What has been interesting in Dundee (and more than slightly worrying from the referendum point of view) is how this can fall apart when the gap between the union paid staff and the members becomes too great. We have seen nothing like the sort of organised canvassing etc we used to get in Dundee and the SNP have filled the gap. Hence they now have the seats.
While I will concede that the superior SNP ground game has been important in Dundee, it is far from being the only factor. At least as important has been the local Labour Party's almost willful destruction of the goodwill they used to once engender; the final manifestation of which was that disastrous Lib-Lab-Con coalition designed to keep the largest group, the SNP, out.
In order to become electable again, SLab needs to become likeable again. A toughie when they just aren't attracting the calibre of candidates they used to have 20, 30, 40 years ago.
Below I commented on the McCann case and tim responded to this by quoting Dan Hodges tweets to support his historic very negative assertions on this matter as it relates to Cameron.
This to me was 'amusing' given the flack the left give him.
That post has now disappeared is that because tim realises it looks a poor line to have taken and can remove it himself and alter the thread trail OR is it because the way he presented his line was moderated?
In addition to Osborne spending more than Labour did he plans to fight the next election on a pledge to spend more than Brown as Chancellor did as a % of GDP and claim it's "disciplined" I'm not sure what he means by disciplined, are you?
Was that website created on ZX Spectrum or a Commodore 64 ?
In addition to Osborne spending more than Labour did he plans to fight the next election on a pledge to spend more than Brown as Chancellor did as a % of GDP and claim it's "disciplined" I'm not sure what he means by disciplined, are you?
Was that website created on ZX Spectrum or a Commodore 64 ?
Dragon 32, I think. Can't be a Spectrum as there's no colour-clash.
The facts appear to show that Brown had government spending constant as a share of GDP, until the economic crash came along.
Not quite the reckless spender he is often accused of being.
Oblitus.
This was the line being taken by Carl when I first posted the figures.
The truth is that no government manages spending to match a target GDP ratio. At the time of fixing budgets GDP will be an unknown and broadly unrelated variable. It is all down to annual spending budgets increasing or decreasing spend by reference to current year,
The Treasury plans spending on a combination of fixed departmental limits (DEL) (broadly the "fixed costs") together with Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) (broadly the "variable costs"). Each is currently around £300 bn per annum. Another split will be Central Government Expenditure and expenditure by Local Governments, Devolved Administrations and Public Sector Corporations.
Altogether the highest aggregrate is Total Managed Expenditure (TME) which still excludes transactions related to "financial interventions" (i.e. the bank bailouts). TME is currently around £720 bn and it is TME which makes up the table I posted downthread.
It is interesting that the highly prudent fiscal management of the 1997-2001 Labour government managed to get TME down to a ratio of 34.6%, which must be close to a post war low.
Perhaps it was seeing the ratio so low that caused Gordon Brown to abandon the 'Tory' spending limits which he applied over Labour's first term and embark on a massive increase in public spending.
2001-2 saw a 12% real terms increase in spending taking the ratio from 34.6% to 37.8% in just one year. In Labour's first term, TME in real terms only increased by 1.5%. In the 2001-2005 government it increased 23.8%, with the ratio rising from 34.6% to 40.5%.
So the "reckless spending" you refer to did exist. Most unforgivably it occurred during the second term. It was higher in the third but then Gordon had a genuine global crisis to deal with. He had no excuses in 2001-2005.
I said that I’d stay with you as general election co-ordinator within the Shadow Cabinet as long as I was useful. I think it would be a good idea for you, and me, if I stood down from the role now.
As you know, I offered my resignation on Tuesday and you asked me to reconsider. I’ve thought about it and still feel it is better for you and the future unity of the party that I go now. There are some who have not forgiven me for resigning in 2006. I fully accept the consequences of that decision and genuinely hope my departure allows the party to move on.
Yet it’s not the unattributed shadow cabinet briefings around the mess in Falkirk that has convinced me that the arrangement has run its course (though they don’t help). I believe that the report should be published – in full – and the whole truth told as soon as possible so that the record can be made clear. I’ve still not seen the report but believe there are an awful lot of spurious suppositions being written.
I wish to use the backbenches to speak out in areas of personal interest: open government and the surveillance state, the digital economy, drones and the future of conflict, the child abuse inquiries, the aftermath of the Murdoch scandal and grass roots responses to austerity.
Having resigned a couple of times before, I know how puckish lobby hacks might choose to misconstrue the departure. So to make it harder for them let me say this: I’m proud of your Buddha-like qualities of patience, deep thought, compassion and resolve. I remain your loyal servant. I’ll always be on hand to help you if you need me. I just don’t think you need me in the Shadow Cabinet any more. After nearly thirty years of this, I feel like I’ve seen the merry-go-round turn too many times. Whereas the Shadow Cabinet’s for people who still want to get dizzy.
You have it in you to be an outstanding Labour Prime Minister. The road ahead is always rocky but I will be with you all of the way, cheering you on from the backbenches. You’re my friend and leader, and I’m going to do all I can to make sure you win in 2015.
Here’s my parting thought:
John Humphrys asked me why you were not at Glastonbury this weekend. I said Labour leaders can’t be seen standing in muddy fields listening to bands. And then I thought how terribly sad that this is true. So: be that great Labour leader that you can be, but try to have a real life too. And if you want to see an awesome band, I recommend Drenge.
James Forsyth@JGForsyth1m Tom Watson quitting doesn't draw a line under Falkirk but makes it look more serious. It’s now a scandal that's drawn a shad Cab resignation
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 37s In resignation letter, @tom_watson reveals he offered to resign but @Ed_Miliband turned it down. Watch for Cam 'weak weak weak' charge again
Kevin Maguire@Kevin_Maguire1m And for months @tom_watson was saying privately he wanted out of Labour's Shadow Cabinet. Now he is. Prefers own campaigns
Kevin Maguire@Kevin_Maguire5m So @tom_watson quits Labour's Shadow Cabinet. To spend more time chasing phone hackers and paedophiles
You mean like promising an in/out referendum at the end? You mean like Cameron has already done? You mean like Cameron has promised by a specific date and not just a vague "at the end".'
Not convinced that UKIP actually want an EU referendum,as the closer they get to one the more road blocks they put up.
Maybe its just Farage posturing and as in the past it will be UKIP donors that decide deals & policy.
Used to be fun voting for them at Euros,but if this circus continues I won't bother.
UKIP's main interest is in leaving the EU. If the particular road-block we have to overcome is a referendum, sobeit.
If you think that Cameron's approach is in the least bit credible, you are entitled to that view. He has promised an in/out referendum on the EU after he has 're-negotiated' Britain's deal, while saying in advance that he thinks that it is in Britain's interest to stay in. If you think that is a canny approach to the negotiations, you have not earned a living as a barrow-boy, or indeed any other sort of trader.
There are non-economic (mostly political) benefits of staying in the EU. But they haven't been made persuasively, and they cannot swamp the economic benefits for leaving. And they won't be made were there to be a referendum. The sole tactic will be to try to scare the disinterested elector into voting to stay in the EU.
Lots of people have deserted UKIP because of the 'circus' element. Farage's management style is far from mine. But on the big picture he is right, so I subjugate my ego. I hope you will take a similar attitude, next time you have a chance to vote UKIP.
If you think that Cameron's approach is in the least bit credible, you are entitled to that view. He has promised an in/out referendum on the EU after he has 're-negotiated' Britain's deal, while saying in advance that he thinks that it is in Britain's interest to stay in. If you think that is a canny approach to the negotiations, you have not earned a living as a barrow-boy, or indeed any other sort of trader.
That's the bit which makes absolutely zero sense.
The first part's all right; Cameron may indeed not get much out of the negotiations.
So what, from your point of view? It would give you the opportunity to say 'Told you so', AND allow you to get the support of people like me who want to try renegotiation first. As long as the referendum happens - and there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of the Conservcative Party allowing it not to happen, even Cameron wanted to get out of it - the difficulty of renegotiating anything helps you, not hinders you.
In addition to Osborne spending more than Labour did he plans to fight the next election on a pledge to spend more than Brown as Chancellor did as a % of GDP and claim it's "disciplined" I'm not sure what he means by disciplined, are you?
tim
Better, but the figures are nominal rather than in real terms.
You have to use real terms spending figures if you wish to compare spending in different periods.
The only reliable source I have yet found for real terms spending is the Treasury;s PESA Report. It was from PESA 2012 that I took the headline figures used in my table downthread.
P.S. I shall leave it to JackW to explain what Osborne means by "disciplined".
If you think that Cameron's approach is in the least bit credible, you are entitled to that view. He has promised an in/out referendum on the EU after he has 're-negotiated' Britain's deal, while saying in advance that he thinks that it is in Britain's interest to stay in. If you think that is a canny approach to the negotiations, you have not earned a living as a barrow-boy, or indeed any other sort of trader.
That's the bit which makes absolutely zero sense.
The first part's all right; Cameron may indeed not get much out of the negotiations.
So what, from your point of view? It would give you the opportunity to say 'Told you so', AND allow you to get the support of people like me who want to try renegotiation first. As long as the referendum happens - and there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of the Conservcative Party allowing it not to happen, even Cameron wanted to get out of it - the difficulty of renegotiating anything helps you, not hinders you.
Richard, the point is that DC is PM. Most people simply want to be able to trust him, and believe that what he is doing is right.
His approach is wholly spurious. He has already said that he will campaign to stay in the EU, during the referendum which will follow a specious 're-negotiation'. How many semi-connected voters will appreciate that he has actually achieved trivially small progress during these negotiations?
How tough will it be for Farage, or The Sun, to point this out? I know, and you know, that DC will be able to come back from the crucial meeting with Mrs Merkel with an appropriate piece of paper.
I take the point that Farage may not be the ideal negotiator. But it unbelievable that DC is the right man. I've seen your posts: you know the day of the week. You don't believe it either. If we are asked to vote for him on that basis in May 2015, I'll continue to walk the streets wearing my UKIP rosette.
In 2015 Cameron will be going to the country with the fastest growing economy in europe (admittedly a rather low bar), an economy that has not been in recession for 5 years despite what he inherited and which has been growing moderately well for better than 2 years, a substantial increase in employment, a moderate reduction in unemployment, a substantial reduction in public sector employment, a deficit of less than half of what he inherited (if still too high), government policies that have greatly assisted with credit for business, have helped the housing market and increased housebuilding and despite it all kept inflation low.
Some of this you might say is despite government policy rather than because of it. In some areas (banks and energy especially) things undoubtedly could have moved faster but a strong prospectus on the economy is now pretty much in the tin unless something truly horrendous happens internationally.
This may well not be enough. I remember 1997. But Ed is no Tony Blair and the country will be a lot less confident about the future than they were then.
"Some of this you might say is despite government policy rather than because of it"
Of course I do and I say it pretty regularly, you should rejoice in the fact. As I try to point out the UK economic debate is not Right versus Left, it's Right versus Right. The Left have looked at their hand and folded.
You can tell me that Cameron had a hard hand to play and I'd agree, but I just don't think he's played it very well. He's undertaken no significant supply side reforms in this Parlt and he has spent his political capital on gimmicks when he could have used it for meaningful change. Would I rather he took the beating and the hits on getting the banks straightened out or on Leveson ? No contest to my mind.
Right versus Right? You think that Gordon Brown was right-wing with his spending sprees?
Or do you think that Ed Balls would be the polar opposite of Gordon Brown if he ends up in the Exchequer?
I think Alanbrooke's point is that neither Balls nor Brown have anything of interest to say on the economy at all. The debate is between moderates such as Osborne who want to tiptoe out of the wreakage and radicals who want to bring in a demolition squad before starting again.
Personally, I think Osborne is right to take the monstrosity created by the last government apart piece by piece, watching carefully for unintended consequences, but I can understand those who are frustrated by that approach.
Well now David who said anything about a wrecking ball. that's just silly. The reformists like myself would argue that we've had 16 years of political chancellors and it's time for a reformer. Fiscal consolidation is only part of the answer and we're not doing that very well. Growth isn't generated by borrowing and raising taxes, it comes from getting businesses back in business and to date that's not been something GO has been very good at.
I have a lot of sympathy for your position as I think you know. But it is a lot easier to be radical when things are going swimmingly as Lawson had for the second half of the eighties. (Having a brain like his is no disadvantage either). You can compensate the losers when you simplify taxes, you can afford to abolish taxes instead of looking to squeeze out every last penny when you are running a surplus and you can take risks in the knowledge that the economy is fundamentally sound.
Osborne does not have any of these advantages and his priority is keeping a highly leaky vessel afloat. So, for example, I think that RBS should have been broken up in 2010 regardless of what Stephen Hester thought. But if that had further disrupted an already fragile credit supply the economy could have reacted very badly indeed. Caution ruled.
This started with the prospectus I think the government will be able to offer in 2015. If I am right about that then that will be a solid 7/10 in the circumstances, arguably an 8.
I'd challenge that statement in one respect David. It's easier to force change when things are going really right or really wrong. Average is harder ! GO through no fault of his own inherited a really wrong economy,however he surrendered the difficult times narrative too early both politically and economically. By keeping the narrative right I reckon the country would have faced taking some harsher medicine if it could see it was for the best.
Like you I'd like to see the banking oligoply broken up and real competition restored he could have got away with it earlier by accepting a banking clean up and the public would have cried out but accepted it. Instead we have death by 1000 profit warnings and the big banks getting back to keeping competition away from the doorstep.
I think breaking up the banks would be devastating to our economy as much of the business are banks pay tax on are from overseas so they could just emigrate. HSBC could easily relocate its head office to Hong Kong rather than London.
Much of Thatcher's best reforms came in the second term not the first. By 2018 our narrative can change from bad to good and we can have the reforms we both want.
Or we can have the reforms tim, Eds and Gordon want and end up back having another disaster.
Most of our banks have paid no tax since 2008. Most of them don't even pay tax on their dividends because they don't have any. The right to cancel all of their tax liabilities by applying their accumulated losses is yet another way they are subsidised by the tax payer.
Those that earn a lot of money overseas will have the benefit of double taxation arrangements too which means the taxable income in this country will be a lot more modest than it might appear.
We urgently need banks that are genuinely interested in lending to SMEs in this country. Our super banks are entirely focussed on shrinking their balance sheets and improving their capital ratios to meet Basel II. Their legacy of doubtful and non-recoverable debts make it almost impossible for them to lend new funds. Hence the credit available to business falls every month.
This has been the biggest single drag on growth for the last 5 years. It is what makes the 2008 disaster different from other recessions where these problems did not exist to any material extent. It needs action. It needs opportunities for new players to enter the market. It needs a bad bank to free the RBS from its chains.
Spot on. The toxic black hole inside the banks is acting like a sheet anchor.
Comments
In order to become electable again, SLab needs to become likeable again. A toughie when they just aren't attracting the calibre of candidates they used to have 20, 30, 40 years ago.
Below I commented on the McCann case and tim responded to this by quoting Dan Hodges tweets to support his historic very negative assertions on this matter as it relates to Cameron.
This to me was 'amusing' given the flack the left give him.
That post has now disappeared is that because tim realises it looks a poor line to have taken and can remove it himself and alter the thread trail OR is it because the way he presented his line was moderated?
This was the line being taken by Carl when I first posted the figures.
The truth is that no government manages spending to match a target GDP ratio. At the time of fixing budgets GDP will be an unknown and broadly unrelated variable. It is all down to annual spending budgets increasing or decreasing spend by reference to current year,
The Treasury plans spending on a combination of fixed departmental limits (DEL) (broadly the "fixed costs") together with Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) (broadly the "variable costs"). Each is currently around £300 bn per annum. Another split will be Central Government Expenditure and expenditure by Local Governments, Devolved Administrations and Public Sector Corporations.
Altogether the highest aggregrate is Total Managed Expenditure (TME) which still excludes transactions related to "financial interventions" (i.e. the bank bailouts). TME is currently around £720 bn and it is TME which makes up the table I posted downthread.
It is interesting that the highly prudent fiscal management of the 1997-2001 Labour government managed to get TME down to a ratio of 34.6%, which must be close to a post war low.
Perhaps it was seeing the ratio so low that caused Gordon Brown to abandon the 'Tory' spending limits which he applied over Labour's first term and embark on a massive increase in public spending.
2001-2 saw a 12% real terms increase in spending taking the ratio from 34.6% to 37.8% in just one year. In Labour's first term, TME in real terms only increased by 1.5%. In the 2001-2005 government it increased 23.8%, with the ratio rising from 34.6% to 40.5%.
So the "reckless spending" you refer to did exist. Most unforgivably it occurred during the second term. It was higher in the third but then Gordon had a genuine global crisis to deal with. He had no excuses in 2001-2005.
http://order-order.com/2013/07/04/watson-resigns-as-labour-general-election-co-ordinator/
Dear Ed,
I said that I’d stay with you as general election co-ordinator within the Shadow Cabinet as long as I was useful. I think it would be a good idea for you, and me, if I stood down from the role now.
As you know, I offered my resignation on Tuesday and you asked me to reconsider. I’ve thought about it and still feel it is better for you and the future unity of the party that I go now. There are some who have not forgiven me for resigning in 2006. I fully accept the consequences of that decision and genuinely hope my departure allows the party to move on.
Yet it’s not the unattributed shadow cabinet briefings around the mess in Falkirk that has convinced me that the arrangement has run its course (though they don’t help). I believe that the report should be published – in full – and the whole truth told as soon as possible so that the record can be made clear. I’ve still not seen the report but believe there are an awful lot of spurious suppositions being written.
I wish to use the backbenches to speak out in areas of personal interest: open government and the surveillance state, the digital economy, drones and the future of conflict, the child abuse inquiries, the aftermath of the Murdoch scandal and grass roots responses to austerity.
Having resigned a couple of times before, I know how puckish lobby hacks might choose to misconstrue the departure. So to make it harder for them let me say this: I’m proud of your Buddha-like qualities of patience, deep thought, compassion and resolve. I remain your loyal servant. I’ll always be on hand to help you if you need me. I just don’t think you need me in the Shadow Cabinet any more. After nearly thirty years of this, I feel like I’ve seen the merry-go-round turn too many times. Whereas the Shadow Cabinet’s for people who still want to get dizzy.
You have it in you to be an outstanding Labour Prime Minister. The road ahead is always rocky but I will be with you all of the way, cheering you on from the backbenches. You’re my friend and leader, and I’m going to do all I can to make sure you win in 2015.
Here’s my parting thought:
John Humphrys asked me why you were not at Glastonbury this weekend. I said Labour leaders can’t be seen standing in muddy fields listening to bands. And then I thought how terribly sad that this is true. So: be that great Labour leader that you can be, but try to have a real life too. And if you want to see an awesome band, I recommend Drenge.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Watson
Watson Resigns as Labour General Election Co-Ordinator http://guyfawk.es/18ykBSb
Apparently he's taking more time to spend with his curries....
weak weak weak.....
James Forsyth@JGForsyth1m
Tom Watson quitting doesn't draw a line under Falkirk but makes it look more serious. It’s now a scandal that's drawn a shad Cab resignation
In resignation letter, @tom_watson reveals he offered to resign but @Ed_Miliband turned it down. Watch for Cam 'weak weak weak' charge again
WEAK WEAK WEAK....
(c) tim
Who can blame him ?
I think that means he looks really, really, concerned, but does nothing. Sounds about right.
Kevin Maguire@Kevin_Maguire1m
And for months @tom_watson was saying privately he wanted out of Labour's Shadow Cabinet. Now he is. Prefers own campaigns
Kevin Maguire@Kevin_Maguire5m
So @tom_watson quits Labour's Shadow Cabinet. To spend more time chasing phone hackers and paedophiles
Or has a customer come into the shop?
If you think that Cameron's approach is in the least bit credible, you are entitled to that view. He has promised an in/out referendum on the EU after he has 're-negotiated' Britain's deal, while saying in advance that he thinks that it is in Britain's interest to stay in. If you think that is a canny approach to the negotiations, you have not earned a living as a barrow-boy, or indeed any other sort of trader.
There are non-economic (mostly political) benefits of staying in the EU. But they haven't been made persuasively, and they cannot swamp the economic benefits for leaving. And they won't be made were there to be a referendum. The sole tactic will be to try to scare the disinterested elector into voting to stay in the EU.
Lots of people have deserted UKIP because of the 'circus' element. Farage's management style is far from mine. But on the big picture he is right, so I subjugate my ego. I hope you will take a similar attitude, next time you have a chance to vote UKIP.
*According to Armando Iannucci this was Dave's nickname at Carlton.
one for the Blairites over the ex-Brownies including rEd
The first part's all right; Cameron may indeed not get much out of the negotiations.
So what, from your point of view? It would give you the opportunity to say 'Told you so', AND allow you to get the support of people like me who want to try renegotiation first. As long as the referendum happens - and there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of the Conservcative Party allowing it not to happen, even Cameron wanted to get out of it - the difficulty of renegotiating anything helps you, not hinders you.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha
Better, but the figures are nominal rather than in real terms.
You have to use real terms spending figures if you wish to compare spending in different periods.
The only reliable source I have yet found for real terms spending is the Treasury;s PESA Report. It was from PESA 2012 that I took the headline figures used in my table downthread.
P.S. I shall leave it to JackW to explain what Osborne means by "disciplined".
His approach is wholly spurious. He has already said that he will campaign to stay in the EU, during the referendum which will follow a specious 're-negotiation'. How many semi-connected voters will appreciate that he has actually achieved trivially small progress during these negotiations?
How tough will it be for Farage, or The Sun, to point this out? I know, and you know, that DC will be able to come back from the crucial meeting with Mrs Merkel with an appropriate piece of paper.
I take the point that Farage may not be the ideal negotiator. But it unbelievable that DC is the right man. I've seen your posts: you know the day of the week. You don't believe it either. If we are asked to vote for him on that basis in May 2015, I'll continue to walk the streets wearing my UKIP rosette.
Hence why sensible people in the past argued not to borrow at all so it's available as an option in emergencies - which is when you need it.