Ouch, how far has KP fallen, he's getting compared to Ed Balls
To use a more topical sporting analogy, Balls is starting to resemble the Labour party’s Kevin Pietersen. The Prime Minister keep putting men back on the boundary, and Ed Balls can’t help taking him on. With the result all he does is keep slogging the ball down long-on’s throat.
Yeah the chances of a Tory majority are less than 10% I would say, but I would also say there is an equally bad chance of a Labour majority.
Those things wouldn't both be true. Even taking incumbency into account, we can't predict with enough precision to be confident we'll end up in the NOM zone, especially assuming the LibDems shrink substantially.
I'm not going to partake in this conversation any more.
As someone who has read all the Fifty Shades books, there's not enough mind bleach in the universe to help me cope with the image of Ed Balls as Christian Grey.
On topic, 23.8% is a bit mad for the reason Mike gives, but 20/1 is overstating things. One way I'd see Con Maj happening would be that if the polls start to consistently show substantial Tory leads - say you get an underlying position of Con +3%, and the occasional rogue 8%/9% - that boosts Cameron's stature and builds up the Ed Is Crap narrative again, and it becomes hard to turn out Labour voters or get tactical support from left-leaning LibDems. The voters generally don't understand FPTP, so if they see substantial Tory leads in the polls they won't realize it's actually pointing to a close election.
The other thing that a renewed Ed Is Crap theme, set against the backdrop of a sustained and strong economic recovery, would produce is a whole load of advice and infighting from within the Labour movement as they seek to address what's gone wrong; something that is far more likely to exacerbate the problem than resolve it.
Right, and conversely maybe give Cameron some political space to make some bold moves to go after floating voters.
If polls indicate (whether falsely or correctly) that Cameron will continue as PM and beat Labour then they may well switch back to the Lib Dems as the most effective means of preventing a Tory majority.
Another wildcard would be a Green surge. The Greens generally do badly when the economy is bad, but well when the main parties are meh. For the last couple of years both of these things have been true, but if the economy picks up the the conditions will be there for them to make some progress. Like the Ed Is Crap narrative, this is the kind of thing that could feed on itself: An unexpectedly strong Euro performance or even a rogue poll feeds the media a story about them going places, and once that happens, the support of voters who dislike the Tories but aren't really sold on Labour becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Edmondo
The Greens need a charismatic leader, a national campaign and an identity which extends beyond what can be induced from their party name.
Our two resident Greens, Neil and antifrank, are good advertisements for the party with the ability to attract support from a dispassionate observer.
But what are the policies and cause which unite them? I sometimes fear it is merely a tall fence on which it is comfortable to sit and observe. The Greens are not an angry party.
Yeah the chances of a Tory majority are less than 10% I would say, but I would also say there is an equally bad chance of a Labour majority.
Those things wouldn't both be true. Even taking incumbency into account, we can't predict with enough precision to be confident we'll end up in the NOM zone, especially assuming the LibDems shrink substantially.
Guido got the gif of IDS reacting to the red's Shambles line, perhaps someone could get the same shots of Ed Balls repeating his recent Santa role and going 'ho ho ho' to todays turkey shoot?
The Labour 'cost of living' strategy is just their latest hostage to fortune, their record when it comes to being proven utterly wrong on the economy remains intact this Parliament.
But what are the policies and cause which unite them? I sometimes fear it is merely a tall fence on which it is comfortable to sit and observe.
For the purposes of this thread I don't think they need anything substantial: A leftish issue to go after Labour with, and a generally popular middle-class environmental issue like fracking.
More broadly, maybe it's just because of my post-Fukushima Twitter stream, but it feels like there's an increasingly bitter rationalist vs mystic divide there on all kinds of issues - nuclear power, GMO crops, homeopathy - that's very hard to straddle, and will tend to put a cap on their support whichever side they end up picking.
If polls indicate (whether falsely or correctly) that Cameron will continue as PM and beat Labour then they may well switch back to the Lib Dems as the most effective means of preventing a Tory majority.
Another wildcard would be a Green surge. The Greens generally do badly when the economy is bad, but well when the main parties are meh. For the last couple of years both of these things have been true, but if the economy picks up the the conditions will be there for them to make some progress. Like the Ed Is Crap narrative, this is the kind of thing that could feed on itself: An unexpectedly strong Euro performance or even a rogue poll feeds the media a story about them going places, and once that happens, the support of voters who dislike the Tories but aren't really sold on Labour becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Edmondo
The Greens need a charismatic leader, a national campaign and an identity which extends beyond what can be induced from their party name.
Our two resident Greens, Neil and antifrank, are good advertisements for the party with the ability to attract support from a dispassionate observer.
But what are the policies and cause which unite them? I sometimes fear it is merely a tall fence on which it is comfortable to sit and observe. The Greens are not an angry party.
A very important point which hasn't been made enough times on PB.
The 2010 Lib Dems now giving a Labour VI are the very definition of switchers, protestors and tactical voters. They are generally to the left of Labour and are more anti-Tory than pro-Labour. If polls indicate (whether falsely or correctly) that Cameron will continue as PM and beat Labour then they may well switch back to the Lib Dems as the most effective means of preventing a Tory majority.
It will be a question of where is it is best to place a negative tactical vote.
Yes.
The interesting consequence is where this leaves the LibDem party. If what you're saying is true, AveryLP (and I tend to agree that it is), then their best hope of recovering a decent position is to move left.
Meanwhile, all the noises from the Conservatives are "we don't want another coalition" - Boris this morning, Cameron and his "little black book", Gove's reputed open warfare, etc.
But there's one major impediment to the LibDems moving left: Clegg. Much of Labour won't countenance a coalition with him, and many left-leaning 2010 LibDem voters now see him as toxic. And I suspect he knows this.
What are the current odds of Clegg stepping down before GE 2015? I could be tempted.
On topic, what if by May 2015 the economy is soaring, unemployment is below 2,000,000, wages are rising above inflation, will people still think I know lets get rid of the Government who have administered this remarkable economic turn round and vote back in the lot who mucked it up. They may well do, but is a vote for the main party in what will have turned out to be an excellent coalition government really that fanciful?
Yeah the chances of a Tory majority are less than 10% I would say, but I would also say there is an equally bad chance of a Labour majority.
Those things wouldn't both be true. Even taking incumbency into account, we can't predict with enough precision to be confident we'll end up in the NOM zone, especially assuming the LibDems shrink substantially.
What chance NOM then?
I'm pulling numbers out of my bum here, but I reckon if you think current evidence was pointing exactly at the middle of the NOM zone, you'd say something like NOM 60%, Con Maj 20%, Lab Maj 20%. My take right now would be more like a central forecast of Lab Maj of Zero, with the plausible variation from that giving us something like NOM 44%, Lab Maj 44%, Con Maj 12%.
Mr. Capitano, I think we appoint a new EU commissioner next year. Some reckon Clegg will get the gig. I think Cameron would be crazy to appoint him.
Catherine Ashton seems to be doing an unexpectedly successful job, maybe he'll renominate her so she can do a second term. It's hard to see the other member states giving a new British commissioner a very important post otherwise.
One interesting little detail from the ONS this morning:
"For September 2013 there were 5.7 million people working in the public sector across the UK accounting for 18.8% of people in employment. This is the lowest percentage since the series began in 1999. The public sector comprises of 2.8 million people working in central government, 2.4 million working in local government and 459,000 in public corporations. Looking in more detail at the types of industries the top three for September 2013 were the National Health Service (NHS) which employed 1.6 million people, Education which employed 1.5 million people and Public Administration which employed 1.1 million people."
The general perception, no doubt based on an Ed Balls not voting for Christmas, is that public sector employees are much more likely to vote Labour than those employed in the private sector. If that is true is there not a psephological implication for the next election in that? In 2010 we had our most public sector dominated electorate ever. In 2015 it may be the least so in living memory.
One interesting little detail from the ONS this morning:
"For September 2013 there were 5.7 million people working in the public sector across the UK accounting for 18.8% of people in employment. This is the lowest percentage since the series began in 1999. The public sector comprises of 2.8 million people working in central government, 2.4 million working in local government and 459,000 in public corporations. Looking in more detail at the types of industries the top three for September 2013 were the National Health Service (NHS) which employed 1.6 million people, Education which employed 1.5 million people and Public Administration which employed 1.1 million people."
The general perception, no doubt based on an Ed Balls not voting for Christmas, is that public sector employees are much more likely to vote Labour than those employed in the private sector. If that is true is there not a psephological implication for the next election in that? In 2010 we had our most public sector dominated electorate ever. In 2015 it may be the least so in living memory.
(keeps whistling)
I raised something very similar a few months ago and people interpreted me as saying did I think being employed in the private sector "cured you" of voting Labour when in the public sector....
I'm with you in that I think the 'cling to nurse' fear in the last election meant more public sector workers voted for the reds than might otherwise have been expected... that might unwind a little given Labour backed the 1% pay freeze too.... not that they'd want reminding of that with their cost of living crisis 'fig-leaf' what would they have promised inflation below 1%?
One interesting little detail from the ONS this morning:
The general perception, no doubt based on an Ed Balls not voting for Christmas, is that public sector employees are much more likely to vote Labour than those employed in the private sector. If that is true is there not a psephological implication for the next election in that? In 2010 we had our most public sector dominated electorate ever. In 2015 it may be the least so in living memory.
(keeps whistling)
Former public sector workers looking for a job would still vote Labour as will those retired on gold plated public pensions.
On topic, what if by May 2015 the economy is soaring, unemployment is below 2,000,000, wages are rising above inflation, will people still think I know lets get rid of the Government who have administered this remarkable economic turn round and vote back in the lot who mucked it up. They may well do, but is a vote for the main party in what will have turned out to be an excellent coalition government really that fanciful?
Perhaps we should also ask if a vote for the junior party in what will have turned out to be an execellent Coalition Government all that fanciful either ?
Putting aside the glorious sun-drenched utopia you portray, people vote for all sorts of reasons. IF the economy were the sole reason for voting, John Major would have won with a landslide in 1997 and so arguably would David Cameron in 2010.
There has to be more than 12 months of reasonable economic news to convince many voters they will have done well out of the Coalition years and I imagine there'll be a number of electoral "incentives" produced by George Osborne.
That said, there is also the possibility that some people simply don't like the idea of being governed by the Conservatives and, however wealthy they may or may not be, will vote to prevent such a thing happening. There are also people who would never vote Labour even if Ed Balls came to their front door with a wheelbarrow full of fifty pound notes.
My strong recommendation would be to never use your real name on blogs, and never to reveal personal information. Some of the people reading and writing on blogs are fully-fledged psychopaths, and even if moderators were inclined towards goodwill (and they never are) they cannot protect anybody from psychopaths.
That's a bit OTT. I'm not aware of anyone ever coming to any harm from someone identifying them on a blog. Most people aren't really household names - say we find out that antifrank is really called Fred Smith, so what? If you have a delicate position (say an assistant to the Queen), then clearly there's more risk, but few employers will insist that their staff can't post anonymous thoughts.
I've been posting here for about 10 years. I've given a few hostages to fortune - I've volunteered the fact that I'm a former Communist; I disagree with Labour policy from time to time; I admit to some mildly dubious things like playing poker and wargames and liking Abba more than current music. One Broxtowe opponent has used the fact that I post here against me a couple of times (more in terms of "He's posting on a blog instead of looking after constituents" than in relation to content), to no discernible effect. Shrug.
Anyway, it's not that easy to out someone if they don't comment about themselves, unless they've outed themselves elsewhere and are giving cross-references. I hope Bobajob and tim both reappear, under new names if they think it necessary - the site will be significantly weaker without them, as it would be if SeanT and David Herdson quit.
Interesting - according to the Beeb "Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes is to join the government as a justice minister. "
The Queen has been pleased to approve the following ministerial appointments: Simon Hughes MP to be appointed as a Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice following the resignation from government of the Rt Hon Lord McNally on his appointment as Chair of the Youth Justice Board.
Also, Lord Faulks QC to be appointed as a Minister of State* at the Ministry of Justice Jenny Willott MP to be appointed as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State* at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
I note that Abbas Lakha has managed to do his summing up far quicker than Mr Gottlieb. From the summary he seems to have gotten far more to the substantive points too. He has not called his client a monster either if you want to look at it from the other perspective...
Anyway I expect both will be found guilty of murder, but Lakha's speech has not wound me up nearly as much as Gottlieb - His effort was both simultanously distasteful, poor and crap for his client.
Interesting - according to the Beeb "Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes is to join the government as a justice minister. "
Now that is a little odd / interesting.....
To put my cynical mind at rest, I assume this decision somewhat late in the coalition doesn't mean any improved pension as a result or improve his financial arrangements should Mr Hughes move to the opposition benches / lose his seat in 2015?
OT, governor of Tokyo resigns. His version of OJ Simpson's "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" performance with the glove, where he tried to prove he couldn't possibly have got all those banknotes into that bag, didn't go down as well as he'd hoped.
Interesting - according to the Beeb "Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes is to join the government as a justice minister. "
The Queen has been pleased to approve the following ministerial appointments: Simon Hughes MP to be appointed as a Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice following the resignation from government of the Rt Hon Lord McNally on his appointment as Chair of the Youth Justice Board.
Also, Lord Faulks QC to be appointed as a Minister of State* at the Ministry of Justice Jenny Willott MP to be appointed as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State* at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Goodness I didn't know Liz did the appointments. I thought it was Dave ! Anyway I'm glad to hear that she is pleased.
More hedged predictions of Christmas retail sales.
The CBI are more upbeat than the BCC but their report headlines annual growth in retail sales rather than current growth. This is telling as everyone knows the story the media and the retailers want to put out is that "the Christmas tills are ringing".
The cautious optimism is best expressed in the press release quote:
Barry Williams, Asda Chief Merchandising Officer for Food and Chair of the CBI Distributive Trades Survey Panel, said: “[…] Customers have clearly held off spending through the Autumn and we’re only now seeing them start to hit the stores. Retailers are now gearing up for the crucial pre-Christmas week and are optimistic for the New Year.”
Our money has not yet been banked.
Flat growth reported by the motor trade and wholesalers underpins the general caution.
Steady progress but no records looks the likely outcome.
Interesting - according to the Beeb "Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes is to join the government as a justice minister. "
The Queen has been pleased to approve the following ministerial appointments: Simon Hughes MP to be appointed as a Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice following the resignation from government of the Rt Hon Lord McNally on his appointment as Chair of the Youth Justice Board.
Also, Lord Faulks QC to be appointed as a Minister of State* at the Ministry of Justice Jenny Willott MP to be appointed as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State* at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Goodness I didn't know Liz did the appointments. I thought it was Dave ! Anyway I'm glad to hear that she is pleased.
Just quoting the official release - 'Dave' nominates, 'Liz' approves - it's what Heads of State do.
One interesting little detail from the ONS this morning:
"For September 2013 there were 5.7 million people working in the public sector across the UK accounting for 18.8% of people in employment. This is the lowest percentage since the series began in 1999. The public sector comprises of 2.8 million people working in central government, 2.4 million working in local government and 459,000 in public corporations. Looking in more detail at the types of industries the top three for September 2013 were the National Health Service (NHS) which employed 1.6 million people, Education which employed 1.5 million people and Public Administration which employed 1.1 million people."
The general perception, no doubt based on an Ed Balls not voting for Christmas, is that public sector employees are much more likely to vote Labour than those employed in the private sector. If that is true is there not a psephological implication for the next election in that? In 2010 we had our most public sector dominated electorate ever. In 2015 it may be the least so in living memory.
One interesting little detail from the ONS this morning:
"For September 2013 there were 5.7 million people working in the public sector across the UK accounting for 18.8% of people in employment. This is the lowest percentage since the series began in 1999. The public sector comprises of 2.8 million people working in central government, 2.4 million working in local government and 459,000 in public corporations. Looking in more detail at the types of industries the top three for September 2013 were the National Health Service (NHS) which employed 1.6 million people, Education which employed 1.5 million people and Public Administration which employed 1.1 million people."
The general perception, no doubt based on an Ed Balls not voting for Christmas, is that public sector employees are much more likely to vote Labour than those employed in the private sector. If that is true is there not a psephological implication for the next election in that? In 2010 we had our most public sector dominated electorate ever. In 2015 it may be the least so in living memory.
(keeps whistling)
I raised something very similar a few months ago and people interpreted me as saying did I think being employed in the private sector "cured you" of voting Labour when in the public sector....
I'm with you in that I think the 'cling to nurse' fear in the last election meant more public sector workers voted for the reds than might otherwise have been expected... that might unwind a little given Labour backed the 1% pay freeze too.... not that they'd want reminding of that with their cost of living crisis 'fig-leaf' what would they have promised inflation below 1%?
Moving from the public sector to the private cures many ailments , not only fulminant Laboritis. It's well known that private sector workers suffer only a fraction of the sick days that their public sector peers endure.
More hedged predictions of Christmas retail sales.
The CBI are more upbeat than the BCC but their report headlines annual growth in retail sales rather than current growth. This is telling as everyone knows the story the media and the retailers want to put out is that "the Christmas tills are ringing".
The cautious optimism is best expressed in the press release quote:
Barry Williams, Asda Chief Merchandising Officer for Food and Chair of the CBI Distributive Trades Survey Panel, said: “[…] Customers have clearly held off spending through the Autumn and we’re only now seeing them start to hit the stores. Retailers are now gearing up for the crucial pre-Christmas week and are optimistic for the New Year.”
Our money has not yet been banked.
Flat growth reported by the motor trade and wholesalers underpins the general caution.
Steady progress but no records looks the likely outcome.
One interesting little detail from the ONS this morning:
"For September 2013 there were 5.7 million people working in the public sector across the UK accounting for 18.8% of people in employment. This is the lowest percentage since the series began in 1999. The public sector comprises of 2.8 million people working in central government, 2.4 million working in local government and 459,000 in public corporations. Looking in more detail at the types of industries the top three for September 2013 were the National Health Service (NHS) which employed 1.6 million people, Education which employed 1.5 million people and Public Administration which employed 1.1 million people."
The general perception, no doubt based on an Ed Balls not voting for Christmas, is that public sector employees are much more likely to vote Labour than those employed in the private sector. If that is true is there not a psephological implication for the next election in that? In 2010 we had our most public sector dominated electorate ever. In 2015 it may be the least so in living memory.
(keeps whistling)
I raised something very similar a few months ago and people interpreted me as saying did I think being employed in the private sector "cured you" of voting Labour when in the public sector....
I'm with you in that I think the 'cling to nurse' fear in the last election meant more public sector workers voted for the reds than might otherwise have been expected... that might unwind a little given Labour backed the 1% pay freeze too.... not that they'd want reminding of that with their cost of living crisis 'fig-leaf' what would they have promised inflation below 1%?
Moving from the public sector to the private cures many ailments , not only fulminant Laboritis. It's well known that private sector workers suffer only a fraction of the sick days that their public sector peers endure.
But - can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
The Tories are solving that issue by keeping all the staff they privatise in public service pension schemes. You must be horrified.
Given that the standard assumption is that DNV last time around (although I suppose it depends whether they are multiple DNV or first time DNV) is unlikely to vote this time, doesn't that mean that the Labour 38% number is very flaky?
can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
The Tories are solving that issue by keeping all the staff they privatise in public service pension schemes. You must be horrified.
Isn't that just a straightforward TUPE issue ? If they transfer them T&Cs go too, otherwise is sack and re-hire. non ?
can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
The Tories are solving that issue by keeping all the staff they privatise in public service pension schemes. You must be horrified.
For new hires ? Come come - think beyond the next 12 months my dear old thing.
can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
The Tories are solving that issue by keeping all the staff they privatise in public service pension schemes. You must be horrified.
Isn't that just a straightforward TUPE issue ? If they transfer them T&Cs go too, otherwise is sack and re-hire. non ?
Non, it's a change of policy driven through by the Tories. TUPE doesnt cover defined benefit pension schemes.
can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
The Tories are solving that issue by keeping all the staff they privatise in public service pension schemes. You must be horrified.
For new hires ? Come come - think beyond the next 12 months my dear old thing.
In more than 12 months the entire ponzi scheme will have collapsed according to your confused calculations!
can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
The Tories are solving that issue by keeping all the staff they privatise in public service pension schemes. You must be horrified.
Isn't that just a straightforward TUPE issue ? If they transfer them T&Cs go too, otherwise is sack and re-hire. non ?
Non, it's a change of policy driven through by the Tories. TUPE doesnt cover defined benefit pension schemes.
One interesting little detail from the ONS this morning:
"For September 2013 there were 5.7 million people working in the public sector across the UK accounting for 18.8% of people in employment. This is the lowest percentage since the series began in 1999. The public sector comprises of 2.8 million people working in central government, 2.4 million working in local government and 459,000 in public corporations. Looking in more detail at the types of industries the top three for September 2013 were the National Health Service (NHS) which employed 1.6 million people, Education which employed 1.5 million people and Public Administration which employed 1.1 million people."
The general perception, no doubt based on an Ed Balls not voting for Christmas, is that public sector employees are much more likely to vote Labour than those employed in the private sector. If that is true is there not a psephological implication for the next election in that? In 2010 we had our most public sector dominated electorate ever. In 2015 it may be the least so in living memory.
(keeps whistling)
I raised something very similar a few months ago and people interpreted me as saying did I think being employed in the private sector "cured you" of voting Labour when in the public sector....
I'm with you in that I think the 'cling to nurse' fear in the last election meant more public sector workers voted for the reds than might otherwise have been expected... that might unwind a little given Labour backed the 1% pay freeze too.... not that they'd want reminding of that with their cost of living crisis 'fig-leaf' what would they have promised inflation below 1%?
Moving from the public sector to the private cures many ailments , not only fulminant Laboritis. It's well known that private sector workers suffer only a fraction of the sick days that their public sector peers endure.
I only employ about 12 people full time now, but in November we had our first member of staff off with a Doctors sick note for 11 years, in fact we had two off at the same time. Like London buses, they come together!
Either I don't pay enough for them to afford to be off, they are astoundingly healthy, they work as a good team and support each other, I am lucky or a combination of each.
Needless to say, I don't get the time off sick figures from the Public Sector. I can't remember the last time one of my staff threw a sickie, it just doesn't happen.
With growth in Employment like we have seen in the last 6 months we really should see a reasonable increase in consumption over Christmas even with real wages still falling. There are now 30m employed so a 1% increase in employment is approx 300,000 so employment has increased by just under 2% in the last year. This should offset the reduction in real wages, especially as the stats also show that those are in work are working more hours too.
That said my annual Christmas shopping trip to Newcastle that I reported on a few weeks ago was grim with more closed units in the Metro Centre than I have seen in 20 years of visits. A lot of the spending is getting delivered around the country by white van man and conventional retail continues to struggle.
Mr. Capitano, I think we appoint a new EU commissioner next year. Some reckon Clegg will get the gig. I think Cameron would be crazy to appoint him.
Catherine Ashton seems to be doing an unexpectedly successful job, maybe he'll renominate her so she can do a second term. It's hard to see the other member states giving a new British commissioner a very important post otherwise.
Given the government blocked Gordon Brown from the IMF job, it would not be surprising if it took a similarly partisan approach on Ashton. Ironically, as McBride said, if Brown had been appointed, Osborne would have had the perfect spin line for any critical reports on our economy: "he would say that, wouldn't he?".
can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
The Tories are solving that issue by keeping all the staff they privatise in public service pension schemes. You must be horrified.
For new hires ? Come come - think beyond the next 12 months my dear old thing.
In more than 12 months the entire ponzi scheme will have collapsed according to your confused calculations!
Are you keen to take on the mantle of Captain Single Data point static analysis since the farmer departed ?
In jobs moved to the private sector, new starts wont be on these defined benefit schemes:
So in broad terms
2010 - 5 million workers contributing to X million pensioners 2030 - 3-4 million workers contributing to X+? pensioners
The drain on the general taxpayer will go up.
Not saying we should employ a million more diversity coordinators to make up the shortfall - but do future liability predictions take this into the modelling ?
can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
The Tories are solving that issue by keeping all the staff they privatise in public service pension schemes. You must be horrified.
Isn't that just a straightforward TUPE issue ? If they transfer them T&Cs go too, otherwise is sack and re-hire. non ?
Non, it's a change of policy driven through by the Tories. TUPE doesnt cover defined benefit pension schemes.
Are you keen to take on the mantle of Captain Single Data point static analysis since the farmer departed ?
Are you being ironic? I'm the one who tries to explain the situation to you with reference to the OBR's long-term fiscal projections and you are the one who finds the long-term so difficult to understand that you go around describing schemes that will cost a lot less in 2030 or 2040 or 2050 than they do now (in terms of %age of GDP) as Ponzi.
Are you keen to take on the mantle of Captain Single Data point static analysis since the farmer departed ?
Are you being ironic? I'm the one who tries to explain the situation to you with reference to the OBR's long-term fiscal projections and you are the one who finds the long-term so difficult to understand that you go around describing schemes that will cost a lot less in 2030 or 2040 or 2050 than they do now (in terms of %age of GDP) as Ponzi.
Do the OBR's fiscal predictions take into consideration the significant drop in public sector workers ? I don't know ...
Ironically, as McBride said, if Brown had been appointed, Osborne would have had the perfect spin line for any critical reports on our economy: "he would say that, wouldn't he?".
Surely putting Brown in a position of authority is far too high a price to pay for a good spin line?
can the public sector ponzi pension scheme be funded if you cut away at the fresh saps who are partially paying for their retired compadres who are sitting aged 60 in Provence on 66% of final salary ?
The Tories are solving that issue by keeping all the staff they privatise in public service pension schemes. You must be horrified.
Isn't that just a straightforward TUPE issue ? If they transfer them T&Cs go too, otherwise is sack and re-hire. non ?
Non, it's a change of policy driven through by the Tories. TUPE doesnt cover defined benefit pension schemes.
With growth in Employment like we have seen in the last 6 months we really should see a reasonable increase in consumption over Christmas even with real wages still falling. There are now 30m employed so a 1% increase in employment is approx 300,000 so employment has increased by just under 2% in the last year. This should offset the reduction in real wages, especially as the stats also show that those are in work are working more hours too.
That said my annual Christmas shopping trip to Newcastle that I reported on a few weeks ago was grim with more closed units in the Metro Centre than I have seen in 20 years of visits. A lot of the spending is getting delivered around the country by white van man and conventional retail continues to struggle.
More importantly that's 300k less people needing social security and now paying something in to the tax pool.
SeanT is actually Drexl Spivey, an entrepreneur from Detroit. He is no relation of Sean Thomas, a notorious misanthrope and prolific author, although he has been known to impersonate him in bars and in Internet chat rooms.
I'm currently doing an analysis of it. The main wekaness is his reliance on YouGov data which doesn't properly show inter-party churn. YouGov nets off the don't knows and won't votes so you do not get a precise picture of what the overall chort who, day, voted LD in 2010 are now doing.
Comments
To use a more topical sporting analogy, Balls is starting to resemble the Labour party’s Kevin Pietersen. The Prime Minister keep putting men back on the boundary, and Ed Balls can’t help taking him on. With the result all he does is keep slogging the ball down long-on’s throat.
Let down by picking the wrong end of Wales for the Welsh guy (131 miles out!).
Why did the "Glaswegian" speak with a Mancunian accent? Pfffft!
As someone who has read all the Fifty Shades books, there's not enough mind bleach in the universe to help me cope with the image of Ed Balls as Christian Grey.
The Greens need a charismatic leader, a national campaign and an identity which extends beyond what can be induced from their party name.
Our two resident Greens, Neil and antifrank, are good advertisements for the party with the ability to attract support from a dispassionate observer.
But what are the policies and cause which unite them? I sometimes fear it is merely a tall fence on which it is comfortable to sit and observe. The Greens are not an angry party.
More broadly, maybe it's just because of my post-Fukushima Twitter stream, but it feels like there's an increasingly bitter rationalist vs mystic divide there on all kinds of issues - nuclear power, GMO crops, homeopathy - that's very hard to straddle, and will tend to put a cap on their support whichever side they end up picking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25427990
Apparently she's called for it to be illegal to call people fat on TV.
if you're out there, I see you're family has now found fame on Guido. Kudos.
The interesting consequence is where this leaves the LibDem party. If what you're saying is true, AveryLP (and I tend to agree that it is), then their best hope of recovering a decent position is to move left.
Meanwhile, all the noises from the Conservatives are "we don't want another coalition" - Boris this morning, Cameron and his "little black book", Gove's reputed open warfare, etc.
But there's one major impediment to the LibDems moving left: Clegg. Much of Labour won't countenance a coalition with him, and many left-leaning 2010 LibDem voters now see him as toxic. And I suspect he knows this.
What are the current odds of Clegg stepping down before GE 2015? I could be tempted.
"For September 2013 there were 5.7 million people working in the public sector across the UK accounting for 18.8% of people in employment. This is the lowest percentage since the series began in 1999. The public sector comprises of 2.8 million people working in central government, 2.4 million working in local government and 459,000 in public corporations. Looking in more detail at the types of industries the top three for September 2013 were the National Health Service (NHS) which employed 1.6 million people, Education which employed 1.5 million people and Public Administration which employed 1.1 million people."
Employment in the public sector increased by 4000 in the last quarter but was still down 52K on a year ago. In that time private sector employment has increased by 537K. Here is a chart that shows it quite well: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/december-2013/sty-public-sector-employment.html
The general perception, no doubt based on an Ed Balls not voting for Christmas, is that public sector employees are much more likely to vote Labour than those employed in the private sector. If that is true is there not a psephological implication for the next election in that? In 2010 we had our most public sector dominated electorate ever. In 2015 it may be the least so in living memory.
(keeps whistling)
I'm with you in that I think the 'cling to nurse' fear in the last election meant more public sector workers voted for the reds than might otherwise have been expected... that might unwind a little given Labour backed the 1% pay freeze too.... not that they'd want reminding of that with their cost of living crisis 'fig-leaf' what would they have promised inflation below 1%?
Putting aside the glorious sun-drenched utopia you portray, people vote for all sorts of reasons. IF the economy were the sole reason for voting, John Major would have won with a landslide in 1997 and so arguably would David Cameron in 2010.
There has to be more than 12 months of reasonable economic news to convince many voters they will have done well out of the Coalition years and I imagine there'll be a number of electoral "incentives" produced by George Osborne.
That said, there is also the possibility that some people simply don't like the idea of being governed by the Conservatives and, however wealthy they may or may not be, will vote to prevent such a thing happening. There are also people who would never vote Labour even if Ed Balls came to their front door with a wheelbarrow full of fifty pound notes.
I've been posting here for about 10 years. I've given a few hostages to fortune - I've volunteered the fact that I'm a former Communist; I disagree with Labour policy from time to time; I admit to some mildly dubious things like playing poker and wargames and liking Abba more than current music. One Broxtowe opponent has used the fact that I post here against me a couple of times (more in terms of "He's posting on a blog instead of looking after constituents" than in relation to content), to no discernible effect. Shrug.
Anyway, it's not that easy to out someone if they don't comment about themselves, unless they've outed themselves elsewhere and are giving cross-references. I hope Bobajob and tim both reappear, under new names if they think it necessary - the site will be significantly weaker without them, as it would be if SeanT and David Herdson quit.
Also, Lord Faulks QC to be appointed as a Minister of State* at the Ministry of Justice Jenny Willott MP to be appointed as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State* at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Anyway I expect both will be found guilty of murder, but Lakha's speech has not wound me up nearly as much as Gottlieb - His effort was both simultanously distasteful, poor and crap for his client.
To put my cynical mind at rest, I assume this decision somewhat late in the coalition doesn't mean any improved pension as a result or improve his financial arrangements should Mr Hughes move to the opposition benches / lose his seat in 2015?
The CBI are more upbeat than the BCC but their report headlines annual growth in retail sales rather than current growth. This is telling as everyone knows the story the media and the retailers want to put out is that "the Christmas tills are ringing".
The cautious optimism is best expressed in the press release quote:
Barry Williams, Asda Chief Merchandising Officer for Food and Chair of the CBI Distributive Trades Survey Panel, said: “[…] Customers have clearly held off spending through the Autumn and we’re only now seeing them start to hit the stores. Retailers are now gearing up for the crucial pre-Christmas week and are optimistic for the New Year.”
Our money has not yet been banked.
Flat growth reported by the motor trade and wholesalers underpins the general caution.
Steady progress but no records looks the likely outcome.
"Rise in UK employment over the last 3 months is equivalent to US non-farm payrolls rising by 600k-700k per month for three months"
given US non-farm payrolls are currently rising by about 200,000 or less it gives you an idea of the current UK out-performance.
I thought it was very interesting, but have been in meetings today (blasted EU parliament doing something helpful for once ;-o )
From a 30 second scan it looked like Labour's gains from 2010 (8.6m) have been distributed as follows:
2.3m LD10 + 1.4m DNV10 + 0.4m CON10 - 1.6m lost voters (inc. undecided).
Total 1.4m
Given that the standard assumption is that DNV last time around (although I suppose it depends whether they are multiple DNV or first time DNV) is unlikely to vote this time, doesn't that mean that the Labour 38% number is very flaky?
Either I don't pay enough for them to afford to be off, they are astoundingly healthy, they work as a good team and support each other, I am lucky or a combination of each.
Needless to say, I don't get the time off sick figures from the Public Sector. I can't remember the last time one of my staff threw a sickie, it just doesn't happen.
That said my annual Christmas shopping trip to Newcastle that I reported on a few weeks ago was grim with more closed units in the Metro Centre than I have seen in 20 years of visits. A lot of the spending is getting delivered around the country by white van man and conventional retail continues to struggle.
http://hopisen.com/2013/only-read-this-post-if-youre-a-political-nerd/
In jobs moved to the private sector, new starts wont be on these defined benefit schemes:
So in broad terms
2010 - 5 million workers contributing to X million pensioners
2030 - 3-4 million workers contributing to X+? pensioners
The drain on the general taxpayer will go up.
Not saying we should employ a million more diversity coordinators to make up the shortfall - but do future liability predictions take this into the modelling ?
Great character. Great film.
SeanT did more coke than Drexl though!