It's difficult to work out. Last year when Osborne was embroiled in the omnishambles he unmasked the huge Libor conspiracy involving several top politicians. And what happened? The press suppressed it all.
I hope Avery can get to the bottom of all this
I add Southam Observer to the list of those from whom I request evidence of IMF criticism of Osborne's poliicies.
Sarcasm doesn't provide adequate camouflage.
So tim. Ben and SO, please quote Lagarde to back up your position.
Your silence is deafening.
Lagarde is not the only person of note or import at the IMF. You may want to check out the views of the organisation's chief economist. Or then again, you might not! Ms Lagarde is a charming woman who I have had the great pleasure of meeting. As you probably know, she is a lawyer by trade.
But Lagarde, as Managing Director of the IMF, is authorised by the IMF's constitution to represent the organisation in public.
As a lawyer she will know that and will also know that the same does not apply to the Chief Economist who is not a member of the IMF's Executive Board.
I'll-Ave-Another Blancmange's views may be interesting but they are not representative.
Can I assume from your reply that you now concede Lagarde did not criticise the UK's fiscal policy?
I never claimed otherwise; neither did anyone else. But what Lagarde did not do was rebuke the chief economist or repudiate his words. She spoke very diplomatically, as you would expect. If you wish to pretend that what the IMF's chief economist said does not matter and that nothing has changed then that is your prerogative.
Actually Blancmange's interview was about as bland and uncontroversial as Lagarde's.
His mistake was to go all Krugman and use journalistic rather than academic language to state the obvious.
If he had substituted "playing with fire" for "significant downside risks", Conway may have spared us his premature ejaculation. And then he would have avoided being taken to the cleaners the following day by Lagarde.
It is interesting to see your argument in favour of criticism now relies on what Lagarde did not say. No doubt this opens up many lines of attack for the left.
UK Chancellor branded a "fop" by IMF
Today, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, did not say that Osborne was a "fop".
In reality this is not a cunning new strategy, is it? It is what the media have been up to for days.
a) come on the US authorities radar regarding Islamic extremisim b) would have been noted as visiting Russia on a long trip c) lived within striking distance of the attacks d) had apparently become a lot more radicalised in recent times and communicated that radicalism
Take near 4 days to come up as a suspect and one that they made public by passing out pictures and asking the public to help identify him?
The family say that the elder brother was pestered by US authorities whilst the FBI say they questioned him once regarding links to Islamic extremism and found nothing. I suppose it depends who the US authorities in question were.
There is possibly more depth to these guys. I find it doubtful the investigators didn't have them on the list early.
I dunno. Couldn't the US have a policy blind spot on Chechens on the assumption they'd only be interested in Russian targets.
Definitely no. The Chechens are some of the most exported Jihadist fighters going. Theres well established links between international jihadism and Chechen involvement.
As fighters going into pre-existing warzones yes.
Was Beslan a warzone then?
Or just the worst terrorist atrocity of the last decade?
I have limited sympathy for the Chechen fighters cause since then, and cannot see how blowing up an eight year old child and maiming hundreds at a sporting event in Boston furthers their cause.
Beslan was in Russia.
I'm not saying Chechens should be seen differently. I'm wondering if they were and if that explains some of the odd aspects of the response to the Boston attack.
It's difficult to work out. Last year when Osborne was embroiled in the omnishambles he unmasked the huge Libor conspiracy involving several top politicians. And what happened? The press suppressed it all.
I hope Avery can get to the bottom of all this
I add Southam Observer to the list of those from whom I request evidence of IMF criticism of Osborne's poliicies.
Sarcasm doesn't provide adequate camouflage.
So tim. Ben and SO, please quote Lagarde to back up your position.
Your silence is deafening.
Lagarde is not the only person of note or import at the IMF. You may want to check out the views of the organisation's chief economist. Or then again, you might not! Ms Lagarde is a charming woman who I have had the great pleasure of meeting. As you probably know, she is a lawyer by trade.
But Lagarde, as Managing Director of the IMF, is authorised by the IMF's constitution to represent the organisation in public.
As a lawyer she will know that and will also know that the same does not apply to the Chief Economist who is not a member of the IMF's Executive Board.
I'll-Ave-Another Blancmange's views may be interesting but they are not representative.
Can I assume from your reply that you now concede Lagarde did not criticise the UK's fiscal policy?
I never claimed otherwise; neither did anyone else. But what Lagarde did not do was rebuke the chief economist or repudiate his words. She spoke very diplomatically, as you would expect. If you wish to pretend that what the IMF's chief economist said does not matter and that nothing has changed then that is your prerogative.
Actually Blancmange's interview was about as bland and uncontroversial as Lagarde's.
His mistake was to go all Krugman and use journalistic rather than academic language to state the obvious.
It he had substituted "playing with fire" for "significant downside risks", Conway may have spared us his premature ejaculation. And then he would have avoided being taken to the cleaners the following day by Lagarde.
It is interesting to see you argument in favour of criticism now relies on what Lagarde did not say. No doubt this opens up many lines of attack for the left.
UK Chancellor branded a "fop" by IMF
Today, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, did not say that Osborne was a "fop".
In reality this is not a cunning new strategy, is it? It is what the media have been up to for days.
Avery, you must believe what you want to believe. The chief economist and the second in command at the IMF have said what they have said. Their words have been reported in the same way by every single media outlet that has covered the story. They may all be wrong, you may be right. We shall find out soon enough.
sorry didn't get back to you yesterday wrt the govt's response to swine flu.
I agreed with your point (to @alanbrooke) that a govt has no option but to prepare for a serious outbreak of any particular eg virus. My point was that the as I remember quite hastily cobbled together vaccine produced subsequent side effects so there are grey areas between govt advice and best outcome.
And 309 deaths/year doesn't qualify as a significant threat.
Evening all. It was great to meet up up with PBers old and new last night. I left before it got raucous (Memo to JohnO: To be led astray by Neil once may be regarded as a misfortune; to be led astray twice looks like carelessness).
A quick note on the Fitch ratings downgrade: As always with these things, it's interesting to read the actual words rather than the media reports. The text is here:
No great surprises, but this bit is food for thought, or should be:
The slower pace of deficit reduction means that the next government will be required to implement substantial spending reductions (and/or tax increases) if public debt is to be stabilised and reduced over the medium term.
I was at Camden Market this morning, and following on from our discussion last night, I saw this (failed-Turing-Test) T shirt on sale, and I thought you two would appreciate it.
Reminds me of that joke about Auditors:
How do you tell the difference between an Auditor and a computer? The computer's the one with the personality.
"But David Lipton, the IMF’s second-in-charge, has waded into the battle alongside Mr Blanchard. “The UK economy has turned out to be somewhat weaker than had been foreseen, so our view is that the pace of consolidation ought to be reconsidered, and we’ll want to come and have some discussions about that,” he told Sky News."
Ah, that Lipton. Definitely not a tea party Tory that one.
Before coming to the Fund, Mr. Lipton was Special Assistant to the President [Obama], and served as Senior Director for International Economic Affairs at the National Economic Council and National Security Council at the White House.
Definitely nothing to do with the Republicans vs. Democrats debate on the need for US deficit reduction then.
It's difficult to work out. Last year when Osborne was embroiled in the omnishambles he unmasked the huge Libor conspiracy involving several top politicians. And what happened? The press suppressed it all.
I hope Avery can get to the bottom of all this
I add Southam Observer to the list of those from whom I request evidence of IMF criticism of Osborne's poliicies.
Sarcasm doesn't provide adequate camouflage.
So tim. Ben and SO, please quote Lagarde to back up your position.
Your silence is deafening.
Lagarde is not the only person of note or import at the IMF. You may want to check out the views of the organisation's chief economist. Or then again, you might not! Ms Lagarde is a charming woman who I have had the great pleasure of meeting. As you probably know, she is a lawyer by trade.
But Lagarde, as Managing Director of the IMF, is authorised by the IMF's constitution to represent the organisation in public.
As a lawyer she will know that and will also know that the same does not apply to the Chief Economist who is not a member of the IMF's Executive Board.
I'll-Ave-Another Blancmange's views may be interesting but they are not representative.
Can I assume from your reply that you now concede Lagarde did not criticise the UK's fiscal policy?
I never claimed otherwise; neither did anyone else. But what Lagarde did not do was rebuke the chief economist or repudiate his words. She spoke very diplomatically, as you would expect. If you wish to pretend that what the IMF's chief economist said does not matter and that nothing has changed then that is your prerogative.
Actually Blancmange's interview was about as bland and uncontroversial as Lagarde's.
His mistake was to go all Krugman and use journalistic rather than academic language to state the obvious.
It he had substituted "playing with fire" for "significant downside risks", Conway may have spared us his premature ejaculation. And then he would have avoided being taken to the cleaners the following day by Lagarde.
It is interesting to see you argument in favour of criticism now relies on what Lagarde did not say. No doubt this opens up many lines of attack for the left.
UK Chancellor branded a "fop" by IMF
Today, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, did not say that Osborne was a "fop".
In reality this is not a cunning new strategy, is it? It is what the media have been up to for days.
Avery, you must believe what you want to believe. The chief economist and the second in command at the IMF have said what they have said. Their words have been reported in the same way by every single media outlet that has covered the story. They may all be wrong, you may be right. We shall find out soon enough.
Quote what has been said,in full and in context, and we can have a reasonable debate on what the IMF means.
Just latching onto soundbites and journalistic spin is no substitute for intelligent appraisal of source material.
I therefore extend my invitation to you, tim and BenM to provide a full transcript of any of Lagarde's, Blancmange's and Lipton's inteviews or responses to questions so we can review the evidence.
Did Stafford Hospital kill hundreds? It doesn't say that anywhere in the Francis report. The care at Stafford was bad enough without people repeating these fantasy figures about the number of excess deaths which can only be little more than guesses.
Tell that to the mourning relatives, Chris_A.
They can read (and I'm sure they have) the Francis report for themselves, and they're entitled to be aggrieved by the shoddy care received. But fantasy death numbers do not help them.
From the executive summary "The methodology and significance of these statistics are subject to academic controversy. Taking account of the range of opinion offered to the Inquiry, including a report from two independent experts, it has been concluded that it would be unsafe to infer from the figures that there was any particular number or range of numbers of avoidable or unnecessary deaths at the Trust."
From Professor Jarman's evidence to the enquiry "I am aware that a loose figure of 400−1,200 excess deaths [at the Trust] has been put forward by a number of parties. So far as I am aware this figure was originally proposed in the draft Healthcare Commission Report into Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust, but was omitted from the final report. These figures do not reflect the Dr Foster Unit’s work, nor do I know what these figures are meant to represent or what methodology was used to derive them."
Professor Hutton's evidence "the issue of excess deaths was a paradox in that it caused attention to be drawn to the Trust but could not assist in the assessment of individual cases. He considered that it was not possible to put an accurate figure on the true number. Indeed, he pointed out that, although it was highly unlikely, there was still a chance that the excess deaths recorded were a statistical anomaly and not part of an underlying trend. "
Dr Shahian and Professor Normand "It is unfortunate that the figure of 400−1,200 excess deaths became so widely publicized and sensationalized."
It's difficult to work out. Last year when Osborne was embroiled in the omnishambles he unmasked the huge Libor conspiracy involving several top politicians. And what happened? The press suppressed it all.
I hope Avery can get to the bottom of all this
I add Southam Observer to the list of those from whom I request evidence of IMF criticism of Osborne's poliicies.
Sarcasm doesn't provide adequate camouflage.
So tim. Ben and SO, please quote Lagarde to back up your position.
Your silence is deafening.
Lagarde is not the only person of note or import at the IMF. You may want to check out the views of the organisation's chief economist. Or then again, you might not! Ms Lagarde is a charming woman who I have had the great pleasure of meeting. As you probably know, she is a lawyer by trade.
But Lagarde, as Managing Director of the IMF, is authorised by the IMF's constitution to represent the organisation in public.
As a lawyer she will know that and will also know that the same does not apply to the Chief Economist who is not a member of the IMF's Executive Board.
I'll-Ave-Another Blancmange's views may be interesting but they are not representative.
Can I assume from your reply that you now concede Lagarde did not criticise the UK's fiscal policy?
I never claimed otherwise; neither did anyone else. But what Lagarde did not do was rebuke the chief economist or repudiate his words. She spoke very diplomatically, as you would expect. If you wish to pretend that what the IMF's chief economist said does not matter and that nothing has changed then that is your prerogative.
Actually Blancmange's interview was about as bland and uncontroversial as Lagarde's.
His mistake was to go all Krugman and use journalistic rather than academic language to state the obvious.
It he had substituted "playing with fire" for "significant downside risks", Conway may have spared us his premature ejaculation. And then he would have avoided being taken to the cleaners the following day by Lagarde.
It is interesting to see you argument in favour of criticism now relies on what Lagarde did not say. No doubt this opens up many lines of attack for the left.
UK Chancellor branded a "fop" by IMF
Today, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, did not say that Osborne was a "fop".
In reality this is not a cunning new strategy, is it? It is what the media have been up to for days.
Avery, you must believe what you want to believe. The chief economist and the second in command at the IMF have said what they have said. Their words have been reported in the same way by every single media outlet that has covered the story. They may all be wrong, you may be right. We shall find out soon enough.
Have just listened to a heavily edited version of Lipton's interview with Ed Conway on the Sky site.
Cannot link direct as it is a pop up Adobe Flash window but you will find it on Sky News's Business page on the top right.
He very simply states the obvious.
1. UK growth is below expectation and disappointing.
2. Continental European growth is even worse.
3. Indicators suggest that growth will recover but not, in the short to medium term, to ideal levels.
4. In the circumstances, the rate of fiscal consolidation.should be reviewed and other monetary measures considered.
5. [His main point] Bank credit is not flowing, particularly to small and medium sized enterprises. Bank restructuring and recapitalisation should be a priority.
There is nothing in that interview that Osborne wouldn't say himself. Indeed all the symptoms and solutions have been noted and debated on PB over the past few months.
And the Budget revealed that bank restructuring and recapitalisation was now a government priority and measures were being implemented to execute plans. The whole mortgage stimulus exercise is precisely a move in that direction: moving mortgage assets off bank books through BoE QE purchase, thereby accelerating bank recapitalisation and freeing funds for lending to SMEs.
So effectively what the IMF are saying is that they will be reviewing the Treasury's existing plans to address depressed growth during their visit to the UK in the next month.
What sensational news! This is all in day's work stuff, Southam.
Seems like there's a queue to give hapless George a good kicking today
IMF steps up call for Osborne to abandon austerity plans as row escalates A row between George Osborne and the International Monetary Fund over Britain’s economic strategy has escalated after the fund’s deputy managing director joined those urging the Chancellor to abandon his austerity plans.
The Treasury select committee is deeply unimpressed by Osborne's Help To Buy scheme The plan to help first-time buyers is "very much a work in progress", say Andrew Tyrie and colleagues.
The IMF and Andrew Tyrie's Treasury Select Committee, all lefties.
First, tim, you have to provide evidence that the IMF has criticised the UK government's fiscal policies and performance.
I have asked you and Ben twice to provide evidence of such criticism by direct quotation of Christine Lagarde's response to Ed Conway's question at the IMF press conference in Washington.
Neither you nor Ben have so far responded to my request. As the whole narrative of criticism originates from Lagarde's response to Conway, I would have thought providing this evidence would be a simple task.
Here is a link to a video clip of Lagarde's complete response to Conway:
She makes it clear that the IMF supports Osborne's fiscal consolidation plans (this is repeated twice); that the IMF position on the UK hasn't changed since its last published review of the UK economy; and, that it has always been the position of the IMF that the pace of consolidation should be reviewed in light of lower than expected growth outcomes.
She does state that UK growth has "not been very good", but this applies to almost all countries under IMF observation and as the UK's growth is currently higher than all other EU large countries, Osborne's plans must be the least of her worries at present.
Conway is attempting to create a "story" out of nothing in order to cover his error in attributing the previous day's ramblings of I'll-Ave-Another Blancmange to official IMF policy.
Growth stimulus will be discussed with the Treasury during the IMF's upcoming review of the UK economy, but the discussions are far more likely to concentrate on the optimal level and scope of monetary stimulus by the Bank of England than any change in fiscal plans.
Anyway, I wait for your direct quote from Lagarde to substantiate your claims. You should note I am an eternal optimist and fully expect your delivery.
It is extraordinary how literally every news source reporting this story could have got it so wrong.
All journalists want a story - Lagarde has said here she supports the policy, but obviously an eye needs to be kept on growth; as any sane observer would. There is no story here.
Did Stafford Hospital kill hundreds? It doesn't say that anywhere in the Francis report. The care at Stafford was bad enough without people repeating these fantasy figures about the number of excess deaths which can only be little more than guesses.
Tell that to the mourning relatives, Chris_A.
They can read (and I'm sure they have) the Francis report for themselves, and they're entitled to be aggrieved by the shoddy care received. But fantasy death numbers do not help them.
From the executive summary "The methodology and significance of these statistics are subject to academic controversy. Taking account of the range of opinion offered to the Inquiry, including a report from two independent experts, it has been concluded that it would be unsafe to infer from the figures that there was any particular number or range of numbers of avoidable or unnecessary deaths at the Trust."
From Professor Jarman's evidence to the enquiry "I am aware that a loose figure of 400−1,200 excess deaths [at the Trust] has been put forward by a number of parties. So far as I am aware this figure was originally proposed in the draft Healthcare Commission Report into Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust, but was omitted from the final report. These figures do not reflect the Dr Foster Unit’s work, nor do I know what these figures are meant to represent or what methodology was used to derive them."
Professor Hutton's evidence "the issue of excess deaths was a paradox in that it caused attention to be drawn to the Trust but could not assist in the assessment of individual cases. He considered that it was not possible to put an accurate figure on the true number. Indeed, he pointed out that, although it was highly unlikely, there was still a chance that the excess deaths recorded were a statistical anomaly and not part of an underlying trend. "
Dr Shahian and Professor Normand "It is unfortunate that the figure of 400−1,200 excess deaths became so widely publicized and sensationalized."
There is no number of deaths in the Francis report on Stafford, because excess deaths are not always avoidable, as detailed here:
Indeed one of the best ways of avoiding "excess deaths" is via changes in clinical coding, and this may be the reason that Staffords figures have improved:
That is not to say that care was not poor in Stafford, just that searching through the data is fraught with statistical hazard. Medical statistics need even more care in analysis than opinion polls if one wants the truth, rather than just want to justify ones own predjudices.
There is nothing in that interview that Osborne wouldn't say himself.
You think Osbrowne will be saying this again anytime soon, Seth O Logue?
“It’s now clear that Britain’s economic reputation is on the line at the next general election, another reason for bringing the date forward and having that election now… For the first time since these ratings began in 1978, the outlook for British debt has been downgraded from stable to negative.”
UKIP's support seems to be fairly evenly spread out, which is hampering it at the moment. However, if it really is a party on the rise, with a wide-ranging popular appeal akin to Mr Blair's New Labour, then it could easily go from no seats to quite a lot of seats in a single GE.
In 1997, a lot of New Labour MPs never expected to be elected, AIUI. The same could happen to UKIP candidates.
I think their 2015 GE aims are quite modest. They hope to identify target seats from their local election results this year and next.
UKIP's support seems to be fairly evenly spread out, which is hampering it at the moment. However, if it really is a party on the rise, with a wide-ranging popular appeal akin to Mr Blair's New Labour, then it could easily go from no seats to quite a lot of seats in a single GE.
In 1997, a lot of New Labour MPs never expected to be elected, AIUI. The same could happen to UKIP candidates.
*chuckles*
'Easily' indeed. Don't think Farage is quite that far gone yet.
Mrs Elenor, who is standing as a UKIP candidate for Margate and Cliftonville, said: “We are fighting on all fronts over Kent. It’s looking reasonably good.
“We are getting positive reactions almost all over the county.”
She says UKIP is widening its scope to all classes of society, contradicting David Cameron’s recent description of its supporters as mere “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”.
She said: “We are looking to collect support from the whole spectrum, from people who have not voted for years, to Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democratic voters who are now looking towards us.
“People are disillusioned with the other parties and they are beginning to appreciate what we stand for.”
In our recent ThisisKent poll 62 per cent of people said they would be voting for UKIP compared to 14 per cent for Labour, 12 per cent for Conservative and three per cent for Liberal Democrats.
It's one small poll in a local paper to be sure but "reasonably good" is precisely the correct tone to adopt.
Since all the parties are in campaign mode, with activists on the ground reporting to the party higher ups, it will not be very long before we get telling signs of any possible tory bloodbath or UKIP surge that cuts through the expectations management of the party spinners.
UKIP's support seems to be fairly evenly spread out, which is hampering it at the moment. However, if it really is a party on the rise, with a wide-ranging popular appeal akin to Mr Blair's New Labour, then it could easily go from no seats to quite a lot of seats in a single GE.
In 1997, a lot of New Labour MPs never expected to be elected, AIUI. The same could happen to UKIP candidates.
I think their 2015 GE aims are quite modest. They hope to identify target seats from their local election results this year and next.
See if there any 'pockets' of support then target GE seats from the local 'clusters' - I think this is UKIP's best strategy and surely there will be 'clusters' and minor parties are capable of winning seats as the Greens showed with Brighton Pav and almost Norwich South. And UKIP have more vote % than the greens so...
There is nothing in that interview that Osborne wouldn't say himself.
You think Osbrowne will be saying this again anytime soon, Seth O Logue?
“It’s now clear that Britain’s economic reputation is on the line at the next general election, another reason for bringing the date forward and having that election now… For the first time since these ratings began in 1978, the outlook for British debt has been downgraded from stable to negative.”
AAA spinning from the incompetent fop, wasn't it?
Pork.
You are overdosing on AAA Acorns. You should be getting Eck to mix bran into your feed. It will do wonders for your constitution.
Nothing in what Osborne said prior to the 2010 election has been proved false and the UK economy is in a considerably better position than it was when Brown and Darling left it.
Although the patient may be out of intensive care, and is not longer in a critical condition, it still needs medical assistance and time to complete a full recovery.
Osborne and the IMF will probably be discussing nutritional schemes when they meet next month. The IMF may suggest adding an acorn or two, but George could well argue that the diet is now properly balanced.
As for credit ratings, they are just letters on the side of the feed sack.
They hope to identify target seats from their local election results this year and next.
Nor will UKIP be alone in scrutinising the numbers from those areas closely. You can be certain tory MPs in marginals in the vicinity will have more than a passing interest in that kind of data. Perhaps even a few lib dem and labour MPs too.
As for credit ratings, they are just letters on the side of the feed sack.
"Near perfect" spinning, Seth O Logue.
Almost as good as your Lansley attempts.
How about another AAA Osbrowne gem that will in no way come back to haunt him?
“Our first benchmark is to cut the deficit more quickly to safeguard Britain’s credit rating. I know that we are taking a political gamble to set this up as a measure of success. Protecting the credit rating will not be easy… The pace of fiscal consolidation will be co-ordinated with monetary policy. And we will protect Britain’s credit rating and international reputation.”
The figure of 1200 has become an article of faith among some on here. Although for bizarre use of statistics the "60,000 killed by the NHS in care pathway euthenasia" is the most mindless
The exact figure is unknown. The only way to be sure would be a detailed review of the individual records to identify those such as the recent case that is in the news with a manslaughter charge alleging failure to administer insulin to a known diabetic admitted in hyperglycaemic coma.
What is clear is that the standard of care was very poor at the Stafford Hospital, and that this was at least in part because of the management attempting to meet the Labour govt targets at the expense of good clinical care. There were a large number of warnings ignored:
How many died in Stafford as a result of this poor care is uncertain, as is how typical the hospital was of other parts of the NHS. As the same pressures are nationwide I am sure that Stafford will not be alone, but rather the tip of an Iceberg, and rumours abound.
The Liverpool Care pathway is another issue, but I share the concerns that it is being administered innappropriately in a number of cases.
a) come on the US authorities radar regarding Islamic extremisim b) would have been noted as visiting Russia on a long trip c) lived within striking distance of the attacks d) had apparently become a lot more radicalised in recent times and communicated that radicalism
Take near 4 days to come up as a suspect and one that they made public by passing out pictures and asking the public to help identify him?
The family say that the elder brother was pestered by US authorities whilst the FBI say they questioned him once regarding links to Islamic extremism and found nothing. I suppose it depends who the US authorities in question were.
There is possibly more depth to these guys. I find it doubtful the investigators didn't have them on the list early.
I dunno. Couldn't the US have a policy blind spot on Chechens on the assumption they'd only be interested in Russian targets.
Definitely no. The Chechens are some of the most exported Jihadist fighters going. Theres well established links between international jihadism and Chechen involvement.
As fighters going into pre-existing warzones yes.
If they can export there they can export anywhere. The other point to note is that its also a source of training and also rhetorical influence & inspiration which is the more relevant export. I think, however, people are starting from an assumption that these people must have somehow physically gone to an overseas Jihad camp and that may not be the case.
There is no way the authorities would be solely looking at that indicators given experience of perpetrators or near perpetrators in the US unless the investigators were plain stupid. What they are looking for is people of whatever origin, Arab, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chechen, Indonesian, American, whatever, who they have come across before.
This guy was on their radar. He was not without notice (his brother may not have a formal file but is likely to have been noted for association). Thus a fundamental search of data would have churned up the name for elimination or pursuit after the attack.
As for credit ratings, they are just letters on the side of the feed sack.
"Near perfect" spinning, Seth O Logue.
Almost as good as your Lansley attempts.
How about another AAA Osbrowne gem that will in no way come back to haunt him?
“Our first benchmark is to cut the deficit more quickly to safeguard Britain’s credit rating. I know that we are taking a political gamble to set this up as a measure of success. Protecting the credit rating will not be easy… The pace of fiscal consolidation will be co-ordinated with monetary policy. And we will protect Britain’s credit rating and international reputation.”
Landed with grace and sure footing of an amusing Eric Pickles climbdown or an incompetent omnishambles budget.
“I have argued it with my opponents in difficult economic times, when I warned them last autumn that the cupboard was bare and the discretionary borrowing had to stop – and now Britain faces the humiliating possibility of losing its international credit rating.”
Humiliating, yet hardly the first time for Osbrowne.
They hope to identify target seats from their local election results this year and next.
Nor will UKIP be alone in scrutinising the numbers from those areas closely. You can be certain tory MPs in marginals in the vicinity will have more than a passing interest in that kind of data. Perhaps even a few lib dem and labour MPs too.
I should think the LDs will have their eyes on the 2014 local elections. Most of their remaining councillor base will be up for reelection.
Indeed. But Osborne claimed that yields would rocket if the AAA rating was downgraded. This has proved to be complete nonsense.
UK Bond yields are low mostly because of Quantitative easing. No one is buying UK Gilts apart from the Bank of England. When we stop QE permanently or try to unwind it, interest rates will rise and rise.
We are on a treadmill of addiction to cheap money, that cannot be stopped. We are in the eye of the storm rather than its other side.
I should think the LDs will have their eyes on the 2014 local elections. Most of their remaining councillor base will be up for reelection.
They can hardly ignore this years locals either. They might not have anywhere near as many up for grabs as the tories but they have more than enough to matter considering the hammering their base has been taking year on year.
Much as Clegg would love this to be all about Cammie and tory losses it won't be. Depending on the scale of any lib dem losses it may even start the grumbling again with the dreaded 'full support' of Clegg from the likes of Farron, Vince, Hughes and Clegg's other loyal colleagues.
UK Bond yields are low mostly because of Quantitative easing. No one is buying UK Gilts apart from the Bank of England. When we stop QE permanently or try to unwind it, interest rates will rise and rise.
We are on a treadmill of addiction to cheap money, that cannot be stopped. We are in the eye of the storm rather than its other side.
Indeed - QE is effectively printing money. The government will never redeem the gilts owned by the Bank of England and the bank will never resell them. It's all a charade.
Indeed. But Osborne claimed that yields would rocket if the AAA rating was downgraded. This has proved to be complete nonsense.
Osborne was wrong on that prediction.
I argued yesterday at length that the Credit Rating Agencies have been moving the goalposts on rating as a response to the financial crisis and consequent criticism of their failure to highlight failure points.
It was quite absurd for the UK to have been rated at AAA in the noughties given the size of its deficit and its high debt to GDP ratios. This was inherited from the days of the big western economies automatically being rated top of the premier league.
Because there are a lot of outsized egos to bruise, the ratings agencies have had to move slowly on getting sovereign ratings to provide a more granular picture of economic health. Remember how gingerly the first US downgrade was introduced?
Credit ratings and market pricing are still not fully linked and will probably never be. The role the ratings agencies are now playing is more official commentator on outcome trends and government policies. This makes sense as it is clear the politicians and media take more notice of re-ratings than investors. So the rating agencies have found a subsidiary and niche role (on sovereign ratings of leading economies).
The markets will still price relatively. There is a flow of money to invest and it will head in times of economic crisis to the safe havens. UK borrowing at 1.66% doesn't say that the UK is safe nor that its government's fiscal policies are sound, just that it is less risky to invest in the UK than all other countries in Europe except, say, Germany. So market pricing tells its own story as well and fulfills a distinct and separate role from the ratings agencies.
The great advantage to Osborne is that market pricing determines borrowing costs in billions of pounds. The cost of reratings is purely measurable in political capital.
You seem to be agreeing that all of Osbornes hysterical screeching about the ratings agencies was ridiculous. As ridiculous as his growth and rebalancing the economy boasts.
You seem to be agreeing that all of Osbornes hysterical screeching about the ratings agencies was ridiculous. As ridiculous as his growth and rebalancing the economy boasts.
I think in hindsight George would admit that he placed too great an emphasis on credit ratings and should have concentrated more on borrowing costs.
But the error is mild and language such as "hysterical scrreching" and "ridiculous" is not justified in any criticism.
Indeed. But Osborne claimed that yields would rocket if the AAA rating was downgraded. This has proved to be complete nonsense.
UK Bond yields are low mostly because of Quantitative easing. No one is buying UK Gilts apart from the Bank of England. When we stop QE permanently or try to unwind it, interest rates will rise and rise.
We are on a treadmill of addiction to cheap money, that cannot be stopped. We are in the eye of the storm rather than its other side.
I think you may be wrong on that diagnosis, Dr. Sox.
Take this Schoders investment report from end 2012 as evidence:
International investors attracted to UK gilts
International investors are purchasing larger amounts of UK government bonds than ever before, thanks to the Bank of England's quantitative easing programme and Britain's relative distance from the eurozone crisis.
That is according to the Financial Times, which reports that this driving demand has helped the government's long-term benchmark borrowing costs fall to levels last seen in 1890s, due in large part to acquisitions by leading sovereign wealth funds.
The news provider reports that international investors bought gilts worth £28.87 billion in October and November, the largest amount in a two-month period ever recorded by the bank.
Overseas investors are also bringing their private wealth to the UK because the coalition government's austerity programme is helping to ensure it retains a triple-A credit rating at a time when economic turmoil is rife across the eurozone.
Experts appear unsure on how this market will develop. An insider at the Treasury was quoted as saying: "Some analysts have warned that UK gilts would be hit if the eurozone recovers and makes the UK relatively less attractive. Others say Britain would be hit by association if the eurozone crisis gets worse: you can’t have it both ways."
It does seem though that investors are only looking at Standard & Poor's ratings.
Indeed. But Osborne claimed that yields would rocket if the AAA rating was downgraded. This has proved to be complete nonsense.
Osborne was wrong on that prediction.
I argued yesterday at length that the Credit Rating Agencies have been moving the goalposts on rating as a response to the financial crisis and consequent criticism of their failure to highlight failure points.
It was quite absurd for the UK to have been rated at AAA in the noughties given the size of its deficit and its high debt to GDP ratios. This was inherited from the days of the big western economies automatically being rated top of the premier league.
Because there are a lot of outsized egos to bruise, the ratings agencies have had to move slowly on getting sovereign ratings to provide a more granular picture of economic health. Remember how gingerly the first US downgrade was introduced?
Credit ratings and market pricing are still not fully linked and will probably never be. The role the ratings agencies are now playing is more official commentator on outcome trends and government policies. This makes sense as it is clear the politicians and media take more notice of re-ratings than daily movements in market pricing. So the rating agencies have found a subsidiary and niche role (on sovereign ratings of leading economies).
The markets will still price relatively. There is a flow of money to invest and it will head in times of economic crisis to the safe havens. UK borrowing at 1.66% doesn't say that the UK is safe nor that its government's fiscal policies are sound, just that it is less risky to invest in the UK than all other countries in Europe except, say, Germany. So market pricing tells its own story as well and fulfills a distinct and separate role from the ratings agencies.
The great advantage to Osborne is that market pricing determines borrowing costs in billions of pounds. The cost of reratings is purely measurable in political capital.
I think that in more normal times the bond yield gives an indication of how risky .buying that govts debt is, but that is not true of countries with a policy of QE. In the UK or Japan we have low bond yields and a plan for currency devaluation by inflation. A wise investor buys Bonds denominated in safer currencies such as German Euros or Swiss Francs, even at lower interest rates than the UK the return should be better because of currency movements.
complete with a picture of him looking like the bastard lovechild of Wallace and Frankenstein's monster. Nevertheless, it has quite a good resumé at the end of the policy decision points for Labour.
complete with a picture of him looking like the bastard lovechild of Wallace and Frankenstein's monster. Nevertheless, it has quite a good resumé at the end of the policy decision points for Labour.
Indeed. But Osborne claimed that yields would rocket if the AAA rating was downgraded. This has proved to be complete nonsense.
Osborne was wrong on that prediction.
I argued yesterday at length that the Credit Rating Agencies have been moving the goalposts on rating as a response to the financial crisis and consequent criticism of their failure to highlight failure points.
It was quite absurd for the UK to have been rated at AAA in the noughties given the size of its deficit and its high debt to GDP ratios. This was inherited from the days of the big western economies automatically being rated top of the premier league.
Because there are a lot of outsized egos to bruise, the ratings agencies have had to move slowly on getting sovereign ratings to provide a more granular picture of economic health. Remember how gingerly the first US downgrade was introduced?
Credit ratings and market pricing are still not fully linked and will probably never be. The role the ratings agencies are now playing is more official commentator on outcome trends and government policies. This makes sense as it is clear the politicians and media take more notice of re-ratings than daily movements in market pricing. So the rating agencies have found a subsidiary and niche role (on sovereign ratings of leading economies).
The markets will still price relatively. There is a flow of money to invest and it will head in times of economic crisis to the safe havens. UK borrowing at 1.66% doesn't say that the UK is safe nor that its government's fiscal policies are sound, just that it is less risky to invest in the UK than all other countries in Europe except, say, Germany. So market pricing tells its own story as well and fulfills a distinct and separate role from the ratings agencies.
The great advantage to Osborne is that market pricing determines borrowing costs in billions of pounds. The cost of reratings is purely measurable in political capital.
I think that in more normal times the bond yield gives an indication of how risky .buying that govts debt is, but that is not true of countries with a policy of QE. In the UK or Japan we have low bond yields and a plan for currency devaluation by inflation. A wise investor buys Bonds denominated in safer currencies such as German Euros or Swiss Francs, even at lower interest rates than the UK the return should be better because of currency movements.
Yes. International bond investors will need to take currency risk into account.
But the best way of doing this is having a portfolio of bonds denominated in different currencies.
The aim will be to balance the currency risks in the proportions of holdings in different currencies.
Indeed. But Osborne claimed that yields would rocket if the AAA rating was downgraded. This has proved to be complete nonsense.
UK Bond yields are low mostly because of Quantitative easing. No one is buying UK Gilts apart from the Bank of England. When we stop QE permanently or try to unwind it, interest rates will rise and rise.
We are on a treadmill of addiction to cheap money, that cannot be stopped. We are in the eye of the storm rather than its other side.
I think you may be wrong on that diagnosis, Dr. Sox.
Take this Schoders investment report from end 2012 as evidence:
International investors attracted to UK gilts
International investors are purchasing larger amounts of UK government bonds than ever before, thanks to the Bank of England's quantitative easing programme and Britain's relative distance from the eurozone crisis.
That is according to the Financial Times, which reports that this driving demand has helped the government's long-term benchmark borrowing costs fall to levels last seen in 1890s, due in large part to acquisitions by leading sovereign wealth funds.
The news provider reports that international investors bought gilts worth £28.87 billion in October and November, the largest amount in a two-month period ever recorded by the bank.
Overseas investors are also bringing their private wealth to the UK because the coalition government's austerity programme is helping to ensure it retains a triple-A credit rating at a time when economic turmoil is rife across the eurozone.
Experts appear unsure on how this market will develop. An insider at the Treasury was quoted as saying: "Some analysts have warned that UK gilts would be hit if the eurozone recovers and makes the UK relatively less attractive. Others say Britain would be hit by association if the eurozone crisis gets worse: you can’t have it both ways."
It does seem though that investors are only looking at Standard & Poor's ratings.
Since feb 2012 we have had £100 Billion in QE and a deficit of about £120 Billion, so the vast majority has been funded by by the BofE buying govt gilts, though not all of these would have been new issues. It is by far the biggest net purchaser.
a slow pulse is not always a sign of health, often it is a sign of a moribund patient. Ditto bond yields. I will believe the crisis is over when we go back to normal interest rates, meanwhile I am paying off my remaining mortgage as fast as I can,to take advantage of the easy money policy.
Any polls tonight ? I am still waiting for the Queen Margaret induced surge !
Labour down to 35% while Ukip surge continues – Opinium/Observer poll Findings will cheer Tories, who are just six percentage points behind Ed Miliband's party
Most worrying of all to Labour may be the findings on the economy. In September last year 26% of people said they trusted David Cameron and George Osborne most to run the economy, while 24% preferred Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.
Seven months later, despite the economy teetering close to a triple dip recession, the Tories' 2% lead has now stretched to 7% with 29% preferring Cameron and Osborne and just 22% putting their faith in the Labour duo.
Any polls tonight ? I am still waiting for the Queen Margaret induced surge !
Labour down to 35% while Ukip surge continues – Opinium/Observer poll Findings will cheer Tories, who are just six percentage points behind Ed Miliband's party
Most worrying of all to Labour may be the findings on the economy. In September last year 26% of people said they trusted David Cameron and George Osborne most to run the economy, while 24% preferred Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.
Seven months later, despite the economy teetering close to a triple dip recession, the Tories' 2% lead has now stretched to 7% with 29% preferring Cameron and Osborne and just 22% putting their faith in the Labour duo.
So, QM has given you a 1% surge. If that turns you on, well it's your problem.
Did I also notice the Tories were in the 20's ?
UKIP has surged thanks to the 10 days long Party Political Broadcast by the right wing BBC.
UKIP is the rightful inheritor of Queen Margaret's legacy.
Indeed. But Osborne claimed that yields would rocket if the AAA rating was downgraded. This has proved to be complete nonsense.
UK Bond yields are low mostly because of Quantitative easing. No one is buying UK Gilts apart from the Bank of England. When we stop QE permanently or try to unwind it, interest rates will rise and rise.
We are on a treadmill of addiction to cheap money, that cannot be stopped. We are in the eye of the storm rather than its other side.
I think you may be wrong on that diagnosis, Dr. Sox.
Take this Schoders investment report from end 2012 as evidence:
International investors attracted to UK gilts
International investors are purchasing larger amounts of UK government bonds than ever before, thanks to the Bank of England's quantitative easing programme and Britain's relative distance from the eurozone crisis.
That is according to the Financial Times, which reports that this driving demand has helped the government's long-term benchmark borrowing costs fall to levels last seen in 1890s, due in large part to acquisitions by leading sovereign wealth funds.
The news provider reports that international investors bought gilts worth £28.87 billion in October and November, the largest amount in a two-month period ever recorded by the bank.
Overseas investors are also bringing their private wealth to the UK because the coalition government's austerity programme is helping to ensure it retains a triple-A credit rating at a time when economic turmoil is rife across the eurozone.
Experts appear unsure on how this market will develop. An insider at the Treasury was quoted as saying: "Some analysts have warned that UK gilts would be hit if the eurozone recovers and makes the UK relatively less attractive. Others say Britain would be hit by association if the eurozone crisis gets worse: you can’t have it both ways."
It does seem though that investors are only looking at Standard & Poor's ratings.
Since feb 2012 we have had £100 Billion in QE and a deficit of about £120 Billion, so the vast majority has been funded by by the BofE buying govt gilts, though not all of these would have been new issues. It is by far the biggest net purchaser.
a slow pulse is not always a sign of health, often it is a sign of a moribund patient. Ditto bond yields. I will believe the crisis is over when we go back to normal interest rates, meanwhile I am paying off my remaining mortgage as fast as I can,to take advantage of the easy money policy.
And just to add: anyone with savings or running a final salary pension scheme is getting royally ******ed due to QE ( hmm... why is corporate Britain hoarding cash I wonder...). The essential cause of this crisis is inappropriate debt: personal and governmental mainly, made worse by the Euro which has magnified and encouraged debt in the wrong places ( the PIGS). So those that avoided debt and tried to do the right thing for the long run by building up assets for the future are carrying the can for the excessive debt of others.
Until the debt is paid down, written off ( what happens to the creditors there?) or inflated away ( watch this space if we keep printing money), demand will remain subdued, matters not who's in power.
Labour anxiety will deepen today as a new Opinium/Observer poll shows the party has dropped 3% to 35% compared with a fortnight ago – one of its lowest scores since Miliband became leader in 2010. The Tories are up 1% on 29%, UKIP up 1% on 17% and the Lib Dems unchanged on 8%. Equally worrying for Labour is that the Tories' lead on the economy has grown since last September. Then, 26% of voters said they trusted Cameron and Osborne most on the economy against 24% who preferred Miliband and Balls. Now 29% trust Cameron and Osborne more and just 22% Miliband and Balls.
Labour anxiety will deepen today as a new Opinium/Observer poll shows the party has dropped 3% to 35% compared with a fortnight ago – one of its lowest scores since Miliband became leader in 2010. The Tories are up 1% on 29%, UKIP up 1% on 17% and the Lib Dems unchanged on 8%. Equally worrying for Labour is that the Tories' lead on the economy has grown since last September. Then, 26% of voters said they trusted Cameron and Osborne most on the economy against 24% who preferred Miliband and Balls. Now 29% trust Cameron and Osborne more and just 22% Miliband and Balls.
It is a bit early to speculate on the significance of this poll, and I suspect that the locals will give a more accurate national view, though these are an imperfect guide.
with these I forecast several hundred losses by the tories, several hundred gains by Labour, an uncertain number of Kippers, but the one that I am not clear on is whether the LIBDems will be up or down. Probably not much change.
FWIW I expect the next GE to produce a Labour majority on the basis of a Lab vote of 34-38%. The Tories will then have a number of years in opposition to reflect on their attitude to AV - had they supported it they would have had a fighting chance of a majority based on UKIP's second preferences.
It is a bit early to speculate on the significance of this poll, and I suspect that the locals will give a more accurate national view, though these are an imperfect guide.
with these I forecast several hundred losses by the tories, several hundred gains by Labour, an uncertain number of Kippers, but the one that I am not clear on is whether the LIBDems will be up or down. Probably not much change.
We may see some wobbles soon!
While Opinium is not the gold standard of pollsters, this poll does puncture the myth that the Labour share of VI is solid at 40% and that the recent shifts in polling have only seen Tory to UKIP movement.
Labour at 35%, on a downward trend, two years off a GE does not suggest a Labour majority in 2015. With the best part of swingback yet to come it may even suggest Labour is returning to the levels 'achieved' by Gordon in 2010.
If I were Ed Miliband, I too would be making funny faces at photographers.
1.Tories win popular vote, Labour form minority govt. 2.Labour call election a year later, win majority on the back of Osbornes ill timed property boom.
Perhaps then the Tories might think about their addiction to FPTP and house price inflation.
"Whatever the answer, while the IMF fiddles, the world economy goes to hell in a handcart. I never thought I’d say this, but perhaps Britain should have backed Gordon Brown for the job of IMF managing director after all."
More fantasy figures, no doubt (see below). I doubt the Express's statistical knowledge extends beyond finding the average of 2 and 3.
Tell us Carlotta what which health system would you describe as the "envy of the world". The Americans perhaps, they certainly spend a lot on it ... and die earlier than most developed countries.
1.Tories win popular vote, Labour form minority govt. 2.Labour call election a year later, win majority on the back of Osbornes ill timed property boom.
Perhaps then the Tories might think about their addiction to FPTP and house price inflation.
Labour could form minority government with 33% of the votes. What that says about democracy is another matter.
"Whatever the answer, while the IMF fiddles, the world economy goes to hell in a handcart. I never thought I’d say this, but perhaps Britain should have backed Gordon Brown for the job of IMF managing director after all."
Jeremy Warner is spot on about the shenanigans at the IMF. It is worth quoting the key paragraphs in full:
The IMF is part of this collective failure. Rather than galvanising political leaders into properly addressing the underlying problem – which right now is the failing euro and the pall it is casting over the world economy – the fund allows itself to be subsumed by political grandstanding and point scoring.
Rather than focusing on the main issue, the fund concerns itself with trivia such as this week’s irrelevant row over whether the UK is consolidating too fast.
The idea this is going to make a blind bit of difference as long as fundamental problems with the euro are left unresolved is bizarre.
Why is the IMF urging fiscal expansionism on the UK, but not France, which because it has a smaller deficit than the UK is arguably better placed to shoulder such a strategy?
There’s a glaring inconsistency in the IMF’s approach that inevitably leads to the suspicion of political meddling. Is Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, using the fund for domestic political purposes?
Certainly it furthers her French presidential ambitions to keep the stiletto as hard down on François Hollande as she can.
As for the British strictures, were these merely part of a wider game that will allow the IMF to provide the same advice to the US, thereby giving ammunition to the Obama administration in its budgetary battles with Republicans?
Whatever the answer, while the IMF fiddles, the world economy goes to hell in a handcart. I never thought I’d say this, but perhaps Britain should have backed Gordon Brown for the job of IMF managing director after all.
Whatever his failings, he surely wouldn’t have tolerated these risible levels of complacency. Crisis? What crisis?
Oh dear, what will the PB Troika of tim, BenM and Southam Observer have to say about this?
More fantasy figures, no doubt (see below). I doubt the Express's statistical knowledge extends beyond finding the average of 2 and 3.
Tell us Carlotta what which health system would you describe as the "envy of the world". The Americans perhaps, they certainly spend a lot on it ... and die earlier than most developed countries.
I think this is typical of the polararised debate on health care that we see in our country, reflecting the obsession with the United States in our media and politicians. There are far more systems in the world than the existing NHS and the existing USA systems, both with their own disadvantages (diabetes care is particularly bad in the US, owing to difficulty getting insurance for diabetics, while cancer survival rates in the UK have been historically poor)
Without even leaving the English speaking world, there are well functioning systems in Canada, some Australian states (Queensland is a a bit dodgy), New Zealand and Singapore that combine good results with good access to care. In Europe we have good systems in Scandanavia and most of Northern Europe, and even the PIIGs have pretty good outcomes.
There are plenty of models to look at, but in typical British fashion we are importing the worst of the American system as a panacea. Like s much else we have incoherent and piecemeal reforms that are self contradictory.
The Toby Helm article in the Observer (with the scary pic of Ed), highlighted by antifrank, is a must-read. Two paragraphs jumped out as extraordinary to me:
"The lesson for us has been that you cannot underestimate Cameron and Osborne," said a senior Labour figure. "We will see more of this dog whistle stuff from them. All the way to the election. They will go for welfare more and more and it will all be about how to make life difficult for Labour. After last year's omnishambles budget, we thought maybe Osborne was finished. We have seen he definitely isn't."
They can't have been that stupid, can they? Can they really have taken all that pasty-tax knockabout seriously?
some senior Labour figures say an outline of an answer is taking shape that Miliband could run with from now on if he and Balls are bold enough and agree. It involves committing soon to prioritising key areas where spending will be higher under Labour – such as a major house building drive and a new deal to get people into jobs – while at the same time being absolutely clear that other areas of public spending will face substantial cuts to balance the books.
Right, let's see how that plays... the idea is that you are specific about the goodies and obfuscate about how you'll pay for them?
1.Tories win popular vote, Labour form minority govt. 2.Labour call election a year later, win majority on the back of Osbornes ill timed property boom.
Perhaps then the Tories might think about their addiction to FPTP and house price inflation.
Osborne will not succeed in generating a property boom, however much he might wish to. Property prices are at historic highs as a multiple of average incomes. And incomes are falling in real terms.
I bought my first house in 1981 - it cost £20,000 - roughly four times my salary as a new graduate. The same house is now worth at least £250,000 - or ten times the salary of a new graduate. This absurd rise is due primarily to incautious lending by banks, particularly interest-only mortgages. In economic and social terms there is a strong case for foreclosing over-borrowed homeowners and allowing property prices to fall to perhaps 50-60% of their current level. Politically, however, this would be rather awkward.....
UKIP has 19% lead over the Tories in the North East. Tories at 10%, UKIP at 29%.
Could make South Shields interesting.....
Don't like to blow my own trumpet but I posted a comment yesterday (I think) saying that UKIP might be taking more votes off Labour in places like Durham and these figures would seem to confirm that.
The Toby Helm article in the Observer (with the scary pic of Ed), highlighted by antifrank, is a must-read. Two paragraphs jumped out as extraordinary to me:
"The lesson for us has been that you cannot underestimate Cameron and Osborne," said a senior Labour figure. "We will see more of this dog whistle stuff from them. All the way to the election. They will go for welfare more and more and it will all be about how to make life difficult for Labour. After last year's omnishambles budget, we thought maybe Osborne was finished. We have seen he definitely isn't."
They can't have been that stupid, can they? Can they really have taken all that pasty-tax knockabout seriously?
some senior Labour figures say an outline of an answer is taking shape that Miliband could run with from now on if he and Balls are bold enough and agree. It involves committing soon to prioritising key areas where spending will be higher under Labour – such as a major house building drive and a new deal to get people into jobs – while at the same time being absolutely clear that other areas of public spending will face substantial cuts to balance the books.
Right, let's see how that plays... the idea is that you are specific about the goodies and obfuscate about how you'll pay for them?
Maybe they are that stupid.
Richard, good to see that this article makes you happy ! It almost helps you forget that the Tories are in the twenties, worse than when Howard was in charge.
Despite relentless Party Political Broadcast pumped out by the shameless BBC on behalf of the Tories, it seems Queen Margaret's death has only helped UKIP - her true inheritors !
IMO 35% is a far more accurate prediction of what the winning party will actually get on election night than the 40% figures that have been registered in most opinion polls recently.
To be fair to Brown he ran three election winning campaigns, Osborne's embarrassing 2010 job knocked 7% off the Tory polling, and his budget knocked another 7% off.
1.Tories win popular vote, Labour form minority govt. 2.Labour call election a year later, win majority on the back of Osbornes ill timed property boom.
Perhaps then the Tories might think about their addiction to FPTP and house price inflation.
Osborne will not succeed in generating a property boom, however much he might wish to. Property prices are at historic highs as a multiple of average incomes. And incomes are falling in real terms.
I bought my first house in 1981 - it cost £20,000 - roughly four times my salary as a new graduate. The same house is now worth at least £250,000 - or ten times the salary of a new graduate. This absurd rise is due primarily to incautious lending by banks, particularly interest-only mortgages. In economic and social terms there is a strong case for foreclosing over-borrowed homeowners and allowing property prices to fall to perhaps 50-60% of their current level. Politically, however, this would be rather awkward.....
Quite Right, Mr. Nick. I remember seeing figures at the height of the last property bubble that house prices needed to drop by 50% to return to the long term trend. Even allowing for inflation and averaging nationally I don't think they have dropped anywhere near that amount.
As, perhaps we are seeing once again, UK politicians seem to think it is in their interest to keep property prices artificially high. They maybe correct, but it is definitely not in the national interest or, in the medium to long term, in the home owners'.
It was only to be expected after the biased BBC's pro Tory Thatcher coverage, Richard.
Don't worry, those CIFers don't miss a trick, they've sussed that out already:
YoungSubCaptain 20 April 2013 10:09pm
Two weeks of solid Tory propaganda from the Bullingdon Broadcasting Corporation, to which the Labour Party itself contributed... what did they think would happen to the polls?
" Like s much else we have incoherent and piecemeal reforms that are self contradictory."
But Doc, all the time the NHS is treated like a modern religion all reforms are going to piecemeal. I am sure you and your medical colleagues can see ways of achieving better outcomes at sensible prices, but you'll never be allowed to put in the system you might like because there is just too much politics in the way.
Quite Right, Mr. Nick. I remember seeing figures at the height of the last property bubble that house prices needed to drop by 50% to return to the long term trend. Even allowing for inflation and averaging nationally I don't think they have dropped anywhere near that amount.
As, perhaps we are seeing once again, UK politicians seem to think it is in their interest to keep property prices artificially high. They maybe correct, but it is definitely not in the national interest or, in the medium to long term, in the home owners'.
And nor is it in the interests of social mobility. The combination of high property prices and virtually no tax on inheritance keeps wealth in the hands of those who already have it and makes home ownership impossible for those who don't. Aspiration is dead.
Given that Osborne's sub prime lending subsidy alo applies to cheap remortgaging on the state I think it's as much to do with ramping debt for consumer spending as it is house prices. The OBR forecasts on growth rely heavily on a rise in consumer rather than investment spending.
Yes you are right - the OBR forecast does assume increased consumer spending financed through increased debt. I believe they also forecast the levitation of swine, and the latter is more likely IMO.
They can't have been that stupid, can they? Can they really have taken all that pasty-tax knockabout seriously?
Depends if you think gifting labour and little Ed their poll lead while hammering home the tories delightful tendency for incompetence is serious or not. Some inept tory spinners may indeed be witless and stupid enough to think that doesn't matter.
No doubt it scarcely bothers Osbrowne at all and he considers it as "near perfect" as staking his and the tories economic reputation on keeping AAA.
"Whatever the answer, while the IMF fiddles, the world economy goes to hell in a handcart. I never thought I’d say this, but perhaps Britain should have backed Gordon Brown for the job of IMF managing director after all."
Jeremy Warner is spot on about the shenanigans at the IMF. It is worth quoting the key paragraphs in full:
The IMF is part of this collective failure. Rather than galvanising political leaders into properly addressing the underlying problem – which right now is the failing euro and the pall it is casting over the world economy – the fund allows itself to be subsumed by political grandstanding and point scoring.
Rather than focusing on the main issue, the fund concerns itself with trivia such as this week’s irrelevant row over whether the UK is consolidating too fast.
The idea this is going to make a blind bit of difference as long as fundamental problems with the euro are left unresolved is bizarre.
Why is the IMF urging fiscal expansionism on the UK, but not France, which because it has a smaller deficit than the UK is arguably better placed to shoulder such a strategy?
There’s a glaring inconsistency in the IMF’s approach that inevitably leads to the suspicion of political meddling. Is Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, using the fund for domestic political purposes?
Certainly it furthers her French presidential ambitions to keep the stiletto as hard down on François Hollande as she can.
As for the British strictures, were these merely part of a wider game that will allow the IMF to provide the same advice to the US, thereby giving ammunition to the Obama administration in its budgetary battles with Republicans?
Whatever the answer, while the IMF fiddles, the world economy goes to hell in a handcart. I never thought I’d say this, but perhaps Britain should have backed Gordon Brown for the job of IMF managing director after all.
Whatever his failings, he surely wouldn’t have tolerated these risible levels of complacency. Crisis? What crisis?
Oh dear, what will the PB Troika of tim, BenM and Southam Observer have to say about this?
What I say is that after fetishising the IMF's statements for the last few years, the Tories and their media chums are now attacking the organisation because it is no longer saying what they want it to say. Given that you do not believe anything has changed, though, I imagine that you are perplexed that the Tories and their media chums are doing this.
The single most important question at the next election could be how successfully Ed Miliband's appeal resonates with voters in places like Harlow, Crawley, Swindon, Gloucester, Lincoln, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Reading, Worcester, Norwich.
A polling company ought to conduct some research on the subject.
1.Tories win popular vote, Labour form minority govt. 2.Labour call election a year later, win majority on the back of Osbornes ill timed property boom.
Perhaps then the Tories might think about their addiction to FPTP and house price inflation.
Osborne will not succeed in generating a property boom, however much he might wish to. Property prices are at historic highs as a multiple of average incomes. And incomes are falling in real terms.
I bought my first house in 1981 - it cost £20,000 - roughly four times my salary as a new graduate. The same house is now worth at least £250,000 - or ten times the salary of a new graduate. This absurd rise is due primarily to incautious lending by banks, particularly interest-only mortgages. In economic and social terms there is a strong case for foreclosing over-borrowed homeowners and allowing property prices to fall to perhaps 50-60% of their current level. Politically, however, this would be rather awkward.....
Top-end he might, lots of oligarchs buying lots of mansions - plus maybe the nomenklatura taking advantage of their secure incomes to increase the size of their BTL empires. Not sure if that will have much effect on the economy though?
" Like s much else we have incoherent and piecemeal reforms that are self contradictory."
But Doc, all the time the NHS is treated like a modern religion all reforms are going to piecemeal. I am sure you and your medical colleagues can see ways of achieving better outcomes at sensible prices, but you'll never be allowed to put in the system you might like because there is just too much politics in the way.
I am inclined to agree. Health care is more political in the UK than it is in other countries because it is directly funded by taxpayers and purchased by government bodies, mostly from other bodies. As such inevitably politicians often chip in with poorly thought through ideas that are not supported by an evidence base in order to curry favour with one or other voter group. This is how we have wound up with the absurdly rigid target culture that I have railed against on here many times.
A more arms length approach would have its merits, and in the early stages the new CCGs seemed to be a move in this direction, but in that inevitable way with Whitehall more and more decisions are being made centrally by NHS England, which acts as a single national commissioner. The problem is that both Politicians and civil servants in the DoH cannot accept a system that they do not control.
I actually misread your post and thought you were returning to the "growth predicated on increasing consumer debt" meme.
However I still dont quite recognise the numbers you cite below. Table 3.3 of the latest economic outlook of the OBR suggests to me that (except for 2011 and 2012) private consumption accounts for not dramatically more (or less) than 50% of economic growth over the forecast period.
Comments
His mistake was to go all Krugman and use journalistic rather than academic language to state the obvious.
If he had substituted "playing with fire" for "significant downside risks", Conway may have spared us his premature ejaculation. And then he would have avoided being taken to the cleaners the following day by Lagarde.
It is interesting to see your argument in favour of criticism now relies on what Lagarde did not say. No doubt this opens up many lines of attack for the left.
UK Chancellor branded a "fop" by IMF
Today, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, did not say that Osborne was a "fop".
In reality this is not a cunning new strategy, is it? It is what the media have been up to for days.
I'm not saying Chechens should be seen differently. I'm wondering if they were and if that explains some of the odd aspects of the response to the Boston attack.
RT @hoppythehag: North East car park notice. Keeping it real. http://twitter.com/hoppythehag/status/325651928782614529/photo/1
sorry didn't get back to you yesterday wrt the govt's response to swine flu.
I agreed with your point (to @alanbrooke) that a govt has no option but to prepare for a serious outbreak of any particular eg virus. My point was that the as I remember quite hastily cobbled together vaccine produced subsequent side effects so there are grey areas between govt advice and best outcome.
And 309 deaths/year doesn't qualify as a significant threat.
A quick note on the Fitch ratings downgrade: As always with these things, it's interesting to read the actual words rather than the media reports. The text is here:
http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/press_releases/detail.cfm?pr_id=789068&cm_sp=homepage-_-FeaturedContentLink-_-Learn More
No great surprises, but this bit is food for thought, or should be:
The slower pace of deficit reduction means that the next government will be required to implement substantial spending reductions (and/or tax increases) if public debt is to be stabilised and reduced over the medium term.
How do you tell the difference between an Auditor and a computer?
The computer's the one with the personality.
= irony
Before coming to the Fund, Mr. Lipton was Special Assistant to the President [Obama], and served as Senior Director for International Economic Affairs at the National Economic Council and National Security Council at the White House.
Definitely nothing to do with the Republicans vs. Democrats debate on the need for US deficit reduction then.
No, of course not.
Just latching onto soundbites and journalistic spin is no substitute for intelligent appraisal of source material.
I therefore extend my invitation to you, tim and BenM to provide a full transcript of any of Lagarde's, Blancmange's and Lipton's inteviews or responses to questions so we can review the evidence.
Now is the time to put up or shut up.
Banksta loan-sharking endgame - coming to a country near you one by one.
The Beth Israel Medical Centre is also famous as the "House of God" in the seminal book about life as a junior doctor by Samuel Shem MD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_God
Cannot link direct as it is a pop up Adobe Flash window but you will find it on Sky News's Business page on the top right.
He very simply states the obvious.
1. UK growth is below expectation and disappointing.
2. Continental European growth is even worse.
3. Indicators suggest that growth will recover but not, in the short to medium term, to ideal levels.
4. In the circumstances, the rate of fiscal consolidation.should be reviewed and other monetary measures considered.
5. [His main point] Bank credit is not flowing, particularly to small and medium sized enterprises. Bank restructuring and recapitalisation should be a priority.
There is nothing in that interview that Osborne wouldn't say himself. Indeed all the symptoms and solutions have been noted and debated on PB over the past few months.
And the Budget revealed that bank restructuring and recapitalisation was now a government priority and measures were being implemented to execute plans. The whole mortgage stimulus exercise is precisely a move in that direction: moving mortgage assets off bank books through BoE QE purchase, thereby accelerating bank recapitalisation and freeing funds for lending to SMEs.
So effectively what the IMF are saying is that they will be reviewing the Treasury's existing plans to address depressed growth during their visit to the UK in the next month.
What sensational news! This is all in day's work stuff, Southam.
http://renegadechicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/mitt-romney-loser.jpg
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/francis_many_deaths_unnecessarily_at_mid_staffs-28805
Indeed one of the best ways of avoiding "excess deaths" is via changes in clinical coding, and this may be the reason that Staffords figures have improved:
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/coding-maze-mortality-ratios-and-real-life
That is not to say that care was not poor in Stafford, just that searching through the data is fraught with statistical hazard. Medical statistics need even more care in analysis than opinion polls if one wants the truth, rather than just want to justify ones own predjudices.
*chuckles*
'Easily' indeed. Don't think Farage is quite that far gone yet.
Since all the parties are in campaign mode, with activists on the ground reporting to the party higher ups, it will not be very long before we get telling signs of any possible tory bloodbath or UKIP surge that cuts through the expectations management of the party spinners.
Pork.
You are overdosing on AAA Acorns. You should be getting Eck to mix bran into your feed. It will do wonders for your constitution.
Nothing in what Osborne said prior to the 2010 election has been proved false and the UK economy is in a considerably better position than it was when Brown and Darling left it.
Although the patient may be out of intensive care, and is not longer in a critical condition, it still needs medical assistance and time to complete a full recovery.
Osborne and the IMF will probably be discussing nutritional schemes when they meet next month. The IMF may suggest adding an acorn or two, but George could well argue that the diet is now properly balanced.
As for credit ratings, they are just letters on the side of the feed sack.
Almost as good as your Lansley attempts.
How about another AAA Osbrowne gem that will in no way come back to haunt him? Gamble indeed, Seth O Logue, gamble indeed.
What is clear is that the standard of care was very poor at the Stafford Hospital, and that this was at least in part because of the management attempting to meet the Labour govt targets at the expense of good clinical care. There were a large number of warnings ignored:
http://witchdoctor.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/mid-staffordshire-a-decade-of-warnings/
How many died in Stafford as a result of this poor care is uncertain, as is how typical the hospital was of other parts of the NHS. As the same pressures are nationwide I am sure that Stafford will not be alone, but rather the tip of an Iceberg, and rumours abound.
The Liverpool Care pathway is another issue, but I share the concerns that it is being administered innappropriately in a number of cases.
I think, however, people are starting from an assumption that these people must have somehow physically gone to an overseas Jihad camp and that may not be the case.
There is no way the authorities would be solely looking at that indicators given experience of perpetrators or near perpetrators in the US unless the investigators were plain stupid. What they are looking for is people of whatever origin, Arab, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chechen, Indonesian, American, whatever, who they have come across before.
This guy was on their radar. He was not without notice (his brother may not have a formal file but is likely to have been noted for association). Thus a fundamental search of data would have churned up the name for elimination or pursuit after the attack.
UK 10 year bond yields: 1.66%
Gamble landed.
We are on a treadmill of addiction to cheap money, that cannot be stopped. We are in the eye of the storm rather than its other side.
Much as Clegg would love this to be all about Cammie and tory losses it won't be. Depending on the scale of any lib dem losses it may even start the grumbling again with the dreaded 'full support' of Clegg from the likes of Farron, Vince, Hughes and Clegg's other loyal colleagues.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57580510/hubble-telescope-takes-stunning-new-nebula-photo-for-23rd-birthday/
Marvelous picture; fair took my breath away.
I argued yesterday at length that the Credit Rating Agencies have been moving the goalposts on rating as a response to the financial crisis and consequent criticism of their failure to highlight failure points.
It was quite absurd for the UK to have been rated at AAA in the noughties given the size of its deficit and its high debt to GDP ratios. This was inherited from the days of the big western economies automatically being rated top of the premier league.
Because there are a lot of outsized egos to bruise, the ratings agencies have had to move slowly on getting sovereign ratings to provide a more granular picture of economic health. Remember how gingerly the first US downgrade was introduced?
Credit ratings and market pricing are still not fully linked and will probably never be. The role the ratings agencies are now playing is more official commentator on outcome trends and government policies. This makes sense as it is clear the politicians and media take more notice of re-ratings than investors. So the rating agencies have found a subsidiary and niche role (on sovereign ratings of leading economies).
The markets will still price relatively. There is a flow of money to invest and it will head in times of economic crisis to the safe havens. UK borrowing at 1.66% doesn't say that the UK is safe nor that its government's fiscal policies are sound, just that it is less risky to invest in the UK than all other countries in Europe except, say, Germany. So market pricing tells its own story as well and fulfills a distinct and separate role from the ratings agencies.
The great advantage to Osborne is that market pricing determines borrowing costs in billions of pounds. The cost of reratings is purely measurable in political capital.
But the error is mild and language such as "hysterical scrreching" and "ridiculous" is not justified in any criticism.
But I forgive you, tim.
Take this Schoders investment report from end 2012 as evidence:
International investors attracted to UK gilts
International investors are purchasing larger amounts of UK government bonds than ever before, thanks to the Bank of England's quantitative easing programme and Britain's relative distance from the eurozone crisis.
That is according to the Financial Times, which reports that this driving demand has helped the government's long-term benchmark borrowing costs fall to levels last seen in 1890s, due in large part to acquisitions by leading sovereign wealth funds.
The news provider reports that international investors bought gilts worth £28.87 billion in October and November, the largest amount in a two-month period ever recorded by the bank.
Overseas investors are also bringing their private wealth to the UK because the coalition government's austerity programme is helping to ensure it retains a triple-A credit rating at a time when economic turmoil is rife across the eurozone.
Experts appear unsure on how this market will develop. An insider at the Treasury was quoted as saying: "Some analysts have warned that UK gilts would be hit if the eurozone recovers and makes the UK relatively less attractive. Others say Britain would be hit by association if the eurozone crisis gets worse: you can’t have it both ways."
It does seem though that investors are only looking at Standard & Poor's ratings.
It smacks of elitism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/20/labour-at-crossroads
complete with a picture of him looking like the bastard lovechild of Wallace and Frankenstein's monster. Nevertheless, it has quite a good resumé at the end of the policy decision points for Labour.
Fitch destroyed him with just three graphs.
Intrigued to see how the race will unfold tomorrow, although a bit displeased with my inability to find a longer odds bet.
Mr. Surbiton, it's almost as if he inherited a record deficit.
But the best way of doing this is having a portfolio of bonds denominated in different currencies.
The aim will be to balance the currency risks in the proportions of holdings in different currencies.
Since feb 2012 we have had £100 Billion in QE and a deficit of about £120 Billion, so the vast majority has been funded by by the BofE buying govt gilts, though not all of these would have been new issues. It is by far the biggest net purchaser.
a slow pulse is not always a sign of health, often it is a sign of a moribund patient. Ditto bond yields. I will believe the crisis is over when we go back to normal interest rates, meanwhile I am paying off my remaining mortgage as fast as I can,to take advantage of the easy money policy.
Labour down to 35% while Ukip surge continues – Opinium/Observer poll
Findings will cheer Tories, who are just six percentage points behind Ed Miliband's party
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/20/labour-ukip-poll
Most worrying of all to Labour may be the findings on the economy. In September last year 26% of people said they trusted David Cameron and George Osborne most to run the economy, while 24% preferred Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.
Seven months later, despite the economy teetering close to a triple dip recession, the Tories' 2% lead has now stretched to 7% with 29% preferring Cameron and Osborne and just 22% putting their faith in the Labour duo.
How will Cammie celebrate that massive influx of tory councillors in May off the back of the tories amazing polling?
LOL
Did I also notice the Tories were in the 20's ?
UKIP has surged thanks to the 10 days long Party Political Broadcast by the right wing BBC.
UKIP is the rightful inheritor of Queen Margaret's legacy.
Until the debt is paid down, written off ( what happens to the creditors there?) or inflated away ( watch this space if we keep printing money), demand will remain subdued, matters not who's in power.
Mail on Sunday
Sunday Telegraph
Sunday Times
Observer
Labour suffers its own midterm wobble
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/20/labour-at-crossroads
Labour anxiety will deepen today as a new Opinium/Observer poll shows the party has dropped 3% to 35% compared with a fortnight ago – one of its lowest scores since Miliband became leader in 2010. The Tories are up 1% on 29%, UKIP up 1% on 17% and the Lib Dems unchanged on 8%. Equally worrying for Labour is that the Tories' lead on the economy has grown since last September. Then, 26% of voters said they trusted Cameron and Osborne most on the economy against 24% who preferred Miliband and Balls. Now 29% trust Cameron and Osborne more and just 22% Miliband and Balls.
Now that is real quantitative easing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/325715069772128258/photos
Governing Coalition: 37%
Labour 35%
with these I forecast several hundred losses by the tories, several hundred gains by Labour, an uncertain number of Kippers, but the one that I am not clear on is whether the LIBDems will be up or down. Probably not much change.
We may see some wobbles soon!
Lab 320
Con 220
UKIP 76
LD 17
Labour at 35%, on a downward trend, two years off a GE does not suggest a Labour majority in 2015. With the best part of swingback yet to come it may even suggest Labour is returning to the levels 'achieved' by Gordon in 2010.
If I were Ed Miliband, I too would be making funny faces at photographers.
"Whatever the answer, while the IMF fiddles, the world economy goes to hell in a handcart. I never thought I’d say this, but perhaps Britain should have backed Gordon Brown for the job of IMF managing director after all."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/10007966/The-IMFs-fiddling-achieves-nothing.html
Tell us Carlotta what which health system would you describe as the "envy of the world". The Americans perhaps, they certainly spend a lot on it ... and die earlier than most developed countries.
The IMF is part of this collective failure. Rather than galvanising political leaders into properly addressing the underlying problem – which right now is the failing euro and the pall it is casting over the world economy – the fund allows itself to be subsumed by political grandstanding and point scoring.
Rather than focusing on the main issue, the fund concerns itself with trivia such as this week’s irrelevant row over whether the UK is consolidating too fast.
The idea this is going to make a blind bit of difference as long as fundamental problems with the euro are left unresolved is bizarre.
Why is the IMF urging fiscal expansionism on the UK, but not France, which because it has a smaller deficit than the UK is arguably better placed to shoulder such a strategy?
There’s a glaring inconsistency in the IMF’s approach that inevitably leads to the suspicion of political meddling. Is Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, using the fund for domestic political purposes?
Certainly it furthers her French presidential ambitions to keep the stiletto as hard down on François Hollande as she can.
As for the British strictures, were these merely part of a wider game that will allow the IMF to provide the same advice to the US, thereby giving ammunition to the Obama administration in its budgetary battles with Republicans?
Whatever the answer, while the IMF fiddles, the world economy goes to hell in a handcart. I never thought I’d say this, but perhaps Britain should have backed Gordon Brown for the job of IMF managing director after all.
Whatever his failings, he surely wouldn’t have tolerated these risible levels of complacency. Crisis? What crisis?
Oh dear, what will the PB Troika of tim, BenM and Southam Observer have to say about this?
Without even leaving the English speaking world, there are well functioning systems in Canada, some Australian states (Queensland is a a bit dodgy), New Zealand and Singapore that combine good results with good access to care. In Europe we have good systems in Scandanavia and most of Northern Europe, and even the PIIGs have pretty good outcomes.
There are plenty of models to look at, but in typical British fashion we are importing the worst of the American system as a panacea. Like s much else we have incoherent and piecemeal reforms that are self contradictory.
UKIP at over 20% in 5 UK Regions - Opinium Poll.
UKIP has 19% lead over the Tories in the North East. Tories at 10%, UKIP at 29%.
Could make South Shields interesting.....
"The lesson for us has been that you cannot underestimate Cameron and Osborne," said a senior Labour figure. "We will see more of this dog whistle stuff from them. All the way to the election. They will go for welfare more and more and it will all be about how to make life difficult for Labour. After last year's omnishambles budget, we thought maybe Osborne was finished. We have seen he definitely isn't."
They can't have been that stupid, can they? Can they really have taken all that pasty-tax knockabout seriously?
some senior Labour figures say an outline of an answer is taking shape that Miliband could run with from now on if he and Balls are bold enough and agree. It involves committing soon to prioritising key areas where spending will be higher under Labour – such as a major house building drive and a new deal to get people into jobs – while at the same time being absolutely clear that other areas of public spending will face substantial cuts to balance the books.
Right, let's see how that plays... the idea is that you are specific about the goodies and obfuscate about how you'll pay for them?
Maybe they are that stupid.
I bought my first house in 1981 - it cost £20,000 - roughly four times my salary as a new graduate. The same house is now worth at least £250,000 - or ten times the salary of a new graduate. This absurd rise is due primarily to incautious lending by banks, particularly interest-only mortgages. In economic and social terms there is a strong case for foreclosing over-borrowed homeowners and allowing property prices to fall to perhaps 50-60% of their current level. Politically, however, this would be rather awkward.....
Despite relentless Party Political Broadcast pumped out by the shameless BBC on behalf of the Tories, it seems Queen Margaret's death has only helped UKIP - her true inheritors !
Maybe they know something I've missed.
As, perhaps we are seeing once again, UK politicians seem to think it is in their interest to keep property prices artificially high. They maybe correct, but it is definitely not in the national interest or, in the medium to long term, in the home owners'.
YoungSubCaptain 20 April 2013 10:09pm
Two weeks of solid Tory propaganda from the Bullingdon Broadcasting Corporation, to which the Labour Party itself contributed... what did they think would happen to the polls?
But Doc, all the time the NHS is treated like a modern religion all reforms are going to piecemeal. I am sure you and your medical colleagues can see ways of achieving better outcomes at sensible prices, but you'll never be allowed to put in the system you might like because there is just too much politics in the way.
I am getting confused here.
No doubt it scarcely bothers Osbrowne at all and he considers it as "near perfect" as staking his and the tories economic reputation on keeping AAA.
A polling company ought to conduct some research on the subject.
I am inclined to agree. Health care is more political in the UK than it is in other countries because it is directly funded by taxpayers and purchased by government bodies, mostly from other bodies. As such inevitably politicians often chip in with poorly thought through ideas that are not supported by an evidence base in order to curry favour with one or other voter group. This is how we have wound up with the absurdly rigid target culture that I have railed against on here many times.
A more arms length approach would have its merits, and in the early stages the new CCGs seemed to be a move in this direction, but in that inevitable way with Whitehall more and more decisions are being made centrally by NHS England, which acts as a single national commissioner. The problem is that both Politicians and civil servants in the DoH cannot accept a system that they do not control.
I actually misread your post and thought you were returning to the "growth predicated on increasing consumer debt" meme.
However I still dont quite recognise the numbers you cite below. Table 3.3 of the latest economic outlook of the OBR suggests to me that (except for 2011 and 2012) private consumption accounts for not dramatically more (or less) than 50% of economic growth over the forecast period.
http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/March-2013-EFO-44734674673453.pdf
Where do those figures come from? They make my point more emphatically than the ones I found do