On topic: Well, one can have fun arguing this point, but the bigger point is that the Miliband brothers are very similar indeed, with much the same faults of wonkishness, indecision and viewing all problems in the abstract.
Labour should have chosen Ed Balls, who was the only big-hitter and the only big political personality amongst the candidates.
That's a fair point, Andrea, but IOS' glee at the prospect of the Tories selecting on the wrong boundaries is looking a little, er, silly now.
Which still wasn't as funny as the lunacy from your chums Avery and Fitalass insisiting that boundary changes would be saved by a deal with the SNP. Oh dear.
"Labour should have chosen Ed Balls, who was the only big-hitter and the only big political personality amongst the candidates."
It's the way you tell 'em!
Given that the other candidates were Diane Abbott, Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband, and David Miliband, I suppose I might be accused of saying nothing that wasn't completely obvious.
On topic: Well, one can have fun arguing this point, but the bigger point is that the Miliband brothers are very similar indeed, with much the same faults of wonkishness, indecision and viewing all problems in the abstract.
Labour should have chosen Ed Balls, who was the only big-hitter and the only big political personality amongst the candidates.
Ed Balls should be kept as far away from power as possible.
I am not an expert on the use of deflators in National Accounts so treat my comments with due caution.
I am not quite sure what the Moneyweek journalist is trying to say beyond a warning that GDP is an artificial construct subject to variation depending on the various methodologies used to calculate it. A conclusion which appears to me to be neither remarkable nor a great advance in human knowledge!
Also the article is internally inconsistent. In the second paragraph the journalist states:
the ‘deflator’ or the number used to adjust nominal to real isn’t any of the ones you might think of as representing inflation.
And then in the second to last paragraph states:
It turns out that the “gross domestic product implied deflator at market prices for Q1 2013 is 2% above the same quarter of 2012.” See p15 here.
The link to the ONS bulletin reveals the following:
"the [implied GDP deflator] is not used in the calculation of GDP; rather it is generated after the calculation of GDP".
So that rather undermines the journalist's original argument then!
What can be said constructively is that the ONS's use of deflators is as granular as possible. So a separate deflator is used, say, for crude oil prices and each sector of manufactured goods (and hundreds of other goods and services and assets).
As GDP is generally "volume" rather than "value" driven, the ONS take reports of crude oil output in one period and compare it with output in a second period. If volume output increases then this increases GDP. Then the sales value of the two outputs is calculated and compared. The rise in value per unit of volume then becomes the "implied deflator" expressed as an Index, e.g. 105 would indicate 5% inflation for crude oil prices over the period.
This is relatively straightforward for commodities as a 100 tonnes of crude oil extracted in 2012 is going to be pretty much equivalent in specification to the same volume extracted in 2013.
With manufactures the assumption that the goods remain the same is invalid. A computer bought three years ago is going to have a very different specification to one bought today. The new computer will be smaller, faster, more powerful, have greater capacity and more functions. It may also be lower priced. This means a straightforward comparison of volume outputs is not helpful.
The "hedonic accounting" methodology to which the journalist refers is basically a systematic means of calculating change in functional value of output over a period. Of necessity the calculations are more complex and therefore more exposed to criticism as being artificial and manipulable. But the reality is they are just a scientific response to greater complexity in the sample production being measured.
I think the journalist is just warning readers that the methods of inflation adjusting in National Accounting are very different to the methods used to compute retail indices. And even retail indices are artificial constructs as anyone who shops regularly knows well: food prices have been rising much faster than the nominal CPI rates.
As the retail indices use baskets of goods some very strange results can occur: for example last month the ONS claimed the CPI rise to 2.7% was in part driven by airfares increasing by 22% in a month. Well anyone who believes that is bonkers. What I guess happened is that the reference airfare in the CPI basket increased by an unusual amount and distorted the index calculation.
The moral of the story is don't believe everything you read but also don't dismiss it out of hand. Systematic estimates using proven methodology may not produce the right results all the time but they are almost certainly the best measures we have available to us.
Ed Balls should be kept as far away from power as possible.
Indeed, but that wasn't high on the list of goals of the Labour Party when they were choosing a leader. Anyway, he's likely to be Chancellor, which is as bad as or even worse than him being PM. Probably worse, on balance.
There only appeared to be two clearly defining and opposing goals in the last Labour Leadership contest. The 'vote David Miliband for Leader' vs the 'any one but David Miliband for leader' campaigns.
Ed Balls should be kept as far away from power as possible.
Indeed, but that wasn't high on the list of goals of the Labour Party when they were choosing a leader. Anyway, he's likely to be Chancellor, which is as bad as or even worse than him being PM. Probably worse, on balance.
I know I'm only one voice but I completely disagree with the Mike on this .
I don't like Ed Miliband. I don't like how he was elected. Union bloc votes trumped the party members. I left the Labour Party for two main reasons. This and Gordon Brown.
I do not regard Ed Miliband as PM material.His brother could have been.
I know I'm only one voice but I completely disagree with the Mike on this .
I don't like Ed Miliband. I don't like how he was elected. Union bloc votes trumped the party members. I left the Labour Party for two main reasons. This and Gordon Brown.
I do not regard Ed Miliband as PM material.His brother could have been.
Sorry to hear that stjohn, I hadn't realised that you had left the Labour party. I must admit that I was at the point of doing the same back in 2005 after our third GE defeat, and only renewed my membership so that I could at least vote in the inevitable Leadership contest that would follow it. As it was, I think that the new rules that gave the membership a real say in who was elected made the difference in a way it had not the previous time when the Conservative Parliamentary party thought to serve up the choice of IDS vs Clarke.
I suspect the Union backing of Ed Miliband in opposition to David Miliband left many in the Labour party with the same feeling I had in that first Leadership election that our party members were able to participate in. Lets hope that the result of the last Labour Leadership contest has the same effect on those with the power to shape who becomes the main contenders in the next Labour contest as it did in the Conservative party by recognising the views and opinions of the hard working activist grass roots of the party.
I know I'm only one voice but I completely disagree with the Mike on this .
I don't like Ed Miliband. I don't like how he was elected. Union bloc votes trumped the party members. I left the Labour Party for two main reasons. This and Gordon Brown.
I do not regard Ed Miliband as PM material.His brother could have been.
I know I'm only one voice but I completely disagree with the Mike on this .
I don't like Ed Miliband. I don't like how he was elected. Union bloc votes trumped the party members. I left the Labour Party for two main reasons. This and Gordon Brown.
I do not regard Ed Miliband as PM material.His brother could have been.
I don't think the Labour Party misses you much !
Don't be silly. If the anecdote of a scottish tory who prediced a scottish tory surge tells us anything it's that they definitely know how anecdotal labour members think.
I think Miliband does not have enough personality to engender a satisfaction or dis satisfaction vote, as he comes across as being neutral beige and boring and hard to like or dislike a lot away from the middle of the bell curve. If you say nothing and do nothing then people have no opinion about you, the Lamont approach in Scotland as well, as opening a mouth will always promote a response, and if it is Labour waffle then the response is usually negative. Say nothing, stick head in sand, deny all knowledge and hope people without anoraks who get to vote but could not recocognise Miliband if he turned up on the doorstep are prepared to assume you are better than the Tories as they have not heard anything bad. (Or good, come to think of it.)
Comments
Labour should have chosen Ed Balls, who was the only big-hitter and the only big political personality amongst the candidates.
"Labour should have chosen Ed Balls, who was the only big-hitter and the only big political personality amongst the candidates."
It's the way you tell 'em!
Joanne Cash didnt reapply for selection then?
it's a pleasure :-)
@Neil
Joanne will run in our fantasy GE game in the a 3 way marginal constituency opposed to Jane and Lembit.
When is Nick's selection going to be decided?
I am not an expert on the use of deflators in National Accounts so treat my comments with due caution.
I am not quite sure what the Moneyweek journalist is trying to say beyond a warning that GDP is an artificial construct subject to variation depending on the various methodologies used to calculate it. A conclusion which appears to me to be neither remarkable nor a great advance in human knowledge!
Also the article is internally inconsistent. In the second paragraph the journalist states:
the ‘deflator’ or the number used to adjust nominal to real isn’t any of the ones you might think of as representing inflation.
And then in the second to last paragraph states:
It turns out that the “gross domestic product implied deflator at market prices for Q1 2013 is 2% above the same quarter of 2012.” See p15 here.
The link to the ONS bulletin reveals the following:
"the [implied GDP deflator] is not used in the calculation of GDP; rather it is generated after the calculation of GDP".
So that rather undermines the journalist's original argument then!
What can be said constructively is that the ONS's use of deflators is as granular as possible. So a separate deflator is used, say, for crude oil prices and each sector of manufactured goods (and hundreds of other goods and services and assets).
August 3
As GDP is generally "volume" rather than "value" driven, the ONS take reports of crude oil output in one period and compare it with output in a second period. If volume output increases then this increases GDP. Then the sales value of the two outputs is calculated and compared. The rise in value per unit of volume then becomes the "implied deflator" expressed as an Index, e.g. 105 would indicate 5% inflation for crude oil prices over the period.
This is relatively straightforward for commodities as a 100 tonnes of crude oil extracted in 2012 is going to be pretty much equivalent in specification to the same volume extracted in 2013.
With manufactures the assumption that the goods remain the same is invalid. A computer bought three years ago is going to have a very different specification to one bought today. The new computer will be smaller, faster, more powerful, have greater capacity and more functions. It may also be lower priced. This means a straightforward comparison of volume outputs is not helpful.
The "hedonic accounting" methodology to which the journalist refers is basically a systematic means of calculating change in functional value of output over a period. Of necessity the calculations are more complex and therefore more exposed to criticism as being artificial and manipulable. But the reality is they are just a scientific response to greater complexity in the sample production being measured.
I think the journalist is just warning readers that the methods of inflation adjusting in National Accounting are very different to the methods used to compute retail indices. And even retail indices are artificial constructs as anyone who shops regularly knows well: food prices have been rising much faster than the nominal CPI rates.
As the retail indices use baskets of goods some very strange results can occur: for example last month the ONS claimed the CPI rise to 2.7% was in part driven by airfares increasing by 22% in a month. Well anyone who believes that is bonkers. What I guess happened is that the reference airfare in the CPI basket increased by an unusual amount and distorted the index calculation.
The moral of the story is don't believe everything you read but also don't dismiss it out of hand. Systematic estimates using proven methodology may not produce the right results all the time but they are almost certainly the best measures we have available to us.
I would guess
Nick Palmer
Nick McDonald
Greg Marshall
Atul Joshi
who is the 5th? There must be a lady somewhere
http://www.westminsternorthconservatives.com/person/lindsey-hall-westminster-city-councillor-abbey-road
If Ed Balls' campaign had gained any traction there would definitely have been an "anyone but Balls" element to the election too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumar_Dharmasena
Hampstead & Kilburn:
Tulip Siddiq (Lab) vs Simon Marcus (Con): Lab maj = 42 votes.
Southampton Itchen:
Rowenna Davis (Lab) vs Royston Smith (Con): Lab maj = 192 votes.
Mid Dorset & Poole North:
Vikki Slade (LD) vs Michael Tomlinson (Con): LD maj = 269 votes.
Cardiff North:
Craig Williams (Con) vs Mari Williams (Lab): Con maj = 194 votes.
The big question is which Ro will you be giving your enthusiastic support to?
You can found the ToriesItchen4Rowenna campaign!
I don't like Ed Miliband. I don't like how he was elected. Union bloc votes trumped the party members. I left the Labour Party for two main reasons. This and Gordon Brown.
I do not regard Ed Miliband as PM material.His brother could have been.
I suspect the Union backing of Ed Miliband in opposition to David Miliband left many in the Labour party with the same feeling I had in that first Leadership election that our party members were able to participate in. Lets hope that the result of the last Labour Leadership contest has the same effect on those with the power to shape who becomes the main contenders in the next Labour contest as it did in the Conservative party by recognising the views and opinions of the hard working activist grass roots of the party.
Say nothing, stick head in sand, deny all knowledge and hope people without anoraks who get to vote but could not recocognise Miliband if he turned up on the doorstep are prepared to assume you are better than the Tories as they have not heard anything bad. (Or good, come to think of it.)