Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats
Missing the point once again.
Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.
Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974
That is still the case even if the result was below expectations
Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.
May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.
Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust
Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.
Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.
Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?
Here's a quick thought - now that there are means to transfer bank accounts between banks would it be possible / practical to allow a bank to be shut down with all accounts transferred to the remaining banks....
Who pays? If the government pays, then that is a bailout! I can't see any investors queuing up to pay lots of account holders when the bank is about to go bust.
@JohnRentoul: Fine analysis by @BethRigby: Tory abstentions would lose vote on Labour Universal Credit motion, so Tory whips will ask MPs not to vote
@JohnRentoul: @BethRigby But this time Labour whips will put up tellers for the Govt & force a division. Govt will ignore, but it will be embarrassing. At 7pm.
Why are Tory MPs rebelling at all.
Don't they know HYUFD said it was all going fine and those on benefits vote Labour anyway.
Because some Conservative MPs will be listening to their constituents concerns.I would imagine in new rollout areas , their workload has shot through the roof.
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
You'll find the 55p/min charges on crappy pay as you go tarrifs, mainly. UC applicants are way more likely not to be able to get credit/contracts, so rely on the crappy pay as you go tariffs. They're also way more likely to not have easy access to (and confidence on) the internet.
I don't want to sound heartless. Universal Credit has problems, but this really isn't one of them, even though I think the helplines should be free. I would rather they fixed the other problems.
You can get the Tesco Mobile Lite tariff without credit checks for 8p/minute. They should never be on a 55p/minute tariff for anything. That's a problem right there.
@JohnRentoul: Fine analysis by @BethRigby: Tory abstentions would lose vote on Labour Universal Credit motion, so Tory whips will ask MPs not to vote
@JohnRentoul: @BethRigby But this time Labour whips will put up tellers for the Govt & force a division. Govt will ignore, but it will be embarrassing. At 7pm.
Why are Tory MPs rebelling at all.
Don't they know HYUFD said it was all going fine and those on benefits vote Labour anyway.
Because some Conservative MPs will be listening to their constituents concerns.I would imagine in new rollout areas , their workload has shot through the roof.
Yup, I've been saying a while UC has the potential to be the modern day poll tax.
I think its more of the general idea (Which is outside most 'middle class' people's experience) of just how expensive it is to be poor/(unable or unwilling to access sensible credit).
Prepay gas, electric; crazily high interest rate pay day loans, expensive PAYG phone credit amongst other things (high rents for poor accomodation)
Yes, exactly, and this is the response to Francis U's suggestion that surely most people are now on mobile phone contracts. See
People on low and fluctuating incomes are nervous of signing up to regular commitments (as they should be). In the same way, they will tend to buy small amounts of food instead of the bargain offers to buy a stock that will last for months. This is the sort of thing that really needs MPs with a clear insight into real life for the poor, either from personal experience or the much=despised casework.
I think its more of the general idea (Which is outside most 'middle class' people's experience) of just how expensive it is to be poor/(unable or unwilling to access sensible credit).
Prepay gas, electric; crazily high interest rate pay day loans, expensive PAYG phone credit amongst other things (high rents for poor accomodation)
Yes, exactly, and this is the response to Francis U's suggestion that surely most people are now on mobile phone contracts.
I didn't suggest that at all...I said I was shocked to find that 55p / minute on a cellphone was even a thing. I thought it was some mistake, because on most contracts 0345 is included and thus I presumed even for PAYG it wouldn't be particularly high.
On topic if the government can maintain their arrangement with the DUP I think Mike is undoubtedly right. Fag end governments tend to hang on to the last in the hope something turns up anyway, see Labour 1974-9, 2005-2010 and the Tories 1992-7. So even without the FTPA I would expect that.
The only question is whether the arrangement with the DUP can be maintained. That may well bring us back to the last thread.
In the first two examples, that nearly worked. Callaghan might have won had he gone in 1978 (he was somewhat unlucky with the Winter of Discontent) and Labour got their act together in the last 6 months of the 2005 Parliament, denying Cameron a majority.
The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.
God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
I think it's because some of these matters were caused by industrial action by the unions and they were seen at the time and perhaps later as one and the same as Labour. But you're right that the 3-day week happened under Heath because he was unable to govern effectively. Labour thought at the time that working with the unions would bring industrial peace. Callaghan was to find that that wasn't the case. Hence Thatcher etc.....
There is a bit of a myth re-the 1974 -79 Labour Government which implies that the period was one of constant industrial strife. That was not actually true until the very end of 1978 and the Winter of Discontent which followed. The years 1974 - 78 were relatively peaceful - in contrast to the 1970 - 74 period.
You have a seriously screwy mobile package if you are paying 55p per minute to call 0345 numbers. Presumably you pay the same to call landlines. So fair does to Corbyn for point scored, but Universal Credit has problems that have nothing to do with call charges.
You'll find the 55p/min charges on crappy pay as you go tarrifs, mainly. UC applicants are way more likely not to be able to get credit/contracts, so rely on the crappy pay as you go tariffs. They're also way more likely to not have easy access to (and confidence on) the internet.
I don't want to sound heartless. Universal Credit has problems, but this really isn't one of them, even though I think the helplines should be free. I would rather they fixed the other problems.
You can get the Tesco Mobile Lite tariff without credit checks for 8p/minute. They should never be on a 55p/minute tariff for anything. That's a problem right there.
Just saying well they should be on a cheaper tariff isn't good enough. Policy has to work in the real world.
"Remember that blue team has only lost one MP to the grim reaper since GE2001. "
This is a great example of the general improvement in public helth. 30 years ago it was quite common for someone under 65 to die suddenly from a heart attack. 3 off the top of my head are Jock Stein, Tommy Cooper and John Smith.
I heard a few years ago now from a heart attack expert that there are now one tenth of the number of deaths following a heart attack compared with the 70s. The availability of defibrillators and post heart attack care has had a massive effect.
Many of the older MPs are now given the opportunity to wait until the next GE and retire once their health starts to deteriorate.
"Remember that blue team has only lost one MP to the grim reaper since GE2001. "
This is a great example of the general improvement in public helth. 30 years ago it was quite common for someone under 65 to die suddenly from a heart attack. 3 off the top of my head are Jock Stein, Tommy Cooper and John Smith.
I heard a few years ago now from a heart attack expert that there are now one tenth of the number of deaths following a heart attack compared with the 70s. The availability of defibrillators and post heart attack care has had a massive effect.
Many of the older MPs are now given the opportunity to wait until the next GE and retire once their health starts to deteriorate.
I think the next five years may deteriorate the health of many!
I think its more of the general idea (Which is outside most 'middle class' people's experience) of just how expensive it is to be poor/(unable or unwilling to access sensible credit).
Prepay gas, electric; crazily high interest rate pay day loans, expensive PAYG phone credit amongst other things (high rents for poor accomodation)
Yes, exactly, and this is the response to Francis U's suggestion that surely most people are now on mobile phone contracts.
I didn't suggest that at all...I said I was shocked to find that 55p / minute on a cellphone was even a thing. I thought it was some mistake, because on most contracts 0345 is included and thus I presumed even for PAYG it wouldn't be particularly high.
I went out of my minutes allowance (I've since changed my package around slightly to unlimited minutes & 30 gigs, instead of 200 minutes and unlimited internet (£20 both)) a couple of months back and noted the monster charges for calling the vet. That was an 03 number.
I think its more of the general idea (Which is outside most 'middle class' people's experience) of just how expensive it is to be poor/(unable or unwilling to access sensible credit).
Prepay gas, electric; crazily high interest rate pay day loans, expensive PAYG phone credit amongst other things (high rents for poor accomodation)
Yes, exactly, and this is the response to Francis U's suggestion that surely most people are now on mobile phone contracts.
I didn't suggest that at all...I said I was shocked to find that 55p / minute on a cellphone was even a thing. I thought it was some mistake, because on most contracts 0345 is included and thus I presumed even for PAYG it wouldn't be particularly high.
This is from o2, is similar on other networks for people on contract as well.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
Don’t bloody go there. I had shares in that good bank!
I think its more of the general idea (Which is outside most 'middle class' people's experience) of just how expensive it is to be poor/(unable or unwilling to access sensible credit).
Prepay gas, electric; crazily high interest rate pay day loans, expensive PAYG phone credit amongst other things (high rents for poor accomodation)
Yes, exactly, and this is the response to Francis U's suggestion that surely most people are now on mobile phone contracts.
I didn't suggest that at all...I said I was shocked to find that 55p / minute on a cellphone was even a thing. I thought it was some mistake, because on most contracts 0345 is included and thus I presumed even for PAYG it wouldn't be particularly high.
0345 not included in my EE monthly service... as I found out to my cost a couple of months ago
EDIT: correction - I was confusing that with 0845 numbers - those are the ones not included in my contract - apols!
@BethRigby: Interesting ALL benefit helplines to go freephone. MP told me govt was worried about opening floodgate scrapping #UC charges. Changed mind?
I’d have all government service phone lines moved to free - it gives the relevant department a huge incentive to make good information available online, and properly staff their call centres to avoid having people on hold for hours on end.
I agree that the next election is likely to be in 2022.
However, the SNP will make certain that they cannot be convincingly blamed for the Tories remaining in power, which means they would be willing to risk a further reduction in Westminster seats in order to bring down the Government if their votes were critical to doing that (worth noting that the latest polls indicate they would be more likely to gain rather than lose seats).
The reality is that the future of Scotland will, de facto, be decided by future Holyrood elections, not by Westminster ones.
A scenario of an SNP actual or near wipeout at Westminster, but a pro-independence majority at Holyrood followed by a Yes vote in another independence referendum, is entirely possible.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
Don’t bloody go there. I had shares in that good bank!
Rcs is quite right - there was no sensible choice but to bail out Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS, and any Tory PM would have done the same. Those people who criticise GB so loudly for his actions would be even more vocifereous if he had let those banks go under and depositors lose their deposits.
@HYUFD "The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits" - try telling that to all those who held shares in HBOS, RBS and Lloyds in 2007-8!
"Remember that blue team has only lost one MP to the grim reaper since GE2001. "
This is a great example of the general improvement in public helth. 30 years ago it was quite common for someone under 65 to die suddenly from a heart attack. 3 off the top of my head are Jock Stein, Tommy Cooper and John Smith.
I heard a few years ago now from a heart attack expert that there are now one tenth of the number of deaths following a heart attack compared with the 70s. The availability of defibrillators and post heart attack care has had a massive effect.
Many of the older MPs are now given the opportunity to wait until the next GE and retire once their health starts to deteriorate.
I think the next five years may deteriorate the health of many!
Yes, having to negotiate with Arlene Foster is a very different job from running a 'simple' Lib-Lab pact and dealing with David Steel. The Labour majority reached 0 in 1977.
The grim reaper visited the HoC a lot, especially elderly Labour MPs. Labour MPs were older than Tory MPs then and the same is true now even though we're said to have more 'professional politicians'.
On topic if the government can maintain their arrangement with the DUP I think Mike is undoubtedly right. Fag end governments tend to hang on to the last in the hope something turns up anyway, see Labour 1974-9, 2005-2010 and the Tories 1992-7. So even without the FTPA I would expect that.
The only question is whether the arrangement with the DUP can be maintained. That may well bring us back to the last thread.
In the first two examples, that nearly worked. Callaghan might have won had he gone in 1978 (he was somewhat unlucky with the Winter of Discontent) and Labour got their act together in the last 6 months of the 2005 Parliament, denying Cameron a majority.
The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.
God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
Don’t bloody go there. I had shares in that good bank!
Rcs is quite right - there was no sensible choice but to bail out Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS, and any Tory PM would have done the same. Those people who criticise GB so loudly for his actions would be even more vocifereous if he had let those banks go under and depositors lose their deposits.
@HYUFD "The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits" - try telling that to all those who held shares in HBOS, RBS and Lloyds in 2007-8!
Agree completely that any government would have done the same, a retail bank (as opposed to an investment bank) failing can and will cause a general bank run which could escalate exponentially within days and leave a right mess behind.
I agree that the next election is likely to be in 2022.
However, the SNP will make certain that they cannot be convincingly blamed for the Tories remaining in power, which means they would be willing to risk a further reduction in Westminster seats in order to bring down the Government if their votes were critical to doing that (worth noting that the latest polls indicate they would be more likely to gain rather than lose seats).
The reality is that the future of Scotland will, de facto, be decided by future Holyrood elections, not by Westminster ones.
A scenario of an SNP actual or near wipeout at Westminster, but a pro-independence majority at Holyrood followed by a Yes vote in another independence referendum, is entirely possible.
With SNP recovering steadily in the WM polling - SLAB in dissarry - SCON peaked - the SNP would welcome an early election.
The names these parties choose are hilarious. The 'democrats' whose main aim is to subvert a democratical decision, the 'radicals' who are the opposite of radical.
Lots of self-employed are or soon will be on UC. I gather that 'self-employed' status is sometimes a fiction to avoid signing on mainly because people who do that are treated so harshly/shabbily. Do a small amount of work, which is mostly declared to HMRC; claim housing benefit; claim a council tax discount; claim working tax credit, etc.
HMRC is an utter shower. The equivalent bodies in the USA have always had 0800 numbers. In fact, all organisations in the USA larger than a husband & wife business seem to offer free phone numbers.
The names these parties choose are hilarious. The 'democrats' whose main aim is to subvert a democratical decision, the 'radicals' who are the opposite of radical.
Will the Radicals be opposed by the Anti-Oxidants?
The names these parties choose are hilarious. The 'democrats' whose main aim is to subvert a democratical decision, the 'radicals' who are the opposite of radical.
Will the Radicals be opposed by the Anti-Oxidants?
One has to seriously wonder about the quality of civil servants in the DWP. The leadership through most of this period under IDS was laughably incompetent (at least you could laugh if if you were not dependent on benefits) but even so. The idea that a majority of the membership once thought that man was the one to lead them into a GE with a view to becoming PM is a deeply depressing one.
It was Osborne who insisted on the lengthy delay for UC payment Not IDS
Yes, because it patently wasn't ready to roll. And several years later it is still not ready to roll. Where Osborne has made life more difficult was combining the introduction of UC and cuts in benefits. Any new system is easier if there is money to smooth the new edges.
On topic if the government can maintain their arrangement with the DUP I think Mike is undoubtedly right. Fag end governments tend to hang on to the last in the hope something turns up anyway, see Labour 1974-9, 2005-2010 and the Tories 1992-7. So even without the FTPA I would expect that.
The only question is whether the arrangement with the DUP can be maintained. That may well bring us back to the last thread.
In the first two examples, that nearly worked. Callaghan might have won had he gone in 1978 (he was somewhat unlucky with the Winter of Discontent) and Labour got their act together in the last 6 months of the 2005 Parliament, denying Cameron a majority.
The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.
God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
RPI inflation in the early months of 1979 was under 10% having been circa 8% throughout 1978.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
It's a real problem ascribing responsibility for bad economic decisions, as the consequences can be immediate, or played out over decades. The most significant policies tend towards the latter. In a sense, chancellors are always driving with recourse mainly to the rear view mirror - which is why a degree of genuine prudence (unlike the ersatz Brownian version) is to be valued.
The names these parties choose are hilarious. The 'democrats' whose main aim is to subvert a democratical decision, the 'radicals' who are the opposite of radical.
Truth is lies, peace is war, love is hate.
Too many modern politicians fail to understand that Orwell’s writings were supposed to be a warning, rather than an instruction manual.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Not quite -Thatcher inherited 10.1% inflation and passed on 9.7% to John Major!
In the first two examples, that nearly worked. Callaghan might have won had he gone in 1978 (he was somewhat unlucky with the Winter of Discontent) and Labour got their act together in the last 6 months of the 2005 Parliament, denying Cameron a majority.
The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.
God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
Really? I remember the planned power cuts for which we had a rota, but those were during the 1973-74 3 day week weren't they? Were there many power cuts after Feb 1974?
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Not quite -Thatcher inherited 10.1% inflation and passed on 9.7% to John Major!
It depends which month's figures you take as start and end. Admittedly it is angels dancing on pinheads stuff but the wider point remains that the Thatcher years were not times of low inflation that we got used to over the past decade or so.
It's kind-of revealing that Jamie Dimon made comments about Bitcoin, but the person trying to make a defence decided to move the conversation to crypto-currencies in general.
Bitcoin was designed for paying for things, but it's now pretty much a pure speculative ponzi. It's actually worse than a proper ponzi, because as well as late entrants having to pay for gains of early entrants, it's burning vast sums in mining costs just to keep going. The usefulness of Bitcoin for any practical purpose keeps going down, while its price keeps going up thanks to people who believe what they read on Zerohedge. At some point these things have to come back into alignment.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Not quite -Thatcher inherited 10.1% inflation and passed on 9.7% to John Major!
It depends which month's figures you take as start and end. Admittedly it is angels dancing on pinheads stuff but the wider point remains that the Thatcher years were not times of low inflation that we got used to over the past decade or so.
When people think about the effect of inflation they are most commonly remembering their experience of a combination of price inflation, pay rises, interest rates and house price inflation
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Not quite -Thatcher inherited 10.1% inflation and passed on 9.7% to John Major!
It depends which month's figures you take as start and end. Admittedly it is angels dancing on pinheads stuff but the wider point remains that the Thatcher years were not times of low inflation that we got used to over the past decade or so.
In the mid-1980s RPI inflation was similar to the 3.9% we have now - but Lawson's boom caused it to shoot up again in the late 80s.
Chinese President Xi Jumping lauds the success of 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' as a model for other countries and proposes a 2 stage socialist modernisation programme until 2050 focusing on the economy and environment. He also warns against separatist movements in Tibet and Hong Kong and promises China will remain open to trade and foreign investors http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-41647872
It's kind-of revealing that Jamie Dimon made comments about Bitcoin, but the person trying to make a defence decided to move the conversation to crypto-currencies in general.
Bitcoin was designed for paying for things, but it's now pretty much a pure speculative ponzi. It's actually worse than a proper ponzi, because as well as late entrants having to pay for gains of early entrants, it's burning vast sums in mining costs just to keep going. The usefulness of Bitcoin for any practical purpose keeps going down, while its price keeps going up thanks to people who believe what they read on Zerohedge. At some point these things have to come back into alignment.
No it wouldn't, after all it was taxpayers money which bailed out Northern Rock. Though after that as I said the government would have had to intervene if any other banks and building societies got into trouble.
The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits. As I said the US let Lehmans go bust to ensure that message did not fully apply there
OK. Government lets Northern Rock go bust. Millions of peoples' bank accounts are frozen, thousands of business accounts are frozen, Northern Rock is unable to meet its liabilities to other banks.
People who use other banks panic: perhaps Barclays is the next Northern Rock? Massive lines outside other banks that might be insolvent. The interbank funding market dries up.
Tom's Hardware in Gateshead banked with Northern Rock. It can no longer make payroll to its employees as Northern Rock's bankruptcy has left it with frozen accounts. Its employees can't pay their mortgages as they haven't been paid.
This has a cascade effect. The employees of Tom's Hardware had their mortgages with Lloyds (which is having a funding crisis as people try to pull money out), and Lloyds has to announce that its number of non-performing mortgages has doubled.
These scenarios were played out in the Bank of England during the crisis. Letting a large retail bank go to the wall would have had diastrous knock on effects on the economy.
Now, does legislation need to be changed to make this kind of thing less likely in the future, perhaps with criminal liability for bank management that acts recklessly? Yes.
But the government and the Bank of England had no good choices in late 2007, 2008. Rescuing Northern Rock's depositors was the best bad option.
Quite. Although Lloyds - prior to getting strongarmed into bailing out HBOS - was probably the least likely of the UK banks to go under.
Don’t bloody go there. I had shares in that good bank!
Rcs is quite right - there was no sensible choice but to bail out Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS, and any Tory PM would have done the same. Those people who criticise GB so loudly for his actions would be even more vocifereous if he had let those banks go under and depositors lose their deposits.
@HYUFD "The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits" - try telling that to all those who held shares in HBOS, RBS and Lloyds in 2007-8!
The management of those banks still did quite nicely thank you after the bailouts
Chinese President Xi Jumping lauds the success of 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' as a model for other countries and proposes a 2 stage socialist modernisation programme until 2050 focusing on the economy and environment. He also warns against separatist movements in Tibet and Hong Kong and promises China will remain open to trade and foreign investors http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-41647872
Until recently (well, today) the Chinese had learned the trick of regularly replacing their leaders rather than allowing the same dictator to rule for decades.
@JohnRentoul: Fine analysis by @BethRigby: Tory abstentions would lose vote on Labour Universal Credit motion, so Tory whips will ask MPs not to vote
@JohnRentoul: @BethRigby But this time Labour whips will put up tellers for the Govt & force a division. Govt will ignore, but it will be embarrassing. At 7pm.
Why are Tory MPs rebelling at all.
Don't they know HYUFD said it was all going fine and those on benefits vote Labour anyway.
Because some Conservative MPs will be listening to their constituents concerns.I would imagine in new rollout areas , their workload has shot through the roof.
Yup, I've been saying a while UC has the potential to be the modern day poll tax.
If done properly it should ensure nobody loses all their benefits working for more than 16 hours a week, sadly Osborne insisted on the lengthy delay for payments which Gauke is having to tackle
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Not quite -Thatcher inherited 10.1% inflation and passed on 9.7% to John Major!
It depends which month's figures you take as start and end. Admittedly it is angels dancing on pinheads stuff but the wider point remains that the Thatcher years were not times of low inflation that we got used to over the past decade or so.
When people think about the effect of inflation they are most commonly remembering their experience of a combination of price inflation, pay rises, interest rates and house price inflation
Housing is the biggest personal expense but house price inflation does not get included in the Consumer Price Index.
The B of E is supposed to take account if increased asset prices when considering interest rate rises but so far has allowed house prices (and equity shares) to rip.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Chinese President Xi Jumping lauds the success of 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' as a model for other countries and proposes a 2 stage socialist modernisation programme until 2050 focusing on the economy and environment. He also warns against separatist movements in Tibet and Hong Kong and promises China will remain open to trade and foreign investors http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-41647872
Until recently (well, today) the Chinese had learned the trick of regularly replacing their leaders rather than allowing the same dictator to rule for decades.
Xi is now moving towards the Maoist faction in the Communist Party
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
Corbyn won the 2016 local elections, he lost the 2017 local and general elections.
If Cameron and Osborne had narrowly won the EU referendum Corbyn would be hitting them on austerity too while UKIP would still be a force snapping at the Tories heels
Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.
My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.
There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
The first thing the Thatcher government did was to double VAT. That's a healthy dose of inflation right there. And Mrs Thatcher left with inflation higher than she inherited.
The point is, she didn't really move the dial on inflation, did she?!
Overall RPI inflation fell by more during the 1974 - 1979 Labour Government than during Thatcher's 11.5 years in office. Labour inherited 13.5% inflation in March 1974 and passed on 10.3%.
Corbyn won the 2016 local elections, he lost the 2017 local and general elections.
If Cameron and Osborne had narrowly won the EU referendum Corbyn would be hitting them on austerity too while UKIP would still be a force snapping at the Tories heels
If my aunt had a ferret...
Your ifs are irrelevant. We are looking at a credible PM in waiting as far as a large number of voters is concerned.
Housing is the biggest personal expense but house price inflation does not get included in the Consumer Price Index.
The B of E is supposed to take account if increased asset prices when considering interest rate rises but so far has allowed house prices (and equity shares) to rip.
Average monthly inflation of the Labour government from March 1974 to April 1979 was 15.9%
Average monthly inflation during Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM from May 1979 to November 1990 was 8.1%
So she effectively halved inflation.
I think the 'Beginning' and 'End' points are useful - Labour inherited significantly higher inflation from Heath than Thatcher did from Callaghan - and by the end of her time in office inflation was pretty well back to what she inherited!.
Comments
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/920591800972300288
You can get the Tesco Mobile Lite tariff without credit checks for 8p/minute. They should never be on a 55p/minute tariff for anything. That's a problem right there.
https://www.globalrewardsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/GRS-Mobile-Top-up_Wireless-Market-Statistics-2015.pdf
People on low and fluctuating incomes are nervous of signing up to regular commitments (as they should be). In the same way, they will tend to buy small amounts of food instead of the bargain offers to buy a stock that will last for months. This is the sort of thing that really needs MPs with a clear insight into real life for the poor, either from personal experience or the much=despised casework.
Policy has to work in the real world.
Note:
Not the date she steps down as leader.
Combining november & december '17 @ ~4/1 gives fair value, imo. Covers the upcoming budget sh*tstorm and (possibly) brexit reverse ferret.
This is a great example of the general improvement in public helth. 30 years ago it was quite common for someone under 65 to die suddenly from a heart attack. 3 off the top of my head are Jock Stein, Tommy Cooper and John Smith.
I heard a few years ago now from a heart attack expert that there are now one tenth of the number of deaths following a heart attack compared with the 70s. The availability of defibrillators and post heart attack care has had a massive effect.
Many of the older MPs are now given the opportunity to wait until the next GE and retire once their health starts to deteriorate.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/920598910896353280
EDIT: correction - I was confusing that with 0845 numbers - those are the ones not included in my contract - apols!
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/contact/self-assessment
However, the SNP will make certain that they cannot be convincingly blamed for the Tories remaining in power, which means they would be willing to risk a further reduction in Westminster seats in order to bring down the Government if their votes were critical to doing that (worth noting that the latest polls indicate they would be more likely to gain rather than lose seats).
The reality is that the future of Scotland will, de facto, be decided by future Holyrood elections, not by Westminster ones.
A scenario of an SNP actual or near wipeout at Westminster, but a pro-independence majority at Holyrood followed by a Yes vote in another independence referendum, is entirely possible.
@HYUFD "The problem was bailing out all of them sent a message that capitalism nationalised the losses and privatised the profits" - try telling that to all those who held shares in HBOS, RBS and Lloyds in 2007-8!
The grim reaper visited the HoC a lot, especially elderly Labour MPs. Labour MPs were older than Tory MPs then and the same is true now even though we're said to have more 'professional politicians'.
@bbclaurak: Official source tells me there is just 'not enough political agreement yet'-this puts Brexit legistlation timetable under massive pressure
@bbclaurak: @Keir_Starmer says “This is further proof that the Government's Brexit strategy is in paralysis." - more on @daily_politics in a few mins
Of course it took the new government some time to get it under control. Pointing out it went higher is as silly as blaming Osborne for deficits given what he inherited.
The 3 day week is always associated with Heath in my mind but power cuts and lack of supply was a problem throughout the 70s until North sea oil came on tap.
My critisism of Gordon Brown is what on Earth he was doing running a £41,000,000,000 budget deficit (plus billions more in PFI) at the end of a decade and a half of a constantly growing economy?
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5922/economics/uk-budget-deficit-2/
HMRC is an utter shower. The equivalent bodies in the USA have always had 0800 numbers. In fact, all organisations in the USA larger than a husband & wife business seem to offer free phone numbers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/the-threats-continue-of-retired-couple-chills-fellow-activists-in-turkey
In a sense, chancellors are always driving with recourse mainly to the rear view mirror - which is why a degree of genuine prudence (unlike the ersatz Brownian version) is to be valued.
https://blog.chain.com/a-letter-to-jamie-dimon-de89d417cb80
Too many modern politicians fail to understand that Orwell’s writings were supposed to be a warning, rather than an instruction manual.
Inflation April 1979 - 10.1%
Inflation May 1979 - 10.3%
Inflation November 1990 - 9.7%
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/mar/09/inflation-economics
Bitcoin was designed for paying for things, but it's now pretty much a pure speculative ponzi. It's actually worse than a proper ponzi, because as well as late entrants having to pay for gains of early entrants, it's burning vast sums in mining costs just to keep going. The usefulness of Bitcoin for any practical purpose keeps going down, while its price keeps going up thanks to people who believe what they read on Zerohedge. At some point these things have to come back into alignment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-41647872
On Sky Sports now.
Inflation October 1990 - 10.9%
The point is, she didn't really move the dial on inflation, did she?!
It's over...
Thatcher had to wait for Kenneth Clarke to sort out the economy when he became Chancellor under John Major.
If Cameron and Osborne had narrowly won the EU referendum Corbyn would be hitting them on austerity too while UKIP would still be a force snapping at the Tories heels
Average monthly inflation of the Labour government from March 1974 to April 1979 was 15.9%
Average monthly inflation during Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM from May 1979 to November 1990 was 8.1%
So she effectively halved inflation.
Your ifs are irrelevant. We are looking at a credible PM in waiting as far as a large number of voters is concerned.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/920611770775064576
Which made think of this.