One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277
I'm fairly sure that the first estimates are (a) usually wrong and (b) wrong in the same direction.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277
I fear we may have seen the end of deficit reduction for now which is deeply troubling as we are already borrowing at a heightened level and the economic future for the next few years is uncertain. It is noteworthy that a major factor in the increase was an increased cost of borrowing on inflation linked gilts. s.
This is another consequence of Brexit. Politicians have promoted a course of action that even the most ardent of Leavers admit will have negative economic consequences. It's not hard to see how the public has concluded that restraint on spending is no longer needed if we can indulge ourselves with Brexit.
Well that would be entirely the wrong conclusion wouldn't it? Brexit means we have to be more responsible and careful with our public finances, not less.
More seriously, didn't a lot of this company malarkey come from the John Birt era under both Thatcher and Blair when the BBC was supposed to be refashioned as a commissioning company not a producer?
John Birt was not appointed Director General of the BBC until years after Maggie left office.
I enjoy your contributions and often agree with them, nevertheless your post is a good example of how the left's default answer to anything & everything is still to blame Thatcher, often unfairly, a mere 27 years after she resigned.
Mrs J's birthday is coming up soon, and I want to get her a really nice present. As she's also into space, I thought I'd get her a space-themed present.
I asked her for hints about anything she might want in that area, and she reminded me that an ex of hers had got her name onto a CD on the New Horizons spacecraft, which is currently past Pluto and heading out to the Kuiper Belt.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277
I'm fairly sure that the first estimates are (a) usually wrong and (b) wrong in the same direction.
Don't chase monthly figures.
The YTD figure is also up £1.9bn. I agree with @SeanF that the previous year's figures were surprisingly good but the upside has not continued. I think it is inevitable that borrowing will increase this year breaking a strong but insufficient trend.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
The borrowing numbers for 2016/2017 were really very good indeed, though.
Yes, but the progress made is going to go into reverse now, because of the combination of weak government, inflation pressure, Brexit uncertainty, and Brexit costs.
Still probably in the region of 2.5%- 3% of GDP, which is manageable.
It was a visual treat, try and see it in IMAX if you can, it wasn't an epic in length but epic nonetheless.
I'm glad Christopher Nolan noted that the events at Dunkerque were a bloody disaster and for every one solider that escaped more than ten were captured or died.
Still probably in the region of 2.5%- 3% of GDP, which is manageable.
That level of deficit would be fine, except that we already have an excessively large total debt. It might turn out OK, with inflation gradually reducing the debt as a proportion of GDP, but if we hit another serious downturn there's no room for manoeuvre.
Wondering, why does Mr Hammond insist on mass immigration? It can't really have anything to do with city businesses because the ones most affected by brexit will be gone by the end of 2019. I read he is supporting businesses who want cheap labour - putting the bill onto the tax payers, but which ones? I feel as I might as well vote for Corbyn. He seems to be at least honest in his statements.
Mr. Jessop, discover a new planet and call it Mrs Jessop?
I've been going out with her for thirteen years and I still cannot pronounce her surname! Why should I inflict it on anyone else?
Surely a compelling reason to marry her, assuming you can pronounce your own? And more value in star-naming if it covers both of you.
Unrelatedly, it is usually thought that Shackleton named the Beardmore Glacier after his sponsor Sir William Beardmore, but there's a rival theory that he had been enthusiastically shagging Lady B prior to his departure South, and named the glacier after her to taunt Sir W.
Mrs J's birthday is coming up soon, and I want to get her a really nice present. As she's also into space, I thought I'd get her a space-themed present.
I asked her for hints about anything she might want in that area, and she reminded me that an ex of hers had got her name onto a CD on the New Horizons spacecraft, which is currently past Pluto and heading out to the Kuiper Belt.
How the F*** can I compete with that?
I'm not sure I'd be terribly happy with the idea of aliens coming looking for me by name.
Mr. M, not sure, but that could be a good alternative.
Or, buy her a trebuchet.
Edited for typo*.
Books, perhaps? Maybe you could point Mr Jessop in the direction of an author with creativity and talent? Perhaps one who is releasing a new book?
It would be too much to expect this random author to also be a skilled tipster of the motorsport genre. Such multi-faceted people would surely be the stuff of fiction themselves.
" >> Big Questions << Who's asking what this week?
Which posh toff former Tory MP has a surprisingly punk rock safe word? When things are getting a little too rich for him, sexually speaking, he recites a line from a NOFX song to get his partner to stop."
It's at moments like this that I wish tim was still posting on here.
" >> Big Questions << Who's asking what this week?
Which posh toff former Tory MP has a surprisingly punk rock safe word? When things are getting a little too rich for him, sexually speaking, he recites a line from a NOFX song to get his partner to stop."
It's at moments like this that I wish tim was still posting on here.</p>
Which posh toff former Tory MP has a surprisingly punk rock safe word? When things are getting a little too rich for him, sexually speaking, he recites a line from a NOFX song to get his partner to stop."
Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well with Davis and Barnier already have quite a good rapport... much to the annoyance of Remainiacs...
"Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well"
What makes you say that? I'm a remainer but given we are coing out, I hope the negitiations do go well. I can't see much evidence of that though sadly.
Just the "mood music" we're hearing.
I think there's already quite a lot of common ground.
I think rcs had some quite positive feedback on the previous thread.
Ah yes, just checked that out... And is rcs in a good position to know?
(Sounds like I'm being sarcastic here but it's a genuine question - I'd much rather we weren't coming out but, given we are, I really want it to go a well as it can.)
Due to his job/position and contacts I look for the feedback from the circles he moves in much more than just about anyone else on here. And also for the level-headedness of his dry analysis.
I enjoy the banter and banging of heads on here as much as the next troll but if I was to choose a single sensible point of reference on PB for this particular topic I would pick rcs.
I read every single one of Robert's posts very carefully, and take him extremely seriously.
More seriously, didn't a lot of this company malarkey come from the John Birt era under both Thatcher and Blair when the BBC was supposed to be refashioned as a commissioning company not a producer?
John Birt was not appointed Director General of the BBC until years after Maggie left office.
I enjoy your contributions and often agree with them, nevertheless your post is a good example of how the left's default answer to anything & everything is still to blame Thatcher, often unfairly, a mere 27 years after she resigned.
Deputy DG in 1987 and DG in 1990 according to Wikipedia. Thatcher/Major/Blair if you like, rather than Thatcher/Blair.
It isn't clear whether what Nick describes is actually objective information about the progress of the campaign, or simply the enthusiastic zeal and messianic hope of the converted? It is quite possible to be enthusiastically hopeful and go down to crashing defeat.
That's certainly true, and it's what I thought was happening until mid-campaign. But there are two factors that made it different.
First, the presence of a ground campaign vs the absence of one does make a difference - it became gradually obvious (lack of posters, few and low-key leaflets, little street presence) that the Tories were taking their marginals for granted, and many people didn't like that. As Fox observes, there are simply a lot of Labour activists now, and it's therefore possible to have an active presence in far more places. Conversely, there were several reports of Tory MPs in marginals spending most of the day in neighbouring target seats - in Broxtowe, the Tories were positively boasting of it.
Second, Momentum was deploying techniques used in the Sanders campaign which were relatively new. They hoped they'd work but didn't really know; however, the mainstream party operation was barely aware it was happening.
Having campaigned very heavily in a marginal, I can tell you that a lack of posters was not a sign of anything other than a lack of posters.
I think there are lots of lessons from GE2017 campaign, which I don't have time to go into now, save to say the electorate is a lot more volatile now than the opinion pollsters can keep up with given their much more rigid modelling.
Campaigns, leadership and messaging all matter. I think the electorate is far less ideological than either side likes to think, and much more frustrated and transactional.
That means it's easier to both fall back, and to find a way back, and why the Tories/Labour being either "in" or "out" of power for 10-20 years each, off the back of definitive trends and swings either which way due to electoral cycles, is probably wrong for the future.
Most on here have a weird obsession with politics, the electorate isn't bothered until an election comes along and their vote is based on soundbites and feel. Farage got that, so did Corbyn, Blair is the best example. For every tribalist there's loads more votes up for grabs, recent elections have shown that the type of bland centrist so revered on here doesn't wash anymore.
One begets the other. The soundbite has to match the feel.
If it doesn't, the soundbite falls apart very quickly, as Theresa found out to her cost.
The reason "Long-term economic plan" worked for GE2015 is because it was grounded firmly in reality and record.
More seriously, didn't a lot of this company malarkey come from the John Birt era under both Thatcher and Blair when the BBC was supposed to be refashioned as a commissioning company not a producer?
John Birt was not appointed Director General of the BBC until years after Maggie left office.
I enjoy your contributions and often agree with them, nevertheless your post is a good example of how the left's default answer to anything & everything is still to blame Thatcher, often unfairly, a mere 27 years after she resigned.
Deputy DG in 1987 and DG in 1990 according to Wikipedia. Thatcher/Major/Blair if you like, rather than Thatcher/Blair.
It isn't clear whether what Nick describes is actually objective information about the progress of the campaign, or simply the enthusiastic zeal and messianic hope of the converted? It is quite possible to be enthusiastically hopeful and go down to crashing defeat.
That's certainly true, and it's what I thought was happening until mid-campaign. But there are two factors that made it different.
First, the presence of a ground campaign vs the absence of one does make a difference - it became gradually obvious (lack of posters, few and low-key leaflets, little street presence) that the Tories were taking their marginals for granted, and many people didn't like that. As Fox observes, there are simply a lot of Labour activists now, and it's therefore possible to have an active presence in far more places. Conversely, there were several reports of Tory MPs in marginals spending most of the day in neighbouring target seats - in Broxtowe, the Tories were positively boasting of it.
Second, Momentum was deploying techniques used in the Sanders campaign which were relatively new. They hoped they'd work but didn't really know; however, the mainstream party operation was barely aware it was happening.
Ok - except
- the evidence for ground campaigns actually making a big difference is thin; - the discussion was about accuracy of canvass returns and whether Labour might otherwise have known that things were going better. Your "they didn't really know" appears to confirm the original point?
All the anecdotal evidence is that the Labour leadership - including the parts with close ties to Momentum - were as surprised by the exit poll as everyone else. Almost nobody was expecting the result we got.
Still probably in the region of 2.5%- 3% of GDP, which is manageable.
That level of deficit would be fine, except that we already have an excessively large total debt. It might turn out OK, with inflation gradually reducing the debt as a proportion of GDP, but if we hit another serious downturn there's no room for manoeuvre.
Another of Gordon Brown's bright ideas, as well as selling off most of the gold reserves, was index linking more of our debt - e.g. he introduced index linked saving certificates back in 2006 linked to RPI (currently 3.5%). These are also tax free and when issued paid an annual bonus of up to 1.35% on top of RPI - bizarrely this safety investment has turned out to be one of the best preforming cash investments over the last decade !!
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
Another of Gordon Brown's bright ideas, as well as selling off most of the gold reserves, was index linking more of our debt - e.g. he introduced index linked saving certificates back in 2006 linked to RPI (currently 3.5%). These are also tax free and when issued paid an annual bonus of up to 1.35% on top of RPI - bizarrely this safety investment has turned out to be one of the best preforming cash investments over the last decade !!
Yep, as indeed recommended here by someone whose identity I am too modest to reveal... If you've rolled them over, they are still a stonking good deal at RPI + tuppence ha'penny (and with the new system they are effectively penalty free if you cash them in immediately after an anniversary date).
You are right about the effect on the public finances, though. It's a bit of a timebomb, since it greatly reduces the scope for inflating our way out of the problem.
Wondering, why does Mr Hammond insist on mass immigration? It can't really have anything to do with city businesses because the ones most affected by brexit will be gone by the end of 2019. I read he is supporting businesses who want cheap labour - putting the bill onto the tax payers, but which ones? I feel as I might as well vote for Corbyn. He seems to be at least honest in his statements.
The odd thing about Hammond is that in 2013 (when Cameron was in trouble with UKIP) he was saying if a referendum was held in 2013 he'd vote to leave.
He does seem quite a strange person (comments about women and public sector workers, etc)
Mr. Gin, not really. It's safe to say you'll do something if you think the conditional circumstances will never arise.
That's another nice aspect of betting. Your failures and successes are plain to see, and whilst they may be influenced heavily by fortune (especially in F1) they either win or lose, and that's an end of it.
Not long now until Hungary. Current forecast is to be dry. I shall be checking the safety car odds.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
I was never clear what السويس was meant to achieve given the status-quo ante bellum of mass occupation of the السويس canal zone by British troops was so unsatisfactory.
Probably a NATO force with the Americans in the السويس canal zone would have worked, but Eden didn't recognise the real-politick at the time because he was too busy harking back to München.
" >> Big Questions << Who's asking what this week?
Which posh toff former Tory MP has a surprisingly punk rock safe word? When things are getting a little too rich for him, sexually speaking, he recites a line from a NOFX song to get his partner to stop."
It's at moments like this that I wish tim was still posting on here.</p>
Probably connected to the previous mailout's explanation as to why a certain former Tory MP needs 8 jobs...
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
Reducing CT hasn't necessarily increased the take - correlation is not necessarily causation
I was never clear what السويس was meant to achieve given the status-quo ante bellum of mass occupation of the السويس canal zone by British troops was so unsatisfactory.
Probably a NATO force with the Americans in the السويس canal zone would have worked, but Eden didn't recognise the real-politick at the time because he was too busy harking back to München.
You're going to trigger some people with your Islamification of PB.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
Reducing CT hasn't necessarily increased the take - correlation is not necessarily causation
Still probably in the region of 2.5%- 3% of GDP, which is manageable.
That level of deficit would be fine, except that we already have an excessively large total debt. It might turn out OK, with inflation gradually reducing the debt as a proportion of GDP, but if we hit another serious downturn there's no room for manoeuvre.
Another of Gordon Brown's bright ideas, as well as selling off most of the gold reserves, was index linking more of our debt - e.g. he introduced index linked saving certificates back in 2006 linked to RPI (currently 3.5%). These are also tax free and when issued paid an annual bonus of up to 1.35% on top of RPI - bizarrely this safety investment has turned out to be one of the best preforming cash investments over the last decade !!
For more on this kind of thing with public debt, see OBR's new report:
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
Does the government want low taxes, or does it just want some taxes to be low? Conservative Chancellors have massively increased VAT, for instance.
Related to comments yesterday on Osborne's potential to defect to the Lib Dems - I can't help thinking it would be massively amusing if David Laws went to Osborne's office and asked him to defect, offering him some kind of position in the Lib Dems if he did so...
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
Reducing CT hasn't necessarily increased the take - correlation is not necessarily causation
Well we know the rate has been reduced and that the take has increased. What else might be going on? There are some possibilities; some of the banks have just about exhausted their losses although I am not aware of any of the majors returning to tax paying ways; the Google tax/Starbucks rows have increased the pressure on multinationals to "recognise" more of their tax here rather than elsewhere; the economy has been growing, albeit only modestly, certainly a lot more slowly than the CT increase.
I think that the incentive to recognise and pay profits here and the disincentives of not doing so is the most likely explanation for the uplift. If that is right an increase in CT is likely to have an adverse effect. Do you have an alternative explanation?
- the evidence for ground campaigns actually making a big difference is thin; - the discussion was about accuracy of canvass returns and whether Labour might otherwise have known that things were going better. Your "they didn't really know" appears to confirm the original point?
The problem was that we were getting very good canvass returns from people who didn't vote last time. Traditionally these are largely discounted - we also had them in 2015, and by and large they failed to vote.
So we veterans picked up the positive voting statements, but didn't especially believe them. The Momentum types didn't care about this "veterans know to discount that" line and just kept plugging away. On this occasion they turned out to be right.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
Does the government want low taxes, or does it just want some taxes to be low? Conservative Chancellors have massively increased VAT, for instance.
It wants taxes which multinationals and high net worth individuals can easily avoid to be low and competitive. Those taxes which are hard to avoid, not so much.
(1) it shows just what a phenomenally clever and talented guy Gove is (when he can restrain his passions) (2) it kind of shows up Andrea Leadsom - he's done this in 6 weeks, and it's not clear if she got close in almost a year
- the evidence for ground campaigns actually making a big difference is thin; - the discussion was about accuracy of canvass returns and whether Labour might otherwise have known that things were going better. Your "they didn't really know" appears to confirm the original point?
The problem was that we were getting very good canvass returns from people who didn't vote last time. Traditionally these are largely discounted - we also had them in 2015, and by and large they failed to vote.
So we veterans picked up the positive voting statements, but didn't especially believe them. The Momentum types didn't care about this "veterans know to discount that" line and just kept plugging away. On this occasion they turned out to be right.
- the evidence for ground campaigns actually making a big difference is thin; - the discussion was about accuracy of canvass returns and whether Labour might otherwise have known that things were going better. Your "they didn't really know" appears to confirm the original point?
The problem was that we were getting very good canvass returns from people who didn't vote last time. Traditionally these are largely discounted - we also had them in 2015, and by and large they failed to vote.
So we veterans picked up the positive voting statements, but didn't especially believe them. The Momentum types didn't care about this "veterans know to discount that" line and just kept plugging away. On this occasion they turned out to be right.
Two things must have happened. One everyone knows about, the kids voted heavily. The enthusiasm / canvassing also brought in people who never vote [ here too Corbyn must get credit ]. These are the people whose standard line is: you all are the same . Well, with Corbyn the two parties are definitely not the same. I believe 2% of the 40% are this lot. Overall, turnout increased by 3%.
Related to comments yesterday on Osborne's potential to defect to the Lib Dems - I can't help thinking it would be massively amusing if David Laws went to Osborne's office and asked him to defect, offering him some kind of position in the Lib Dems if he did so...
It won't happen. He is a Tory. Osborne, I mean. Also, the other one.
- the evidence for ground campaigns actually making a big difference is thin; - the discussion was about accuracy of canvass returns and whether Labour might otherwise have known that things were going better. Your "they didn't really know" appears to confirm the original point?
The problem was that we were getting very good canvass returns from people who didn't vote last time. Traditionally these are largely discounted - we also had them in 2015, and by and large they failed to vote.
So we veterans picked up the positive voting statements, but didn't especially believe them. The Momentum types didn't care about this "veterans know to discount that" line and just kept plugging away. On this occasion they turned out to be right.
That's interesting - are you saying that the good canvass returns from previous non-voters were not very different from those of 2015 (i.e. that the raw numbers didn't show much increase in their support for Labour)?
I am for unremembered reasons on the UKIP mailing list. Here is the latest from Steve Crowther
"Friend -- Chancellor Plans Brexit Betrayal
Chancellor Philip Hammond’s plans for ‘transitional arrangements’ – including extending our open borders for several years – will lead to a betrayal of the Brexit decision, says UKIP interim leader Steve Crowther.
“Extending freedom of movement for two, three or four years produces no obvious benefit to anyone”, he said. “It is an EU principle, so ending it in 2019 or 2023 makes no difference to them.
“Business wants certainty, and that comes from sticking to the timetable, negotiating robustly and introducing clear border control policies that enable us to access the skills we need.
“Since the election, Theresa May is badly holed and unseaworthy, and the Remainer Philip Hammond – who was on his way out of the door before June 8th – now sees an opportunity to fudge, delay and obfuscate until the end of the current Parliament, to try and get the decision reversed.
“Every time a member state has voted against the EU’s wishes, they have been faced with delays and obstructions which eventually deliver the EU’s desired outcome. This has happened to France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Greece…
“UKIP will be in the background while the Government is delivering the clean Brexit the country voted for. But if the Cabinet members surrender to Michel Barnier’s threats and agree the Chancellor’s Remainer-driven plan, we will be back with a vengeance.”"
Related to comments yesterday on Osborne's potential to defect to the Lib Dems - I can't help thinking it would be massively amusing if David Laws went to Osborne's office and asked him to defect, offering him some kind of position in the Lib Dems if he did so...
Osborne won't defect.
He might not be exactly my kind of Tory but there's no doubt in my mind he bleeds blue, and has done his whole life.
(1) it shows just what a phenomenally clever and talented guy Gove is (when he can restrain his passions) (2) it kind of shows up Andrea Leadsom - he's done this in 6 weeks, and it's not clear if she got close in almost a year
Yes and no. One admires his ambition but can Michael Gove deliver it? If not, then as at Education and Justice we have a grand and even liberal vision and a shortage of school places and prison cells because no-one, least of all Gove, remembered to do the day job. I've previously seen Gove as a latter-day Sir Keith Joseph, a better thinker than administrator or manager.
(1) it shows just what a phenomenally clever and talented guy Gove is (when he can restrain his passions) (2) it kind of shows up Andrea Leadsom - he's done this in 6 weeks, and it's not clear if she got close in almost a year
Yes and no. One admires his ambition but can Michael Gove deliver it? If not, then as at Education and Justice we have a grand and even liberal vision and a shortage of school places and prison cells because no-one, least of all Gove, remembered to do the day job. I've previously seen Gove as a latter-day Sir Keith Joseph, a better thinker than administrator or manager.
I think he did a great job in delivery in Education. The results improvements are testament to that.
Mr. M, not sure, but that could be a good alternative.
Or, buy her a trebuchet.
Edited for typo*.
Nah, she kept her surname when we got married. She's one of two girls, and her cousins are all girls. She wants her family's branch of the name to live on a little longer. She's also known professionally by her maiden name (has patents and papers under it, for example). Why should she have changed it just because she got married?
Our little 'un has my surname, but we've given him Mrs J's surname as a middle name, so it'll live on longer still.
Mrs J keeping her maiden name doesn't bother me one bit, although it confuses some organisations who assume we're unmarried.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
I pay quite enough tax already. A government should be able to fund decent public services out of a fax take of c.38% of GDP.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There have been higher profits and reduced investment for a start, both of which will push up exposure to corporation tax.
In other news there are very welcome signs that the hardcore Brexiteer sin the cabinet have realised the cliff edge is not an option. This should make it a lot easier to do a decent Brexit deal. Everyone but the swivel-eyed should be very pleased about that.
Mr. M, not sure, but that could be a good alternative.
Or, buy her a trebuchet.
Edited for typo*.
Nah, she kept her surname when we got married. She's one of two girls, and her cousins are all girls. She wants her family's branch of the name to live on a little longer. She's also known professionally by her maiden name (has patents and papers under it, for example). Why should she have changed it just because she got married?
Our little 'un has my surname, but we've given him Mrs J's surname as a middle name, so it'll live on longer still.
Mrs J keeping her maiden name doesn't bother me one bit, although it confuses some organisations who assume we're unmarried.
I think my wife possibly regrets changing name as hers is quite rare and we are aware of no other Partts
Mrs J's birthday is coming up soon, and I want to get her a really nice present. As she's also into space, I thought I'd get her a space-themed present.
I asked her for hints about anything she might want in that area, and she reminded me that an ex of hers had got her name onto a CD on the New Horizons spacecraft, which is currently past Pluto and heading out to the Kuiper Belt.
The Ukip thing was always a bit odd since the same people who in GE2015 had told us Ukip was taking a lot of (particularly wwc) votes from Labour were now confidently predicting that the Ukip collapse would mean all their votes transferring to Conservative rather than going back home.
Of course, the thought was that UKIP would act as a kind of political Purgatory, an interim step by which the hoary-handed sons of toil would learn to embrace orthodox Toryism. This was always fanciful.
Mrs J's birthday is coming up soon, and I want to get her a really nice present. As she's also into space, I thought I'd get her a space-themed present.
I asked her for hints about anything she might want in that area, and she reminded me that an ex of hers had got her name onto a CD on the New Horizons spacecraft, which is currently past Pluto and heading out to the Kuiper Belt.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There have been higher profits and reduced investment for a start, both of which will push up exposure to corporation tax.
A prolonged transition makes continuing payments more saleable.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
I pay quite enough tax already. A government should be able to fund decent public services out of a fax take of c.38% of GDP.
Sadly, this isn't a common view amongst my peer group. It's more we should be "pleased" to pay more tax.
I really think Conservative politicians need to push the intellectual and moral case for this, DavidL has done a better job than most just on this thread.
Not my side! I am a LibDem, despite my disappointment at Cable not being opposed. Just making an observation.
You don't particularly come across as a Lib Dem. Especially as it also means that you and I are on the same side atm.
Follow your own logic, Mr Jessop. You ought to be a Lib Dem too.
I find myself continually trapped between Conservative and Lib Dem; both attract and annoy me at various times. I voted Lib Dem at the GE, and cannot see myself voting Conservative under most of the potential next leaders.
My current Conservative MP is also quite good, and as she has a very safe seat I find myself free to have fun with my vote ...
Mrs J's birthday is coming up soon, and I want to get her a really nice present. As she's also into space, I thought I'd get her a space-themed present.
I asked her for hints about anything she might want in that area, and she reminded me that an ex of hers had got her name onto a CD on the New Horizons spacecraft, which is currently past Pluto and heading out to the Kuiper Belt.
Not my side! I am a LibDem, despite my disappointment at Cable not being opposed. Just making an observation.
You don't particularly come across as a Lib Dem. Especially as it also means that you and I are on the same side atm.
Follow your own logic, Mr Jessop. You ought to be a Lib Dem too.
I find myself continually trapped between Conservative and Lib Dem; both attract and annoy me at various times. I voted Lib Dem at the GE, and cannot see myself voting Conservative under most of the potential next leaders.
My current Conservative MP is also quite good, and as she has a very safe seat I find myself free to have fun with my vote ...
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
I pay quite enough tax already. A government should be able to fund decent public services out of a fax take of c.38% of GDP.
Mr. M, not sure, but that could be a good alternative.
Or, buy her a trebuchet.
Edited for typo*.
Nah, she kept her surname when we got married. She's one of two girls, and her cousins are all girls. She wants her family's branch of the name to live on a little longer. She's also known professionally by her maiden name (has patents and papers under it, for example). Why should she have changed it just because she got married?
Our little 'un has my surname, but we've given him Mrs J's surname as a middle name, so it'll live on longer still.
Mrs J keeping her maiden name doesn't bother me one bit, although it confuses some organisations who assume we're unmarried.
I think my wife possibly regrets changing name as hers is quite rare and we are aware of no other Partts
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There have been higher profits and reduced investment for a start, both of which will push up exposure to corporation tax.
A prolonged transition makes continuing payments more saleable.
Though will set some loon eyes swivelling...
A long transition is good news for the economy, but it does raise an interesting point about what would happen if we are still transitioning and the Tories lose the next election.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There have been higher profits and reduced investment for a start, both of which will push up exposure to corporation tax.
A prolonged transition makes continuing payments more saleable.
Though will set some loon eyes swivelling...
A long transition is good news for the economy, but it does raise an interesting point about what would happen if we are still transitioning and the Tories lose the next election.
The question is whether the other parties respect the will of the British people, who decided to Leave the EU.
Not my side! I am a LibDem, despite my disappointment at Cable not being opposed. Just making an observation.
You don't particularly come across as a Lib Dem. Especially as it also means that you and I are on the same side atm.
Follow your own logic, Mr Jessop. You ought to be a Lib Dem too.
I find myself continually trapped between Conservative and Lib Dem; both attract and annoy me at various times. I voted Lib Dem at the GE, and cannot see myself voting Conservative under most of the potential next leaders.
My current Conservative MP is also quite good, and as she has a very safe seat I find myself free to have fun with my vote ...
Mrs J's birthday is coming up soon, and I want to get her a really nice present. As she's also into space, I thought I'd get her a space-themed present.
I asked her for hints about anything she might want in that area, and she reminded me that an ex of hers had got her name onto a CD on the New Horizons spacecraft, which is currently past Pluto and heading out to the Kuiper Belt.
A music festival, but with space theme and science lectures. On my list for next year, but not really Mrs Fox's cup of tea. Turning up at a space festival without an anorak seems a step too far.
I can't see how the conservatives can win the next election if immigration isn't under control and when the country knows it is a deliberate policy not to have it controlled. Who is benefiting by it? They are asking for votes from their middle class friends while adopting policies to hurt the poor. I expect UKIP to recover and for most people Corbyn is not so bad. Taxes on the middle class looks good to me.
Comments
Don't chase monthly figures.
I enjoy your contributions and often agree with them, nevertheless your post is a good example of how the left's default answer to anything & everything is still to blame Thatcher, often unfairly, a mere 27 years after she resigned.
Just don't try to sell a speck of moon dust: NASA doesn't like it:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-woman-detained-moon-rock-20170413-story.html
https://www.space.com/11804-nasa-moon-rock-sting-apollo17.html
It was a visual treat, try and see it in IMAX if you can, it wasn't an epic in length but epic nonetheless.
I'm glad Christopher Nolan noted that the events at Dunkerque were a bloody disaster and for every one solider that escaped more than ten were captured or died.
Mr. M, not sure, but that could be a good alternative.
Or, buy her a trebuchet.
Edited for typo*.
Unrelatedly, it is usually thought that Shackleton named the Beardmore Glacier after his sponsor Sir William Beardmore, but there's a rival theory that he had been enthusiastically shagging Lady B prior to his departure South, and named the glacier after her to taunt Sir W.
It would be too much to expect this random author to also be a skilled tipster of the motorsport genre. Such multi-faceted people would surely be the stuff of fiction themselves.
" >> Big Questions <<
Who's asking what this week?
Which posh toff former Tory MP has
a surprisingly punk rock safe word?
When things are getting a little too
rich for him, sexually speaking, he
recites a line from a NOFX song to
get his partner to stop."
It's at moments like this that I wish tim was still posting on here.
I'm just trying to get the precise definition of the way in which you're wrong
If the French had done their job properly, we wouldn't even be at Dunkirk.
Are you secretly French?
Also for Morris Dancer, Köln.
Well, usually.
If it doesn't, the soundbite falls apart very quickly, as Theresa found out to her cost.
The reason "Long-term economic plan" worked for GE2015 is because it was grounded firmly in reality and record.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5971bca5e4b0e79ec1987157/amp
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
Fighting alongside Les Grenouilles always turns into a disaster for us.
You are right about the effect on the public finances, though. It's a bit of a timebomb, since it greatly reduces the scope for inflating our way out of the problem.
He does seem quite a strange person (comments about women and public sector workers, etc)
That's another nice aspect of betting. Your failures and successes are plain to see, and whilst they may be influenced heavily by fortune (especially in F1) they either win or lose, and that's an end of it.
Not long now until Hungary. Current forecast is to be dry. I shall be checking the safety car odds.
I was never clear what السويس was meant to achieve given the status-quo ante bellum of mass occupation of the السويس canal zone by British troops was so unsatisfactory.
Probably a NATO force with the Americans in the السويس canal zone would have worked, but Eden didn't recognise the real-politick at the time because he was too busy harking back to München.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/frr/fiscal-risk-report-july-2017/
I think that the incentive to recognise and pay profits here and the disincentives of not doing so is the most likely explanation for the uplift. If that is right an increase in CT is likely to have an adverse effect. Do you have an alternative explanation?
So we veterans picked up the positive voting statements, but didn't especially believe them. The Momentum types didn't care about this "veterans know to discount that" line and just kept plugging away. On this occasion they turned out to be right.
(1) it shows just what a phenomenally clever and talented guy Gove is (when he can restrain his passions)
(2) it kind of shows up Andrea Leadsom - he's done this in 6 weeks, and it's not clear if she got close in almost a year
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40673559
"Friend --
Chancellor Plans Brexit Betrayal
Chancellor Philip Hammond’s plans for ‘transitional arrangements’ – including extending our open borders for several years – will lead to a betrayal of the Brexit decision, says UKIP interim leader Steve Crowther.
“Extending freedom of movement for two, three or four years produces no obvious benefit to anyone”, he said. “It is an EU principle, so ending it in 2019 or 2023 makes no difference to them.
“Business wants certainty, and that comes from sticking to the timetable, negotiating robustly and introducing clear border control policies that enable us to access the skills we need.
“Since the election, Theresa May is badly holed and unseaworthy, and the Remainer Philip Hammond – who was on his way out of the door before June 8th – now sees an opportunity to fudge, delay and obfuscate until the end of the current Parliament, to try and get the decision reversed.
“Every time a member state has voted against the EU’s wishes, they have been faced with delays and obstructions which eventually deliver the EU’s desired outcome. This has happened to France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Greece…
“UKIP will be in the background while the Government is delivering the clean Brexit the country voted for. But if the Cabinet members surrender to Michel Barnier’s threats and agree the Chancellor’s Remainer-driven plan, we will be back with a vengeance.”"
He might not be exactly my kind of Tory but there's no doubt in my mind he bleeds blue, and has done his whole life.
Our little 'un has my surname, but we've given him Mrs J's surname as a middle name, so it'll live on longer still.
Mrs J keeping her maiden name doesn't bother me one bit, although it confuses some organisations who assume we're unmarried.
The final entry destroyed me.
Exclusive: Magic Circle trainee tweets a very candid diary
http://rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/5220/fromTab/36/currentIndex/6/Default.aspx
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/vis/visiting-mauna-kea/visiting-the-summit.html
http://www.discoverthebluedot.com
Though will set some loon eyes swivelling...
I really think Conservative politicians need to push the intellectual and moral case for this, DavidL has done a better job than most just on this thread.
My current Conservative MP is also quite good, and as she has a very safe seat I find myself free to have fun with my vote ...
On the same basis, Mr Burgon is clearly signed up to a fascist Stalinist Communist splinter group.
NEW THREAD