He still thought that on balance "No" would win but clearly felt that the odds were in the 55/45 region rather than a dead cert.
Welcome MaxU - I suspect your source is right on the likely outcome and the SNP's re-positioning - Salmond drove a stake through the heart of the 'Tartan Tories' meme as he came out as 'Red Eck' in his speech.
Though his belief in Scots significantly greater desire for 'social democracy' than the English is largely wishful thinking:
"So those who hope that independence would pave the way for Scotland to become a markedly more social democratic country that in addition would wish to be in the European fast lane should perhaps not set their expectations too high. At present at least, what Scotland wants looks too similar to what England wants for us to assume that is what would happen."
If Labour don't win Dunfermline it will be a rude wake up call - and if they do, it might give them a false sense of security, given the local issues involved.....
The point is not so much that such a result would have terrible consequences for Labour (which is self-evident) but that senior circles within the Labour party are clearly taking the possibility of such a result very seriously indeed.
* Apologies- I am not sure how to embed your posts in my reply so I have given up trying!
Welcome to PB, MaxU
Either way its good news for the Tories - keeping the Union is what most want, losing Labour MPs if its broken up suits them politically.
I'm in favour of the Union myself, but just watching from the sidelines as a Sussex resident.
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv Home Sec Theresa May will confirm within the hour that the controversial "Go Home" vans will be SCRAPPED (or the trial will not be extended)
He still thought that on balance "No" would win but clearly felt that the odds were in the 55/45 region rather than a dead cert. Obviously he agreed that a "Yes" would have cataclysmic effects for the whole of British politics but did not elaborate on what they might be. It was evident that the potential for a Yes vote is currently giving the upper echelons of the Labour Party nightmares.
I have a feeling - based on absolutely nothing at all - that the Yes vote might just edge it. Jolly interesting if they do.
As someone living and working north of the Border "interesting" is not the word I would use. But Unionists should be and are a little nervous. This is partly from respect for Salmond and of course the 2011 results which were a bit of a shock.
It is partly from the power of government. Including LG spending some £300m a year is spent promoting Scottish culture. Much of that emphasises our separateness and different voice. It completely dwarfs any political spending and the spending is being maintained until 2014, funnily enough.
There is a possible effect from the Commonwealth Games.
There is the lack of major players at the top of the Labour party from Scotland for the first time for a very long time. Are Scots being listened to?
North Warwickshire is a seat which is swinging towards the Conservatives demographically, so the odds of 6.0 look quite enticing.
I disagree , Andy , on the CC results in May the Conservatives are toast . It is the Nuneaton wards in the constituency which have swung very strongly to Labour .
He doesn't come to any sort of conclusion other than brand. There is no doubt a problem here, but I think the bigger split is between urban and suburban/rural, and there are more urban areas in the north and midlands than in the south.
Here is Peter's colleague Anthony Wells and Neil O'Brien (now an adviser to Osborne) with a useful huge tome:
Implications on betting as well. The Tories just don't win many big city seats these days. I don't know if that is going to change.
That's a very interesting piece from Kellner. However, it's worth bearing in mind that the North East and Yorkshire and Humberside produced big pro-Conservative swings in 2010 (6.8%, and 6.6% respectively, compared to 5.5% nationally). Indeed, had the early results from places like Sunderland, and Darlington been repeated across the country as a whole, the Conservatives would have won an overall majority.
I don't think that it's a Northern problem per se, as there are signficant parts of the North where the Conservatives are either safe (North and East Yorkshire, Cheshire commuter belt) or competitive (West Yorkshire, Lancashire). I think it's a problem that's specific to Merseyside, Sheffield, Manchester, and Newcastle/Gateshead.
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
"the deficit for the first six months of the fiscal year at £56.7bn, down 9pc on last year. (This strips out one off effects such as the £3.2bn sale of Lloyds shares, and the £4bn transferred from the Bank of England's asset purchases)."
A 9% reduction over the year would produce a reduction in the PSBR ex of about £10bn. Given the growth forecasts at the start of the year and the growth now that would actually be quite disappointing. I am hoping for a PSBR ex just under the £100bn.
Talking of growth Avery's SWIFT nowcast figure of 0.8% on Friday was a little disappointing. People have been triming back their forecasts a little as there were once suggestions it might be as high as 1.2%. I think 1% growth would be far more noteworthy and have a bigger influence on economic optimism than something short of that.
I do not expect an immediate reaction in the polls but the tories will want to get back on the right track and get to cross over if only for the likely Labour reaction.
Public sector borrowing should come in at about 5.5% of GDP in 2013/14. That's half the figure for 2009/10. That's actually quite a significant rate of reduction.
It is partly from the power of government. Including LG spending some £300m a year is spent promoting Scottish culture. Much of that emphasises our separateness and different voice. It completely dwarfs any political spending and the spending is being maintained until 2014, funnily enough. ... There is a public perception, not really borne out on analysis (see http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/two-different-countries-scottish-and-english-attitudes-to-equality-and-europe/) that Scotland has different social priorities from England.
I am nervous. I wouldn't deny it for a second.
Salmond has the unique advantage of being able to combine the advantages of Government [in Holyrood] with the advantages of Opposition [to the UK Government in Westminster].
There's also always the possibility with a referendum that the vote ends up being about something else then the question on the ballot paper. Salmond would dearly love the question in people's minds to be something like "Do you want to protect Scotland from Tories?"
I'd give Hampstead a miss though. The Tories did exceptionally well there last time and Glenda only needs a few of LD voters to return 'home'. She's pretty safe, imo.
She's not standing this time - the Labour candidate is Tulip Siddiq:
You might be right, although some of the capitalisation is a bit odd for someone with an English degree. Whoever wrote it does not name Tulip's school, which cynics might therefore suspect is not the local bog-standard comprehensive. Her aunt being Prime Minister of Bangladesh is a nice, throw-away line.
Joe Murphy @JoeMurphyLondon BREAKING Stuart Hall to be stripped of OBE (@EveningStandard scoop - not 'sky sources' or 'bbc has learned'!) standard.co.uk/news/crime/sex…
"the deficit for the first six months of the fiscal year at £56.7bn, down 9pc on last year. (This strips out one off effects such as the £3.2bn sale of Lloyds shares, and the £4bn transferred from the Bank of England's asset purchases)."
A 9% reduction over the year would produce a reduction in the PSBR ex of about £10bn. Given the growth forecasts at the start of the year and the growth now that would actually be quite disappointing. I am hoping for a PSBR ex just under the £100bn.
Talking of growth Avery's SWIFT nowcast figure of 0.8% on Friday was a little disappointing. People have been triming back their forecasts a little as there were once suggestions it might be as high as 1.2%. I think 1% growth would be far more noteworthy and have a bigger influence on economic optimism than something short of that.
I do not expect an immediate reaction in the polls but the tories will want to get back on the right track and get to cross over if only for the likely Labour reaction.
Public sector borrowing should come in at about 5.5% of GDP in 2013/14. That's half the figure for 2009/10. That's actually quite a significant rate of reduction.
Oh I agree. But as Osborne himself has been pointing out repeatedly the UK still has one of the highest deficits in the G20. Debt continues to accumulate in absolute terms and as a share of GDP.
Cutting the deficit in a time of low to no growth took considerable political courage and nerve. I just hope that now we are having at least a boomlet that faster progress can be made. There are signs but they are tentative.
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
They certainly would - independence wouldn't happen (on the SNP's timescale) until 2016, and in practice I wouldn't be at all surprised if unravelling three centuries of union, and negotiating terms with the EU, took longer.
Of course, it's true that in the event of a Yes result, Scottish voters might behave very differently in the GE (presumably to the disbenefit of Labour and the benefit of the SNP). But that doesn't actually affect the analysis at all - with only one Conservative seat, and little prospect of a significant increase on that in Scotland, Scotland is largely irrelevant to whether the Tories can get a majority.
It is partly from the power of government. Including LG spending some £300m a year is spent promoting Scottish culture. Much of that emphasises our separateness and different voice. It completely dwarfs any political spending and the spending is being maintained until 2014, funnily enough. ... There is a public perception, not really borne out on analysis (see http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/two-different-countries-scottish-and-english-attitudes-to-equality-and-europe/) that Scotland has different social priorities from England.
I am nervous. I wouldn't deny it for a second.
Salmond would dearly love the question in people's minds to be something like "Do you want to protect Scotland from Tories?"
Hence the hilariously transparent attempts to get Cameron to debate with him......
It is partly from the power of government. Including LG spending some £300m a year is spent promoting Scottish culture. Much of that emphasises our separateness and different voice. It completely dwarfs any political spending and the spending is being maintained until 2014, funnily enough. ... There is a public perception, not really borne out on analysis (see http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/two-different-countries-scottish-and-english-attitudes-to-equality-and-europe/) that Scotland has different social priorities from England.
I am nervous. I wouldn't deny it for a second.
Salmond has the unique advantage of being able to combine the advantages of Government [in Holyrood] with the advantages of Opposition [to the UK Government in Westminster].
There's also always the possibility with a referendum that the vote ends up being about something else then the question on the ballot paper. Salmond would dearly love the question in people's minds to be something like "Do you want to protect Scotland from Tories?"
Quite. Any link between this desire and the demands that he debate Cameron are entirely coincidental.
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
They certainly would - independence wouldn't happen (on the SNP's timescale) until 2016, and in practice I wouldn't be at all surprised if unravelling three centuries of union took longer.
Of course, it's true that in the event of a Yes result, Scottish voters might behave very differently in the GE (presumably to the disbenefit of Labour). But that doesn't actually affect the analysis at all - with only one Conservative seat, and little prospect of a significant increase on that in Scotland, Scotland is largely irrelevant to whether the Tories can get a majority.
WIll the Scots still vote in the GE if there is a Yes vote ?
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
They certainly would - independence wouldn't happen (on the SNP's timescale) until 2016, and in practice I wouldn't be at all surprised if unravelling three centuries of union, and negotiating terms with the EU, took longer.
Of course, it's true that in the event of a Yes result, Scottish voters might behave very differently in the GE (presumably to the disbenefit of Labour and the benefit of the SNP). But that doesn't actually affect the analysis at all - with only one Conservative seat, and little prospect of a significant increase on that in Scotland, Scotland is largely irrelevant to whether the Tories can get a majority.
I just can't imagine a rUK Parliament allowing Scottish MPs to take their seats after 2015 in the event of a yes vote. Even a PM Miliband would find it incredibly hard to sell. Parliament would rightly be expecting to be consulted and to approve the rUK negotiating position. How could Scots possibly have a say on that?
WIll the Scots still vote in the GE if there is a Yes vote ?
Serious question ^^;
Yes, certainly. Why wouldn't they? The union would still be alive in May 2015, albeit on death row.
It would screw up my entire General Election book if they couldn't - so was just a bit worried. But yes constitutionally the UK is still the UK in 2015 regardless of the vote
Good afternoon, everyone (actually, it isn't, I'm suffering computer woe, but still).
A flying visit: if the Scots vote Yes then it would be morally indefensible and completely ****ing insane to have them potentially on both sides of the negotiating table for separation talks.
I just can't imagine a rUK Parliament allowing Scottish MPs to take their seats after 2015 in the event of a yes vote. Even a PM Miliband would find it incredibly hard to sell. Parliament would rightly be expecting to be consulted and to approve the rUK negotiating position. How could Scots possibly have a say on that?
It wouldn't be a rUK Parliament. It would be the UK parliament, and the current one at that. The only way the Scottish MPs could be excluded would be if this parliament somehow managed to pass a bill disenfranchising Scots before May 2015. That is inconceivable.
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
They certainly would - independence wouldn't happen (on the SNP's timescale) until 2016, and in practice I wouldn't be at all surprised if unravelling three centuries of union, and negotiating terms with the EU, took longer.
Of course, it's true that in the event of a Yes result, Scottish voters might behave very differently in the GE (presumably to the disbenefit of Labour and the benefit of the SNP). But that doesn't actually affect the analysis at all - with only one Conservative seat, and little prospect of a significant increase on that in Scotland, Scotland is largely irrelevant to whether the Tories can get a majority.
I just can't imagine a rUK Parliament allowing Scottish MPs to take their seats after 2015 in the event of a yes vote. Even a PM Miliband would find it incredibly hard to sell. Parliament would rightly be expecting to be consulted and to approve the rUK negotiating position. How could Scots possibly have a say on that?
OTOH Scots still need representation at a UK level from 2015 GE through to independence.
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
They certainly would - independence wouldn't happen (on the SNP's timescale) until 2016, and in practice I wouldn't be at all surprised if unravelling three centuries of union took longer.
Of course, it's true that in the event of a Yes result, Scottish voters might behave very differently in the GE (presumably to the disbenefit of Labour). But that doesn't actually affect the analysis at all - with only one Conservative seat, and little prospect of a significant increase on that in Scotland, Scotland is largely irrelevant to whether the Tories can get a majority.
WIll the Scots still vote in the GE if there is a Yes vote ?
Serious question ^^;
I wonder whether they might pass some emergency legislation allowing the existing Scottish MPs to continue to sit until Scottish independence is formalised. In other words to ensure that the 2015 General Election will not take place in Scotland- there seems little point in electing a set of MPs for a bunch of constituencies that will not exist a year later.
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
They certainly would - independence wouldn't happen (on the SNP's timescale) until 2016, and in practice I wouldn't be at all surprised if unravelling three centuries of union took longer.
Of course, it's true that in the event of a Yes result, Scottish voters might behave very differently in the GE (presumably to the disbenefit of Labour). But that doesn't actually affect the analysis at all - with only one Conservative seat, and little prospect of a significant increase on that in Scotland, Scotland is largely irrelevant to whether the Tories can get a majority.
WIll the Scots still vote in the GE if there is a Yes vote ?
Serious question ^^;
I wonder whether they might pass some emergency legislation allowing the existing Scottish MPs to continue to sit until Scottish independence is formalised. In other words to ensure that the 2015 General Election will not take place in Scotland- there seems little point in electing a set of MPs for a bunch of constituencies that will not exist a year later.
I just can't imagine a rUK Parliament allowing Scottish MPs to take their seats after 2015 in the event of a yes vote. Even a PM Miliband would find it incredibly hard to sell. Parliament would rightly be expecting to be consulted and to approve the rUK negotiating position. How could Scots possibly have a say on that?
It wouldn't be a rUK Parliament. It would be the UK parliament, and the current one at that. The only way the Scottish MPs could be excluded would be if this parliament somehow managed to pass a bill disenfranchising Scots before May 2015. That is inconceivable.
I respectfully disagree. I think it would be inevitable and my guess is that Salmond would support it. What better way of cutting off Scottish Labour at the knees?
Scots really have to realise this is not a game. It is real. If we vote yes the UK is over. There is no going back. The details may take a while but the choice is made. I think the consequences would begin almost immediately.
I'd give Hampstead a miss though. The Tories did exceptionally well there last time and Glenda only needs a few of LD voters to return 'home'. She's pretty safe, imo.
She's not standing this time - the Labour candidate is Tulip Siddiq:
You might be right, although some of the capitalisation is a bit odd for someone with an English degree. Whoever wrote it does not name Tulip's school, which cynics might therefore suspect is not the local bog-standard comprehensive. Her aunt being Prime Minister of Bangladesh is a nice, throw-away line.
She lived abroad for much of her somewhat privileged childhood and - I believe - went to North London Collegiate School (a private school) for A-levels. Her background and experience (all in politics) is the usual one to expect of candidates these days and why I consider her the least interesting and experienced of all the candidates. Hampstead is the launch pad for her glittering career, I expect.
Oh to have a candidate who has done something other than leave school and university and boast about her family background....
(And yes I know she's a councillor but so were plenty of other Labour hopefuls.)
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
They certainly would - independence wouldn't happen (on the SNP's timescale) until 2016, and in practice I wouldn't be at all surprised if unravelling three centuries of union, and negotiating terms with the EU, took longer.
Of course, it's true that in the event of a Yes result, Scottish voters might behave very differently in the GE (presumably to the disbenefit of Labour and the benefit of the SNP). But that doesn't actually affect the analysis at all - with only one Conservative seat, and little prospect of a significant increase on that in Scotland, Scotland is largely irrelevant to whether the Tories can get a majority.
I just can't imagine a rUK Parliament allowing Scottish MPs to take their seats after 2015 in the event of a yes vote. Even a PM Miliband would find it incredibly hard to sell. Parliament would rightly be expecting to be consulted and to approve the rUK negotiating position. How could Scots possibly have a say on that?
OTOH Scots still need representation at a UK level from 2015 GE through to independence.
I sincerely hope this is academic but if there is a yes vote the Scottish representation will come from the Scottish Government negotiating with Westminster on a quasi state to state basis.
Why on earth would Salmond want 40 Labour MPs to still have a platform or any form of legitimacy?
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
independence wouldn't happen (on the SNP's timescale) until 2016
Once again, the SNP presumes something which is not solely within its gift - the actual date of independence would be subject to negotiation - it might be in the interest of the coalition to bring it forward.
In the event of separation, why should the date be set for the convenience of 8% of the Union, not the remaining 92%?
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
They certainly would - independence wouldn't happen (on the SNP's timescale) until 2016, and in practice I wouldn't be at all surprised if unravelling three centuries of union took longer.
Of course, it's true that in the event of a Yes result, Scottish voters might behave very differently in the GE (presumably to the disbenefit of Labour). But that doesn't actually affect the analysis at all - with only one Conservative seat, and little prospect of a significant increase on that in Scotland, Scotland is largely irrelevant to whether the Tories can get a majority.
WIll the Scots still vote in the GE if there is a Yes vote ?
Serious question ^^;
Yes they would - a more interesting question may be would the SNP field candidates ?
Does anybody know what happened to Irish Westminster MPs when Ireland got independence?
Irish independence formally took place on 6 December 1922 just after a UK general election on 15 November 1922 in which the Southern Irish constituencies were not contested. Indeed the question was in itself largely immaterial as the vast majority of Southern Irish MPs in the 1918-22 UK Parliament were Sinn Fein and therefore had not taken up their seats.
Unfortunately the putative Scottish independence date will not coincide so easily with the UK General Election and the vast majority of Scottish MPs do not belong to the nationalist party- so the Irish precedent is not very useful.
Does anybody know what happened to Irish Westminster MPs when Ireland got independence?
I think all but one of the MPs elected in 1918 from what would become the Irish Free State refused to take up their seats at Westminster, as they were members of Sinn Fein - thus they convened the first Dail, and the War of Independence began.
It is fortunately a very different situation with Scottish independence. I'm minded to agree with DavidL that there would be no MPs from Scotland in Westminster following a 2015 general election, if Scotland votes for independence. Scotland would have its MPs at Holyrood.
Given that Danny Alexander has been mentioned in the thread - what would a yes vote do to the members of the Coalition government from Scotland if the vote was yes? I'd think that Danny Alexander and others would have to immediately resign their position as Government ministers if there were a Yes vote.
Which Cabinet ministers are there with seats in Scotland? Might it be worth a bet or two on the next Cabinet exit betting?
Sometimes voters get fed up with an mp who's overstayed their welcome. It happened in Hampshire East in 2005 with Michael Mates: what used to be one of the safest Tory seats in the majority had it's Conservative majority to 5,000 votes.
I just can't imagine a rUK Parliament allowing Scottish MPs to take their seats after 2015 in the event of a yes vote. Even a PM Miliband would find it incredibly hard to sell. Parliament would rightly be expecting to be consulted and to approve the rUK negotiating position. How could Scots possibly have a say on that?
It wouldn't be a rUK Parliament. It would be the UK parliament, and the current one at that. The only way the Scottish MPs could be excluded would be if this parliament somehow managed to pass a bill disenfranchising Scots before May 2015. That is inconceivable.
I respectfully disagree. I think it would be inevitable and my guess is that Salmond would support it. What better way of cutting off Scottish Labour at the knees?
Scots really have to realise this is not a game. It is real. If we vote yes the UK is over. There is no going back. The details may take a while but the choice is made. I think the consequences would begin almost immediately.
Presumably the way to square the circle is that Holyrood should nominate 49 temporary representatives to stand up for Scottish issues in reserved matters. But they shouldn't have any vote or say on the negotiation of the separation.
A Yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum would undoubtedly mean a Tory overall majority in 2015. It would wipe out 59 seats, only one of which is Conservative held.
Suggestion that the Tories wouldn't accept another coalition and Cameron is finished unless he wins a decent sized majority.
Given the probability of a grand coalition in Germany making his renegotiation stance even more ludicrous perhaps it's best that they hang him from the lamp post immediately anyway.
Ah the "good election to lose theory".
Unfortunately it never quite works out as planned - either the govt who wins it does better than thought (e.g. the Con-LD coalition of 2010) or the govt ferks it up beyond recognition shafting the country (e.g. Blair-Brown in 2005).
The French found this out to their cost:
"Professor Régniez believes this is very dangerous. “Sarkozy narrowly lost in 2012 for personal reasons – his style annoyed voters who could have agreed on his policies, but who wanted to punish him: 18 per cent of them voted for Marine Le Pen, against only 5 per cent for her father in 2007.
“This should be a warning to other countries, like Britain – it’s all very well punishing a conservative politician you’re dissatisfied with by voting for a maverick, Le Pen here, Farage there. But it gets the likes of Hollande elected. Think well: is ours the kind of future you want for your country?”"
IMO another fairly immediate consequence of a yes vote would be the repeal of the Scotland Act 1998 and the transfer of all reserved matters to Scotland with transitional provisions in place for negotiating their interests with rUK. This would be essential to allow departments to be formed, for departments to be in place for independence and for negotiations to take place about the division of shared assets.
The Scottish Parliament, god help us, would become the Scottish Government in waiting and would not tolerate any interlopers or competitors. The argument that Scots should have some right to vote or be represented in Westminster pro tem really does not bear analysis.
There may be an intervening period between the vote and 2015 but I agree that the resignation of Scottish ministers would also be very likely. Elvis would have left the building.
A Yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum would undoubtedly mean a Tory overall majority in 2015. It would wipe out 59 seats, only one of which is Conservative held.
If Labour and the Tories are level-pegging on votes across the UK, then they will have roughly equal numbers of seats in the UK, excluding Scotland.
The Conservatives might be able to scrape a majority in the UK, excluding Scotland, if their vote lead across the whole of the UK was about 4%.
Of course, there is no telling what a Scottish vote for Independence would do for politics in England and Wales.
Yesterday I had a brief conversation with a well known expert on political history, who is also fairly senior within the Parliamentary Labour Party about the likely result of the Scottish Independence Referendum.
To my surprise he anticipated that the referendum would be much closer than current expectations. His reasons were (in the following order of priority):
1. The very poor state of the Labour Party North of the border- to the extent that he thought it would struggle to get the vote out on the day.
2. The continuing popularity of the SNP government- he felt that this would have more of an effect as the referendum drew closer.
3. The attempts by the SNP to eat into Labour's working class Scottish vote for the purposes of the referendum by espousing "socialist" policies.
He still thought that on balance "No" would win but clearly felt that the odds were in the 55/45 region rather than a dead cert. Obviously he agreed that a "Yes" would have cataclysmic effects for the whole of British politics but did not elaborate on what they might be. It was evident that the potential for a Yes vote is currently giving the upper echelons of the Labour Party nightmares.
Welcome!
I see that your post has set the cat among the pigeons. Good. Far too much complacency around here.
The 55/45 figure looks about right, for now, but I suspect that it will get even tighter as polling day approaches. I haven't got a clue which side will win, but it always fascinates me how many folk here at PB seem to be utterly convinced that they know the result 11 months before a single vote has been cast. A lot of very deluded and ill-informed people out there.
A Yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum would undoubtedly mean a Tory overall majority in 2015. It would wipe out 59 seats, only one of which is Conservative held.
No, I don't think this is true. It substantially increases the chances of a Tory MINORITY Gov't (Is SeanF/Richard N's analysis is correct) I think - which is different particularly from a betting perspective.
He doesn't come to any sort of conclusion other than brand. There is no doubt a problem here, but I think the bigger split is between urban and suburban/rural, and there are more urban areas in the north and midlands than in the south.
Here is Peter's colleague Anthony Wells and Neil O'Brien (now an adviser to Osborne) with a useful huge tome:
Implications on betting as well. The Tories just don't win many big city seats these days. I don't know if that is going to change.
That's a very interesting piece from Kellner. However, it's worth bearing in mind that the North East and Yorkshire and Humberside produced big pro-Conservative swings in 2010 (6.8%, and 6.6% respectively, compared to 5.5% nationally). Indeed, had the early results from places like Sunderland, and Darlington been repeated across the country as a whole, the Conservatives would have won an overall majority.
I don't think that it's a Northern problem per se, as there are signficant parts of the North where the Conservatives are either safe (North and East Yorkshire, Cheshire commuter belt) or competitive (West Yorkshire, Lancashire). I think it's a problem that's specific to Merseyside, Sheffield, Manchester, and Newcastle/Gateshead.
There's a widespread assumption from London based politicians and commentators that northern England consists of either big cities or pretty countryside.
As elsewhere its the medium sized towns which are electorally important in northern England.
While the best hope for Conservative gains in northern England lies not in middle class urban areas but in the industrial sprawls.
To get an overall majority in 2020 the Conservatives will have to make gains in the likes of Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Don Valley, Morley, Penistone and Wakefield.
I suspect that is not a message which the Cameroons are interested in hearing.
Talking of Scottish Independence, I wonder how much influence the Grangemouth dispute might have on the vote?
I see things are going well, as Swinney tries to find a buyer for a refinery he doesn't own.
'The owner of the Grangemouth refinery, currently shut down during a bitter dispute with staff, has told Sky News it did not know the Scottish Government was seeking a new buyer.'
David Prescott got 2 union nominations (USDAW and CWU) in the Greenwich and Woolwich selection race. So he will be on the longlist called for shortlisting interviews.
2 candidates are already automatically shortlisted because the ward branches that nominated them cover more than half of the membership.
One of the many scary ideas of independence is John Swinney negotiating head to head with George Osborne. From the Sky Article:
"Mr Swinney dismissed any idea of Government ownership of the site as "not appropriate".
"We are in a situation where the plant is operating successfully within the marketplace and it can work and operate more successfully in the market place," he said."
Operating successfully within the marketplace? Has he not understood anything that has been said? Does he not understand what this dispute is about?
If a deficit of £10m a month on a single plant in urgent need of a substantial capital injection to survive is "operating successfully" the financial prospects of an independent Scotland are bleak indeed.
Great, well-argued post Richard - thanks. The disappointment for me is how few constituencies feature so far in the bookies' lists now that we are very nearly within 18 months of the GE.
It would be good to hear about PBers favourite bets as things stand - mine are for Danny Alexander to hold his seat in Inverness for the LibDems and for the Greens' Caroline Lucas to lose out to Labour in Brighton Pavilion.
Talking of Scottish Independence, I wonder how much influence the Grangemouth dispute might have on the vote?
I see things are going well, as Swinney tries to find a buyer for a refinery he doesn't own.
'The owner of the Grangemouth refinery, currently shut down during a bitter dispute with staff, has told Sky News it did not know the Scottish Government was seeking a new buyer.'
One of the many scary ideas of independence is John Swinney negotiating head to head with George Osborne. From the Sky Article:
"Mr Swinney dismissed any idea of Government ownership of the site as "not appropriate".
"We are in a situation where the plant is operating successfully within the marketplace and it can work and operate more successfully in the market place," he said."
Operating successfully within the marketplace? Has he not understood anything that has been said? Does he not understand what this dispute is about?
If a deficit of £10m a month on a single plant in urgent need of a substantial capital injection to survive is "operating successfully" the financial prospects of an independent Scotland are bleak indeed.
Swinney is clueless, but his feeble understanding of economics and finance is no different to that shown by his fellow travellers on this very website.
Great, well-argued post Richard - thanks. The disappointment for me is how few constituencies feature so far in the bookies' lists now that we are very nearly within 18 months of the GE.
It would be good to hear about PBers favourite bets as things stand - mine are for Danny Alexander to hold his seat in Inverness for the LibDems and for the Greens' Caroline Lucas to lose out to Labour in Brighton Pavilion.
Shadsy thinks Danny Alexander will hold just so you know. His Bristol mayor 'tip' on here proved some anecdote about 'never trusting' a bookie's tips though ;P
Does anybody know what happened to Irish Westminster MPs when Ireland got independence?
Irish MPs from outside the Six Counties continued to have the right to sit and vote until the creation of the Irish Free State. The Anglo-Irish Treaty, in which the principle of the Irish Free State was agreed, was signed on 6 December 1921. On 31st March 1922, section 1(4) of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922 prohibited the issue of writs for by-elections to the United Kingdom Parliament for Southern Irish constituencies. That Act also gave legal recognition to the Treaty for the first time, and dissolved the Parliament of Southern Ireland, and transferred its powers to the Provisional Government. On 5 December 1922, the Irish Free State (Constitution) Act 1922 was passed to ratify the treaty, which came into force in accordance with a proclamation of George V dated the following day. The Irish Free State existed, and thereafter no Southern Irish MPs could sit or vote in the House of Commons.
This is of course the legalist line. The Irish nationalist line is that the Republic of Ireland existed from its proclamation on 24 April 1916, and that it constituted treason to that republic for one of its citizens to sit and vote in a foreign legislature, purporting to exercise jurisdiction over the republic.
Given the Independence referendum has been mentioned, a few days ago I noticed the Civil Service graduate fast stream was advertising one of its roles with the strap line "Saving the Union (as a civil servant)". You can find it on the link below, basically says as the UK government is committed to saving the Union the civil service is allowed to be solely on the side of the union.
Given the Independence referendum has been mentioned, a few days ago I noticed the Civil Service graduate fast stream was advertising one of its roles with the strap line "Saving the Union (as a civil servant)". You can find it on the link below, basically says as the UK government is committed to saving the Union the civil service is allowed to be solely on the side of the union.
Richard's truly excellent thread doesn't really deserve to be overtaken by Scottish referendum "what if's?" However...
I expect the Conservatives to have overtaken Labour in the polls by the time of the referendum. That will make it far easier for Salmon to run "Vote No, Get Tories..." (The flip side of that might also be appealing to many Scots - "vote yes - have England stuffed with the Tories!")
I personally think the SNP have a nightmarish mish-mash of answers to the fundamental issues of the Scottish economy, but nothwithstanding that, I too expect the vote to be quite close. If it should turn into a yes, Labour lose their own Scottish regiment of MP's. BUT...How much of a kicking will Cameron get for having had the Union dismantled on his watch? I honestly don't know. I can see some Tories being so pissed off that they will go to UKIP. Which presumably will now be renamed rUKIP...
Equally, if the vote is to remain in the UK, will Cameron get any sort of bounce for seeing off Salmond? And what happens to the SNP if the vote is lost - do they start bleeding voters away to the main Westminster parties again? Would welcome some impartial assessment from up beyond the border as to where Scotland goes if the vote is lost.
Perhaps worthy of a thread of its own. If only so we can look back at it in a year's time to see what we got right and wrong....
Does anybody know what happened to Irish Westminster MPs when Ireland got independence?
Irish MPs from outside the Six Counties continued to have the right to sit and vote until the creation of the Irish Free State. The Anglo-Irish Treaty, in which the principle of the Irish Free State was agreed, was signed on 6 December 1921. On 31st March 1922, section 1(4) of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922 prohibited the issue of writs for by-elections to the United Kingdom Parliament for Southern Irish constituencies. That Act also gave legal recognition to the Treaty for the first time, and dissolved the Parliament of Southern Ireland, and transferred its powers to the Provisional Government. On 5 December 1922, the Irish Free State (Constitution) Act 1922 was passed to ratify the treaty, which came into force in accordance with a proclamation of George V dated the following day. The Irish Free State existed, and thereafter no Southern Irish MPs could sit or vote in the House of Commons.
This is of course the legalist line. The Irish nationalist line is that the Republic of Ireland existed from its proclamation on 24 April 1916, and that it constituted treason to that republic for one of its citizens to sit and vote in a foreign legislature, purporting to exercise jurisdiction over the republic.
Many thanks for that interesting post.
It rather confirms my views that in the event of a yes vote there will be no Scottish MPs in Westminster after 2015. Any politician wanting a continuing role in Scottish politics will be anxiously looking for a seat for the election to a new, sovereign, Scottish Parliament.
Gah, just had a springboard member statisfaction survey. They finish with a forced choice question after asking what I don't like about their surveys - the BS forced choice questions that force me to lie & thereby ruin their results. Why do they bother with such questions especially when you have already indicated you would not/are not/couldn't give a XXXX about the subject
A 9% reduction over the year would produce a reduction in the PSBR ex of about £10bn. Given the growth forecasts at the start of the year and the growth now that would actually be quite disappointing. I am hoping for a PSBR ex just under the £100bn.
Talking of growth Avery's SWIFT nowcast figure of 0.8% on Friday was a little disappointing. People have been triming back their forecasts a little as there were once suggestions it might be as high as 1.2%. I think 1% growth would be far more noteworthy and have a bigger influence on economic optimism than something short of that.
David
I only had a chance to have to a quick look at the PSF bulletin this morning so will comment in greater detail later.
SWIFT's final nowcast for Q3 GDP lowered last month's 0.8% to 0.7%, which was, as you say, disappointing. SWIFT vary their methodology for their final nowcast from that used for the second of three. The final estimate uses more data from ONS, whereas the middle nowcast is more dependent on their own SWIFT transaction data. This can lead to large discrepancies between the two as we saw for Q2 when the middle nowcast was for 0.1% and a month later the final estimate was 0.7%.
This time around the difference, only 0.1%, has been much smaller and goes in the opposite direction. If may indicate that international trade and b2b payments (SWIFT's core business) have held up better than other components of GDP, but this is purely uninformed conjecture.
The Public Finances figures are really very much better than the headline announcements suggest. But before going into detail, it is interesting to note that even Robert Chote has thrown in the towel in the OBR's commentary on this month s PSF Bulletin. Up to now he has been defending his March EFO forecasts even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary by saying we need to "wait and see". So the following paragraph from this month is welcome:
Following a further downward revision, borrowing in 2012-13 is now estimated to have been £5.5 billion lower than we assumed in our March EFO. Consequently our March forecast for borrowing in 2013-14 now implies a £4.4 billion increase over 2012-13. But with borrowing £5.9 billion down from last year over the first six months of the year, this would require a significant reversal of the recent trend. We will publish new forecasts alongside the Autumn Statement on 4 December.
Oh happy days when a quarter's growth of 0.7% is disappointing! Still hoping for more though. The sales figures recently have been really good and this is supported in the revised increases in VAT shown in this morning's figures.
Good article Richard. Uncharacteristically non partisan.
OT. Sadly the vans have gone. I was looking forward to them being rolled out to areas like Mayfair and Chelsea so we could show the world what Tory Britain really looks like.
Do the bookies have rules that would apply if there were no Scottish MPs elected in 2015? Without Scotland the gap between the tories and Labour would be 97 which at the very least would significantly affect the odds of a tory majority. How would this be taken into account? Is there a precedent that they would turn to?
Comments
Though his belief in Scots significantly greater desire for 'social democracy' than the English is largely wishful thinking:
"So those who hope that independence would pave the way for Scotland to become a markedly more social democratic country that in addition would wish to be in the European fast lane should perhaps not set their expectations too high. At present at least, what Scotland wants looks too similar to what England wants for us to assume that is what would happen."
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/two-different-countries-scottish-and-english-attitudes-to-equality-and-europe/
If Labour don't win Dunfermline it will be a rude wake up call - and if they do, it might give them a false sense of security, given the local issues involved.....
Either way its good news for the Tories - keeping the Union is what most want, losing Labour MPs if its broken up suits them politically.
I'm in favour of the Union myself, but just watching from the sidelines as a Sussex resident.
Betfair best price for Lab maj.
If you want to reply to two quotes, open a new browser window and cut'n'paste the 'quote' from the second quote onto the first quote page.
Odder still, George Galloway says he admires @Nigel_Farage ... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/gorgeous-george-galloway-flirts-with-being-london-mayor-to-escape-tedium-of-parliament-8896172.html …
Joe Watts @JoeWatts_ 3m
George Galloway talks of quitting Commons to run for London mayor.. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/gorgeous-george-galloway-flirts-with-being-london-mayor-to-escape-tedium-of-parliament-8896172.html …
It is partly from the power of government. Including LG spending some £300m a year is spent promoting Scottish culture. Much of that emphasises our separateness and different voice. It completely dwarfs any political spending and the spending is being maintained until 2014, funnily enough.
There is a possible effect from the Commonwealth Games.
There is the lack of major players at the top of the Labour party from Scotland for the first time for a very long time. Are Scots being listened to?
There is a public perception, not really borne out on analysis (see http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/two-different-countries-scottish-and-english-attitudes-to-equality-and-europe/) that Scotland has different social priorities from England.
I am nervous. I wouldn't deny it for a second.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dEk1TlVqMHhNUXFBWlhSNU1hd0FYSHc
With a commonality of a glum face, much reservation and regret, the majority see Yes as the winner in this two horse race.
I don't think that it's a Northern problem per se, as there are signficant parts of the North where the Conservatives are either safe (North and East Yorkshire, Cheshire commuter belt) or competitive (West Yorkshire, Lancashire). I think it's a problem that's specific to Merseyside, Sheffield, Manchester, and Newcastle/Gateshead.
A Yes vote would completely screw over this entir analysis of seats vs Majority chance of course - unless Scottish Westminster MPs would still be elected in 2015...
There's also always the possibility with a referendum that the vote ends up being about something else then the question on the ballot paper. Salmond would dearly love the question in people's minds to be something like "Do you want to protect Scotland from Tories?"
BREAKING Stuart Hall to be stripped of OBE (@EveningStandard scoop - not 'sky sources' or 'bbc has learned'!) standard.co.uk/news/crime/sex…
Cutting the deficit in a time of low to no growth took considerable political courage and nerve. I just hope that now we are having at least a boomlet that faster progress can be made. There are signs but they are tentative.
Of course, it's true that in the event of a Yes result, Scottish voters might behave very differently in the GE (presumably to the disbenefit of Labour and the benefit of the SNP). But that doesn't actually affect the analysis at all - with only one Conservative seat, and little prospect of a significant increase on that in Scotland, Scotland is largely irrelevant to whether the Tories can get a majority.
"France should remember its own history before complaining too much about American espionage"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/shashankjoshi/100224247/france-should-remember-its-own-history-before-complaining-too-much-about-american-espionage/
R4 Today commentator suggesting that Hollande is bigging this up to deflect from domestic woes.....
Serious question ^^;
'Go home illegal immigrants' vans scrapped by Home Office. Minister Norman Baker having them resprayed to read 'Go home lizards'
lol
A flying visit: if the Scots vote Yes then it would be morally indefensible and completely ****ing insane to have them potentially on both sides of the negotiating table for separation talks.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/libdem-minister-says-he-killed-off-go-home-vans-8896599.html
Scots really have to realise this is not a game. It is real. If we vote yes the UK is over. There is no going back. The details may take a while but the choice is made. I think the consequences would begin almost immediately.
Lord McAlpine libel row with Sally Bercow formally settled in high court
Sally Bercow has apologised for 'irresponsible use of Twitter' and agreed to pay undisclosed damages to peer, court told
Oh to have a candidate who has done something other than leave school and university and boast about her family background....
(And yes I know she's a councillor but so were plenty of other Labour hopefuls.)
Why on earth would Salmond want 40 Labour MPs to still have a platform or any form of legitimacy?
In the event of separation, why should the date be set for the convenience of 8% of the Union, not the remaining 92%?
Yes they would - a more interesting question may be would the SNP field candidates ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irish_UK_election_1918.png
So the point was moot.
Unfortunately the putative Scottish independence date will not coincide so easily with the UK General Election and the vast majority of Scottish MPs do not belong to the nationalist party- so the Irish precedent is not very useful.
http://nottspolitics.org/2013/03/06/what-will-become-of-the-may-2015-uk-parliament-if-scotland-votes-yes-on-independence/
It is fortunately a very different situation with Scottish independence. I'm minded to agree with DavidL that there would be no MPs from Scotland in Westminster following a 2015 general election, if Scotland votes for independence. Scotland would have its MPs at Holyrood.
Given that Danny Alexander has been mentioned in the thread - what would a yes vote do to the members of the Coalition government from Scotland if the vote was yes? I'd think that Danny Alexander and others would have to immediately resign their position as Government ministers if there were a Yes vote.
Which Cabinet ministers are there with seats in Scotland? Might it be worth a bet or two on the next Cabinet exit betting?
edit: checked with Wiki so it must be right ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_Féin#Pre-1970
Unfortunately it never quite works out as planned - either the govt who wins it does better than thought (e.g. the Con-LD coalition of 2010) or the govt ferks it up beyond recognition shafting the country (e.g. Blair-Brown in 2005).
The French found this out to their cost:
"Professor Régniez believes this is very dangerous. “Sarkozy narrowly lost in 2012 for personal reasons – his style annoyed voters who could have agreed on his policies, but who wanted to punish him: 18 per cent of them voted for Marine Le Pen, against only 5 per cent for her father in 2007.
“This should be a warning to other countries, like Britain – it’s all very well punishing a conservative politician you’re dissatisfied with by voting for a maverick, Le Pen here, Farage there. But it gets the likes of Hollande elected. Think well: is ours the kind of future you want for your country?”"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/10390571/france-hollande-taxes-socialist-farrage.html
PoliticsHome @politicshome
The 'Go Home' vans were "too blunt an instrument", Theresa May tells MPs, but says they did achieve "some returns".
The Scottish Parliament, god help us, would become the Scottish Government in waiting and would not tolerate any interlopers or competitors. The argument that Scots should have some right to vote or be represented in Westminster pro tem really does not bear analysis.
There may be an intervening period between the vote and 2015 but I agree that the resignation of Scottish ministers would also be very likely. Elvis would have left the building.
The Conservatives might be able to scrape a majority in the UK, excluding Scotland, if their vote lead across the whole of the UK was about 4%.
Of course, there is no telling what a Scottish vote for Independence would do for politics in England and Wales.
I see that your post has set the cat among the pigeons. Good. Far too much complacency around here.
The 55/45 figure looks about right, for now, but I suspect that it will get even tighter as polling day approaches. I haven't got a clue which side will win, but it always fascinates me how many folk here at PB seem to be utterly convinced that they know the result 11 months before a single vote has been cast. A lot of very deluded and ill-informed people out there.
Guess how many Lib Dem peers voted against the move?
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/LordsDivisions/Pages/LordsDivisions.aspx?id=51023&epslanguage=en&date=2011-Nov-01&itemId=1&session=2010-May-25
Wasn't Mates was sent as rebutter in chief when Gerry Adams did a US tour?
As I remember it did not go well.
As elsewhere its the medium sized towns which are electorally important in northern England.
While the best hope for Conservative gains in northern England lies not in middle class urban areas but in the industrial sprawls.
To get an overall majority in 2020 the Conservatives will have to make gains in the likes of Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Don Valley, Morley, Penistone and Wakefield.
I suspect that is not a message which the Cameroons are interested in hearing.
Bosses of the Big Six energy firms will appear before the Commons energy committee next week to be grilled on their sky-high price rises.
Give them hell.
I see things are going well, as Swinney tries to find a buyer for a refinery he doesn't own.
'The owner of the Grangemouth refinery, currently shut down during a bitter dispute with staff, has told Sky News it did not know the Scottish Government was seeking a new buyer.'
http://news.sky.com/story/1157987/grangemouth-owner-in-dark-as-buyer-sought
2 candidates are already automatically shortlisted because the ward branches that nominated them cover more than half of the membership.
http://fifelabour.co.uk/?p=274
"Mr Swinney dismissed any idea of Government ownership of the site as "not appropriate".
"We are in a situation where the plant is operating successfully within the marketplace and it can work and operate more successfully in the market place," he said."
Operating successfully within the marketplace? Has he not understood anything that has been said? Does he not understand what this dispute is about?
If a deficit of £10m a month on a single plant in urgent need of a substantial capital injection to survive is "operating successfully" the financial prospects of an independent Scotland are bleak indeed.
It would be good to hear about PBers favourite bets as things stand - mine are for Danny Alexander to hold his seat in Inverness for the LibDems and for the Greens' Caroline Lucas to lose out to Labour in Brighton Pavilion.
If the current owner gives up and moves on - why would another business take on the great tub of lard that is Scottish UNITE ?
This is of course the legalist line. The Irish nationalist line is that the Republic of Ireland existed from its proclamation on 24 April 1916, and that it constituted treason to that republic for one of its citizens to sit and vote in a foreign legislature, purporting to exercise jurisdiction over the republic.
http://faststream.civilservice.gov.uk/meet-our-graduates/ambassadors/generalist/
I expect the Conservatives to have overtaken Labour in the polls by the time of the referendum. That will make it far easier for Salmon to run "Vote No, Get Tories..." (The flip side of that might also be appealing to many Scots - "vote yes - have England stuffed with the Tories!")
I personally think the SNP have a nightmarish mish-mash of answers to the fundamental issues of the Scottish economy, but nothwithstanding that, I too expect the vote to be quite close. If it should turn into a yes, Labour lose their own Scottish regiment of MP's. BUT...How much of a kicking will Cameron get for having had the Union dismantled on his watch? I honestly don't know. I can see some Tories being so pissed off that they will go to UKIP. Which presumably will now be renamed rUKIP...
Equally, if the vote is to remain in the UK, will Cameron get any sort of bounce for seeing off Salmond? And what happens to the SNP if the vote is lost - do they start bleeding voters away to the main Westminster parties again? Would welcome some impartial assessment from up beyond the border as to where Scotland goes if the vote is lost.
Perhaps worthy of a thread of its own. If only so we can look back at it in a year's time to see what we got right and wrong....
It rather confirms my views that in the event of a yes vote there will be no Scottish MPs in Westminster after 2015. Any politician wanting a continuing role in Scottish politics will be anxiously looking for a seat for the election to a new, sovereign, Scottish Parliament.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/22/wokingham_named_tech_capital_of_britain/
The report:
https://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/PDF/Market Sector/Technology/tech-monitor-uk.pdf
A 9% reduction over the year would produce a reduction in the PSBR ex of about £10bn. Given the growth forecasts at the start of the year and the growth now that would actually be quite disappointing. I am hoping for a PSBR ex just under the £100bn.
Talking of growth Avery's SWIFT nowcast figure of 0.8% on Friday was a little disappointing. People have been triming back their forecasts a little as there were once suggestions it might be as high as 1.2%. I think 1% growth would be far more noteworthy and have a bigger influence on economic optimism than something short of that.
David
I only had a chance to have to a quick look at the PSF bulletin this morning so will comment in greater detail later.
SWIFT's final nowcast for Q3 GDP lowered last month's 0.8% to 0.7%, which was, as you say, disappointing. SWIFT vary their methodology for their final nowcast from that used for the second of three. The final estimate uses more data from ONS, whereas the middle nowcast is more dependent on their own SWIFT transaction data. This can lead to large discrepancies between the two as we saw for Q2 when the middle nowcast was for 0.1% and a month later the final estimate was 0.7%.
This time around the difference, only 0.1%, has been much smaller and goes in the opposite direction. If may indicate that international trade and b2b payments (SWIFT's core business) have held up better than other components of GDP, but this is purely uninformed conjecture.
The Public Finances figures are really very much better than the headline announcements suggest. But before going into detail, it is interesting to note that even Robert Chote has thrown in the towel in the OBR's commentary on this month s PSF Bulletin. Up to now he has been defending his March EFO forecasts even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary by saying we need to "wait and see". So the following paragraph from this month is welcome:
Following a further downward revision, borrowing in 2012-13 is now estimated to have been £5.5 billion lower than we assumed in our March EFO. Consequently our March forecast for borrowing in 2013-14 now implies a £4.4 billion increase over 2012-13. But with borrowing £5.9 billion down from last year over the first six months of the year, this would require a significant reversal of the recent trend. We will publish new forecasts alongside the Autumn Statement on 4 December.
More later.
Oh happy days when a quarter's growth of 0.7% is disappointing! Still hoping for more though. The sales figures recently have been really good and this is supported in the revised increases in VAT shown in this morning's figures.
OT. Sadly the vans have gone. I was looking forward to them being rolled out to areas like Mayfair and Chelsea so we could show the world what Tory Britain really looks like.
EU illegal immigrants STOLE the vans and ran over BRITISH pensioners #SendThemHome
Irony just sucks ....