
It's not a moral crusade. Marriage has positive externalities. Children in married units do better than children with unmarried parents in a couple. For retired people loneliness leads to a much great dependence on charity / state provision (often just for company).
The government encourages something that is positive for society.
Is there any evidence of positive externalities for the relevant people here, namely people who wouldn't have got married except for the tax break? Marriage ending in divorce probably has quite serious negative effects compared to not getting married at all, and it seems plausible that nudging people with a tax break will result in more of those, to the extent that it makes a difference at all.
Quick google got me this, which looks a sensible summary. (tim, look away, this is about children. It doesn't cover all possible scenarios).
The key is low conflict relationships. It's possible marriage is a proxy for these factors that would have existed anyway. Additionally these factors do exist outside marriage, but are less frequently observed.
I doubt there are many people who would get married solely for £2.88 per week as tim would put it. Sending a signal that marriage is normal, and a good thing, will probably increase the incidence of marriage (indeed, I recall an article a while ago saying that the younger generation - think 20-29 - is more interested in marriage generally than their older peers)
That doesn't seem to make your case very well. Basically the upshot seems to be that children do better given stable relationships without parents fighting all the time (doh), and they don't seem to have any evidence that marriage is actually causing more stable relationships. And that's before we even start trying to establish that: a) The tax break "signalling" is effective in causing more marriages b) Those extra marriages that wouldn't have happened but for the signal are stabler than what would have happened otherwise - which has to take into account the possibility of backfiring if those marriages end in divorce.
If that's as good as the evidence for the policy gets, it makes me think the whole thing is about political messaging rather than actual outcomes.
A quick look around Europe and you see the lowest number of children born outside marriage in Greece, and the highest number in Sweden.
Whatever signals are being sent out, even if they work which is unlikely, don't seem to be correlated particularly closely with other wellbeing indicators.
Can you show me data comparing the relative performance of children in/outside marriage *within* a country?
As for accepting savings that increase spending, why should they. Any idiot could see that the bedroom tax,predicated on moving people into properties that don't exist would be a cock up that'll save tiny amounts, if anything at all.
Yes, in the first few weeks. So what? This is about getting things right for the long-term.
Anyway, you're missing my point. If the policy is a disaster, then the two Eds should have immediately said they'd reverse it, right? They didn't, so anyone who agrees with you and who feels strongly about it is now left wondering what the point of voting Labour is, if you're going to get Osborne's policies anyway.
@tim - Whether these things are smart or not, Labour seem to be saying they'd do exactly the same. Or at least that was last week's message.
This is exactly why I think Ed M has made a massive strategic blunder in attacking every saving, no matter how harmless. It has just left an overall impression of utter confusion, since it was inevitably not going to survive even cursory scrutiny. As concerns about their economic credibility come into sharper focus, they are likely to retreat even more into accepting Osborne's baseline.
Osborne's baseline is more that Brown ever spent, of course they'll accept it.
In real terms. Cash spending levels are a pretty meaningless analysis.
You really are churning out fluff today. Must be on the back foot.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
To properly get Labour freaking out you really need one showing the Tories ahead. Right now YouGov has a lead of about 8%, so if Labour lose 4% off that you might get the odd outlier 5% below the underlying lead at -1%.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
@tim - Whether these things are smart or not, Labour seem to be saying they'd do exactly the same. Or at least that was last week's message.
This is exactly why I think Ed M has made a massive strategic blunder in attacking every saving, no matter how harmless. It has just left an overall impression of utter confusion, since it was inevitably not going to survive even cursory scrutiny. As concerns about their economic credibility come into sharper focus, they are likely to retreat even more into accepting Osborne's baseline.
Osborne's baseline is more that Brown ever spent, of course they'll accept it.
As for accepting savings that increase spending, why should they. Any idiot could see that the bedroom tax,predicated on moving people into properties that don't exist would be a cock up that'll save tiny amounts, if anything at all. Even a few PB Tories could see that one coming.
Brown would not have cut anything - our future liabilities is what matters - over the next 20 years not the next 2 days.
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
To properly get Labour freaking out you really need one showing the Tories ahead. Right now YouGov has a lead of about 8%, so if Labour lose 4% off that you might get the odd outlier 5% below the underlying lead at -1%.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
At the risk of channelling Dan Hodges that's got to be bad for Ed...
If his supporters are lulled into a false sense of security by the polls, but the voters have the temerity to behave differently at actual elections surely there's a risk he becomes seen as a mediocre performer when it really matters?
There is, however, an interesting tweet on similar though less excitable lines from someone who is more favourably disposed towards Labour:
"Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour Half shadow cabinet and third of Labour MPs concerned Labour will go into election without commitment to EU referendum, claims John Mills."
You do sound like Dan Hodges and that's an insult.
The idea of LB supporters in a false sense of security is hardly electoral analysis. The fact is that in the super marginals LAB will get its vote out which was one of the reasons why the blues didn't get a majority in 2010.
Go look at Nick Palmer's Browxtowe 2010 result to see what a brilliant campaigning operation can achieve.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
To properly get Labour freaking out you really need one showing the Tories ahead. Right now YouGov has a lead of about 8%, so if Labour lose 4% off that you might get the odd outlier 5% below the underlying lead at -1%.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
At the risk of channelling Dan Hodges that's got to be bad for Ed...
If his supporters are lulled into a false sense of security by the polls, but the voters have the temerity to behave differently at actual elections surely there's a risk he becomes seen as a mediocre performer when it really matters?
@tim - Whether these things are smart or not, Labour seem to be saying they'd do exactly the same. Or at least that was last week's message.
This is exactly why I think Ed M has made a massive strategic blunder in attacking every saving, no matter how harmless. It has just left an overall impression of utter confusion, since it was inevitably not going to survive even cursory scrutiny. As concerns about their economic credibility come into sharper focus, they are likely to retreat even more into accepting Osborne's baseline.
Osborne's baseline is more that Brown ever spent, of course they'll accept it.
As for accepting savings that increase spending, why should they. Any idiot could see that the bedroom tax,predicated on moving people into properties that don't exist would be a cock up that'll save tiny amounts, if anything at all. Even a few PB Tories could see that one coming.
Brown would not have cut anything - our future liabilities is what matters - over the next 20 years not the next 2 days.
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
Osborne has increased benefit spending, just like Thatcher and Major did. Tories always increase welfare spending because they target the their prejudices rather than things actually driving increased welfare payments, low pay and high housing costs.
Osborne has tested that theory to destruction. A few dividing lines and extra spending.
Darlings estimates 2007-10 were out by up over £120Bn per year.
Why would you trust him to reduce borrowing 2010-15 whilst opposing every cut ?
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
This point doesn't necessarily help Labour, but that's not clear at all. It's quite plausible - likely even - that Labour would have spent less, because: 1) They'd potentially have had more to prove to the markets than Osborne. 2) They'd have had less to fear from the public sector unions, who would have been scared doing the government too much damage and letting the Tories back in. 3) The Tories would presumably have carried on running at them from the right rather than the left, so there would have been no serious political opposition to spending less (especially if they were in coalition with the LibDems) and the incentives would have been to keep moving right.
"No one knows this better than Harriet Harman, who was a legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 1970s, when they believed in the legalisation of paedophile sex. I can’t imagine her going near a group which evangelised such a position today."
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
This point doesn't necessarily help Labour, but that's not clear at all. It's quite plausible - likely even - that Labour would have spent less, because: 1) They'd potentially have had more to prove to the markets than Osborne. 2) They'd have had less to fear from the public sector unions, who would have been scared doing the government too much damage and letting the Tories back in. 3) The Tories would presumably have carried on running at them from the right rather than the left, so there would have been no serious political opposition to spending less (especially if they were in coalition with the LibDems) and the incentives would have been to keep moving right.
Darling's figures were proved to be a total nonsense for 3 years on the bounce - his figures are worthless.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
To properly get Labour freaking out you really need one showing the Tories ahead. Right now YouGov has a lead of about 8%, so if Labour lose 4% off that you might get the odd outlier 5% below the underlying lead at -1%.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
At the risk of channelling Dan Hodges that's got to be bad for Ed...
If his supporters are lulled into a false sense of security by the polls, but the voters have the temerity to behave differently at actual elections surely there's a risk he becomes seen as a mediocre performer when it really matters?
Unless you've got a constructive way to channel your panic, like a popular figure like Kevin Rudd waiting in the wings for you to get scared enough to put him in charge, a false sense of security is generally better for a political party than the alternative, which is constant sniping and factional maneuvering.
But I don't think I buy the premise. 2010 LibDems didn't really seem to come through for Labour in the local elections, but those were local not national, and they were mostly in places where Labour didn't have the infrastructure to make sure they turned out. I can't see them having that problem in their marginals.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole Clegg claims he has had a consistent stance on a referendum. Yes, at the last election he backed an in/out. Now he does not. Lies.
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
This point doesn't necessarily help Labour, but that's not clear at all. It's quite plausible - likely even - that Labour would have spent less, because: 1) They'd potentially have had more to prove to the markets than Osborne. 2) They'd have had less to fear from the public sector unions, who would have been scared doing the government too much damage and letting the Tories back in. 3) The Tories would presumably have carried on running at them from the right rather than the left, so there would have been no serious political opposition to spending less (especially if they were in coalition with the LibDems) and the incentives would have been to keep moving right.
Darling's figures were proved to be a total nonsense for 3 years on the bounce - his figures are worthless.
I didn't say anything about Darling's figures. If you want to predict what politicians are going to do, you have to look at their incentives, not their predictions.
@tim - Whether these things are smart or not, Labour seem to be saying they'd do exactly the same. Or at least that was last week's message.
This is exactly why I think Ed M has made a massive strategic blunder in attacking every saving, no matter how harmless. It has just left an overall impression of utter confusion, since it was inevitably not going to survive even cursory scrutiny. As concerns about their economic credibility come into sharper focus, they are likely to retreat even more into accepting Osborne's baseline.
Osborne's baseline is more that Brown ever spent, of course they'll accept it.
As for accepting savings that increase spending, why should they. Any idiot could see that the bedroom tax,predicated on moving people into properties that don't exist would be a cock up that'll save tiny amounts, if anything at all. Even a few PB Tories could see that one coming.
Brown would not have cut anything - our future liabilities is what matters - over the next 20 years not the next 2 days.
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
Osborne has increased benefit spending, just like Thatcher and Major did. Tories always increase welfare spending because they target the their prejudices rather than things actually driving increased welfare payments, low pay and high housing costs.
Osborne has tested that theory to destruction. A few dividing lines and extra spending.
Darlings estimates 2007-10 were out by up over £120Bn per year.
Why would you trust him to reduce borrowing 2010-15 whilst opposing every cut ?
You'd have to be a right plonker or in denial.
There haven't been any cuts in welfare, stop making things up. All Osborne's "cuts" have led to extra welfare spending, why do you think it's gone up and he keeps increasing the housing benefit projections?
The IFS don't rely on silly one data point analyis tim
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 1m David Cameron didn't deliver on his "cast iron pledge" to hold a Lisbon Treaty referendum, @nick_clegg caustically points out.
And wrongly. The Conservatives voted for a referendum. Perhaps Nick has forgotten how the LibDems voted?
Any idiot could see that the bedroom tax,predicated on moving people into properties that don't exist would be a cock up that'll save tiny amounts, if anything at all. Even a few PB Tories could see that one coming.
They had the bedroom tax thing on the wireless this morning, and one thing that struck me was that the council housing bod was talking about boarding up three bedroom houses because people didn't want them when they were too big for them, and my reaction was: why don't they convert them into flats then?
There are a few ex-council houses around here, 3-bed semi-detached, that have been converted into flats. Is it really beyond their abilities to convert their existing housing stock into something more suitable?
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
This point doesn't necessarily help Labour, but that's not clear at all. It's quite plausible - likely even - that Labour would have spent less, because: 1) They'd potentially have had more to prove to the markets than Osborne. 2) They'd have had less to fear from the public sector unions, who would have been scared doing the government too much damage and letting the Tories back in. 3) The Tories would presumably have carried on running at them from the right rather than the left, so there would have been no serious political opposition to spending less (especially if they were in coalition with the LibDems) and the incentives would have been to keep moving right.
Darling's figures were proved to be a total nonsense for 3 years on the bounce - his figures are worthless.
I didn't say anything about Darling's figures. If you want to predict what politicians are going to do, you have to look at their incentives, not their predictions.
Perhaps a list of cuts a Labour government would have made ? We know they opposed the 1% benefit cap.
Scrap Trident 3 times and a 1000% bankers bonus tax ?
"He’s now saying that Farage’s party will need to be on a national vote share of 16% before it starts picking up seats."
He's not saying that. He's built a model (just a model) that outputs the figure 0.7 seats as an "expectation" if UKIP hit 16%.
It's only a model. And trying to "model" something that has never happened before is somewhat of a fool's errand. It is pure theory with no previous data to go into the model.
Btw, the expectation is of 0.7 seats. When you throw a dice your "expectation" is to throw "a 3.5", but show me anyone who has ever done so, and I'll give you a nine-bob note...
Baxter's numbers are just a theory. Like his theory that Montgomery is UKIP's best hope (really???????).
Nice theory. Not Gospel, however...
UKIP could still win one seat with 3% of the vote or no seats with 25%. Nobody can forecast it with any degree of accuracy. We are left with intuition, individual seat intelligence, and analysis of the closest analogue, which is the SDP performance in 1983.
Also, can we move away from the pedestrian "forecasts" from current opinion polls, which are utterly meaningless? We all remember the "forecast" 200 seat Tory majority from this time five years ago. The clever forecasts are those which predict the outcome in 2015, based on what's happening today...
This is a very important question, because it's very hard to imagine the Tories to get a majority without persuading lots of people who voted for Brown to not vote for Miliband.
I think what the analysis really needs is some examples of the kinds of voters who voted for Brown who aren't going to vote for Miliband.
Scots who felt the media was ganging up on Gordon. Otherwise, not a lot, I'd think - I've never met such a person myself, though there is always the odd one in any conceivable combination.
But the "your last leader/the one you rejected was better than your current leader" line is a classic bit of spin that all parties like to use. We are jolly polite about Ken Clarke these days - perhaps it's time to be nice about David Davis too.
You do sound like Dan Hodges and that's an insult.
The idea of LB supporters in a false sense of security is hardly electoral analysis. The fact is that in the super marginals LAB will get its vote out which was one of the reasons why the blues didn't get a majority in 2010.
Go look at Nick Palmer's Browxtowe 2010 result to see what a brilliant campaigning operation can achieve.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
To properly get Labour freaking out you really need one showing the Tories ahead. Right now YouGov has a lead of about 8%, so if Labour lose 4% off that you might get the odd outlier 5% below the underlying lead at -1%.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
At the risk of channelling Dan Hodges that's got to be bad for Ed...
If his supporters are lulled into a false sense of security by the polls, but the voters have the temerity to behave differently at actual elections surely there's a risk he becomes seen as a mediocre performer when it really matters?
My point was not to look at the likely outcome. The *If* at the beginning was a clue.
*If* he under-performs against expectations that weakens his position.
Not the most original point, I'll grant you, but still valid. He may very well not underperform (in seats at least vs votes) but I made no comment on that.
@tim - Whether these things are smart or not, Labour seem to be saying they'd do exactly the same. Or at least that was last week's message.
This is exactly why I think Ed M has made a massive strategic blunder in attacking every saving, no matter how harmless. It has just left an overall impression of utter confusion, since it was inevitably not going to survive even cursory scrutiny. As concerns about their economic credibility come into sharper focus, they are likely to retreat even more into accepting Osborne's baseline.
Osborne's baseline is more that Brown ever spent, of course they'll accept it.
In real terms. Cash spending levels are a pretty meaningless analysis.
You really are churning out fluff today. Must be on the back foot.
As a percentage of GDP Osborne's plans are higher than any year when Brown was chancellor. You still believe the guff about austerity don't you.
So you are choosing to end your analysis at the point Brown left No. 11?
You mean just before the end of the bubble that he contributed to creating?
So the GDP part of the equation was unsustainably high, thereby distorting your analysis?
You do sound like Dan Hodges and that's an insult.
The idea of LB supporters in a false sense of security is hardly electoral analysis. The fact is that in the super marginals LAB will get its vote out which was one of the reasons why the blues didn't get a majority in 2010.
Go look at Nick Palmer's Browxtowe 2010 result to see what a brilliant campaigning operation can achieve.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
To properly get Labour freaking out you really need one showing the Tories ahead. Right now YouGov has a lead of about 8%, so if Labour lose 4% off that you might get the odd outlier 5% below the underlying lead at -1%.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
At the risk of channelling Dan Hodges that's got to be bad for Ed...
If his supporters are lulled into a false sense of security by the polls, but the voters have the temerity to behave differently at actual elections surely there's a risk he becomes seen as a mediocre performer when it really matters?
My point was not to look at the likely outcome. The *If* at the beginning was a clue.
*If* he under-performs against expectations that weakens his position.
Not the most original point, I'll grant you, but still valid. He may very well not underperform (in seats at least vs votes) but I made no comment on that.
If Labour is not at least the largest party after the next election Ed will be gone.
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
This point doesn't necessarily help Labour, but that's not clear at all. It's quite plausible - likely even - that Labour would have spent less, because: 1) They'd potentially have had more to prove to the markets than Osborne. 2) They'd have had less to fear from the public sector unions, who would have been scared doing the government too much damage and letting the Tories back in. 3) The Tories would presumably have carried on running at them from the right rather than the left, so there would have been no serious political opposition to spending less (especially if they were in coalition with the LibDems) and the incentives would have been to keep moving right.
Darling's figures were proved to be a total nonsense for 3 years on the bounce - his figures are worthless.
I didn't say anything about Darling's figures. If you want to predict what politicians are going to do, you have to look at their incentives, not their predictions.
Perhaps a list of cuts a Labour government would have made ? We know they opposed the 1% benefit cap.
Scrap Trident 3 times and a 1000% bankers bonus tax ?
You seem to be confusing politicians' words with reality. TBH I'm a little bit astonished you're making this elementary mistake, especially for things they say in the first couple of years of opposition.
Forget about that stuff and look at their incentives.
Those of a certain vintage may recall a tv series called Going for a Song - where experts guessed the value of pieces and what they were for... with special guest, a very youthful Humphrey Littleton!
You do sound like Dan Hodges and that's an insult.
The idea of LB supporters in a false sense of security is hardly electoral analysis. The fact is that in the super marginals LAB will get its vote out which was one of the reasons why the blues didn't get a majority in 2010.
Go look at Nick Palmer's Browxtowe 2010 result to see what a brilliant campaigning operation can achieve.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
To properly get Labour freaking out you really need one showing the Tories ahead. Right now YouGov has a lead of about 8%, so if Labour lose 4% off that you might get the odd outlier 5% below the underlying lead at -1%.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
At the risk of channelling Dan Hodges that's got to be bad for Ed...
If his supporters are lulled into a false sense of security by the polls, but the voters have the temerity to behave differently at actual elections surely there's a risk he becomes seen as a mediocre performer when it really matters?
My point was not to look at the likely outcome. The *If* at the beginning was a clue.
*If* he under-performs against expectations that weakens his position.
Not the most original point, I'll grant you, but still valid. He may very well not underperform (in seats at least vs votes) but I made no comment on that.
If Labour is not at least the largest party after the next election Ed will be gone.
I'd go further than that: if Labour are not in government (either alone or in coalition) after the next election Ed will be gone. (It's difficult to seem him surviving even a minority Tory administration)
If Gove spent less time crafting clever letters and more time on doing his real job he may have done something about the shortfall in primary school places before now.
You do sound like Dan Hodges and that's an insult.
The idea of LB supporters in a false sense of security is hardly electoral analysis. The fact is that in the super marginals LAB will get its vote out which was one of the reasons why the blues didn't get a majority in 2010.
Go look at Nick Palmer's Browxtowe 2010 result to see what a brilliant campaigning operation can achieve.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
To properly get Labour freaking out you really need one showing the Tories ahead. Right now YouGov has a lead of about 8%, so if Labour lose 4% off that you might get the odd outlier 5% below the underlying lead at -1%.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
At the risk of channelling Dan Hodges that's got to be bad for Ed...
If his supporters are lulled into a false sense of security by the polls, but the voters have the temerity to behave differently at actual elections surely there's a risk he becomes seen as a mediocre performer when it really matters?
My point was not to look at the likely outcome. The *If* at the beginning was a clue.
*If* he under-performs against expectations that weakens his position.
Not the most original point, I'll grant you, but still valid. He may very well not underperform (in seats at least vs votes) but I made no comment on that.
If Labour is not at least the largest party after the next election Ed will be gone.
Disagree - if he's not PM he'll be out, but if he is he'll be hard to shift, especially with the leadership rules as they are.
Cameron will be in a similar position; It's hard to see him surviving 6 months out of Downing Street.
Given a Hung Parliament this puts the LibDems in a stronger position than you might have expected. They should aim high.
Miss Plato, indeed, Livia's probably my favourite character.
And as Graves himself admitted, largely a complete fiction - the real Livia was just as powerful and influential - but without being a mass murdress.....Sian Phillips was brilliant tho!
There was a BBC 2 series recently on early Roman Empresses - Livia came out of it very well - Augustus died at the age of 75 - an excellent innings in those days...
Spain's manufacturing activity recorded its strongest reading for more than two years in June, but eurozone unemployment remains at a record high.
An increase in new orders meant Spain's purchasing managers' index (PMI) rose to 50, up from 48.1 in May.
The monthly survey provides a snapshot of industry condition,s and a reading above 50 indicates growth.
Meanwhile, separate data indicated that the eurozone unemployment rate reached 12.1% in May, its highest level ever.
Unemployment across the 17-countries, according to the European Union statistical agency, was just above April's figure of 12%, which had been revised down from an earlier estimate of 12.2%, making May's figure the new record.
Other economic data released by Eurostat on Monday showed inflation in the eurozone rose to 1.6% in June, from 1.4% in May.
June's figure is comfortably below the European Central Bank's target of 2%.
@tim - Whether these things are smart or not, Labour seem to be saying they'd do exactly the same. Or at least that was last week's message.
This is exactly why I think Ed M has made a massive strategic blunder in attacking every saving, no matter how harmless. It has just left an overall impression of utter confusion, since it was inevitably not going to survive even cursory scrutiny. As concerns about their economic credibility come into sharper focus, they are likely to retreat even more into accepting Osborne's baseline.
Osborne's baseline is more that Brown ever spent, of course they'll accept it.
In real terms. Cash spending levels are a pretty meaningless analysis.
You really are churning out fluff today. Must be on the back foot.
As a percentage of GDP Osborne's plans are higher than any year when Brown was chancellor. You still believe the guff about austerity don't you.
So you are choosing to end your analysis at the point Brown left No. 11?
You mean just before the end of the bubble that he contributed to creating?
So the GDP part of the equation was unsustainably high, thereby distorting your analysis?
Just checking.
You can pick any year you want before the crash, and Osborne plans to spend more than the Labour govt did as a %of GDP, so why wouldn't Labour match that?
The point is GDP was artifically inflated.
Let's say (to make the maths simple) that Brown spent 40 and the artificial GDP was 100 then the figures say 40%. If he was actually spending 40 and real GDP is 90, then the actual spen is 44% of GDP.
Someone (ALP?) produced so helpful tables the other day. IIRC, Osbornes numbers, in real terms, started abouve 44% but came down over the next few years to well below 44%.
You do sound like Dan Hodges and that's an insult.
The idea of LB supporters in a false sense of security is hardly electoral analysis. The fact is that in the super marginals LAB will get its vote out which was one of the reasons why the blues didn't get a majority in 2010.
Go look at Nick Palmer's Browxtowe 2010 result to see what a brilliant campaigning operation can achieve.
@oflynnexpress: Ed Miliband is only a couple of poor polls away from a real crisis. Lots of Lab MPs unhappy about EU policy too. Interesting week for Lab.
What's a poor poll ? Lead less than 5% ?
To properly get Labour freaking out you really need one showing the Tories ahead. Right now YouGov has a lead of about 8%, so if Labour lose 4% off that you might get the odd outlier 5% below the underlying lead at -1%.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
At the risk of channelling Dan Hodges that's got to be bad for Ed...
If his supporters are lulled into a false sense of security by the polls, but the voters have the temerity to behave differently at actual elections surely there's a risk he becomes seen as a mediocre performer when it really matters?
My point was not to look at the likely outcome. The *If* at the beginning was a clue.
*If* he under-performs against expectations that weakens his position.
Not the most original point, I'll grant you, but still valid. He may very well not underperform (in seats at least vs votes) but I made no comment on that.
If Labour is not at least the largest party after the next election Ed will be gone.
That's a bit unfair - did Kinnock not get 2 bites at the cherry (and fail) ?
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
This point doesn't necessarily help Labour, but that's not clear at all. It's quite plausible - likely even - that Labour would have spent less, because: 1) They'd potentially have had more to prove to the markets than Osborne. 2) They'd have had less to fear from the public sector unions, who would have been scared doing the government too much damage and letting the Tories back in. 3) The Tories would presumably have carried on running at them from the right rather than the left, so there would have been no serious political opposition to spending less (especially if they were in coalition with the LibDems) and the incentives would have been to keep moving right.
Darling's figures were proved to be a total nonsense for 3 years on the bounce - his figures are worthless.
I didn't say anything about Darling's figures. If you want to predict what politicians are going to do, you have to look at their incentives, not their predictions.
Perhaps a list of cuts a Labour government would have made ? We know they opposed the 1% benefit cap.
Scrap Trident 3 times and a 1000% bankers bonus tax ?
You seem to be confusing politicians' words with reality. TBH I'm a little bit astonished you're making this elementary mistake, especially for things they say in the first couple of years of opposition.
Forget about that stuff and look at their incentives.
Indeed. Before the election David Cameron told us how important universal benefits such as family allowance are, that the Tories had no plans to introduce VAT rises, that there would be no top down reorganisation of the NHS and that there would be no increase in employee NI contributions.
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
This point doesn't necessarily help Labour, but that's not clear at all. It's quite plausible - likely even - that Labour would have spent less, because: 1) They'd potentially have had more to prove to the markets than Osborne. 2) They'd have had less to fear from the public sector unions, who would have been scared doing the government too much damage and letting the Tories back in. 3) The Tories would presumably have carried on running at them from the right rather than the left, so there would have been no serious political opposition to spending less (especially if they were in coalition with the LibDems) and the incentives would have been to keep moving right.
Darling's figures were proved to be a total nonsense for 3 years on the bounce - his figures are worthless.
I didn't say anything about Darling's figures. If you want to predict what politicians are going to do, you have to look at their incentives, not their predictions.
Perhaps a list of cuts a Labour government would have made ? We know they opposed the 1% benefit cap.
Scrap Trident 3 times and a 1000% bankers bonus tax ?
You seem to be confusing politicians' words with reality. TBH I'm a little bit astonished you're making this elementary mistake, especially for things they say in the first couple of years of opposition.
Forget about that stuff and look at their incentives.
Indeed. Before the election David Cameron told us how important universal benefits such as family allowance are, that the Tories had no plans to introduce VAT rises, that there would be no top down reorganisation of the NHS and that there would be no increase in employee NI contributions.
that there would be no top down reorganisation of the NHS
Actually that's one that "look at their incentives" wouldn't have predicted, unless there's a financial angle (donations from private-sector health providers?) and British politics is more corrupt than I thought.
Let's say (to make the maths simple) that Brown spent 40 and the artificial GDP was 100 then the figures say 40%. If he was actually spending 40 and real GDP is 90, then the actual spen is 44% of GDP.
Oh. My. Word. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Tell you what, Osborne's GDP is artificial too, all of it, according to my calculations that I made up in my head, therefore he's actually spending 100% of GDP.
As far as I can see, the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are all following the same policy on the issue of a referendum on EU membership which is no referendum before 2015. UKIP would like a referendum now.
That part is simple.
David Cameron has said that if he is Prime Minister of a majority Conservative Government after the May 2015 election, he will undertake a two-year period of negotiation with the EU over Britain's membership and in 2017 there will be a referendum on Britain's membership which will either be on an agreed re-negotiated set of terms on which Cameron will urge acceptance or, in lieu of any such agreed package, a simple vote on remaining in the EU about which Cameron has not stated his view.
The Labour position, as I understand it, is to rule out a referendum before May 2015 but Ed Miliband has not specifically ruled out anything in the next Parliament.
Nick Clegg has said he supports the idea of a referendum but not before 2015 and I don't know whether that's on any kind of re-negotiation or the status quo. In any event, the Liberal Democrats will support the campaign to remain in the EU.
Were UKIP to form a maJority Government after May 2015, I imagine they would either take their election as a mandate for withdrawal from the EU or would swiftly hold a referendum where they would urge the electorate to support withdrawal.
I don't have any issue with the Labour or Lib Dem positions at this time. Both parties will need to have a post-election line in place before too long but the fact they don't at the moment simply allows the Conservatives to wrap themselves up in knots.
The whole Conservative position hinges on Cameron winning the next GE and politically and tactically, I understand why he's said what he's said. For me, the interesting question is whether, if in Opposition, the Conservatives would support a re-negotiated membership package taken to a referendum by a Labour Prime Minister? In other words, would the Tories in opposition join UKIP and essentially vote for Britain to leave the EU?
Let's say (to make the maths simple) that Brown spent 40 and the artificial GDP was 100 then the figures say 40%. If he was actually spending 40 and real GDP is 90, then the actual spen is 44% of GDP.
Oh. My. Word. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Tell you what, Osborne's GDP is artificial too, all of it, according to my calculations that I made up in my head, therefore he's actually spending 100% of GDP.
I think it's pretty well established that the financial services was in a bubble that artifically inflated both GDP and tax revenue.
Brown's fundamental mistake was to believe his own propaganda ("no more boom and bust") and lock in government spending on the basis of non-sustainable tax revenues. That's why we have such a huge structural deficit.
Excellent manufacturing PMI for June and Q2, particularly on inventories and prices. Bodes well for future quarters, though we have had other false dawns since 2008.
Markit now predicting Q2 GDP of "at least 0.5%". Most predictions for 2013 as a whole are around 0.6-.0.8%. The dismal science indeed.
As far as I can see, the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are all following the same policy on the issue of a referendum on EU membership which is no referendum before 2015. UKIP would like a referendum now.
That part is simple.
David Cameron has said that if he is Prime Minister of a majority Conservative Government after the May 2015 election, he will undertake a two-year period of negotiation with the EU over Britain's membership and in 2017 there will be a referendum on Britain's membership which will either be on an agreed re-negotiated set of terms on which Cameron will urge acceptance or, in lieu of any such agreed package, a simple vote on remaining in the EU about which Cameron has not stated his view.
The Labour position, as I understand it, is to rule out a referendum before May 2015 but Ed Miliband has not specifically ruled out anything in the next Parliament.
Nick Clegg has said he supports the idea of a referendum but not before 2015 and I don't know whether that's on any kind of re-negotiation or the status quo. In any event, the Liberal Democrats will support the campaign to remain in the EU.
Were UKIP to form a maJority Government after May 2015, I imagine they would either take their election as a mandate for withdrawal from the EU or would swiftly hold a referendum where they would urge the electorate to support withdrawal.
I don't have any issue with the Labour or Lib Dem positions at this time. Both parties will need to have a post-election line in place before too long but the fact they don't at the moment simply allows the Conservatives to wrap themselves up in knots.
The whole Conservative position hinges on Cameron winning the next GE and politically and tactically, I understand why he's said what he's said. For me, the interesting question is whether, if in Opposition, the Conservatives would support a re-negotiated membership package taken to a referendum by a Labour Prime Minister? In other words, would the Tories in opposition join UKIP and essentially vote for Britain to leave the EU?
I think someone once said 'look at their incentives' ;-)
One would assume that in a Tory leadership election there is going to be an incentive to adopt a tough line on Europe
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
Top Ten 2013 ranking 1.Switzerland (Number 1 in 2012) 2.Sweden (2) 3.United Kingdom (5) 4.Netherlands (6) 5.United States of America (10) 6.Finland (4) 7.Hong Kong (China) (8) 8.Singapore (3) 9.Denmark (7) 10.Ireland (9)
So we have clearly been doing a few things right over the last few years. The key now in terms of policy is to recognise that we have a significant advantage and to build on that. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about it having to diminish. We have to realise that despite our capacity for innovaiton,we are far too poor at building on this; largely, I would argue, because of short-termism in the boardroom and in government.
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
A For me, the interesting question is whether, if in Opposition, the Conservatives would support a re-negotiated membership package taken to a referendum by a Labour Prime Minister? In other words, would the Tories in opposition join UKIP and essentially vote for Britain to leave the EU?
Nobody seriously believes that Labour would even try and deliver anything of worth from the EU - more likely they would opt us back in to some of the socialist measures we are actually out of.
More chance of an alien invasion than brave Sir rEd leading a fight for the Uk against Brussels interference.
Excellent manufacturing PMI for June and Q2, particularly on inventories and prices. Bodes well for future quarters, though we have had other false dawns since 2008.
Markit now predicting Q2 GDP of "at least 0.5%". Most predictions for 2013 as a whole are around 0.6-.0.8%. The dismal science indeed.
The lack of pressure on input prices was encouraging. On the one hand more room for further QE if needed but growth overall was high enough to allow Carney to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude in his first MPC meeting and vote.
in 2017 there will be a referendum on Britain's membership which will either be on an agreed re-negotiated set of terms on which Cameron will urge acceptance or, in lieu of any such agreed package, a simple vote on remaining in the EU about which Cameron has not stated his view.
He didn't state that when he gave his original speech - he was specifically asked what would happen if there was no agreement, and wouldn't answer the question. Has he said it since?
As far as I can see, the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are all following the same policy on the issue of a referendum on EU membership which is no referendum before 2015. UKIP would like a referendum now.
That part is simple.
David Cameron has said that if he is Prime Minister of a majority Conservative Government after the May 2015 election, he will undertake a two-year period of negotiation with the EU over Britain's membership and in 2017 there will be a referendum on Britain's membership which will either be on an agreed re-negotiated set of terms on which Cameron will urge acceptance or, in lieu of any such agreed package, a simple vote on remaining in the EU about which Cameron has not stated his view.
The Labour position, as I understand it, is to rule out a referendum before May 2015 but Ed Miliband has not specifically ruled out anything in the next Parliament.
Nick Clegg has said he supports the idea of a referendum but not before 2015 and I don't know whether that's on any kind of re-negotiation or the status quo. In any event, the Liberal Democrats will support the campaign to remain in the EU.
Were UKIP to form a maJority Government after May 2015, I imagine they would either take their election as a mandate for withdrawal from the EU or would swiftly hold a referendum where they would urge the electorate to support withdrawal.
I don't have any issue with the Labour or Lib Dem positions at this time. Both parties will need to have a post-election line in place before too long but the fact they don't at the moment simply allows the Conservatives to wrap themselves up in knots.
The whole Conservative position hinges on Cameron winning the next GE and politically and tactically, I understand why he's said what he's said. For me, the interesting question is whether, if in Opposition, the Conservatives would support a re-negotiated membership package taken to a referendum by a Labour Prime Minister? In other words, would the Tories in opposition join UKIP and essentially vote for Britain to leave the EU?
I think someone once said 'look at their incentives' ;-)
One would assume that in a Tory leadership election there is going to be an incentive to adopt a tough line on Europe
Presumably this happens after the Tories have picked their new leader, although obviously they'll always be looking over their shoulder. No point in splitting the party, and the downside of being on the losing side would be bigger than the upside of being on the winning side, so I'd imagine they'd fudge.
Lots of debate surfaces on PB re housing et al - this ONS video re built up areas is quite useful re the data, particularly on age demographics and whether they've been resident in the UK for long.
A For me, the interesting question is whether, if in Opposition, the Conservatives would support a re-negotiated membership package taken to a referendum by a Labour Prime Minister? In other words, would the Tories in opposition join UKIP and essentially vote for Britain to leave the EU?
Nobody seriously believes that Labour would even try and deliver anything of worth from the EU - more likely they would opt us back in to some of the socialist measures we are actually out of.
More chance of an alien invasion than brave Sir rEd leading a fight for the Uk against Brussels interference.
So the question then becomes more about having the vote than the re-negotiation which is in effect the UKIP line. "We want a vote so we can vote to leave" which is not the same as "we want a vote so we can debate the issue and decide what we want to do".
in 2017 there will be a referendum on Britain's membership which will either be on an agreed re-negotiated set of terms on which Cameron will urge acceptance or, in lieu of any such agreed package, a simple vote on remaining in the EU about which Cameron has not stated his view.
He didn't state that when he gave his original speech - he was specifically asked what would happen if there was no agreement, and wouldn't answer the question. Has he said it since?
As I recall, he laughed merrily and just said "I'm an optimist".
A For me, the interesting question is whether, if in Opposition, the Conservatives would support a re-negotiated membership package taken to a referendum by a Labour Prime Minister? In other words, would the Tories in opposition join UKIP and essentially vote for Britain to leave the EU?
Nobody seriously believes that Labour would even try and deliver anything of worth from the EU - more likely they would opt us back in to some of the socialist measures we are actually out of.
More chance of an alien invasion than brave Sir rEd leading a fight for the Uk against Brussels interference.
So the question then becomes more about having the vote than the re-negotiation which is in effect the UKIP line. "We want a vote so we can vote to leave" which is not the same as "we want a vote so we can debate the issue and decide what we want to do".
Indeed, to take it further, if Labour offers a referendum within six months of forming a majority Government, that presumably will suit UKIP supporters far more than the Conservative perambulations.
We're back then to my earlier point - assuming an In/Out vote in the next Parliament, we would presumably have the bulk of Labour, the Lib Dems and a few Tories on the In platform and UKIP , the bulk of the Conservatives and a few Labour and LDs on the No platform.
The consequences of that referendum will then shape British politics for a generation just as the 1975 vote did.
Long overdue - let's see what's in there bar this:
'Red tape challenge' targets 1,900 rules to be scrapped or curbed Legislation aimed at reducing health and safety regulations, limiting powers of employment tribunals and easing penalties for people who put out the wrong dustbins are among measures in a draft "red tape" bill to be announced on Monday.
"Measures in the draft bill include scrapping health and safety rules for self-employed workers in low-risk occupations, exempting 800,000 of them from the regulations and saving £300,000 a year. The apprenticeship system will be made simpler and more flexible to meet the needs of employers and coupled with other reforms to be published in September.
The Government is looking to non-economic regulatory bodies to play a greater role in the red tape search. Fifty of them, with budgets totalling £4bn a year – including the Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency, the Highways Agency and Commission on Human Rights – will have the additional responsibility of promoting growth.
The Government believes some of the planned changes will make life easier for "individuals and civil society". The qualifying period for tenants to have the right to buy social housing is being reduced from five to three years, enabling another 200,000 households to qualify.
"Heavy-handed" action against people making mistakes putting out their bins is being reduced from a criminal to a civil offence, decisions on public rights of way are being devolved to a local level, and small charities and community groups will have less trouble holding "film nights" in village halls.
Only a fool tells the opposition what the negotiating stance is before negotiations begin..not much chance of negotiating a few pence off a six pack of special brew tho ..you have to post the price in the shop window.
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
Top Ten 2013 ranking 1.Switzerland (Number 1 in 2012) 2.Sweden (2) 3.United Kingdom (5) 4.Netherlands (6) 5.United States of America (10) 6.Finland (4) 7.Hong Kong (China) (8) 8.Singapore (3) 9.Denmark (7) 10.Ireland (9)
So we have clearly been doing a few things right over the last few years. The key now in terms of policy is to recognise that we have a significant advantage and to build on that. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about it having to diminish. We have to realise that despite our capacity for innovaiton,we are far too poor at building on this; largely, I would argue, because of short-termism in the boardroom and in government.
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
Certainly in my industry the patent box has been transformational. There were news stories this week alone about GSK bringing 150 patents back onshore as a result.
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
I imagine if we excluded London from an estimation of the UK's innovativeness (innovativity?) we wouldn't be in the top ten for innovation, either.
Oh I don't know - not a lot of research labs in London - the biotech industry is in the Fens, for example....
Pre-crash GDP was a given level, in very real pounds and pence (and resulting jobs, living standards etc) despite the fact that we know know the extent of its unsustainable nature.
Using your logic, that "real" GDP pre-crash was much lower, we end up in a very strange position whereby there was in fact no crash at all. And "real" GDP now is also much lower than stated, because there will be another crash at some point.
Cuckoo. Did you overdo it in the Jim Davidson Gary Barlow Tent at the weekend?
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
I imagine if we excluded London from an estimation of the UK's innovativeness (innovativity?) we wouldn't be in the top ten for innovation, either.
Oh I don't know - not a lot of research labs in London - the biotech industry is in the Fens, for example....
London innovates on humungusly inflated salary packages and and bank losses.
"Unemployment in the 17 member eurozone rose to a record 12.1 percent in May compared with 12.0 percent in April, according to seasonally adjusted figures released on Monday by Eurostat, the European Union's statistical office.
For the EU as a whole, the jobless rate was stable at 10.9 percent in May compared with the previous month. The absolute number of unemployed in the 27 member European Union (Croatia became the 28th member today, but is not included in the data) was put by Eurostat at 26.4 million, of which 19.2 million were in the eurozone.
Jobless rates vary widely across the EU. Austria has the lowest unemployment at 4.7 percent, with Germany taking second place with 5.3 percent.
The worst performers are Spain and Greece with unemployment rates of 26.9 percent and 26.8 percent respectively.
The UK's unemployment rate was put at 7.7 percent. The majority of EU countries have jobless rates in double figures.
Eurostat also released seasonally adjusted figures for youth unemployment. Greece was the worst performer with 59.2 percent of its young people without a job. In Spain, the figure was 56.5 percent and in Portugal it was 42.1 percent.
The UK's youth unemployment figure (for March) was 20.2 percent. The best performer in the EU on youth jobless rates was Germany with 7.6 percent. Overall, seasonally adjusted youth unemployment was put at 23.0 percent in the EU-27 in May, and 23.8 percent in the euro zone. Both figures represent a small rise from the same month last year.
Comments
Clegg's attack is not particularly powerful, and Clegg is left trying to get back the voters he's already lost, which he'll only be able to do partly, if at all.
It's a news story, possibly top billing in America, but we (and the BBC) aren't in America
The government encourages something that is positive for society.
Highest since May 2011.
"“The survey suggests that manufacturing output rose by around 0.5% over the second quarter.
Taken with recent signs of service sector strength and a stabilising construction industry it paints a picture of UK economic growth picking up from the opening quarter’s 0.3% to at least 0.5%.
http://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/c853fab910d9425083c5eee0326d3fe3
Oh, wait...
Could be a dangerous manufacturing bubble ! Fops !!
Whilst I think the projection could well be in the right ballpark, I wonder whether the Con and UKIP figures are consistent? Surely if UKIP are doing well enough to start winning a few seats, it's unlikely that the Conservatives will do as well as 296?
Marriage is a good thing for society. It has different benefits at different ages. Children benefit, as do old people, but for different reasons.
The amount of the money is unimportant. What is important is sending a signal that society values marriage as a structure for relationships.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2013/07/five-reasons-why-ed-miliband-might-be-easier-to-beat-than-gordon-brown.html
This is a very important question, because it's very hard to imagine the Tories to get a majority without persuading lots of people who voted for Brown to not vote for Miliband.
I think what the analysis really needs is some examples of the kinds of voters who voted for Brown who aren't going to vote for Miliband.
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf
The key is low conflict relationships. It's possible marriage is a proxy for these factors that would have existed anyway. Additionally these factors do exist outside marriage, but are less frequently observed.
I doubt there are many people who would get married solely for £2.88 per week as tim would put it. Sending a signal that marriage is normal, and a good thing, will probably increase the incidence of marriage (indeed, I recall an article a while ago saying that the younger generation - think 20-29 - is more interested in marriage generally than their older peers)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/firms-admit-to-independence-uncertainty.21484103
Despite the wording of the article, the main thing I take away from this is that there are a lot of people still out there who have still to make up their minds - which is the opposite of what is commonly assumed.
Why vote Labour to get a housing benefit cap, the ending to child benefit for the rich, a public-sector pay freeze, a seven-day wait on entitlement to unemployment benefits, the ending of the spare-room subsidy, etc etc? Every single one of these was denounced as ideological madness by Labour, but they are now saying they'd do the same. It's perfectly possible to imagine that those who were planning to vote Labour because they think money grows on trees, or who think proposals for savings on public spending are just an evil Tory plot, will be a bit demoralised by this massive U-turn. At least Gordon Brown was consistent in the fantasies he peddled.
Edit: You can see what I mean in this article by Owen Jones:
And here is the fatal flaw in the Labour leadership’s strategy. They think they are buying back credibility, rather than shoring up policies that should be seen as sunk, ruinous, shredded. By failing to offer a coherent message, they risk a sense of “at least you know where you are with the Tories” bedding in.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/whats-killing-labour-a-thousand-failures-to-oppose-the-cuts-8680389.html
However I agree that "He'll be down to zero before the year ends." because I think UKIP will sink to around 8 or 9% by year end, go up a little in the Euros, but down again before the next election.
a) The tax break "signalling" is effective in causing more marriages
b) Those extra marriages that wouldn't have happened but for the signal are stabler than what would have happened otherwise - which has to take into account the possibility of backfiring if those marriages end in divorce.
If that's as good as the evidence for the policy gets, it makes me think the whole thing is about political messaging rather than actual outcomes.
This is exactly why I think Ed M has made a massive strategic blunder in attacking every saving, no matter how harmless. It has just left an overall impression of utter confusion, since it was inevitably not going to survive even cursory scrutiny. As concerns about their economic credibility come into sharper focus, they are likely to retreat even more into accepting Osborne's baseline.
One of the points that stood out for me in the report is that completed stocks have now been falling for 15 consecutive months. This bodes very well for the remainder of the year and should result in a pick up in employment too.
The slowness with which well paid economists have been revising their predictions of GDP are truly odd. They either think a wheel is coming off in H2 or they are missing a major revision.
edit: and ignoring the papers published by advocacy groups - was looking for something vaguely neutral sounding
The comparison you have made is meaningless
Anyway, you're missing my point. If the policy is a disaster, then the two Eds should have immediately said they'd reverse it, right? They didn't, so anyone who agrees with you and who feels strongly about it is now left wondering what the point of voting Labour is, if you're going to get Osborne's policies anyway.
You really are churning out fluff today. Must be on the back foot.
But as things stand the 2010 LibDem left seems to be pretty solidly Labour, at least in the polls, if not in actual elections.
A Labour govt would have had a higher deficit in every year of this parly than GO - nobody sane thinks otherwise.
If his supporters are lulled into a false sense of security by the polls, but the voters have the temerity to behave differently at actual elections surely there's a risk he becomes seen as a mediocre performer when it really matters?
"Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour Half shadow cabinet and third of Labour MPs concerned Labour will go into election without commitment to EU referendum, claims John Mills."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10151620/Miliband-is-taking-his-cue-from-loser-Kinnock-not-winner-Blair.html
You do sound like Dan Hodges and that's an insult.
The idea of LB supporters in a false sense of security is hardly electoral analysis. The fact is that in the super marginals LAB will get its vote out which was one of the reasons why the blues didn't get a majority in 2010.
Go look at Nick Palmer's Browxtowe 2010 result to see what a brilliant campaigning operation can achieve.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a78.stm
I ive in a super marginal. LAB is everywhere - CON is not to be seen
Why would you trust him to reduce borrowing 2010-15 whilst opposing every cut ?
You'd have to be a right plonker or in denial.
1) They'd potentially have had more to prove to the markets than Osborne.
2) They'd have had less to fear from the public sector unions, who would have been scared doing the government too much damage and letting the Tories back in.
3) The Tories would presumably have carried on running at them from the right rather than the left, so there would have been no serious political opposition to spending less (especially if they were in coalition with the LibDems) and the incentives would have been to keep moving right.
And he mentions Hattie's previous incarnation...
"No one knows this better than Harriet Harman, who was a legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 1970s, when they believed in the legalisation of paedophile sex. I can’t imagine her going near a group which evangelised such a position today."
http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SpendingWisely1.pdf
But I don't think I buy the premise. 2010 LibDems didn't really seem to come through for Labour in the local elections, but those were local not national, and they were mostly in places where Labour didn't have the infrastructure to make sure they turned out. I can't see them having that problem in their marginals.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole
Clegg claims he has had a consistent stance on a referendum. Yes, at the last election he backed an in/out. Now he does not. Lies.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6683
Consolidation is happening this year - on benefits.
There are a few ex-council houses around here, 3-bed semi-detached, that have been converted into flats. Is it really beyond their abilities to convert their existing housing stock into something more suitable?
Scrap Trident 3 times and a 1000% bankers bonus tax ?
He's not saying that. He's built a model (just a model) that outputs the figure 0.7 seats as an "expectation" if UKIP hit 16%.
It's only a model. And trying to "model" something that has never happened before is somewhat of a fool's errand. It is pure theory with no previous data to go into the model.
Btw, the expectation is of 0.7 seats. When you throw a dice your "expectation" is to throw "a 3.5", but show me anyone who has ever done so, and I'll give you a nine-bob note...
Baxter's numbers are just a theory. Like his theory that Montgomery is UKIP's best hope (really???????).
Nice theory. Not Gospel, however...
UKIP could still win one seat with 3% of the vote or no seats with 25%. Nobody can forecast it with any degree of accuracy. We are left with intuition, individual seat intelligence, and analysis of the closest analogue, which is the SDP performance in 1983.
Also, can we move away from the pedestrian "forecasts" from current opinion polls, which are utterly meaningless? We all remember the "forecast" 200 seat Tory majority from this time five years ago. The clever forecasts are those which predict the outcome in 2015, based on what's happening today...
But the "your last leader/the one you rejected was better than your current leader" line is a classic bit of spin that all parties like to use. We are jolly polite about Ken Clarke these days - perhaps it's time to be nice about David Davis too.
*If* he under-performs against expectations that weakens his position.
Not the most original point, I'll grant you, but still valid. He may very well not underperform (in seats at least vs votes) but I made no comment on that.
You mean just before the end of the bubble that he contributed to creating?
So the GDP part of the equation was unsustainably high, thereby distorting your analysis?
Just checking.
Forget about that stuff and look at their incentives.
Those of a certain vintage may recall a tv series called Going for a Song - where experts guessed the value of pieces and what they were for... with special guest, a very youthful Humphrey Littleton!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yblWjTU7Vek - from 1971
Cameron will be in a similar position; It's hard to see him surviving 6 months out of Downing Street.
Given a Hung Parliament this puts the LibDems in a stronger position than you might have expected. They should aim high.
There was a BBC 2 series recently on early Roman Empresses - Livia came out of it very well - Augustus died at the age of 75 - an excellent innings in those days...
An increase in new orders meant Spain's purchasing managers' index (PMI) rose to 50, up from 48.1 in May.
The monthly survey provides a snapshot of industry condition,s and a reading above 50 indicates growth.
Meanwhile, separate data indicated that the eurozone unemployment rate reached 12.1% in May, its highest level ever.
Unemployment across the 17-countries, according to the European Union statistical agency, was just above April's figure of 12%, which had been revised down from an earlier estimate of 12.2%, making May's figure the new record.
Other economic data released by Eurostat on Monday showed inflation in the eurozone rose to 1.6% in June, from 1.4% in May.
June's figure is comfortably below the European Central Bank's target of 2%.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23125861
Let's say (to make the maths simple) that Brown spent 40 and the artificial GDP was 100 then the figures say 40%. If he was actually spending 40 and real GDP is 90, then the actual spen is 44% of GDP.
Someone (ALP?) produced so helpful tables the other day. IIRC, Osbornes numbers, in real terms, started abouve 44% but came down over the next few years to well below 44%.
It takes time to fix a mess.
Oh. My. Word. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Tell you what, Osborne's GDP is artificial too, all of it, according to my calculations that I made up in my head, therefore he's actually spending 100% of GDP.
As far as I can see, the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are all following the same policy on the issue of a referendum on EU membership which is no referendum before 2015. UKIP would like a referendum now.
That part is simple.
David Cameron has said that if he is Prime Minister of a majority Conservative Government after the May 2015 election, he will undertake a two-year period of negotiation with the EU over Britain's membership and in 2017 there will be a referendum on Britain's membership which will either be on an agreed re-negotiated set of terms on which Cameron will urge acceptance or, in lieu of any such agreed package, a simple vote on remaining in the EU about which Cameron has not stated his view.
The Labour position, as I understand it, is to rule out a referendum before May 2015 but Ed Miliband has not specifically ruled out anything in the next Parliament.
Nick Clegg has said he supports the idea of a referendum but not before 2015 and I don't know whether that's on any kind of re-negotiation or the status quo. In any event, the Liberal Democrats will support the campaign to remain in the EU.
Were UKIP to form a maJority Government after May 2015, I imagine they would either take their election as a mandate for withdrawal from the EU or would swiftly hold a referendum where they would urge the electorate to support withdrawal.
I don't have any issue with the Labour or Lib Dem positions at this time. Both parties will need to have a post-election line in place before too long but the fact they don't at the moment simply allows the Conservatives to wrap themselves up in knots.
The whole Conservative position hinges on Cameron winning the next GE and politically and tactically, I understand why he's said what he's said. For me, the interesting question is whether, if in Opposition, the Conservatives would support a re-negotiated membership package taken to a referendum by a Labour Prime Minister? In other words, would the Tories in opposition join UKIP and essentially vote for Britain to leave the EU?
Brown's fundamental mistake was to believe his own propaganda ("no more boom and bust") and lock in government spending on the basis of non-sustainable tax revenues. That's why we have such a huge structural deficit.
Markit now predicting Q2 GDP of "at least 0.5%". Most predictions for 2013 as a whole are around 0.6-.0.8%. The dismal science indeed.
One would assume that in a Tory leadership election there is going to be an incentive to adopt a tough line on Europe
Top Ten 2013 ranking
1.Switzerland (Number 1 in 2012)
2.Sweden (2)
3.United Kingdom (5)
4.Netherlands (6)
5.United States of America (10)
6.Finland (4)
7.Hong Kong (China) (8)
8.Singapore (3)
9.Denmark (7)
10.Ireland (9)
http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2013/article_0016.html#.UdE7BILEoeY.twitter
So we have clearly been doing a few things right over the last few years. The key now in terms of policy is to recognise that we have a significant advantage and to build on that. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about it having to diminish. We have to realise that despite our capacity for innovaiton,we are far too poor at building on this; largely, I would argue, because of short-termism in the boardroom and in government.
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
More chance of an alien invasion than brave Sir rEd leading a fight for the Uk against Brussels interference.
The lack of pressure on input prices was encouraging. On the one hand more room for further QE if needed but growth overall was high enough to allow Carney to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude in his first MPC meeting and vote.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23127136
Not all is rosy tho:
"But the amount of money being lent to businesses is continuing to fall.
Loans to non-financial businesses fell by £1.3bn in May compared with the previous month, the Bank of England's figures showed.
Over the past year, business lending has fallen by 3.6%, in spite of the government's Funding for Lending Scheme (FLS)."
To think he would lead on this topic once PM is misguided.
ONS
@statisticsONS
What are the characteristics of a built up area? See our #2011census video on built up areas in England & Wales https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oeiKkLjj-Y&feature=youtu.be
Here is what you might describe as a "youthful Humph"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67WyBSZ_3d4&list=PL0900B1C2B4ADB289
Spot John Le Mesurier (and wife) in the audience at the end. All the nice people are into jazz...
We're back then to my earlier point - assuming an In/Out vote in the next Parliament, we would presumably have the bulk of Labour, the Lib Dems and a few Tories on the In platform and UKIP , the bulk of the Conservatives and a few Labour and LDs on the No platform.
The consequences of that referendum will then shape British politics for a generation just as the 1975 vote did.
'Red tape challenge' targets 1,900 rules to be scrapped or curbed
Legislation aimed at reducing health and safety regulations, limiting powers of employment tribunals and easing penalties for people who put out the wrong dustbins are among measures in a draft "red tape" bill to be announced on Monday.
"Measures in the draft bill include scrapping health and safety rules for self-employed workers in low-risk occupations, exempting 800,000 of them from the regulations and saving £300,000 a year. The apprenticeship system will be made simpler and more flexible to meet the needs of employers and coupled with other reforms to be published in September.
The Government is looking to non-economic regulatory bodies to play a greater role in the red tape search. Fifty of them, with budgets totalling £4bn a year – including the Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency, the Highways Agency and Commission on Human Rights – will have the additional responsibility of promoting growth.
The Government believes some of the planned changes will make life easier for "individuals and civil society". The qualifying period for tenants to have the right to buy social housing is being reduced from five to three years, enabling another 200,000 households to qualify.
"Heavy-handed" action against people making mistakes putting out their bins is being reduced from a criminal to a civil offence, decisions on public rights of way are being devolved to a local level, and small charities and community groups will have less trouble holding "film nights" in village halls.
Overall, ministers have decided that more than 1,900 regulations will be scrapped or reduced. A significant number of the changes are scheduled to be introduced later this year, including the overhaul of employment tribunal regulations – forecast to save business around £40m a year – and changes to no-win, no-fee legal claims.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/festival-of-business/10151471/Red-tape-challenge-targets-1900-rules-to-be-scrapped-or-curbed.html
Pre-crash GDP was a given level, in very real pounds and pence (and resulting jobs, living standards etc) despite the fact that we know know the extent of its unsustainable nature.
Using your logic, that "real" GDP pre-crash was much lower, we end up in a very strange position whereby there was in fact no crash at all. And "real" GDP now is also much lower than stated, because there will be another crash at some point.
Cuckoo. Did you overdo it in the Jim Davidson Gary Barlow Tent at the weekend?
"Unemployment in the 17 member eurozone rose to a record 12.1 percent in May compared with 12.0 percent in April, according to seasonally adjusted figures released on Monday by Eurostat, the European Union's statistical office.
For the EU as a whole, the jobless rate was stable at 10.9 percent in May compared with the previous month. The absolute number of unemployed in the 27 member European Union (Croatia became the 28th member today, but is not included in the data) was put by Eurostat at 26.4 million, of which 19.2 million were in the eurozone.
Jobless rates vary widely across the EU. Austria has the lowest unemployment at 4.7 percent, with Germany taking second place with 5.3 percent.
The worst performers are Spain and Greece with unemployment rates of 26.9 percent and 26.8 percent respectively.
The UK's unemployment rate was put at 7.7 percent. The majority of EU countries have jobless rates in double figures.
Eurostat also released seasonally adjusted figures for youth unemployment. Greece was the worst performer with 59.2 percent of its young people without a job. In Spain, the figure was 56.5 percent and in Portugal it was 42.1 percent.
The UK's youth unemployment figure (for March) was 20.2 percent. The best performer in the EU on youth jobless rates was Germany with 7.6 percent. Overall, seasonally adjusted youth unemployment was put at 23.0 percent in the EU-27 in May, and 23.8 percent in the euro zone. Both figures represent a small rise from the same month last year.