Mr Eagles time to finish off that cockroach post. Once again Cleggy has popped out from under the floorboards having seen off Huhne and Cable. Nick Rex Blattariae, cross him at your peril.
I'm sure Andrea can tell us if he was recently deselected.
I see he's a Barking Councillor. Obvious one for UKIP then.
The best hope for UKIP next year is in next-door Havering, where the Conservative group is falling to pieces, and which has a long record of voting for Residents/Ratepayers candidates.
One wonders what the effect on the HoC would be should UKIP poll in GE 2015 around the 25% that they have in almost every actual poll in 2013.
Maybe even more, should they comfortably exceed that figure in the Euro 2014 lottery voting.
Conventional wisdom says they'll do exceptionally well to poll 10% - but the whole point about UKIP is that they are NOT a conventional party - still less a wise one!
The same sages who say UKIP will poll under 10% would have said (in 1997-2009) that the SNP will never form a majority administration in Holyrood.............
I'd like to see some source on the notion that they've polled around 25% in almost every actual poll in 2013? The most recent ICM (aka Gold Standard) poll put them at 9% so the notion that they might poll around 10% is not exactly absurd according to that polling.
In fact I can't find a single poll by any pollster where they have EVER hit 25% let alone that being the average that they're around. They've been around the 8-13% mark in recent months.
I think PFinch was referring to real polls where votes are cast as opposed to opinion polls.
Nailed it! Much like the england footballers who get selected, the best we've got but no more.
Janan Ganesh@JananGanesh This lumbering Clegg speech shows why Cameron made it to the top. He's not a great politician but he is the best of a thin generation.
Strange. I think Clegg's approval ratings were higher than Camron's at the last election. I'd suggest the most obvious reason Cameron is PM and not Clegg is that he's a Tory who inherited a party with 200 MPs not a Lib Dem who inherited a Party of 60 MPs.
Strange. I think the fact Cameron took his party of 210 MPs and gained an additional 96 MPs while Clegg took his party of 62 seats and lost 5 also played a part in it being Cameron who is the PM.
One wonders what the effect on the HoC would be should UKIP poll in GE 2015 around the 25% that they have in almost every actual poll in 2013.
Maybe even more, should they comfortably exceed that figure in the Euro 2014 lottery voting.
Conventional wisdom says they'll do exceptionally well to poll 10% - but the whole point about UKIP is that they are NOT a conventional party - still less a wise one!
The same sages who say UKIP will poll under 10% would have said (in 1997-2009) that the SNP will never form a majority administration in Holyrood.............
I'd like to see some source on the notion that they've polled around 25% in almost every actual poll in 2013? The most recent ICM (aka Gold Standard) poll put them at 9% so the notion that they might poll around 10% is not exactly absurd according to that polling.
In fact I can't find a single poll by any pollster where they have EVER hit 25% let alone that being the average that they're around. They've been around the 8-13% mark in recent months.
I suspect he's referring to the local elections in May, and subsequent local by-elections.
Local elections however, are not General Elections.
One wonders what the effect on the HoC would be should UKIP poll in GE 2015 around the 25% that they have in almost every actual poll in 2013.
Maybe even more, should they comfortably exceed that figure in the Euro 2014 lottery voting.
Conventional wisdom says they'll do exceptionally well to poll 10% - but the whole point about UKIP is that they are NOT a conventional party - still less a wise one!
The same sages who say UKIP will poll under 10% would have said (in 1997-2009) that the SNP will never form a majority administration in Holyrood.............
I'd like to see some source on the notion that they've polled around 25% in almost every actual poll in 2013? The most recent ICM (aka Gold Standard) poll put them at 9% so the notion that they might poll around 10% is not exactly absurd according to that polling.
In fact I can't find a single poll by any pollster where they have EVER hit 25% let alone that being the average that they're around. They've been around the 8-13% mark in recent months.
I think PFinch was referring to real polls where votes are cast as opposed to opinion polls.
Ah like the traditional Lib Dem mantra that it is local by-elections in mid-term which matter so go home and prepare for sweeping into government?
Does anyone seriously believe that local election results should be taken literally as General Election results which are double the opinion poll results?
Nailed it! Much like the england footballers who get selected, the best we've got but no more.
Janan Ganesh@JananGanesh This lumbering Clegg speech shows why Cameron made it to the top. He's not a great politician but he is the best of a thin generation.
Strange. I think Clegg's approval ratings were higher than Camron's at the last election. I'd suggest the most obvious reason Cameron is PM and not Clegg is that he's a Tory who inherited a party with 200 MPs not a Lib Dem who inherited a Party of 60 MPs.
Strange. I think the fact Cameron took his party of 210 MPs and gained an additional 96 MPs while Clegg took his party of 62 seats and lost 5 also played a part in it being Cameron who is the PM.
Clegg problem was that he was a part of a Party that wasn't seen as one that could win whereas Cameron was. He also inherited a Party that was on about 13% in the polls, whereas the Tories were on 33% pre-Cameron. If you don't think Clegg faced a much bigger task than Cameron to become PM I'm wondering what planet you're on. The most obvious explanation for their relative statuses is the Parties they chose.
Danny Alexander: 8/10. Excellent. Made a major contribution to controlling government spending and ensuring that the burdens of cuts are shared more fairly than they might have been otherwise. Driven the increase in personal allowances which will be the number 1 plank for the Lib Dems at the next election.
Vince Cable. 4/10. Done some good work in the car industry but failed with deregulation and generally been disappointing in supporting business, particularly exports. Still likes his "uncle Vince" role on the BBC too much.
Ed Davey. 1/10. He gets 1 because the serious disappointments in energy policy are not entirely his fault. Chris Huhne must get some of the blame. Probably the largest single failure by the Coalition.
Nick Clegg 6/10. Largely ineffective in front of office but has clearly worked hard to keep the wheels turning behind the scenes. Embarrassed himself on tuition fees, HoL reform and AV referendum but generally an essential part of the government.
Michael Moore 0/10. Who? Doubt his own mother remembers him.
Out of Cabinet Steven Webb has been a star. In the long run his pension reforms have probably saved this country more money than Danny Alexander.
One wonders what the effect on the HoC would be should UKIP poll in GE 2015 around the 25% that they have in almost every actual poll in 2013.
Maybe even more, should they comfortably exceed that figure in the Euro 2014 lottery voting.
Conventional wisdom says they'll do exceptionally well to poll 10% - but the whole point about UKIP is that they are NOT a conventional party - still less a wise one!
The same sages who say UKIP will poll under 10% would have said (in 1997-2009) that the SNP will never form a majority administration in Holyrood.............
I'd like to see some source on the notion that they've polled around 25% in almost every actual poll in 2013? The most recent ICM (aka Gold Standard) poll put them at 9% so the notion that they might poll around 10% is not exactly absurd according to that polling.
In fact I can't find a single poll by any pollster where they have EVER hit 25% let alone that being the average that they're around. They've been around the 8-13% mark in recent months.
I think PFinch was referring to real polls where votes are cast as opposed to opinion polls.
Ah like the traditional Lib Dem mantra that it is local by-elections in mid-term which matter so go home and prepare for sweeping into government?
Does anyone seriously believe that local election results should be taken literally as General Election results which are double the opinion poll results?
No, I was just clarifying what the post was referring to. I do my best to be a UKIP realist so I am incredibly hopeful they might get 10% but even that seems a hard ask.
Strange. I think the fact Cameron took his party of 210 MPs and gained an additional 96 MPs while Clegg took his party of 62 seats and lost 5 also played a part in it being Cameron who is the PM.
Clegg problem was that he was a part of a Party that wasn't seen as one that could win whereas Cameron was. He also inherited a Party that was on about 13% in the polls, whereas the Tories were on 33% pre-Cameron. If you don't think Clegg faced a much bigger task than Cameron to become PM I'm wondering what planet you're on. The most obvious explanation for their relative statuses is the Parties they chose.
Its much easier to be the big fish in a small pond. If you think that people simply choose which Party they want to join and then simply waltz into becoming that Party's leader then I'm wondering what planet you're on? There is no guarantee whatsoever that a Tory Nick Clegg would have ever become party leader.
We can look beyond there General Election performance where Cameron added 96 MPs to his 210 and Clegg lost 5 of his 62 and look at their respective Leadership Elections.
David Cameron did manage to win a leadership contest against many more potential candidates in a bid to become Leader of the Opposition. He won over the support of more MPs than the Lib Dems have in total. He won over two-thirds of the membership election vote, over twice as many as his nearest rival.
Nick Clegg fought to be leader of the distant third party. He managed to win 50.6% of the vote, nearly 1/7th total votes as Cameron got and just pipped out subsequently-imprisoned Chris Hughne who achieved 49.4% of the vote and nearly beat him.
Tell me again why we should assume Clegg could so easily win the bid to become leader of the Tories had he "chosen" to do so given he only scraped a narrow victory to become leader of the LDs?
looking down that list, it's still obvious that the real impact of UKIP is stopping Cons winning seats. It's were they where 10 years ago and only the scale has changed.
My view on what the graph shows is the impact of LibDem ground campaigning. This happens in LibDem seats, but not C/L battlegrounds. Hence the Cleggasm effected voting changes the most where LibDem ground war was the least.
The consequence is that the reverse Cleggasm should have the opposite effect, more voting change in C/L seats, least in LibDem seats.
One wonders what the effect on the HoC would be should UKIP poll in GE 2015 around the 25% that they have in almost every actual poll in 2013.
Maybe even more, should they comfortably exceed that figure in the Euro 2014 lottery voting.
Conventional wisdom says they'll do exceptionally well to poll 10% - but the whole point about UKIP is that they are NOT a conventional party - still less a wise one!
The same sages who say UKIP will poll under 10% would have said (in 1997-2009) that the SNP will never form a majority administration in Holyrood.............
I'd like to see some source on the notion that they've polled around 25% in almost every actual poll in 2013? The most recent ICM (aka Gold Standard) poll put them at 9% so the notion that they might poll around 10% is not exactly absurd according to that polling.
In fact I can't find a single poll by any pollster where they have EVER hit 25% let alone that being the average that they're around. They've been around the 8-13% mark in recent months.
I suspect he's referring to the local elections in May, and subsequent local by-elections.
Local elections however, are not General Elections.
I was. Hence 'actual polling' in my post.
D'oh!
Opinion polls may move financial and betting markets, incite debate both here and elsewhere, lead to the defenestration of Party Leaders (and much more besides). But they all mean diddly-squit in terms of actually VOTING for something with REAL people in REAL elections.
So the next two events of genuine import will be Euro 2014 and the ScotIndy Ref
Unless there's a Party leadership election, of course!
With Tory voters that's likely which is why he'd probably score zero with Lib-Lab tactical voters of which there are probably more than there are 2010 Lib Dems still loyal.
I would happily have voted Lib Dem last time though next time it would be dependent on both Alexander and Clegg having no status whatsoever in the party
Mr Eagles time to finish off that cockroach post. Once again Cleggy has popped out from under the floorboards having seen off Huhne and Cable. Nick Rex Blattariae, cross him at your peril.
I will do, I have updated it slightly.
Have also compared Clegg and the Lib Dems to Caesar and the Populares
Post the general election, for the Lib Dems, it seems they've been engaged in the Battle of Dyrrhachium.
They should remember that if they hold their nerve, the 2015 General Election will be their Battle of Pharsalus*
*auto-correct changed that to the Battle of Phallus, which amused me no end.
So the next two events of genuine import will be Euro 2014 and the ScotIndy Ref
The local elections in 2014 will be just as important as the Euros on the same day. They might not have the same coverage but being FPTP the local results in, for example, London should give a better steer towards GE outcomes than the list elections for the Euros in that region.
So the next two events of genuine import will be Euro 2014 and the ScotIndy Ref
The local elections in 2014 will be just as important as the Euros on the same day. They might not have the same coverage but being FPTP the local results in, for example, London should give a better steer towards GE outcomes than the list elections for the Euros in that region.
I think UKIP's vote share in the locals will be way above what they could expect in the general election, though. I think a lot of UKIP councillors will get elected on the coat-tails of their EU Parliamentary candidates.
Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking. Talk about looking into crystal balls.
Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.
No they won't. As a UKIP member I would love that to be true but there is no way on earth that UKIP will get more seats than the Lib Dems even if they beat them on votes.
UKIP might get a single seat if the conditions are perfect. More realistically I believe they will rack up probably 10% of the national vote but will remain without a seat.
Are you truly a UKIP supporter Tyndall, because you always put the darkest forcast for UKIP success? Not a ray of sunshine are you, and of course UKIP wont get any seats if all supporters and members had your outlook; thank the lord they don't.
IMHO, the party will be doing well to win 7% nationwide in General Election conditions. That is, after all, more than 2 million votes.
Realistic, SeanF. My prediction is 6% and this doubling their vote to 2 million. It will hurt the Tories in certain places.
So the next two events of genuine import will be Euro 2014 and the ScotIndy Ref
The local elections in 2014 will be just as important as the Euros on the same day. They might not have the same coverage but being FPTP the local results in, for example, London should give a better steer towards GE outcomes than the list elections for the Euros in that region.
I think UKIP's vote share in the locals will be way above what they could expect in the general election, though. I think a lot of UKIP councillors will get elected on the coat-tails of their EU Parliamentary candidates.
I agree - like when they got 2 seats on the London Assembly when it coincided with the Euros in 2004.
So the next two events of genuine import will be Euro 2014 and the ScotIndy Ref
The local elections in 2014 will be just as important as the Euros on the same day. They might not have the same coverage but being FPTP the local results in, for example, London should give a better steer towards GE outcomes than the list elections for the Euros in that region.
I think UKIP's vote share in the locals will be way above what they could expect in the general election, though. I think a lot of UKIP councillors will get elected on the coat-tails of their EU Parliamentary candidates.
I agree entirely.
Which is why I think GE 2015 might well see a much greater UKIP vote than many currently predict.
Caveat: That's also based on the currently widespread & deeply-held belief that the current crop of politicians & political ideologies got us into this mess but the current Party leadership (& Whitehall, who come from the same narrow educational & experience background) haven't a clue how to get us out of it.
Once I hear a Party Leader explaining how they plan to reduce the DEBT, then I'll start to take notice. Until then, Cameron Clegg and Milliband are simply speaking for the sake of generating hot air: nothing they propose will make one iota of difference to the steadily rising debt interest we have to pay, which current costs £48 billion pa and might easily rise to over £150 billion pa.
And how on Earth are we going to fund THAT? It would have been a delight to hear Clegg announce the spending cuts he and his party had driven through, against the fierce opposition of the CotE and PM. Instead, we had a £600 million pa food subsidy for children whose parents should have thought about funding their feeding before they had them.
I've read that it's the LDs quid pro quo for backing a Marriage Tax Allowance. If so, it means the LDs are supporting feckless, rapidly-breeding benefit scroungers (many of whom appear to be immigrants, judging from recent ONS data on parental origin of new births) and against responsible, stable, family-orientated deeply British, small-c conservative hard working families.
Good luck with selling THAT in a GE campaign! Though why on Earth Cameron and Osborne agreed to this reckless squandering of £600 million pa, Lord alone knows.
So the next two events of genuine import will be Euro 2014 and the ScotIndy Ref
The local elections in 2014 will be just as important as the Euros on the same day. They might not have the same coverage but being FPTP the local results in, for example, London should give a better steer towards GE outcomes than the list elections for the Euros in that region.
I think UKIP's vote share in the locals will be way above what they could expect in the general election, though. I think a lot of UKIP councillors will get elected on the coat-tails of their EU Parliamentary candidates.
I agree - like when they got 2 seats on the London Assembly when it coincided with the Euros in 2004.
It's a shame the two Assembly members turned out to be who they were.
With Tory voters that's likely which is why he'd probably score zero with Lib-Lab tactical voters of which there are probably more than there are 2010 Lib Dems still loyal.
I would happily have voted Lib Dem last time though next time it would be dependent on both Alexander and Clegg having no status whatsoever in the party
TBH Roger, I would be surprised if you agreed with any of my scoring. If Miliband becomes PM, however, I think he will be grateful for all of the hard work done by Mr Alexander over the previous years which will make his job a little easier than it might otherwise have been.
I've read that it's the LDs quid pro quo for backing a Marriage Tax Allowance. If so, it means the LDs are supporting feckless, rapidly-breeding benefit scroungers (many of whom appear to be immigrants, judging from recent ONS data on parental origin of new births) and against responsible, stable, family-orientated deeply British, small-c conservative hard working families.
Admit it, you dont really understand what's been proposed or who it will impact on, do you?
Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.
I'm feeling very sorry for myself.
Could have been worse - most cars carry chibs in weegie land...
Seriously though, hope you're ok.
You have obviously never been in Glasgow and seen the contents of a car then. Any dolt would know that persons having the propensity to carry a chib do not have cars.
A survey of voting intentions conducted by Ipsos Mori revealed 59% said they would vote No in September 2014 and 31% would vote Yes. A further ten percent of voters remain undecided.
I think the changes are zero from the last Ipsos-Mori poll in May
Free school meals is a great policy from the Lib Dems. Especially amusing to see how they will deal with it at a local level. Having attacked Labour every single time we have done it!
The Ashcroft poll appears to show the UKIP effect on Con/Lab marginals to be quite significant. That said, even if three quarters of the UKIP supporters in that poll were to switch to Con (surely as far as it's possible to imagine), the Conservatives would still be behind. There is no substitute for them making inroads on the 2010 Lab/Lib vote.
A survey of voting intentions conducted by Ipsos Mori revealed 59% said they would vote No in September 2014 and 31% would vote Yes. A further ten percent of voters remain undecided.
I think the changes are zero from the last Ipsos-Mori poll in May
Maybe not, Mr. Brooke. He could pronounce it the German way, as per Wenger (I know some Germans would say Ballosh, but I was taught to pronounce 'ch' hard, rather than soft).
How does the Treasury spending more than Labour did make Labours job easier, surely the incoming govt will have to cut more than if Osborne and Alexander had managed to get anywhere near their fantasy deficit reduction programme announced in 2010?
Evening , tim.
Recognise this?
Public Sector Aggregates: Total Managed Expenditure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Year Nominal Change | Real Change | GDP Ratio Change £ bn % | £ bn % | % % ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling
With the Lib Dem selection officially announced today, we now know the 4 main candidates for the Dunfermline by-election on 24 October 2013:
Cara Hilton (Lab) Susan Leslie (LD) James Reekie (Con) Shirley-Anne Somerville (SNP)
As a former MSP (Lothians, 2007-11) Shirley-Anne Somerville is probably the best-known. The former Dunfermline Athletic manager Cllr Jim Leishman would have been a universally kent face in the royal burgh if he'd stood as the Labour candidate, but withdrew last week.
Cameron Clegg and Milliband are simply speaking for the sake of generating hot air: nothing they propose will make one iota of difference to the steadily rising debt interest we have to pay, which current costs £48 billion pa and might easily rise to over £150 billion pa.
...
PFinch
Just a small point of fact.
Government net cash requirements this year have this year have been negative to the tune of £50 bn cumulative [yes I know I am adding monthly balances].
Here is what used to be known as the "Public Sector Borrowing Requirement" for this year.
Public Sector Net Cash Requirement
Period £ Million
2013 Jan −29 043 Feb −9 827 Mar 23 218 Apr −15 290 May −1 101 Jun −988 Jul −19 640
Note, the negative figures show a surplus.
Pretty difficulty to see how to get to interest servicing costs in excess of £150 bn per annum on these trends!.
I've spent time at Loch Lomond, so I think I know how to pronounce Loch in true Scottish fashion.
As a Trekkie, you may find this helpful.
'[qχ] A little like a Klingon q immediately followed by a Klingon H. Close off your mouth as far back as you can, like with q, and force air up, like you're trying to dislodge food stuck in your throat. It sounds a lot like you're choking.'
I've spent time at Loch Lomond, so I think I know how to pronounce Loch in true Scottish fashion.
As a Trekkie, you may find this helpful.
'[qχ] A little like a Klingon q immediately followed by a Klingon H. Close off your mouth as far back as you can, like with q, and force air up, like you're trying to dislodge food stuck in your throat. It sounds a lot like you're choking.'
How does the Treasury spending more than Labour did make Labours job easier, surely the incoming govt will have to cut more than if Osborne and Alexander had managed to get anywhere near their fantasy deficit reduction programme announced in 2010?
Evening , tim.
Recognise this?
Public Sector Aggregates: Total Managed Expenditure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Year Nominal Change | Real Change | GDP Ratio Change £ bn % | £ bn % | % % ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling
Incidentally, the Glasgow papers were reporting that Labour has taken a 6-point lead for the next Holyrood elections, a sharp change from earlier polls. That said, it's a YouGov, whose Scottish panel generally seems more pro-Labour than some, so treat with caution - but the direction of travel is interesting.
Incidentally, the Glasgow papers were reporting that Labour has taken a 6-point lead for the next Holyrood elections, a sharp change from earlier polls. That said, it's a YouGov, whose Scottish panel generally seems more pro-Labour than some, so treat with caution - but the direction of travel is interesting.
It wasn't a YouGov poll per se.
YouGov did the fieldwork for Progressive Scottish Opinion, who did their own post fieldwork adjustments, as they aren't BPC members, we don't get to see what those post fieldwork adjustments are
How does the Treasury spending more than Labour did make Labours job easier, surely the incoming govt will have to cut more than if Osborne and Alexander had managed to get anywhere near their fantasy deficit reduction programme announced in 2010?
Evening , tim.
Recognise this?
[chart removed]
The Treasury is not spending more than Brown did in like terms.
Astonishing that it takes an entire parliament of austerity to undo just the last year of Brownism.
Just a couple of days to go before we get the September release of August's Public Finances Bulletin.
We should be starting to see real improvements in the borrowing figures resulting from the much higher than forecast growth this year.
We can already see the impact in the cash figures I quoted to PFinch downthread and we have asset sales (Lloyds and Royal Mail) to come too (though not in the upcoming release for August).
Osborne has already committed to a 4.24% real terms increase in spending this fiscal year against the trend of Plan B. The decision to do this came at last year's spending review and was confirmed in the run up to the budget. At the time all the noise was about delaying fiscal consolidation, particularly in the Eurozone but also applying to the UK, in favour of growth and structural reform (mainly labour markets). Osborne did a little dance with the IMF talking about deploying 'automatic stablisers' in response to the call for growth stimulus as his contribution.
Now that we growing near trend (50 year average = 0.6% per quarter), the need for temporary boost to public spending seems a little premature. So what does Osborne do with the windfall? My guess, at this stage of the electoral cycle, is that he will keep to his revised plan and up investments and create scope for tax cuts rather than increase cuts.
So I doubt we will see much improvement in the real terms TME cuts over the parliament. Maybe an improvement to above 3% but I doubt he will go much further.
Incidentally, the Glasgow papers were reporting that Labour has taken a 6-point lead for the next Holyrood elections, a sharp change from earlier polls. That said, it's a YouGov, whose Scottish panel generally seems more pro-Labour than some, so treat with caution - but the direction of travel is interesting.
YouGov is always a mile out in Scotland as its weighting is just stupid.
My youngest lad voted in this mock referendum yesterday. It was a shame that his poll card only arrived at the house by post yesterday while he was at school voting. BBC Scotland - Mock Scottish independence referendum sees Aberdeenshire 'no' vote "Aberdeenshire school pupils have voted against Scottish independence in a mock referendum.
A total of 8,718 voted no, with 2,847 voting yes, after the count was held at Meldrum Academy.
The referendum takes place in a year's time on 18 September, 2014.
Many of the teenagers will take part for real, with those aged 16 and 17 able to vote in the referendum.
When voters go to the polls they will be asked a straight yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?""
I remember discussing this before, but I can't remember the conclusion of why financial interventions (on your other 'yellow page') made £1trn difference to the national debt?
I remember discussing this before, but I can't remember the conclusion of why financial interventions (on your other 'yellow page') made £1trn difference to the national debt?
Here is the reconciliation between PSND and PSND ex published by the ONS in their most recent Public Sector Finances Bulletin (July).
You will see clearly the difference of a trillion between the two.
PSF11B Reconciliation of PSND and PSND ex ================================================================ £ billion 2012Q3 2012Q4 2013Q1 2013Q2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PSND 2,149.1 2,186.8 2,192.6 2,168.7
Less PS bank groups (1) 960.5 956.9 962.9 917.8
Less CG interventions Lending 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Compensation of depositors 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.1 Share purchases 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8 Fees -9.3 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 NR plc capital injection 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total CG interventions 49.2 48.5 48.4 48.3
PSND ex 1,139.4 1,181.4 1,181.3 1,202.7 ================================================================ (1) Includes Bank of England Schemes and fees paid to central government
PS = Public Sector CG = Central Government NR = Northern Rock PSND = Public Sector Net Debt PSND ex = PSND excluding the effect of financial intervention.
Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.
The basis answer to your question about the trillion difference between PSND and PSND ex is that PSND includes the net liabilities of the banks classified to the public sector.
It is not shareholding percentage which determines the classification (for example the Treasury have never owned a majority of Lloyds) but a complex analysis of the degree of control a government exercises over the bank.
My guess is that Osborne intends to remove the Lloyds Banking Group from the public sector by 2015 which will result in a massive reduction to PSND and give Osborne much pre-election boasting credit.
[This didn't get through on previous post due to character cap on post.]
Not sure if I'm allowed to contribute to this debate, but:
If we are paying £44 billion pa of interest on the national debt when interest rates are ~2% (as claimed), then what will we be paying on a total debt that's 50% bigger and interest rates in excess of 5% (the more typical rate)?
I've seen several published (in the national papers!) figures which suggest the cost merely of servicing the debt by 2022 will be nearer £200 billion pa than £150 billion. IIRC, the authors assumed that we'd just about have ended the deficit by 2020, since the current projections of ending by 2017 are fanciful in the extreme, not least because of the politics concerned.
Since even £150 billion pa is completely and utterly unaffordable, the assumption was made that we'll either default, slash State spending by an IMF-imposed 50% (a la Greece) or have inflation nearer 15% than 10% as a way of inflating the debt away over 20+yrs.
None of which were remotely acceptable to the author(s), who concluded that we're totally stuffed - and a combination of all of these methods would have to be used, with State spending being cut on an unprecedented scale as the Welfare State ends, the parasite having killed its host.
I hope everyone noticed Avery's "so what should Osborne spend his windfall on" So Osborne has to borrow £200 Billion+ over and above his 2010 fantasy forecasts and he's got a windfall to spend
Why not throw it at the static London housing market Avery?
The surplus funds are already earmarked for the provision of child benefits to parents in same sex marriages, tim.
Lets hope Lloyds share price doesn't rise too much tomorrow. Wouldn't like to think Osborne was operating on a political rather than an economic timetable would we?
Ignoramus! Stick to the myriad of public sector stuff you do appear to understand.
A 90-day lock-up will help the price too in the days ahead - doh, how stupid of Osborne to agree to that too I suppose in your head...
Sadly for Clegg it's back to the grind of radio phone-ins and pretending everything will turn out nice as the carnage will continue at next years local and EU elections.
Lets hope Lloyds share price doesn't rise too much tomorrow. Wouldn't like to think Osborne was operating on a political rather than an economic timetable would we?
The Treasury have given an undertaking to buyers of the first tranche of LBG not to sell any more shares for another 90 days.
It looks like George is planning quarterly sales of the Treasury's remaining holding up to 2015, provided there are no market shocks over this period.
This constrains flexibility in optimising returns, but expectations are that further tranches will be sold at progessively higher prices.
You will be relieved to know that investors are essentially taking a punt on house prices rising over the sales period. This is due to LBG's dominant market share (around 23%) in the mortgage lending market. It may also explain why the CEO of Barclays (mortgage lending share around 12%) is less keen on Osborne's housing market subsidies than the CEO of Lloyds.
Funny that the 'bankstas' should have more of an eye on competitive advantage within the banking sector than the politics or economics of stimulating the housing market.
Not sure if I'm allowed to contribute to this debate, but:
If we are paying £44 billion pa of interest on the national debt when interest rates are ~2% (as claimed), then what will we be paying on a total debt that's 50% bigger and interest rates in excess of 5% (the more typical rate)?
I've seen several published (in the national papers!) figures which suggest the cost merely of servicing the debt by 2022 will be nearer £200 billion pa than £150 billion. IIRC, the authors assumed that we'd just about have ended the deficit by 2020, since the current projections of ending by 2017 are fanciful in the extreme, not least because of the politics concerned.
Since even £150 billion pa is completely and utterly unaffordable, the assumption was made that we'll either default, slash State spending by an IMF-imposed 50% (a la Greece) or have inflation nearer 15% than 10% as a way of inflating the debt away over 20+yrs.
None of which were remotely acceptable to the author(s), who concluded that we're totally stuffed - and a combination of all of these methods would have to be used, with State spending being cut on an unprecedented scale as the Welfare State ends, the parasite having killed its host.
Didn't Mr Osborne decree that interest payments on UK government bonds held by the BoE would now be counted as revenue by the Treasury?
EDIT "The Treasury will receive a £35billion windfall from the Bank of England, it was announced today, in an unexpected boon to the Chancellor's budgetary headache.
Governor Mervyn King has agreed that the Bank will hand over interest it has earned on its holding of £375billion in Government debt purchased under the quantitative easing programme.
The extra cash will constitute a bonus reduction to the budget deficit, while also acting as a 'small loosening of monetary conditions' equivalent to more QE, according to the Bank."
Comments
Mr Eagles time to finish off that cockroach post. Once again Cleggy has popped out from under the floorboards having seen off Huhne and Cable. Nick Rex Blattariae, cross him at your peril.
Agreed 100%. Expensive but worth it. Wife and I had a cracking lunch there recently. Perfect start to a week-end away....
Local elections however, are not General Elections.
Yet it is reasonable to reflect that a Party appealing to malcontents will reap what it sows.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2013/09/ukip-start-shedding-councilllors.html
Does anyone seriously believe that local election results should be taken literally as General Election results which are double the opinion poll results?
Those boasts could come back to haunt him.....
Danny Alexander: 8/10. Excellent. Made a major contribution to controlling government spending and ensuring that the burdens of cuts are shared more fairly than they might have been otherwise. Driven the increase in personal allowances which will be the number 1 plank for the Lib Dems at the next election.
Vince Cable. 4/10. Done some good work in the car industry but failed with deregulation and generally been disappointing in supporting business, particularly exports. Still likes his "uncle Vince" role on the BBC too much.
Ed Davey. 1/10. He gets 1 because the serious disappointments in energy policy are not entirely his fault. Chris Huhne must get some of the blame. Probably the largest single failure by the Coalition.
Nick Clegg 6/10. Largely ineffective in front of office but has clearly worked hard to keep the wheels turning behind the scenes. Embarrassed himself on tuition fees, HoL reform and AV referendum but generally an essential part of the government.
Michael Moore 0/10. Who? Doubt his own mother remembers him.
Out of Cabinet Steven Webb has been a star. In the long run his pension reforms have probably saved this country more money than Danny Alexander.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDZoVmdlVXBEQVNvcUNfR294UXo0S3c&usp=drive_web#gid=0
We can look beyond there General Election performance where Cameron added 96 MPs to his 210 and Clegg lost 5 of his 62 and look at their respective Leadership Elections.
David Cameron did manage to win a leadership contest against many more potential candidates in a bid to become Leader of the Opposition. He won over the support of more MPs than the Lib Dems have in total. He won over two-thirds of the membership election vote, over twice as many as his nearest rival.
Nick Clegg fought to be leader of the distant third party. He managed to win 50.6% of the vote, nearly 1/7th total votes as Cameron got and just pipped out subsequently-imprisoned Chris Hughne who achieved 49.4% of the vote and nearly beat him.
Tell me again why we should assume Clegg could so easily win the bid to become leader of the Tories had he "chosen" to do so given he only scraped a narrow victory to become leader of the LDs?
EDIT: Typo
My view on what the graph shows is the impact of LibDem ground campaigning. This happens in LibDem seats, but not C/L battlegrounds. Hence the Cleggasm effected voting changes the most where LibDem ground war was the least.
The consequence is that the reverse Cleggasm should have the opposite effect, more voting change in C/L seats, least in LibDem seats.
Hence 'actual polling' in my post.
D'oh!
Opinion polls may move financial and betting markets, incite debate both here and elsewhere, lead to the defenestration of Party Leaders (and much more besides).
But they all mean diddly-squit in terms of actually VOTING for something with REAL people in REAL elections.
So the next two events of genuine import will be Euro 2014 and the ScotIndy Ref
Unless there's a Party leadership election, of course!
BBC Question Time @bbcquestiontime 2m
Tomorrow in Rochdale: Ken Clarke, @HarrietHarman, Shirley Williams, Antony Worrall Thompson @AntonyWT and Laurie Penny @PennyRed #bbcqt
"Danny Alexander: 8/10."
With Tory voters that's likely which is why he'd probably score zero with Lib-Lab tactical voters of which there are probably more than there are 2010 Lib Dems still loyal.
I would happily have voted Lib Dem last time though next time it would be dependent on both Alexander and Clegg having no status whatsoever in the party
Have also compared Clegg and the Lib Dems to Caesar and the Populares
Post the general election, for the Lib Dems, it seems they've been engaged in the Battle of Dyrrhachium.
They should remember that if they hold their nerve, the 2015 General Election will be their Battle of Pharsalus*
*auto-correct changed that to the Battle of Phallus, which amused me no end.
Hopefully the Burqa will come up. I would love to know what those two feminist warriors Harman and Williams think.
The mood of the crowd when that garment is discussed will be interesting, too.
Which is why I think GE 2015 might well see a much greater UKIP vote than many currently predict.
Caveat: That's also based on the currently widespread & deeply-held belief that the current crop of politicians & political ideologies got us into this mess but the current Party leadership (& Whitehall, who come from the same narrow educational & experience background) haven't a clue how to get us out of it.
Once I hear a Party Leader explaining how they plan to reduce the DEBT, then I'll start to take notice. Until then, Cameron Clegg and Milliband are simply speaking for the sake of generating hot air: nothing they propose will make one iota of difference to the steadily rising debt interest we have to pay, which current costs £48 billion pa and might easily rise to over £150 billion pa.
And how on Earth are we going to fund THAT? It would have been a delight to hear Clegg announce the spending cuts he and his party had driven through, against the fierce opposition of the CotE and PM. Instead, we had a £600 million pa food subsidy for children whose parents should have thought about funding their feeding before they had them.
I've read that it's the LDs quid pro quo for backing a Marriage Tax Allowance. If so, it means the LDs are supporting feckless, rapidly-breeding benefit scroungers (many of whom appear to be immigrants, judging from recent ONS data on parental origin of new births) and against responsible, stable, family-orientated deeply British, small-c conservative hard working families.
Good luck with selling THAT in a GE campaign! Though why on Earth Cameron and Osborne agreed to this reckless squandering of £600 million pa, Lord alone knows.
Hope you're ok, Mr. Smithson.
I think the changes are zero from the last Ipsos-Mori poll in May
http://news.stv.tv/politics/239979-referendum-stv-ipsos-mori-poll-shows-no-campaign-has-28-point-lead/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
The Ashcroft poll appears to show the UKIP effect on Con/Lab marginals to be quite significant. That said, even if three quarters of the UKIP supporters in that poll were to switch to Con (surely as far as it's possible to imagine), the Conservatives would still be behind. There is no substitute for them making inroads on the 2010 Lab/Lib vote.
I need your help.
Tomorrow, I'm meeting a few Scottish people, and one of them has the surname "Balloch"
How the heck do I pronounce that, without embarrassing both of us, and earning a Glasgwegian kiss in the process?
Should have been for TSE
http://www.forvo.com/word/balloch/
Just hope you don't have to meet a Mr Glasscock.
Hmm. Wasn't he the villain in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark? Or was that Bellocq?
twitter.com/ukipwebmaster/status/380126010517098497/photo/1
I've spent time at Loch Lomond, so I think I know how to pronounce Loch in true Scottish fashion.
How does the Treasury spending more than Labour did make Labours job easier, surely the incoming govt will have to cut more than if Osborne and Alexander had managed to get anywhere near their fantasy deficit reduction programme announced in 2010?
Evening , tim.
Recognise this? The Treasury is not spending more than Brown did in like terms.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/abbott-sacks-three-public-service-bosses-as-first-act/4965690
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/aid-agencies-criticise-ausaid-realignment/4966924
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2423751/Dutch-King-Willem-Alexander-declares-welfare-state-20th-century-over.html
Cara Hilton (Lab)
Susan Leslie (LD)
James Reekie (Con)
Shirley-Anne Somerville (SNP)
As a former MSP (Lothians, 2007-11) Shirley-Anne Somerville is probably the best-known. The former Dunfermline Athletic manager Cllr Jim Leishman would have been a universally kent face in the royal burgh if he'd stood as the Labour candidate, but withdrew last week.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/jim-leishman-bows-to-bill-walker-seat-pressure-1-3091586
...
Cameron Clegg and Milliband are simply speaking for the sake of generating hot air: nothing they propose will make one iota of difference to the steadily rising debt interest we have to pay, which current costs £48 billion pa and might easily rise to over £150 billion pa.
...
PFinch
Just a small point of fact.
Government net cash requirements this year have this year have been negative to the tune of £50 bn cumulative [yes I know I am adding monthly balances].
Here is what used to be known as the "Public Sector Borrowing Requirement" for this year. Note, the negative figures show a surplus.
Pretty difficulty to see how to get to interest servicing costs in excess of £150 bn per annum on these trends!.
'[qχ] A little like a Klingon q immediately followed by a Klingon H. Close off your mouth as far back as you can, like with q, and force air up, like you're trying to dislodge food stuck in your throat. It sounds a lot like you're choking.'
Lab 1/3 (BetVictor, Ladbrokes)
SNP 9/4 (Lad)
LD 25/1
Con 150/1
Central Banks fighting to keep market interest rates down.
YouGov did the fieldwork for Progressive Scottish Opinion, who did their own post fieldwork adjustments, as they aren't BPC members, we don't get to see what those post fieldwork adjustments are
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 45m
UKIP 9 short of a majority in 2015? the latest voodoo poll http://ht.ly/oZuvB
Retweeted by Matthew Goodwin
37% is nothing
Edit: Just seen the question, talk about push polling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM2DVuRMY6s
We should be starting to see real improvements in the borrowing figures resulting from the much higher than forecast growth this year.
We can already see the impact in the cash figures I quoted to PFinch downthread and we have asset sales (Lloyds and Royal Mail) to come too (though not in the upcoming release for August).
Osborne has already committed to a 4.24% real terms increase in spending this fiscal year against the trend of Plan B. The decision to do this came at last year's spending review and was confirmed in the run up to the budget. At the time all the noise was about delaying fiscal consolidation, particularly in the Eurozone but also applying to the UK, in favour of growth and structural reform (mainly labour markets). Osborne did a little dance with the IMF talking about deploying 'automatic stablisers' in response to the call for growth stimulus as his contribution.
Now that we growing near trend (50 year average = 0.6% per quarter), the need for temporary boost to public spending seems a little premature. So what does Osborne do with the windfall? My guess, at this stage of the electoral cycle, is that he will keep to his revised plan and up investments and create scope for tax cuts rather than increase cuts.
So I doubt we will see much improvement in the real terms TME cuts over the parliament. Maybe an improvement to above 3% but I doubt he will go much further.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100236555/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAdpQ5-pXA
My youngest lad voted in this mock referendum yesterday. It was a shame that his poll card only arrived at the house by post yesterday while he was at school voting.
BBC Scotland - Mock Scottish independence referendum sees Aberdeenshire 'no' vote
"Aberdeenshire school pupils have voted against Scottish independence in a mock referendum.
A total of 8,718 voted no, with 2,847 voting yes, after the count was held at Meldrum Academy.
The referendum takes place in a year's time on 18 September, 2014.
Many of the teenagers will take part for real, with those aged 16 and 17 able to vote in the referendum.
When voters go to the polls they will be asked a straight yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?""
I remember discussing this before, but I can't remember the conclusion of why financial interventions (on your other 'yellow page') made £1trn difference to the national debt? Crisis? What crisis?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00hbfjw
Doric call centre http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNN6NigGNM
I remember discussing this before, but I can't remember the conclusion of why financial interventions (on your other 'yellow page') made £1trn difference to the national debt?
Here is the reconciliation between PSND and PSND ex published by the ONS in their most recent Public Sector Finances Bulletin (July).
You will see clearly the difference of a trillion between the two.
The basis answer to your question about the trillion difference between PSND and PSND ex is that PSND includes the net liabilities of the banks classified to the public sector.
It is not shareholding percentage which determines the classification (for example the Treasury have never owned a majority of Lloyds) but a complex analysis of the degree of control a government exercises over the bank.
My guess is that Osborne intends to remove the Lloyds Banking Group from the public sector by 2015 which will result in a massive reduction to PSND and give Osborne much pre-election boasting credit.
[This didn't get through on previous post due to character cap on post.]
Shirley-Anne Somerville SNP a former MSP
Cara Hilton Labour a Fife councillor
Susan Leslie Lib Dem a Fife councillor
If we are paying £44 billion pa of interest on the national debt when interest rates are ~2% (as claimed), then what will we be paying on a total debt that's 50% bigger and interest rates in excess of 5% (the more typical rate)?
I've seen several published (in the national papers!) figures which suggest the cost merely of servicing the debt by 2022 will be nearer £200 billion pa than £150 billion. IIRC, the authors assumed that we'd just about have ended the deficit by 2020, since the current projections of ending by 2017 are fanciful in the extreme, not least because of the politics concerned.
Since even £150 billion pa is completely and utterly unaffordable, the assumption was made that we'll either default, slash State spending by an IMF-imposed 50% (a la Greece) or have inflation nearer 15% than 10% as a way of inflating the debt away over 20+yrs.
None of which were remotely acceptable to the author(s), who concluded that we're totally stuffed - and a combination of all of these methods would have to be used, with State spending being cut on an unprecedented scale as the Welfare State ends, the parasite having killed its host.
Let me add my best wishes to you, Mike. I was sorry to hear what happened to you. Hope you are soon back in full fettle.
A 90-day lock-up will help the price too in the days ahead - doh, how stupid of Osborne to agree to that too I suppose in your head...
Clegg's speech was gloriously bad.
A true ostrich classic. Sadly for Clegg it's back to the grind of radio phone-ins and pretending everything will turn out nice as the carnage will continue at next years local and EU elections.
It looks like George is planning quarterly sales of the Treasury's remaining holding up to 2015, provided there are no market shocks over this period.
This constrains flexibility in optimising returns, but expectations are that further tranches will be sold at progessively higher prices.
You will be relieved to know that investors are essentially taking a punt on house prices rising over the sales period. This is due to LBG's dominant market share (around 23%) in the mortgage lending market. It may also explain why the CEO of Barclays (mortgage lending share around 12%) is less keen on Osborne's housing market subsidies than the CEO of Lloyds.
Funny that the 'bankstas' should have more of an eye on competitive advantage within the banking sector than the politics or economics of stimulating the housing market.
EDIT
"The Treasury will receive a £35billion windfall from the Bank of England, it was announced today, in an unexpected boon to the Chancellor's budgetary headache.
Governor Mervyn King has agreed that the Bank will hand over interest it has earned on its holding of £375billion in Government debt purchased under the quantitative easing programme.
The extra cash will constitute a bonus reduction to the budget deficit, while also acting as a 'small loosening of monetary conditions' equivalent to more QE, according to the Bank."
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2230579/Treasury-receives-35bn-money-Bank-England-QE-gilts-interest.html