Only 17 months to go and the Conservatives still need a 8% swing to get a majority.We shall see whether autumn statement manages to narrow the gap.
The energy price cut from the government may not be the winner that they need as it only cuts £50 from the £120 that the bills have gone up this year.
The money is supposed to come from clamping down on tax avoidance for the umpteenth time.This along with increased NHS spending to avoid a winter crisis means the government`s deficit reduction is going off-target again.
Not really, due to higher growth OBR reckon there will be a £12bn favourable impact on borrowing this year.
Even the most optimistic projections indicate the deficit will be about 90 billion by the election so Osborne has just missed his 2010 target by a country mile.
Not the point though is it ? He has more money to play with and an election coming up. Go figure.
Alan, only in his dreams, we cannot continue to borrow£100 billion a year and hope to survive for long.
Which do you think is more likely malc ? Osborne will say :
1. better get the deficit paid faster so Labour can give handouts to all thier mates
2. look more money, better bribe the elecorate and get a second term and if it screws up Labour have to tidy up after us for change.
Jeez, Alexander on Sky. Yes, it's a tragedy but ffs. Some real over the top talk going on. Embarrassing.
Carola
May I suggest a palliative. The following blog thread remains the funniest I have ever read. Read from Comment 3 and stop after subordinate comment 139.
If you are not shaking with laughter after 139, then you must be as sane as you make out.
Only 17 months to go and the Conservatives still need a 8% swing to get a majority.We shall see whether autumn statement manages to narrow the gap.
The energy price cut from the government may not be the winner that they need as it only cuts £50 from the £120 that the bills have gone up this year.
The money is supposed to come from clamping down on tax avoidance for the umpteenth time.This along with increased NHS spending to avoid a winter crisis means the government`s deficit reduction is going off-target again.
Not really, due to higher growth OBR reckon there will be a £12bn favourable impact on borrowing this year.
Alan, Good news so we are only borrowing £110 billion this year
Too high, malcolm.
The March 2013 budget fixed the Central Government Net Cash Requirement at £102.4 bn for this fiscal year. To date this figure has been massively undershot: it is only £32.0 bn after seven months with an improving underlying fiscal position (revenues higher and expenses lower than budget and the gap increasing).
The actual "cash" George has in his pocket is really quite significant. That is why the amount he reduces real borrowing in the Autumn Statement is so important for telling us what goodies we are likely to get before the election.
Not sure I understand the £32 billion.To date the government has borrowed 64 billion in the first 7 months of the fiscal year.Could you explain the 32 billion preferably without yellow boxes.
It is interesting to see that Scots may not be as leftwing as supposed. If Scots workers do not want to pay for Scots on welfare, there may well be a shift to the right politically after independence. I suspect that the problem for Scots is that both Tories and UKIP are seen as English parties, giving patriotic but right wing Scots little choice of who to vote for.
That Indyref poll is mildly disastrous for Yes. They MUST have been hoping, nay expecting a surge after the White Paper Presser. This was their biggest day in the campaign so far, it may be the biggest day of the whole campaign (unless Salmond can get Cameron go agree to a TV debate).
There aren't many gamechangers left after this. And we get...
Yes 27 No 56
?!
Their only realistic hope is that the polls are wrong. If they're not the gap is too wide to overcome. This is not an election campaign in which people might be persuaded to vote for you because they intensely dislike another party, or where the character of the politicians concerned is going to be an issue. This is visceral, yes or no stuff. It's hard to see minds being changed now. You either believe in independence or you don't.
That said, if the polls are correct, the debate may start to become much more focused on what happens once No formally wins. That may represent a chance for the SNP's best chance - if No voters stay at home because they don't feel the need to go to the polls, a highly motivated Yes vote could sneak through.
I think the No voters are just as motivated as the Yessers - motivated by the fear that independence will threaten their jobs and prosperity. This is the crucial stat for me:
"There was also a huge difference in voting intentions depending on whether people work. Incredibly, two –thirds of unemployed people intend to vote yes, compared to just one in four of full-time workers – a clear sign that lose who have most to lose are most fearful of separation. Much of the SNP’s campaign has focused on the Westminster coalition’s welfare shake-up."
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Another sneering unionist Tory, content to milk the public purse whilst denigrating the poor and unfortunate. You sound like areal nice guy, hopefully you do not get many poor patients to look at.
A bit harsh, seemed like a reasonable point to me. There doesn't seem to be much of an option for right-leaning Scottish voters at the moment.
John, I agree it was a bit harsh but I am sure Fox would brush it off in any case. Nothing wrong with the SNP, the only sensible option in Scotland at present.
I think plenty of right wingers care a good deal for the poor, but many are sceptical of a welfare state that has over the last decades all too often subsidized their poverty rather than lifting them out of it.
There are a few who show contempt, but that is also true of the left, where there is a lot of contempt for people who aspire to improve themselves.
Scots have a long tradition of self improvement by hard work, which is why it surprises me that this strand of politics is so out of favor in Scotland. Both SNP and SLAB have policies based upon central statist solutions.
Braveheart on Benefits is a great jibe, but not one that I would personally make.
That Indyref poll is mildly disastrous for Yes. They MUST have been hoping, nay expecting a surge after the White Paper Presser. This was their biggest day in the campaign so far, it may be the biggest day of the whole campaign (unless Salmond can get Cameron go agree to a TV debate).
There aren't many gamechangers left after this. And we get...
Yes 27 No 56
?!
Their only realistic hope is that the polls are wrong. If they're not the gap is too wide to overcome. This is not an election campaign in which people might be persuaded to vote for you because they intensely dislike another party, or where the character of the politicians concerned is going to be an issue. This is visceral, yes or no stuff. It's hard to see minds being changed now. You either believe in independence or you don't.
That said, if the polls are correct, the debate may start to become much more focused on what happens once No formally wins. That may represent a chance for the SNP's best chance - if No voters stay at home because they don't feel the need to go to the polls, a highly motivated Yes vote could sneak through.
I think the No voters are just as motivated as the Yessers - motivated by the fear that independence will threaten their jobs and prosperity. This is the crucial stat for me:
"There was also a huge difference in voting intentions depending on whether people work. Incredibly, two –thirds of unemployed people intend to vote yes, compared to just one in four of full-time workers – a clear sign that lose who have most to lose are most fearful of separation. Much of the SNP’s campaign has focused on the Westminster coalition’s welfare shake-up."
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Another sneering unionist Tory, content to milk the public purse whilst denigrating the poor and unfortunate. You sound like areal nice guy, hopefully you do not get many poor patients to look at.
Fox, when anyone brings up the "Braveheart" reference you instantly know they have no clue on the subject and are completely biased against it and have lost their argument.
EDIT: Whilst I am very right wing I find it very poor taste when people mock the poor , unemployed etc. Not directing this at you but at clowns like Maaarsh , SeanT etc. One day they may have issues themselves and will not be so smug ar**s.
Media perceptions of the NHS are important, but often out of touch with reality. There are really only two stories: Scandal of .... and Devoted staff save...
I do not expect this to change in the near future, but where are the disasters that were predicted for the Lansley reforms?
From the rumours that I here, I think that there will be some funding for the NHS shortly. This may well be from central reserves as nationally the NHS has a surplus, while many local trusts are overspent. Releasing some of these contingency funds would seem sensible.
I do not expect a major electoral benefit from the Conservatives commitment to ringfence the NHS from cuts in 2010, but am increasingly impressed by how the Lansley reforms are working.
Only 17 months to go and the Conservatives still need a 8% swing to get a majority.We shall see whether autumn statement manages to narrow the gap.
The energy price cut from the government may not be the winner that they need as it only cuts £50 from the £120 that the bills have gone up this year.
The money is supposed to come from clamping down on tax avoidance for the umpteenth time.This along with increased NHS spending to avoid a winter crisis means the government`s deficit reduction is going off-target again.
In what way do you find Lansley`s reforms helpful?
All we see on a daily basis is how crap the service is and seems to be getting worse all the time. The £50 off bills is a CON as we will be paying big time for it as these clowns borrow money to pay for it.
I was quoting from the Media who only report on the English NHS , it was not a comment on the Scottish NHS of which I only have minimal knowledge given it is rarely mentioned in the media. What little interaction I have had with the NHS in Scotland has been reasonable, I mainly use private.
Fox, I know little of them and so would not be able to comment , I do agree they were much maligned on here, like many other things which probably means they are not that bad at all.
At the risk of offending Fenster and one or two others my son came up with the perfect solution yesterday: that Scotland should go independent with England. In fairness to him (he's 10) it solves a lot more problems than the White Paper did.
I personally am very pleasantly surprised by these polling figures. I still expect it to get closer than this but the odds for a no vote are improving.
I just find it amazing that having prepared for this all their adult lives the SNP spokespeople have so few answers or thought out positions. It is a classic case of what happens when you spend too much of your time speaking to the converted.
An obvious one is a Scottish currency. That clearly should have been a part of the deal. Instead they lurched from the Euro to Sterling, always dependent upon the uncertain decisions of others and always ignoring the financial implications of that dependency. If we are to have our economic futures so dominated by other countries are we not better doing that within the current Union?
And? That doesn't alter the Daily Mail's claim about the Holyrood polling - unless it is a lie?
It would be interesting to know your reaction to this poll. You cannot be anything but disappointed. This poll follows the launch of your crucial 650 page White Paper - the document that makes "the American Declaration of Independence look like a post-it note". This was your Big Day.
And the result is a poll showing just a quarter of Scots are going to vote Yes.
All I was doing was pointing out was O.P. use Yougov, I thought you'd appreciate a bit more info in the matter. Re. polling, still plenty of work to do obviously; thank goodness wily Eck has given us 10 months to do it. A few months ago I offered a bet that polling would show Yes at 40% or above in the year before the referendum (not taken up by any of the Unionist high rollers). Panelbase subsequently did that very thing, which meant they were immediately rubbished. I'll offer the same bet that a pollster other than Panelbase will show 40% for Yes in the next 10 months.
Here is a complete list of people who do not think John Hemming, MP is a complete idiot:
1. errrr....
He's my bridge partner in the annual (ex-)Commons/Lords matches and a very good player (and good company). I won't offer an opinion on other matters!
malcolmg is right that there was a very noticeable wobble among anti-independence posters here a couple of weeks ago, when everyone started talking what-ifs. But the position reminds me of the 1975 EEC referendum, when the outcome was clear for ages but Tony Benn and others kept saying there was a big movement not being picked up by the polls. There wasn't.
Supposing these polls to be close to the outcome, I wonder if it will bury Devomax as well? If the result is 51-49 against independence, there will presumably be a definite feeling that we need to devolve more to meet the feeling halfway. If it's more like 60-40 or 65-35, probably the feeling will be that we just carry on as before.
An article on what a No will do to the SNP would be interesting. There have been vague suggestions that it might lead to a collapse in morale (which seems to me more likely) or a surge in support (on the basis that if Scotland isn't independent it still needs doughty defenders who act as though it were). It's hard to think up realistic polling questions that anticipate it, though.
Nick, wishful thinking for Labour , but no matter the referendum result the SNP are not going away and given how absolutely dire labour are in Scotland just now it will be a long time before they are out of power either. Labour propping up and supporting Tory policies is not going down well at all.
good to see you around again, I've been busy myself so not posting much of late. Mostly it' s been dealing with the consequences of those crap banks which won't do any lending. Why are we supporting Lloyds and and RBS ? They call themselves banks but don't actually do any of the things banks are supposed to do.
Uninspiring polling for the Coalition parties this morning with the Conservatives back at their early summer levels. Plenty of economic cards still to play and the second will be the Autumn Statement (after the statement on energy bills this morning). The Government has two Budgets and two winters left.
I'm left to wonder whether economic "goodies" will be enough to tempt some of the UKIP strays back to the Conservative flock - you'd think not given what we know why UKIP supporters are what they are. That said, we also know that the first whiff of electoral gunpowder may also be a huge recruiting tool and where I've seen polls suggesting 40% of UKIP supporters prefer a Conservative Government to a Labour Government, that is also significant.
It was the same with the LD support in the 80s - locally, between elections, yes, they'd support you but as it got closer to the GE, that support ran back to the Conservative side often with the first Tory "attack" poster. The UKIP vote may be built on different ground - we'll see.
Take 40% off the UKIP side and add it to the Conservative vote and that's how I read every poll just as in the 80s, you could take a third off the mid term LD figure and add it to the Conservative side.
With the UKIP "bonus" YouGov cuts Labour's lead to 2%.
Plenty to play for and a long way to go.
So LAB still with a decisive lead even when you give 40% of the KIP vote to CON, with only around 500 days to go until Election Day. And what of LIB? I'm surprised so many Liberals seem sanguine with scores of the 8-10% variety. Surely you must have something radical up your sleeve?
It is interesting to see that Scots may not be as leftwing as supposed. If Scots workers do not want to pay for Scots on welfare, there may well be a shift to the right politically after independence. I suspect that the problem for Scots is that both Tories and UKIP are seen as English parties, giving patriotic but right wing Scots little choice of who to vote for.
That Indyref poll is mildly disastrous for Yes. They MUST have been hoping, nay expecting a surge after the White Paper Presser. This was their biggest day in the campaign so far, it may be the biggest day of the whole campaign (unless Salmond can get Cameron go agree to a TV debate).
There aren't many gamechangers left after this. And we get...
Yes 27 No 56
?!
Their only realistic hope is that the polls are wrong. If they're not the gap is too wide to overcome. This is not an election campaign in which people might be persuaded to vote for you because they intensely dislike another party, or where the character of the politicians concerned is going to be an issue. This is visceral, yes or no stuff. It's hard to see minds being changed now. You either believe in independence or you don't.
That said, if the polls are correct, the debate may start to become much more focused on what happens once No formally wins. That may represent a chance for the SNP's best chance - if No voters stay at home because they don't feel the need to go to the polls, a highly motivated Yes vote could sneak through.
I think the No voters are just as motivated as the Yessers - motivated by the fear that independence will threaten their jobs and prosperity. This is the crucial stat for me:
"There was also a huge difference in voting intentions depending on whether people work. Incredibly, two –thirds of unemployed people intend to vote yes, compared to just one in four of full-time workers – a clear sign that lose who have most to lose are most fearful of separation. Much of the SNP’s campaign has focused on the Westminster coalition’s welfare shake-up."
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Another sneering unionist Tory, content to milk the public purse whilst denigrating the poor and unfortunate. You sound like areal nice guy, hopefully you do not get many poor patients to look at.
A bit harsh, seemed like a reasonable point to me. There doesn't seem to be much of an option for right-leaning Scottish voters at the moment.
A No vote in the referendum is really a 'shy Tory' vote.
LOL , ever the optimist Avery. Though now that you have labour promoting your policies in Scotland who knows what could happen. It is all very bizarre, Labour seem to have a death wish.
Osborne seemed to be hinting this morning at some more cuts in public spending, having destroyed Balls' argument that these would be too far and too fast and cause recession.
How did they know it didn’t mourn? Because it didn’t leave a f-cking enormously ostentatious bouquet outside the tomb like every other f-cking bird. That’s how.
‘You are always in our thourts (sic)’ The Robins
‘We’ll never forget you’ The parrots.
‘God Bless. Tonight you sleep with the angels’ The Dodos.
Etc etc.
But the Magpies? F-ck all. And it’s not like they couldn’t afford it with all that shiny stuff they’re forever nicking.
Jeez, Alexander on Sky. Yes, it's a tragedy but ffs. Some real over the top talk going on. Embarrassing.
Carola
May I suggest a palliative. The following blog thread remains the funniest I have ever read. Read from Comment 3 and stop after subordinate comment 139.
If you are not shaking with laughter after 139, then you must be as sane as you make out.
Only 17 months to go and the Conservatives still need a 8% swing to get a majority.We shall see whether autumn statement manages to narrow the gap.
The energy price cut from the government may not be the winner that they need as it only cuts £50 from the £120 that the bills have gone up this year.
The money is supposed to come from clamping down on tax avoidance for the umpteenth time.This along with increased NHS spending to avoid a winter crisis means the government`s deficit reduction is going off-target again.
Not really, due to higher growth OBR reckon there will be a £12bn favourable impact on borrowing this year.
Even the most optimistic projections indicate the deficit will be about 90 billion by the election so Osborne has just missed his 2010 target by a country mile.
Not the point though is it ? He has more money to play with and an election coming up. Go figure.
Alan, only in his dreams, we cannot continue to borrow£100 billion a year and hope to survive for long.
Which do you think is more likely malc ? Osborne will say :
1. better get the deficit paid faster so Labour can give handouts to all thier mates
2. look more money, better bribe the elecorate and get a second term and if it screws up Labour have to tidy up after us for change.
Alan, Unfortunately I know he will do as you say and try the bribe rather than sort out the countries ills. You just have to wonder how long they will get away with it.
I think plenty of right wingers care a good deal for the poor, but many are sceptical of a welfare state that has over the last decades all too often subsidized their poverty rather than lifting them out of it.
There are a few who show contempt, but that is also true of the left, where there is a lot of contempt for people who aspire to improve themselves.
Scots have a long tradition of self improvement by hard work, which is why it surprises me that this strand of politics is so out of favor in Scotland. Both SNP and SLAB have policies based upon central statist solutions.
Their only realistic hope is that the polls are wrong. If they're not the gap is too wide to overcome. This is not an election campaign in which people might be persuaded to vote for you because they intensely dislike another party, or where the character of the politicians concerned is going to be an issue. This is visceral, yes or no stuff. It's hard to see minds being changed now. You either believe in independence or you don't.
That said, if the polls are correct, the debate may start to become much more focused on what happens once No formally wins. That may represent a chance for the SNP's best chance - if No voters stay at home because they don't feel the need to go to the polls, a highly motivated Yes vote could sneak through.
I think the No voters are just as motivated as the Yessers - motivated by the fear that independence will threaten their jobs and prosperity. This is the crucial stat for me:
"There was also a huge difference in voting intentions depending on whether people work. Incredibly, two –thirds of unemployed people intend to vote yes, compared to just one in four of full-time workers – a clear sign that lose who have most to lose are most fearful of separation. Much of the SNP’s campaign has focused on the Westminster coalition’s welfare shake-up."
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Another sneering unionist Tory, content to milk the public purse whilst denigrating the poor and unfortunate. You sound like areal nice guy, hopefully you do not get many poor patients to look at.
Fox, when anyone brings up the "Braveheart" reference you instantly know they have no clue on the subject and are completely biased against it and have lost their argument.
EDIT: Whilst I am very right wing I find it very poor taste when people mock the poor , unemployed etc. Not directing this at you but at clowns like Maaarsh , SeanT etc. One day they may have issues themselves and will not be so smug ar**s.
Fox there certainly are major problems with the benefits system in this country , the money is far from well spent and there are some who abuse the system. It badly needs restructuring root and branch , but the blame can be laid at labour and Tories feet , both of whom have used it to their personal benefit rather than in the people's interests. Westminster politics is rotten and needs cleared out.
So LAB still with a decisive lead even when you give 40% of the KIP vote to CON, with only around 500 days to go until Election Day. And what of LIB? I'm surprised so many Liberals seem sanguine with scores of the 8-10% variety. Surely you must have something radical up your sleeve?
Yes, that's a 2% lead (within MoE) before the campaign gets going. As you see, it would probably give Labour a small but reasonable working majority.
As for the LDs, I think we all know the Party is going to fight a defensive campaign based on 75-80 seats and completely ignore the others where the vote shares will collapse.
UKIP tactics will be fascinating - they know that getting 10-15% everywhere is useless so they will presumably be "targeting" a number (how many ?) of seats.
No problem, I am pretty thick skinned, I realize that sometimes the SNP posters get a feeling of persecution here.
The case for Scottish Independence should be one which is equally true whether Scotland moves either left or right from the current Holyrood parliament. As such I think DH was right yesterday, confusing the case for independence with the SNP manifesto for government was a mistake. Both are worth hearing, but they needed to be distinct documents.
It is interesting to see that Scots may not be as leftwing as supposed. If Scots workers do not want to pay for Scots on welfare, there may well be a shift to the right politically after independence. I suspect that the problem for Scots is that both Tories and UKIP are seen as English parties, giving patriotic but right wing Scots little choice of who to vote for.
That Indyref poll is mildly disastrous for Yes. They MUST have been hoping, nay expecting a surge after the White Paper Presser. This was their biggest day in the campaign so far, it may be the biggest day of the whole campaign (unless Salmond can get Cameron go agree to a TV debate).
There aren't many gamechangers left after this. And we get...
Yes 27 No 56
?!
Their only realistic hope is that the polls are wrong. If they're not the gap is too wide to overcome. This is not an election campaign in which people might be persuaded to vote for you because they intensely dislike another party, or where the character of the politicians concerned is going to be an issue. This is visceral, yes or no stuff. It's hard to see minds being changed now. You either believe in independence or you don't.
That said, if the polls are correct, the debate may start to become much more focused on what happens once No formally wins. That may represent a chance for the SNP's best chance - if No voters stay at home because they don't feel the need to go to the polls, a highly motivated Yes vote could sneak through.
I think the No voters are just as motivated as the Yessers - motivated by the fear that independence will threaten their jobs and prosperity. This is the crucial stat for me:
"There was also a huge difference in voting intentions depending on whether people work. Incredibly, two –thirds of unemployed people intend to vote yes, compared to just one in four of full-time workers – a clear sign that lose who have most to lose are most fearful of separation. Much of the SNP’s campaign has focused on the Westminster coalition’s welfare shake-up."
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Another sneering unionist Tory, content to milk the public purse whilst denigrating the poor and unfortunate. You sound like areal nice guy, hopefully you do not get many poor patients to look at.
A bit harsh, seemed like a reasonable point to me. There doesn't seem to be much of an option for right-leaning Scottish voters at the moment.
John, I agree it was a bit harsh but I am sure Fox would brush it off in any case. Nothing wrong with the SNP, the only sensible option in Scotland at present.
That Indyref poll is mildly disastrous for Yes. They MUST have been hoping, nay expecting a surge after the White Paper Presser. This was their biggest day in the campaign so far, it may be the biggest day of the whole campaign (unless Salmond can get Cameron go agree to a TV debate).
There aren't many gamechangers left after this. And we get...
Yes 27 No 56
?!
Their only realistic hope is that the polls are wrong. If they're not the gap is too wide to overcome. This is not an election campaign in which people might be persuaded to vote for you because they intensely dislike another party, or where the character of the politicians concerned is going to be an issue. This is visceral, yes or no stuff. It's hard to see minds being changed now. You either believe in independence or you don't.
That said, if the polls are correct, the debate may start to become much more focused on what happens once No formally wins. That may represent a chance for the SNP's best chance - if No voters stay at home because they don't feel the need to go to the polls, a highly motivated Yes vote could sneak through.
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Anecdotally, it tallies nicely with the proportion of Scots on this website posting all day long in favour of a Yes vote.
Another lovely unionist sheeple meanders in and adds his intelligence to the debate........ Baa Baaa
You do love to accuse people of being unionists with no basis.
I'd like nothing more to be rid of the Scottish - you have my full backing, but unfortunately most of your countrymen seem to be able to see this is a good deal for me and not for them.
I do think it quite funny in a poll showing Labour 8% ahead with 18 months to go, the PB Hodges cling to the fact that Labour are down on 12 months ago. Wonder if in 18 months time when Ed is PM will they still be putting Labour 39% (-5% from 2010)?
I didn't understand that either. Why focus on a single data point to make a comparison? The story is surely that the Labour score has barely moved through a month of slurry over Grangekirk, Falmouth and Rev Coop stuff.
At the risk of offending Fenster and one or two others my son came up with the perfect solution yesterday: that Scotland should go independent with England. In fairness to him (he's 10) it solves a lot more problems than the White Paper did.
I personally am very pleasantly surprised by these polling figures. I still expect it to get closer than this but the odds for a no vote are improving.
I just find it amazing that having prepared for this all their adult lives the SNP spokespeople have so few answers or thought out positions. It is a classic case of what happens when you spend too much of your time speaking to the converted.
An obvious one is a Scottish currency. That clearly should have been a part of the deal. Instead they lurched from the Euro to Sterling, always dependent upon the uncertain decisions of others and always ignoring the financial implications of that dependency. If we are to have our economic futures so dominated by other countries are we not better doing that within the current Union?
David, you must live in a different country from myself or are basing your fact son unionist media only. In Scotland you do not get any feeling that NO is doing well , quite the opposite. All their commentators are desperate , negative and nothing to say. The vibes here are that the tide has turned people are slowly starting to look at things and when they do they head to YES. When people really start looking around May 2014 it will become very obvious, NO have nothing to say.
So LAB still with a decisive lead even when you give 40% of the KIP vote to CON, with only around 500 days to go until Election Day. And what of LIB? I'm surprised so many Liberals seem sanguine with scores of the 8-10% variety. Surely you must have something radical up your sleeve?
Yes, that's a 2% lead (within MoE) before the campaign gets going. As you see, it would probably give Labour a small but reasonable working majority.
As for the LDs, I think we all know the Party is going to fight a defensive campaign based on 75-80 seats and completely ignore the others where the vote shares will collapse.
UKIP tactics will be fascinating - they know that getting 10-15% everywhere is useless so they will presumably be "targeting" a number (how many ?) of seats.
Fair enough. FWIW I think LAB supports will still prop up LIB in areas where Labour cannot win. That should give the Liberals a decent tactical vote bonus, but means you will have to soft pedal on Labour at the GE and attack the Tories. Presumably that is the strategy?
I do think it quite funny in a poll showing Labour 8% ahead with 18 months to go, the PB Hodges cling to the fact that Labour are down on 12 months ago. Wonder if in 18 months time when Ed is PM will they still be putting Labour 39% (-5% from 2010)?
I didn't understand that either. Why focus on a single data point to make a comparison? The story is surely that the Labour score has barely moved through a month of slurry over Grangekirk, Falmouth and Rev Coop stuff.
Is that a deliberate mistake?
I thought Paul Flowers was supposed to be bring down the two Ed`s!
I do think it quite funny in a poll showing Labour 8% ahead with 18 months to go, the PB Hodges cling to the fact that Labour are down on 12 months ago. Wonder if in 18 months time when Ed is PM will they still be putting Labour 39% (-5% from 2010)?
I didn't understand that either. Why focus on a single data point to make a comparison? The story is surely that the Labour score has barely moved through a month of slurry over Grangekirk, Falmouth and Rev Coop stuff.
When Mike first asked me to edit the site, one of the things he told me to remember is this
The veteran pollster who founded the MORI company all those years ago, Bob Worcester, used to contact me in the early days of PB to give me a gentle admonishment whenever he thought I focused too much on polling leads. The important thing, he would always say, was to look at the respective party poll shares.
Daily Express will be leading the 'Crusade' I expect
The Mail won't be far behind and check out crazy Daley in the Telly today. And there's stuff in the Guardian too.
The way things are, it would be a brave person who bets against UKIP winning the euros with this press narrative. It should reach boiling point by spring 2014.
No problem, I am pretty thick skinned, I realize that sometimes the SNP posters get a feeling of persecution here.
The case for Scottish Independence should be one which is equally true whether Scotland moves either left or right from the current Holyrood parliament. As such I think DH was right yesterday, confusing the case for independence with the SNP manifesto for government was a mistake. Both are worth hearing, but they needed to be distinct documents.
It is interesting to see that Scots may not be as leftwing as supposed. If Scots workers do not want to pay for Scots on welfare, there may well be a shift to the right politically after independence. I suspect that the problem for Scots is that both Tories and UKIP are seen as English parties, giving patriotic but right wing Scots little choice of who to vote for.
That Indyref poll is mildly disastrous for Yes. They MUST have been hoping, nay expecting a surge after the White Paper Presser. This was their biggest day in the campaign so far, it may be the biggest day of the whole campaign (unless Salmond can get Cameron go agree to a TV debate).
There aren't many gamechangers left after this. And we get...
I think the No voters are just as motivated as the Yessers - motivated by the fear that independence will threaten their jobs and prosperity. This is the crucial stat for me:
"There was also a huge difference in voting intentions depending on whether people work. Incredibly, two –thirds of unemployed people intend to vote yes, compared to just one in four of full-time workers – a clear sign that lose who have most to lose are most fearful of separation. Much of the SNP’s campaign has focused on the Westminster coalition’s welfare shake-up."
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Another sneering unionist Tory, content to milk the public purse whilst denigrating the poor and unfortunate. You sound like areal nice guy, hopefully you do not get many poor patients to look at.
A bit harsh, seemed like a reasonable point to me. There doesn't seem to be much of an option for right-leaning Scottish voters at the moment.
John, I agree it was a bit harsh but I am sure Fox would brush it off in any case. Nothing wrong with the SNP, the only sensible option in Scotland at present.
Fox, very gracious acceptance of my apology. The key to the debate will be the Labour left wing voters who are incandescent that the party is promoting the Tories. It will be interesting to see how it pans out but it is likely they will be knocking lumps out of each other before it is over. The Tories must be laughing either way , they either get hegemony in England or can claim the victory if it is NO. Labour hav ebeen done up like kippers, they do not know which way to turn.
That Indyref poll is mildly disastrous for Yes. They MUST have been hoping, nay expecting a surge after the White Paper Presser. This was their biggest day in the campaign so far, it may be the biggest day of the whole campaign (unless Salmond can get Cameron go agree to a TV debate).
There aren't many gamechangers left after this. And we get...
Yes 27 No 56
?!
Their only realistic hope is that the polls are wrong. If they're not the gap is too wide to overcome. This is not an election campaign in which people might be persuaded to vote for you because they intensely dislike another party, or where the character of the politicians concerned is going to be an issue. This is visceral, yes or no stuff. It's hard to see minds being changed now. You either believe in independence or you don't.
That said, if the polls are correct, the debate may start to become much more focused on what happens once No formally wins. That may represent a chance for the SNP's best chance - if No voters stay at home because they don't feel the need to go to the polls, a highly motivated Yes vote could sneak through.
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Anecdotally, it tallies nicely with the proportion of Scots on this website posting all day long in favour of a Yes vote.
Another lovely unionist sheeple meanders in and adds his intelligence to the debate........ Baa Baaa
You do love to accuse people of being unionists with no basis.
I'd like nothing more to be rid of the Scottish - you have my full backing, but unfortunately most of your countrymen seem to be able to see this is a good deal for me and not for them.
We shall see for sure, your posting illustrates clearly your opinions. We shall not miss being apart from people like yourself, even if poverty stricken as a result.
I do think it quite funny in a poll showing Labour 8% ahead with 18 months to go, the PB Hodges cling to the fact that Labour are down on 12 months ago. Wonder if in 18 months time when Ed is PM will they still be putting Labour 39% (-5% from 2010)?
I didn't understand that either. Why focus on a single data point to make a comparison? The story is surely that the Labour score has barely moved through a month of slurry over Grangekirk, Falmouth and Rev Coop stuff.
When Mike first asked me to edit the site, one of the things he told me to remember is this
The veteran pollster who founded the MORI company all those years ago, Bob Worcester, used to contact me in the early days of PB to give me a gentle admonishment whenever he thought I focused too much on polling leads. The important thing, he would always say, was to look at the respective party poll shares.
I actually missed that blog post - I was on holiday it would seem when it came out.
You are right - Worcester makes a great point. I guess the debate needs to move on to 'Labour's Firewall'. Rather than focusing on the leads which, as you say, bounce around, how do the Tories pull the Labour share below 35%?
So LAB still with a decisive lead even when you give 40% of the KIP vote to CON, with only around 500 days to go until Election Day. And what of LIB? I'm surprised so many Liberals seem sanguine with scores of the 8-10% variety. Surely you must have something radical up your sleeve?
As for the LDs, I think we all know the Party is going to fight a defensive campaign based on 75-80 seats and completely ignore the others where the vote shares will collapse.
UKIP tactics will be fascinating - they know that getting 10-15% everywhere is useless so they will presumably be "targeting" a number (how many ?) of seats.
UKIP's targets will be dictated by their success in local government elections. They've been completely open about that.
I do think it quite funny in a poll showing Labour 8% ahead with 18 months to go, the PB Hodges cling to the fact that Labour are down on 12 months ago. Wonder if in 18 months time when Ed is PM will they still be putting Labour 39% (-5% from 2010)?
I didn't understand that either. Why focus on a single data point to make a comparison? The story is surely that the Labour score has barely moved through a month of slurry over Grangekirk, Falmouth and Rev Coop stuff.
When Mike first asked me to edit the site, one of the things he told me to remember is this
The veteran pollster who founded the MORI company all those years ago, Bob Worcester, used to contact me in the early days of PB to give me a gentle admonishment whenever he thought I focused too much on polling leads. The important thing, he would always say, was to look at the respective party poll shares.
I actually missed that blog post - I was on holiday it would seem when it came out.
You are right - Worcester makes a great point. I guess the debate needs to move on to 'Labour's Firewall'. Rather than focusing on the leads which, as you say, bounce around, how do the Tories pull the Labour share below 35%?
Good morning to you.
We are seeing a definitive slip in Labour's share of the vote, from which the Tories or Lib Dems aren't benefiting.
At the risk of offending Fenster and one or two others my son came up with the perfect solution yesterday: that Scotland should go independent with England. In fairness to him (he's 10) it solves a lot more problems than the White Paper did.
I personally am very pleasantly surprised by these polling figures. I still expect it to get closer than this but the odds for a no vote are improving.
I just find it amazing that having prepared for this all their adult lives the SNP spokespeople have so few answers or thought out positions. It is a classic case of what happens when you spend too much of your time speaking to the converted.
An obvious one is a Scottish currency. That clearly should have been a part of the deal. Instead they lurched from the Euro to Sterling, always dependent upon the uncertain decisions of others and always ignoring the financial implications of that dependency. If we are to have our economic futures so dominated by other countries are we not better doing that within the current Union?
David, you must live in a different country from myself or are basing your fact son unionist media only. In Scotland you do not get any feeling that NO is doing well , quite the opposite. All their commentators are desperate , negative and nothing to say. The vibes here are that the tide has turned people are slowly starting to look at things and when they do they head to YES. When people really start looking around May 2014 it will become very obvious, NO have nothing to say.
Agree with that Malcolm. But most likely outcome (at this early stage) is that Yes win the campaign but lose the election. That said, anyone who counts against the extremely wily Salmond and Sturgeon is a rank fool. I have said before that they are the most talented politicians in the UK who, by a twist of fate, ended up in a nationalist party rather than one of the three mainstream ones.
No problem, I am pretty thick skinned, I realize that sometimes the SNP posters get a feeling of persecution here.
The case for Scottish Independence should be one which is equally true whether Scotland moves either left or right from the current Holyrood parliament. As such I think DH was right yesterday, confusing the case for independence with the SNP manifesto for government was a mistake. Both are worth hearing, but they needed to be distinct documents.
It is interesting to see that Scots may not be as leftwing as supposed. If Scots workers do not want to pay for Scots on welfare, there may well be a shift to the right politically after independence. I suspect that the problem for Scots is that both Tories and UKIP are seen as English parties, giving patriotic but right wing Scots little choice of who to vote for.
That Indyref poll is mildly disastrous for Yes. They MUST have been hoping, nay expecting a surge after the White Paper Presser. This was their biggest day in the campaign so far, it may be the biggest day of the whole campaign (unless Salmond can get Cameron go agree to a TV debate).
There aren't many gamechangers left after this. And we get...
I think the No voters are just as motivated as the Yessers - motivated by the fear that independence will threaten their jobs and prosperity. This is the crucial stat for me:
"There was also a huge difference in voting intentions depending on whether people work. Incredibly, two –thirds of unemployed people intend to vote yes, compared to just one in four of full-time workers – a clear sign that lose who have most to lose are most fearful of separation. Much of the SNP’s campaign has focused on the Westminster coalition’s welfare shake-up."
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Another sneering unionist Tory, content to milk the public purse whilst denigrating the poor and unfortunate. You sound like areal nice guy, hopefully you do not get many poor patients to look at.
A bit harsh, seemed like a reasonable point to me. There doesn't seem to be much of an option for right-leaning Scottish voters at the moment.
John, I agree it was a bit harsh but I am sure Fox would brush it off in any case. Nothing wrong with the SNP, the only sensible option in Scotland at present.
Fox, very gracious acceptance of my apology. The key to the debate will be the Labour left wing voters who are incandescent that the party is promoting the Tories. It will be interesting to see how it pans out but it is likely they will be knocking lumps out of each other before it is over. The Tories must be laughing either way , they either get hegemony in England or can claim the victory if it is NO. Labour hav ebeen done up like kippers, they do not know which way to turn.
Only 17 months to go and the Conservatives still need a 8% swing to get a majority.We shall see whether autumn statement manages to narrow the gap.
The energy price cut from the government may not be the winner that they need as it only cuts £50 from the £120 that the bills have gone up this year.
The money is supposed to come from clamping down on tax avoidance for the umpteenth time.This along with increased NHS spending to avoid a winter crisis means the government`s deficit reduction is going off-target again.
Not really, due to higher growth OBR reckon there will be a £12bn favourable impact on borrowing this year.
Alan, Good news so we are only borrowing £110 billion this year
Too high, malcolm.
The March 2013 budget fixed the Central Government Net Cash Requirement at £102.4 bn for this fiscal year. To date this figure has been massively undershot: it is only £32.0 bn after seven months with an improving underlying fiscal position (revenues higher and expenses lower than budget and the gap increasing).
The actual "cash" George has in his pocket is really quite significant. That is why the amount he reduces real borrowing in the Autumn Statement is so important for telling us what goodies we are likely to get before the election.
Not sure I understand the £32 billion.To date the government has borrowed 64 billion in the first 7 months of the fiscal year.Could you explain the 32 billion preferably without yellow boxes.
The £32 bn is essentially central government's cash flow. If, say, the government bank account was zero at the beginning of this financial year, then it would have been running a £32 bn overdraft at the end of October.
The borrowing figures are prepared on an 'accrual' basis, so that they are net of revenues and expenses which have been incurred but not yet received/paid for. The difference between cash and accrued figures does not account though for anything like the extent of the difference between PSNB and CGNCR.
What makes the gap so wide is that certain transactions which affect the cash position of the government are excluded from the PSNB figures as a matter of presentation policy. For example, cash remitted by the Bank of England to the Treasury is capped at around £12 bn per year. Any extra received is simply not counted as 'negative' borrowing even though Osborne is receiving around £4 bn per month from this source. Other cash receipts, mainly from one off transactions, are also excluded from, or limited in their impact upon, the official borrowing figures. Examples of such transactions are the movement of the Royal Mail Pension Assets and Liabilities to the Treasury, the sale of shares in Royal Mail and Lloyds Bank, proceeds from the 4G spectrum auction, the Swiss Banks Tax Agreement etc. etc,
So cash is coming into the Treasury and reducing the government's borrowing or 'net cash requirement' but not being reflected in the headline borrowing figures. The logic behind these reporting rules is that the PSNB figures give a better indication of 'underlying borrowing' or what borrowing would have been had there not been cash streams from extraordinary non-recurring transactions. This is all very well - and useful - but as time goes by, the underlying figures and the real figures get completely out of kilter: as has happened now. The ONS and Treasury recognise this problem and are working on revised methods of presentation but these are unlikely to be introduced until at least late 2014. The problem is even worse when the differing rules for EU debt and deficit calculation are taken into account.
Osborne has the advantage that the current ONS reporting rules are working in his favour by influencing public expectations. If we all think that borrowing is higher than it really is then the case for continued austerity is easier to sell. At the same time, if the cash position is very much better than expected, Osborne's fiscal flexibility is enhanced. He can soften the impact of austerity by delaying cuts (i.e. let expenditure reduce slowly in real terms rather than cut in nominal terms) and can introduce more temporary stimulus measures where and when needed.
I do think it quite funny in a poll showing Labour 8% ahead with 18 months to go, the PB Hodges cling to the fact that Labour are down on 12 months ago. Wonder if in 18 months time when Ed is PM will they still be putting Labour 39% (-5% from 2010)?
I didn't understand that either. Why focus on a single data point to make a comparison? The story is surely that the Labour score has barely moved through a month of slurry over Grangekirk, Falmouth and Rev Coop stuff.
Is that a deliberate mistake?
I thought Paul Flowers was supposed to be bring down the two Ed`s!
That and Falkirk. But running on associations rarely works - except in the deranged fantasies of some of the dimmer PB Tories - some good all the Ashcroft stuff did Labour. Sadly it also means having a pop at the odious Crosby won't work either.
Only 17 months to go and the Conservatives still need a 8% swing to get a majority.We shall see whether autumn statement manages to narrow the gap.
The energy price cut from the government may not be the winner that they need as it only cuts £50 from the £120 that the bills have gone up this year.
The money is supposed to come from clamping down on tax avoidance for the umpteenth time.This along with increased NHS spending to avoid a winter crisis means the government`s deficit reduction is going off-target again.
Not really, due to higher growth OBR reckon there will be a £12bn favourable impact on borrowing this year.
Alan, Good news so we are only borrowing £110 billion this year
Too high, malcolm.
The March 2013 budget fixed the Central Government Net Cash Requirement at £102.4 bn for this fiscal year. To date this figure has been massively undershot: it is only £32.0 bn after seven months with an improving underlying fiscal position (revenues higher and expenses lower than budget and the gap increasing).
The actual "cash" George has in his pocket is really quite significant. That is why the amount he reduces real borrowing in the Autumn Statement is so important for telling us what goodies we are likely to get before the election.
Not sure I understand the £32 billion.To date the government has borrowed 64 billion in the first 7 months of the fiscal year.Could you explain the 32 billion preferably without yellow boxes.
The £32 bn is essentially central government's cash flow. If, say, the government bank account was zero at the beginning of this financial year, then it would have been running a £32 bn overdraft at the end of October.
The borrowing figures are prepared on an 'accrual' basis, so that they are net of revenues and expenses which have been incurred but not yet received/paid for. The difference between cash and accrued figures does not account though for anything like the extent of the difference between PSNB and CGNCR.
What makes the gap so wide is that certain transactions which affect the cash position of the government are excluded from the PSNB figures as a matter of presentation policy. For example, cash remitted by the Bank of England to the Treasury is capped at around £12 bn per year. Any extra received is simply not counted as 'negative' borrowing even though Osborne is receiving around £4 bn per month from this source. Other cash receipts, mainly from one off transactions, are also excluded from, or limited in their impact upon, the official borrowing figures. Examples of such transactions are the movement of the Royal Mail Pension Assets and Liabilities to the Treasury, the sale of shares in Royal Mail and Lloyds Bank, proceeds from the 4G spectrum auction, the Swiss Banks Tax Agreement etc. etc,
[to be continued]
Thanks Avery.So where does the 4 billion per month that BOE transfer to the treasury come from?
It's a shame that no one measures depth of feeling. Is Nick Clegg hated like Luis Suarez or is he mildly disliked like Adrian Chiles? My impression now is the latter (those that choose to hate Coalition politicians are far more likely to fixate on George Osborne or Michael Gove), but we have no way of knowing.
EDIT ignore me, I'm hungover and stupid today.
If Clegg were hated he would be better off. That would suggest some residual fear or respect. He currently inhabits the political no mans land of disdain, pity and ridicule.
I was thinking about this, other than Boris and my local Lib dem MP I can't think of any politicians I feel any positive feelings towards.
But Clegg and Milliband (and Balls come to think of it) are three politicians I really dislike intensely.
Balls, well we all know he is a marmite character. The other two I think its their naked two faced approach to politics and a visible willingness to chuck principles out of the window.
Jeez, Alexander on Sky. Yes, it's a tragedy but ffs. Some real over the top talk going on. Embarrassing.
Carola
May I suggest a palliative. The following blog thread remains the funniest I have ever read. Read from Comment 3 and stop after subordinate comment 139.
If you are not shaking with laughter after 139, then you must be as sane as you make out.
I did used to dip in to Guido now and again. But only for 'Thick as Thieves/TAT', who I thought was completely hilarious. Stopped reading when he was banned for the final *final* time.
At the risk of offending Fenster and one or two others my son came up with the perfect solution yesterday: that Scotland should go independent with England. In fairness to him (he's 10) it solves a lot more problems than the White Paper did.
I personally am very pleasantly surprised by these polling figures. I still expect it to get closer than this but the odds for a no vote are improving.
I just find it amazing that having prepared for this all their adult lives the SNP spokespeople have so few answers or thought out positions. It is a classic case of what happens when you spend too much of your time speaking to the converted.
An obvious one is a Scottish currency. That clearly should have been a part of the deal. Instead they lurched from the Euro to Sterling, always dependent upon the uncertain decisions of others and always ignoring the financial implications of that dependency. If we are to have our economic futures so dominated by other countries are we not better doing that within the current Union?
David, you must live in a different country from myself or are basing your fact son unionist media only. In Scotland you do not get any feeling that NO is doing well , quite the opposite. All their commentators are desperate , negative and nothing to say. The vibes here are that the tide has turned people are slowly starting to look at things and when they do they head to YES. When people really start looking around May 2014 it will become very obvious, NO have nothing to say.
Malcolm, I would say that amongst people I know the No camp is sitting on about 80%. This has nothing to do with the capability or otherwise of the Better Together campaign who, I agree, have been inept.
I have said on here several times that I have received indications that those with less at risk are much more inclined towards yes. The Sunday Mail figures in that respect are entirely consistent with my experience.
But, so far, the key is not the ineptitude of SLAB or Carmichael or anyone else. It is that the SNP have not created or sold a credible vision of Scotland's future post independence.
As a nationalist you might want to reflect where your support would be standing if the opposition were competent.
That poll Montgomerie quotes suggests the tories biggest problem is they are seen as the party of the rich.
The tories have 17 months to convince people that they are not.
Correct. Hopefully Labour can manufacture another Falkirk-style selection tumult, which should see the Tories waste another couple of months obsessing over that rather than talking about stuff which may actually change VI. By the same token, Labour need to avoid the trap of banging on about the odious Lynton Crosby - the electorate do not care.
So cash is coming into the Treasury and reducing the government's borrowing or 'net cash requirement' but not being reflected in the headline borrowing figures. The logic behind these reporting rules is that the PSNB figures give a better indication of 'underlying borrowing' or what borrowing would have been had there not been cash streams from extraordinary non-recurring transactions. This is all very well - and useful - but as time goes by, the underlying figures and the real figures get completely out of kilter: as has happened now. The ONS and Treasury recognise this problem and are working on revised methods of presentation but these are unlikely to be introduced until at least late 2014. The problem is even worse when the differing rules for EU debt and deficit calculation are taken into account.
Osborne has the advantage that the current ONS reporting rules are working in his favour by influencing public expectations. If we all think that borrowing is higher than it really is then the case for continued austerity is easier to sell. At the same time, if the cash position is very much better than expected, Osborne's fiscal flexibility is enhanced. He can soften the impact of austerity by delaying cuts (i.e. let expenditure reduce slowly in real terms rather than cut in nominal terms) and can introduce more temporary stimulus measures where and when needed.
"If we all think that borrowing is higher than it really is then the case for continued austerity is easier to sell."
Avery, borrowing shedloads isn't actually austerity, it' s just slower profligacy.
One for the many Monckton fans on here. Perhaps the good lord is feeling a little like a trampled bagpipe today.
'Ukip 'wiped out' north of the Border after its Scots leader is sacked
UKIP chief Nigel Farage has sacked Scottish party leader Lord Christopher Monckton in an attempt to end infighting north of the Border. The move has prompted the chairman and chief fundraiser of Ukip in Scotland to quit in protest. The party's administrative body has also been dissolved. Monckton told the Sunday Herald: "There isn't any Ukip in Scotland. It's been wiped out."'
Could be some value in the 2:15 at Fairyhouse taking on Jezki - Not 100% sure where though - will be interesting to see if Raceclear takes him on. He hasn't gone 20 furlongs before. 4/7 too short though I think.
As there's so little liquidity in the Betfair politics markets I've taken up sports betting, mainly because of the exchange format that allows you to cash out and it makes even dull games interesting, such as Ireland v Afghanistan yesterday, made an easy £5 as by the 5th over Ireland had already 'won'.
Monthly P/L (I'm micro betting, mostly the minimum £2)
Cricket £1.43 Football £28.85 Motor Sport -£13.21 Rugby League -£8.46 Rugby Union £16.64
Odd thing is I don't think the footy is particularly profitable due to the general finality once a goal is scored, cricket, tennis and rugby are I think the best to bet on, high scores, no draws and constantly changing odds.
Today I have £3 on S'hampton at 6.6 and a £3 stake on a double with (winner first) Man U v Tot, Chelsea v S'ton and Man C v Swa.
Got out of my Oz position yesterday and started backing Wales, lost £1.50 instead of winning £15, bah!
Also, tragic news about the death of the US actor Paul Walker in a car crash last night in California, rather ironic considering he was most famous for his role in the 'Fast and the Furious' movie franchise with Vin Diesel! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25173331
Actually, Rawnsley struggles. Just shows that someone who is essentially an upmarket political gossip columnist should leave the sociological conundrums to those who understand such matters.
I loved darts with Sid Waddell and the Big Names from the 80s - I couldn't name one now, is the chappy who was very fat and then became thin after being very ill still playing? Phil Something? And of course the world organisations split which didn't help either...
At the risk of offending Fenster and one or two others my son came up with the perfect solution yesterday: that Scotland should go independent with England. In fairness to him (he's 10) it solves a lot more problems than the White Paper did.
I personally am very pleasantly surprised by these polling figures. I still expect it to get closer than this but the odds for a no vote are improving.
I just find it amazing that having prepared for this all their adult lives the SNP spokespeople have so few answers or thought out positions. It is a classic case of what happens when you spend too much of your time speaking to the converted.
An obvious one is a Scottish currency. That clearly should have been a part of the deal. Instead they lurched from the Euro to Sterling, always dependent upon the uncertain decisions of others and always ignoring the financial implications of that dependency. If we are to have our economic futures so dominated by other countries are we not better doing that within the current Union?
David, you must live in a different country from myself or are basing your fact son unionist media only. In Scotland you do not get any feeling that NO is doing well , quite the opposite. All their commentators are desperate , negative and nothing to say. The vibes here are that the tide has turned people are slowly starting to look at things and when they do they head to YES. When people really start looking around May 2014 it will become very obvious, NO have nothing to say.
Malcolm, I would say that amongst people I know the No camp is sitting on about 80%. This has nothing to do with the capability or otherwise of the Better Together campaign who, I agree, have been inept.
I have said on here several times that I have received indications that those with less at risk are much more inclined towards yes. The Sunday Mail figures in that respect are entirely consistent with my experience.
But, so far, the key is not the ineptitude of SLAB or Carmichael or anyone else. It is that the SNP have not created or sold a credible vision of Scotland's future post independence.
As a nationalist you might want to reflect where your support would be standing if the opposition were competent.
david, Your social circle must consist of labour MSP's and MP's. From my point of view they have aspirations for a better Scotland , the unionists conversely have only more of the same failed policies to offer. It comes down to a positive vision or to continue with failure.
It comes down to a positive vision or to continue with failure.
The SNPers 'positive' vision is entirely and exclusively anti-English
They want Sterling. They have Sterling now. Ah, but with the English. They want the EU. They have the EU now. Ah, but with the English. They want the Queen. They have the Queen now. Ah, but with the English. They want NATO. They have NATO now. Ah, but with the English.
Scotland would be exactly the same as now, but without the English, and therefore better...
Eck's 'positive vision' of Scotland is Xenophobic claptrap. I pity the numpties that agree with him.
So cash is coming into the Treasury and reducing the government's borrowing or 'net cash requirement' but not being reflected in the headline borrowing figures. The logic behind these reporting rules is that the PSNB figures give a better indication of 'underlying borrowing' or what borrowing would have been had there not been cash streams from extraordinary non-recurring transactions. This is all very well - and useful - but as time goes by, the underlying figures and the real figures get completely out of kilter: as has happened now. The ONS and Treasury recognise this problem and are working on revised methods of presentation but these are unlikely to be introduced until at least late 2014. The problem is even worse when the differing rules for EU debt and deficit calculation are taken into account.
Osborne has the advantage that the current ONS reporting rules are working in his favour by influencing public expectations. If we all think that borrowing is higher than it really is then the case for continued austerity is easier to sell. At the same time, if the cash position is very much better than expected, Osborne's fiscal flexibility is enhanced. He can soften the impact of austerity by delaying cuts (i.e. let expenditure reduce slowly in real terms rather than cut in nominal terms) and can introduce more temporary stimulus measures where and when needed.
"If we all think that borrowing is higher than it really is then the case for continued austerity is easier to sell."
Avery, borrowing shedloads isn't actually austerity, it' s just slower profligacy.
I love reading that despite the government needing to borrow over £100bn this year it still has money for 'giveaways'.
It comes down to a positive vision or to continue with failure.
The SNPers 'positive' vision is entirely and exclusively anti-English
They want Sterling. They have Sterling now. Ah, but with the English. They want the EU. They have the EU now. Ah, but with the English. They want the Queen. They have the Queen now. Ah, but with the English. They want NATO. They have NATO now. Ah, but with the English.
Scotland would be exactly the same as now, but without the English, and therefore better...
Eck's 'positive vision' of Scotland is Xenophobic claptrap. I pity the numpties that agree with him.
Don't forget the English language! They have the English language now!
It comes down to a positive vision or to continue with failure.
The SNPers 'positive' vision is entirely and exclusively anti-English
They want Sterling. They have Sterling now. Ah, but with the English. They want the EU. They have the EU now. Ah, but with the English. They want the Queen. They have the Queen now. Ah, but with the English. They want NATO. They have NATO now. Ah, but with the English.
Scotland would be exactly the same as now, but without the English, and therefore better...
Eck's 'positive vision' of Scotland is Xenophobic claptrap. I pity the numpties that agree with him.
Scott, typical Tory claptrap, rich from the most racist party in Europe, you just do not get it. It has nothing to do with the English, as ever you have to resort to rubbish. It is about people in Scotland making decisions on what affects Scotland and not having policies dictated by Westminster parties that Scotland did not vote for. Your narrow bigoted view does not allow you to see that it is fiscal policy that gives you powers to make decisions.
So cash is coming into the Treasury and reducing the government's borrowing or 'net cash requirement' but not being reflected in the headline borrowing figures. The logic behind these reporting rules is that the PSNB figures give a better indication of 'underlying borrowing' or what borrowing would have been had there not been cash streams from extraordinary non-recurring transactions. This is all very well - and useful - but as time goes by, the underlying figures and the real figures get completely out of kilter: as has happened now. The ONS and Treasury recognise this problem and are working on revised methods of presentation but these are unlikely to be introduced until at least late 2014. The problem is even worse when the differing rules for EU debt and deficit calculation are taken into account.
Osborne has the advantage that the current ONS reporting rules are working in his favour by influencing public expectations. If we all think that borrowing is higher than it really is then the case for continued austerity is easier to sell. At the same time, if the cash position is very much better than expected, Osborne's fiscal flexibility is enhanced. He can soften the impact of austerity by delaying cuts (i.e. let expenditure reduce slowly in real terms rather than cut in nominal terms) and can introduce more temporary stimulus measures where and when needed.
"If we all think that borrowing is higher than it really is then the case for continued austerity is easier to sell."
Avery, borrowing shedloads isn't actually austerity, it' s just slower profligacy.
AB
It is all a question of balance. If Osborne is to get credit for anything then it is, by luck or design, choosing the right balance between fiscal consolidation and growth stimulation.
I know you will credit the choice to luck, but there was a real debate between economists on the optimal figures, with, say, the OECD under José Ángel Gurría setting the levels broadly adopted by Osborne, and, the IMF, wavering with personnel changes but latterly influenced by the Krugman/Obama wing under Blanchard promoting a greater role for stimulus. In this particular recession, at this particular stage of recovery, it does look as though Gurría/Osborne have won this debate.
Continued borrowing - or at least allowing underlying borrowing to remain high and plugging the gap with extraordinary (mainly asset sales) revenue - is an acceptable method of tackling the long term borrowing problem provided that the government never loses sight of the need to balance the cyclically adjusted current budget. This being a shorthand way of saying that current expenses and expenditure excluding capex and non-recurring items should balance at the mid cycle of a natural up and downswing in the economy. And Osborne/Alexander haven't lost sight of this goal. We are now more likely than not to 'balance the budget' by 2017 than at any stage of this parliament to date. What the extraordinary incomes have done is to provide time for the economy to heal itself without the need for painful surgery.
On your point on bank lending, this is clearly not being overlooked. Carney's move to dampen property price rise expectations and to switch Treasury/BoE interventions to SME lending support is both timely and needed. Mortgage lending is recovering but lending to business remains in the doldrums. 2014 may be your lucky year if it is not too late as it looks certain that commercial lending by banks is going to be a major priority with pricing, availability and terms all relaxed in the short term.
One for the many Monckton fans on here. Perhaps the good lord is feeling a little like a trampled bagpipe today.
'Ukip 'wiped out' north of the Border after its Scots leader is sacked
UKIP chief Nigel Farage has sacked Scottish party leader Lord Christopher Monckton in an attempt to end infighting north of the Border. The move has prompted the chairman and chief fundraiser of Ukip in Scotland to quit in protest. The party's administrative body has also been dissolved. Monckton told the Sunday Herald: "There isn't any Ukip in Scotland. It's been wiped out."'
Scott, Go on to iPlayer and watch Question Time from Falkirk, there you will see real opinion in Scotland. people were not cheering The Tories, Lib Dems or Labour. This will give an honest reflection of what real public opinion is like and I doubt even you could spin it as being for NO.
It is perfectly possible for UKIP to implode south of the border too, there is history and Farage is notoriously capricious.
They've already imploded a few times but seem amazingly resilient. For good or ill, I guess that's the difference when a party does actually represent views held by a significant section of the electorate, e.g. south v. north of the border.
And Osborne/Alexander haven't lost sight of this goal. We are now more likely than not to 'balance the budget' by 2017 than at any stage of this parliament to date.
Your problem is that 2017 is about time for the next recession to start.
And in the decade before then government debt will have increased by approximately a TRILLION quid.
What do we do after 2017 ? Borrow another trillion ?
In next week's news Ed learns how to put his shirts into the washing machine. Two weeks' time Ed reveals his struggle to master tags on the washing powder box.
Scott, Go on to iPlayer and watch Question Time from Falkirk, there you will see real opinion in Scotland. people were not cheering The Tories, Lib Dems or Labour. This will give an honest reflection of what real public opinion is like and I doubt even you could spin it as being for NO.
Real opinion in Scotland is not represented by the politically obsessed few who turn up for QT or referendum debates but the silent majority who have quietly decided they want none of your xenophobic anti English claptrap
The SNPers 'positive' vision is entirely and exclusively anti-English
Can you give me a link to any anti-English quote by any SNP politician in the last, say, 20 years? Take your time.
" Joan McAlpine said the United Kingdom was like an English “domineering man” tyrannising and threatening a “talented, well-educated (Scottish) girl with good prospects”. "
The SNPers 'positive' vision is entirely and exclusively anti-English
Can you give me a link to any anti-English quote by any SNP politician in the last, say, 20 years? Take your time.
" Joan McAlpine said the United Kingdom was like an English “domineering man” tyrannising and threatening a “talented, well-educated (Scottish) girl with good prospects”. "
Ukip support may fade, but it might not. I get the feeling many people on here ignore any good polling for Ukip in the hope they'll go away. Mainly because they are so convinced of their own argument.
I will lay 8/13 lib dem bt ukip in GE 2015 vote % in £130 to the first 5 people interested.
Scott, Go on to iPlayer and watch Question Time from Falkirk, there you will see real opinion in Scotland. people were not cheering The Tories, Lib Dems or Labour. This will give an honest reflection of what real public opinion is like and I doubt even you could spin it as being for NO.
Real opinion in Scotland is not represented by the politically obsessed few who turn up for QT or referendum debates but the silent majority who have quietly decided they want none of your xenophobic anti English claptrap
How would you describe the Libdem politics that a huge majority in Scotland appear to want none of?
Scott, Go on to iPlayer and watch Question Time from Falkirk, there you will see real opinion in Scotland. people were not cheering The Tories, Lib Dems or Labour. This will give an honest reflection of what real public opinion is like and I doubt even you could spin it as being for NO.
Real opinion in Scotland is not represented by the politically obsessed few who turn up for QT or referendum debates but the silent majority who have quietly decided they want none of your xenophobic anti English claptrap
How would you describe the Libdem politics that a huge majority in Scotland appear to want none of?
All parties in Scotland and elsewhere are not supported by a large majority of the voters .
The SNPers 'positive' vision is entirely and exclusively anti-English
Can you give me a link to any anti-English quote by any SNP politician in the last, say, 20 years? Take your time.
" Joan McAlpine said the United Kingdom was like an English “domineering man” tyrannising and threatening a “talented, well-educated (Scottish) girl with good prospects”. "
You do understand what a metaphor is don't you? Your UKOK mates seem awfully keen on the family/divorce/separation meme; on that basis how would you describe the 'marriage' between England and Scotland, supposedly a union of equals?
Scott, Go on to iPlayer and watch Question Time from Falkirk, there you will see real opinion in Scotland. people were not cheering The Tories, Lib Dems or Labour. This will give an honest reflection of what real public opinion is like and I doubt even you could spin it as being for NO.
Real opinion in Scotland is not represented by the politically obsessed few who turn up for QT or referendum debates but the silent majority who have quietly decided they want none of your xenophobic anti English claptrap
How would you describe the Libdem politics that a huge majority in Scotland appear to want none of?
All parties in Scotland and elsewhere are not supported by a large majority of the voters .
But only some are supported by tiny minorities, e.g. hovering around 5%.
The SNPers 'positive' vision is entirely and exclusively anti-English
Can you give me a link to any anti-English quote by any SNP politician in the last, say, 20 years? Take your time.
" Joan McAlpine said the United Kingdom was like an English “domineering man” tyrannising and threatening a “talented, well-educated (Scottish) girl with good prospects”. "
Only 17 months to go and the Conservatives still need a 8% swing to get a majority.We shall see whether autumn statement manages to narrow the gap.
The energy price cut from the government may not be the winner that they need as it only cuts £50 from the £120 that the bills have gone up this year.
The money is supposed to come from clamping down on tax avoidance for the umpteenth time.This along with increased NHS spending to avoid a winter crisis means the government`s deficit reduction is going off-target again.
Not really, due to higher growth OBR reckon there will be a £12bn favourable impact on borrowing this year.
Alan, Good news so we are only borrowing £110 billion this year
Too high, malcolm.
The March 2013 budget fixed the Central Government Net Cash Requirement at £102.4 bn for this fiscal year. To date this figure has been massively undershot: it is only £32.0 bn after seven months with an improving underlying fiscal position (revenues higher and expenses lower than budget and the gap increasing).
The actual "cash" George has in his pocket is really quite significant. That is why the amount he reduces real borrowing in the Autumn Statement is so important for telling us what goodies we are likely to get before the election.
...
Thanks Avery.So where does the 4 billion per month that BOE transfer to the treasury come from?
You are making me work overtime SMukesh.
First, a general point. The Bank of England is an independent arm of the government, owned by the Treasury Solicitor. It acts as banker to the government and conducts banking operations with the country's commercial banking sector on behalf of the government. So like any bank it makes money by taking lending, borrowing, exchanging and transferring funds, and by selling associated services at a profit.
Generally Central Banks are very profitable and it is global practice for profits in excess of the need to retain operating reserves are remitted to the owning governments. Normally, the BoE remits 50% of its profits to the Treasury but this can be varied for specific operations by agreement with the Chancellor.
National Accounting rules, by international agreement, restrict the total amount of Central Bank entrepreneurial income which governments can 'use' to reduce borrowing figures. This prevents countries from 'hiding' underlying borrowing by covering it with 'excessive' revenue from central banks (see Greek banks, Hungarian nationalisation of pensions).
So in any normal year the Bank of England will remit significant amounts of profits to the Treasury as normal government income. However, all this remittance may not be included in borrowing figures published under National Accounting standards.
When one-off schemes are set up to address specific economic problems then the sums earned by Central Banks can far exceed the normal annual limits. This is the case with the QE programme set up to stimulate the economy following the 2007-9 crash. Here, under the "Asset Purchase Facility", the BoE bought illiquid but sound assets from financial and commercial organisations and financed the purchases by (indirectly) issuing gilts. In other words the government borrowed money to provide liquidity to 'the banks' by buying assets on their books which they couldn't easily sell for good cash in the prevailing crisis.
The banks got cash to keep their businesses liquid and to enable them to continue operations (e.g. lending) and the BoE in return got perfectly good assets (say loans, bonds etc.) from which it earned normal returns. Because of the size of APF (to date £375 bn), the BoE was indemnified by the Treasury against any losses which might occur from the programme. Originally it was agreed that the Treasury would be paid for this indemnity on the winding up of the scheme.
However, as size of the scheme grew and its likely termination became extended, this open ended indemnity was exchanged for (paid for by) an agreement by the BoE to remit cash balances arising from APF operations to the Treasury. A one off amount of around £35 bn was agreed to be paid during 2013 over a nine month period in addition to ongoing but much smaller quarterly payments. The £35 bn is clearly well above normal limits (£12 bn per year) for Central Bank entrepreneurial income to be included in national borrowing figures. Hence the reason that Osborne is receiving £4 bn per month but this is not being shown in the borrowing figures.
I hope this answers your question adequately! You might ask how the BoE gets the cash to pay the Treasury. Apart from fees and margins arising out of the asset purchase transactions, the assets purchased eventually mature and naturally convert to cash. For example loans purchased get paid off and bonds mature all leading to the BoE realising cash from the APF programme.
Scott, Go on to iPlayer and watch Question Time from Falkirk, there you will see real opinion in Scotland. people were not cheering The Tories, Lib Dems or Labour. This will give an honest reflection of what real public opinion is like and I doubt even you could spin it as being for NO.
Real opinion in Scotland is not represented by the politically obsessed few who turn up for QT or referendum debates but the silent majority who have quietly decided they want none of your xenophobic anti English claptrap
Lol, LibDems have to live in hope, I think you will find that the audience was broader based and more realistic than the pretendy UK GOV polls that are weighted for London.
The SNPers 'positive' vision is entirely and exclusively anti-English
Can you give me a link to any anti-English quote by any SNP politician in the last, say, 20 years? Take your time.
" Joan McAlpine said the United Kingdom was like an English “domineering man” tyrannising and threatening a “talented, well-educated (Scottish) girl with good prospects”. "
You do understand what a metaphor is don't you? Your UKOK mates seem awfully keen on the family/divorce/separation meme; on that basis how would you describe the 'marriage' between England and Scotland, supposedly a union of equals?
A tasteless and ill-chosen anti-English metaphor from a close friend and advisor to Salmond.
Scott, Go on to iPlayer and watch Question Time from Falkirk, there you will see real opinion in Scotland. people were not cheering The Tories, Lib Dems or Labour. This will give an honest reflection of what real public opinion is like and I doubt even you could spin it as being for NO.
At the beginning of that QT, Dimbleby explicitly said that the audience had been SELECTED so it was split 50/50 Yes and No. It was engineered to be argumentative, not representative of actual Scots opinion. Which, as we all know, is actually split about two to one in favour of No.
So your point is entirely specious.
Didn't see the start of QT, but if that engineered 50/50 split is true, it would be madness to use that audience as representative.
Comments
The papers are like greyhounds in the slips over Romania and Bulgaria. Even that right wing rag the Guardian. You can just sense it.
Come January 1 the press will be finding hordes of beggars, vagrants, muggers and organised criminals, whether they exist or not.
Cameron seems blissfully unaware.
1. better get the deficit paid faster so Labour can give handouts to all thier mates
2. look more money, better bribe the elecorate and get a second term and if it screws up Labour have to tidy up after us for change.
May I suggest a palliative. The following blog thread remains the funniest I have ever read. Read from Comment 3 and stop after subordinate comment 139.
If you are not shaking with laughter after 139, then you must be as sane as you make out.
Link: http://bit.ly/190IUTU
There are a few who show contempt, but that is also true of the left, where there is a lot of contempt for people who aspire to improve themselves.
Scots have a long tradition of self improvement by hard work, which is why it surprises me that this strand of politics is so out of favor in Scotland. Both SNP and SLAB have policies based upon central statist solutions.
Braveheart on Benefits is a great jibe, but not one that I would personally make. Fox, when anyone brings up the "Braveheart" reference you instantly know they have no clue on the subject and are completely biased against it and have lost their argument.
EDIT: Whilst I am very right wing I find it very poor taste when people mock the poor , unemployed etc. Not directing this at you but at clowns like Maaarsh , SeanT etc. One day they may have issues themselves and will not be so smug ar**s.
I personally am very pleasantly surprised by these polling figures. I still expect it to get closer than this but the odds for a no vote are improving.
I just find it amazing that having prepared for this all their adult lives the SNP spokespeople have so few answers or thought out positions. It is a classic case of what happens when you spend too much of your time speaking to the converted.
An obvious one is a Scottish currency. That clearly should have been a part of the deal. Instead they lurched from the Euro to Sterling, always dependent upon the uncertain decisions of others and always ignoring the financial implications of that dependency. If we are to have our economic futures so dominated by other countries are we not better doing that within the current Union?
Re. polling, still plenty of work to do obviously; thank goodness wily Eck has given us 10 months to do it. A few months ago I offered a bet that polling would show Yes at 40% or above in the year before the referendum (not taken up by any of the Unionist high rollers). Panelbase subsequently did that very thing, which meant they were immediately rubbished. I'll offer the same bet that a pollster other than Panelbase will show 40% for Yes in the next 10 months.
@Avery
Mr Pole
good to see you around again, I've been busy myself so not posting much of late. Mostly it' s been dealing with the consequences of those crap banks which won't do any lending. Why are we supporting Lloyds and and RBS ? They call themselves banks but don't actually do any of the things banks are supposed to do.
" jgm2 says:
September 9, 2009 at 10:51 am
How did they know it didn’t mourn? Because it didn’t leave a f-cking enormously ostentatious bouquet outside the tomb like every other f-cking bird. That’s how.
‘You are always in our thourts (sic)’ The Robins
‘We’ll never forget you’ The parrots.
‘God Bless. Tonight you sleep with the angels’ The Dodos.
Etc etc.
But the Magpies? F-ck all. And it’s not like they couldn’t afford it with all that shiny stuff they’re forever nicking.
Bastards.
That said, if the polls are correct, the debate may start to become much more focused on what happens once No formally wins. That may represent a chance for the SNP's best chance - if No voters stay at home because they don't feel the need to go to the polls, a highly motivated Yes vote could sneak through.
I think the No voters are just as motivated as the Yessers - motivated by the fear that independence will threaten their jobs and prosperity. This is the crucial stat for me:
"There was also a huge difference in voting intentions depending on whether people work. Incredibly, two –thirds of unemployed people intend to vote yes, compared to just one in four of full-time workers – a clear sign that lose who have most to lose are most fearful of separation. Much of the SNP’s campaign has focused on the Westminster coalition’s welfare shake-up."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516317/Poll-reveals-just-QUARTER-Scots-want-leave-UK-following-launch-referendum-campaign.html#ixzz2mDOS5Bq5
2/3 of dole claimants want independence, but only 1/4 of actual workers. Bravehearts on Benefits. That's a campaign killer.
Another sneering unionist Tory, content to milk the public purse whilst denigrating the poor and unfortunate. You sound like areal nice guy, hopefully you do not get many poor patients to look at.
Fox, when anyone brings up the "Braveheart" reference you instantly know they have no clue on the subject and are completely biased against it and have lost their argument.
EDIT: Whilst I am very right wing I find it very poor taste when people mock the poor , unemployed etc. Not directing this at you but at clowns like Maaarsh , SeanT etc. One day they may have issues themselves and will not be so smug ar**s.
Fox there certainly are major problems with the benefits system in this country , the money is far from well spent and there are some who abuse the system. It badly needs restructuring root and branch , but the blame can be laid at labour and Tories feet , both of whom have used it to their personal benefit rather than in the people's interests. Westminster politics is rotten and needs cleared out.
As for the LDs, I think we all know the Party is going to fight a defensive campaign based on 75-80 seats and completely ignore the others where the vote shares will collapse.
UKIP tactics will be fascinating - they know that getting 10-15% everywhere is useless so they will presumably be "targeting" a number (how many ?) of seats.
The case for Scottish Independence should be one which is equally true whether Scotland moves either left or right from the current Holyrood parliament. As such I think DH was right yesterday, confusing the case for independence with the SNP manifesto for government was a mistake. Both are worth hearing, but they needed to be distinct documents.
I'd like nothing more to be rid of the Scottish - you have my full backing, but unfortunately most of your countrymen seem to be able to see this is a good deal for me and not for them.
I thought Paul Flowers was supposed to be bring down the two Ed`s!
The veteran pollster who founded the MORI company all those years ago, Bob Worcester, used to contact me in the early days of PB to give me a gentle admonishment whenever he thought I focused too much on polling leads. The important thing, he would always say, was to look at the respective party poll shares.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/08/06/for-con-to-have-any-chance-the-lab-share-needs-to-erode-its-looking-pretty-solid/
The Mail won't be far behind and check out crazy Daley in the Telly today. And there's stuff in the Guardian too.
The way things are, it would be a brave person who bets against UKIP winning the euros with this press narrative. It should reach boiling point by spring 2014.
The Tories must be laughing either way , they either get hegemony in England or can claim the victory if it is NO. Labour hav ebeen done up like kippers, they do not know which way to turn.
Very good from Tim Montgomerie. Must read for anyone in the Tory half of the government.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/12/uber-modernisation-is-dead-but-that-must-not-mean-a-return-to-old-losing-positions.html
I actually missed that blog post - I was on holiday it would seem when it came out.
You are right - Worcester makes a great point. I guess the debate needs to move on to 'Labour's Firewall'. Rather than focusing on the leads which, as you say, bounce around, how do the Tories pull the Labour share below 35%?
We are seeing a definitive slip in Labour's share of the vote, from which the Tories or Lib Dems aren't benefiting.
I may do a thread on that in the morning.
Chadli?
There are a lot of Don't knows, who have yet to be convinced by either side.
Differential turnout may be critical.
Either a strong showing by UKIP or a resurgent Tory party next year may tip the balance.
And nine months is a long time
The borrowing figures are prepared on an 'accrual' basis, so that they are net of revenues and expenses which have been incurred but not yet received/paid for. The difference between cash and accrued figures does not account though for anything like the extent of the difference between PSNB and CGNCR.
What makes the gap so wide is that certain transactions which affect the cash position of the government are excluded from the PSNB figures as a matter of presentation policy. For example, cash remitted by the Bank of England to the Treasury is capped at around £12 bn per year. Any extra received is simply not counted as 'negative' borrowing even though Osborne is receiving around £4 bn per month from this source. Other cash receipts, mainly from one off transactions, are also excluded from, or limited in their impact upon, the official borrowing figures. Examples of such transactions are the movement of the Royal Mail Pension Assets and Liabilities to the Treasury, the sale of shares in Royal Mail and Lloyds Bank, proceeds from the 4G spectrum auction, the Swiss Banks Tax Agreement etc. etc,
[to be continued]
[...continued]
So cash is coming into the Treasury and reducing the government's borrowing or 'net cash requirement' but not being reflected in the headline borrowing figures. The logic behind these reporting rules is that the PSNB figures give a better indication of 'underlying borrowing' or what borrowing would have been had there not been cash streams from extraordinary non-recurring transactions. This is all very well - and useful - but as time goes by, the underlying figures and the real figures get completely out of kilter: as has happened now. The ONS and Treasury recognise this problem and are working on revised methods of presentation but these are unlikely to be introduced until at least late 2014. The problem is even worse when the differing rules for EU debt and deficit calculation are taken into account.
Osborne has the advantage that the current ONS reporting rules are working in his favour by influencing public expectations. If we all think that borrowing is higher than it really is then the case for continued austerity is easier to sell. At the same time, if the cash position is very much better than expected, Osborne's fiscal flexibility is enhanced. He can soften the impact of austerity by delaying cuts (i.e. let expenditure reduce slowly in real terms rather than cut in nominal terms) and can introduce more temporary stimulus measures where and when needed.
That poll Montgomerie quotes suggests the tories biggest problem is they are seen as the party of the rich.
The tories have 17 months to convince people that they are not.
Tottenham Hotspur@SpursOfficial4m
Quick stat - today marks a first PL start for @NChadli since Arsenal, September 1.
But Clegg and Milliband (and Balls come to think of it) are three politicians I really dislike intensely.
Balls, well we all know he is a marmite character. The other two I think its their naked two faced approach to politics and a visible willingness to chuck principles out of the window.
I did used to dip in to Guido now and again. But only for 'Thick as Thieves/TAT', who I thought was completely hilarious. Stopped reading when he was banned for the final *final* time.
I have said on here several times that I have received indications that those with less at risk are much more inclined towards yes. The Sunday Mail figures in that respect are entirely consistent with my experience.
But, so far, the key is not the ineptitude of SLAB or Carmichael or anyone else. It is that the SNP have not created or sold a credible vision of Scotland's future post independence.
As a nationalist you might want to reflect where your support would be standing if the opposition were competent.
Avery, borrowing shedloads isn't actually austerity, it' s just slower profligacy.
'Ukip 'wiped out' north of the Border after its Scots leader is sacked
UKIP chief Nigel Farage has sacked Scottish party leader Lord Christopher Monckton in an attempt to end infighting north of the Border.
The move has prompted the chairman and chief fundraiser of Ukip in Scotland to quit in protest. The party's administrative body has also been dissolved.
Monckton told the Sunday Herald: "There isn't any Ukip in Scotland. It's been wiped out."'
http://tinyurl.com/puor6nd
As there's so little liquidity in the Betfair politics markets I've taken up sports betting, mainly because of the exchange format that allows you to cash out and it makes even dull games interesting, such as Ireland v Afghanistan yesterday, made an easy £5 as by the 5th over Ireland had already 'won'.
Monthly P/L (I'm micro betting, mostly the minimum £2)
Cricket £1.43
Football £28.85
Motor Sport -£13.21
Rugby League -£8.46
Rugby Union £16.64
Odd thing is I don't think the footy is particularly profitable due to the general finality once a goal is scored, cricket, tennis and rugby are I think the best to bet on, high scores, no draws and constantly changing odds.
Today I have £3 on S'hampton at 6.6 and a £3 stake on a double with (winner first) Man U v Tot, Chelsea v S'ton and Man C v Swa.
Got out of my Oz position yesterday and started backing Wales, lost £1.50 instead of winning £15, bah!
I'm guessing its part of the interest that the government pays on the huge stack of gilts that the BoE owns...???
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25173331
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/01/boris-johnsons-views-like-brave-new-world-dystopia
Actually, Rawnsley struggles. Just shows that someone who is essentially an upmarket political gossip columnist should leave the sociological conundrums to those who understand such matters.
With Romania and Bulgaria coming on board in January...???
No chance. The papers will be finding problems even if there aren't any.
Given the timing of the whole thing, its a perfect storm for Dave.
They want Sterling. They have Sterling now. Ah, but with the English.
They want the EU. They have the EU now. Ah, but with the English.
They want the Queen. They have the Queen now. Ah, but with the English.
They want NATO. They have NATO now. Ah, but with the English.
Scotland would be exactly the same as now, but without the English, and therefore better...
Eck's 'positive vision' of Scotland is Xenophobic claptrap. I pity the numpties that agree with him.
I can't remember the teams chosen a month ago but can remember the teams put out in the 1970s.
Your narrow bigoted view does not allow you to see that it is fiscal policy that gives you powers to make decisions.
It is all a question of balance. If Osborne is to get credit for anything then it is, by luck or design, choosing the right balance between fiscal consolidation and growth stimulation.
I know you will credit the choice to luck, but there was a real debate between economists on the optimal figures, with, say, the OECD under José Ángel Gurría setting the levels broadly adopted by Osborne, and, the IMF, wavering with personnel changes but latterly influenced by the Krugman/Obama wing under Blanchard promoting a greater role for stimulus. In this particular recession, at this particular stage of recovery, it does look as though Gurría/Osborne have won this debate.
Continued borrowing - or at least allowing underlying borrowing to remain high and plugging the gap with extraordinary (mainly asset sales) revenue - is an acceptable method of tackling the long term borrowing problem provided that the government never loses sight of the need to balance the cyclically adjusted current budget. This being a shorthand way of saying that current expenses and expenditure excluding capex and non-recurring items should balance at the mid cycle of a natural up and downswing in the economy. And Osborne/Alexander haven't lost sight of this goal. We are now more likely than not to 'balance the budget' by 2017 than at any stage of this parliament to date. What the extraordinary incomes have done is to provide time for the economy to heal itself without the need for painful surgery.
On your point on bank lending, this is clearly not being overlooked. Carney's move to dampen property price rise expectations and to switch Treasury/BoE interventions to SME lending support is both timely and needed. Mortgage lending is recovering but lending to business remains in the doldrums. 2014 may be your lucky year if it is not too late as it looks certain that commercial lending by banks is going to be a major priority with pricing, availability and terms all relaxed in the short term.
Take note.
Neal
Hughes
Thompson
Kennedy A
Souness
McDermott
Kennedy R
Case
Dalglish
Johnson
Harvey
Madeley
Hunter
McQueen
Cooper
Bremner
Giles
Gray
Lorrimar
Jordan
Clarke
Jennings
Rice
Young
O'Leary
Nelson
Price
Brady
Rix
Macdonald
Stapleton
Sunderland
And in the decade before then government debt will have increased by approximately a TRILLION quid.
What do we do after 2017 ? Borrow another trillion ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25174492
In next week's news Ed learns how to put his shirts into the washing machine. Two weeks' time Ed reveals his struggle to master tags on the washing powder box.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9128442/Joan-McAlpine-compares-Union-to-abusive-marriage.html
Rather unfortunate coming from a colleague of Bill Walker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10294364/SNP-inquiry-call-into-how-wife-beater-Bill-Walker-became-an-MSP.html
Ukip support may fade, but it might not. I get the feeling many people on here ignore any good polling for Ukip in the hope they'll go away. Mainly because they are so convinced of their own argument.
I will lay 8/13 lib dem bt ukip in GE 2015 vote % in £130 to the first 5 people interested.
It never ends.
[...continued]
When one-off schemes are set up to address specific economic problems then the sums earned by Central Banks can far exceed the normal annual limits. This is the case with the QE programme set up to stimulate the economy following the 2007-9 crash. Here, under the "Asset Purchase Facility", the BoE bought illiquid but sound assets from financial and commercial organisations and financed the purchases by (indirectly) issuing gilts. In other words the government borrowed money to provide liquidity to 'the banks' by buying assets on their books which they couldn't easily sell for good cash in the prevailing crisis.
The banks got cash to keep their businesses liquid and to enable them to continue operations (e.g. lending) and the BoE in return got perfectly good assets (say loans, bonds etc.) from which it earned normal returns. Because of the size of APF (to date £375 bn), the BoE was indemnified by the Treasury against any losses which might occur from the programme. Originally it was agreed that the Treasury would be paid for this indemnity on the winding up of the scheme.
However, as size of the scheme grew and its likely termination became extended, this open ended indemnity was exchanged for (paid for by) an agreement by the BoE to remit cash balances arising from APF operations to the Treasury. A one off amount of around £35 bn was agreed to be paid during 2013 over a nine month period in addition to ongoing but much smaller quarterly payments. The £35 bn is clearly well above normal limits (£12 bn per year) for Central Bank entrepreneurial income to be included in national borrowing figures. Hence the reason that Osborne is receiving £4 bn per month but this is not being shown in the borrowing figures.
I hope this answers your question adequately! You might ask how the BoE gets the cash to pay the Treasury. Apart from fees and margins arising out of the asset purchase transactions, the assets purchased eventually mature and naturally convert to cash. For example loans purchased get paid off and bonds mature all leading to the BoE realising cash from the APF programme.
Maybe a Nat will acknowledge this?