Figures showing that private consumption is forecast to increase at the same rate as overall GDP actually tell us that there isnt a particularly heavy reliance on growth in private consumption underpinning the growth forecast (that would be indicated by a higher forecast rate of growth in private consumption than for the economy as a whole).
"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.
I think you need to distinguish between the media narrative and the underlying IMF economic reviewing function.
It is very clear the IMF is undergoing an internal battle between the austerity imposers and stimulus advocates. This reflects the Republican vs, Democrat battle in the US and lies behind the 2011 appointment of the Obama apparatchik, David Lipton to be First Deputy Managing Director
The Lagarde French Presidency ambition is, I confess, a new one on me but Warner knows his onions. Any stiletto driven into Hollande is a good stiletto in my view.
More seriously, the Obama Krugmanites single out the fiscal consolidation plans of the UK as the actions of the devil incarnate. Maybe this is an irrational fear of the consequences of Osborne's success. After all they didn't like Canada showing them how it should be done. Even worse if the old colonials show them up.
But away from the press circus the IMF economic audit will ply its useful but unexciting course. And nothing will change in UK policy and no attack will be launched in the official IMF review. The IMF audit is far more a consensual second opinion than a set of instructions.
Yes but I dont think it shows the point you were trying to make (which, admittedly, was a different one to one I thought you were making when I initially responded - I wouldnt have bothered if I'd read the first post correctly).
MikeL - The seat changes look right, but in terms of vote share the Tories should be ahead, the elections are only in their county heartlands, and they won the County Council vote even in 2001 and 2005 when losing the general election!
NB. Article is unclear where vote share figures come from but I think they are Rallings and Thrasher - ie not the latest YouGov.
Well it certainly looks like another triumph for the incompetent fops could be on the way.
The Kipper number seems to tally with Shadsy's odds yet I still think it might be on the low side. The 50 barrier would seem to be where things get interesting.
Wow - the chair of the Scottish Co-operative Party (Tom Harris' party leader?) comes out for independence -
"On 19 March 2013, 40 Labour MPs voted against retrospective legislation to overturn the outcome of a court of appeal judgment and ensure the government would not be forced to pay £130 million in benefit rebates to about a quarter of a million jobseekers. The remaining 218 obeyed the party whip, and abstained. That night, I tossed and turned, and slept fitfully. I remembered the Drumchapel school children hauled off to Dungavel in the grey dawn from the only home they knew, in a devolved Scotland, with a Labour administration at Holyrood, and under a Labour government at Westminster.
I remembered the trades union legislation which Margaret Thatcher introduced, and which Labour failed to repeal, which keeps workers divided. I pondered a Labour Party which had failed to highlight the bedroom tax at earlier stages of the Welfare Reform Bill, a Labour government which had pledged to renew a redundant nuclear deterrent. And I went to sleep wondering if the Labour Party socialism by which part of my identity is defined was beyond redemption.
On the 20 March, I awoke with a sense of hope, and with new resolve.
A resolve to vote Yes in the referendum for Scottish independence. It won’t deliver Utopia. But it will deliver the chance for socialists to help shape a Scotland which reflects the identity of its people."
Hard to believe things could get any better for Lamont or SLAB after their last few days of blissful harmony and complete agreement on devolution between themselves, their scottish MPs and little Ed.
Thanks Avery, it took me a while but I think I understand the differences (and why I should have linked to your table instead ). Where is G! when I need him?
Thanks Avery, it took me a while but I think I understand the differences (and why I should have linked to your table instead ). Where is G! when I need him?
Yes, Mick O'Nachos is much missed.
I think Obama may have co-opted him onto the IMF Board of Governors.
"All the main parties have cause to be anxious about Ukip and so all have been trying to understand the rise of the Farageists. One way they do this is to put together focus groups of voters who have switched to Ukip to try to fathom why these people are attracted to Nigel Farage's gang. One senior party strategist says he listened in some wonderment as his focus group of Ukip voters spent an entire 90-minute session wailing and gnashing their teeth about the state of Britain. Not a good word did they have to say about the country today. At the end of the session, he thanked them for their time, and said he had one more question. Was there anything about Britain that made them feel proud? There was a silence. Then one man leant forward and said: "The past." The rest of the group nodded in agreement."
Coalition working well together net: -26 (+8) Good for people like you: -30 (+12) Handling Economy well: -30 (+5)
Also stuff on school lunches, MMR, politeness (UKIP least classist, in general but don't like the Upper class) and crying in public perfectly ok - even if its the Chancellor (net) +70.
" ... crying in public perfectly ok - even if its the Chancellor (net) +70."
Surely that can't be right? Didn't a well respected poster on here inform us all that the photo of Osborne crying at the funeral would shape the media narrative?
Meanwhile, the left of centre newspapers seem to have decided that today is the day to put Ed Miliband under the microscope. Quite apart from the Observer's piece that I noted last night, it has an editorial on the subject:
Although this is the 4th "bottom of the range" poll in a week, worth remembering that the average Labour lead of +10 in March is sustained April to date (actually +9.7, but still well within moe Con: 26.5 - 30 - 33.5, Lab 37.2 - 40 - 42.8). You need to go back to Jan/Feb to see Labour numbers outside this(45) and Con (35)- but then the gap was also ~10 - so both have drifted slightly lower. We have also seen runs of "narrowing leads" swiftly reversed,
" ... crying in public perfectly ok - even if its the Chancellor (net) +70."
Surely that can't be right? Didn't a well respected poster on here inform us all that the photo of Osborne crying at the funeral would shape the media narrative?
Labour voters are less forgiving of the Chancellor crying in public - but even then, they think its ok (net)+54
As their attitude to crying in public in general is the same as everyone else's that may be more to do with who it is, rather than what it is.....
If you average out the polls from last summer, and compare with the latest averages, it looks pretty clear that almost all of the rise in the UKIP vote is coming from Labour - contrary to received wisdom (certainly among many Tories). Compared to summer 2012 the Tories are only down about 1% and the LibDems level or maybe up slightly. If this position holds and UKIP continues to hoover up the "unhappy but still don't really trust Labour" vote, perhaps Ukip will rescue the Tories rather than be the origin of their demise?
Comments
Seats:
Con -310
Lab +350
LD -130
UKIP +40
Others +50
Vote share:
Con 29
Lab 38
LD 16
UKIP 11
Others 6
NB. Article is unclear where vote share figures come from but I think they are Rallings and Thrasher - ie not the latest YouGov.
Figures showing that private consumption is forecast to increase at the same rate as overall GDP actually tell us that there isnt a particularly heavy reliance on growth in private consumption underpinning the growth forecast (that would be indicated by a higher forecast rate of growth in private consumption than for the economy as a whole).
It is very clear the IMF is undergoing an internal battle between the austerity imposers and stimulus advocates. This reflects the Republican vs, Democrat battle in the US and lies behind the 2011 appointment of the Obama apparatchik, David Lipton to be First Deputy Managing Director
The Lagarde French Presidency ambition is, I confess, a new one on me but Warner knows his onions. Any stiletto driven into Hollande is a good stiletto in my view.
More seriously, the Obama Krugmanites single out the fiscal consolidation plans of the UK as the actions of the devil incarnate. Maybe this is an irrational fear of the consequences of Osborne's success. After all they didn't like Canada showing them how it should be done. Even worse if the old colonials show them up.
But away from the press circus the IMF economic audit will ply its useful but unexciting course. And nothing will change in UK policy and no attack will be launched in the official IMF review. The IMF audit is far more a consensual second opinion than a set of instructions.
The Kipper number seems to tally with Shadsy's odds yet I still think it might be on the low side. The 50 barrier would seem to be where things get interesting.
"On 19 March 2013, 40 Labour MPs voted against retrospective legislation to overturn the outcome of a court of appeal judgment and ensure the government would not be forced to pay £130 million in benefit rebates to about a quarter of a million jobseekers. The remaining 218 obeyed the party whip, and abstained. That night, I tossed and turned, and slept fitfully. I remembered the Drumchapel school children hauled off to Dungavel in the grey dawn from the only home they knew, in a devolved Scotland, with a Labour administration at Holyrood, and under a Labour government at Westminster.
I remembered the trades union legislation which Margaret Thatcher introduced, and which Labour failed to repeal, which keeps workers divided. I pondered a Labour Party which had failed to highlight the bedroom tax at earlier stages of the Welfare Reform Bill, a Labour government which had pledged to renew a redundant nuclear deterrent. And I went to sleep wondering if the Labour Party socialism by which part of my identity is defined was beyond redemption.
On the 20 March, I awoke with a sense of hope, and with new resolve.
A resolve to vote Yes in the referendum for Scottish independence. It won’t deliver Utopia. But it will deliver the chance for socialists to help shape a Scotland which reflects the identity of its people."
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/opinion/comment/socialism-will-work-better-in-independent-scotland-1-2903981#.UXMemOoEpfU.twitter
Now I know why tim was teaching me how to go green last night.
Hard to believe things could get any better for Lamont or SLAB after their last few days of blissful harmony and complete agreement on devolution between themselves, their scottish MPs and little Ed.
I think it is the same PDF document you linked for download. I didn't download as I already had a copy.
They are obviously expecting Con to get more raw votes than Lab as they are expecting Con to win far more seats, ie:
Con 1,452 - 310 = 1,142
Lab 245 + 350 = 595
I realise more seats does not necessarily mean more votes but with that kind of seat margin it obviously will.
I think Obama may have co-opted him onto the IMF Board of Governors.
http://www.gofundme.com/BucksforBauman
So if UKIP supporters really are the most likely to vote, that will have a big influemce on the outcome when there is a low turnout.
However, as Murray Walker might say - intention to vote is one thing but actually voting is quite another.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/labour-lib-dems-tories-all-beware-ukip
Con 29
Lab 38
LD 16
UKIP 11
.... is the Sunday Times survey of local by-election results.
Today's YouGov snapshot for the Sunday Times sees LAB lead once again in single figures. CON 32, LAB 40, LD 11, UKIP 10
Cameron's YouGov leadership ratings see him edge up a net +8 to overall net -16. EdM slips 4 to -29 while Clegg edges up a net +6 to - 48
Coalition working well together net: -26 (+8)
Good for people like you: -30 (+12)
Handling Economy well: -30 (+5)
Also stuff on school lunches, MMR, politeness (UKIP least classist, in general but don't like the Upper class) and crying in public perfectly ok - even if its the Chancellor (net) +70.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/zbqwj81wqu/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-190413.pdf
Surely that can't be right? Didn't a well respected poster on here inform us all that the photo of Osborne crying at the funeral would shape the media narrative?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/observer-editorial-labour-strategy-miliband
And John Rentoul has also decided to look at Labour's spending plans:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-economic-tide-has-turned-but-labour-wont-admit-it-8581433.html
The picture of Ed Miliband is marginally better than the picture chosen by the Observer last night.
Leaders Well/Badly: Now/Prev/Diff:
DC: -16/-24/(-8): 7% of Cons say badly
EM: -29/-25/(+4): 30% of LAB say badly
NC: -48/-54/(-6): 33% of LD say badly
Do you think each of the following would make
a better or worse Conservative leader and Prime
Minister than David Cameron?
Better/Worse/Neither/DK
GO: 3/53/23/21
MG: 5/42/32/22
WH: 23/28/29/20
TM: 13/36/26/25
N Farage: 12/36/19/33
Generally speaking, do you think children these
days eat more healthily than twenty years ago,
less healthily than twenty years ago or about
the same?
More/Less/Same/DK
13/65/16/7
Would you support or oppose making all
schools teach children basic cookery before
they left school?
Support/Oppose/DK:
87/6/7
As their attitude to crying in public in general is the same as everyone else's that may be more to do with who it is, rather than what it is.....
Cons 29/LAB 35/ LD 8/ UKIP 17
Which, if any, of the following would you say you trust more to handle the economy?
DC&GO/EM&EB/NC&VC/ NONE/DK
Con Voters: 83/1/1/8/7
LAB Voters: 4/64/4/21/7
LD Voters: 15/7/56/14/8