Government to limit rail fare increases in the most egregious interference in the free market since Ed Miliband proposed doing the same with fuel prices: pb will be in uproar.
Tell me when you've completed your comprehensive apples and pears comparison, and declared them as being the same fruit.
I think what you mean is that it is politically quite astute to protect Tory-leaning commuters; don't want them switching to UKIP. I wonder what the transport secretary's dad wrote in his diary.
Government to limit rail fare increases in the most egregious interference in the free market since Ed Miliband proposed doing the same with fuel prices: pb will be in uproar.
Tell me when you've completed your comprehensive apples and pears comparison, and declared them as being the same fruit.
Transport price intervention good. Energy price intervention bad.
May the motherland be with you as you toil, comrade.
Government to limit rail fare increases in the most egregious interference in the free market since Ed Miliband proposed doing the same with fuel prices: pb will be in uproar.
Tell me when you've completed your comprehensive apples and pears comparison, and declared them as being the same fruit.
Transport price intervention good. Energy price intervention bad.
May the motherland be with you as you toil, comrade.
Totally wrong
Cameron bribe good, Ed bribe just hot air.
HMG can and will stuff gold down the electorate's throat in the next 18 months.
Ed chose the cost of living battle ground and will lose. he can only look on from the sidelines as the economy picks up and cash goes in to voters' pockets.
Government to limit rail fare increases in the most egregious interference in the free market since Ed Miliband proposed doing the same with fuel prices: pb will be in uproar.
Tell me when you've completed your comprehensive apples and pears comparison, and declared them as being the same fruit.
Transport price intervention good. Energy price intervention bad.
May the motherland be with you as you toil, comrade.
I thought you were in favour of publíc subsidies for "middle income" (sic) earners on £50-60k?
" There are millions of people living in parts of this planet who would die for the experience of living in a country where the press is unafraid of the government, where journalists make their own decisions about what to publish without having to look over their shoulder at a regulator comprised of (shudder) “lay persons”.
Government to limit rail fare increases in the most egregious interference in the free market since Ed Miliband proposed doing the same with fuel prices: pb will be in uproar.
Tell me when you've completed your comprehensive apples and pears comparison, and declared them as being the same fruit.
Transport price intervention good. Energy price intervention bad.
May the motherland be with you as you toil, comrade.
I thought you were in favour of publíc subsidies for "middle income" (sic) earners on £50-60k?
Ooh its like the boxing day hunt on here today.
Lots of crybaby lefties whining that their fox has been shot.
Government to limit rail fare increases in the most egregious interference in the free market since Ed Miliband proposed doing the same with fuel prices: pb will be in uproar.
Tell me when you've completed your comprehensive apples and pears comparison, and declared them as being the same fruit.
Transport price intervention good. Energy price intervention bad.
May the motherland be with you as you toil, comrade.
Totally wrong
Cameron bribe good, Ed bribe just hot air.
HMG can and will stuff gold down the electorate's throat in the next 18 months.
Ed chose the cost of living battle ground and will lose. he can only look on from the sidelines as the economy picks up and cash goes in to voters' pockets.
Things can only get better.
Wages are at 2003 levels, how much gold has the govt got (more than Labour was spending already)
Osborne = 2003 wage levels/2007 house prices.
Yes it's called Labour Fked the economy. That's what happens when you put idiots in charge of your economy.
Now WITHIN A WEEK the govt has put more money in voters pockets that Eds big energy gambit - fuel escalator freeze, marriage tax cut and now rail fares.
Labour have chosen to fight on ground where they can't fire their weapons. They are in this mess because they haven't got an economic policy and they haven't got an economic because they can't face up to their past failure.
More cash to follow courtesy of HMG. At best no Labour govt at worst Catbert gets to write "there is no money".
I was thinking about why anyone takes IMF forecasts even remotely seriously but then I remembered the amount of time spent on here dissecting the nuances of the latest poll. Sometimes you simply have to have something to talk about no matter how little it is worth.
Earlier this year the IMF cut their growth forecast for the UK after a much more robust Q1 than expected. Since then they have had to revise their "forecast" upwards several times and they are not finished yet. Their forecast will be increased again after Q3 on the 25th of this month.
What this demonstrates, beyond doubt, is that their economic model does not work. It is the same sort of model that had Mr Blanchflower predicting unemployment of 5m over a time that employment has consistently increased.
It is beyond my technical competence to analyse exactly why their models are so wrong but they apply an excessively mechanistic Kenysian multiplier effect to any change in government spending. This is something that Keynes himself was never guilty of with his emphasis on animal spirits and the psychology of the market.
Those that use the IMF type model over emphasise the importance of government spending in growth and, as a generality, they underestimate the importance of the credit cycle. The UK has seen a consistent improvement in the supply of credit this year. The result is growth. It really is that simple although increasing credit in a depressed economy laden with debt is not. This was the Keynsian "pushing on a string" point.
The use of models such as the IMF's generally pushes economies to more government spending and bigger government over time. It is a dangerous delusion and caused many of the problems in the period up to the crash. Osborne is right to crow but that is not enough. We really need organisations like this to have a good look at themselves and rethink their ideas of how economies actually work.
Good morning fine PBers and miserable lefties all. Main item on SKY News how the Guardian has helped compromise security in the UK. Has Polly Toynbee stopped buying her extra large knickers at M & S? I think the public have the right to know. Ed Miliband should call for a public enquiry as he does for everything else.
Did I miss the fact that the IMF have apparently done a 180 degree turn and now say George Osborne got it right. Gosh that won't please the man doing his best to get to 20,000 contributions on here by Christmas and before he asks, I wouldn't take a bet from him if my life depended on it. Apart from anything, as a hardworking Tory, unlike him all the money I earn is tied up doing my best to help undo the damage his pal Gordon Brown did between 1997 and 2010.
Now WITHIN A WEEK the govt has put more money in voters pockets that Eds big energy gambit - fuel escalator freeze, marriage tax cut and now rail fares.
Labour have chosen to fight on ground where they can't fire their weapons. They are in this mess because they haven't got an economic policy and they haven't got an economic because they can't face up to their past failure.
More cash to follow courtesy of HMG. At best no Labour govt at worst Catbert gets to write "there is no money".
And this is making progress in reducing Labour's polling share? (Checks today's YouGov, 39-33, with approval back down to -24, Labour's share of 2010 LibDems 41%.)
A tip for Dave and George: you can't bribe the defecting 2010 LibDems - they don't in general think that way. Try something else.
Thing about the rail fares is that they'll still go up and many will do so above the rate of inflation, and that means that if salaries do not rise at the same level (which they won't) commuters will still feel they are being squeezed. Something similar applies to the price of fuel. Thus, I'm not sure such moves will change many voting plans.
However, after the hysteria on here and elsewhere over Ed's energy price freeze, it's sobering to discover that the government already exercises pricing controls in several key areas affecting private sector companies. Next we'll probably find out there's already some kind of compulsory purchase order regime affecting land. But that is surely impossible, isn't it? That would make the UK akin to a Trotskyist state in which all private property and enterprise is banned.
Good morning fine PBers and miserable lefties all. Main item on SKY News how the Guardian has helped compromise security in the UK. Has Polly Toynbee stopped buying her extra large knickers at M & S? I think the public have the right to know. Ed Miliband should call for a public enquiry as he does for everything else.
Did I miss the fact that the IMF have apparently done a 180 degree turn and now say George Osborne got it right. Gosh that won't please the man doing his best to get to 20,000 contributions on here by Christmas and before he asks, I wouldn't take a bet from him if my life depended on it. Apart from anything, as a hardworking Tory, unlike him all the money I earn is tied up doing my best to help undo the damage his pal Gordon Brown did between 1997 and 2010.
Now WITHIN A WEEK the govt has put more money in voters pockets that Eds big energy gambit - fuel escalator freeze, marriage tax cut and now rail fares.
Labour have chosen to fight on ground where they can't fire their weapons. They are in this mess because they haven't got an economic policy and they haven't got an economic because they can't face up to their past failure.
More cash to follow courtesy of HMG. At best no Labour govt at worst Catbert gets to write "there is no money".
And this is making progress in reducing Labour's polling share? (Checks today's YouGov, 39-33, with approval back down to -24, Labour's share of 2010 LibDems 41%.)
A tip for Dave and George: you can't bribe the defecting 2010 LibDems - they don't in general think that way. Try something else.
Arf, a bit desperate there Nick quoting daily Yougov. Economic properity as you well know takes time to feed through and for voters to "feel good". Ask me in 12 months time when some more money has been pushed their way and when companies start to give pay rises because they can afford to or have to to keep key employees.
I doubt D&G are trying to bribe hard core lefties they're aiming more at the soft ones and the lost ones on the right.
The M15 chappy isn't happy at all about what the Guardian/Snowden did
Tim Walker @ThatTimWalker The Guardian is by implication accused of risking national security. The Mail nasty about Ed Miliband's dad. Contrast #bbc coverage.
Thing about the rail fares is that they'll still go up and many will do so above the rate of inflation, and that means that if salaries do not rise at the same level (which they won't) commuters will still feel they are being squeezed. Something similar applies to the price of fuel. Thus, I'm not sure such moves will change many voting plans.
However, after the hysteria on here and elsewhere over Ed's energy price freeze, it's sobering to discover that the government already exercises pricing controls in several key areas affecting private sector companies. Next we'll probably find out there's already some kind of compulsory purchase order regime affecting land. But that is surely impossible, isn't it? That would make the UK akin to a Trotskyist state in which all private property and enterprise is banned.
Rail fares, tax break and fuel freeze = money in pocket now
Energy freeze = vague promise from shifty bloke some time in the future.
Ed chose Cost of living as the battle ground. He has turned up to the duel waving his sword to find the other bloke has an AK47.
Yet another nail in labour's economic coffin and stupidly self inflicted.
Thing about the rail fares is that they'll still go up and many will do so above the rate of inflation, and that means that if salaries do not rise at the same level (which they won't) commuters will still feel they are being squeezed. Something similar applies to the price of fuel. Thus, I'm not sure such moves will change many voting plans.
However, after the hysteria on here and elsewhere over Ed's energy price freeze, it's sobering to discover that the government already exercises pricing controls in several key areas affecting private sector companies. Next we'll probably find out there's already some kind of compulsory purchase order regime affecting land. But that is surely impossible, isn't it? That would make the UK akin to a Trotskyist state in which all private property and enterprise is banned.
Rail fares, tax break and fuel freeze = money in pocket now
Energy freeze = vague promise from shifty bloke some time in the future.
Ed chose Cost of living as the battle ground. He has turned up to the duel waving his sword to find the other bloke has an AK47.
Yet another nail in labour's economic coffin and stupidly self inflicted.
Miss Plato, I only saw the headlines of BBC's News at Ten, and the IMF story was third or fourth. One suspects it would've been top had the change been a reduction in forecast growth.
After the Wikileaks event the BBC (TV) revealed a list of soft terror targets included in the information and even put them on a map. Not smart.
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden .@StewartWood Labour raised fuel duty 12 times in office. Conservatives aiming to freeze it for 5 years. 70% of people drive to work,
Thing about the rail fares is that they'll still go up and many will do so above the rate of inflation, and that means that if salaries do not rise at the same level (which they won't) commuters will still feel they are being squeezed. Something similar applies to the price of fuel. Thus, I'm not sure such moves will change many voting plans.
However, after the hysteria on here and elsewhere over Ed's energy price freeze, it's sobering to discover that the government already exercises pricing controls in several key areas affecting private sector companies. Next we'll probably find out there's already some kind of compulsory purchase order regime affecting land. But that is surely impossible, isn't it? That would make the UK akin to a Trotskyist state in which all private property and enterprise is banned.
Nobody said the government did not have pricing controls. But they're very, very different beasts. Since some on here son't seem to understand, I'll go a little further.
For one thing, the railway companies get large government subsidies; in some cases directly, in others through the massive funding guarantee to Network Rail that is allowing them to invest in the railways. If the government guarantees NR's loans to the tune of £37.5 billion over 2014-19, yet alone the direct subsidies some companies get, they deserve some control of the fares the companies charge.
In other words, the railways are nowhere near being a true market. And even if there was no government funding they would not be, as there is not any competition on most routes.
Also, the fares thing is not a cap on fares, but a cap on the maximum 'flex' segment of the fares increase. A very different beast.
The energy industry is very, very different. It is a much more complete market with robust competition and six major players. The investment is provided by the companies themselves, with no government guarantees on the loans in most cases.
I could go on. And on. And on. But I'll spare PB ... ;-)
Comments
Energy price intervention bad.
May the motherland be with you as you toil, comrade.
If you want top notch English food then St John is the place to go.
Cameron bribe good, Ed bribe just hot air.
HMG can and will stuff gold down the electorate's throat in the next 18 months.
Ed chose the cost of living battle ground and will lose. he can only look on from the sidelines as the economy picks up and cash goes in to voters' pockets.
Things can only get better.
" There are millions of people living in parts of this planet who would die for the experience of living in a country where the press is unafraid of the government, where journalists make their own decisions about what to publish without having to look over their shoulder at a regulator comprised of (shudder) “lay persons”.
There was a time when the Left would have been first in line to defend press freedom, with all its imperfections. Freedom of expression is the first thing to go when dictatorship looms... > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/10364339/Labour-should-not-be-muzzling-free-speech-with-its-support-of-the-Royal-Charter.html
Lots of crybaby lefties whining that their fox has been shot.
Now WITHIN A WEEK the govt has put more money in voters pockets that Eds big energy gambit - fuel escalator freeze, marriage tax cut and now rail fares.
Labour have chosen to fight on ground where they can't fire their weapons. They are in this mess because they haven't got an economic policy and they haven't got an economic because they can't face up to their past failure.
More cash to follow courtesy of HMG. At best no Labour govt at worst Catbert gets to write "there is no money".
Earlier this year the IMF cut their growth forecast for the UK after a much more robust Q1 than expected. Since then they have had to revise their "forecast" upwards several times and they are not finished yet. Their forecast will be increased again after Q3 on the 25th of this month.
What this demonstrates, beyond doubt, is that their economic model does not work. It is the same sort of model that had Mr Blanchflower predicting unemployment of 5m over a time that employment has consistently increased.
It is beyond my technical competence to analyse exactly why their models are so wrong but they apply an excessively mechanistic Kenysian multiplier effect to any change in government spending. This is something that Keynes himself was never guilty of with his emphasis on animal spirits and the psychology of the market.
Those that use the IMF type model over emphasise the importance of government spending in growth and, as a generality, they underestimate the importance of the credit cycle. The UK has seen a consistent improvement in the supply of credit this year. The result is growth. It really is that simple although increasing credit in a depressed economy laden with debt is not. This was the Keynsian "pushing on a string" point.
The use of models such as the IMF's generally pushes economies to more government spending and bigger government over time. It is a dangerous delusion and caused many of the problems in the period up to the crash. Osborne is right to crow but that is not enough. We really need organisations like this to have a good look at themselves and rethink their ideas of how economies actually work.
Did I miss the fact that the IMF have apparently done a 180 degree turn and now say George Osborne got it right. Gosh that won't please the man doing his best to get to 20,000 contributions on here by Christmas and before he asks, I wouldn't take a bet from him if my life depended on it. Apart from anything, as a hardworking Tory, unlike him all the money I earn is tied up doing my best to help undo the damage his pal Gordon Brown did between 1997 and 2010.
A tip for Dave and George: you can't bribe the defecting 2010 LibDems - they don't in general think that way. Try something else.
#BBC shocked by its own poll showing how public satisfaction with local services has increased. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-244540…
http://t.co/BERzdHGAan
Scary Biscuit @ScaryBiscuit
So only services with ring-fenced budgets like NHS are perceived as worse according to BBC survey. #r4today
However, after the hysteria on here and elsewhere over Ed's energy price freeze, it's sobering to discover that the government already exercises pricing controls in several key areas affecting private sector companies. Next we'll probably find out there's already some kind of compulsory purchase order regime affecting land. But that is surely impossible, isn't it? That would make the UK akin to a Trotskyist state in which all private property and enterprise is banned.
I doubt D&G are trying to bribe hard core lefties they're aiming more at the soft ones and the lost ones on the right.
Tim Walker @ThatTimWalker
The Guardian is by implication accused of risking national security. The Mail nasty about Ed Miliband's dad. Contrast #bbc coverage.
Energy freeze = vague promise from shifty bloke some time in the future.
Ed chose Cost of living as the battle ground. He has turned up to the duel waving his sword to find the other bloke has an AK47.
Yet another nail in labour's economic coffin and stupidly self inflicted.
HMG has the power to *do things* not just talk about them. And here we have a classic case in point.
Opposition come up with a nifty line of attack - and HMG steal it and make it flesh.
Miss Plato, I only saw the headlines of BBC's News at Ten, and the IMF story was third or fourth. One suspects it would've been top had the change been a reduction in forecast growth.
After the Wikileaks event the BBC (TV) revealed a list of soft terror targets included in the information and even put them on a map. Not smart.
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden
.@StewartWood Labour raised fuel duty 12 times in office. Conservatives aiming to freeze it for 5 years. 70% of people drive to work,
For one thing, the railway companies get large government subsidies; in some cases directly, in others through the massive funding guarantee to Network Rail that is allowing them to invest in the railways. If the government guarantees NR's loans to the tune of £37.5 billion over 2014-19, yet alone the direct subsidies some companies get, they deserve some control of the fares the companies charge.
In other words, the railways are nowhere near being a true market. And even if there was no government funding they would not be, as there is not any competition on most routes.
Also, the fares thing is not a cap on fares, but a cap on the maximum 'flex' segment of the fares increase. A very different beast.
The energy industry is very, very different. It is a much more complete market with robust competition and six major players. The investment is provided by the companies themselves, with no government guarantees on the loans in most cases.
I could go on. And on. And on. But I'll spare PB ... ;-)