Ed Miliband needs to reopen his inquiry quickly. Yes, he'll look ridiculous in the short term, having already ruled out doing that this week, but he'll look a damn sight more ridiculous in the long term if he doesn't.
Ed Miliband needs to reopen his inquiry quickly. Yes, he'll look ridiculous in the short term, having already ruled out doing that this week, but he'll look a damn sight more ridiculous in the long term if he doesn't.
Indeed he should, if only to prevent further headlines like this.
“ED MILIBAND's deafening silence and refusal to tell the voters what he knows about the way a constituency Labour Party has been run has all the hallmarks of a squalid cover-up.”
The survey the thread header mentions misses a fourth option --ie 'individuals and companies' . Why do we have this mindset that the economy has to be 'controlled' or 'led' by a (usually unsuitable) politician? Did nobody learn anything from Pol Pot ,Mao or Stalin?
"SLOWLY but surely, the public is turning its back on the free market economy and re embracing an atavistic version of socialism which, if implemented, would end in tears.
"The results are terrifying: the UK increasingly believes that it is the state’s job to fix the “right” price, not realising that artificially low prices have always caused shortages and a far greater crisis whenever they have been tried. The great lesson of economics is that bucking markets with artificial price controls always fails; far better to address the root causes of the problem – high prices usually imply scarcity, or monopoly, or generalised inflation – or help those who are suffering directly. - See more at:
And don't forget that while immigrants have made a positive contribution economically, we now have the healthiest demographic profile in Europe while much of the continent ages and Germany plays catch up.
Get down on your knees and say thank you.
So healthy that we're told we'll need millions more immigrants to pay for the pensions and health care of the most recent set of immigrants.
Labour's human ponzi scheme to go with their economic ponzi scheme.
And don't forget that while immigrants have made a positive contribution economically, we now have the healthiest demographic profile in Europe while much of the continent ages and Germany plays catch up.
Get down on your knees and say thank you.
So healthy that we're told we'll need millions more immigrants to pay for the pensions and health care of the most recent set of immigrants.
Labour's human ponzi scheme to go with their economic ponzi scheme.
I know you are fairly agnostic on renationalising the railway. What do you think of allowing the British state to tender for franchises as they come up?
Falkirk row: Labour rejects calls to publish internal inquiry Party to go ahead with selection of new candidate in December as it seeks to put an end to row over vote-rigging allegations
"This morning Caroline Flint was sent out in a stern mood to bat for the party, with the Shadow Energy Secretary telling Radio 4′s Today programme that the party wouldn’t publish its internal reports"
Doesn't surprise me that most people want these things nationalised. Maybe people don't remember what public supply was like before (i'm too young), or it might just be the fact that small groups can profit from the supply of essentials where choice is an illusion. But I don't think politicians put forward good arguments in favour of private supply, especially when costs and prices only seem to go one way!
Public supply was - gasp! - exactly the same as private supply, it came out of your hob and lights and you cooked and read by it. But you didn't get salespeople coming around to your house encouraging you to switch while being entirely ignorant of the paperwork involved. Nor did you end up with two companies "supplying" and charging you for your energy simultaneously, due to their woeful admin.
And we missed out on slogans like "looking after your world".
Well exactly. Even my free market ideology struggles to cope with a private sector oligopoly supplying exactly the same thing (e.g. gas and electricity) with only slight differences in packaging (tariffs). The only problem is trusting publicly owned bodies to do things efficiently.
And don't forget that while immigrants have made a positive contribution economically, we now have the healthiest demographic profile in Europe while much of the continent ages and Germany plays catch up.
Get down on your knees and say thank you.
So healthy that we're told we'll need millions more immigrants to pay for the pensions and health care of the most recent set of immigrants.
Labour's human ponzi scheme to go with their economic ponzi scheme.
If Toenails covers it, it will hang on for a little while yet.
Ed seems to think he knows better than Darling - is the Unite leverage on Darling not working again ?
Dave bound to mention again at PMQs tomorrow (along with Tories duly planted to do so). Weak, weak weak, just as on HS2 - even Darling stronger than Ed.
"SLOWLY but surely, the public is turning its back on the free market economy and re embracing an atavistic version of socialism which, if implemented, would end in tears.
"The results are terrifying: the UK increasingly believes that it is the state’s job to fix the “right” price, not realising that artificially low prices have always caused shortages and a far greater crisis whenever they have been tried. The great lesson of economics is that bucking markets with artificial price controls always fails; far better to address the root causes of the problem – high prices usually imply scarcity, or monopoly, or generalised inflation – or help those who are suffering directly. - See more at:
They got one thing right - they imply monopoly. The government created a raft of privatised monopolies in the shambolic way it privatised rail and water, and the consumer has been paying for it ever since. Over and over again in the case of rail - which receives an incredible FOUR times the subsidy from the taxpayer than it ever did under BR. One could barely have designed a worse system.
Extraordinary. Do you actually believe that people aren't convinced that the economy isn't really in anyone's control? ... The economy needs managing and managing well for longer than the next soundbite....
FWIW that's pretty much what I think, at least in the short term. The government could screw up the economy really badly if it tried, but in practice all mainstream governments are advised by the same set of people, and subject to similar pressures, and the range of different policies they'd be adopting isn't very big.
There are occasional exceptions like Abenomics, but they're certainly not the rule. The performance of the British economy tends to be somewhere between the performance of the US economy and the performance of the typical northern European economy, regardless of who is in charge.
Long-term the small differences can add up and make a big difference, but the long term is much longer than a parliament.
Extraordinary. Do you actually believe that people aren't convinced that the economy isn't really in anyone's control?
They have got to you Nick, you used to be reasonably independent of thought; that line is preposterous.
The economy needs managing and managing well for longer than the next soundbite. The Labour Party manifestly did not do this.
That said, if that really is your belief, that the economy is out of anyone's hands, and that is also the Labour Party line, then it's confirmation that Labour should be kept out of power for, well, forever.
No, I don't usually give my views here - it's a waste of time as people either agree or disagree according to preference and we spend half a thread arguing about them.
I usually comment on what it seems to me that most people think. And yes, my experience (and with respect I guess I talk to a lot more voters than you?) is that most people think of the economy as largely driven by world events and hard-to-control individual and corporate decisions. As a result of these hard-to-control events, they think that the Government has a certain amount of money to spend, and they do see differences between the parties on what they do with that money.
If you want my personal view, it's that UK Government decisions are very important, though not decisive, in economic development, and that generally Labour does a good job. But that's deacon-thinks-Pope-is-Catholic stuff, and doesn't really add to the interest of pb.
Ha! Thanks for the reply Nick. ? As ever, courteous and thoughtful, if slightly more on-message than previously, as you note.
But I don't really buy it. When canvassing (far more rarely than you, of course) and on the one in 15 occasions I get into a conversation with people (more I accept if "the candidate" is present), I find they are far more sophisticated than a debate on How to Spend It.
My problem is the danger that the belief that no one really cares or understands the economy becomes a belief that people don't know what's best for themselves. And I suppose that's where the Labour Party would like to step in to tell them.
I prefer to work from the assumption that people are willing and able to discuss quite sophisticated arguments on either side.
If Toenails covers it, it will hang on for a little while yet.
Ed seems to think he knows better than Darling - is the Unite leverage on Darling not working again ?
Dave bound to mention again at PMQs tomorrow (along with Tories duly planted to do so). Weak, weak weak, just as on HS2 - even Darling stronger than Ed.
Much as I credit the Hero of Hersham with single handedly turning around the fortunes of the economy might I suggest commenting on cho cho matters isn't overly wise ?!?
WE have a strange obsession as a country with Marks and Spencer . Even the BBC who must have been wetting themselves over this positive net effect of EU immigration report relegated it to second behind the lead story of Marks and Spencer's results . Now I could maybe understand it if M&S had reported a loss or doubled their profits but the results were 'more or less the same' as last year!!! Why do we have a fetish about M&S ??? (and the other way around of course)
Doesn't surprise me that most people want these things nationalised. Maybe people don't remember what public supply was like before (i'm too young), or it might just be the fact that small groups can profit from the supply of essentials where choice is an illusion. But I don't think politicians put forward good arguments in favour of private supply, especially when costs and prices only seem to go one way!
Public supply was - gasp! - exactly the same as private supply, it came out of your hob and lights and you cooked and read by it. But you didn't get salespeople coming around to your house encouraging you to switch while being entirely ignorant of the paperwork involved. Nor did you end up with two companies "supplying" and charging you for your energy simultaneously, due to their woeful admin.
And we missed out on slogans like "looking after your world".
Well exactly. Even my free market ideology struggles to cope with a private sector oligopoly supplying exactly the same thing (e.g. gas and electricity) with only slight differences in packaging (tariffs). The only problem is trusting publicly owned bodies to do things efficiently.
Lots of Tories think public services should be in the public sector, where the government can at least keep a close eye on them. Peter Hitchens, for example, is a strong advocate of rail renationalisation - it's hardly a left-wing view.
With regard to mass immigration and the effects on benefit claimants, it would be interesting to see the %of unemployment that was classed as youth unemployment in 2004 compared to now.
If immigrants aren't claiming benefits because they are taking jobs that would otherwise go to our unskilled youngsters, who are now on the dole, then the economic benefit is built on quicksand
I see the PB McTories are spamming the thread with Falkirk sophistry again. Move on.
Yep - that's the 'London Line'......
What, in a sentence, has Ed done wrong in Falkirk/Grangemouth (delete as appropriate)?
Dismissed the requests from senior Scots on the ground (Darling/Lamont) and members of the local party in Falkirk to re-open the inquiry into Unite's activity. Some are concluding that this has more to do with protecting Unite's English bosses than finding out what happened in Falkirk....which leads to uncharitable conclusions about Ed's motives & 'Union paymasters'....
Not good in the run up to the Indie referendum - ask the Tories what being seen as an English party does for your fortunes in Scotland....
@TGOHF They got one thing right - they imply monopoly. The government created a raft of privatised monopolies in the shambolic way it privatised rail and water, and the consumer has been paying for it ever since. Over and over again in the case of rail - which receives an incredible FOUR times the subsidy from the taxpayer than it ever did under BR. One could barely have designed a worse system.
You keep on mentioning that FOUR times (in capitals, no less), but should perhaps put that in context.
1) Passenger numbers have nearly doubled. Freight has increased (from memory by just under 50%). It would be interesting to see the same figures per passenger journey, or per passenger mile.
2) The railways were managing a shrinking market for four decades before the mid 1990s. Now they are having to manage a growing market. This is not easy, and requires large scale investment.
3) Much of that investment is going into the publicly-owned Network Rail (although as I say below, the TOCs should pay a more representative share in the form of track access charges).
As for it being a bad system: it may or may not be. But you have to answer whether you think BR would have enabled the growth in traffic (especially wrt government investment), and whether it would have coped with it as well as the privatised railways. This can be argued either way, but the pro-nationalisation people have got the long history of BR standing against them.
As ever, the biggest argument against nationalisation is investment - BR was routinely starved of investment by governments of all stripes post-1955.
"The UK service sector maintained its recent run of strong growth during October, with activity expanding at the fastest pace since May 1997 as levels of incoming new business rose at a survey record rate....
Markedly higher workloads encouraged companies to add to their payroll numbers in October. The rate of growth was also the best since May 1997....
“Historical comparisons of the PMI against gross domestic product suggest the latest survey data are consistent with a 1.3% quarterly rate of GDP growth, up sharply from previous quarters. The surveys also indicate that the rate of private sector job creation is currently running in excess of 100,000 per quarter."
If Toenails covers it, it will hang on for a little while yet.
Ed seems to think he knows better than Darling - is the Unite leverage on Darling not working again ?
Dave bound to mention again at PMQs tomorrow (along with Tories duly planted to do so). Weak, weak weak, just as on HS2 - even Darling stronger than Ed.
Much as I credit the Hero of Hersham with single handedly turning around the fortunes of the economy might I suggest commenting on cho cho matters isn't overly wise ?!?
Not me, dear old thing, but Dave. I only appear before the Hersham Supreme Soviet (Waitrose) once a year to receive prolonged standing ovations from the assembled populace.
So why shouldn't Dave mention HS2 as an Ed-bashing amusement?
Con 298 .. Lab 280 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 10 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 1 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Speaker 1 .. Ind 0
Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.
Assuming SF get 5 and don't sit, does that make it 23 ?
So 645 seats. 323 seats required for a majority so the Conservatives on 298 would be 25 seats short.
So Con plus LD equals small majority ( is Dave, Nick's bitch or Peter Bone's ? ) and Ed needs everyone on board from LDs to all shades of Nats, so everyone owns a piece of Ed.
If Toenails covers it, it will hang on for a little while yet.
Ed seems to think he knows better than Darling - is the Unite leverage on Darling not working again ?
Dave bound to mention again at PMQs tomorrow (along with Tories duly planted to do so). Weak, weak weak, just as on HS2 - even Darling stronger than Ed.
Much as I credit the Hero of Hersham with single handedly turning around the fortunes of the economy might I suggest commenting on cho cho matters isn't overly wise ?!?
Not me, dear old thing, but Dave. I only appear before the Hersham Supreme Soviet (Waitrose) once a year to receive prolonged standing ovations from the assembled populace.
So why shouldn't Dave mention HS2 as an Ed-bashing amusement?
I fear you giving advice to Dave might allow a PMQ's opening for the LotO :
Ed - "Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is receiving transport policy advice from a senior Hersham Conservative who believes Surrey is now situated on the south coast ?!?"
Extraordinary. Do you actually believe that people aren't convinced that the economy isn't really in anyone's control? ... The economy needs managing and managing well for longer than the next soundbite....
FWIW that's pretty much what I think, at least in the short term. The government could screw up the economy really badly if it tried, but in practice all mainstream governments are advised by the same set of people, and subject to similar pressures, and the range of different policies they'd be adopting isn't very big.
There are occasional exceptions like Abenomics, but they're certainly not the rule. The performance of the British economy tends to be somewhere between the performance of the US economy and the performance of the typical northern European economy, regardless of who is in charge.
Long-term the small differences can add up and make a big difference, but the long term is much longer than a parliament.
Don't disagree.
Thing is, we are in extraordinary times. Still.
I also believe that some "global forces" proponents misunderstand the risks if not of a sovereign downgrade then a hike in the required return from the UK. We are not in some post-historical phase where our interest rates can't treble if the market isn't happy.
I also firmly believe that for all his undoubted mistakes, had there not been a strong signal from GO at the outset of the Coalition govt then our borrowing rates would have duly rocketed. I don't believe Labour would have reassured the markets (as much if at all).
That alone is sufficient for me to believe that even in the short term, different economic policies can have dramatically different outcomes.
If Toenails covers it, it will hang on for a little while yet.
Ed seems to think he knows better than Darling - is the Unite leverage on Darling not working again ?
Dave bound to mention again at PMQs tomorrow (along with Tories duly planted to do so). Weak, weak weak, just as on HS2 - even Darling stronger than Ed.
Much as I credit the Hero of Hersham with single handedly turning around the fortunes of the economy might I suggest commenting on cho cho matters isn't overly wise ?!?
Not me, dear old thing, but Dave. I only appear before the Hersham Supreme Soviet (Waitrose) once a year to receive prolonged standing ovations from the assembled populace.
So why shouldn't Dave mention HS2 as an Ed-bashing amusement?
I fear you giving advice to Dave might allow a PMQ's opening for the LotO :
Ed - "Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is receiving transport policy advice from a senior Hersham Conservative who believes Surrey is now situated on the south coast ?!?"
Sitting Suspended ....
I did make it home safely from Clapham Junction last night though. Surely that counts in my favour.
Con 298 .. Lab 280 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 10 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 1 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Speaker 1 .. Ind 0
Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.
Assuming SF get 5 and don't sit, does that make it 23 ?
So 645 seats. 323 seats required for a majority so the Conservatives on 298 would be 25 seats short.
So Con plus LD equals small majority ( is Dave, Nick's bitch or Peter Bone's ? ) and Ed needs everyone on board from LDs to all shades of Nats, so everyone owns a piece of Ed.
Indeed, although Con+LibDem = 336 which with SF absence equates to a majority of 13 which is in the Major government area 92-97.
Labour/LibDem are 5 short of the 323 which is barely viable as you indicate.
If Toenails covers it, it will hang on for a little while yet.
Ed seems to think he knows better than Darling - is the Unite leverage on Darling not working again ?
Dave bound to mention again at PMQs tomorrow (along with Tories duly planted to do so). Weak, weak weak, just as on HS2 - even Darling stronger than Ed.
Much as I credit the Hero of Hersham with single handedly turning around the fortunes of the economy might I suggest commenting on cho cho matters isn't overly wise ?!?
Not me, dear old thing, but Dave. I only appear before the Hersham Supreme Soviet (Waitrose) once a year to receive prolonged standing ovations from the assembled populace.
So why shouldn't Dave mention HS2 as an Ed-bashing amusement?
I fear you giving advice to Dave might allow a PMQ's opening for the LotO :
Ed - "Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is receiving transport policy advice from a senior Hersham Conservative who believes Surrey is now situated on the south coast ?!?"
Sitting Suspended ....
I did make it home safely from Clapham Junction last night though. Surely that counts in my favour.
The "Thomas the Tank Engine" therapy is clearly working.
Imagine a company taking over a factory, the major employer in a small town. They bring in their own staff, making most of the current workers redundant, and profits are higher than they were under the previous owner.
Unemployment in the town is through the roof, and the original population are becoming addicted to benefit culture, & daytime tv, the unemployed kids are causing trouble on the estates.
Is the bottom line all that matters? Or should politicians point to the takeover as an economic success for the town?
And don't forget that while immigrants have made a positive contribution economically, we now have the healthiest demographic profile in Europe while much of the continent ages and Germany plays catch up.
Get down on your knees and say thank you.
So healthy that we're told we'll need millions more immigrants to pay for the pensions and health care of the most recent set of immigrants.
Labour's human ponzi scheme to go with their economic ponzi scheme.
So sad, Tim clinging to a report by European immigrants claiming European immigration is good for the country.
Suck it up Tim. You are as wrong as you ever were.
Where have I heard that line about dodgy immigrants from mittel Europe before, remind me. Maybe not from a Libertarian obsessed by controlling where people work
And once again Tim manages to completely misrepresent people's views. You still cling to the outdated idea that if you tell a lie often enough people will eventually believe you.
Police said that there were only three people on the bus at the time of the attack – the 50-year old driver, a Swedish citizen also in his 50s and a 19 year old Norwegian girl – and that the hijacker killed all of them.
The 31-year-old killer is from southern Sudan but is currently living in Årdal, the small Norwegian town where the hijack took place.
FWIW that's pretty much what I think, at least in the short term. The government could screw up the economy really badly if it tried, but in practice all mainstream governments are advised by the same set of people, and subject to similar pressures, and the range of different policies they'd be adopting isn't very big.
There are occasional exceptions like Abenomics, but they're certainly not the rule. The performance of the British economy tends to be somewhere between the performance of the US economy and the performance of the typical northern European economy, regardless of who is in charge.
Long-term the small differences can add up and make a big difference, but the long term is much longer than a parliament.
I think you're just not old enough to remember the 1960s and 1970s.
"Recruiter reports jobs growth in every sector and region Reed's monthly jobs index reports across the board expansion as number of vacancies jumps back to levels last seen five years ago"
@JackW - Hard to see Respect winning anything, given the shenanigans in Bradford West and the fact that Gorgeous George has got bored with being an MP.
India have sent a rocket to Mars & I dont mean an angry letter to a confectioner. Sending the poverty stricken millions on a nice holiday?
£45 million sounds remarkably cheap. If it works, perhaps we should license the technology.
The BBC's overnight strapline identified India as a "south Asian country". The day shift is more confident of its readers' knowledge of geography but not of astronomy since it helpfully reminds us that Mars is the "Red Planet". Are journalists no longer warned against inelegant variation?
@JackW - Hard to see Respect winning anything, given the shenanigans in Bradford West and the fact that Gorgeous George has got bored with being an MP.
At first sight Nabbers I'd agree but nobody made too much wonga betting against the indefatigable Gorgeous George.
On voting intention this poll had CON and LAB level-pegging on 36% – which represented a 7% LAB>CON swing since GE2005 and would have meant an overall CON majority which, of course, didn’t happen.
36% all gave a CON o_O ?! Majority ?!
Has there been some demographic shift in the seats since then - surely 36% all would give Labour most seats (But not a majority) this time
@JackW - Hard to see Respect winning anything, given the shenanigans in Bradford West and the fact that Gorgeous George has got bored with being an MP.
I've chalked it into the losers column in my spreadsheet already ^^;;
India have sent a rocket to Mars & I dont mean an angry letter to a confectioner. Sending the poverty stricken millions on a nice holiday?
£45 million sounds remarkably cheap. If it works, perhaps we should license the technology.
The BBC's overnight strapline identified India as a "south Asian country". The day shift is more confident of its readers' knowledge of geography but not of astronomy since it helpfully reminds us that Mars is the "Red Planet". Are journalists no longer warned against inelegant variation?
Set against the number of meals that could have been eaten by undernourished Indians it sounds remarkably expensive to me
@JackW - Hard to see Respect winning anything, given the shenanigans in Bradford West and the fact that Gorgeous George has got bored with being an MP.
I've chalked it into the losers column in my spreadsheet already ^^;;
While I agree the dire state of RESPECT (it's an acronym technically) is a bad sign for Galloway, there is no politician in the country better at getting out their core vote. Never count him out entirely.
I also firmly believe that for all his undoubted mistakes, had there not been a strong signal from GO at the outset of the Coalition govt then our borrowing rates would have duly rocketed.
Nah - no stable, developed economy with the ability to print its own money saw its interest rates rocket. Italy and Spain saw their interest rates get moderately high, but they were effectively borrowing in a foreign currency.
What's a little bit more plausible is that Labour might have felt the need to cut a bit more than Osborne did to reassure the markets, and clobbered short-term growth a bit more than Osborne did in the process.
Nah - no stable, developed economy with the ability to print its own money saw its interest rates rocket. Italy and Spain saw their interest rates get moderately high, but they were effectively borrowing in a foreign currency. .
No stable, developed economy, other than the very special case of the US, had a deficit anything like as bad as ours.
Nah - no stable, developed economy with the ability to print its own money saw its interest rates rocket. Italy and Spain saw their interest rates get moderately high, but they were effectively borrowing in a foreign currency. .
No stable, developed economy, other than the very special case of the US, had a deficit anything like as bad as ours.
Are you counting Japan as unstable or undeveloped?
Are you counting Japan as unstable or undeveloped?
Good point, but Japan is another very odd case: we don't have armies of domestic investors prepared to give free money to the government over decades
Everyone's a special case. But when you listen to the mainstream right-wing equivalents of yourself in either the US or Japan, they've been predicting the bond vigilante rampage in their respective countries for years and we're still waiting for them to show up. If there is one country where it might not be bullshit it's Japan, but the UK's situation just isn't, and wasn't, particularly bad.
And don't forget that while immigrants have made a positive contribution economically, we now have the healthiest demographic profile in Europe while much of the continent ages and Germany plays catch up.
Get down on your knees and say thank you.
So healthy that we're told we'll need millions more immigrants to pay for the pensions and health care of the most recent set of immigrants.
Labour's human ponzi scheme to go with their economic ponzi scheme.
Having looked at the report, it claims that immigrants from the EEA make a net fiscal contribution. I agree. They tend to be young and well-qualified.
OTOH, immigrants from outside the EEA do the reverse. The report estimates that between 2007-11, immigrants from outside the EEA contributed taxes worth E230 bn, and incurred public expenditure worth E283 bn.
And immigrants from outside the EEA have an employment rate of 62%, compared to 70% for the British-born population (falling to 59% among recent immigrants from outside the EEA).
So, we benefit from immigration from first-world countries. We import poverty from third-world countries.
@Josias - all good stuff (although the fact that as ticket sales rise, so doth the subsidy spiral demonstrates perfectly why this is a public enterprise in all but name)
But you don't answer my key question as to whether you'd consider bringing back the service by having the public sector tender for maturing franchises? (No-one is talking about the wholesale BRification of the network)
On topic, these marginal seats had a significantly more pro-Labour electorate than the economy as a whole. You would expect to see Labour better-rated here than in national opinion polls.
Overall, the Conservatives only had a small lead on the economy in May 2010.
I also firmly believe that for all his undoubted mistakes, had there not been a strong signal from GO at the outset of the Coalition govt then our borrowing rates would have duly rocketed.
Nah - no stable, developed economy with the ability to print its own money saw its interest rates rocket. Italy and Spain saw their interest rates get moderately high, but they were effectively borrowing in a foreign currency.
What's a little bit more plausible is that Labour might have felt the need to cut a bit more than Osborne did to reassure the markets, and clobbered short-term growth a bit more than Osborne did in the process.
Exactly. Labour would have had to cut more to reassure the markets. So the markets needed reassuring. The ability to print our own money doesn't alter the inflation-adjusted return investors require for gilts.
And I admire your coolness under fire in referring to eg. Italy's little local difficulty with 10-yr yields at over 7% a couple of years ago.
What do you suppose the delta on domestic mortgages would be if UK rates went up 100bps?
So, we benefit from immigration from first-world countries. We import poverty from third-world countries.
Hang on a sec. Immigrants from outside the EEA include Americans, Aussies, New Zealanders, Saffers, Canucs, and the like, don't they? are you saying that that lot come here to live a life on the dole??
On topic, these marginal seats had a significantly more pro-Labour electorate than the economy as a whole. You would expect to see Labour better-rated here than in national opinion polls.
Overall, the Conservatives only had a small lead on the economy in May 2010.
Indeed - as was pointed out in the piece. The voting figures for this grouping were 36-36 which represented a 7% LAB>CON swing which would have been enough to give Dave a majority.
the UK's situation just isn't, and wasn't, particularly bad.
It depends what you mean by 'particularly bad'. Accumulated historic debt was fairly good, and the maturity profile of gilts very good, so it is true that there was no short-term panic; we had time to make the necessary adjustments - contrary to popular belief, the markets are quite patient. That doesn't alter the fact that the deficit was appallingly bad (and indeed remains very bad). So the issue was whether we were going to address the deficit or not.
Maybe Labour would have done something, if they'd won the election, but since they did absolutely nothing before, cancelled the spending review, and kept going on about 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts', you can assume that only if you think they were quite extraordinarily cynical and dishonest.
Maybe Labour would have done something, if they'd won the election, but since they did absolutely nothing before, and kept going on about 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts', you can assume that only if you think they were quite extraordinarily cynical and dishonest.
We're talking about politicians. They lie to voters for a living. If they don't tell sufficiently appealing lies the voters kick them out and replace them with someone who will. They were being ordinarily cynical and dishonest.
"It is great to be here in Battersea with you today. Last Friday, I was in my constituency, at the local Citizens Advice Bureau. And I talked to some people who had been preyed upon by payday lenders.There was a woman there in floods of tears."
It is great to be in (insert place here). Last (insert date and place) link to what the dear leader was doing then add cause of the week/theme from grid...all stand, all applaud, cheers...
@Josias - all good stuff (although the fact that as ticket sales rise, so doth the subsidy spiral demonstrates perfectly why this is a public enterprise in all but name)
But you don't answer my key question as to whether you'd consider bringing back the service by having the public sector tender for maturing franchises? (No-one is talking about the wholesale BRification of the network)
I'd consider it, yes. Indeed, I could even be in favour, if it is the right solution But yet again I go back to how these things should be done: define the problems, and work out which solution fits best. Coming up with a solution "nationalisation!" without defining the problems (and benefits) of the current system is barmy.
For instance, another model might be concessions, rather than the franchises given out at the moment. Concessions are already used for some transport schemes. See (1). Although there will be disadvantages as well.
"No-one is talking about the wholesale BRification of the network)" That's what most people I talk to seem to think 'renationalisation of the railways' means - a return to the (good/bad) old days of BR. If what you are saying is true, then Labour need to make it clear that it isn't a renationalisation of the railways, just a small part.
You will also need to define how the renationsalised parts interact with the rest of the system, including the remaining privatised operators, and the ROSCOs.
For instance: are you in favour of OpenAccess operators?
There's an interesting document from ATOC ("Passenger rail: Dataset on financial performance, passenger benefits, and value of franchising model 1997/98 – 2011/12", which chows that total investment in the railways is not much greater than it was in 1994/5, yet traffic is massively greater. Note that was a spike year (before the rundown for privatisation), and you should note the source of the data ...
So, we benefit from immigration from first-world countries. We import poverty from third-world countries.
Hang on a sec. Immigrants from outside the EEA include Americans, Aussies, New Zealanders, Saffers, Canucs, and the like, don't they? are you saying that that lot come here to live a life on the dole??
Wouldn't be surprised if the tax paid by the people you mention was outweighed by benefits paid to the rest of the non EEA immigrants
We're talking about politicians. They lie to voters for a living. If they don't tell sufficiently appealing lies the voters kick them out and replace them with someone who will. They were being ordinarily cynical and dishonest.
Well, we won't agree on that. My view, based on following politics for around 50 years, is that the cynicism and dishonesty of the last government was unprecedented amongst UK governments of that period. They were acting like a particularly irresponsible opposition.
And don't forget that while immigrants have made a positive contribution economically, we now have the healthiest demographic profile in Europe while much of the continent ages and Germany plays catch up.
Get down on your knees and say thank you.
So healthy that we're told we'll need millions more immigrants to pay for the pensions and health care of the most recent set of immigrants.
Labour's human ponzi scheme to go with their economic ponzi scheme.
Having looked at the report, it claims that immigrants from the EEA make a net fiscal contribution. I agree. They tend to be young and well-qualified.
OTOH, immigrants from outside the EEA do the reverse. The report estimates that between 2007-11, immigrants from outside the EEA contributed taxes worth E230 bn, and incurred public expenditure worth E283 bn.
And immigrants from outside the EEA have an employment rate of 62%, compared to 70% for the British-born population (falling to 59% among recent immigrants from outside the EEA).
So, we benefit from immigration from first-world countries. We import poverty from third-world countries.
Cherrypicking a figure for the banking crisis and it's aftermath is a bit transparent, what was the native Brit net contribution in that same falsely chosen period?
Well, I'm quite happy to go back to 1995, as the report's authors do. Non-EEA immigrants contributed £558 bn in revenue over that period, and incurred ££649 in public expenditure.
Move along, nothing to see here. Twitter Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 57s EdMili on #Falkirk: "we have acted swiftly and thoroughly" <<But I just won't reopen the inquiry
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 11s EdMili: "we will get any new evidence" on #Falkirk <Trying to realign his opposing position with Alistair Darling??
Cherrypicking a figure for the banking crisis and it's aftermath is a bit transparent, what was the native Brit net contribution in that same falsely chosen period?
Wow. I think 'chutzpah' is the word I'm looking for.
Maybe Labour would have done something, if they'd won the election, but since they did absolutely nothing before, and kept going on about 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts', you can assume that only if you think they were quite extraordinarily cynical and dishonest.
We're talking about politicians. They lie to voters for a living. If they don't tell sufficiently appealing lies the voters kick them out and replace them with someone who will. They were being ordinarily cynical and dishonest.
nice summary Edmund, and therein lies a lot of our problems.
Maybe Labour would have done something, if they'd won the election, but since they did absolutely nothing before, and kept going on about 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts', you can assume that only if you think they were quite extraordinarily cynical and dishonest.
We're talking about politicians. They lie to voters for a living. If they don't tell sufficiently appealing lies the voters kick them out and replace them with someone who will. They were being ordinarily cynical and dishonest.
nice summary Edmund, and therein lies a lot of our problems.
Right, we need to work out how to get some better voters.
So, we benefit from immigration from first-world countries. We import poverty from third-world countries.
Hang on a sec. Immigrants from outside the EEA include Americans, Aussies, New Zealanders, Saffers, Canucs, and the like, don't they? are you saying that that lot come here to live a life on the dole??
If the report had separated out the groups you mention, they would probably make a similar net fiscal contribution per head to people from the EEA.
And don't forget that while immigrants have made a positive contribution economically, we now have the healthiest demographic profile in Europe while much of the continent ages and Germany plays catch up.
Get down on your knees and say thank you.
So healthy that we're told we'll need millions more immigrants to pay for the pensions and health care of the most recent set of immigrants.
Labour's human ponzi scheme to go with their economic ponzi scheme.
Having looked at the report, it claims that immigrants from the EEA make a net fiscal contribution. I agree. They tend to be young and well-qualified.
OTOH, immigrants from outside the EEA do the reverse. The report estimates that between 2007-11, immigrants from outside the EEA contributed taxes worth E230 bn, and incurred public expenditure worth E283 bn.
And immigrants from outside the EEA have an employment rate of 62%, compared to 70% for the British-born population (falling to 59% among recent immigrants from outside the EEA).
So, we benefit from immigration from first-world countries. We import poverty from third-world countries.
Cherrypicking a figure for the banking crisis and it's aftermath is a bit transparent, what was the native Brit net contribution in that same falsely chosen period?
Well, I'm quite happy to go back to 1995, as the report's authors do. Non-EEA immigrants contributed £558 bn in revenue over that period, and incurred ££649 in public expenditure.
Good to see that UKIP will be dropping their objections to European migration and concentrating on those non EEA citizens who moved here under the Major Govt. Does the non EEA include a big chunk of asylum seekers who were prevented from working
Annual immigration from non-EEA countries was certainly a good deal higher after 1997 than before.
Cherrypicking a figure for the banking crisis and it's aftermath is a bit transparent, what was the native Brit net contribution in that same falsely chosen period?
Wow. I think 'chutzpah' is the word I'm looking for.
Look at how much native Britons took out of the treasury (net) in the selected 2007-11 period. I wonder how much Brits abroad contributed to their host countries during the crash?
Wasn't disagreeing with the sentiment.
However, you're no stranger to selectively chosen statistics, so it caused a raised eyebrow to see you picking up someone else up on it!
Good to see that UKIP will be dropping their objections to European migration and concentrating on those non EEA citizens who moved here under the Major Govt. Does the non EEA include a big chunk of asylum seekers who were prevented from working
The I think there is a genuine libertarian strain in UKIP so maybe they'll get there in the end. Long story short: - Big government bureaucracy decides who comes in then micro-manages what they do when they arrive: Make a loss. (Probably.) - Free markets decide who comes in, government prevented from tinkering: Make a huge profit.
@Josias - all good stuff (although the fact that as ticket sales rise, so doth the subsidy spiral demonstrates perfectly why this is a public enterprise in all but name)
But you don't answer my key question as to whether you'd consider bringing back the service by having the public sector tender for maturing franchises? (No-one is talking about the wholesale BRification of the network)
As you can see, total subsidies are not too far off what they were in the mid-1990s, (at 2012 prices). If you trust the source, yet traffic has gone up a great deal.
It would be interesting to know whether the spike afterwards was caused by underinvestment in the late 1990s in the run-up to Hatfield, increasing traffic, or both.
Cherrypicking a figure for the banking crisis and it's aftermath is a bit transparent, what was the native Brit net contribution in that same falsely chosen period?
Wow. I think 'chutzpah' is the word I'm looking for.
Look at how much native Britons took out of the treasury (net) in the selected 2007-11 period. I wonder how much Brits abroad contributed to their host countries during the crash?
quite right tim,
we should get rid of all the "native" brits and replace them with french and italians. Which country will have you ?
So, we benefit from immigration from first-world countries. We import poverty from third-world countries.
Hang on a sec. Immigrants from outside the EEA include Americans, Aussies, New Zealanders, Saffers, Canucs, and the like, don't they? are you saying that that lot come here to live a life on the dole??
If the report had separated out the groups you mention, they would probably make a similar net fiscal contribution per head to people from the EEA.
Which means that the cost of those outside that section are even larger..
So basically the report is saying what everyone knew anyway. 2 types of immigration. High value, high skilled, high earner immigration, and low skilled low value immirgration
We need more of the first, and less of the second...
''If the report had separated out the groups you mention, they would probably make a similar net fiscal contribution per head to people from the EEA. ''
If not higher. Which means that others are letting down the side big time for the average to be so low....
"It is great to be here in Battersea with you today. Last Friday, I was in my constituency, at the local Citizens Advice Bureau. And I talked to some people who had been preyed upon by payday lenders.There was a woman there in floods of tears."
It is great to be in (insert place here). Last (insert date and place) link to what the dear leader was doing then add cause of the week/theme from grid...all stand, all applaud, cheers...
He really does think that people aren't responsible for their own actions and need to be managed by the state in every facet of their lives.
Some might beg to differ on that one Mr Bercow. Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 3m Speaker Bercow interrupts a George Osborne tirade on Labour and Unite: “Nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Chancellor. “
Tony Grew @ayestotheright 5m Speaker tells off Osborne for mentioning Falkirk during Q on fuel prices. Chancellor basically ignores him
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 4m 3rd question from reporter at EdMili's cost of living speech. 3rd question on #Falkirk
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 5m EdM, asked *again* re Falkirk: "The right thing to do is to look at any new evidence presented. I will look at any new evidence."
Jason Cowan @jason_manc 2m Strange, as he loves inquiries. RT @ShippersUnbound: Miliband has now been pressed on five occasions to hold another inquiry into Falkirk
Comments
“ED MILIBAND's deafening silence and refusal to tell the voters what he knows about the way a constituency Labour Party has been run has all the hallmarks of a squalid cover-up.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10426469/Milibands-silence-has-all-the-signs-of-a-squalid-cover-up.html
Not a chance.
................................
OT - Business Select Committee with legal loan sharks on BBC Parliament shortly.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/video-glasgow-huge-penis-firework-2671570
"SLOWLY but surely, the public is turning its back on the free market economy and re embracing an atavistic version of socialism which, if implemented, would end in tears.
"The results are terrifying: the UK increasingly believes that it is the state’s job to fix the “right” price, not realising that artificially low prices have always caused shortages and a far greater crisis whenever they have been tried. The great lesson of economics is that bucking markets with artificial price controls always fails; far better to address the root causes of the problem – high prices usually imply scarcity, or monopoly, or generalised inflation – or help those who are suffering directly. - See more at:
http://www.cityam.com/article/1383618852/there-sadly-mass-support-nationalisation-and-price-controls#sthash.9gOtc3GO.dpuf"
Labour's human ponzi scheme to go with their economic ponzi scheme.
Get down on your knees and apologise.
Oh look - one side of the balance sheet...
Falkirk - the row which simply won't go away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24801783
If Toenails covers it, it will hang on for a little while yet.
@Josias
I know you are fairly agnostic on renationalising the railway. What do you think of allowing the British state to tender for franchises as they come up?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100244313/who-runs-the-labour-party-in-scotland/
Falkirk row: Labour rejects calls to publish internal inquiry
Party to go ahead with selection of new candidate in December as it seeks to put an end to row over vote-rigging allegations
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/05/falkirk-row-labour-rejects-publish-internal-inquiry
Selection 8 December....all run from London.....
"This morning Caroline Flint was sent out in a stern mood to bat for the party, with the Shadow Energy Secretary telling Radio 4′s Today programme that the party wouldn’t publish its internal reports"
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/labour-stays-stubborn-over-falkirk/
You tell'em Caroline - what do these Scots know? English Labour MPs should keep these Scots in their place.
Snub for Johann Lamont as Labour rule out Falkirk ‘vote fixing’ probe
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/441153/Snub-for-Johann-Lamont-as-Labour-rule-out-Falkirk-vote-fixing-probe
Suck it up Tim. You are as wrong as you ever were.
They They got one thing right - they imply monopoly. The government created a raft of privatised monopolies in the shambolic way it privatised rail and water, and the consumer has been paying for it ever since. Over and over again in the case of rail - which receives an incredible FOUR times the subsidy from the taxpayer than it ever did under BR. One could barely have designed a worse system.
My ARSE has been very stable over the months and from June the range for the parties has been :
Con 296-306 .. Lab 268-280 .. LibDem 38-44 .. SNP 10-13 .. PC 2-3 .. Ukip 1-3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1
There are occasional exceptions like Abenomics, but they're certainly not the rule. The performance of the British economy tends to be somewhere between the performance of the US economy and the performance of the typical northern European economy, regardless of who is in charge.
Long-term the small differences can add up and make a big difference, but the long term is much longer than a parliament.
But I don't really buy it. When canvassing (far more rarely than you, of course) and on the one in 15 occasions I get into a conversation with people (more I accept if "the candidate" is present), I find they are far more sophisticated than a debate on How to Spend It.
My problem is the danger that the belief that no one really cares or understands the economy becomes a belief that people don't know what's best for themselves. And I suppose that's where the Labour Party would like to step in to tell them.
I prefer to work from the assumption that people are willing and able to discuss quite sophisticated arguments on either side.
Why do we have a fetish about M&S ??? (and the other way around of course)
Worth reading UCL report on migration. Gets a bit surreal when natives get all the blame for the crisis deficits: http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf …
Linda Yueh @lindayueh 12m
Strong expansion svcs RT @CNBCWorld
BREAKING: October UK services PMI 62.5 vs Sept 60.3, beats Reuters poll of 59.8, highest since May 1997
If immigrants aren't claiming benefits because they are taking jobs that would otherwise go to our unskilled youngsters, who are now on the dole, then the economic benefit is built on quicksand
Not good in the run up to the Indie referendum - ask the Tories what being seen as an English party does for your fortunes in Scotland....
1) Passenger numbers have nearly doubled. Freight has increased (from memory by just under 50%). It would be interesting to see the same figures per passenger journey, or per passenger mile.
2) The railways were managing a shrinking market for four decades before the mid 1990s. Now they are having to manage a growing market. This is not easy, and requires large scale investment.
3) Much of that investment is going into the publicly-owned Network Rail (although as I say below, the TOCs should pay a more representative share in the form of track access charges).
As for it being a bad system: it may or may not be. But you have to answer whether you think BR would have enabled the growth in traffic (especially wrt government investment), and whether it would have coped with it as well as the privatised railways. This can be argued either way, but the pro-nationalisation people have got the long history of BR standing against them.
As ever, the biggest argument against nationalisation is investment - BR was routinely starved of investment by governments of all stripes post-1955.
"Why do we have a fetish about M&S ??? (and the other way around of course) "
Knickers
"The UK service sector maintained its recent run of strong growth during October, with activity expanding at the fastest pace since May 1997 as levels of incoming new business rose at a survey record rate....
Markedly higher workloads encouraged companies to add to their payroll numbers in October. The rate of growth was also the best since May 1997....
“Historical comparisons of the PMI against gross domestic product suggest the latest survey data are consistent with a 1.3% quarterly rate of GDP growth, up sharply from previous quarters. The surveys also indicate that the rate of private sector job creation is currently running in excess of 100,000 per quarter."
http://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/886a8bb8c5af427ea8579b03fdb46ffe
So why shouldn't Dave mention HS2 as an Ed-bashing amusement?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/referendum-result-won-t-be-declared-in-early-hours-1-3173841
I expect that's technically correct. We're likely to have a pretty good idea of the result by 10.05pm.
Ed - "Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is receiving transport policy advice from a senior Hersham Conservative who believes Surrey is now situated on the south coast ?!?"
Sitting Suspended ....
Thing is, we are in extraordinary times. Still.
I also believe that some "global forces" proponents misunderstand the risks if not of a sovereign downgrade then a hike in the required return from the UK. We are not in some post-historical phase where our interest rates can't treble if the market isn't happy.
I also firmly believe that for all his undoubted mistakes, had there not been a strong signal from GO at the outset of the Coalition govt then our borrowing rates would have duly rocketed. I don't believe Labour would have reassured the markets (as much if at all).
That alone is sufficient for me to believe that even in the short term, different economic policies can have dramatically different outcomes.
Labour/LibDem are 5 short of the 323 which is barely viable as you indicate.
I was of course talking about Damian McBride's activities working in his role as Gordon Brown's Head of Communications.
'Get down on your knees and say thank you.'
For the housing crisis,for the cut in wages & living standards a really popular Labour policy.
Unemployment in the town is through the roof, and the original population are becoming addicted to benefit culture, & daytime tv, the unemployed kids are causing trouble on the estates.
Is the bottom line all that matters? Or should politicians point to the takeover as an economic success for the town?
The 31-year-old killer is from southern Sudan but is currently living in Årdal, the small Norwegian town where the hijack took place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/10426272/Three-killed-in-Norway-bus-hijacking.html
Could have been a lot worse.
Reed's monthly jobs index reports across the board expansion as number of vacancies jumps back to levels last seen five years ago"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10425483/Recruiter-reports-jobs-growth-in-every-sector-and-region.html
The BBC's overnight strapline identified India as a "south Asian country". The day shift is more confident of its readers' knowledge of geography but not of astronomy since it helpfully reminds us that Mars is the "Red Planet". Are journalists no longer warned against inelegant variation?
However like Ms Lucas he's right at the margin.
36% all gave a CON o_O ?! Majority ?!
Has there been some demographic shift in the seats since then - surely 36% all would give Labour most seats (But not a majority) this time
What's a little bit more plausible is that Labour might have felt the need to cut a bit more than Osborne did to reassure the markets, and clobbered short-term growth a bit more than Osborne did in the process.
OTOH, immigrants from outside the EEA do the reverse. The report estimates that between 2007-11, immigrants from outside the EEA contributed taxes worth E230 bn, and incurred public expenditure worth E283 bn.
And immigrants from outside the EEA have an employment rate of 62%, compared to 70% for the British-born population (falling to 59% among recent immigrants from outside the EEA).
So, we benefit from immigration from first-world countries. We import poverty from third-world countries.
http://pragcap.com/the-us-government-is-not-16-trillion-in-the-hole
But you don't answer my key question as to whether you'd consider bringing back the service by having the public sector tender for maturing franchises? (No-one is talking about the wholesale BRification of the network)
Overall, the Conservatives only had a small lead on the economy in May 2010.
And I admire your coolness under fire in referring to eg. Italy's little local difficulty with 10-yr yields at over 7% a couple of years ago.
What do you suppose the delta on domestic mortgages would be if UK rates went up 100bps?
Hang on a sec. Immigrants from outside the EEA include Americans, Aussies, New Zealanders, Saffers, Canucs, and the like, don't they? are you saying that that lot come here to live a life on the dole??
Maybe Labour would have done something, if they'd won the election, but since they did absolutely nothing before, cancelled the spending review, and kept going on about 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts', you can assume that only if you think they were quite extraordinarily cynical and dishonest.
"It is great to be here in Battersea with you today. Last Friday, I was in my constituency, at the local Citizens Advice Bureau. And I talked to some people who had been preyed upon by payday lenders.There was a woman there in floods of tears."
It is great to be in (insert place here). Last (insert date and place) link to what the dear leader was doing then add cause of the week/theme from grid...all stand, all applaud, cheers...
For instance, another model might be concessions, rather than the franchises given out at the moment. Concessions are already used for some transport schemes. See (1). Although there will be disadvantages as well.
"No-one is talking about the wholesale BRification of the network)"
That's what most people I talk to seem to think 'renationalisation of the railways' means - a return to the (good/bad) old days of BR. If what you are saying is true, then Labour need to make it clear that it isn't a renationalisation of the railways, just a small part.
You will also need to define how the renationsalised parts interact with the rest of the system, including the remaining privatised operators, and the ROSCOs.
For instance: are you in favour of OpenAccess operators?
There's an interesting document from ATOC ("Passenger rail: Dataset on financial performance,
passenger benefits, and value of franchising model 1997/98 – 2011/12", which chows that total investment in the railways is not much greater than it was in 1994/5, yet traffic is massively greater. Note that was a spike year (before the rundown for privatisation), and you should note the source of the data ...
(1): http://www.railhub2.co.uk/rh4/business/briefs/RHB_franchise.php
http://www.marca.com/2013/11/05/en/football/real_madrid/1383643128.html
Twitter
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 57s
EdMili on #Falkirk: "we have acted swiftly and thoroughly" <<But I just won't reopen the inquiry
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 11s
EdMili: "we will get any new evidence" on #Falkirk <Trying to realign his opposing position with Alistair Darling??
That's the breakdown they dare not show you....the breakdown between the different non-EEA countries.
I reckon many of Britain's immigration problems boil down to just a handful of places.
Trouble is, adopting a country-by country approach would be deemed 'racist' I guess.
However, you're no stranger to selectively chosen statistics, so it caused a raised eyebrow to see you picking up someone else up on it!
- Big government bureaucracy decides who comes in then micro-manages what they do when they arrive: Make a loss. (Probably.)
- Free markets decide who comes in, government prevented from tinkering: Make a huge profit.
http://www.slideshare.net/GaldeMerkline/transport-perspectivesrailjulyaug2013
As you can see, total subsidies are not too far off what they were in the mid-1990s, (at 2012 prices). If you trust the source, yet traffic has gone up a great deal.
It would be interesting to know whether the spike afterwards was caused by underinvestment in the late 1990s in the run-up to Hatfield, increasing traffic, or both.
3rd question from reporter at EdMili's cost of living speech. 3rd question on #Falkirk
Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound 1m
Miliband has now been pressed on five occasions to hold another inquiry into Falkirk - and he won't/can't say it.
Oh dear.
we should get rid of all the "native" brits and replace them with french and italians. Which country will have you ?
Call me crazy, but I think some reporters turned up at Miliband’s speech to ask about Falkirk not the cost of living. Shhhhurely not?
So basically the report is saying what everyone knew anyway. 2 types of immigration. High value, high skilled, high earner immigration, and low skilled low value immirgration
We need more of the first, and less of the second...
If not higher. Which means that others are letting down the side big time for the average to be so low....
Marxism lives.
Twitter
PoliticsHome @politicshome 3m
Speaker Bercow interrupts a George Osborne tirade on Labour and Unite: “Nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Chancellor. “
Tony Grew @ayestotheright 5m
Speaker tells off Osborne for mentioning Falkirk during Q on fuel prices. Chancellor basically ignores him
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 4m
3rd question from reporter at EdMili's cost of living speech. 3rd question on #Falkirk
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 5m
EdM, asked *again* re Falkirk: "The right thing to do is to look at any new evidence presented. I will look at any new evidence."
Jason Cowan @jason_manc 2m
Strange, as he loves inquiries. RT @ShippersUnbound: Miliband has now been pressed on five occasions to hold another inquiry into Falkirk