Incidentally in six out of the last seven years, the ONS has over-estimated borrowing in its April assessment, i.e. when we look back in a year's time we may no longer believe we borrowed £42bn this year.
In four cases substantially (~£5bn); in the other two and the one where it underestimated it, the margin was <£2bn.</p>
And OBR have been even further out.
The OBR is a forecast. The error the ONS has made here release to the period before the release of the figure. In essence the OBR manages to add another error into the mix, rather than minimising it (which should be possible - the OBR has the freedom, based on wider economic data, to adjust the result whereas the ONS are at the mercy of what their current data actually says).
Public borrowing for 2017/18 was £42.6 bn, 2.1% of GDP. Current expenditure was just about in surplus.
Woo, so the government is only spending £116,393,443 more than it is receiving in taxes. Every single day.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Actually, it is a bad thing, though not as bad as you imply. As long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is stable or falling over the economic cycle, or already low, there's not a problem - and a nominal 2.1% deficit would be sustainable on that basis. The problems are (1) that the ratio has increased enormously since this point in the last cycle, so even if the structural deficit had closed, it would need to be brought into a structural surplus to undo that damage; and (2) at this stage in the cycle, the government should really be running at balance or even a small surplus - though at least it's better than the 3% deficit Brown was running.
Another issue is that GDP is only increasing in line with the increase in population. GDP per head is not increasing. So we can not rely on future increases in GDP once net immigration slows down.
Incidentally in six out of the last seven years, the ONS has over-estimated borrowing in its April assessment, i.e. when we look back in a year's time we may no longer believe we borrowed £42bn this year.
In four cases substantially (~£5bn); in the other two and the one where it underestimated it, the margin was <£2bn.</p>
And OBR have been even further out.
The OBR is a forecast. The error the ONS has made here release to the period before the release of the figure. In essence the OBR manages to add another error into the mix.
Public borrowing for 2017/18 was £42.6 bn, 2.1% of GDP. Current expenditure was just about in surplus.
Woo, so the government is only spending £116,393,443 more than it is receiving in taxes. Every single day.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Actually, it is a bad thing, though not as bad as you imply. As long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is stable or falling over the economic cycle, or already low, there's not a problem - and a nominal 2.1% deficit would be sustainable on that basis. The problems are (1) that the ratio has increased enormously since this point in the last cycle, so even if the structural deficit had closed, it would need to be brought into a structural surplus to undo that damage; and (2) at this stage in the cycle, the government should really be running at balance or even a small surplus - though at least it's better than the 3% deficit Brown was running.
Another issue is that GDP is only increasing in line with the increase in population. GDP per head is not increasing. So we can not rely on future increases in GDP once net immigration slows down.
I have always considering GDP alone and not GDP per capita is nonsense.
Incidentally in six out of the last seven years, the ONS has over-estimated borrowing in its April assessment, i.e. when we look back in a year's time we may no longer believe we borrowed £42bn this year.
In four cases substantially (~£5bn); in the other two and the one where it underestimated it, the margin was <£2bn.</p>
And OBR have been even further out.
The OBR is a forecast. The error the ONS has made here release to the period before the release of the figure. In essence the OBR manages to add another error into the mix.
The Lib Dems face an existential test of relevance up to and through the next election.
Is there anyone in the Lords who would do a better job as Leader? They need a media friendly leader with smart ideas and fire in their belly, and if one cannot be found in the HoC they should look to the Lords.
Public borrowing for 2017/18 was £42.6 bn, 2.1% of GDP. Current expenditure was just about in surplus.
Woo, so the government is only spending £116,393,443 more than it is receiving in taxes. Every single day.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Actually, it is a bad thing, though not as bad as you imply. As long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is stable or falling over the economic cycle, or already low, there's not a problem - and a nominal 2.1% deficit would be sustainable on that basis. The problems are (1) that the ratio has increased enormously since this point in the last cycle, so even if the structural deficit had closed, it would need to be brought into a structural surplus to undo that damage; and (2) at this stage in the cycle, the government should really be running at balance or even a small surplus - though at least it's better than the 3% deficit Brown was running.
It’s a pretty terrible position to be in nine years into the economic cycle! It’s going to take a long time to recover from the last recession, and with interest rates still on the floor leaves almost no room for manoeuvre when the next recession decides to bite. As you say, the only positive is that at least things are moving in the right direction, with debt/GDP and deficit/GDP ratios falling.
Public borrowing for 2017/18 was £42.6 bn, 2.1% of GDP. Current expenditure was just about in surplus.
Woo, so the government is only spending £116,393,443 more than it is receiving in taxes. Every single day.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Actually, it is a bad thing, though not as bad as you imply. As long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is stable or falling over the economic cycle, or already low, there's not a problem - and a nominal 2.1% deficit would be sustainable on that basis. The problems are (1) that the ratio has increased enormously since this point in the last cycle, so even if the structural deficit had closed, it would need to be brought into a structural surplus to undo that damage; and (2) at this stage in the cycle, the government should really be running at balance or even a small surplus - though at least it's better than the 3% deficit Brown was running.
Another issue is that GDP is only increasing in line with the increase in population. GDP per head is not increasing. So we can not rely on future increases in GDP once net immigration slows down.
Public borrowing for 2017/18 was £42.6 bn, 2.1% of GDP. Current expenditure was just about in surplus.
Woo, so the government is only spending £116,393,443 more than it is receiving in taxes. Every single day.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Actually, it is a bad thing, though not as bad as you imply. As long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is stable or falling over the economic cycle, or already low, there's not a problem - and a nominal 2.1% deficit would be sustainable on that basis. The problems are (1) that the ratio has increased enormously since this point in the last cycle, so even if the structural deficit had closed, it would need to be brought into a structural surplus to undo that damage; and (2) at this stage in the cycle, the government should really be running at balance or even a small surplus - though at least it's better than the 3% deficit Brown was running.
Another issue is that GDP is only increasing in line with the increase in population. GDP per head is not increasing. So we can not rely on future increases in GDP once net immigration slows down.
Excelling point.
GDP per capita is going up, albeit by only 1-2% per annum over the last four years (i.e. all "good" years(
There’s still newspaper ads in this part of the world for young, pretty and single PAs and salesladies, albeit not as many as there used to be. People forget that other cultures see these things quite differently than in the UK and USA.
You've clearly not read the article -- she is a lady holocaust survivor.
Ishmael manages a better satire than he planned
Well, exactly; my point was that I am able to take the claim that holocaust survivors oppose anti-semitism at face value, without consulting the small print to discover whether they are really bolsheviks or Zionists or anti-Corbynites.
I'm so old I remember the days when LD bar charts were coherently dishonest.
It looks to me like a very reasonable bar chart. Obviously, the Conservatives are busy losing seats now - in part because they won too many in 2015 on the back of the general election and their over-spending. But also in part because of the incompetent way they are running the country and running the councils they control.
I'm so old I remember the days when LD bar charts were coherently dishonest.
It looks to me like a very reasonable bar chart. Obviously, the Conservatives are busy losing seats now - in part because they won too many in 2015 on the back of the general election and their over-spending. But also in part because of the incompetent way they are running the country and running the councils they control.
The fallers start at the top of the Greens' +4 whereas the risers stop at the bottom of it.
Public borrowing for 2017/18 was £42.6 bn, 2.1% of GDP. Current expenditure was just about in surplus.
Woo, so the government is only spending £116,393,443 more than it is receiving in taxes. Every single day.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Actually, it is a bad thing, though not as bad as you imply. As long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is stable or falling over the economic cycle, or already low, there's not a problem - and a nominal 2.1% deficit would be sustainable on that basis. The problems are (1) that the ratio has increased enormously since this point in the last cycle, so even if the structural deficit had closed, it would need to be brought into a structural surplus to undo that damage; and (2) at this stage in the cycle, the government should really be running at balance or even a small surplus - though at least it's better than the 3% deficit Brown was running.
Another issue is that GDP is only increasing in line with the increase in population. GDP per head is not increasing. So we can not rely on future increases in GDP once net immigration slows down.
Total GDP increases almost exactly in line with immigration, so GDP per capita remains the same. The reverse is probably also the case If there's net emigration we could see the strange combination of a recession and a temporary labour shortage.
Immigration is beneficial however in improving the tax take and reducing the proportion of the population not in work. Immigration hating oldies rely on those immigrants to keep them cossetted with pensions, healthcare and benefits.
I wouldn't like to be betting against her. This is a market, however, where I feel no need to have further activity just now.
I have her at a slightly smaller profit than AN Other purely on price basis at the moment, but she is definitely one of the leading contenders.
If the leadership contest were tomorrow, I woul say too long.
My central forecast is that Jeremy goes after the next election, which means she is a tad short. But I still have her green (albeit substantially less green than the book)
I'm so old I remember the days when LD bar charts were coherently dishonest.
It looks to me like a very reasonable bar chart. Obviously, the Conservatives are busy losing seats now - in part because they won too many in 2015 on the back of the general election and their over-spending. But also in part because of the incompetent way they are running the country and running the councils they control.
"Principal" results no doubt being restricted to the ones where the LibDems did well!
Incidentally in six out of the last seven years, the ONS has over-estimated borrowing in its April assessment, i.e. when we look back in a year's time we may no longer believe we borrowed £42bn this year.
In four cases substantially (~£5bn); in the other two and the one where it underestimated it, the margin was <£2bn.</p>
And OBR have been even further out.
I'd prefer that to the Brown years when he estimated things the other way... no more boom and bust and mega-high projected growth figures etc.
I wouldn't like to be betting against her. This is a market, however, where I feel no need to have further activity just now.
I have her at a slightly smaller profit than AN Other purely on price basis at the moment, but she is definitely one of the leading contenders.
If the leadership contest were tomorrow, I woul say too long.
My central forecast is that Jeremy goes after the next election, which means she is a tad short. But I still have her green (albeit substantially less green than the book)
Is your prediction that Corbyn will leave after the next election on the assumption he loses that election, or does it not make any difference and you expect he will resign anyway?
I wouldn't like to be betting against her. This is a market, however, where I feel no need to have further activity just now.
I have her at a slightly smaller profit than AN Other purely on price basis at the moment, but she is definitely one of the leading contenders.
If the leadership contest were tomorrow, I woul say too long.
My central forecast is that Jeremy goes after the next election, which means she is a tad short. But I still have her green (albeit substantially less green than the book)
Is your prediction that Corbyn will leave after the next election on the assumption he loses that election, or does it not make any difference and you expect he will resign anyway?
Lose, but that takes us from Con majority right through to hung parliament.
I'm so old I remember the days when LD bar charts were coherently dishonest.
It looks to me like a very reasonable bar chart. Obviously, the Conservatives are busy losing seats now - in part because they won too many in 2015 on the back of the general election and their over-spending. But also in part because of the incompetent way they are running the country and running the councils they control.
The fallers start at the top of the Greens' +4 whereas the risers stop at the bottom of it.
Yes, it would have been better if it had been presented so that the Conservatives looked as though they were falling more, as they really were. But I expect it was adjusted a bit by pressure on space. Why are Lib Dems being kind to the Tories?
The forthcoming (after the locals) BBC drama series A Very English Scandal with Hugh Grant as Jeremy Thorpe looks interesting. Have any of the media-connected pbers seen it already?
As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
I'm so old I remember the days when LD bar charts were coherently dishonest.
It looks to me like a very reasonable bar chart. Obviously, the Conservatives are busy losing seats now - in part because they won too many in 2015 on the back of the general election and their over-spending. But also in part because of the incompetent way they are running the country and running the councils they control.
The fallers start at the top of the Greens' +4 whereas the risers stop at the bottom of it.
Which has the effect the opposite of exaggerating the difference between risers and fallers
I'm so old I remember the days when LD bar charts were coherently dishonest.
It looks to me like a very reasonable bar chart. Obviously, the Conservatives are busy losing seats now - in part because they won too many in 2015 on the back of the general election and their over-spending. But also in part because of the incompetent way they are running the country and running the councils they control.
The fallers start at the top of the Greens' +4 whereas the risers stop at the bottom of it.
Which has the effect the opposite of exaggerating the difference between risers and fallers
Well, yes. I'm going for statistically accuracy here not making a point.
The political inaccuracy is to show +20 without any reference of the total number of councillors, or even the number of by-elections.
To be fair In the grand scheme of things, it isn't really that bad. Immature yes, but it isn't exactly the Evil Jews / Illuminati / Bilderberg group run the world stuff.
Incidentally in six out of the last seven years, the ONS has over-estimated borrowing in its April assessment, i.e. when we look back in a year's time we may no longer believe we borrowed £42bn this year.
In four cases substantially (~£5bn); in the other two and the one where it underestimated it, the margin was <£2bn.</p>
And OBR have been even further out.
I'd prefer that to the Brown years when he estimated things the other way... no more boom and bust and mega-high projected growth figures etc.
It was just shocking post 2007. The Government had got it in their minds that they would lose to the Cons badly (remember dockside hooker levels of victory that was predicted?). By 2009 it was scorched earth. People who really knew better, Balls Brown and Darling deliberately put in place economically damaging and unsustainable spending plans with ludicrous growth figures in the knowledge that their successors would have real mess to sort out.
I'm so old I remember the days when LD bar charts were coherently dishonest.
It looks to me like a very reasonable bar chart. Obviously, the Conservatives are busy losing seats now - in part because they won too many in 2015 on the back of the general election and their over-spending. But also in part because of the incompetent way they are running the country and running the councils they control.
"Principal" results no doubt being restricted to the ones where the LibDems did well!
You are just too cynical, Mr Mark. The word "principal" means that town and parish councils are excluded. As you very well know.....
To be fair In the grand scheme of things, it isn't really that bad. Immature yes, but it isn't exactly the Evil Jews / Illuminati / Bilderberg group run the world stuff.
Public borrowing for 2017/18 was £42.6 bn, 2.1% of GDP. Current expenditure was just about in surplus.
Woo, so the government is only spending £116,393,443 more than it is receiving in taxes. Every single day.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Actually, it is a bad thing, though not as bad as you imply. As long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is stable or falling over the economic cycle, or already low, there's not a problem - and a nominal 2.1% deficit would be sustainable on that basis. The problems are (1) that the ratio has increased enormously since this point in the last cycle, so even if the structural deficit had closed, it would need to be brought into a structural surplus to undo that damage; and (2) at this stage in the cycle, the government should really be running at balance or even a small surplus - though at least it's better than the 3% deficit Brown was running.
Another issue is that GDP is only increasing in line with the increase in population. GDP per head is not increasing. So we can not rely on future increases in GDP once net immigration slows down.
Total GDP increases almost exactly in line with immigration, so GDP per capita remains the same. The reverse is probably also the case If there's net emigration we could see the strange combination of a recession and a temporary labour shortage.
Immigration is beneficial however in improving the tax take and reducing the proportion of the population not in work. Immigration hating oldies rely on those immigrants to keep them cossetted with pensions, healthcare and benefits.
The crossover point between a net contributor and a net drain on the public purse is about £35k pa. Of course this is an average number of children etc will influence this. I doubt many eastern europeans are on that.
To be fair In the grand scheme of things, it isn't really that bad. Immature yes, but it isn't exactly the Evil Jews / Illuminati / Bilderberg group run the world stuff.
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
To be fair In the grand scheme of things, it isn't really that bad. Immature yes, but it isn't exactly the Evil Jews / Illuminati / Bilderberg group run the world stuff.
It’s that these people are considered Parliamentary candidates, yet have neither taken this stuff down, nor had anyone tell them to do so, in an environment where journalists like Alex Wickham are all over the story and all it’s doing is providing opponents with material for the next four years.
Oh, and our friend Mandy from yesterday is defiantly not standing aside, just to keep that story running for a bit longer too.
Incidentally in six out of the last seven years, the ONS has over-estimated borrowing in its April assessment, i.e. when we look back in a year's time we may no longer believe we borrowed £42bn this year.
In four cases substantially (~£5bn); in the other two and the one where it underestimated it, the margin was <£2bn.</p>
And OBR have been even further out.
I'd prefer that to the Brown years when he estimated things the other way... no more boom and bust and mega-high projected growth figures etc.
It was just shocking post 2007. The Government had got it in their minds that they would lose to the Cons badly (remember dockside hooker levels of victory that was predicted?). By 2009 it was scorched earth. People who really knew better, Balls Brown and Darling deliberately put in place economically damaging and unsustainable spending plans with ludicrous growth figures in the knowledge that their successors would have real mess to sort out.
I'm pretty sure they borrowed more in 2004/2005 than the govt did last year. Brown was over-heating the economy beautifully in preparation for his premiership.
I'll be honest, the 2002-2006 era was a good time for me. My house value more than doubled, I could borrow what I wanted. But even I had the sense - despite being quite young - that it all felt too good to be true.
For a serving govt to dis-attach itself from those levels of over-heated spending is so so difficult. Cuts are massively unpopular, as has been demonstrated. Politically, Brown was the master. He knew he could leave the Tories in the shit and still let them have the blame for it.
To @Roger and @Tyson: before you start dismissing the complaints of Jews (whether Jewish MPs or leaders of the Jewish community or ordinary Jews) you might wish to acquaint yourselves with the findings of the McPherson Report following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, 25 years ago a day or so ago and remembered yesterday in a moving ceremony in Westminster.
The definition of racism adopted by the inquiry and since then more or less universally adopted by the police and most organisations, including the Labour Party (it was a Labour government which instigated the inquiry) is the following:
"A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"
This applies to racist incidents against Jews. And yet some within Labour (and elsewhere) seem very unwilling to do so. Apparently Jews are, unlike other minority groups, not allowed to say when someone is being racist towards them; their views, their personal experience, their knowledge are to be dismissed; others without that experience or knowledge should be allowed to define what anti-semitism or racism towards Jews should mean. You can see this process at work in the submissions made to the Chakrabati inquiry, for instance. Jews must have another - hidden or not so hidden - agenda. They are making it up or over-egging it or using it for an ulterior purpose. Their experience is to be ignored or diminished or turned against them by implying (or in some cases saying openly) that they are using racism against them as a weapon against others. Jews cannot be - must not be - allowed to be victims. Because if they are victims well they can't be oppressors and we have put them in the oppressors box and how can that be if other people are being horrible to and attacking them.
There is a lot of that at work in much of the discussion about anti-semitism and the Labour Party. These are arguments that would be - rightly - dismissed if applied to other minority groups but there is a double standard applied to Jews that some might say is itself evidence of a racist or anti-semitic viewpoint.
Incidentally in six out of the last seven years, the ONS has over-estimated borrowing in its April assessment, i.e. when we look back in a year's time we may no longer believe we borrowed £42bn this year.
In four cases substantially (~£5bn); in the other two and the one where it underestimated it, the margin was <£2bn.</p>
And OBR have been even further out.
I'd prefer that to the Brown years when he estimated things the other way... no more boom and bust and mega-high projected growth figures etc.
It was just shocking post 2007. The Government had got it in their minds that they would lose to the Cons badly (remember dockside hooker levels of victory that was predicted?). By 2009 it was scorched earth. People who really knew better, Balls Brown and Darling deliberately put in place economically damaging and unsustainable spending plans with ludicrous growth figures in the knowledge that their successors would have real mess to sort out.
I'm pretty sure they borrowed more in 2004/2005 than the govt did last year. Brown was over-heating the economy beautifully in preparation for his premiership.
I'll be honest, the 2002-2006 era was a good time for me. My house value more than doubled, I could borrow what I wanted. But even I had the sense - despite being quite young - that it all felt too good to be true.
For a serving govt to dis-attach itself from those levels of over-heated spending is so so difficult. Cuts are massively unpopular, as has been demonstrated. Politically, Brown was the master. He knew he could leave the Tories in the shit and still let them have the blame for it.
Almost exactly the same in cash terms 2004/5 and slightly lower in other years in that timeframe. In real terms and GDP terms borrowing was higher back then than now
To be fair In the grand scheme of things, it isn't really that bad. Immature yes, but it isn't exactly the Evil Jews / Illuminati / Bilderberg group run the world stuff.
It’s that these people are considered Parliamentary candidates, yet have neither taken this stuff down, nor had anyone tell them to do so, in an environment where journalists like Alex Wickham are all over the story and all it’s doing is providing opponents with material for the next four years.
Oh, and our friend Mandy from yesterday is defiantly not standing aside, just to keep that story running for a bit longer too.
At first glance at the screenshot, this really does look like a sense of humour failure at Guido Towers.
When people like John Mann or his daughter, Heather, speak of the abuse and threats they have suffered, when MPs like Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth and Margaret Hodge and Robert Halfon speak of their experience, try and listen to what they say and not, as you appear to be doing, automatically assume that they must have some hidden and ignoble agenda to try and attack your sainted hero, Corbyn. Try and look at the facts and think that perhaps the reason why people have criticised Corbyn is that, for all his fine words, his actions have rather undercut his words. Try and understand that when people say that there must be due process against those Labour members accused of anti-Jewish racism (with which I entirely agree) what people see is a process which is taking an interminably long time and they also see people let back in who have not changed their minds and they wonder whether the due process argument is less about that and more about a PR exercise, kicking this into the long grass and readmitting people when the fuss has died down.
Try, for once, to assume that Jews are being genuine when they say that they are starting to be afraid of the climate that is being created, just as elderly Afro-Caribbean British citizens say that they are afraid of the climate being created, just as EU citizens living here say they are afraid of the climate being created. Don't automatically assume that they are being malevolent and disingenuous and lying when they say this. Just listen for once rather than dismiss because you do not want to believe what people are saying. Just try for once not to assume that Labour is on the right side of every argument and therefore everyone opposing them must not only be wrong but acting in bad faith and that must apply to any Jewish person within Labour (and others) concerned about what is happening to the party.
Labour has had a good record in standing up against racism. It needs to live up to that record. Not ignore problems just because the complaints are coming from groups it does not like.
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
Which is what Martin Lewis was saying yesterday. Also, the other big thing is that Facebook allows you to run 100,000s of different ads and nobody will know how many you are actually running, how accurate they are etc, because people only see one version, making it nearly impossible to get a handle on the range of ads being put out there.
You can't hold a company / political candidate to account if you have no idea just what they are saying to different people.
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
To be fair In the grand scheme of things, it isn't really that bad. Immature yes, but it isn't exactly the Evil Jews / Illuminati / Bilderberg group run the world stuff.
It’s that these people are considered Parliamentary candidates, yet have neither taken this stuff down, nor had anyone tell them to do so, in an environment where journalists like Alex Wickham are all over the story and all it’s doing is providing opponents with material for the next four years.
Oh, and our friend Mandy from yesterday is defiantly not standing aside, just to keep that story running for a bit longer too.
At first glance at the screenshot, this really does look like a sense of humour failure at Guido Towers.
She’s not an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, but prospective MPs really should be going through what they’ve written online in their own name. Guido’s screenshots aren’t going away now, even if the tweets themselves get deleted in the future.
All political parties really need to get on top of historic social media use by those who stand in their name, unless of course they want to see screenshots of Guido’s site on leaflets at the next election?
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
It is exactly what happened, as you can see if you check what was said, for instance: “The Attorney General stated that he wanted to inform [redacted] of this matter on a personal basis ‘as the British can’t afford another disclosure of this kind’.”
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Can't believe anyone ever thought Thorpe was Labour.
Incidentally in six out of the last seven years, the ONS has over-estimated borrowing in its April assessment, i.e. when we look back in a year's time we may no longer believe we borrowed £42bn this year.
In four cases substantially (~£5bn); in the other two and the one where it underestimated it, the margin was <£2bn.</p>
And OBR have been even further out.
I'd prefer that to the Brown years when he estimated things the other way... no more boom and bust and mega-high projected growth figures etc.
It was just shocking post 2007. The Government had got it in their minds that they would lose to the Cons badly (remember dockside hooker levels of victory that was predicted?). By 2009 it was scorched earth. People who really knew better, Balls Brown and Darling deliberately put in place economically damaging and unsustainable spending plans with ludicrous growth figures in the knowledge that their successors would have real mess to sort out.
I'm pretty sure they borrowed more in 2004/2005 than the govt did last year. Brown was over-heating the economy beautifully in preparation for his premiership.
I'll be honest, the 2002-2006 era was a good time for me. My house value more than doubled, I could borrow what I wanted. But even I had the sense - despite being quite young - that it all felt too good to be true.
For a serving govt to dis-attach itself from those levels of over-heated spending is so so difficult. Cuts are massively unpopular, as has been demonstrated. Politically, Brown was the master. He knew he could leave the Tories in the shit and still let them have the blame for it.
Almost exactly the same in cash terms 2004/5 and slightly lower in other years in that timeframe. In real terms and GDP terms borrowing was higher back then than now
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
It is exactly what happened, as you can see if you check what was said, for instance: “The Attorney General stated that he wanted to inform [redacted] of this matter on a personal basis ‘as the British can’t afford another disclosure of this kind’.”
Well, it's generous of you to think 'the British' and 'the Conservative government' are synonyms, but it's a distinctly minority view!
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
I believe this. Targeting ads on users' relationships is Facebook's business model. They should be better than anyone else at doing it. Which raises the more interesting question of what value was Kogan offering to Cambridge Analaytica, its sister company and ultimately the Leave campaigns. He was selling the usefulness of his harvested data despite his disingenuous claims that the data never left his server, but how was it useful to Leave?
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Can't believe anyone ever thought Thorpe was Labour.
Richard it is not inconceivable to think that certain scandals, taking in context, hurt the government even though opposition parties are more obviously affected.
Consider for example expenses, an issue which dogged Brown's leadership even though the worst offenders were not Labour.
I really don't want to be considered anti-semitic, but some of the actions of Israeli Government s have been dreadful. And too often statements of this kind have been stigmatised as 'anti-semitic'.
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Can't believe anyone ever thought Thorpe was Labour.
Richard it is not inconceivable to think that certain scandals, taking in context, hurt the government even though opposition parties are more obviously affected.
Consider for example expenses, an issue which dogged Brown's leadership even though the worst offenders were not Labour.
Weren't the vast majority of those convicted of fraud over MPs' expenses Labour MPs?
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
Another thing that appears to be massively overlooked. The Obama campaign also "downloaded" the Facebook "graph API", but that was ok....as have 100s of other companies and apps.
My postal vote was popped into the postbox this morning. We reached a red-green voting pact in the Rentool household. I think Labour have come out with the better end of the deal.
First time I've known sticky labels being involved in the process.
And for the benefit of the tin-foil-hatters out there: I did use a pen!
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
Which is what Martin Lewis was saying yesterday. Also, the other big thing is that Facebook allows you to run 100,000s of different ads and nobody will know how many you are actually running, how accurate they are etc, because people only see one version, making it nearly impossible to get a handle on the range of ads being put out there.
You can't hold a company / political candidate to account if you have no idea just what they are saying to different people.
This is key. Election rules are strict on transparency, accountability and within technical limits, truthfulness. The Leave and other campaigns might not have done anything wrong but we have no idea what they did do and do do.
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Can't believe anyone ever thought Thorpe was Labour.
Richard it is not inconceivable to think that certain scandals, taking in context, hurt the government even though opposition parties are more obviously affected.
Consider for example expenses, an issue which dogged Brown's leadership even though the worst offenders were not Labour.
Weren't the vast majority of those convicted of fraud over MPs' expenses Labour MPs?
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
It is exactly what happened, as you can see if you check what was said, for instance: “The Attorney General stated that he wanted to inform [redacted] of this matter on a personal basis ‘as the British can’t afford another disclosure of this kind’.”
Well, it's generous of you to think 'the British' and 'the Conservative government' are synonyms, but it's a distinctly minority view!
It's more likely that he did not want any more scandals to come out in Britain because of the likelihood of links to the Kennedy administration. There were links between one of the tarts involved in the Profumo affair (not Keeler or Mandy R-D) and JFK. He probably did not want the press to start inquiring too closely into what those in power were up to. The Kennedy's private lives would not have stood up to such scrutiny after all.
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Can't believe anyone ever thought Thorpe was Labour.
Richard it is not inconceivable to think that certain scandals, taking in context, hurt the government even though opposition parties are more obviously affected.
Consider for example expenses, an issue which dogged Brown's leadership even though the worst offenders were not Labour.
Weren't the vast majority of those convicted of fraud over MPs' expenses Labour MPs?
Actually that's right, I stand corrected. Perhaps a poor example but there are others
[I]t is 8 years since tuition fees were a big issue.
I hate to break this to you Mike, but I think tuition fees were quite a big issue at last year's general election.
The Lib Dems have effectively transferred the blame for tuition fees to the Tories by virtue of their 2015GE wipeout.
Labour are picking up the national votes, which is ironic given they introduced fees in the first place.
One thing Ed Miliband struggled with was the balance between defending Labour's record in government, but moving on from the parts of that record that were unpopular.
Corbyn doesn't have that problem for obvious reasons. It's one of his strengths.
Though one of his weaknesses is of those who voted for Blair from 1997-2005 then switched to Cameron in 2010 very few would consider Corbyn Labour. Hence although he has squeezed the vote of the minor left-wing and populist parties behind him to get to 40% he still faces a Tory Party which got 42% at the last general election
London is the exception.
Elsewhere, yes. There are a lot of seats, in the Home Counties, East Anglia, and Midlands, which saw huge swings to Labour under Blair, followed by huge swings to the Tories.
But, some of the swings in East Sussex and other parts of the South East to Labour last year were truly shocking.
Upended everything I thought I knew about the UKs political geography.
Under Blair Labour won over 10 seats in Essex, Kent and Sussex.
Under Corbyn they only have 3, Brighton Kemptown, Hove and Canterbury
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
Which is what Martin Lewis was saying yesterday. Also, the other big thing is that Facebook allows you to run 100,000s of different ads and nobody will know how many you are actually running, how accurate they are etc, because people only see one version, making it nearly impossible to get a handle on the range of ads being put out there.
You can't hold a company / political candidate to account if you have no idea just what they are saying to different people.
This is key. Election rules are strict on transparency, accountability and within technical limits, truthfulness. The Leave and other campaigns might not have done anything wrong but we have no idea what they did do and do do.
I linked to a video the other day that looked at Facebook business model and mentioned how many ads Trump and Clinton ran during the election.
Trump ran 5.9 million variations of their ads, Clinton 66k.
I really don't want to be considered anti-semitic, but some of the actions of Israeli Government s have been dreadful. And too often statements of this kind have been stigmatised as 'anti-semitic'.
Indeed they have. And, no, your statement in saying so is not anti-semitic. And, yes, we should call out those who seek to stop such criticism by wrongly claiming that doing so is automatically anti-semitic.
But you have rightly called out the Israeli government which is what you do when you want to criticise that government.
You have not criticised Jews in general or Zionists. That is the difference. There are those who seek to disguise their anti-semitism by claiming that they are criticising Israel but when you look at the language they are using they are eliding the difference between what the Israeli government does and Jews in general.
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
It is exactly what happened, as you can see if you check what was said, for instance: “The Attorney General stated that he wanted to inform [redacted] of this matter on a personal basis ‘as the British can’t afford another disclosure of this kind’.”
Well, it's generous of you to think 'the British' and 'the Conservative government' are synonyms, but it's a distinctly minority view!
It's more likely that he did not want any more scandals to come out in Britain because of the likelihood of links to the Kennedy administration. There were links between one of the tarts involved in the Profumo affair (not Keeler or Mandy R-D) and JFK. He probably did not want the press to start inquiring too closely into what those in power were up to. The Kennedy's private lives would not have stood up to such scrutiny after all.
"Scratch my back...etc..."
I defer to others with more historical knowledge than me, but although Thorpe was a Liberal MP it would have been more fodder for the press who wanted to perpetuate the narrative of a sleazy establishment class.
It could have turned into another of MacMillan’s “events, dear boy”.
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Can't believe anyone ever thought Thorpe was Labour.
Richard it is not inconceivable to think that certain scandals, taking in context, hurt the government even though opposition parties are more obviously affected.
Consider for example expenses, an issue which dogged Brown's leadership even though the worst offenders were not Labour.
Weren't the vast majority of those convicted of fraud over MPs' expenses Labour MPs?
The odd thing is, they were all petty offences.
Fraud is never petty, even if the amounts involved are small. It's the breach of trust which is serious. Not the amount involved.
And he's by no means someone you'd have down as a "usual suspect" when it comes to causing trouble?
Ominous signs for Theresa...
Ominous signs for Brexit... They know that a concession on the customs union would bring down the whole Jenga tower before long as people conclude there's no point in leaving.
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Can't believe anyone ever thought Thorpe was Labour.
Richard it is not inconceivable to think that certain scandals, taking in context, hurt the government even though opposition parties are more obviously affected.
Consider for example expenses, an issue which dogged Brown's leadership even though the worst offenders were not Labour.
Weren't the vast majority of those convicted of fraud over MPs' expenses Labour MPs?
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
It is exactly what happened, as you can see if you check what was said, for instance: “The Attorney General stated that he wanted to inform [redacted] of this matter on a personal basis ‘as the British can’t afford another disclosure of this kind’.”
Well, it's generous of you to think 'the British' and 'the Conservative government' are synonyms, but it's a distinctly minority view!
It's more likely that he did not want any more scandals to come out in Britain because of the likelihood of links to the Kennedy administration. There were links between one of the tarts involved in the Profumo affair (not Keeler or Mandy R-D) and JFK. He probably did not want the press to start inquiring too closely into what those in power were up to. The Kennedy's private lives would not have stood up to such scrutiny after all.
"Scratch my back...etc..."
All three of the Kennedy brothers should probably have gone to prison.
"The evidence is clear enough. Labour staff have seen examples of Holocaust denial, crude stereotypes of Jewish bankers, conspiracy theories blaming 9/11 on Israel, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood."
Does that mean Ken's "Hitler was a Zionist" schtick?
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Can't believe anyone ever thought Thorpe was Labour.
Richard it is not inconceivable to think that certain scandals, taking in context, hurt the government even though opposition parties are more obviously affected.
Consider for example expenses, an issue which dogged Brown's leadership even though the worst offenders were not Labour.
Weren't the vast majority of those convicted of fraud over MPs' expenses Labour MPs?
The odd thing is, they were all petty offences.
Fraud is never petty, even if the amounts involved are small. It's the breach of trust which is serious. Not the amount involved.
That's true. It's just curious that people would wreck their careers for trivial sums.
"The evidence is clear enough. Labour staff have seen examples of Holocaust denial, crude stereotypes of Jewish bankers, conspiracy theories blaming 9/11 on Israel, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood."
Does that mean Ken's "Hitler was a Zionist" schtick?
I would assume so. It's a bit disingenuous to say 'Labour staff have seen" when actually the key person who has seen this stuff is Corbyn himself (although he denies having noticed it in all those FB groups).
... As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
Err, you do know that Jeremy Thorpe wasn't a Conservative, i suppose?
Yes, and also that Thorpe was initially thought to be Labour, but it was a Conservative government reeling from Burgess and Maclean, Vassal, Profumo and probably more that was being protected.
So, to protect a Conservative government, he suppressed damaging info about one of their opponents.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Can't believe anyone ever thought Thorpe was Labour.
Richard it is not inconceivable to think that certain scandals, taking in context, hurt the government even though opposition parties are more obviously affected.
Consider for example expenses, an issue which dogged Brown's leadership even though the worst offenders were not Labour.
Weren't the vast majority of those convicted of fraud over MPs' expenses Labour MPs?
The odd thing is, they were all petty offences.
Fraud is never petty, even if the amounts involved are small. It's the breach of trust which is serious. Not the amount involved.
That's true. It's just curious that people would wreck their careers for trivial sums.
Speaking of which, has anyone figured out what Sir Martin Sorrell’s “non-material” antics involved?
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
I believe this. Targeting ads on users' relationships is Facebook's business model. They should be better than anyone else at doing it. Which raises the more interesting question of what value was Kogan offering to Cambridge Analaytica, its sister company and ultimately the Leave campaigns. He was selling the usefulness of his harvested data despite his disingenuous claims that the data never left his server, but how was it useful to Leave?
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
I believe this. Targeting ads on users' relationships is Facebook's business model. They should be better than anyone else at doing it. Which raises the more interesting question of what value was Kogan offering to Cambridge Analaytica, its sister company and ultimately the Leave campaigns. He was selling the usefulness of his harvested data despite his disingenuous claims that the data never left his server, but how was it useful to Leave?
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
How does Dominic Cummings square this with his decision to pay them several million pounds for their services?
Comments
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/23/17272620/chinese-tech-companies-alibaba-tencent-baidu-gender-discrimination
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/24/holocaust-survivor-accuses-jeremy-corbyn-failing-tackle-anti/
On BF at 7.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5650847/Robert-Kennedy-suppressed-letter-revealing-Jeremy-Thorpe-gay.html
Immigration is beneficial however in improving the tax take and reducing the proportion of the population not in work. Immigration hating oldies rely on those immigrants to keep them cossetted with pensions, healthcare and benefits.
My central forecast is that Jeremy goes after the next election, which means she is a tad short. But I still have her green (albeit substantially less green than the book)
As for Bobby Kennedy suppressing a Thorpe letter in 1963, this would have been to help the Conservative government which, as the Americans noted, was already reeling after a series of sex and spy scandals.
The political inaccuracy is to show +20 without any reference of the total number of councillors, or even the number of by-elections.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/988732390322384896
Another dodgy Lab selection?
Oh, and our friend Mandy from yesterday is defiantly not standing aside, just to keep that story running for a bit longer too.
I'll be honest, the 2002-2006 era was a good time for me. My house value more than doubled, I could borrow what I wanted. But even I had the sense - despite being quite young - that it all felt too good to be true.
For a serving govt to dis-attach itself from those levels of over-heated spending is so so difficult. Cuts are massively unpopular, as has been demonstrated. Politically, Brown was the master. He knew he could leave the Tories in the shit and still let them have the blame for it.
To @Roger and @Tyson: before you start dismissing the complaints of Jews (whether Jewish MPs or leaders of the Jewish community or ordinary Jews) you might wish to acquaint yourselves with the findings of the McPherson Report following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, 25 years ago a day or so ago and remembered yesterday in a moving ceremony in Westminster.
The definition of racism adopted by the inquiry and since then more or less universally adopted by the police and most organisations, including the Labour Party (it was a Labour government which instigated the inquiry) is the following:
"A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"
This applies to racist incidents against Jews. And yet some within Labour (and elsewhere) seem very unwilling to do so. Apparently Jews are, unlike other minority groups, not allowed to say when someone is being racist towards them; their views, their personal experience, their knowledge are to be dismissed; others without that experience or knowledge should be allowed to define what anti-semitism or racism towards Jews should mean. You can see this process at work in the submissions made to the Chakrabati inquiry, for instance. Jews must have another - hidden or not so hidden - agenda. They are making it up or over-egging it or using it for an ulterior purpose. Their experience is to be ignored or diminished or turned against them by implying (or in some cases saying openly) that they are using racism against them as a weapon against others. Jews cannot be - must not be - allowed to be victims. Because if they are victims well they can't be oppressors and we have put them in the oppressors box and how can that be if other people are being horrible to and attacking them.
There is a lot of that at work in much of the discussion about anti-semitism and the Labour Party. These are arguments that would be - rightly - dismissed if applied to other minority groups but there is a double standard applied to Jews that some might say is itself evidence of a racist or anti-semitic viewpoint.
When people like John Mann or his daughter, Heather, speak of the abuse and threats they have suffered, when MPs like Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth and Margaret Hodge and Robert Halfon speak of their experience, try and listen to what they say and not, as you appear to be doing, automatically assume that they must have some hidden and ignoble agenda to try and attack your sainted hero, Corbyn. Try and look at the facts and think that perhaps the reason why people have criticised Corbyn is that, for all his fine words, his actions have rather undercut his words. Try and understand that when people say that there must be due process against those Labour members accused of anti-Jewish racism (with which I entirely agree) what people see is a process which is taking an interminably long time and they also see people let back in who have not changed their minds and they wonder whether the due process argument is less about that and more about a PR exercise, kicking this into the long grass and readmitting people when the fuss has died down.
Try, for once, to assume that Jews are being genuine when they say that they are starting to be afraid of the climate that is being created, just as elderly Afro-Caribbean British citizens say that they are afraid of the climate being created, just as EU citizens living here say they are afraid of the climate being created. Don't automatically assume that they are being malevolent and disingenuous and lying when they say this. Just listen for once rather than dismiss because you do not want to believe what people are saying. Just try for once not to assume that Labour is on the right side of every argument and therefore everyone opposing them must not only be wrong but acting in bad faith and that must apply to any Jewish person within Labour (and others) concerned about what is happening to the party.
Labour has had a good record in standing up against racism. It needs to live up to that record. Not ignore problems just because the complaints are coming from groups it does not like.
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
11:58
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/apr/24/cambridge-analytica-kogan-barnier-says-eu-needs-more-clarity-from-uk-over-its-brexit-demands-politics-live
https://www.politico.eu/article/tories-eye-the-race-to-take-on-london-mayor-sadiq-khan/
You can't hold a company / political candidate to account if you have no idea just what they are saying to different people.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
All political parties really need to get on top of historic social media use by those who stand in their name, unless of course they want to see screenshots of Guido’s site on leaflets at the next election?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/23/theresa-may-caves-customs-union-consequences-tories-will-stark/
Consider for example expenses, an issue which dogged Brown's leadership even though the worst offenders were not Labour.
And only by running on a moderately anti-govt platform.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40546816/obama-campaigns-targeted-share-app-also-used-facebook-data-from-millions-of-unknowing-users
All the focus has been on CA and Trump, when it really should all be on the likes of how Facebook handles the data that is shared on their platform.
First time I've known sticky labels being involved in the process.
And for the benefit of the tin-foil-hatters out there: I did use a pen!
"Scratch my back...etc..."
Under Corbyn they only have 3, Brighton Kemptown, Hove and Canterbury
Trump ran 5.9 million variations of their ads, Clinton 66k.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXC_I7nOGlQ
Indeed they have. And, no, your statement in saying so is not anti-semitic. And, yes, we should call out those who seek to stop such criticism by wrongly claiming that doing so is automatically anti-semitic.
But you have rightly called out the Israeli government which is what you do when you want to criticise that government.
You have not criticised Jews in general or Zionists. That is the difference. There are those who seek to disguise their anti-semitism by claiming that they are criticising Israel but when you look at the language they are using they are eliding the difference between what the Israeli government does and Jews in general.
It could have turned into another of MacMillan’s “events, dear boy”.
This stuff surely continues to happen today.
Ominous signs for Theresa...
Does that mean Ken's "Hitler was a Zionist" schtick?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/209433
I said their Lordships are playing a very dangerous game at the moment...
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
But it’s the actions that are important.