[Parricide is killing of a close family member, typically taken to mean a mother or father].
I didn't realise whipping preceded it. Did you know they used to ritually crucify dogs? I think that was because the guards dogs didn't warn of an assault by Gauls when all Rome save the Capitoline fell in the 5th (ish) century BC.
What line would you take as shadow chancellor? I'm not joking, I'm genuinely interested.
That's a difficult question. Not least because I am a dry Tory on macroeconomic policy and am averse to cross-dressing.
Also, you need to answer what the goal of policy should be: to win the 2015 Election or to restore popular trust in Labour's ability to manage an economy. The two are linked but separable.
If you asking for a quick trick. Then abandoning HS2 and Trident would provide all the forward resources needed to finance real redistribution even in the current climate of austerity. It would make it very difficult for Osborne and Cameron to attack on reasoned grounds. OK, they could fight on the grounds of undermining national security and of abandoning the desolate North, but think of all the tempting goodies that the two Eds could offer instead.
If you asking for a sound strategy, I would pass on 2015 (take it if we win but focus on 2020) and rebuild both party and policy (this may be what Ed is attempting anyway).
On the economy I would start by defining fiscal goals of debt @ 60% of GDP by 2060 and a balanced cyclical current budget. The second is identical to GO's strategy but the first would be new as an adopted goal.
Within the fiscal constraints, I would look at using all growth surplus to fiscal consolidation requirements on redistribution. I would be ruthless about tax rates and yields, optimising yields rather than pursue an overtly political tax policy (i.e. more Mandelson than Healey). I would not increase tax where it would depress growth and competitiveness.
But rather than write a full manifesto, let's take a single core example. The future competitiveness and capacity for growth in the UK is promising and is based on the flexibility of the labour market and the capacity of the country to grow its population both through natural birth rates and immigration. Servicing that growth would depend on a two step strategy: getting full productivity out of the current population (back to work and off benefits) and creating service capabilities for an increased working population.
Take housing. I would remove the social housing sector out of its semi-state status. I might even do what Yeltsin did in Russia after over-throwing communism by transferring ownership of all properties to their occupants, with low interest loans replacing rent. I would take the hit necessary on benefit spending to support the transfer by allowing housing benefit to rise to a market determined level. I would restructure the sector to encourage a liquid market. Once both capital value and interest rates were at market levels I would stimulate rapid construction of new stock by the private sector.
"Are you suggesting that voters will have forgotten the events and impact of the third Blair-Brown Labour term when they mark their ballot papers in 2015?"
They certainly seemed to have forgotten the Black Wednesday and the Tory's ERM fiasco quickly enough
That's the difference between the Tories and Labour, Olly.
Both Major and Brown suffered "external shocks" to the economy.
Major suffered Black Wednesday and the ERM exit. He responded by delivering the highest level of growth over his term of office since the war.
Brown suffered a global banking crisis. He responded by leading the country through the deepest and longest recession since the war and virtually non-existent growth over five years.
That's what the voters will remember, Olly.
That's just the Tory mantra they have been reciting ever since 2008, repeating it over and over doesn't mean it's true mate.
What makes it true, Olly, are the recorded facts and figures.
You can have as many opinions as you wish but you can't argue with the facts.
I must say, I like it. Well, about 2/3rds of it. I suspect that going for scrapping Trident opens Labour up to too many 1980s crazy days comparisons, but now you point it out HS2 is an obvious target. The money they would 'save' could cover loads of fuzzy giving pledges. And the idea of setting a headline debt target might actually get some credibility back behind Labour on the economy (2060 seems a bit far off though, why not 2040? Far enough away not to be totally unrealistic but close enough that they wouldn't get totally hammered for looking insincere. Frankly, I'd go for 2030). I appreciate the candour and thoughtful answer.
Your (and their) problem is what? That you believe that evasion of minimum wage regulations is a good thing, really - some sort of safety valve for the economy? I thought anti-NMW Tories had died out, but perhaps they were just hibernating?
@Greg_Callus: Increasing sentences ten-fold for Bigamy (contrary to s57 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) would be a more substantive policy than this
Yes, at present authorities feel it's hardly worth pursuing as the fine is so low. Are you actually opposed to the policy or not? (You can propose an increase in the fine for bigamy too if you feel this is a related argument.)
I must say that £5000 seems very low for an economic crime where the benefits of abusing the NMW could easily and quickly exceed that figure.
There was an interesting piece on R4 during the week about the German election. There is no minimum wage in Germany and very little unemployment either. A significant chunk of the population, however, are working for very low wages. 6 euros an hour was quoted.
It is causing the French in particular, who have a quite high minimum wage and very high social costs, a problem by what amounts to unfair competition. There did not seem, in the brief report, much evidence of WTC equivalents either.
I think it is very difficult to calculate the costs of a minimum wage but it does seem a little odd to complain so vociferously about youth unemployment and seek to strengthen it at the same time.
So the market rate is above the minimum wage but no-one pays the market rate? I'm not an economist, but that doesn't seem right to me.
That is the point. The NMW has *altered* and *reduced* what previously was the market rate and removed the small-scale variations of pay in that bracket.
Ed is probably going to get the same treatment from the Murdoch press that Rudd got in Australia. But that could end up hurting the Murdoch press more than Ed. (IIRC the Times used to have the most politically balanced readership - if they do a Rudd on Labour here then they could alienate a lot of readers.)
Pfft. I don't think Times readers will give a hoot if Miliband gets an editorial kicking. You forget he is one of the most derided Labour leaders of modern times. The paper will be speaking to its readers' prejudices, shared by most Britons. No one will cancel a subscription because the Times says Miliband is a dork.
He IS a dork.
Wrong I already have after the Thatcher coverage after being a long time subscriber. It has already lurched to the right
lol. What total bollocks.
Thats what i thought and why I no longer subscribe. Ding Dong
The Times, famously, requires a reading age of 15 - the highest of any paper, so I obviously doubt you ever subscribed. It would be like my daughter's budgie taking Le Monde.
However, and moreover, refusing to read a paper because you disagree with its politics is the worst and stupidest reason to unsubscribe. We only really educate ourselves, politically, by reading the best articulation of opinions opposed to our own.
I read the Guardian all the time. I despise it, I think it is borderline diseased; but it is nonetheless the best expression of lefty opinion available in the UK, so if I want to understand my world, in toto, then I have to see what it says.
No. Me giving anymore money to Murdoch would be stupid, as he has obviously already decided to try to get a Tory win in 2015. By the way I subscribed on and off for over 10 yrs and have a reading age capable of spotting bullshit and a real age of 53.
Your personal insults are somewhat pathetic but typical of the PB Tory mentality
The point I am making Sean is that between now and the GE at every periodic release of economic metrics on living standards there is likely to be an uptick.
Millions of people will see their living standards fall regardless of your take on ONS releases. Labour's message will speak to them. I cant see why it would put off anyone who is doing well particularly. It sounds like a sensible line to take to me.
For goodness sake, Neil, you are a professional actuary! You know that if statistics on standards of living rise they will eventually transfer through to tangible consumer benefits and confidence.
And we know (from countless academic sources) that confidence in an economy tends to precede recognition of rises in living standards.
If the UK economy continues to grow at or above trend (0.7% per quartet) between now and the GE the additional value generated will be, at least in part, distributed to households and consumers to their benefit.
This is a tide coming in that the two Eds can't stop. All they can do is try to keep current perceptions and confidence levels static and the polling evidence from subsidiary questions suggest they are going to have a difficult job just doing this.
I must say that £5000 seems very low for an economic crime where the benefits of abusing the NMW could easily and quickly exceed that figure.
There was an interesting piece on R4 during the week about the German election. There is no minimum wage in Germany and very little unemployment either. A significant chunk of the population, however, are working for very low wages. 6 euros an hour was quoted.
It is causing the French in particular, who have a quite high minimum wage and very high social costs, a problem by what amounts to unfair competition. There did not seem, in the brief report, much evidence of WTC equivalents either.
I think it is very difficult to calculate the costs of a minimum wage but it does seem a little odd to complain so vociferously about youth unemployment and seek to strengthen it at the same time.
The German position is a bit more complex: the courts have ruled that paying less than 75% of the average wage for a particular occupation is illegal. There are also numerous sector where there is a minimum wage agreed by collective bargaining, and this is then legally enforceable - a sort of national closed shop system, very different to the UK and difficult to compare. Wikipedia is quite good on this:
"Are you suggesting that voters will have forgotten the events and impact of the third Blair-Brown Labour term when they mark their ballot papers in 2015?"
They certainly seemed to have forgotten the Black Wednesday and the Tory's ERM fiasco quickly enough
That's the difference between the Tories and Labour, Olly.
Both Major and Brown suffered "external shocks" to the economy.
Major suffered Black Wednesday and the ERM exit. He responded by delivering the highest level of growth over his term of office since the war.
Brown suffered a global banking crisis. He responded by leading the country through the deepest and longest recession since the war and virtually non-existent growth over five years.
That's what the voters will remember, Olly.
That's just the Tory mantra they have been reciting ever since 2008, repeating it over and over doesn't mean it's true mate.
What makes it true, Olly, are the recorded facts and figures.
You can have as many opinions as you wish but you can't argue with the facts.
I have always found it best to walk away from any discussion once somebody starts asserting that their opinions are FACT (invariably supported by the old "lies, damned lies and statistics")
So the market rate is above the minimum wage but no-one pays the market rate? I'm not an economist, but that doesn't seem right to me.
Market rates work best in a "perfect market". The phrase "perfect market" (like a platonic solid or perfect gas) is more theoretical than actual, but it gives us a yardstick on how well a market is performing. One of the conditions of a perfect market is "perfect information". You have perfect information if everybody knows simultaneously all the prices at which things are offered for sale, and all the prices at which things are actually sold. This sounds unachievable but for markets like the stock market, you can get close enough for things to bump along quite nicely.
In the market GeoffM outlined, the information was imperfect: nobody knew what the others were charging and nobody knew what the others were paying, so each deal was done imperfectly (Were you paying too much? Was he charging too much? How can you tell?) and oddities like the one you observe can occur.
(next week: we discuss Giffen goods. Tickets are on sale in all good outlets. In my head, at least...:-))
"Brown suffered a global banking crisis. He responded by leading the country through the deepest and longest recession since the war and virtually non-existent growth over five years."
Three of those five years have been under Osborne's watch. Brown/Darling brought positive growth back in 2009 and , indeed, as late as Q3, 2010, the economy was growing.
I must say that £5000 seems very low for an economic crime where the benefits of abusing the NMW could easily and quickly exceed that figure.
There was an interesting piece on R4 during the week about the German election. There is no minimum wage in Germany and very little unemployment either. A significant chunk of the population, however, are working for very low wages. 6 euros an hour was quoted.
It is causing the French in particular, who have a quite high minimum wage and very high social costs, a problem by what amounts to unfair competition. There did not seem, in the brief report, much evidence of WTC equivalents either.
I think it is very difficult to calculate the costs of a minimum wage but it does seem a little odd to complain so vociferously about youth unemployment and seek to strengthen it at the same time.
The German position is a bit more complex: the courts have ruled that paying less than 75% of the average wage for a particular occupation is illegal. There are also numerous sector where there is a minimum wage agreed by collective bargaining, and this is then legally enforceable - a sort of national closed shop system, very different to the UK and difficult to compare. Wikipedia is quite good on this:
I really don't know enough about it but BBC correspondents resident in a country are usually fairly reliable. The cases he was talking about were what we would probably call casual labour so maybe there is no union agreement applicable there.
I think the NMW must have caused additional unemployment but it is very difficult to spot it given the multitude of other factors that will influence the employment level at any one time. I suspect it has pushed the substitution of employment with technology in some areas. Those infuriating self service check out tills are probably one example. It is why I have reservations about the living wage. I fear it would lead to more unemployment.
"Are you suggesting that voters will have forgotten the events and impact of the third Blair-Brown Labour term when they mark their ballot papers in 2015?"
They certainly seemed to have forgotten the Black Wednesday and the Tory's ERM fiasco quickly enough
That's the difference between the Tories and Labour, Olly.
Both Major and Brown suffered "external shocks" to the economy.
Major suffered Black Wednesday and the ERM exit. He responded by delivering the highest level of growth over his term of office since the war.
Brown suffered a global banking crisis. He responded by leading the country through the deepest and longest recession since the war and virtually non-existent growth over five years.
That's what the voters will remember, Olly.
That's just the Tory mantra they have been reciting ever since 2008, repeating it over and over doesn't mean it's true mate.
What makes it true, Olly, are the recorded facts and figures.
You can have as many opinions as you wish but you can't argue with the facts.
I have always found it best to walk away from any discussion once somebody starts asserting that their opinions are FACT (invariably supported by the old "lies, damned lies and statistics")
My opinion is that evolution is fact. I have lots of statistics to back up that opinion.
The point I am making Sean is that between now and the GE at every periodic release of economic metrics on living standards there is likely to be an uptick.
Millions of people will see their living standards fall regardless of your take on ONS releases. Labour's message will speak to them. I cant see why it would put off anyone who is doing well particularly. It sounds like a sensible line to take to me.
For goodness sake, Neil, you are a professional actuary! You know that if statistics on standards of living rise they will eventually transfer through to tangible consumer benefits and confidence.
And we know (from countless academic sources) that confidence in an economy tends to precede recognition of rises in living standards.
If the UK economy continues to grow at or above trend (0.7% per quartet) between now and the GE the additional value generated will be, at least in part, distributed to households and consumers to their benefit.
This is a tide coming in that the two Eds can't stop. All they can do is try to keep current perceptions and confidence levels static and the polling evidence from subsidiary questions suggest they are going to have a difficult job just doing this.
I think the NMW must have caused additional unemployment but it is very difficult to spot it given the multitude of other factors that will influence the employment level at any one time. I suspect it has pushed the substitution of employment with technology in some areas. Those infuriating self service check out tills are probably one example. It is why I have reservations about the living wage. I fear it would lead to more unemployment.
The fairly extensive report has been put out by the Fair Pay Commission (charged by governments since '97 to set the NMW and measure its effects) here. "The minimum wage has clearly brought challenges for certain companies, particularly smaller firms in low value-added sectors, and there is anecdotal evidence of some restructuring. In the course of our consultation, we came across companies in low-paying sectors which told us they had cut jobs or hours as a result of the National Minimum Wage, a point also made by a number of employers’ representatives. The written evidence from the CBI, for example, noted that ‘some job losses have been reported as a result of the minimum wage, but these do not appear to have been very significant’. This message also emerged from our post-implementation survey of small firms in retail and hospitality. Whether such changes are caused by the National Minimum Wage alone, and to what extent the demand transfers to other businesses, is difficult to determine."
In order for "the substitution of employment with technology" to ring true its got to be distinguished from a form of Ludditism. The two potential different factors would be market shock (happening too quickly) or the effect on full employment which doesn't appear to have been much discussed. (I believe the normal explanation for the apparent rise in the full employment unemployment rate is the liberalism of the jobs market, allowing people to re-enter more easily and utilise this flexibility, though.)
I suspect it has pushed the substitution of employment with technology in some areas. Those infuriating self service check out tills are probably one example. It is why I have reservations about the living wage. I fear it would lead to more unemployment.
Last month, SEIU-backed groups targeting the fast-food industry staged a one-day strike nationwide to draw attention to their campaign to double their wages and to unionize the fast-food workers.
You see, all-too-often, one of the unintended consequences of union efforts to create artificial monopolies in labor markets is that the entrepreneurial spirit normally finds a way around barriers unions place in its way.
Here is where union bosses and the fast-food workers who are being targeted may want to sit up and pay attention.
Meet Alpha. Alpha is a fully-functioning hamburger slicer, dicer and flipper. In fact, Alpha pumps out 360 burgers per hour.
One of the unforeseen advantages of things like the NMW is that it focuses the minds of employers who have the option to automate and encourages them to get on with it. And from that we all benefit.
I suspect it has pushed the substitution of employment with technology in some areas. Those infuriating self service check out tills are probably one example. It is why I have reservations about the living wage. I fear it would lead to more unemployment.
Last month, SEIU-backed groups targeting the fast-food industry staged a one-day strike nationwide to draw attention to their campaign to double their wages and to unionize the fast-food workers.
You see, all-too-often, one of the unintended consequences of union efforts to create artificial monopolies in labor markets is that the entrepreneurial spirit normally finds a way around barriers unions place in its way.
Here is where union bosses and the fast-food workers who are being targeted may want to sit up and pay attention.
Meet Alpha. Alpha is a fully-functioning hamburger slicer, dicer and flipper. In fact, Alpha pumps out 360 burgers per hour.
One of the unforeseen advantages of things like the NMW is that it focuses the minds of employers who have the option to automate and encourages them to get on with it. And from that we all benefit.
There's a section on productivity in the report I linked below (or above... depending on where you're reading this):
"The overall impact of the National Minimum Wage on productivity is likely to be small, and extremely difficult to measure. ... we have evidence of companies which have made a virtue of necessity and taken steps to improve productivity."
" He half acknowledges that he understands what he might face from the Conservatives. "By any means necessary. That is their modus operandi, isn't it? By any means necessary.""
I mean, really, what does it take? The party of Damien McBride about whom he was worried. The party of Campbell, Whelen and Draper. The party of Mr "making whites angry" appointed by him as a spokesman on immigration. And yet I have no doubt whatsoever that he genuinely still believes that his party is in some way morally superior.
It's a illness. It really is.
Labour need to believe in their supposed moral superiority.
Because without that they have to rely on their actual record in government.
And without this supposed moral superiority they would be unable to justify the affluence and privileges that they themselves have.
So leftist political belief is reduced to an act of faith.
This is why the whole Cameron Project was fundamentally flawed - it was opposed by faith in its target group.
What school did you go to and are you or your cousin in line for any obscure Baronetcies?
Actually, Neil, my (indirect) family has recently had a baronetcy become extinct through lack of direct male heirs. My proposal to revive it by importing a suitable Romanian was rejected, but I am currently appealing on the ground that sacrifices which are necessary for economic growth should be available in equal measure to private citizens.
So my hopes for tim's vote remains high.
The problem is the profile of my school. The low church poet-pacifist reputation appears not fit for purpose.
The fairly extensive report has been put out by the Fair Pay Commission (charged by governments since '97 to set the NMW and measure its effects) here. "The minimum wage has clearly brought challenges for certain companies, particularly smaller firms in low value-added sectors, and there is anecdotal evidence of some restructuring. In the course of our consultation, we came across companies in low-paying sectors which told us they had cut jobs or hours as a result of the National Minimum Wage, a point also made by a number of employers’ representatives. The written evidence from the CBI, for example, noted that ‘some job losses have been reported as a result of the minimum wage, but these do not appear to have been very significant’. This message also emerged from our post-implementation survey of small firms in retail and hospitality. Whether such changes are caused by the National Minimum Wage alone, and to what extent the demand transfers to other businesses, is difficult to determine."
In order for "the substitution of employment with technology" to ring true its got to be distinguished from a form of Ludditism. The two potential different factors would be market shock (happening too quickly) or the effect on full employment which doesn't appear to have been much discussed. (I believe the normal explanation for the apparent rise in the full employment unemployment rate is the liberalism of the jobs market, allowing people to re-enter more easily and utilise this flexibility, though.)
I am aware of their reports. As I said it is very difficult to get beyond the anecdote to any hard data.
We have an extremely serious problem with unemployment in this country. It is far worse than the official statistics show because politicians of all stripes have got so adept at hiding it. Basically, we need more than two million low skilled jobs to soak up our unemployed, underemployed, pretendy employment, ",disabled", those on pointless courses and poor pensioners. It is a challenge that no government is even pretending to address.
It may not be possible. But we should hesitate to make it more difficult.
There's a section on productivity in the report I linked below (or above... depending on where you're reading this): "The overall impact of the National Minimum Wage on productivity is likely to be small, and extremely difficult to measure. ... we have evidence of companies which have made a virtue of necessity and taken steps to improve productivity."
Our postings crossed so I didn't see yours until afterwards and therefore your link. Seems a suitably unconfirmable quango-type quote. I'm not sure I'd expect the "Fair" Pay Commission to say much else and risk talk themselves out of a comfy job.
Our YouGov poll today shows that only 17% of voters think Mr Milliband is up to the job of prime minister. It gives the Tories a nine-point lead over Labour on economic policy. Mr Osborne has a six-point lead over Mr Balls, who ranks below Vince Cable.
"Are you suggesting that voters will have forgotten the events and impact of the third Blair-Brown Labour term when they mark their ballot papers in 2015?"
They certainly seemed to have forgotten the Black Wednesday and the Tory's ERM fiasco quickly enough
That's the difference between the Tories and Labour, Olly.
Both Major and Brown suffered "external shocks" to the economy.
Major suffered Black Wednesday and the ERM exit. He responded by delivering the highest level of growth over his term of office since the war.
Brown suffered a global banking crisis. He responded by leading the country through the deepest and longest recession since the war and virtually non-existent growth over five years.
That's what the voters will remember, Olly.
That's just the Tory mantra they have been reciting ever since 2008, repeating it over and over doesn't mean it's true mate.
What makes it true, Olly, are the recorded facts and figures.
You can have as many opinions as you wish but you can't argue with the facts.
I have always found it best to walk away from any discussion once somebody starts asserting that their opinions are FACT (invariably supported by the old "lies, damned lies and statistics")
My opinion is that evolution is fact. I have lots of statistics to back up that opinion.
Please walk away.
:-)
You disappoint me JJ. Surely you know that evolution is only a Theory. It only becomes fact once it is accepted as a Law. ;-)
There's a section on productivity in the report I linked below (or above... depending on where you're reading this): "The overall impact of the National Minimum Wage on productivity is likely to be small, and extremely difficult to measure. ... we have evidence of companies which have made a virtue of necessity and taken steps to improve productivity."
Our postings crossed so I didn't see yours until afterwards and therefore your link. Seems a suitably unconfirmable quango-type quote. I'm not sure I'd expect the "Fair" Pay Commission to say much else and risk talk themselves out of a comfy job.
(It's a rather long report, I was point you to it rather than expecting you have read it.)
Looks like the Sunday Times yougov have done some polling on McBride.
Mr McBride’s revelations are embarrassing for Ed Miliband and Mr Balls, all in the Brown inner circle. Like the three wise monkeys Messrs Brown, Balls and Miliband may claim to have been unaware of the evil but that is barely credible. Most voters, however, reckon politicians behave badly and their advisers are probably worse. Mr McBride’s anecdotes are good knockabout but no more.
Somebody earlier mentioned a windfall for Labour in the form of scrapping Trident. Is this likely to be Labour policy?
Absolutely not. They are reviewing the last Government's like-for-like replacement policy but the reaction to the Lib Dem proposals / review earlier in the year suggests nothing less than a continuous at sea deterrent will come out of that. Maybe with fewer warheads or something like that (to show something came out of the review).
The point I am making Sean is that between now and the GE at every periodic release of economic metrics on living standards there is likely to be an uptick.
Millions of people will see their living standards fall regardless of your take on ONS releases. Labour's message will speak to them. I cant see why it would put off anyone who is doing well particularly. It sounds like a sensible line to take to me.
For goodness sake, Neil, you are a professional actuary! You know that if statistics on standards of living rise they will eventually transfer through to tangible consumer benefits and confidence.
And we know (from countless academic sources) that confidence in an economy tends to precede recognition of rises in living standards.
If the UK economy continues to grow at or above trend (0.7% per quartet) between now and the GE the additional value generated will be, at least in part, distributed to households and consumers to their benefit.
This is a tide coming in that the two Eds can't stop. All they can do is try to keep current perceptions and confidence levels static and the polling evidence from subsidiary questions suggest they are going to have a difficult job just doing this.
Would they be better off than in May 2010 ?
Yes.
The big disparity between Real Household Disposable Income (RHDI) and GDP growth occurred between 2002-2007. The gap then closed with the crash. Since then the disparity has been relatively small and would not take much to reverse.
The point I am making Sean is that between now and the GE at every periodic release of economic metrics on living standards there is likely to be an uptick.
Millions of people will see their living standards fall regardless of your take on ONS releases. Labour's message will speak to them. I cant see why it would put off anyone who is doing well particularly. It sounds like a sensible line to take to me.
For goodness sake, Neil, you are a professional actuary! You know that if statistics on standards of living rise they will eventually transfer through to tangible consumer benefits and confidence.
And we know (from countless academic sources) that confidence in an economy tends to precede recognition of rises in living standards.
If the UK economy continues to grow at or above trend (0.7% per quartet) between now and the GE the additional value generated will be, at least in part, distributed to households and consumers to their benefit.
This is a tide coming in that the two Eds can't stop. All they can do is try to keep current perceptions and confidence levels static and the polling evidence from subsidiary questions suggest they are going to have a difficult job just doing this.
Political Editor of the Guardian Twitter Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 5m Three things to ignore at this stage of electoral cycle - multi-million black holes, individual polls, and extracts from political memoirs.
The point I am making Sean is that between now and the GE at every periodic release of economic metrics on living standards there is likely to be an uptick.
Millions of people will see their living standards fall regardless of your take on ONS releases. Labour's message will speak to them. I cant see why it would put off anyone who is doing well particularly. It sounds like a sensible line to take to me.
For goodness sake, Neil, you are a professional actuary! You know that if statistics on standards of living rise they will eventually transfer through to tangible consumer benefits and confidence.
And we know (from countless academic sources) that confidence in an economy tends to precede recognition of rises in living standards.
If the UK economy continues to grow at or above trend (0.7% per quartet) between now and the GE the additional value generated will be, at least in part, distributed to households and consumers to their benefit.
This is a tide coming in that the two Eds can't stop. All they can do is try to keep current perceptions and confidence levels static and the polling evidence from subsidiary questions suggest they are going to have a difficult job just doing this.
Would they be better off than in May 2010 ?
Yes.
The point is that many millions wont.
The point is that elections are not won by millions but by a few thousand floaters in marginals.
The point I am making Sean is that between now and the GE at every periodic release of economic metrics on living standards there is likely to be an uptick.
Millions of people will see their living standards fall regardless of your take on ONS releases. Labour's message will speak to them. I cant see why it would put off anyone who is doing well particularly. It sounds like a sensible line to take to me.
For goodness sake, Neil, you are a professional actuary! You know that if statistics on standards of living rise they will eventually transfer through to tangible consumer benefits and confidence.
And we know (from countless academic sources) that confidence in an economy tends to precede recognition of rises in living standards.
If the UK economy continues to grow at or above trend (0.7% per quartet) between now and the GE the additional value generated will be, at least in part, distributed to households and consumers to their benefit.
This is a tide coming in that the two Eds can't stop. All they can do is try to keep current perceptions and confidence levels static and the polling evidence from subsidiary questions suggest they are going to have a difficult job just doing this.
Would they be better off than in May 2010 ?
Yes.
The point is that many millions wont.
The point is that elections are not won by millions but by a few thousand floaters in marginals.
So only the right people need to notice it.
Sorry to be so Tory about it.
On that we are in complete agreement! I'm not sure why you think it's particularly reassuring for you but we agree nonetheless.
I note so many of you putting Yougov in the top tier/top poll catagory......wonder what you will be saying when The Times poll comes out.
****Sits back with the popcorn ****
If it shows a ten point Labour lead, I won't question it. YouGov have a decent reputation (if not quite as good as ICM's) I cannot see why it is ever in their commercial interest to warp a poll for a paper or a party - whatever irate lefties or righties say (at different times).
This differentiates them from, ahem, lesser firms like Panelbase who will clearly twist a poll for their clients, rendering these polls worthless. In the longterm, I don't see how it benefits Panelbase to do this. Everyone mistrusts their polls (surely even the SNP) so eventually they will become unemployable as pollsters.
Daft.
You do know that they don't like it when people report the headline figure before the paper buying it does?
Someone needs to work on his timing, in the Sunday Times he says
“What I think it does signal is that we’re going to see the most vile, personal, aggressive and negative campaign run by the Conservative party we’ve seen in a generation, at this general election,” he says.
In the article: "The only scenario in which you can see any form of stability is one where both the AfD and the FDP win more than 5 per cent of the votes"
Since that was written (7 Sep presumably) the likelihood of that scenario has increased.
In the article: "The only scenario in which you can see any form of stability is one where both the AfD and the FDP win more than 5 per cent of the votes"
Since that was written (7 Sep presumably) the likelihood of that scenario has increased.
The front of the Scotland on Sunday may interest you
TSE - You do realise that if it was a particularly good result for their preferred party they would have released it first, or even, put it on their front page.
TSE - You do realise that if it was a particularly good result for their preferred party they would have released it first, or even, put it on their front page.
Rubbish, they seldom put the poll on their front page.
As Mike can confirm, they regularly post the VI figure between midnight and 1am each week.
You sound like Ken Livingston in 2008 talking about YouGov, and he ended up looking like a numpty.
The point I am making Sean is that between now and the GE at every periodic release of economic metrics on living standards there is likely to be an uptick.
Millions of people will see their living standards fall regardless of your take on ONS releases. Labour's message will speak to them. I cant see why it would put off anyone who is doing well particularly. It sounds like a sensible line to take to me.
For goodness sake, Neil, you are a professional actuary! You know that if statistics on standards of living rise they will eventually transfer through to tangible consumer benefits and confidence.
And we know (from countless academic sources) that confidence in an economy tends to precede recognition of rises in living standards.
If the UK economy continues to grow at or above trend (0.7% per quartet) between now and the GE the additional value generated will be, at least in part, distributed to households and consumers to their benefit.
This is a tide coming in that the two Eds can't stop. All they can do is try to keep current perceptions and confidence levels static and the polling evidence from subsidiary questions suggest they are going to have a difficult job just doing this.
Would they be better off than in May 2010 ?
The point is, Surby, that confidence in the economy and in an individual's own and their family's financial future precedes the movement of an economy from recovery stage to trend growth. This is both measurable and measured by means of consumer confidence indices.
We are already seeing this shift in confidence in answers to subsidiary questions in VI polls and also in monthly indices such as those published by Markit.
So confidence and expectations lead improvements in standards of living.
People vote on expectations. Watch Germany tomorrow. It is not the actual performance of the German economy which will return Merkel but confidence in both her ability to govern and expectation that the German economy will improve.
So the money doesn't need to be in your pocket. You just need to believe it is coming.
TSE - You do realise that if it was a particularly good result for their preferred party they would have released it first, or even, put it on their front page.
Rubbish, they seldom put the poll on their front page.
As Mike can confirm, they regularly post the VI figure between midnight and 1am each week.
You sound like Ken Livingston in 2008 talking about YouGov, and he ended up looking like a numpty.
Now now, don't be getting all personal. What did The Scum do with the Yougov poll showing neck and neck?:
TSE - You do realise that if it was a particularly good result for their preferred party they would have released it first, or even, put it on their front page.
Rubbish, they seldom put the poll on their front page.
As Mike can confirm, they regularly post the VI figure between midnight and 1am each week.
You sound like Ken Livingston in 2008 talking about YouGov, and he ended up looking like a numpty.
Now now, don't be getting all personal. What did The Scum do with the Yougov poll showing neck and neck?:
The Sunday Times and The Sun have different approaches.
I'm providing you with the facts, you're the one providing inaccurate suppositions.
Every Saturday Night/early hours of Sunday, for the last three years, I've emailed Mike the polling articles/information from the Sunday Times.
These generally go up between 11pm and 1am, regardless of the result.
Perhaps you should subscribe to the Sunday Times, you may be surprised.
TSE - You do realise that if it was a particularly good result for their preferred party they would have released it first, or even, put it on their front page.
Rubbish, they seldom put the poll on their front page.
As Mike can confirm, they regularly post the VI figure between midnight and 1am each week.
You sound like Ken Livingston in 2008 talking about YouGov, and he ended up looking like a numpty.
Now now, don't be getting all personal. What did The Scum do with the Yougov poll showing neck and neck?:
The Sunday Times and The Sun have different approaches.
I'm providing you with the facts, you're the one providing inaccurate suppositions.
Every Saturday Night/early hours of Sunday, for the last three years, I've emailed Mike the polling articles/information from the Sunday Times.
These generally go up between 11pm and 1am, regardless of the result.
Perhaps you should subscribe to the Sunday Times, you may be surprised.
I would never put money into the pocket of Rupert Murdoch - Justice for the 96!
"Brown suffered a global banking crisis. He responded by leading the country through the deepest and longest recession since the war and virtually non-existent growth over five years."
Three of those five years have been under Osborne's watch. Brown/Darling brought positive growth back in 2009 and , indeed, as late as Q3, 2010, the economy was growing.
Avery, we can also google !
Surby
Google as much as you wish but do make sure you do your homework.
Real GDP from the ONS dataset released with August release of Q2 2013 GDP Estimate. Series ABMI, "Gross Domestic Product: chained volume measures: Seasonally adjusted" at 2010 Constant prices.
Labour Government 2005- 2010 PM: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown CoE: Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling
Real GDP at end Q2 2005 £ 363,550 million Real GDP at end Q2 2010 £ 371,779 million
Growth in Real GDP over term = 2.26% Average Quarterly Growth = 0.11%
I must say, I like it. Well, about 2/3rds of it. I suspect that going for scrapping Trident opens Labour up to too many 1980s crazy days comparisons, but now you point it out HS2 is an obvious target. The money they would 'save' could cover loads of fuzzy giving pledges. And the idea of setting a headline debt target might actually get some credibility back behind Labour on the economy (2060 seems a bit far off though, why not 2040? Far enough away not to be totally unrealistic but close enough that they wouldn't get totally hammered for looking insincere. Frankly, I'd go for 2030). I appreciate the candour and thoughtful answer.
Sorry, Quincel.
I missed your reply during my backpeddling down the thread.
The 2060 date was an error. I should have typed 2030 which is the target date used by OECD to calculate the annual rate of fiscal consolidation each of its indebted members need to make in order to meet the target of 60% Debt to GDP ratio required under the Maastricht Treaty and generally accepted as an international norm.
But I should point out that the OECD target date two years earlier was 2025! And it will no doubt keep creeping up. But 2030 is where we stand today!
I hope Mike does a thread on this (from the Sunday Times)
ED MILIBAND’S performance risks pushing trade union members towards supporting an independent Scotland, a former Scottish Labour party chairman has warned.
The German election result could be very tight, and even if she achieves a slight majority Merkel could still prefer a Grand Coalition.
Under the modified electoral system, Merkel's majority in 2009 would have been halved (from 42 to 21), and the Bundestag increased in size from 622 to 671...
A YouGov poll today reveals that UKIP is now level with the Liberal Democrats on 11% after being ahead of Nick Clegg’s party for months — although people were surveyed before Bloom’s outburst.
As my prediction indicates, I think Merkel's centre-right coalition will just outpoll the combined leftist parties but she won't get a majority because AfD will cross the 5% threshold.
Louise Mensch has interviewed Arnold Schwarnegger for the Sunday Times, and well, in it she reveals
LOUISE MENSCH, the former Tory MP, has revealed that she has applied for American citizenship, sparking speculation that she may be considering a foray into American politics
@frasernelson: George Osborne tomorrow attacks Labour for proposing “black holes”. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. My blog: http://t.co/XyL5r1XETU
"Polls show that between 6 per cent and 12 per cent of us realise that he is pushing up the national debt."
There are going to be a lot of surprised people during the 2015 general election.
In 1993 the governing Canadian Conservatives managed to lose all but two of their seats in one election. Perhaps the British Conservatives can push the envelope.
A YouGov poll today reveals that UKIP is now level with the Liberal Democrats on 11% after being ahead of Nick Clegg’s party for months — although people were surveyed before Bloom’s outburst.
The Opinium poll at the top of this page has UKIP 10 points clear of the LDs.
A YouGov poll today reveals that UKIP is now level with the Liberal Democrats on 11% after being ahead of Nick Clegg’s party for months — although people were surveyed before Bloom’s outburst.
The Opinium poll at the top of this page has UKIP 10 points clear of the LDs.
I'm unclear - are you suggesting that it's a good poll for Labour so they delayed releasing it or that it's a bad poll for Labour so they've displayed it prominently?
A YouGov poll today reveals that UKIP is now level with the Liberal Democrats on 11% after being ahead of Nick Clegg’s party for months — although people were surveyed before Bloom’s outburst.
The Opinium poll at the top of this page has UKIP 10 points clear of the LDs.
Well Opinium have flaws in their methodology.
Ah. So the ComRes 7 point UKIP lead is more accurate?
Comments
http://www.rupa4ealingactonlabour.wordpress.com/
[Parricide is killing of a close family member, typically taken to mean a mother or father].
I didn't realise whipping preceded it. Did you know they used to ritually crucify dogs? I think that was because the guards dogs didn't warn of an assault by Gauls when all Rome save the Capitoline fell in the 5th (ish) century BC.
What line would you take as shadow chancellor? I'm not joking, I'm genuinely interested.
That's a difficult question. Not least because I am a dry Tory on macroeconomic policy and am averse to cross-dressing.
Also, you need to answer what the goal of policy should be: to win the 2015 Election or to restore popular trust in Labour's ability to manage an economy. The two are linked but separable.
If you asking for a quick trick. Then abandoning HS2 and Trident would provide all the forward resources needed to finance real redistribution even in the current climate of austerity. It would make it very difficult for Osborne and Cameron to attack on reasoned grounds. OK, they could fight on the grounds of undermining national security and of abandoning the desolate North, but think of all the tempting goodies that the two Eds could offer instead.
If you asking for a sound strategy, I would pass on 2015 (take it if we win but focus on 2020) and rebuild both party and policy (this may be what Ed is attempting anyway).
On the economy I would start by defining fiscal goals of debt @ 60% of GDP by 2060 and a balanced cyclical current budget. The second is identical to GO's strategy but the first would be new as an adopted goal.
Within the fiscal constraints, I would look at using all growth surplus to fiscal consolidation requirements on redistribution. I would be ruthless about tax rates and yields, optimising yields rather than pursue an overtly political tax policy (i.e. more Mandelson than Healey). I would not increase tax where it would depress growth and competitiveness.
But rather than write a full manifesto, let's take a single core example. The future competitiveness and capacity for growth in the UK is promising and is based on the flexibility of the labour market and the capacity of the country to grow its population both through natural birth rates and immigration. Servicing that growth would depend on a two step strategy: getting full productivity out of the current population (back to work and off benefits) and creating service capabilities for an increased working population.
[to be continued]
[...continued]
Take housing. I would remove the social housing sector out of its semi-state status. I might even do what Yeltsin did in Russia after over-throwing communism by transferring ownership of all properties to their occupants, with low interest loans replacing rent. I would take the hit necessary on benefit spending to support the transfer by allowing housing benefit to rise to a market determined level. I would restructure the sector to encourage a liquid market. Once both capital value and interest rates were at market levels I would stimulate rapid construction of new stock by the private sector.
Well, at least tim might vote for me!
You can have as many opinions as you wish but you can't argue with the facts.
I must say, I like it. Well, about 2/3rds of it. I suspect that going for scrapping Trident opens Labour up to too many 1980s crazy days comparisons, but now you point it out HS2 is an obvious target. The money they would 'save' could cover loads of fuzzy giving pledges. And the idea of setting a headline debt target might actually get some credibility back behind Labour on the economy (2060 seems a bit far off though, why not 2040? Far enough away not to be totally unrealistic but close enough that they wouldn't get totally hammered for looking insincere. Frankly, I'd go for 2030). I appreciate the candour and thoughtful answer.
There was an interesting piece on R4 during the week about the German election. There is no minimum wage in Germany and very little unemployment either. A significant chunk of the population, however, are working for very low wages. 6 euros an hour was quoted.
It is causing the French in particular, who have a quite high minimum wage and very high social costs, a problem by what amounts to unfair competition. There did not seem, in the brief report, much evidence of WTC equivalents either.
I think it is very difficult to calculate the costs of a minimum wage but it does seem a little odd to complain so vociferously about youth unemployment and seek to strengthen it at the same time.
Your personal insults are somewhat pathetic but typical of the PB Tory mentality
And we know (from countless academic sources) that confidence in an economy tends to precede recognition of rises in living standards.
If the UK economy continues to grow at or above trend (0.7% per quartet) between now and the GE the additional value generated will be, at least in part, distributed to households and consumers to their benefit.
This is a tide coming in that the two Eds can't stop. All they can do is try to keep current perceptions and confidence levels static and the polling evidence from subsidiary questions suggest they are going to have a difficult job just doing this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
Living standards *will* fall for millions of people regardless of what the statistics say or how you interpret them!
In the market GeoffM outlined, the information was imperfect: nobody knew what the others were charging and nobody knew what the others were paying, so each deal was done imperfectly (Were you paying too much? Was he charging too much? How can you tell?) and oddities like the one you observe can occur.
(next week: we discuss Giffen goods. Tickets are on sale in all good outlets. In my head, at least...:-))
"Brown suffered a global banking crisis. He responded by leading the country through the deepest and longest recession since the war and virtually non-existent growth over five years."
Three of those five years have been under Osborne's watch. Brown/Darling brought positive growth back in 2009 and , indeed, as late as Q3, 2010, the economy was growing.
Avery, we can also google !
I think the NMW must have caused additional unemployment but it is very difficult to spot it given the multitude of other factors that will influence the employment level at any one time. I suspect it has pushed the substitution of employment with technology in some areas. Those infuriating self service check out tills are probably one example. It is why I have reservations about the living wage. I fear it would lead to more unemployment.
Please walk away.
:-)
In order for "the substitution of employment with technology" to ring true its got to be distinguished from a form of Ludditism. The two potential different factors would be market shock (happening too quickly) or the effect on full employment which doesn't appear to have been much discussed. (I believe the normal explanation for the apparent rise in the full employment unemployment rate is the liberalism of the jobs market, allowing people to re-enter more easily and utilise this flexibility, though.)
http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/19/special-orders-dont-upset-them-meet-some-fast-food-workers-that-wont-unionize-ever/ One of the unforeseen advantages of things like the NMW is that it focuses the minds of employers who have the option to automate and encourages them to get on with it. And from that we all benefit.
There's a section on productivity in the report I linked below (or above... depending on where you're reading this):
"The overall impact of the National Minimum Wage on productivity is likely to be small, and extremely difficult to measure. ... we have evidence of companies which have made a virtue of necessity and taken steps to improve productivity."
AfD on 5%.
Because without that they have to rely on their actual record in government.
And without this supposed moral superiority they would be unable to justify the affluence and privileges that they themselves have.
So leftist political belief is reduced to an act of faith.
This is why the whole Cameron Project was fundamentally flawed - it was opposed by faith in its target group.
So my hopes for tim's vote remains high.
The problem is the profile of my school. The low church poet-pacifist reputation appears not fit for purpose.
We have an extremely serious problem with unemployment in this country. It is far worse than the official statistics show because politicians of all stripes have got so adept at hiding it. Basically, we need more than two million low skilled jobs to soak up our unemployed, underemployed, pretendy employment, ",disabled", those on pointless courses and poor pensioners. It is a challenge that no government is even pretending to address.
It may not be possible. But we should hesitate to make it more difficult.
You disappoint me JJ. Surely you know that evolution is only a Theory. It only becomes fact once it is accepted as a Law. ;-)
Mr McBride’s revelations are embarrassing for Ed Miliband and Mr Balls, all in the Brown inner circle. Like the three wise monkeys Messrs Brown, Balls and Miliband may claim to have been unaware of the evil but that is barely credible. Most voters, however, reckon politicians behave badly and their advisers are probably worse. Mr McBride’s anecdotes are good knockabout but no more.
The big disparity between Real Household Disposable Income (RHDI) and GDP growth occurred between 2002-2007. The gap then closed with the crash. Since then the disparity has been relatively small and would not take much to reverse.
See: http://s24.postimg.org/kduhxvu79/GDPvs_RHDI.png
The timing is up to his usual standards.
Tier 1:
YG
ICM
Ipsos-Mori
Comres
Populus
Tier 2:
Angus Reid
Opinium
Survation
Tier 3: Mostly ignore
NOP
Panelbase
Onepoll
Any others
Twitter
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 5m
Three things to ignore at this stage of electoral cycle - multi-million black holes, individual polls, and extracts from political memoirs.
So only the right people need to notice it.
Sorry to be so Tory about it.
**** Sits back with the popcorn ****
Has Ed M made it clear what he stands for
Yes 17%
No 67%
DK 16%
Strong 9%
Weak 52%
Neither 28%
DK 11%
Yes 17%
No 63%
DK 20%
In touch 21%
Out of touch 58%
DK 21%
Here are the latest ONS statistics for Public Sector Net Debt taken from the September release of August data. The table shows that PSND has been reduced under Cameron and Osborne to the tune of £60 billion.
Can you explain to me where the £700 billion increase is likely to be coming from?
http://on.ft.com/14vUqLb
Someone needs to work on his timing, in the Sunday Times he says
“What I think it does signal is that we’re going to see the most vile, personal, aggressive and negative campaign run by the Conservative party we’ve seen in a generation, at this general election,” he says.
Since that was written (7 Sep presumably) the likelihood of that scenario has increased.
pic.twitter.com/9Ki8I0tS8H
I am looking forward to the Scottish government's paper on pensions like you wouldnt believe
As Mike can confirm, they regularly post the VI figure between midnight and 1am each week.
You sound like Ken Livingston in 2008 talking about YouGov, and he ended up looking like a numpty.
We are already seeing this shift in confidence in answers to subsidiary questions in VI polls and also in monthly indices such as those published by Markit.
So confidence and expectations lead improvements in standards of living.
People vote on expectations. Watch Germany tomorrow. It is not the actual performance of the German economy which will return Merkel but confidence in both her ability to govern and expectation that the German economy will improve.
So the money doesn't need to be in your pocket. You just need to believe it is coming.
I'm providing you with the facts, you're the one providing inaccurate suppositions.
Every Saturday Night/early hours of Sunday, for the last three years, I've emailed Mike the polling articles/information from the Sunday Times.
These generally go up between 11pm and 1am, regardless of the result.
Perhaps you should subscribe to the Sunday Times, you may be surprised.
Only a referendum on voting systems can compare to a policy paper on pensions.
One of the benefits of another hung parliament is that we should get another referendum on electoral reform.
Google as much as you wish but do make sure you do your homework.
Real GDP from the ONS dataset released with August release of Q2 2013 GDP Estimate. Series ABMI, "Gross Domestic Product: chained volume measures: Seasonally adjusted" at 2010 Constant prices.
Labour Government 2005- 2010
PM: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown
CoE: Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling
Real GDP at end Q2 2005 £ 363,550 million
Real GDP at end Q2 2010 £ 371,779 million
Growth in Real GDP over term = 2.26%
Average Quarterly Growth = 0.11%
CDU/CSU: 38.5%
SPD: 26.5%
Green: 9.0%
Left: 8.5%
FDP: 6.0%
AfD: 5.5%
Pirates: 2.0%
Others: 4.0%
Sex secret of 'poison' spin doctor and top minister: Drunken one-night stand adds shocking twist to Labour Party smear scandal
Friends of former spin doctor McBride say he had drunken one-night stand
Woman - who has not been named - was a Labour Minister
Sources close to her vehemently deny the couple had sex
Mr McBride has refused to comment on the revelations
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428392/Sex-secret-poison-spin-doctor-McBride-minister-night-stand-drunk-party-adds-twist-Labour-smear-scandal.html
Edit: This piece includes comment from By DAN HODGES Labour Adviser.
And via the process of elimination.
I missed your reply during my backpeddling down the thread.
The 2060 date was an error. I should have typed 2030 which is the target date used by OECD to calculate the annual rate of fiscal consolidation each of its indebted members need to make in order to meet the target of 60% Debt to GDP ratio required under the Maastricht Treaty and generally accepted as an international norm.
But I should point out that the OECD target date two years earlier was 2025! And it will no doubt keep creeping up. But 2030 is where we stand today!
ED MILIBAND’S performance risks pushing trade union members towards supporting an independent Scotland, a former Scottish Labour party chairman has warned.
Under the modified electoral system, Merkel's majority in 2009 would have been halved (from 42 to 21), and the Bundestag increased in size from 622 to 671...
LOUISE MENSCH, the former Tory MP, has revealed that she has applied for American citizenship, sparking speculation that she may be considering a foray into American politics
Unfortunately, Fraser is numbered among them.
He is an austerity hawk forever calling for deeper and faster cuts. And disguising his calls with out of context and selective statistics.
Lab 37
Con 33
LD 11
UKIP 11
There are going to be a lot of surprised people during the 2015 general election.
In 1993 the governing Canadian Conservatives managed to lose all but two of their seats in one election. Perhaps the British Conservatives can push the envelope.
Clegg got a bounce.
Cameron -14 (-2)
Miliband -45 (+1)
Clegg -46 (+4)
http://m.smh.com.au/data-point/rudd-saved-labor-leaked-polling-shows-20130921-2u6my.html