politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dicing with the Debt Ceiling could diminish Dollar dominanc

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dicing with the Debt Ceiling could diminish Dollar dominance?

A quick quiz: who is the Chinese president?  If you can do that, name the Chinese prime minister and foreign secretary as well.  Tricky?  Very much so.  I’d be surprised if 5% of the population could correctly answer the first question and astonished if even 1% could get all three.

Read the full story here

edmundintokyo

I doubt that the US dollar will be replaced by a similar kind of thing backed by a different country. As a parallel, once it became the de-facto standard Microsoft never really lost control of the PC market, but other devices running on different software are taking over from the PC and making Microsoft's control of the desktop less relevant.

I'm not saying I buy all the Hayek / Mises Institute stuff about modern fiat currencies being doomed, but what is true is that in their current form they're a fairly recent development, and there are a lot of other ways of doing money that don't necessarily involve a government.

If the dollar was going to go through some kind of self-inflicted loss of trust that forced people to switch to a different reserve currency, I'd have thought the Euro would be the obvious replacement, because it has institutions that are designed to keep it strong and prevent politicians from messing with it, and an incredibly difficult and cumbersome process for changing them. That may feel like a bug if you're trying to find a job in Greece right now, but if you're looking for a stable unit of exchange then it's a feature.

Either way, if your problem is political risk, it's going to be a while before the solution is China.

edmundintokyo

In other US news, Erick Erickson muttering about a third party:
http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/10/house-gop-preparing-to-give-up/

It's getting quite easy to see the Republicans splintering from one end or the other, or even both. The combination of the primary system and FPTP has been quite successful at holding back the trends that have broken the two-party systems in other countries, but maybe there's now enough pressure building up to break it.

Stuart_Dickson

- "Playing a little fast and loose with the reputation and trustworthiness of anything isn’t to be undertaken lightly..."

When I read that I could not help thinking of Clement Attlee, Ted Heath, Jim Callaghan, Maggie Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and all the other prominent Westminster and Whitehall figures who have played fast and loose with the reputation and trustworthiness of the Union.

The long-term trend in decline in support for the Union among the Scottish electorate (the latest poll, published yesterday, puts support for the Union at a miserable 44%) is largely down to these people and their supporters, rather than to any particular action or campaign by opponents of the Union.

They threw it all away themselves, and yet they cannot see it. Stunning lack of self-awareness.

Jonathan

Democracy may cause trouble from time to time, but is the foundation of the strength of the dollar.

The US is thrashing out the economic arguments that would be brushed under the carpet in less democratic regimes. It may be messy, but they have a better chance of getting to the right answer than other systems.

AndyJS

Interesting fact about China is that the population could start to decline in as little as five years time.

AndyJS

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324653004578649663289200822.html

felix

Dacre fights back in the Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2455256/PAUL-DACRE-Editor-Mail-answers-papers-critics.html

JosiasJessop

AndyJS said:

Interesting fact about China is that the population could start to decline in as little as five years time.

The latest Economist has a very good article on water pressure within China, and the fact it seriously inhibits their GDP by 2.3%.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21587789-desperate-measures

Building cities in the Gobi Desert is not the way forwards ...

Stuart_Dickson

Just had a look at the full transfer data from Thursday's Govan by-election. The headline 1st preference statistics hide the fact that it took 13 (!!) rounds of Single Transferable Vote counting before the Labour candidate emerged as the winner over the SNP lady. In other words, the result was extremely tight. Most Scottish local elections under STV have been decided within a handful of rounds, so 13 rounds must be some kind of record in terms of tightness, corresponding to a victory by a couple of votes in a FPTP election.

Here are the full results. Note that the Tory second prefs split pretty evenly between LAB and SNP. The Lib Dem 2nd prefs went to Lab, Grn, SNP, Con in that order.

Glasgow City Council, Govan by-election, Oct 2013 - Result

SDA eliminated:
1 to SNP

Britannica eliminated:
3 to UKIP, 3 to No Bedroom Tax, 1 to Christians, 1 to Green, 1 to Solidarity, 1 to LD, 1 to Lab, 1 to Con, 1 to SNP
6 Non Transferable

Solidarity eliminated:
6 to No Bedroom Tax, 5 to SNP, 3 to Green, 2 to Lab, 2 to Communists, 2 to Ind L, 1 to Christians, 1 to LD
7 Non transferable

Communist eliminated:
11 to No Bedroom Tax, 9 to Greens,4 to Lab, 4 to SNP, 3 to Christians, 1 to LD, 1 to Ind R
4 No transferable

Ind Rannachan eliminated:
14 to SNP, 13 to No Bedroom Tax, 13 to Lab, 4 to Greens,2 to Con 1 to Ind L
6 Non transferable

Christians eliminated:
11 to Con, 8 to Ind L, 7 to SNP, 7 to Lab, 4 No Bedroom Tax, 3 to LD, 3 to UKIP, 2 to Greens
20 Non transferable

LD eliminated:
26 to Lab, 11 to Greens, 10 to SNP, 8 to Con, 4 to No Bedroom Tax, 4 to Ind L, 1 to UKIP
15 non transferable

Ind Laird eliminated:
29 to Lab, 19 to SNP, 16 to No Bedroom Tax, 8 to Greens, 6 to Con, 6 to UKIP.
34 non transferables

UKIP eliminated:
26 to Con, 14 to No Bedroom Tax, 12 to Lab, 12 to SNP, 8 to Greens
54 non transferable

Greens eliminated:
44 to SNP, 31 to Lab, 24 to No Bedroom Tax, 6 to Con
53 non transferable

Con eliminated:
36 to Lab, 34 to SNP, 23 to No Bedroom Tax
182 non transferable

No Bedroom Tax eliminated:
201 to Lab, 103 to SNP
260 non transferable

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10776

http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/3194/elections-10th-october-2013?page=7#ixzz2hU66nyH6

Thanks to Andrea for the number-crunching.

AndyJS

No wonder the result took so long to be declared. Hang on - maybe it was computerised, so that might not have been the reason.

Stuart_Dickson

- "Dicing with the Debt Ceiling could diminish Dollar dominance?"

Yes, I believe that in the long-term it will diminish the dominance of the US dollar. Which is one of several reasons why, for my long-term savings placement, I am heavy on gold stocks and light on US equities.

Plato

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre?CMP=twt_gu

JohnLoony

Stuart_Dickson said:

Just had a look at the full transfer data from Thursday's Govan by-election. The headline 1st preference statistics hide the fact that it took 13 (!!) rounds of Single Transferable Vote counting before the Labour candidate emerged as the winner over the SNP lady. In other words, the result was extremely tight. Most Scottish local elections under STV have been decided within a handful of rounds, so 13 rounds must be some kind of record in terms of tightness, corresponding to a victory by a couple of votes in a FPTP election.

Not so, O profoundly ignorant one.

In the first round of voting, the SNP candidate (in 2nd place) had more votes than all the other 12 candidates put together (*). Therefore, if the election had been conducted by proper normal AV, there would have been only two rounds of counting: (i) the first round, and (ii) the final run-off between Labour and SNP (with the simultaneous transfer of votes from all the other 12 candidates at the same time.

But the stupid law on Scottish local elections requires the AV count to be conducted in such a way that only one candidate is eliminated at a time. That is why there were 13 rounds.

But even if fact (*) had not been the case, having 13 rounds of counting does not indicate or imply that the result was in any way "close" or "tight", beyond the fact that no overall majority had been reached earlier. It is certainly not analagous to a margin of 2 votes in a FPTP election.

As for "most Scottish local elections under STV have been decided within a handful of rounds", the maximum number of rounds of counting in an AV *or* an STV election is, by definition, one less than the number of candidates. It is a function of the number of candidates, and not the closeness of the election result.

For the last x years of your life you have obviously been busy painting aardvarks purple in a cave on a small planet in the Andromeda Galaxy instead of studying electoral systems like normal people.

TGOHF

Dacre should write more editorials - certainly pulled no punches.

JohnLoony

AndyJS said:

No wonder the result took so long to be declared. Hang on - maybe it was computerised, so that might not have been the reason.

On the contrary, it probably was the reason. The version of STV used in main Scottish elections is a particularly complicated one (compared with easier manual-counting methods which could easily have been used, and which are used in Ireland) which require the use of computerised counting.

Local authorities in Scotland often tend to use the same computerised method for counting by-elections even thought they are done by AV instead of STV (hand-counting can be easily done for AV), and the computerised scanning machines take just as long to count the votes as manual counting would. Once the extra time is added to allow for the kerfufflement and alignment of ballot papers, and adjudication of doubtful papers which can't be read by a machine and which have to be checked by a human, it's probably slower.

TGOHF

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10374203/Welfare-cheats-quit-black-economy-following-crackdown.html


Tele suggests new jobs aren't really new jobs - benefit claimants had them already...

Stuart_Dickson

The SNP and Lib Dem prices continues to lengthen in the Dunfermline by-election. Starting to look like a shoo-in for the Labour candidate. Time for a market on the size of the Labour vote (%) or on the majority?

Best prices - Dunfermline by-election (24 October 2013)

Lab 4/11 (Coral)
SNP 5/2 (Betfair, William Hill)
LD 66/1 (Betfair)
Ind 100/1 (Coral, Ladbrokes)
Grn 125/1 (Betway, William Hill)
UKIP 125/1 (Betway, William Hill)
Con 200/1 (William Hill)

CarlottaVance

On topic - thoughtful article Mr Herdson - if there is a run on the $ it will the £ be differently affected vs the €? Dunno......

On other matters:

Stuart_Dickson said:

The long-term trend in decline in support for the Union among the Scottish electorate (the latest poll, published yesterday, puts support for the Union at a miserable 44%)...... Stunning lack of self-awareness.

Which showed support for independence at 25%? Who lacks self awareness?

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news-and-events/scottish-opinion-monitor-year-to-go-publicity-fails-to-shift-scottish-opinion-on-independence

The Scotsman:

"SUPPORT for independence is flatlining at 25 per cent, according to a new opinion poll suggesting that the publicity marking the one-year countdown to the referendum has failed to boost the Yes campaign."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-support-at-25-per-cent-poll-1-3138404

CarlottaVance

The Mail responding robustly to Toynbee's article (headline) yesterday:

The Guardian was under pressure to apologise last night for a ‘disgraceful slur’ against Michael Gove by appearing to link his reforms to the deaths of Baby P and Hamzah Khan.
Polly Toynbee suggested that the Education Secretary’s decision to dismantle Labour’s ContactPoint child protection database had made it easier for vulnerable youngsters to slip through the cracks.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2455552/Fury-Guardian-links-Tory-reforms-deaths-Baby-P-Hamzah-Khan.html#ixzz2hUMuBS3v

david_herdson

Jonathan said:

Democracy may cause trouble from time to time, but is the foundation of the strength of the dollar.

The US is thrashing out the economic arguments that would be brushed under the carpet in less democratic regimes. It may be messy, but they have a better chance of getting to the right answer than other systems.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. To the extent to which I do, I'd argue that democracy is a secondary factor but as we know from Britain and even more in other European countries, there's plenty of public support for anti-competitive policies, protectionist measures and other measures which run counter to the long-term interests of the country (and of those who hold its currency), but are popular within the electoral cycle within which politicians operate. As EiT notes, that's the precise reason why the institutions governing the Euro have been designed to keep politicians' and voter's hands off the levers (not enormously well, it has to be said, but it's still a feature rather than a bug).

What a lot of it comes down to is self-restraint or indulgence. Do you steal from the interests of future generations to pay for fun and games today? That's something that both dictatorships and democracies are prone to, and for the same reason (dictatorships being equally pressured by public opinion, just in different ways).

I could easily have spent 3-4000 words on the piece if I'd wanted to explore all the aspects and implications for politics both here and abroad but apart from boring people, what's the point of giving all the answers? One thing I was a little disappointed to have to cut though was a comparison between the rise of the US, Britain and Rome (for MD and TSE), where politicians and public alike believed in, and acted on, a national mission that involved sacrifice in building a greater nation, and the periods of maturity and decline as hegemony enabled them to indulge in the luxuries of power.

Once lost, that spirit is extremely hard to recapture but it is really critical in any country / bloc that provides a reserve currency as the same thing lies at the heart of both: self-restraint.

NickPalmer

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

On a less controversial note - what exactly are the advantages of being a favoured reserve currency? More leeway in running deficits, because people will want to buy your currency anyway? But the value of the $ varies considerably over time, and any currency will attract buyers if it sinks below its apparent value. A nebulous sort of prestige? Do 1 in 100 people know and care? Primarily, it seems to make US economic policy important for foreign leaders who wouldn't otherwise care - that's why you get Chinese leaders pontificating on the US deficit, since the Chinese don't want their $ holdings eroded.

CarlottaVance

NickPalmer said:

Miliband is wise to have moved on

Which is more than can be said for Alastair Campbell......

Financier

David H. Thank you for a welcome global view - we need more of them as global economics has a major effect on the UK electorate's well-being.

I see that the population of the USA is ~314 million whilst that of the Eurozone is ~332million and of the EU is~504million.

As an international business, we invoice in order of preference in GBP, USD and EURO. We do not invoice in Yuan, Roubles, Rupees, Brazilian Real or Saudi Riyal.

The USD is still the currency of choice in the Americas and in much of Africa and Asia and on that basis is likely to remain the world's reserve currency for some time.

However, China must be one of the largest holders of USA debt as well as the major investor in Africa and its mineral resources.

The major weakness of totalitarian states like China and Russia is their lack of political flexibility even when they are in a dominant position. Presumably this comes from the potential vulnerability of the leadership from within.

China still represents a huge market opportunity with a still-emerging and rapidly-growing middle-class that is ravenous for Western branded goods.

The weaknesses of India and the EU is their disorganisation and internal political wrangling which will hold up their economic development.

foxinsoxuk

Wow. Cif is going to be fun today.

But Dacre does illustrate why we need a free press and why the politicians should have no role in regulating the press.

TGOHF said:

Dacre should write more editorials - certainly pulled no punches.

edmundintokyo

NickPalmer said:

On a less controversial note - what exactly are the advantages of being a favoured reserve currency? More leeway in running deficits, because people will want to buy your currency anyway? But the value of the $ varies considerably over time, and any currency will attract buyers if it sinks below its apparent value. A nebulous sort of prestige? Do 1 in 100 people know and care? Primarily, it seems to make US economic policy important for foreign leaders who wouldn't otherwise care - that's why you get Chinese leaders pontificating on the US deficit, since the Chinese don't want their $ holdings eroded.

You get free stuff.

You print a dollar and a kind Chinese person takes it in exchange for a packet of pot noodles, then takes the dollar back to China with them and hoards it or trades with it with other people in China. You now have some delicious pot noodles, for the cost of printing the dollar bill, which hopefully was much less than a dollar.

OblitusSumMe

"It’s really quite remarkable how little prominence is given to what is likely to be the world’s biggest economy within a decade, or of the people who lead it."

I'd argue that a big reason for this is that all the interesting things in China happen behind closed doors. While Obama, Boehner and Cruz are having a lot of their arguments out in the open right now, giving the media plenty to report on, in China this is not the case. There is simply less to report on.

Given that public dissent and criticism is not particularly welcomed by the Chinese government and the media interest is even less - they really do like to present two different talking heads disagreeing with each other.

Jonathan

david_herdson said:

Jonathan said:

Democracy may cause trouble from time to time, but is the foundation of the strength of the dollar.

The US is thrashing out the economic arguments that would be brushed under the carpet in less democratic regimes. It may be messy, but they have a better chance of getting to the right answer than other systems.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. To the extent to which I do, I'd argue that democracy is a secondary factor but as we know from Britain and even more in other European countries, there's plenty of public support for anti-competitive policies, protectionist measures and other measures which run counter to the long-term interests of the country (and of those who hold its currency), but are popular within the electoral cycle within which politicians operate. As EiT notes, that's the precise reason why the institutions governing the Euro have been designed to keep politicians' and voter's hands off the levers (not enormously well, it has to be said, but it's still a feature rather than a bug).

...

Once lost, that spirit is extremely hard to recapture but it is really critical in any country / bloc that provides a reserve currency as the same thing lies at the heart of both: self-restraint.

Well think of it this way. The arguments in Washington are there plain for us all to see and we can participate if we choose.. The human weaknesses you mention exist in any system. The only difference is outside democracy they are hidden, or biased towards those of an elite. At best he same debate will take place elsewhere in a single room, or worse not take place at all.

The US is, was and never will be stable. It's part of its genius. It just looked relatively stable after the chaos of WW2.

BTW Never bought the "stealing from future generations" line. We live solely in the here and now.

TGOHF

Dacre points outs the closed silo'd mind of the left. NP proves his point in his reply.

If the Guardian didn't print "self serving bilge" it would be 3 pages long - all sport.

Plato

I wonder how many moderators are working today at CiF? It's going to be bedlam over there.

I'm expecting hundreds of deleted comments!

Financier

NickPalmer said:

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

Nick P. I must disagree with you. Dacre is right when he says that the Left-wing middle and ruling class look down their noses at the views, beliefs and things that are important to much of the electorate. |Frequently this is because that economically and physically they are separated from them and so are able to impose their views whilst not having to suffer the results of those views. This has often been evidenced in the differences between their views for the electorate and personal practice on education of their children.

CarlottaVance

@PatrickWintour: "Guardian reader comment on this piece by Paul Dacre's open shortly. Trembling moderator fixes bayonets"

Jonathan

Financier said:

NickPalmer said:

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

Nick P. I must disagree with you. Dacre is right when he says that the Left-wing middle and ruling class look down their noses at the views, beliefs and things that are important to much of the electorate. |Frequently this is because that economically and physically they are separated from them and so are able to impose their views whilst not having to suffer the results of those views. This has often been evidenced in the differences between their views for the electorate and personal practice on education of their children.

Are you saying the Mail and the right are magically immune to hypocrisy?

SouthamObserver

A country in which there is no independent rule of law will not ever be one that supplies a reserve currency. You only have to look at what wealthy Chinese do with their money to see that: they get as much of it as possible the hell out of China. There will need to be major institutional changes there for any of what David says to have a chance of happening.

david_herdson

NickPalmer said:

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

On a less controversial note - what exactly are the advantages of being a favoured reserve currency? More leeway in running deficits, because people will want to buy your currency anyway? But the value of the $ varies considerably over time, and any currency will attract buyers if it sinks below its apparent value. A nebulous sort of prestige? Do 1 in 100 people know and care? Primarily, it seems to make US economic policy important for foreign leaders who wouldn't otherwise care - that's why you get Chinese leaders pontificating on the US deficit, since the Chinese don't want their $ holdings eroded.

Borrowing being easier and cheaper than it otherwise would be aren't things to be lightly sniffed at.

It's not just nebulous prestige that comes with your currency greasing international trade: there's very real power there. Governments are likely to think twice about getting too aggressive against you if they hold hundreds of billions of your bonds in their treasury, or if businesses in their own country need your own currency to trade. It promotes that country / currency-zone into a position of international leadership which increases their opportunity to defend and protect their own country's interests.

CarlottaVance

Daily Mail readers are very supportive of their editor:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2455256/PAUL-DACRE-Editor-Mail-answers-papers-critics.html

foxinsoxuk

With longer and healthier working lives an aging population is a surmountable challenge.

In the UK per capita GDP is lower than it was a decade ago. In Japan, South Korea and China it is higher.

If your vision of a future Britain is one where people are increasingly poor and overcrowded then advocate a return to Blairist immigration policies. You would be in a minority though. Even Ed Miliband has publically apologised for Labours immigration policy.

tim said:

China and the Eurozones demographics are far less healthy than the USA

"Between 2000 and 2050, census data suggest, the U.S. 15-to-64 age group is expected to grow 42 percent. In contrast, because of falling fertility rates, the number of young and working-age people is expected to decline elsewhere: by 10 percent in China, 25 percent in Europe, 30 percent in South Korea and more than 40 percent in Japan."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specialsections/40th-anniversary/The-Changing-Demographics-of-America.html?device=iphone

The UK now sits on the US side of demographic advantage thanks to Tony Blair's govt

SouthamObserver

Which middle class lefty suggested fracking up in the desolate north, or the dreadful people from Sheffield who dare go on package holidays abroad? And who are those appalling out of touch champagne socialists who claim that anyone who votes Labour does so because they hate Britain, leach off the state, are an immigrant or are looking to feather their own public service bed?

NickPalmer

Financier said:

Nick P. I must disagree with you. Dacre is right when he says that the Left-wing middle and ruling class look down their noses at the views, beliefs and things that are important to much of the electorate. |Frequently this is because that economically and physically they are separated from them and so are able to impose their views whilst not having to suffer the results of those views. This has often been evidenced in the differences between their views for the electorate and personal practice on education of their children.

IMO he's sometimes right but often wrong about that. But my point is that it's a familiar argument, as is everything else that he says, and given that public opinion (which will have seen all this in summary form by now) is against the Mail by over 3-1 he's unwise to keep going on with the same old arguments: those who agree with him will nod, those who don't will go yuck, but really it's just a bore. The tabloid press's belief that they are magnificent and the envy of the world is like a drunken uncle who's convinced that he's a genius - the family are not inclined to listen and ponder his arguments, they just roll their eyes.

Off to a zillion doorsteps for the weekend, so will leave it there. Thanks to David H for the swift and convincing reply on reserve currencies.

CD13

They say you get the politicians and the press you deserve. And the Guardian and Mail show this well. One never knowingly looks at both sides of an argument and one specialises in smug hypocrisy.

The Guardian views the Mail with disdain as do many of its readers, and the Mail sees the Guardian as the champagne socialist writ large. And it mirrors the split in the country.

edmundintokyo

foxinsoxuk said:

In the UK per capita GDP is lower than it was a decade ago. In Japan, South Korea and China it is higher.

Do you have a source for that? I tried with and without PPP but I'm not seeing what you're seeing. These charts only do 2004 to 2012 but I doubt anything radically different happened, except for the yen crashing in 2013 which if anything should make Japan look worse by comparison.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita-ppp
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-per-capita-ppp
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-per-capita

Charles

felix said:

Dacre fights back in the Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2455256/PAUL-DACRE-Editor-Mail-answers-papers-critics.html

Time for popcorn.

Comments open at 9am...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre

SouthamObserver

CD13 said:

They say you get the politicians and the press you deserve. And the Guardian and Mail show this well. One never knowingly looks at both sides of an argument and one specialises in smug hypocrisy.

The Guardian views the Mail with disdain as do many of its readers, and the Mail sees the Guardian as the champagne socialist writ large. And it mirrors the split in the country.

Luckily, most people are slightly more nuanced than the Mail or the Grauniad. Both represent the beliefs of a small section of the population and are primarily driven by perpetual rage.

Plato

LOL

RT @hwallop: NB: Dacre chose @guardian as Desert Island luxury, 2004, because it' fill him with enough anger to motivate an escape

RT @hwallop: Paul #Dacre's Desert Island Discs, complete with @guardian subscription as his luxury. Worth a listen
http://t.co/qpgAnvARcr

Cyclefree

By all means let's move from the tedious Milliband/Mail spat but has anyone on the Labour side (bar Jack Straw) said anything at all about the rather more serious issue at the Guardian and its publication of secret service files?

Sometimes the impression is given that Labour get very excited when one of their politicians (or friends) is attacked personally but rather less so when something happens which could affect the rest of us.

malcolmg

Stuart_Dickson said:

Just had a look at the full transfer data from Thursday's
Here are the full results. Note that the Tory second prefs split pretty evenly between LAB and SNP. The Lib Dem 2nd prefs went to Lab, Grn, SNP, Con in that order.

Glasgow City Council, Govan by-election, Oct 2013 - Result

SDA eliminated:
1 to SNP

Britannica eliminated:
3 to UKIP, 3 to No Bedroom Tax, 1 to Christians, 1 to Green, 1 to Solidarity, 1 to LD, 1 to Lab, 1 to Con, 1 to SNP
6 Non Transferable

Solidarity eliminated:
6 to No Bedroom Tax, 5 to SNP, 3 to Green, 2 to Lab, 2 to Communists, 2 to Ind L, 1 to Christians, 1 to LD
7 Non transferable

Communist eliminated:
11 to No Bedroom Tax, 9 to Greens,4 to Lab, 4 to SNP, 3 to Christians, 1 to LD, 1 to Ind R
4 No transferable

Ind Rannachan eliminated:
14 to SNP, 13 to No Bedroom Tax, 13 to Lab, 4 to Greens,2 to Con 1 to Ind L
6 Non transferable

Christians eliminated:
11 to Con, 8 to Ind L, 7 to SNP, 7 to Lab, 4 No Bedroom Tax, 3 to LD, 3 to UKIP, 2 to Greens
20 Non transferable

LD eliminated:
26 to Lab, 11 to Greens, 10 to SNP, 8 to Con, 4 to No Bedroom Tax, 4 to Ind L, 1 to UKIP
15 non transferable

Ind Laird eliminated:
29 to Lab, 19 to SNP, 16 to No Bedroom Tax, 8 to Greens, 6 to Con, 6 to UKIP.
34 non transferables

UKIP eliminated:
26 to Con, 14 to No Bedroom Tax, 12 to Lab, 12 to SNP, 8 to Greens
54 non transferable

Greens eliminated:
44 to SNP, 31 to Lab, 24 to No Bedroom Tax, 6 to Con
53 non transferable

Con eliminated:
36 to Lab, 34 to SNP, 23 to No Bedroom Tax
182 non transferable

No Bedroom Tax eliminated:
201 to Lab, 103 to SNP
260 non transferable

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10776

http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/3194/elections-10th-october-2013?page=7#ixzz2hU66nyH6

Thanks to Andrea for the number-crunching.

The thing that stands out to me is the final round where 2/3 go to Labour , given the relative positions of SNP and Labour on the bedroom tax, it makes you wonder about the intelligence of voters in Scotland and why they stick to the cheating , lying right wing labour party. Does not bode well for the future of Scotland.

Charles

NickPalmer said:

On a less controversial note - what exactly are the advantages of being a favoured reserve currency?

It's a bit technical, but two main reason: (1) Seigniorage and (2) liquidity resulting in lower interest rates than you would otherwise have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage

Some economists regarded seigniorage as a form of inflation tax, redistributing real resources to the currency issuer. Issuing new currency, rather than collecting taxes paid out of the existing money stock, is then considered in effect a tax that falls on those who hold the existing currency.

david_herdson

OblitusSumMe said:

"It’s really quite remarkable how little prominence is given to what is likely to be the world’s biggest economy within a decade, or of the people who lead it."

I'd argue that a big reason for this is that all the interesting things in China happen behind closed doors. While Obama, Boehner and Cruz are having a lot of their arguments out in the open right now, giving the media plenty to report on, in China this is not the case. There is simply less to report on.

Given that public dissent and criticism is not particularly welcomed by the Chinese government and the media interest is even less - they really do like to present two different talking heads disagreeing with each other.

tim said:

@DavidHerdson

You ignored the demographics of the countries and regions involved, and they are massively weighted towards the the USA.
And within Europe they are similarly now weighted towards the UK.

China's population is more than four times that of the US. It can afford a modest decline. I didn't even find space to mention India. The EU population is half as big again as the US.

Even if things do move in the US' direction, this is a wholly different situation the US finds itself in from that of the last 70 years, when its principal rivals were either hamstrung by non-participation in the global economy (USSR), being significantly smaller, both geographically and in population (Japan, W Germany), or being clearly declining imperial powers (UK, France). It is quite possible that by 2050, the US Dollar will be only the fourth currency, by GDP of its domestic area.

CD13

SO,

"Both represent the beliefs of a small section of the population."

You're probably right, but it's a noisy minority. The Mail is fuelled by rage and the Guardian by a smug superiority complex.

Charles

OblitusSumMe said:

public dissent and criticism is not particularly welcomed by the Chinese government

Nomination for the PB Understatement of the Day Award

SouthamObserver

Financier said:

NickPalmer said:

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

Nick P. I must disagree with you. Dacre is right when he says that the Left-wing middle and ruling class look down their noses at the views, beliefs and things that are important to much of the electorate. |Frequently this is because that economically and physically they are separated from them and so are able to impose their views whilst not having to suffer the results of those views. This has often been evidenced in the differences between their views for the electorate and personal practice on education of their children.

What was it that Ollie Letwin said about package holiday makers from Sheffield? And who can forget Boris on Liverpool? And hasn't Dave just told us that those who get married are more deserving of a tax break than those who don't?

malcolmg

TGOHF said:

Dacre should write more editorials - certainly pulled no punches.

Certainly an excellent article and highlights the hypocrisy perfectly.

Cyclefree

SouthamObserver said:

Which middle class lefty suggested fracking up in the desolate north, or the dreadful people from Sheffield who dare go on package holidays abroad? And who are those appalling out of touch champagne socialists who claim that anyone who votes Labour does so because they hate Britain, leach off the state, are an immigrant or are looking to feather their own public service bed?

SO: Which Labour politician was it who claimed that Tories were "lower than vermin"?

The demonisation of people who don't vote for you happens in all parties - and is to no party's credit - but to suggest that a heavy industry might happen in a relatively unpopulated are which has a history of mining is hardly on the same scale as calling your political opponents "vermin".

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Which middle class lefty suggested fracking up in the desolate north, or the dreadful people from Sheffield who dare go on package holidays abroad? And who are those appalling out of touch champagne socialists who claim that anyone who votes Labour does so because they hate Britain, leach off the state, are an immigrant or are looking to feather their own public service bed?

To be fair, I'm not sure that it is a left/right think more of a smug metropolitan/normal person thing.

The Guardian and the BBC are prime inter pares of the smug metropolitan voice.

Cyclefree

SouthamObserver said:

Financier said:

NickPalmer said:

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

Nick P. I must disagree with you. Dacre is right when he says that the Left-wing middle and ruling class look down their noses at the views, beliefs and things that are important to much of the electorate. |Frequently this is because that economically and physically they are separated from them and so are able to impose their views whilst not having to suffer the results of those views. This has often been evidenced in the differences between their views for the electorate and personal practice on education of their children.

What was it that Ollie Letwin said about package holiday makers from Sheffield? And who can forget Boris on Liverpool? And hasn't Dave just told us that those who get married are more deserving of a tax break than those who don't?

It was Simon Heffer who wrote the offending article on Liverpool. Boris took responsibility as editor, which is rather to his credit, frankly.

Personally, just because something offends someone is not a reason for all this craven apologetics. Controversial and outspoken views should be heard; if people don't like them they can reply or not read the papers concerned.

Carola

I guess this is National Right Bash the Left and Left Bash the Right Day. Like every day.

Though it's not as simple as right and left these days. Except to the simple behind the timesers.

SouthamObserver

Plato said:

LOL

RT @hwallop: NB: Dacre chose @guardian as Desert Island luxury, 2004, because it' fill him with enough anger to motivate an escape

RT @hwallop: Paul #Dacre's Desert Island Discs, complete with @guardian subscription as his luxury. Worth a listen
http://t.co/qpgAnvARcr

It's what makes Dacre a great newspaper editor. He understands that people like to be made angry while having their world views confirmed.

I overheard a great conversation in the gym the other week between two elderly ladies having a leisurely workout on the rowing machines. It began: "I should not read the Mail, it makes me so angry, but ...", before continuing to discussing the evils of political correctness and the wickedness of women who breastfeed in public. It was clear they absolutely love their Mail fix. Dacre gets this.

Plato

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Financier said:

NickPalmer said:

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

Nick P. I must disagree with you. Dacre is right when he says that the Left-wing middle and ruling class look down their noses at the views, beliefs and things that are important to much of the electorate. |Frequently this is because that economically and physically they are separated from them and so are able to impose their views whilst not having to suffer the results of those views. This has often been evidenced in the differences between their views for the electorate and personal practice on education of their children.

What was it that Ollie Letwin said about package holiday makers from Sheffield? And who can forget Boris on Liverpool? And hasn't Dave just told us that those who get married are more deserving of a tax break than those who don't?

It was Simon Heffer who wrote the offending article on Liverpool. Boris took responsibility as editor, which is rather to his credit, frankly.

Personally, just because something offends someone is not a reason for all this craven apologetics. Controversial and outspoken views should be heard; if people don't like them they can reply or not read the papers concerned.

Quite - If I wanted to professionally offended - I'd read Seamus Milne - but I don't want to, so I don't.

The desire some have to perpetually climb aboard the Outrage Bus is beyond me - I'm usually perplexed by it or find it exhausting just reading theirs. In the case of EdM - I think it was misplaced and he should have left it to others to do it for him.

CarlottaVance

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Which middle class lefty suggested fracking up in the desolate north, or the dreadful people from Sheffield who dare go on package holidays abroad? And who are those appalling out of touch champagne socialists who claim that anyone who votes Labour does so because they hate Britain, leach off the state, are an immigrant or are looking to feather their own public service bed?

To be fair, I'm not sure that it is a left/right think more of a smug metropolitan/normal person thing.

The Guardian and the BBC are prime inter pares of the smug metropolitan voice.

And the powerless vs the powerful - on which side do Mail readers & Guardian readers/BBC journalists see themselves? Curiously the "party of the underdog" is supported by the bien pensant hegemony.....

SouthamObserver

Plato said:

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Financier said:

NickPalmer said:

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

Nick P. I must disagree with you. Dacre is right when he says that the Left-wing middle and ruling class look down their noses at the views, beliefs and things that are important to much of the electorate. |Frequently this is because that economically and physically they are separated from them and so are able to impose their views whilst not having to suffer the results of those views. This has often been evidenced in the differences between their views for the electorate and personal practice on education of their children.

What was it that Ollie Letwin said about package holiday makers from Sheffield? And who can forget Boris on Liverpool? And hasn't Dave just told us that those who get married are more deserving of a tax break than those who don't?

It was Simon Heffer who wrote the offending article on Liverpool. Boris took responsibility as editor, which is rather to his credit, frankly.

Personally, just because something offends someone is not a reason for all this craven apologetics. Controversial and outspoken views should be heard; if people don't like them they can reply or not read the papers concerned.

Quite - If I wanted to professionally offended - I'd read Seamus Milne - but I don't want to, so I don't.

The desire some have to perpetually climb aboard the Outrage Bus is beyond me - I'm usually perplexed by it or find it exhausting just reading theirs. In the case of EdM - I think it was misplaced and he should have left it to others to do it for him.

So when you continuously link to articles about how hypocritical lefties are you are merely providing a public service? Funnily enough, you never seem to link to ones about the hypocrisies of the right!

david_herdson

tim said:

@DavidHerdson


"China's population is more than four times that of the US. It can afford a modest decline."

You missed the point completely, it's the ageing of the population thats the problem for China,not its total.

"The explosion in the number of senior citizens, with no equivalent increase in the number of children becoming adults, means that by the middle of the century China’s working-age population will fall to 56–58 percent. China will then have one of the oldest populations in the world, and it will have a relatively small economically productive base on which to support a small number of children and a large number of retirees."

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=52309

In essence China will become old before it becomes rich.

You don't think they'll (1) redefine what 'working age' is, and (2) revise their one-child policy then?

SouthamObserver

SeanT said:

SouthamObserver said:

Financier said:

NickPalmer said:

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

Nick P. I must disagree with you. Dacre is right when he says that the Left-wing middle and ruling class look down their noses at the views, beliefs and things that are important to much of the electorate. |Frequently this is because that economically and physically they are separated from them and so are able to impose their views whilst not having to suffer the results of those views. This has often been evidenced in the differences between their views for the electorate and personal practice on education of their children.

What was it that Ollie Letwin said about package holiday makers from Sheffield? And who can forget Boris on Liverpool? And hasn't Dave just told us that those who get married are more deserving of a tax break than those who don't?

Why not tell us this nine times over? It's almost like a nerve has been touched.

If only we could all be like you and make a point, then move on!

Freggles

Plato said:

Quite - If I wanted to professionally offended - I'd read Seamus Milne - but I don't want to, so I don't.

The desire some have to perpetually climb aboard the Outrage Bus is beyond me - I'm usually perplexed by it or find it exhausting just reading theirs. In the case of EdM - I think it was misplaced and he should have left it to others to do it for him.

Plato: Is there anything Ed Miliband has done that you approve of?

CarlottaVance

Talking of columnists who wind others up, Left Foot Forward have this valedictory for Mad Mel:

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/09/goodbye-mel-we-wont-miss-you-a-look-back-at-melanie-phillipss-greatest-hits/

foxinsoxuk

Perhaps I was a little loose in defining what I meant by decade, but if you look at the graphs displayed, it is the trend for Japan to be richer percapita than 2005 in both narrow and PPP terms while we are poorer. There is a demographic challenge, but is the answer immigration or longer working lives, and more importantly whichh is sustainable and politically preferred by the votrrs?

The South Korea figures show quite impressive performance is quite compatible with low net immigration:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp-per-capita

Per Capita GDP by PPP is probably the best measure of cost of living as used by Ed Miliband. As a ratio we need to look at both numerator and denominator.

If the population increases faster than the GDP then on average we become poorer and more crowded .

edmundintokyo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

In the UK per capita GDP is lower than it was a decade ago. In Japan, South Korea and China it is higher.

Do you have a source for that? I tried with and without PPP but I'm not seeing what you're seeing. These charts only do 2004 to 2012 but I doubt anything radically different happened, except for the yen crashing in 2013 which if anything should make Japan look worse by comparison.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita-ppp
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-per-capita-ppp
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-per-capita

edmundintokyo

SeanT said:

I like my Guardian fix every morning. It's usually some ridiculous lefty tosh in that paper which fires me up enough to get me writing my own blog, on the Telegraph.

Much as I'd like this rotten old paper to disappear (and I think it might, in essence), I'd rather miss it, emotionally and professionally - an old enemy and sparring partner, given wary respect.

This is like the political version of this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,11150/

I'm not sure about the Telegraph, but here at pb we'll provide a tolerant, supportive environment whenever you feel you're ready to come out of the closet as a Guardian-reading, Liberal-Democrat-voting Euro-federalist.

SouthamObserver

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Financier said:

NickPalmer said:

Pretty much everyone has made up their minds over the Dacre and Miliband controversy, and Miliband is wise to have moved on. Dacre would be sensible to do the same. His article strikes me as self-serving bilge, TGOHF thinks it's jolly good - but few will read it and think hmm, yes, what interesting new arguments.

Nick P. I must disagree with you. Dacre is right when he says that the Left-wing middle and ruling class look down their noses at the views, beliefs and things that are important to much of the electorate. |Frequently this is because that economically and physically they are separated from them and so are able to impose their views whilst not having to suffer the results of those views. This has often been evidenced in the differences between their views for the electorate and personal practice on education of their children.

What was it that Ollie Letwin said about package holiday makers from Sheffield? And who can forget Boris on Liverpool? And hasn't Dave just told us that those who get married are more deserving of a tax break than those who don't?

It was Simon Heffer who wrote the offending article on Liverpool. Boris took responsibility as editor, which is rather to his credit, frankly.

Personally, just because something offends someone is not a reason for all this craven apologetics. Controversial and outspoken views should be heard; if people don't like them they can reply or not read the papers concerned.

It wasn't an article, it was an editorial. Editorials express the views of the publication concerned. Boris was the editor of The Spectator. Michael Howard ordered him to apologise.

I agree with your second paragraph. My point being that the right is as quick to pass judgement on those it dislikes as the left is.

Freggles

Never mind

david_herdson

SeanT said:

OK gotta go parenting.

One final observation on the Mail/Groaniad/BBC slugfest, the biggest threat to the Guardian's existence is not the Mail - but the BBC.

The BBC provides middlebrow, mildly liberal-left news and analysis for free, on its website, as does the Guardian. The BBC is therefore the biggest natural competitor to the Guardian.

The difference is the BBC is given £3bn a year in tax money, so it can do this without breaking sweat, the Guardian has to stay free to compete with the BBC, but this means it is bleeding out, financially.

Yet the Guardian will fight, until its dying breath, for the BBC to survive as it is. Most odd. This could easily be a blog. Mmm.

Anon.

Guardian columnists will, partly because their readers will agree, partly because it's their own natural instinct and partly because they probably believe that if anything terminal does happen to the Guardian, they can always switch over to the Beeb. Whether the owners share that view to the same extent is a different matter.

edmundintokyo

foxinsoxuk said:

Perhaps I was a little loose in defining what I meant by decade, but if you look at the graphs displayed, it is the trend for Japan to be richer percapita than 2005 in both narrow and PPP terms while we are poorer.

It doesn't show the UK being poorer since 2005 on either measure. To get a per-capita drop in the UK numbers you have to move the starting point into the bubble in the second half of the 2000s, which is going to look bad for the UK because they have a big financial sector which made people think they were rich then got badly clobbered by the Lehman Shock.

Jonathan

This battle between different sides of the media is utterly phoney. These journalists are all quite happy to appear in each other's output. It's complete guff designed to create interest and PB is falling for it.

Plato

Jonathan said:

This battle between different sides of the media in utterly phoney. These journalists are all quite happy to appear in each other's output. It's complete guff designed to create interest and PB is falling for it.

Tell that to the 300 people who lost their jobs at the NOTW.

Plato

James C @MotoClark
Hidden kindness to Guardian in Dacre piece is lack of the line which might have read: "Which is why we sell 10x as many papers as you do".

CarlottaVance

Another day, and after a 9 hour break, Campbell is back Dacre-ing, in his phrase......

another_richard

As it's Saturday can we look forward to SeanT boasting about London house price rises ?

With the subsequent discussion going in an non optimal direction for Sean.

Still with all his new money he might be able to afford a flat with two bedrooms now ;-)

Plato

AB @botzarelli
Dacre piece in mail gets 62 comments in 2hrs, in guardian 400 in 30 mins. 1st mail comment supportive & has near 600 likes.

foxinsoxuk

2005 is the year I mentioned. Japan is richer than then, we are poorer per capita. I take your point about the bubble (which also affected Japan in a big way), but Japans GDP per capita bounced back more quickly, even though their GDP did not, so is back to the 2008 ish levels. Ours remains flat on both measures.

Both countries face demographic challenges. Is there any call in Tokyo for mass immigration to solve Japans problems? Or do the Japanese prefer a more sustainable solution of working longer? What would Brits say if given the same choice, particularly if it was explained that the numbers of immigrants required by the UK to maintain current retirement ages would dwarf the new Labour surge?

I shall play with the data sets later, but have some patients to see first.

edmundintokyo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Perhaps I was a little loose in defining what I meant by decade, but if you look at the graphs displayed, it is the trend for Japan to be richer percapita than 2005 in both narrow and PPP terms while we are poorer.

It doesn't show the UK being poorer since 2005 on either measure. To get a per-capita drop in the UK numbers you have to move the starting point into the bubble in the second half of the 2000s, which is going to look bad for the UK because they have a big financial sector which made people think they were rich then got badly clobbered by the Lehman Shock.

SouthamObserver

Plato said:

Jonathan said:

This battle between different sides of the media in utterly phoney. These journalists are all quite happy to appear in each other's output. It's complete guff designed to create interest and PB is falling for it.

Tell that to the 300 people who lost their jobs at the NOTW.

They know who closed it and why. No amount of right wing conspiracy nonsense will change that.

another_richard

That article in the Telegraph is complete drivel and yet another example of how misused the word 'boom' is nowadays.

Aside from the froth the article does acknowledge that prices are rising faster than earnings although it doesn't mention that the FTSE100 is still lower than it was at the end of the last millenium or that the predicted 1.4% GDP growth is lower than assumed long term trend.

As to the 'people are spending again', its complete bollox as people never stopped spending in the first place. The recession was in production not consumption.

Last week's release of the August industrial production numbers shows the following changes from:

May 2010 -5%
Aug 2007 -14%
Jun 2000 -17% (all time industrial production peak)
Aug 1988 -4%

In comparison the retail sales changes are:

May 2010 +3%
Aug 2007 +5%
Jun 2000 +42%
Aug 1988 +77%

The difference between the two being caused by the £100bn+ per year borrowing we've become addicted to.

another_richard

foxinsoxuk said:

What would Brits say if given the same choice, particularly if it was explained that the numbers of immigrants required by the UK to maintain current retirement ages would dwarf the new Labour surge?

edmundintokyo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Perhaps I was a little loose in defining what I meant by decade, but if you look at the graphs displayed, it is the trend for Japan to be richer percapita than 2005 in both narrow and PPP terms while we are poorer.

It doesn't show the UK being poorer since 2005 on either measure. To get a per-capita drop in the UK numbers you have to move the starting point into the bubble in the second half of the 2000s, which is going to look bad for the UK because they have a big financial sector which made people think they were rich then got badly clobbered by the Lehman Shock.

Particularly as those immigrants would also require even more immigrants in the next generation to pay for their pensions etc.

The 'increase the population' idea is nothing more than a human ponzi scheme.

The only viable solution is to return the proportion of human lifespan allocated to work back to where it was a generation or two ago. With improved health and less strenuous and dangerous work that shouldn't be a problem.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

A country in which there is no independent rule of law will not ever be one that supplies a reserve currency. You only have to look at what wealthy Chinese do with their money to see that: they get as much of it as possible the hell out of China. There will need to be major institutional changes there for any of what David says to have a chance of happening.

I would like that to be true SO but I really wonder if our supposed love of the rule of law will turn out to be another western delusion.

The key to the rule of law is the respect of independent property rights (article 1 protocol 1 of the ECHR) and the ability to enforce these by legal authority. Which is all fine and dandy. But western politicians, in desperation having bankrupted the system, have opened up the pandora's box of QE. Edmund's peasant, willing to give up his noodles for a dollar now finds that the US thinks it is ok to print another $85bn of these a month, every month, until some of these lazy, fat westerners who clearly eat too many noodles get jobs.

How long will peasants give up their noodles for ever less valuable pieces of paper? IMO QE is incompatible with the rule of law. It is incompatible with property rights. It is a pandora's box and we will ultimately pay a very high price for opening it. The US most of all.

taffys

The cabinet spat over green taxes hasn't had much discussion today.

Cam might like to put slashing green taxes to a commons vote. Wonder which way consumer champion Ed Miliband might jump on that.

We know where the lib dems stand. Hopefully their constituents will realise it too.

Plato

taffys said:

The cabinet spat over green taxes hasn't had much discussion today.

Cam might like to put slashing green taxes to a commons vote. Wonder which way consumer champion Ed Miliband might jump on that.

We know where the lib dems stand. Hopefully their constituents will realise it too.

Given that most Tory voters think AGW is nonsense and dislike much of its impact re windfarms etc - I can see upsides to sticking the whole thing on hold or stepping backwards. The Greenies have lost their power since it was fashionable and affordable 6 or 7yrs ago.

taffys

Plato

I think there is support for green energy, quite a lot of support, but not at the expense of the elderly freezing to death or people losing jobs because industry can't compete.

The lib dems are, however, prepared to make these sacrifices on the altar of their dogma. As should be made clear to their constituents in 2015.

SouthamObserver

taffys said:

The cabinet spat over green taxes hasn't had much discussion today.

Cam might like to put slashing green taxes to a commons vote. Wonder which way consumer champion Ed Miliband might jump on that.

We know where the lib dems stand. Hopefully their constituents will realise it too.

The LDs would need to agree a Commons vote, wouldn't they? That said, it would be interesting to hear Windmill man explain his change of mind.

JosiasJessop

tim said:

another_richard said:

As it's Saturday can we look forward to SeanT boasting about London house price rises ?

With the subsequent discussion going in an non optimal direction for Sean.

Still with all his new money he might be able to afford a flat with two bedrooms now ;-)

The flipside of the London property market which seems to have become lost in his boasting about his one bed flat is the amount the taxpayer pays in Housing Benefit to house his daughter,he's not mentioned that for a while but one half of the market is intrinsically dependent on the state subsidies for the other

Ah Tim.

Some people come on here and admit their personal circumstances. Using that information against them whilst being too cowardly to do so yourself, is rather sh*t.

What hypocrisies would show up if you actually developed a backbone and told us a little about yourself? Perhaps that's why you don't ...

Plato

taffys said:

Plato

I think there is support for green energy, quite a lot of support, but not at the expense of the elderly freezing to death or people losing jobs because industry can't compete.

The lib dems are, however, prepared to make these sacrifices on the altar of their dogma. As should be made clear to their constituents in 2015.

Green energy is a mirage when it costs a great deal more and if you don't believe in AGW then its even more egregious. Recycling and renewables are a lovely notion - and if they are economically viable - super, if they aren't well then there's no logic for them.

rcs1000

Another_Richard,

You are absolutely right that the biggest element in solving the demographic issues we face has to be a very substantial increase in the retirement age over the next quarter century. My favourite fact on longevity is that female life expectancy in the UK had risen by four months a year, in pretty much a straight line, since 1840.

But it is worth remembering that, if our TFR remains below 2.1, then the dependancy ratio will continue to worsen. If you wish to abolish the free movement of labour, then you are going to need to pursue some seriously pro-natal policies. Something which, as the Singaporeans have discovered, is incredibly difficult.

MarkSenior

taffys said:

Plato

I think there is support for green energy, quite a lot of support, but not at the expense of the elderly freezing to death or people losing jobs because industry can't compete.

The lib dems are, however, prepared to make these sacrifices on the altar of their dogma. As should be made clear to their constituents in 2015.

Where is your evidence for that assertion that that is the Lib Dems position . You are simply spouting your own false dogma as fact .

SouthamObserver

Plato said:

taffys said:

Plato

I think there is support for green energy, quite a lot of support, but not at the expense of the elderly freezing to death or people losing jobs because industry can't compete.

The lib dems are, however, prepared to make these sacrifices on the altar of their dogma. As should be made clear to their constituents in 2015.

Green energy is a mirage when it costs a great deal more and if you don't believe in AGW then its even more egregious. Recycling and renewables are a lovely notion - and if they are economically viable - super, if they aren't well then there's no logic for them.

So without recycling and renewables where does the rubbish we make go? More and more landfill? That's a hell if a legacy to leave for the future generations who will leave on our small island. Or maybe we should burn it all and just increase pollution levels, with all the health problems these cause.

JosiasJessop

MarkSenior said:

taffys said:

Plato

I think there is support for green energy, quite a lot of support, but not at the expense of the elderly freezing to death or people losing jobs because industry can't compete.

The lib dems are, however, prepared to make these sacrifices on the altar of their dogma. As should be made clear to their constituents in 2015.

Where is your evidence for that assertion that that is the Lib Dems position . You are simply spouting your own false dogma as fact .

So what is the Lib Dem's position on energy? I asked this of a UKIP supporter the other day, who produced a video talking about their energy policy, and something akin to a policy document. You or I may not agree with it, but it's there.

Do the Lib Dems have something similar, from a non-coalition perspective?

Plato

OT Loved this

RT @JamieDMJ: Cadbury wrote back to me about my recent job application. pic.twitter.com/izQIr0Jyny

taffys

''Where is your evidence for that assertion that that is the Lib Dems position . You are simply spouting your own false dogma as fact.''

Hasn't Ed Davey himself defended keeping green taxes as they are? or am I mistaken?

You are just nervous because the lib dem priorities, in which saving the planet come way above the price of energy for ordinary people and businesses, are being exposed.

malcolmg

JosiasJessop said:

MarkSenior said:

taffys said:

Plato

I think there is support for green energy, quite a lot of support, but not at the expense of the elderly freezing to death or people losing jobs because industry can't compete.

The lib dems are, however, prepared to make these sacrifices on the altar of their dogma. As should be made clear to their constituents in 2015.

Where is your evidence for that assertion that that is the Lib Dems position . You are simply spouting your own false dogma as fact .

So what is the Lib Dem's position on energy? I asked this of a UKIP supporter the other day, who produced a video talking about their energy policy, and something akin to a policy document. You or I may not agree with it, but it's there.

Do the Lib Dems have something similar, from a non-coalition perspective?

Will be same as their "No fees pledge", they have no principles or policies they will not ditch for money and self aggrandisement

DavidL

What is and was acceptable for green energy such as windfarms was incentives and subsidies to allow it to gear up to the point that the savings of mass manufacturing were available.

What is completely unacceptable is that we accept or invest in long term energy production at a cost that adversely affects the rest of our economy by either discouraging manufacturing or for that matter absorbing an excessive share of consumption to the detriment of other parts of the economy.

Wind has had more than its fair share of subsidies. It is time for it to stand on its own. If it can't it is a bad investment that we would be better advised to write off rather than continue to destroy value in investing in. Solar, which was subsidised, does seem to have done better.

It is a good thing if we can reduce our consumption of finite resources such as hydrocarbons as it increases the long term stability of our economy. It is a good thing if we create more of our own energy from our own resources because it improves employment and the balance of payments. But it is not a good thing to commit ourselves to a policy designed to create expensive energy indefinitely. There needs to be a change in priorities there.

It is not necessary to clothe these arguments in global warning theses nor is it helpful. Our choices are so insignificant in the overall scheme of things as to make these arguments irrelevant. This does not make green energy bad. It simply means that we need to focus more clearly on our national interests without the dogoodery or the delusions.

MarkSenior

taffys said:

''Where is your evidence for that assertion that that is the Lib Dems position . You are simply spouting your own false dogma as fact.''

Hasn't Ed Davey himself defended keeping green taxes as they are? or am I mistaken?

You are just nervous because the lib dem priorities, in which saving the planet come way above the price of energy for ordinary people and businesses, are being exposed.

To equate keeping green taxes with elderly people freezing to death and industries closing is pure hyperbole .

edmundintokyo

rcs1000 said:

If you wish to abolish the free movement of labour, then you are going to need to pursue some seriously pro-natal policies. Something which, as the Singaporeans have discovered, is incredibly difficult.

This has been Japan's (completely ineffective) policy for the last couple of decades, too.

Getting people to stay at work for longer might be an option, but in the context of Japanese organizations I'm not sure it would help. The big problem in a lot of Japanese companies seems to be that they have a hard time passing control down to a younger generation, so they end up run by people who can't adapt to change. A common solution is to retire then take a job as a caretaker or a shop assistant, but there's a limit to how much you can do for GDP by competing in the part-time job market with university students.

SouthamObserver

rcs1000 said:

Another_Richard,

You are absolutely right that the biggest element in solving the demographic issues we face has to be a very substantial increase in the retirement age over the next quarter century. My favourite fact on longevity is that female life expectancy in the UK had risen by four months a year, in pretty much a straight line, since 1840.

But it is worth remembering that, if our TFR remains below 2.1, then the dependancy ratio will continue to worsen. If you wish to abolish the free movement of labour, then you are going to need to pursue some seriously pro-natal policies. Something which, as the Singaporeans have discovered, is incredibly difficult.

The problem with increasing retirement ages is that they keep younger people out of jobs - especially ones that do not involve much physical activity.

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

rcs1000 said:

Another_Richard,

You are absolutely right that the biggest element in solving the demographic issues we face has to be a very substantial increase in the retirement age over the next quarter century. My favourite fact on longevity is that female life expectancy in the UK had risen by four months a year, in pretty much a straight line, since 1840.

But it is worth remembering that, if our TFR remains below 2.1, then the dependancy ratio will continue to worsen. If you wish to abolish the free movement of labour, then you are going to need to pursue some seriously pro-natal policies. Something which, as the Singaporeans have discovered, is incredibly difficult.

The problem with increasing retirement ages is that they keep younger people out of jobs - especially ones that do not involve much physical activity.

The lump of labour fallacy is still a fallacy whether it's applied to immigrants or people in their sixties.

another_richard

rcs1000 said:

Another_Richard,

You are absolutely right that the biggest element in solving the demographic issues we face has to be a very substantial increase in the retirement age over the next quarter century. My favourite fact on longevity is that female life expectancy in the UK had risen by four months a year, in pretty much a straight line, since 1840.

But it is worth remembering that, if our TFR remains below 2.1, then the dependancy ratio will continue to worsen. If you wish to abolish the free movement of labour, then you are going to need to pursue some seriously pro-natal policies. Something which, as the Singaporeans have discovered, is incredibly difficult.

I'd let anyone come here provided they can earn £1000 per week. I think that would show how many of our immigrants were 'highly skilled'.

With millions unemployed and falling productivity, not to mention our housing, infrastructure and transport problems, I don't see any benefit in letting in more people to wash cars, wipe tables or pick potatoes no matter how young they are.

dr_spyn

LATEST:Shadow Culture Secretary Harriet Harman says papers have nothing to fear from a proposed new system of press regulation...

Well she would say that, wouldn't she. I'm so reassured by her weasel words, not.