politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Does the government care that household debt is soaring?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Does the government care that household debt is soaring?

HenryGManson asks Does the government care that household debt is soaring?

New PB Thread

http://t.co/8WK28EM4eL pic.twitter.com/j16apwPMPH

Read the full story here

SimonStClare

Oh dear, - where does one begin with such utter dross?

With the recession a distant memory, GDP up, unemployment down and the budget deficit slowly but surely being whittled down, Labour have lost the economic argument. - Let’s create another meme instead?

SimonStClare

FPT

Sad news - May I express my sincerest condolences to Mike Smithson and family for their loss.

foxinsoxuk

Henry seems to agree with the view of the Tory party conference, that there csn be little let up in austerity in the next govt, and that the defecit and debt need to come down further.

I am sure that ALP would agree that Osbornes management of the national finances is looking kasterful, with no double dip recession and reasonably strong growth returned despite the Euro problems of the last few years. Balls has nothing to say and nothing to offer.

The coalition plans to keep the burden of taxation on the working poor low; and to keep low interest rates for the forseable future do seem to be the solution to the problems in the article.

There have been few pay rises for most of us in the last five years, and the best chance of these in the near future is if there is a relative shortage of semi skilled labour, which means controlling immigration.

There really is little alternative to coalition economic and immigration policy.

rcs1000

Some notes

1. Debt in absolute levels is not important, it is debt relative to GDP that matters.
2. Household debt is not the same as government debt.
3. On World Bank numbers*, UK private sector (household plus corporate) debt as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 213% in 2009 to 178% today - that's one of the most impressive develveragings in the world, with only Ireland having done more to reduce debt.

* http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FS.AST.PRVT.GD.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

rcs1000

(Yes MrJones these numbers are all made up by pixies at the World Bank who are in collusion with the Bankstas to rob the world and turn this into a plantation economy.)

Roger

@Mike

I'm sorry to hear about your brother.

I imagine it's not John the well known producer?

CarlottaVance

UK Private sector debt:(%GDP)
1997: 116
2010: 202

rcs1000

Roger said:

@Mike

I'm sorry to hear about your brother.

I imagine it's not John the well known producer?

@Roger, no it's not

rcs1000

CarlottaVance said:

UK Private sector debt:(%GDP)
1997: 116
2010: 202

See the World Bank numbers I've linked to below

SouthCoastKevin

foxinsoxuk said:

Henry seems to agree with the view of the Tory party conference, that there can be little let up in austerity in the next govt, and that the defecit and debt need to come down further...

There really is little alternative to coalition economic and immigration policy.

This is certainly how it seems to me. I listened to Question Time on Radio 5 last night and Nicola Sturgeon has swayed me a bit. I now want Yes to win in Scotland, so we can all see whether the SNP's anti-austerity (but, a la Greece, without the power to devalue its currency) approach can actually be a success in the current economic climate.

But then I feel bad because, given I think it'll be a disaster for Scotland and they'll have to adopt roughly the same spending envelope as we have now, effectively I'm wishing ill on Scotland (unless, of course, I am hopelessly wrong on the economics!).

foxinsoxuk

It looks increasingly like Labour is agreeing with coalition policy. Not before time...

tim said:

@foxinsox

Damn right there's no alternative to the govt immigration policy of increased net migration, if they can now concentrate on getting student numbers back up we can all applaud them

CarlottaVance

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

UK Private sector debt:(%GDP)
1997: 116
2010: 202

See the World Bank numbers I've linked to below

Thanks! - That's where I got them from!

It's not just the public sector that Labour leaves in debt.

Osborne had to borrow more in his first month than Labour did in its first seven years.

JackW

Mike and Robert

I'm very sorry to hear of the death of your brother and uncle. Times like these put into sharp context the everyday moans and groans we have.

If PBers are fortunate enough to have a loving family give them an extra hug, or a phone call and tell them you love them and then spare an extra thought for the Smithson family today.

RIP.

foxinsoxuk

The world bank figures are of interest. Not least in that the countries at the top of the table are higher in debt, but also the ones where economic prospects of progress are most likely. The figure at the lower end of the table are a list of undeveloped countries.

The figures are a mixture of individual and corporate debt, and I am sure these vary greatly from country to country. Companies with cashpiles, balancing individuals with personal debt is not really a sign of economic health.

As most individuals main debt is mortgage, it does show that falling house prices would provoke a lot of negative equity. Keeping house prices stable while maintaining low interest rates is going to be a major challenge.

Nationally house prices are stable, even if rising in London. I do wonder whether an economic policy right for most of the UK is too loose for London.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

UK Private sector debt:(%GDP)
1997: 116
2010: 202

See the World Bank numbers I've linked to below

CarlottaVance

SouthCoastKevin said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Henry seems to agree with the view of the Tory party conference, that there can be little let up in austerity in the next govt, and that the defecit and debt need to come down further...

There really is little alternative to coalition economic and immigration policy.

This is certainly how it seems to me. I listened to Question Time on Radio 5 last night and Nicola Sturgeon has swayed me a bit.

I'd say the audience was pretty evenly split - not the ~2:1 pro-Union suggested by some of the polls - while Annabel Goldie came across well, I thought the most impressive pol the Green - made his case without being strident. The Nat non-pol was a total 'mare, not listening and shouting down other panelists - her case being passion is superior to logic.....Margaret Curran (Labour) handled a sticky wicket with the skill of an England batsman.....

Alanbrooke

Condolences Mike.

SouthCoastKevin

Yeah, I agree with all that, @CarlottaVance. I knew hardly anything about Goldie but she was really good, I thought. Mind you, I can understand how her more measured, reflective style doesn't exactly get her noticed alongside the bombast of Salmond and Sturgeon...

Just to be clear, Sturgeon swayed me by being rude, arrogant and blustering. She didn't exactly convert me to the righteousness of the Nat cause (although I still absolutely think it's up to Scotland to decide Yes or No).

CarlottaVance

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthCoastKevin said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Henry seems to agree with the view of the Tory party conference, that there can be little let up in austerity in the next govt, and that the defecit and debt need to come down further...

There really is little alternative to coalition economic and immigration policy.

This is certainly how it seems to me. I listened to Question Time on Radio 5 last night and Nicola Sturgeon has swayed me a bit.

I'd say the audience was pretty evenly split - not the ~2:1 pro-Union suggested by some of the polls - while Annabel Goldie came across well, I thought the most impressive pol the Green - made his case without being strident. The Nat non-pol was a total 'mare, not listening and shouting down other panelists - her case being passion is superior to logic.....Margaret Curran (Labour) handled a sticky wicket with the skill of an England batsman.....

Two questions after Question Time

Why was Goldie sacked and replaced by Davidson, but most of all.

WHO THE F*CK THOUGH MAKING ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL SCOTTISH SECRETARY WAS A GOOD IDEA?????!!!!????

Goldie resigned. On the second question someone should "Ask Clegg".....

audreyanne

I was expecting more balanced threads on this political site. This and a number of others seem to be mouthpieces of left-wing bias?

Although it is very tough for lots of people the economy is recovering so it is about translating that from the national picture to households which is bound to take some time.

audreyanne

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

JosiasJessop

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthCoastKevin said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Henry seems to agree with the view of the Tory party conference, that there can be little let up in austerity in the next govt, and that the defecit and debt need to come down further...

There really is little alternative to coalition economic and immigration policy.

This is certainly how it seems to me. I listened to Question Time on Radio 5 last night and Nicola Sturgeon has swayed me a bit.

I'd say the audience was pretty evenly split - not the ~2:1 pro-Union suggested by some of the polls - while Annabel Goldie came across well, I thought the most impressive pol the Green - made his case without being strident. The Nat non-pol was a total 'mare, not listening and shouting down other panelists - her case being passion is superior to logic.....Margaret Curran (Labour) handled a sticky wicket with the skill of an England batsman.....

Two questions after Question Time

Why was Goldie sacked and replaced by Davidson, but most of all.

WHO THE F*CK THOUGH MAKING ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL SCOTTISH SECRETARY WAS A GOOD IDEA?????!!!!????

Who the f*ck thought giving Phil Woolas the immigration brief was a good idea?
who the f*ck thought making Alan Johnson shadow chancellor was a good idea?
Who the f*ck thought making Andy Burnham shadow health minister was a good idea?

And finally: who the f*ck thought making Ed Miliband Labour leader was a good idea? Not the members, that's for sure.

I think I win this one. ;-)

Scrapheap_as_was

Labour's debt obsession - theirs 'even when the sun was shining' was just good 'investment'..... everyone else's is scary and bad. As the stats show below, it's all spin anyway. Much like the deficit has gone away and is being ignored by all the parties shtick.

DavidL

The private sector deleveraging for the UK is impressive but the reduction has been more on the corporate side than the household. Although there has been a reduction in mortgage debt in recent years there is no doubt that consumer debt is and remains a problem.

It is worth remembering that Labour left this country with the highest combined debt (public +private) in the world as a proportion of GDP. When Brown was claiming that we were the best prepared for the downturn he was, as usual, 100% wrong. We were the worst positioned of any major country.

This is why Osborne has put so much emphasis on exports as a source of growth and why his recovery plans were so badly hit by the collapse of demand in the EZ. To get back to anything like a stable position this country needs not only to eliminate the deficit and start repaying public sector debt, it also needs to control consumption for a very, very long time until real wages make the current debt burden more tolerable.

So the decade of madness under Labour engenders the need for decades of reduced consumption, debt repayment and spending less than we earn rather than more. It makes government difficult and getting re-elected even more so.

Alanbrooke

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthCoastKevin said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Henry seems to agree with the view of the Tory party conference, that there can be little let up in austerity in the next govt, and that the defecit and debt need to come down further...

There really is little alternative to coalition economic and immigration policy.

This is certainly how it seems to me. I listened to Question Time on Radio 5 last night and Nicola Sturgeon has swayed me a bit.

I'd say the audience was pretty evenly split - not the ~2:1 pro-Union suggested by some of the polls - while Annabel Goldie came across well, I thought the most impressive pol the Green - made his case without being strident. The Nat non-pol was a total 'mare, not listening and shouting down other panelists - her case being passion is superior to logic.....Margaret Curran (Labour) handled a sticky wicket with the skill of an England batsman.....

Two questions after Question Time

Why was Goldie sacked and replaced by Davidson, but most of all.

WHO THE F*CK THOUGH MAKING ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL SCOTTISH SECRETARY WAS A GOOD IDEA?????!!!!????

Who the f*ck thought giving Phil Woolas the immigration brief was a good idea?
who the f*ck thought making Alan Johnson shadow chancellor was a good idea?
Who the f*ck thought making Andy Burnham shadow health minister was a good idea?

And finally: who the f*ck thought making Ed Miliband Labour leader was a good idea? Not the members, that's for sure.

I think I win this one. ;-)

What has any of that to do with appointing Carmichael?

There's an increasing tendency among the PB Tories to just say "well Osborne is the same as Brown" or "IDS doesn't lie as much as the most notorious pathological liar in the history of lying"

But it's pointless.

You'll post any old bollox are you totally bored ?

SouthamObserver

The government needs household debt to increase in order for the recovery to be sustained because the UK economy has not rebalanced in any meaningful way. So, yes, it does care. Very much. It just doesn't care in the way that perhaps it should.

The problem is that rock bottom interest rates, plus increasing household debt, at a time when incomes are falling relative to inflation mean major trouble further down the line. Interest rates will not stay as they are forever.

JosiasJessop

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthCoastKevin said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Henry seems to agree with the view of the Tory party conference, that there can be little let up in austerity in the next govt, and that the defecit and debt need to come down further...

There really is little alternative to coalition economic and immigration policy.

This is certainly how it seems to me. I listened to Question Time on Radio 5 last night and Nicola Sturgeon has swayed me a bit.

I'd say the audience was pretty evenly split - not the ~2:1 pro-Union suggested by some of the polls - while Annabel Goldie came across well, I thought the most impressive pol the Green - made his case without being strident. The Nat non-pol was a total 'mare, not listening and shouting down other panelists - her case being passion is superior to logic.....Margaret Curran (Labour) handled a sticky wicket with the skill of an England batsman.....

Two questions after Question Time

Why was Goldie sacked and replaced by Davidson, but most of all.

WHO THE F*CK THOUGH MAKING ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL SCOTTISH SECRETARY WAS A GOOD IDEA?????!!!!????

Who the f*ck thought giving Phil Woolas the immigration brief was a good idea?
who the f*ck thought making Alan Johnson shadow chancellor was a good idea?
Who the f*ck thought making Andy Burnham shadow health minister was a good idea?

And finally: who the f*ck thought making Ed Miliband Labour leader was a good idea? Not the members, that's for sure.

I think I win this one. ;-)

What has any of that to do with appointing Carmichael?

There's an increasing tendency among the PB Tories to just say "well Osborne is the same as Brown" or "IDS doesn't lie as much as the most notorious pathological liar in the history of lying"

But it's pointless.

You asked a question about Carmichael, and I asked some similar questions from another political angle.

After all, Woolas and Johnson were hardly the most inspired political appointments, were they? (And I actually quite like Johnson).

But as you're reduced to repeatedly commenting on Cameron's weight, I think you've pretty comprehensively lost the political argument.

Labour: the real nasty party.

bigjohnowls

Who the f*ck thought giving Phil Woolas the immigration brief was a good idea?
who the f*ck thought making Alan Johnson shadow chancellor was a good idea?
Who the f*ck thought making Andy Burnham shadow health minister was a good idea?

And finally: who the f*ck thought making Ed Miliband Labour leader was a good idea? Not the members, that's for sure.

I think I win this one. ;-)

Was it the same person who thought freezing energy prices, stopping pay day loan excesses, stopping the race to war in Syria would be a good idea?

I am sure that was the coalition wasn't it?

SouthamObserver

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I fear that really may represent the sum of mainstream Tory thinking on this issue. God help us if it does.

Alanbrooke

SouthamObserver said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I fear that really may represent the sum of mainstream Tory thinking on this issue. God help us if it does.

hardly riposte of the century.

DavidL

One thing I tend to agree with Tim on is that the Unionist cause in Scotland is struggling for credible leadership. It is alarming and disappointing how the Lib Dem worthies such as Charles Kennedy, Ming Campbell and Sir Malcolm Bruce seem to be opting out and leaving the job to lesser men.

It is equally depressing that Scottish Labour is in such a mess with a frightening lack of quality, particularly in the Scottish Parliament. Darling is playing his part but where are the shadow cabinet members from Scotland whose jobs are on the line? I find their apparent indifference confusing, not least because Scotland is so critical to their UK prospects.

I honestly think that, Darling apart, the best response has been from Davidson and, occasionally, Goldie. But it is quite unrealistic to suggest that tories can make the running in Scotland. Labour really need to get their act together if the Union is to be saved and that does not mean employing Margaret Curren.

bigjohnowls

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I presume you are barren or filthy rich

You do know the policy will be next weeks U turn dont you

Charles

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

House prices rises are not entirely an excellent thing.

House prices are too high overall, and ideally should remain basically flat or small rises until they are more affordable for the average person.

There are benefits from rising prices in terms of confidence, but these are disproportionately shared.

And this is from someone who profoundly disagrees with tim's views, motives, attitude, misogyny and hostility to others

Alanbrooke

bigjohnowls said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I presume you are barren or filthy rich

You do know the policy will be next weeks U turn dont you

so you're arguing HMG will be forcing house prices down. Well it's a view.

SouthamObserver

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I fear that really may represent the sum of mainstream Tory thinking on this issue. God help us if it does.

hardly riposte of the century.

It wasn't meant to be. It was an observation. Rising house process at a time when incomes are stagnating and interest rates are at rock bottom is not good a thing. Throw in a housing shortage and it is a very bad thing.

JosiasJessop

SouthamObserver said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I fear that really may represent the sum of mainstream Tory thinking on this issue. God help us if it does.

It's more thinking than Labour put into housing during their thirteen years in power. They were hopeless, absolutely hopeless.

And we're supposed to think they've learnt the lessons of Pathfinder et al? If they get into power again, they will focus spending on education and health, spending massive amounts without getting good enough results.

Education failing. NHS cover-ups. PFI's everywhere. Debt hidden off the books.

That's Labour's record of shame.

SouthCoastKevin

DavidL said:

This is why Osborne has put so much emphasis on exports as a source of growth and why his recovery plans were so badly hit by the collapse of demand in the EZ. To get back to anything like a stable position this country needs not only to eliminate the deficit and start repaying public sector debt, it also needs to control consumption for a very, very long time until real wages make the current debt burden more tolerable.

So the decade of madness under Labour engenders the need for decades of reduced consumption, debt repayment and spending less than we earn rather than more. It makes government difficult and getting re-elected even more so.

It seems illogical and feeble for the current government to blame the eurozone for our economy not recovering more strongly (although the current picture looks decent) and at the same time reject Labour's claim that the credit crunch was not their fault. But DavidL's argument above seems totally fair to me.

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

Hi audreyanne, but Nooooooo! (Or are you joking?) A huge part of the problem in this country is that housing (renting and buying) is so expensive that many people don't have spare money to spend on much else, also so many couples have to both work in order to afford a house they want.

But a big drop in house prices would cause so much carnage (with the banks' balance sheets, many people being repossessed etc.) that the government has no choice but to stop prices falling back to the long-term trend ratio with earnings. Hence stupidly low interest rates, Help to Buy, pressure (so I've heard; is this confirmed?) on lenders not to repossess people, and so on. Grrrr. (Declaration of interest - I'd quite like to be able to buy a house at some point in the next few years, but can't remotely afford to at the moment.)

SouthamObserver

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I fear that really may represent the sum of mainstream Tory thinking on this issue. God help us if it does.

It's more thinking than Labour put into housing during their thirteen years in power. They were hopeless, absolutely hopeless.

And we're supposed to think they've learnt the lessons of Pathfinder et al? If they get into power again, they will focus spending on education and health, spending massive amounts without getting good enough results.

Education failing. NHS cover-ups. PFI's everywhere. Debt hidden off the books.

That's Labour's record of shame.

And that justifies relying on increased household debt to sustain the recovery in what way?

CarlottaVance

audreyanne said:

I was expecting more balanced threads on this political site. This and a number of others seem to be mouthpieces of left-wing bias?

Henry G Manson has a 'guest slot' where he summarises a question from a Labour perspective - David Herdson does the same from a Tory point of view - the perspectives of other thread writers are less obviously on display - but I'd say the site gets the balance pretty even overall. In any case, the thread header is to stimulate discussion - and Mr Manson's case has had some fairly robust rebuttal......

bigjohnowls

Alanbrooke said:

bigjohnowls said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I presume you are barren or filthy rich

You do know the policy will be next weeks U turn dont you

so you're arguing HMG will be forcing house prices down. Well it's a view.

I agree with Charles!

JosiasJessop

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

tim said:

Two questions after Question Time

Why was Goldie sacked and replaced by Davidson, but most of all.

WHO THE F*CK THOUGH MAKING ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL SCOTTISH SECRETARY WAS A GOOD IDEA?????!!!!????

Who the f*ck thought giving Phil Woolas the immigration brief was a good idea?
who the f*ck thought making Alan Johnson shadow chancellor was a good idea?
Who the f*ck thought making Andy Burnham shadow health minister was a good idea?

And finally: who the f*ck thought making Ed Miliband Labour leader was a good idea? Not the members, that's for sure.

I think I win this one. ;-)

What has any of that to do with appointing Carmichael?

There's an increasing tendency among the PB Tories to just say "well Osborne is the same as Brown" or "IDS doesn't lie as much as the most notorious pathological liar in the history of lying"

But it's pointless.

You asked a question about Carmichael, and I asked some similar questions from another political angle.

After all, Woolas and Johnson were hardly the most inspired political appointments, were they? (And I actually quite like Johnson).

But as you're reduced to repeatedly commenting on Cameron's weight, I think you've pretty comprehensively lost the political argument.

Labour: the real nasty party.

Pointless.
Why not explain how a bicycle pump works or something instead

Lol. That I could explain. ;-)

But to save my time, here's a fairly basic description:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiHpsg6wksc

It surprises me that you think such knowledge is in some way an insult.

Alanbrooke

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I fear that really may represent the sum of mainstream Tory thinking on this issue. God help us if it does.

hardly riposte of the century.

It wasn't meant to be. It was an observation. Rising house process at a time when incomes are stagnating and interest rates are at rock bottom is not good a thing. Throw in a housing shortage and it is a very bad thing.

We had house prices rising faster than disposable income for over a decade from 1997 and people applauded. No-one went on a house building programme either despite letting an additional 4 million people in to the country. The politicos shouting about house prices are the same ones who let it all happen. .

NickPalmer

foxinsoxuk said:

Nationally house prices are stable, even if rising in London. I do wonder whether an economic policy right for most of the UK is too loose for London.

I'm not normally a fan of Allister Heath (he's probably to the right of Milton Friedman) but this article on the London position is replete with interesting data:

http://www.cityam.com/article/1385602207/britain-s-two-nations-are-continuing-grow-ever-further-apart

His basic theme is that we have the same sort of problems as the Euro zone in that one area (London) could do with a different level of sterling and different policies to everyone else. He has a London bias but he's pretty convincing on this one.

Arguably the long-term answer to this is either to drive decentralisation more energetically (e.g. move Government, Ministries and Parliament to Manchester) or drive the ability to commute to London (hello HS2). In thr short term, the solution is not obvious (to me anyway).

This also looks at the issue, though less rich in data than Heath's article:

http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?id=4536&title=The+UK+needs+to+lift+its+second+tier+cities

Charles

NickPalmer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Nationally house prices are stable, even if rising in London. I do wonder whether an economic policy right for most of the UK is too loose for London.

I'm not normally a fan of Allister Heath (he's probably to the right of Milton Friedman) but this article on the London position is replete with interesting data:

http://www.cityam.com/article/1385602207/britain-s-two-nations-are-continuing-grow-ever-further-apart

His basic theme is that we have the same sort of problems as the Euro zone in that one area (London) could do with a different level of sterling and different policies to everyone else. He has a London bias but he's pretty convincing on this one.

Arguably the long-term answer to this is either to drive decentralisation more energetically (e.g. move Government, Ministries and Parliament to Manchester) or drive the ability to commute to London (hello HS2). In thr short term, the solution is not obvious (to me anyway).

Well we could start by abolishing the national wage bargaining...?

Alanbrooke

tim said:

@fergalob: U.K. House Prices Rise in Revival That Prompted Carney Response http://t.co/cBWkIFLB99 via @BloombergNews @eshelouise

Your point being ?

JosiasJessop

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I fear that really may represent the sum of mainstream Tory thinking on this issue. God help us if it does.

It's more thinking than Labour put into housing during their thirteen years in power. They were hopeless, absolutely hopeless.

And we're supposed to think they've learnt the lessons of Pathfinder et al? If they get into power again, they will focus spending on education and health, spending massive amounts without getting good enough results.

Education failing. NHS cover-ups. PFI's everywhere. Debt hidden off the books.

That's Labour's record of shame.

And that justifies relying on increased household debt to sustain the recovery in what way?

It doesn't. But I would make the following points:
1) Labour did far worse wrt household debt whilst in power.
2) No party is willing to look at the fundamental causes of the housing problems.
3) Where were Labour's concerns about growing household debt whilst they were in power? Perhaps if they had been, the worst of the crash might have been avoided.

Tell me what happened to the savings ratio between 1997 and 2010?

Theuniondivvie

'Scottish independence: BoE offers currency talks

THE Governor of the Bank of England said yesterday that he would welcome the opportunity to enter “basic discussions” with the Scottish Government on its plan to create a sterling currency union if Scotland votes for independence.'

http://tinyurl.com/p57oyh5

Stuart_Dickson

Query to experienced punters: how would you rate your contact with bookies via their live chat tools? Generally, I have been very happy with the customer service I have received via chat: polite, well-informed, efficient, send requests to relevant trader etc.

However, this morning I have just had a quite surreal chat with someone calling themselves "Ronald" at Hills' chat. The main problem was that "Ronald" was clearly not remotely competent in the English language: the entire "copy and paste" screeds were just riddled with ungrammatical formulations, rendering them to gobbledegook.

Have Hills moved their customer service department to a country that doesn't have English as the first language?

The second problem was that "Ronald" clearly doesn't know how to refer a straightforward price request to the appropriate trader. However, a simple "no" would have sufficed, instead of 200 words of nonsense which appear to be his way of saying "no".

Gerry_Mander

NickPalmer said:

Arguably the long-term answer to this is either to drive decentralisation more energetically (e.g. move Government, Ministries and Parliament to Manchester) or drive the ability to commute to London (hello HS2). In thr short term, the solution is not obvious (to me anyway).

Decentralising might be a good idea, not sure about HS2. Who's going to be using that as a daily commute?

(And this is being written by someone who works from home, for an international company based near London, who occasionally travels on the train off peak at £80 per day).

Edit : before JJ gets flustered. I mean HS2 in the sense of a daily commute. How much would that cost? Monday-Friday doesn't help much, because commuters would end up staying in London B&B

CarlottaVance

@TSE (and other 'Apple Whores') Apple do have discounts on iPad Air & iPad Mini (±10%) today - which John Lewis are matching.

JosiasJessop

NickPalmer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Nationally house prices are stable, even if rising in London. I do wonder whether an economic policy right for most of the UK is too loose for London.

I'm not normally a fan of Allister Heath (he's probably to the right of Milton Friedman) but this article on the London position is replete with interesting data:

http://www.cityam.com/article/1385602207/britain-s-two-nations-are-continuing-grow-ever-further-apart

His basic theme is that we have the same sort of problems as the Euro zone in that one area (London) could do with a different level of sterling and different policies to everyone else. He has a London bias but he's pretty convincing on this one.

Arguably the long-term answer to this is either to drive decentralisation more energetically (e.g. move Government, Ministries and Parliament to Manchester) or drive the ability to commute to London (hello HS2). In thr short term, the solution is not obvious (to me anyway).

This also looks at the issue, though less rich in data than Heath's article:

http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?id=4536&title=The+UK+needs+to+lift+its+second+tier+cities

Will you be opposing all upgrades to the M1, as such upgrades drive the ability to commute to London?

AndyJS

CarlottaVance said:

SouthCoastKevin said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Henry seems to agree with the view of the Tory party conference, that there can be little let up in austerity in the next govt, and that the defecit and debt need to come down further...

There really is little alternative to coalition economic and immigration policy.

This is certainly how it seems to me. I listened to Question Time on Radio 5 last night and Nicola Sturgeon has swayed me a bit.

I'd say the audience was pretty evenly split - not the ~2:1 pro-Union suggested by some of the polls - while Annabel Goldie came across well, I thought the most impressive pol the Green - made his case without being strident. The Nat non-pol was a total 'mare, not listening and shouting down other panelists - her case being passion is superior to logic.....Margaret Curran (Labour) handled a sticky wicket with the skill of an England batsman.....

I was going to make the same point. Pro-independence may even have been in a slight majority in the audience. Although QT audiences aren't always particularly representative, it does lead me to believe that things are a bit closer than people think.

another_richard

I don't recall any lefties complaining when house prices soared and household debt soared under Labour with economic and social mobility consequently going into reverse.

IIRC household debt increased by £120bn in 2007 alone.

And what will Labour's economic policy be based upon in a government of the Eds ?

To get house prices rising and households borrowing more.

The Labour viewpoint was best summarised here by their mouthpiece 'snowflake' - "debt is wealth".

AndyJS

NickPalmer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Nationally house prices are stable, even if rising in London. I do wonder whether an economic policy right for most of the UK is too loose for London.

I'm not normally a fan of Allister Heath (he's probably to the right of Milton Friedman) but this article on the London position is replete with interesting data:

http://www.cityam.com/article/1385602207/britain-s-two-nations-are-continuing-grow-ever-further-apart

His basic theme is that we have the same sort of problems as the Euro zone in that one area (London) could do with a different level of sterling and different policies to everyone else. He has a London bias but he's pretty convincing on this one.

Arguably the long-term answer to this is either to drive decentralisation more energetically (e.g. move Government, Ministries and Parliament to Manchester) or drive the ability to commute to London (hello HS2). In thr short term, the solution is not obvious (to me anyway).

This also looks at the issue, though less rich in data than Heath's article:

http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?id=4536&title=The+UK+needs+to+lift+its+second+tier+cities

Would moving government departments to provincial cities help?

another_richard

Re fracking.

We have the conflict between it being good for the country as a whole but the areas where it is to take place possibly having more to lose than gain from it.

Surely the answer is for local areas to keep a much larger proportion of the wealth it brings so encouraging them to support rather than oppose it.

Or can the government think of nothing else than giving all the wealth to big business and then taxing them ?

AndyJS

"Netherlands loses AAA rating with S&P, but Cyprus is upgraded":

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/29/netherlands-loses-aaa-rating-eurozone-unemployment-live

another_richard

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Nationally house prices are stable, even if rising in London. I do wonder whether an economic policy right for most of the UK is too loose for London.

I'm not normally a fan of Allister Heath (he's probably to the right of Milton Friedman) but this article on the London position is replete with interesting data:

http://www.cityam.com/article/1385602207/britain-s-two-nations-are-continuing-grow-ever-further-apart

His basic theme is that we have the same sort of problems as the Euro zone in that one area (London) could do with a different level of sterling and different policies to everyone else. He has a London bias but he's pretty convincing on this one.

Arguably the long-term answer to this is either to drive decentralisation more energetically (e.g. move Government, Ministries and Parliament to Manchester) or drive the ability to commute to London (hello HS2). In thr short term, the solution is not obvious (to me anyway).

This also looks at the issue, though less rich in data than Heath's article:

http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?id=4536&title=The+UK+needs+to+lift+its+second+tier+cities

Would moving government departments to provincial cities help?

Is there any need to do anything.

Londoners work harder and pay more taxes for a lower quality of life than the rest of us.

Each to their own of course.

Richard_Tyndall

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I fear that really may represent the sum of mainstream Tory thinking on this issue. God help us if it does.

It's more thinking than Labour put into housing during their thirteen years in power. They were hopeless, absolutely hopeless.

And we're supposed to think they've learnt the lessons of Pathfinder et al? If they get into power again, they will focus spending on education and health, spending massive amounts without getting good enough results.

Education failing. NHS cover-ups. PFI's everywhere. Debt hidden off the books.

That's Labour's record of shame.

And that justifies relying on increased household debt to sustain the recovery in what way?

Well clearly it doesn't - or rather it doesn't need to be justified - since according to Robert's figures towards the beginning of this thread household debt has fallen rapidly as a percentage of GDP.

AndyJS

"Thai protesters break into Bangkok army headquarters
Demonstrators storm compound in latest bid to force out government of Yingluck Shinawatra":

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/thai-protesters-bangkok-army-compound

JosiasJessop

Gerry_Mander said:

NickPalmer said:

Arguably the long-term answer to this is either to drive decentralisation more energetically (e.g. move Government, Ministries and Parliament to Manchester) or drive the ability to commute to London (hello HS2). In thr short term, the solution is not obvious (to me anyway).

Decentralising might be a good idea, not sure about HS2. Who's going to be using that as a daily commute?

(And this is being written by someone who works from home, for an international company based near London, who occasionally travels on the train off peak at £80 per day).

Edit : before JJ gets flustered. I mean HS2 in the sense of a daily commute. How much would that cost? Monday-Friday doesn't help much, because commuters would end up staying in London B&B

I'm not flustered. I'm still laughing at Tim thinking someone having knowledge is in any way an insult. :-)

People do commute daily from Nottingham to Derby for work, both by rail and car. Twenty years ago, one of my brother's friends drove daily from near Burton to South London.

My immediate ex-neighbour commuted from here in Cambridge to Haywards Heath three times a week, driving down and back each day. A friend commutes from Southampton to the wrong side of Oxford to work at making things go Vrooommmmm!

Not my idea of a life.

So let's do a comparison.
A Derby to London rail annual ticket costs £7-9,000.
According to the AA, the drive takes 2 hours 34 minutes, and would cost £20 in fuel one way, or £40 two way. If you make the journey 200 times a year, then it would cost £8,000 and take 1,000 hours of your life.

Gerry_Mander

another_richard said:

Is there any need to do anything.

Londoners work harder and pay more taxes for a lower quality of life than the rest of us.

Each to their own of course.

Not sure they work harder, unless you count travelling as part of the work. IMHO, networking appears to be better (they go to the pub after work, whereas everyone round here drives), but apart from that the main advantage of having an office in London appears to be credibility. If you're a multinational, why base yourself in Coventry, for example?

Plato

FPT Condolences to Mr Smithson and his family.

dugarbandier

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

audreyanne said:

And as you can see from Tim's post house prices are rising which is excellent news.

I fear that really may represent the sum of mainstream Tory thinking on this issue. God help us if it does.

It's more thinking than Labour put into housing during their thirteen years in power. They were hopeless, absolutely hopeless.

And we're supposed to think they've learnt the lessons of Pathfinder et al? If they get into power again, they will focus spending on education and health, spending massive amounts without getting good enough results.

Education failing. NHS cover-ups. PFI's everywhere. Debt hidden off the books.

That's Labour's record of shame.

And that justifies relying on increased household debt to sustain the recovery in what way?

Well clearly it doesn't - or rather it doesn't need to be justified - since according to Robert's figures towards the beginning of this thread household debt has fallen rapidly as a percentage of GDP.

would household debt relative to household income be a better measure? or is that an economically illiterate thing to say?

TGOHF

Yay Marxist Friday on pb.com

What market can we shut next after personal loans ?

How about a cap on weekly supermarket shop amount ??

richardDodd

Does anyone have the figures for personal and business bankruptcies between 97 -2013, as in, which year was the highest.

Charles

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Nationally house prices are stable, even if rising in London. I do wonder whether an economic policy right for most of the UK is too loose for London.

I'm not normally a fan of Allister Heath (he's probably to the right of Milton Friedman) but this article on the London position is replete with interesting data:

http://www.cityam.com/article/1385602207/britain-s-two-nations-are-continuing-grow-ever-further-apart

His basic theme is that we have the same sort of problems as the Euro zone in that one area (London) could do with a different level of sterling and different policies to everyone else. He has a London bias but he's pretty convincing on this one.

Arguably the long-term answer to this is either to drive decentralisation more energetically (e.g. move Government, Ministries and Parliament to Manchester) or drive the ability to commute to London (hello HS2). In thr short term, the solution is not obvious (to me anyway).

This also looks at the issue, though less rich in data than Heath's article:

http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?id=4536&title=The+UK+needs+to+lift+its+second+tier+cities

Would moving government departments to provincial cities help?

No necessarily. There has been a consistent policy of shifting civil service jobs to marginal depressed constituencies for a decade or more.

It can help, but the impact, which combined with national pay scales, is that the rationale decision for the most talented individuals in those areas is to work for the state. As a result, the private sector becomes attenuated.

david_herdson

foxinsoxuk said:

The world bank figures are of interest. Not least in that the countries at the top of the table are higher in debt, but also the ones where economic prospects of progress are most likely. The figure at the lower end of the table are a list of undeveloped countries.

The figures are a mixture of individual and corporate debt, and I am sure these vary greatly from country to country. Companies with cashpiles, balancing individuals with personal debt is not really a sign of economic health.

As most individuals main debt is mortgage, it does show that falling house prices would provoke a lot of negative equity. Keeping house prices stable while maintaining low interest rates is going to be a major challenge.

Nationally house prices are stable, even if rising in London. I do wonder whether an economic policy right for most of the UK is too loose for London.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

UK Private sector debt:(%GDP)
1997: 116
2010: 202

See the World Bank numbers I've linked to below

No - the house price rises in London is being driven to a large extent by cash purchases. Tightening monetary policy wouldn't influence that directly. It might affect it indirectly if it drove prices down across the entire sector, or if it choked off the recovery, but those are surely prices too high to pay to keep central London flats available to British millionaires rather than foreign multi-millionaires.

Stuart_Dickson

DavidL said:

One thing I tend to agree with Tim on is that the Unionist cause in Scotland is struggling for credible leadership. It is alarming and disappointing how the Lib Dem worthies such as Charles Kennedy, Ming Campbell and Sir Malcolm Bruce seem to be opting out and leaving the job to lesser men.

It is equally depressing that Scottish Labour is in such a mess with a frightening lack of quality, particularly in the Scottish Parliament. Darling is playing his part but where are the shadow cabinet members from Scotland whose jobs are on the line? I find their apparent indifference confusing, not least because Scotland is so critical to their UK prospects.

I honestly think that, Darling apart, the best response has been from Davidson and, occasionally, Goldie. But it is quite unrealistic to suggest that tories can make the running in Scotland. Labour really need to get their act together if the Union is to be saved and that does not mean employing Margaret Curren.

IndyRef attendance record / score:

Johan Lamont MSP, Leader of the Scottish Labour Party: occasional attendee, 3/10

Anas Sarwar MP, Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party: frequent attendee, 1/10

Alistair Darling MP, David Cameron's spokesman: frequent attendee, 7/10

Gordon Brown MP, leader of the huffy "United with Labour" break-away outfit: nearly invisible, 3/10

Jim Murphy MP, shadow cabinet: nearly invisible, 4/10

Wee Dougie Alexander MP, shadow cabinet: nearly invisible, 6/10

Ian Davidson MP, bampot: frequent attendee, 1/10

Wullie Rennie MSP, one-man-band: frequent attendee, 2/10

Ruth Davidson, one-woman-band: infrequent attendee: 6/10

Charlie Kennedy MP: the prince over the water: 100% absent, 10/10 (when he eventually turns up)

Malcolm Bruce, former SLD leader: 100% absent, 2/10 (if he ever turns up, which he won't)

Menzies Campbell, former sprint champion: nearly invisible, 2/10

Margaret Curran MP, who is she?: nearly invisible, 1/10

AndyJS

JosiasJessop said:

Gerry_Mander said:

NickPalmer said:

Arguably the long-term answer to this is either to drive decentralisation more energetically (e.g. move Government, Ministries and Parliament to Manchester) or drive the ability to commute to London (hello HS2). In thr short term, the solution is not obvious (to me anyway).

Decentralising might be a good idea, not sure about HS2. Who's going to be using that as a daily commute?

(And this is being written by someone who works from home, for an international company based near London, who occasionally travels on the train off peak at £80 per day).

Edit : before JJ gets flustered. I mean HS2 in the sense of a daily commute. How much would that cost? Monday-Friday doesn't help much, because commuters would end up staying in London B&B

People do commute daily from Nottingham to Derby for work, both by rail and car. Twenty years ago, one of my brother's friends drove daily from near Burton to South London.

My immediate ex-neighbour commuted from here in Cambridge to Haywards Heath three times a week, driving down and back each day. A friend commutes from Southampton to the wrong side of Oxford to work at making things go Vrooommmmm!

Not my idea of a life.

So let's do a comparison.
A Derby to London rail annual ticket costs £7-9,000.
According to the AA, the drive takes 2 hours 34 minutes, and would cost £20 in fuel one way, or £40 two way. If you make the journey 200 times a year, then it would cost £8,000 and take 1,000 hours of your life.

Reminds me of the fact that a few years ago Michael Fabricant set up the Lichfield Commuters Club:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/movinghouse/3324019/The-super-commuter.html

"Perhaps even more surprising is that there is a goodly band of commuters-including highly paid bankers and senior managers - coming into London from Lichfield, in the rolling vales of south Staffordshire. Local MP Michael Fabricant has recently established a Lichfield Commuters Club. He explains why so many are willing to make the gruelling two-hour-plus journey to London every day: "Not only is Lichfield an enchantingly beautiful city but the schools here are outstanding and you are just minutes away from the glories of Cannock Chase."

JosiasJessop

tim said:

@JosiasJessop

I'm not knocking you're knowledge, just think you may have more to add to CentralReservationConstruction.com than you do here as your insight into politics or betting is zero

I disagree. Unlike you, I called Mitchell, Hunt, McAlpine and crying-at-funeral right, amongst others.

Which is more than you did.

I'll leave it to others to decide which websites you should visit instead of PB ...

david_herdson

On topic, do I smell a touch of panic in Labour ranks? It's either that or rank hypocrisy. Or perhaps both.

Much as a Year Zero approach to 2010 might be amenable to Labour, I doubt the public will forget their period in office and their legacy to the country quite so quickly.

Stuart_Dickson

Forgot Annabel Goldie MSP, the favourite Tory among people who do not vote Tory: infrequent attendee, 7/10

AndyJS

If Gordon Brown is one of the central figures in the No campaign I don't hold out much hope for its chances of success.

Stuart_Dickson

Also forgot Alastair Carmichael MP, the Lib Dems' 3rd choice for Scottish Secretary, frequent attendee, 2/10

(The fact that I initially forgot to mention him is indicative of his importance and impact.)

Stuart_Dickson

AndyJS said:

If Gordon Brown is one of the central figures in the No campaign I don't hold out much hope for its chances of success.

He isn't.

(He thinks he is, but his grasp on reality was always weak, even at the best of times. That fact in itself is a problem for SLab, among many problems.)

AndyJS

david_herdson said:

On topic, do I smell a touch of panic in Labour ranks? It's either that or rank hypocrisy. Or perhaps both.

Much as a Year Zero approach to 2010 might be amenable to Labour, I doubt the public will forget their period in office and their legacy to the country quite so quickly.

Maybe Labour should be worried: their average poll lead has almost halved over the last 12 months.

Compare this...
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

...with this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121119220034/http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

OldKingCole

JackW said:

Mike and Robert

I'm very sorry to hear of the death of your brother and uncle. Times like these put into sharp context the everyday moans and groans we have.

If PBers are fortunate enough to have a loving family give them an extra hug, or a phone call and tell them you love them and then spare an extra thought for the Smithson family today.

RIP.

Excellent post JackW, and one with which I'm sure those of us who have only just arrived back on the site agree.

AndyJS

"London is in flux. Its historic buildings and parklands provide the only constant in a capital whose demographics are being shaped by new energy and fresh expectations, regeneration projects and new- builds. Every day the capital becomes more eclectic as disparate tribes become neighbours, old with young, creative with corporates."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/buyingsellingandmoving/10478710/Which-London-tribe-do-you-belong-to.html

TGOHF

Brown polled 42% in Scotland in 2010 compared with his miserable 27.9% in England.

Slackbladder

OldKingCole said:

JackW said:

Mike and Robert

I'm very sorry to hear of the death of your brother and uncle. Times like these put into sharp context the everyday moans and groans we have.

If PBers are fortunate enough to have a loving family give them an extra hug, or a phone call and tell them you love them and then spare an extra thought for the Smithson family today.

RIP.

Excellent post JackW, and one with which I'm sure those of us who have only just arrived back on the site agree.

Indeed... thoughts with the Smithson family

Millsy

richardDodd said:

Does anyone have the figures for personal and business bankruptcies between 97 -2013, as in, which year was the highest.

http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/otherinformation/statistics/201311/index.htm

Slackbladder

SeanT said:

AndyJS said:

If Gordon Brown is one of the central figures in the No campaign I don't hold out much hope for its chances of success.

That's an Anglocentric viewpoint. Brown remained relatively more popular in Scotland.

He could now be wheeled out as a grand old man, giving sage advice, like Major (who was despised in his time in office). But nothing.

I think the unionists got complacent because the polls were so bad for the Nats. Well, now there's a fight, and if the union loses it will be Labour that suffers, the most, by far. Its not just the loss of MPs, their social and ideological heart would be ripped away.

To be utterly honest, the Scottish independence issue is a win/win for a lot of tories.

If No wins, that's ok, because the general thought is that the union is overall a pretty good thing for the country as a whole

If Yes wins, then the overall nature of the rUK will be more to the right that it was under the UK as a whole.. labour become much much more weakened. That's just a fact.

OldKingCole

AndyJS said:

"Thai protesters break into Bangkok army headquarters
Demonstrators storm compound in latest bid to force out government of Yingluck Shinawatra":

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/thai-protesters-bangkok-army-compound

I was close to the business district of Bangkok this morning (Chulalungkorn Univ.) No sign of any problem until two students arrived 15 minutes late and apologised that they'd been delayed by a demo.
Didn't say whether they were taking part in it or what. No-one was talking about it over lunch.

richardDodd

Sincere condolences to the Smithson family..

AndyJS

Carmichael telling a Scottish audience that 57% of UK voters supported the Coalition parties in 2010 may have been factually correct but it was perhaps a politically tin-eared thing to say on this particular QT programme.

AndyJS

OldKingCole said:

AndyJS said:

"Thai protesters break into Bangkok army headquarters
Demonstrators storm compound in latest bid to force out government of Yingluck Shinawatra":

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/thai-protesters-bangkok-army-compound

I was close to the business district of Bangkok this morning (Chulalungkorn Univ.) No sign of any problem until two students arrived 15 minutes late and apologised that they'd been delayed by a demo.
Didn't say whether they were taking part in it or what. No-one was talking about it over lunch.

Are the protests having any effect on prices?

richardDodd

Millsy, many thanks..It seems insolvencies peaked in 09 and have been on a downward trend since 2010...interesting

Gerry_Mander

SeanT said:

Sure. All true. But I'm a unionist, not a Tory. I don't want my country dismembered. Especially when the people breaking it up literally haven't a clue on fundamental issues like the currency or the EU.

I agree. as much as it would be nice to watch the Nats run their own business (and keep out of ours), I really wouldn't like the idea of a North Korea on our doorstep.

SouthCoastKevin

Slackbladder said:

To be utterly honest, the Scottish independence issue is a win/win for a lot of tories.

If No wins, that's ok, because the general thought is that the union is overall a pretty good thing for the country as a whole

If Yes wins, then the overall nature of the rUK will be more to the right that it was under the UK as a whole.. labour become much much more weakened. That's just a fact.

It's also a win/win for fiscally continent (or right-leaning, if you prefer) Lib Dems like me. And rather funny that Labour can so easily have 'Well you would say that' thrown at them when they argue the case for continued union.

another_richard

SeanT said:

I have a plot:

There's a journalist/writer who's highly talented and quite likeable but deeply flawed. He's a druggie and a drunk and near bankrupt, a generally underachieving failure. Lets call him Tom.

He begins researching a story and encounters a mysterious bloke who drops dark hints about a big conspiracy - it could involve genetics or religion or some such.

So Tom researches more and finds enough material to write some thrillers to save him from his financial problems.

But Tom also spends time at a blog where the community includes highly intelligent people from all over the world and who are experts in numerous fields.

As Tom likes to talk about both his work and himself this blogging community give him help with research and plotlines and because their knowledge and experience is so wideranging (far more than any single individual or organisation could provide) they notice the BIGGER CONSPIRACY behind the big conspiracy.

This leads to action scenes involving an exotic/erotic Thai hitwoman called Jam and lions. Lots of lions.

So there you have it the first proper internet thriller.

A bit post modern perhaps but I can't think of anything which involved psychotic women living in lighthouses.

Slackbladder

Gerry_Mander said:

SeanT said:

Sure. All true. But I'm a unionist, not a Tory. I don't want my country dismembered. Especially when the people breaking it up literally haven't a clue on fundamental issues like the currency or the EU.

I agree. as much as it would be nice to watch the Nats run their own business (and keep out of ours), I really wouldn't like the idea of a North Korea on our doorstep.

Oh, I don't know.. having a brain drain of the best and brightest from Scotland to England... (as happens now) would be ok.

BenM

Surely ‘austerity’ should be aiming to reduce household debt, not increase it?

Austerity can't reduce debt when it is practiced by foolish politicians in a period of downturn. In order to keep the economy the same size someone has to pick up the slack.

It is simple to see why when you break down GDP into its various components. An economy can only grow if there is a net positive contribution from the interaction between

1. The government
2. Consumers
3. Investments by Business
4. foreigners via exports

Austerity rules out number 1, and as Wednesday's updated release for Q3 growth showed numbers 3 and 4 are currently hamstrung because of a distinct lack of confidence and the fact all out partners are indulging in the same bombed out austerity ideology as we are.

So the burden of increasing output falls on number 2, who, in the absence of number 3 and 4 will find they have no real wage increases to play with so they have to borrow to fund their spending.

This is what we're seeing right now. It was what many of us warned would happen if we saw any growth without rebalancing. Osborne has predictably failed to alter the make-up of the bombed out British economy because of his adherence to fantasy la-la ideology, hence why private debt is growing, when it should be falling.

Stuart_Dickson

tim said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Also forgot Alastair Carmichael MP, the Lib Dems' 3rd choice for Scottish Secretary, frequent attendee, 2/10

(The fact that I initially forgot to mention him is indicative of his importance and impact.)

Along with "Why does Nicola Sturgeon wear that crash helmet indoors?" his promotion is one of the great mysteries of Scottish politics

Nicola has always had that hair cut. I first met her in the eighties and worked alongside her in eg the Glasgow City Association in the nighties, long before she got to a senior post in the party.

It is a classic among politician's haircuts. A signature, just like Maggie's odd design.

Any other classic politics haircuts we can think of? Michael Foot?

Ishmael_X

SeanT said:

Slackbladder said:

SeanT said:

AndyJS said:

If Gordon Brown is one of the central figures in the No campaign I don't hold out much hope for its chances of success.

That's an Anglocentric viewpoint. Brown remained relatively more popular in Scotland.

He could now be wheeled out as a grand old man, giving sage advice, like Major (who was despised in his time in office). But nothing.

I think the unionists got complacent because the polls were so bad for the Nats. Well, now there's a fight, and if the union loses it will be Labour that suffers, the most, by far. Its not just the loss of MPs, their social and ideological heart would be ripped away.

To be utterly honest, the Scottish independence issue is a win/win for a lot of tories.

If No wins, that's ok, because the general thought is that the union is overall a pretty good thing for the country as a whole

If Yes wins, then the overall nature of the rUK will be more to the right that it was under the UK as a whole.. labour become much much more weakened. That's just a fact.

Sure. All true. But I'm a unionist, not a Tory. I don't want my country dismembered. Especially when the people breaking it up literally haven't a clue on fundamental issues like the currency or the EU.

The thing is, there are levels of fundamentality. Saying "you don't have a clue about currency" risks sounding like the unwilling recipient of a divorce petition saying "you haven't considered where you will live/the happiness of the children" which are usually fundamentals but are demoted to important detail status in this context.

CarlottaVance

BenM said:

Surely ‘austerity’ should be aiming to reduce household debt, not increase it?

It was what many of us warned would happen if we saw any growth without rebalancing.

What 'rebalancing' did you propose, exactly?

I don't recall it being more private sector and less public sector - in fact the reverse.....

david_herdson

Ishmael_X said:

SeanT said:

Slackbladder said:

SeanT said:

AndyJS said:

If Gordon Brown is one of the central figures in the No campaign I don't hold out much hope for its chances of success.

That's an Anglocentric viewpoint. Brown remained relatively more popular in Scotland.

He could now be wheeled out as a grand old man, giving sage advice, like Major (who was despised in his time in office). But nothing.

I think the unionists got complacent because the polls were so bad for the Nats. Well, now there's a fight, and if the union loses it will be Labour that suffers, the most, by far. Its not just the loss of MPs, their social and ideological heart would be ripped away.

To be utterly honest, the Scottish independence issue is a win/win for a lot of tories.

If No wins, that's ok, because the general thought is that the union is overall a pretty good thing for the country as a whole

If Yes wins, then the overall nature of the rUK will be more to the right that it was under the UK as a whole.. labour become much much more weakened. That's just a fact.

Sure. All true. But I'm a unionist, not a Tory. I don't want my country dismembered. Especially when the people breaking it up literally haven't a clue on fundamental issues like the currency or the EU.

The thing is, there are levels of fundamentality. Saying "you don't have a clue about currency" risks sounding like the unwilling recipient of a divorce petition saying "you haven't considered where you will live/the happiness of the children" which are usually fundamentals but are demoted to important detail status in this context.

There's a difference according to who's making the point. If it's an outsider, the Yes campaign can reasonably say 'that's our business'; if it's the Scottish electorate, they're entitled to an answer.

rcs1000

another_richard said:

Re fracking.

We have the conflict between it being good for the country as a whole but the areas where it is to take place possibly having more to lose than gain from it.

Surely the answer is for local areas to keep a much larger proportion of the wealth it brings so encouraging them to support rather than oppose it.

Or can the government think of nothing else than giving all the wealth to big business and then taxing them ?

You are absolutely right: opponents of fracc'ing fall into two categories, locals who are concerned by the appearance of hundreds of truck loads of equipment going through their communities, and the anti-progress bunch (or Greens, if you prefer).

We can buy off the first lot, and arrest the second...

OldKingCole

AndyJS said:

OldKingCole said:

AndyJS said:

"Thai protesters break into Bangkok army headquarters
Demonstrators storm compound in latest bid to force out government of Yingluck Shinawatra":

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/thai-protesters-bangkok-army-compound

I was close to the business district of Bangkok this morning (Chulalungkorn Univ.) No sign of any problem until two students arrived 15 minutes late and apologised that they'd been delayed by a demo.
Didn't say whether they were taking part in it or what. No-one was talking about it over lunch.

Are the protests having any effect on prices?

Prices of what? Lunch, in the Uni, was free. Skytrain, taxis as normal. There's a special offer on at the place where we're going tomorrow night, but I don't think it's that unusual. Genuine massage yesterday was, if anything, a bit expensive.
Don't know about hotels, since I'm staying with family.

Theuniondivvie

Unionism certainly seems prone to violent mood swings.

'Officially, Cameron’s Government is making no contingency plans for Scotland’s secession. But unofficially, the mood is bleak. Some of the Prime Minister’s chief strategists now argue that the battle is lost and that a Yes vote is not only possible but probable.'

http://tinyurl.com/osbvt5k

TOPPING

SeanT said:

Slackbladder said:

SeanT said:

AndyJS said:

If Gordon Brown is one of the central figures in the No campaign I don't hold out much hope for its chances of success.

That's an Anglocentric viewpoint. Brown remained relatively more popular in Scotland.

He could now be wheeled out as a grand old man, giving sage advice, like Major (who was despised in his time in office). But nothing.

I think the unionists got complacent because the polls were so bad for the Nats. Well, now there's a fight, and if the union loses it will be Labour that suffers, the most, by far. Its not just the loss of MPs, their social and ideological heart would be ripped away.

To be utterly honest, the Scottish independence issue is a win/win for a lot of tories.

If No wins, that's ok, because the general thought is that the union is overall a pretty good thing for the country as a whole

If Yes wins, then the overall nature of the rUK will be more to the right that it was under the UK as a whole.. labour become much much more weakened. That's just a fact.

Sure. All true. But I'm a unionist, not a Tory. I don't want my country dismembered. Especially when the people breaking it up literally haven't a clue on fundamental issues like the currency or the EU.

Hmm - sounding a bit like a "we know what's best for you" left-er, there Sean

Roger

@AnotherRichard

"I have a plot"

Very good!