Having watched Francis Maude on Newsnight it's clear the Tories have no real idea what they're doing with this under 25 thing. It's back of the fag packet stuff.
It's good to see HMG for once sitting back and not interrupting him when he's making mistakes. Go Lynton.
Ed can make promises but can't deliver them before an election HMG can. The front of tomorrow's Times is Cameron saying it's time to tackle cost of living. The Coalition can deliver on this in the next 18 months Labour can't; Ed chose the battle ground the other side have the artillery. All Ed can do until 2015 is fuel envy of "predator" companies and each group he picks on becomes the next set of people who won't vote for him.
Is Cameron planning to intervene in the market and set bank charges?
No idea tim since it's paywall.
However if the Coalition now want to steal Ed's red shoes I guess he'll never make it home to Kansas. Ed chose to fight on cost of living but it's the other side that can actually fill voters pockets. Good call.
@NickPalmer If the policy were to operate as you describe, the consequence would be that no one will apply for planning permissions until they're sure they want to use the land in that timeframe. Properties sat with old planning permission would be boobytrapped. That seems actively counterproductive if the intent is to get land used more.
Labour (with the exception of a few now-vilified Blairites like Peter Mandelson) seem to be constitutionally incapable of understanding a single thing about how the world of business and finance works. In addition to the planning permission blind spot, I think they genuinely don't realise that investors will be put off by Ed Miliband's energy gimmick, and that this will affect what happens to our energy infrastructure.
'Worked out very well for a panic measure, didnt it?'
According to YouGov 70% of voters don't believe Ed's pledge.
'Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%),' .
Having watched Francis Maude on Newsnight it's clear the Tories have no real idea what they're doing with this under 25 thing. It's back of the fag packet stuff.
It will be slowly forgotten having served its porpoise.
Having watched Francis Maude on Newsnight it's clear the Tories have no real idea what they're doing with this under 25 thing. It's back of the fag packet stuff.
We did say as much at the time to be fair. Just because Osbrowne panicked after Cammie's speech bombed, and started desperately phoning up the news studios, that was hardly a good reason to take it seriously.
"It may be a year and a half before the general election, but the Conservatives have won the poll of mentions on Twitter.
The social networking site has complied some statistics to highlight how the three main parties conferences compared.
From Twitter reaction alone, the Conservatives appear to have come up tops, producing the most mentions.
David Cameron also come top of the leaders on mentions with his speech generating the most tweets:
David Cameron’s speech: 23,000 tweets Ed Miliband’s speech: 20,200 tweets Nick Clegg’s speech: 9,300 tweets
There were more than 1.1 million mentions of the party conferences on Twitter, with the Conservative Party conference generating the most buzz overall:
Conservatives (@Conservatives): 29 September-2 October: 623,000 tweets Labour (@UKLabour): 22-25 September: 315,000 tweets Liberal Democrats (@LibDems): 14-18 September: 192,000 tweets"
Comrade Fitalass!
Remember what Comrade Dave said - "Too many tweets make a tw*t!"
Astonishingly, Socialism and Stalinism didn't enslave the population and the business world put up with it. Just like they would put up with little Ed's Energy price freeze, Cammie's attempted Energy price cut and even Osbrown'e lunatic scheme of subsidising mortgages of up to £600,000 using taxpayers money.
It suddenly feels as if we are into the start of the GE campaign. And with the next GE scheduled to be held on 7th May 2015, I suppose we are already into the phony war.
I will be amazed if the GE is any earlier than May 2015. I don't see how any party or individual gains by forcing an earlier election.
My thoughts are now drawn to the overall number of seats each party is likely to win at the GE. Has this been discussed here recently? Lib Dem seat numbers interest me particularly.
"Labour (with the exception of a few now-vilified Blairites like Peter Mandelson) seem to be constitutionally incapable of understanding a single thing about how the world of business and finance works. In addition to the planning permission blind spot, I think they genuinely don't realise that investors will be put off by Ed Miliband's energy gimmick, and that this will affect what happens to our energy infrastructure."
This is the sort of attitude that bankrupted the banks and the country. It is the Tories craven fear of any sort of regulation of their God 'business' that should terrify the electorate and DOES!
I'm amused to see Southam's indignation at the laws of arithmetic.
Shock horror! If you need to reduce the national debt*, you've got to pay it back. Well, who'd a thunk it?
* OK, you can inflate it away, but that doesn't magically produce goodies for the government to dole out either.
Hardly shocked. Just pointing out what moving to surplus by 2020 will mean in practice. It won't effect me or you Richard, but it could have quite a drastic negative effect on many others. Still, we can have a little chuckle about that as we enjoy our tax cuts.
This is the sort of attitude that bankrupted the banks and the country. It is the tories fear of any sort of regulation of their God 'business' that should terrify the electorate and DOES!
You think the utilities operate under no regulation?
'Has anyone asked why did Ed make his fuel price announcement this year and not at the 2014 Conference?'
Panic. Lost the argument on the economy,lost the argument on cuts,lost the argument on benefits cap,lost the argument on unemployment,lost the argument on immigration,self inflicted row with the unions and a blank piece of paper?
2014 will be in pre-election mode, wheeling out all that kind of think. A fuel price announcement then gets buried under the economy, etc.
Putting it out now means it actually gets some attention.
Hardly shocked. Just pointing out what moving to surplus by 2020 will mean in practice. It won't effect me or you Richard, but it could have quite a drastic negative effect on many others. Still, we can have a little chuckle about that as we enjoy our tax cuts.
What it will mean in practice is a sound economy, debt falling, and lower interest rates than would otherwise be the case. Like Denmark.
You think we should leave the national debt at around 100% of GDP? Well, it's a view.
Anyway, answer the question! Who on here defends McBride, or ever did?
Plenty of Labour supporters have said he was no different to Bernard Ingham, most recently Roger a few days ago.
Do they indeed. I say Brown dragging his heels on an apology was a complete disgrace and had McBride crossed the line into illegality Brown should have resigned.
How about you Richard? Is that your view or would you prefer to go easier on them? I will hardly be be surprised if you don't want to answer.
Wow, I really like the sound of the new under 25s policy. Believe me, there are friends of my daughters who, at the tender age of 17, have already decided that they will not bother looking for work but will live off benefits. The thing that really gets to me is their sense of entitlement - "why should I bother getting off my backside, when I can claim benefits and sit and watch TV. It's my right to do that if I want". I must be really old fashioned, because the values of contribution to society, paying one's way and responsibility have really got lost in the last 15 years - and Yes, I do blame the Labour Party.
Hardly shocked. Just pointing out what moving to surplus by 2020 will mean in practice. It won't effect me or you Richard, but it could have quite a drastic negative effect on many others. Still, we can have a little chuckle about that as we enjoy our tax cuts.
What it will mean in practice is a sound economy, debt falling, and lower interest rates than would otherwise be the case. Like Denmark.
You think we should leave the national debt at around 100% of GDP? Well, it's a view.
As you know, the choice is not between a surplus by 2020 and a national debt at 100% of GDP. I am not sure why you're pretending otherwise.
Do they indeed. I say Brown dragging his heels on an apology was a complete disgrace and had McBride crossed the line into illegality Brown should have resigned.
How about you Richard? Is that your view or would you prefer to go easier on them? I will hardly be be surprised if you don't want to answer.
I'd be happy to answer if you asked a coherent question.
Wow, I really like the sound of the new under 25s policy. Believe me, there are friends of my daughters who, at the tender age of 17, have already decided that they will not bother looking for work but will live off benefits. The thing that really gets to me is their sense of entitlement - "why should I bother getting off my backside, when I can claim benefits and sit and watch TV. It's my right to do that if I want". I must be really old fashioned, because the values of contribution to society, paying one's way and responsibility have really got lost in the last 15 years - and Yes, I do blame the Labour Party.
Do they indeed. I say Brown dragging his heels on an apology was a complete disgrace and had McBride crossed the line into illegality Brown should have resigned.
How about you Richard? Is that your view or would you prefer to go easier on them? I will hardly be be surprised if you don't want to answer.
I'd be happy to answer if you asked a coherent question.
Weak and as unsurprising as I expected
I just outlined my view as a response to "who defends McBride" and simply asked you if you agree with it or if you don't because you think it is too harsh.
You can keep pretending that's too complicated to answer or simply answer the question. Either way I'll have got my answer.
I just outlined my view as a response to "who defends McBride" and simply asked you if you agree with it or if think it is too harsh.
You can keep pretending that's too complicated to answer or simply answer the question. Either way I'll have got my answer.
Well, you're not being very clear, but if you are asking whether I agree with the sentiment that "Brown dragging his heels on an apology was a complete disgrace and had McBride crossed the line into illegality Brown should have resigned", then the answer is Yes.
I must be really old fashioned, because the values of contribution to society, paying one's way and responsibility have really got lost in the last 15 years - and Yes, I do blame the Labour Party.
I think you're being too vague - if you try really hard I'm sure you can date this terrible change in society to May 1997.
I just outlined my view as a response to "who defends McBride" and simply asked you if you agree with it or if think it is too harsh.
You can keep pretending that's too complicated to answer or simply answer the question. Either way I'll have got my answer.
Well, you're not being very clear, but if you are asking whether I agree with the sentiment that "Brown dragging his heels on an apology was a complete disgrace and had McBride crossed the line into illegality Brown should have resigned", then the answer is Yes.
Good. Glad to hear it. That was simple enough and should put your mind to rest that there is somehow a cabal of left wingers on PB who put up with that sort of pathetic reprehensible behaviour. I could quite easily satisfy you on whether Campbell falls into the same category should you feel he isn't getting enough condemnation. Rest assured.
Anyway, answer the question! Who on here defends McBride, or ever did?
Plenty of Labour supporters have said he was no different to Bernard Ingham, most recently Roger a few days ago.
Well I can certainly see some similarities with Bernard Ingham but what kind of a silly game is that to compare one rotten egg with another to see which is the rottenest?
McBride and his allies were rotten to the core and did great damage to the country and the Labour Party. Their legacy lingers and needs to be dealt with if the Party is to earn a return to power.
That is far, far too high, so of course we need to start running a surplus.
We need to cut the debt, for sure. But as you know it is not a straight choice between a surplus by 2020 and national debt at 100% of GDP. It puzzles me that you seem to be pretending otherwise. But you are. Strange.
We need to cut the debt, for sure. But as you know it is not a straight choice between a surplus by 2020 and national debt at 100% of GDP. It puzzles me that you seem to be pretending otherwise. But you are. Strange.
I don't understand what you are saying. There is no choice about the 100% of GDP, give or take a bit; we're going to hit it. The only question is how long we leave it before we slowly ease the debt back down towards sanity.
You seem to be arguing that, 12 years after the crisis hit, and some 19 years after the last time we ran a surplus, we should still be piling yet more debt on. Or, to put it more clearly, you are effectively arguing that there are no conceivable circumstances ever when we should get debt down - how long do you want to wait?
As you know, the choice is not between a surplus by 2020 and a national debt at 100% of GDP. I am not sure why you're pretending otherwise.
SO
I am convinced you do not understand what Osborne is proposing.
A surplus on the cyclically adjusted current budget (his chosen metric) excludes the following:
- All non-recurring (or 'exceptional') items - Interest payments on national debt - All net public sector investments (or 'capex')
So it is purely current revenues (regular tax receipts) less current expenses (regular expenditure)
The cyclical adjustment bit means the account balances over a complete economic cycle with surpluses in uptimes and deficits in downtimes.
You are right to say that balancing the account will involve cuts to benefits, but this must be placed in context. Another way of cyclically adjusting the account would be to look at what variable social benefit costs would be with an unemployment rate of 7% and tax revenues at the same time. This is the level of unemployment which the BoE believes indicates a mid-point cycle. So assuming tax revenues rise and social benefits fall in getting to this point, the scale of cuts needed will be much lower than current fiscal stats suggest. Osborne has put a figure of 25 billlion for additional cuts in the next parliament. which is less than 1% of total expected spend over the term. It could be achieved by a freeze in spend rather than specific cuts.
This is very gradualist stuff and, failing external shocks, would leave significant flexibility in how to achieve the required consolidation.
As for surpluses to pay down the debt, there will naturally be a surplus on the CACB during next parliament as the cycle enters its up period. If this needs to be increased to reduce the Debt:GDP ratio down from 100% (RN estimate) or 85% (ALP estimate after bank sales) then an amount can be set over a 15 year term without the need for further radical surgery.
I am not saying the task will be easy and any progress is subject to external shock but the level of austerity needed should be nothing like we have experienced in this term.
Or, to put it more clearly, you are effectively arguing that there are no conceivable circumstances ever when we should get debt down - how long do you want to wait?
You dont have to run a surplus to get the debt down in its most meaningful sense. In any case we all know this is a political rather than an economic debate.
@SouthamObserver - You do realise, don't you, that that arch 'Tory' (sic) John Maynard Keynes argued that governments should indeed run surpluses in the 'good' years so as to be able to run deficits during those depressions caused by insufficient demand. If, as one can reasonably expect, that by 2020, the UK is again enjoying sustained economic growth, then what's your problem?
This is no lurch to the right, more the prudent, pragmatic Keynesian centre ground. No?
Wow, I really like the sound of the new under 25s policy. Believe me, there are friends of my daughters who, at the tender age of 17, have already decided that they will not bother looking for work but will live off benefits. The thing that really gets to me is their sense of entitlement - "why should I bother getting off my backside, when I can claim benefits and sit and watch TV. It's my right to do that if I want". I must be really old fashioned, because the values of contribution to society, paying one's way and responsibility have really got lost in the last 15 years - and Yes, I do blame the Labour Party.
Wow! A truly convincing anecdote.
hahaha! You have no idea SO - or you just don't want to face up to reality nowadays.
We need to cut the debt, for sure. But as you know it is not a straight choice between a surplus by 2020 and national debt at 100% of GDP. It puzzles me that you seem to be pretending otherwise. But you are. Strange.
I don't understand what you are saying. There is no choice about the 100% of GDP, give or take a bit; we're going to hit it. The only question is how long we leave it before we slowly ease the debt back down towards sanity.
You seem to be arguing that, 12 years after the crisis hit, and some 19 years after the last time we ran a surplus, we should still be piling yet more debt on. Or, to put it more clearly, you are effectively arguing that there are no conceivable circumstances ever when we should get debt down - how long do you want to wait?
No, that is not what I am arguing at all. I am arguing that there is no absolute choice and that in seeking to pay down the debt there must be a balance struck that reflects the negative impact moving to surplus over the timeframe prescribed by Osborne will have. I know that you are sanguine about it and believe that any price is worth paying to get us there. I do not. What puzzles me is why you are peddling an idea you know is untrue. The choice is not between national debt at 100% of GDP or budget surplus in 2020.
@SouthamObserver - You do realise, don't you, that that arch 'Tory' (sic) John Maynard Keynes argued that governments should indeed run surpluses in the 'good' years so as to be able to run deficits during those depressions caused by insufficient demand. If, as one can reasonably expect, that by 2020, the UK is again enjoying sustained economic growth, then what's your problem?
This is no lurch to the right, more the prudent, pragmatic Keynesian centre ground. No?
@SouthamObserver - You do realise, don't you, that that arch 'Tory' (sic) John Maynard Keynes argued that governments should indeed run surpluses in the 'good' years so as to be able to run deficits during those depressions caused by insufficient demand. If, as one can reasonably expect, that by 2020, the UK is again enjoying sustained economic growth, then what's your problem?
This is no lurch to the right, more the prudent, pragmatic Keynesian centre ground. No?
It all depends on how you get there.
Would you mind amplifying that point as I'm genuinely not sure what you're trying to say. Perhaps tomorrow later today (!) as I'm off to bed now!
Leaving aside the glorious speech stuff for a second, has anyone seen any polling on what people make of the government shutdown in the US? Realclearpolitics doesn't seem to have any - lots of media people frothing at the mouth, but only approval polls (Obama roughly breaking even, Congress minus a zillion), and I'm too lazy to look up previous polls to compare.
Per Quinnipiac (probably not the greatest pollster), 72% oppose the shutdown strategy, and congressional voting intention is D 43 R 34. I'm not sure what Congressional voting intention was before, but I think most polls had a Dem lead, but only a small one.
Shutdown polling has grim news for Republicans. 72% oppose GOP shutdown strategy to block ObamaCare, including 44% of Republicans. Three-in-four independents (74%-19%) object.
But even worse, conventional wisdom that Republicans’ shutdown could not harm them in the midterms because only older white people vote in midterms, especially in the midterm of a president’s second term, is not as sure of a bet as the beltway has assured the GOP.
A new Quinnipiac poll shows voters picking a generic Democrat over a generic Republican 43% to 34%, which they point out is the widest Democratic margin measured so far.
"Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes ... as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections"
"Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes ... as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections"
Comments
Boo to benefits!
However if the Coalition now want to steal Ed's red shoes I guess he'll never make it home to Kansas. Ed chose to fight on cost of living but it's the other side that can actually fill voters pockets. Good call.
'Worked out very well for a panic measure, didnt it?'
According to YouGov 70% of voters don't believe Ed's pledge.
'Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%),' .
Just because Osbrowne panicked after Cammie's speech bombed, and started desperately phoning up the news studios, that was hardly a good reason to take it seriously.
Remember what Comrade Dave said - "Too many tweets make a tw*t!"
Shock horror! If you need to reduce the national debt*, you've got to pay it back. Well, who'd a thunk it?
* OK, you can inflate it away, but that doesn't magically produce goodies for the government to dole out either.
Man U and Man City will keep you smiling too - small clubs!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_Tax_(United_Kingdom)
Astonishingly, Socialism and Stalinism didn't enslave the population and the business world put up with it. Just like they would put up with little Ed's Energy price freeze, Cammie's attempted Energy price cut and even Osbrown'e lunatic scheme of subsidising mortgages of up to £600,000 using taxpayers money.
I will be amazed if the GE is any earlier than May 2015. I don't see how any party or individual gains by forcing an earlier election.
My thoughts are now drawn to the overall number of seats each party is likely to win at the GE. Has this been discussed here recently? Lib Dem seat numbers interest me particularly.
"Labour (with the exception of a few now-vilified Blairites like Peter Mandelson) seem to be constitutionally incapable of understanding a single thing about how the world of business and finance works. In addition to the planning permission blind spot, I think they genuinely don't realise that investors will be put off by Ed Miliband's energy gimmick, and that this will affect what happens to our energy infrastructure."
This is the sort of attitude that bankrupted the banks and the country. It is the Tories craven fear of any sort of regulation of their God 'business' that should terrify the electorate and DOES!
Putting it out now means it actually gets some attention.
You think we should leave the national debt at around 100% of GDP? Well, it's a view.
Surely the 2014 Euros will be the Phony War?
How about you Richard? Is that your view or would you prefer to go easier on them?
I will hardly be be surprised if you don't want to answer.
Hi Stjohn. Nice to see you back
Still spouting the same nonsense, I see!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/02/thatcher-ally-daily-mail-ralph-miliband-lies
I just outlined my view as a response to "who defends McBride" and simply asked you if you agree with it or if you don't because you think it is too harsh.
You can keep pretending that's too complicated to answer or simply answer the question.
Either way I'll have got my answer.
http://news.sky.com/story/1080542/fitch-strips-uk-of-aaa-rating-on-debt-outlook
That is far, far too high, so of course we need to start running a surplus.
Good. Glad to hear it. That was simple enough and should put your mind to rest that there is somehow a cabal of left wingers on PB who put up with that sort of pathetic reprehensible behaviour. I could quite easily satisfy you on whether Campbell falls into the same category should you feel he isn't getting enough condemnation. Rest assured.
Well I can certainly see some similarities with Bernard Ingham but what kind of a silly game is that to compare one rotten egg with another to see which is the rottenest?
McBride and his allies were rotten to the core and did great damage to the country and the Labour Party. Their legacy lingers and needs to be dealt with if the Party is to earn a return to power.
You seem to be arguing that, 12 years after the crisis hit, and some 19 years after the last time we ran a surplus, we should still be piling yet more debt on. Or, to put it more clearly, you are effectively arguing that there are no conceivable circumstances ever when we should get debt down - how long do you want to wait?
As you know, the choice is not between a surplus by 2020 and a national debt at 100% of GDP. I am not sure why you're pretending otherwise.
SO
I am convinced you do not understand what Osborne is proposing.
A surplus on the cyclically adjusted current budget (his chosen metric) excludes the following:
- All non-recurring (or 'exceptional') items
- Interest payments on national debt
- All net public sector investments (or 'capex')
So it is purely current revenues (regular tax receipts) less current expenses (regular expenditure)
The cyclical adjustment bit means the account balances over a complete economic cycle with surpluses in uptimes and deficits in downtimes.
You are right to say that balancing the account will involve cuts to benefits, but this must be placed in context. Another way of cyclically adjusting the account would be to look at what variable social benefit costs would be with an unemployment rate of 7% and tax revenues at the same time. This is the level of unemployment which the BoE believes indicates a mid-point cycle. So assuming tax revenues rise and social benefits fall in getting to this point, the scale of cuts needed will be much lower than current fiscal stats suggest. Osborne has put a figure of 25 billlion for additional cuts in the next parliament. which is less than 1% of total expected spend over the term. It could be achieved by a freeze in spend rather than specific cuts.
This is very gradualist stuff and, failing external shocks, would leave significant flexibility in how to achieve the required consolidation.
As for surpluses to pay down the debt, there will naturally be a surplus on the CACB during next parliament as the cycle enters its up period. If this needs to be increased to reduce the Debt:GDP ratio down from 100% (RN estimate) or 85% (ALP estimate after bank sales) then an amount can be set over a 15 year term without the need for further radical surgery.
I am not saying the task will be easy and any progress is subject to external shock but the level of austerity needed should be nothing like we have experienced in this term.
You are being over alarmist.
This is no lurch to the right, more the prudent, pragmatic Keynesian centre ground. No?
Fair play if you had urgent reasons but some balanced site this
tomorrowlater today (!) as I'm off to bed now!http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/02/16/study-finds-red-light-cameras-cause-accidents/