Scylla Government debt May 2010 - £846bn Government debt Nov 2013 - £1232bn
Charybdis Industrial production May 2010 - 100.4 Industrial production Oct 2013 - 97.1
Osborne is no Odysseus
I don't know. Odysseus was also a skilled conman of course.
I hope you're not suggesting that the 'recovery' is based on city funny money and building fake confidence through an ultimately damaging housing boom......
Mr. Jessop, don't tell me you haven't read The Iliad?!
Many moons ago, and my brain's been filled up with rubbish in the mean time: from HS2 arcana to Internet protocols nobody ever uses any more.
I wish my brain was more like a computer and I could choose which bits of memory to keep and which to overwrite. Or have some form of secondary backup system more advanced than writing memories down.
"Ah, *that* ex-girlfriend. Nope, she'll have to go." "That walk, in the rain, over the Eildon Hills? That's a keeper."
The sad things is I'd probably prefer to keep more memories of walks than of girlfriends ... ;-)
Rentool formula for predicting UKIP GE vote share (to be applied next May): Apply the percentage decline in UKIP vote share per annum from previous Euro and GE vote shares, and apply this to the 2014 Euro share. Out pops the 2015 GE vote share...
A point of clarification. Is the Rentool formula a continuous function and in particular does it include in its domain negative values of the percentage decline in the UKIP vote share (a negative decline being an increase).
That is, does it work when the UKIP vote share goes up between elections? Because if it doesn't, it's not much use.
On topic, I feel incredibly sorry for pollsters, these are unique times, which make getting accurate VI polls difficult, they have to account for the following, which they haven't had to in the past
1) The first peace time coalition in decades
2) The emergence of a party to the right of the Tories.
3) Dave annoying his own base and being crap
4) Ed being even crapper than Dave
5) Clegg being consistently crapper than Ed.
6) In the next few months we could see a Ed/Nick crossover in the Mori leadership ratings.
Mr. Jessop, I sympathise. Sometimes my memory seems most impressive. Other times, less so.
I actually forgot the name of probably the second most important character in Bane of Souls (Francis) a few months after releasing it.
Twenty years ago, when I was in pain and not sleeping much, I read the entire bible and half the Quran. I even discussed points with religious friends and got quite interested in theology.
I can't remember any of it now. Not one bit. It stayed in there for a few months and then fluttered merrily out of my ears. I guess my interest wasn't deep enough to maintain it.
Mind you, the fact I was doped up to the eyeballs on Codeine probably didn't help ...
"That is completely the wrong way round. Those of us who think Osborne has judged this correctly do so precisely because he has correctly judged the speed of getting the public finances back towards some semblance of sanity at the fastest rate which is commensurate with NOT impeding recovery of growth. In other words, he has steered the optimal course between the Scylla of ever-worsening public finances combined with a collapse in market confidence in government debt, and the Charybdis of growth collapsing completely, with the attendant very high unemployment."
Scylla Government debt May 2010 - £846bn Government debt Nov 2013 - £1232bn
Charybdis Industrial production May 2010 - 100.4 Industrial production Oct 2013 - 97.1
Osborne is no Odysseus
George Odysseus negotiates Scylla and Charybdis with near-perfect helmsmanship:
***************MERRY CHRISTMAS*************** Public Sector Net Borrowing Excluding Financial Interventions ********************************************* Sources: ONS 11/13 PSF Bulletin OBR 12/13 EF0
All figures in £ billions | ********************************************* Brown/Darling ---------------------------- 2009/10 157 ONS Outcome Cameron/Osborne ---------------------------- 2010/11 139 ONS Outcome 2011/12 118 ONS Outcome 2012/13 80 ONS Outcome 2013/14 99 OBR Forecast 2014/15 84 OBR Forecast ---------------------------- 2015/16 72 OBR Forecast 2016/17 48 OBR Forecast 2017/18 25 OBR Forecast 2018/19 2 OBR Forecast *********************************************
George Odysseus has been such a good boy that Santa has decided to give him victory in the 2015 UK General Election as his main present this year.
Lots of classical analogies to describe George Osborne, but I don't think I've yet seen anyone else comment on the fact that there's a George Osborne in Vanity Fair.
You have to make a distinction between on-line polls, and telephone polls. The former are very prone to 'enthusiasm' bias: as we see in these august pages, the Kippers are terribly excited; that makes them much more likely to respond to a poll if they are members of a panel which is sent an invitation to participate in a political poll. Therefore it is almost certainly correct to weight them down in such polls, possibly by quite a lot. The unknown, of course, is by how much.
Considering just the on-line polls for the moment, we can see a huge disagreement between Survation, ComRes and Opinium on the one hand, and Populus on the other. The former routinely report UKIP figures in the 16-19% range, the latter in the 7-8% range. YouGov seems to be somewhere in the middle.
Normally we might be able to form a view on which is more likely to be correct by looking at the telephone polls, where the typical UKIP figure is around 10% or 11%, but they in turn might be subject to error because of the past-vote weighting.
I suspect that the telephone polls are a better guide, but we shall only really know the answer when the election comes and then only if, in the polls leading up to the election, the discrepancy persists.
Richard
UKIP supporters can't remember where they placed their spectacles five minutes ago.
Can pollsters really expect them to remember how they voted in May 2010?
OGH's big red marker pen should be drawing an arrow which points at the 208/10% figures not the 21/1% ones.
Wonderful stuff Avery, I will remember these cheap insults from you and your shambles of a party when you are whinging that it was UKIP that stopped you getting a majority in 2015.
Being rude about people whose support you want is a strange strategy.
I said back in 2011 that the Cameroons will lash out in all directions as their ship sinks.
The one group which they wont lay any blame against are themselves.
The sense of entitlement really does play badly.
Between them, Avery and Topping exemplify that attitude perfectly. They hate the people whose support they demand.
I demand no votes.
I hate no political opponents.
UKIP won't win any election by projecting themselves as a slighted and oppressed minority.
Lots of classical analogies to describe George Osborne, but I don't think I've yet seen anyone else comment on the fact that there's a George Osborne in Vanity Fair.
A fine man of principle who gave his life to his country on the playing fields of Waterloo.
"That is completely the wrong way round. Those of us who think Osborne has judged this correctly do so precisely because he has correctly judged the speed of getting the public finances back towards some semblance of sanity at the fastest rate which is commensurate with NOT impeding recovery of growth. In other words, he has steered the optimal course between the Scylla of ever-worsening public finances combined with a collapse in market confidence in government debt, and the Charybdis of growth collapsing completely, with the attendant very high unemployment."
Scylla Government debt May 2010 - £846bn Government debt Nov 2013 - £1232bn
Charybdis Industrial production May 2010 - 100.4 Industrial production Oct 2013 - 97.1
Osborne is no Odysseus
George Odysseus negotiates Scylla and Charybdis with near-perfect helmsmanship:
***************MERRY CHRISTMAS*************** Public Sector Net Borrowing Excluding Financial Interventions ********************************************* Sources: ONS 11/13 PSF Bulletin OBR 12/13 EF0
All figures in £ billions | ********************************************* Brown/Darling ---------------------------- 2009/10 157 ONS Outcome Cameron/Osborne ---------------------------- 2010/11 139 ONS Outcome 2011/12 118 ONS Outcome 2012/13 80 ONS Outcome 2013/14 99 OBR Forecast 2014/15 84 OBR Forecast ---------------------------- 2015/16 72 OBR Forecast 2016/17 48 OBR Forecast 2017/18 25 OBR Forecast 2018/19 2 OBR Forecast *********************************************
George Odysseus has been such a good boy that Santa has decided to give him victory in the 2015 UK General Election as his main present this year.
Lets have a look at what Osborne was predicting:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion."
Now lets have a look at what happened:
2010-11 £139bn 2011-12 £118bn 2012-13 £115bn 2013-14 £110bn est
George Odysseus negotiates Scylla and Charybdis with near-perfect helmsmanship:
***************MERRY CHRISTMAS*************** Public Sector Net Borrowing Excluding Financial Interventions ********************************************* Sources: ONS 11/13 PSF Bulletin OBR 12/13 EF0
All figures in £ billions | ********************************************* Brown/Darling ---------------------------- 2009/10 157 ONS Outcome Cameron/Osborne ---------------------------- 2010/11 139 ONS Outcome 2011/12 118 ONS Outcome 2012/13 80 ONS Outcome 2013/14 99 OBR Forecast 2014/15 84 OBR Forecast ---------------------------- 2015/16 72 OBR Forecast 2016/17 48 OBR Forecast 2017/18 25 OBR Forecast 2018/19 2 OBR Forecast *********************************************
George Odysseus has been such a good boy that Santa has decided to give him victory in the 2015 UK General Election as his main present this year.
Lets have a look at what Osborne was predicting:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion."
Now lets have a look at what happened:
2010-11 £139bn 2011-12 £118bn 2012-13 £115bn 2013-14 £110bn est
Looks like George is down by £68bn so far.
Fancy a bet that he'll meant his target ?
I will bet that the March 2015 EFO published by the OBR concludes that George Osborne is meeting the Primary Fiscal Mandate and, additionally, that he will have done so throughout the 2010-2015 parliamentary term.
Lots of classical analogies to describe George Osborne, but I don't think I've yet seen anyone else comment on the fact that there's a George Osborne in Vanity Fair.
An unpleasant character with a high degree of self-entitlement as I remember.
He was killed at Waterloo:
'Darkness came down on the field; and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart'
You have to make a distinction between on-line polls, and telephone polls. The former are very prone to 'enthusiasm' bias: as we see in these august pages, the Kippers are terribly excited; that makes them much more likely to respond to a poll if they are members of a panel which is sent an invitation to participate in a political poll. Therefore it is almost certainly correct to weight them down in such polls, possibly by quite a lot. The unknown, of course, is by how much.
Considering just the on-line polls for the moment, we can see a huge disagreement between Survation, ComRes and Opinium on the one hand, and Populus on the other. The former routinely report UKIP figures in the 16-19% range, the latter in the 7-8% range. YouGov seems to be somewhere in the middle.
Normally we might be able to form a view on which is more likely to be correct by looking at the telephone polls, where the typical UKIP figure is around 10% or 11%, but they in turn might be subject to error because of the past-vote weighting.
I suspect that the telephone polls are a better guide, but we shall only really know the answer when the election comes and then only if, in the polls leading up to the election, the discrepancy persists.
Richard
UKIP supporters can't remember where they placed their spectacles five minutes ago.
Can pollsters really expect them to remember how they voted in May 2010?
OGH's big red marker pen should be drawing an arrow which points at the 208/10% figures not the 21/1% ones.
Wonderful stuff Avery, I will remember these cheap insults from you and your shambles of a party when you are whinging that it was UKIP that stopped you getting a majority in 2015.
Being rude about people whose support you want is a strange strategy.
I said back in 2011 that the Cameroons will lash out in all directions as their ship sinks.
The one group which they wont lay any blame against are themselves.
The sense of entitlement really does play badly.
Between them, Avery and Topping exemplify that attitude perfectly. They hate the people whose support they demand.
I demand no votes.
I hate no political opponents.
UKIP won't win any election by projecting themselves as a slighted and oppressed minority.
George Odysseus negotiates Scylla and Charybdis with near-perfect helmsmanship:
***************MERRY CHRISTMAS*************** Public Sector Net Borrowing Excluding Financial Interventions ********************************************* Sources: ONS 11/13 PSF Bulletin OBR 12/13 EF0
All figures in £ billions | ********************************************* Brown/Darling ---------------------------- 2009/10 157 ONS Outcome Cameron/Osborne ---------------------------- 2010/11 139 ONS Outcome 2011/12 118 ONS Outcome 2012/13 80 ONS Outcome 2013/14 99 OBR Forecast 2014/15 84 OBR Forecast ---------------------------- 2015/16 72 OBR Forecast 2016/17 48 OBR Forecast 2017/18 25 OBR Forecast 2018/19 2 OBR Forecast *********************************************
George Odysseus has been such a good boy that Santa has decided to give him victory in the 2015 UK General Election as his main present this year.
Lets have a look at what Osborne was predicting:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion."
Now lets have a look at what happened:
2010-11 £139bn 2011-12 £118bn 2012-13 £115bn 2013-14 £110bn est
Looks like George is down by £68bn so far.
Fancy a bet that he'll meant his target ?
I will bet that the March 2015 EFO published by the OBR concludes that George Osborne is meeting the Primary Fiscal Mandate and, additionally, that he will have done so throughout the 2010-2015 parliamentary term.
Suggest your odds and stake, ar.
I'll bet that government borrowing of 2010-11 to 2014-15 exceeds the £451bn which George Osborne predicted it would be.
You have to make a distinction between on-line polls, and telephone polls. The former are very prone to 'enthusiasm' bias: as we see in these august pages, the Kippers are terribly excited; that makes them much more likely to respond to a poll if they are members of a panel which is sent an invitation to participate in a political poll. Therefore it is almost certainly correct to weight them down in such polls, possibly by quite a lot. The unknown, of course, is by how much.
Considering just the on-line polls for the moment, we can see a huge disagreement between Survation, ComRes and Opinium on the one hand, and Populus on the other. The former routinely report UKIP figures in the 16-19% range, the latter in the 7-8% range. YouGov seems to be somewhere in the middle.
Normally we might be able to form a view on which is more likely to be correct by looking at the telephone polls, where the typical UKIP figure is around 10% or 11%, but they in turn might be subject to error because of the past-vote weighting.
I suspect that the telephone polls are a better guide, but we shall only really know the answer when the election comes and then only if, in the polls leading up to the election, the discrepancy persists.
Richard
UKIP supporters can't remember where they placed their spectacles five minutes ago.
Can pollsters really expect them to remember how they voted in May 2010?
OGH's big red marker pen should be drawing an arrow which points at the 208/10% figures not the 21/1% ones.
Wonderful stuff Avery, I will remember these cheap insults from you and your shambles of a party when you are whinging that it was UKIP that stopped you getting a majority in 2015.
Being rude about people whose support you want is a strange strategy.
I said back in 2011 that the Cameroons will lash out in all directions as their ship sinks.
The one group which they wont lay any blame against are themselves.
The sense of entitlement really does play badly.
Between them, Avery and Topping exemplify that attitude perfectly. They hate the people whose support they demand.
I demand no votes.
I hate no political opponents.
UKIP won't win any election by projecting themselves as a slighted and oppressed minority.
Stop slighting them then.
It is perfectly acceptable to make fun of kippers without hating them.
I would be afraid of their bite if it wasn't for their dentures.
For anyone wondering why Avery has the 2012-2013 borrowing at £80bn while I have it at £115bn its because Avery has included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing.
He has not felt it necessary to include the corresponding Royal Mail pension liabilities.
Such pension fund stealing makes me wonder if Avery has been a Labour politician at some point in the past.
For anyone wondering why Avery has the 2012-2013 borrowing at £80bn while I have it at £115bn its because Avery has included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing.
He has not felt it necessary to include the corresponding Royal Mail pension liabilities.
Such pension fund stealing makes me wonder if Avery has been a Labour politician at some point in the past.
Lol you either count the assets and liabilities or neither.
You have to make a distinction between on-line polls, and telephone polls. The former are very prone to 'enthusiasm' bias: as we see in these august pages, the Kippers are terribly excited; that makes them much more likely to respond to a poll if they are members of a panel which is sent an invitation to participate in a political poll. Therefore it is almost certainly correct to weight them down in such polls, possibly by quite a lot. The unknown, of course, is by how much.
Considering just the on-line polls for the moment, we can see a huge disagreement between Survation, ComRes and Opinium on the one hand, and Populus on the other. The former routinely report UKIP figures in the 16-19% range, the latter in the 7-8% range. YouGov seems to be somewhere in the middle.
Normally we might be able to form a view on which is more likely to be correct by looking at the telephone polls, where the typical UKIP figure is around 10% or 11%, but they in turn might be subject to error because of the past-vote weighting.
I suspect that the telephone polls are a better guide, but we shall only really know the answer when the election comes and then only if, in the polls leading up to the election, the discrepancy persists.
Richard
UKIP supporters can't remember where they placed their spectacles five minutes ago.
Can pollsters really expect them to remember how they voted in May 2010?
OGH's big red marker pen should be drawing an arrow which points at the 208/10% figures not the 21/1% ones.
Wonderful stuff Avery, I will remember these cheap insults from you and your shambles of a party when you are whinging that it was UKIP that stopped you getting a majority in 2015.
Being rude about people whose support you want is a strange strategy.
Being rude about kippers who are inconsistent, hysterical and irreconcilable is OK. They won't vote any other way, so it's not worth trying to gain their support.
For anyone wondering why Avery has the 2012-2013 borrowing at £80bn while I have it at £115bn its because Avery has included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing.
He has not felt it necessary to include the corresponding Royal Mail pension liabilities.
Such pension fund stealing makes me wonder if Avery has been a Labour politician at some point in the past.
I have quoted official ONS and OBR headline statistics without amendment.
The OBR series and ONS series are not completely compatible and require reconciliation but the overall direction and scale of borrowing reduction is clear to all.
I could have quoted the Treasury's Net Financing Requirement (based on Central Government Net Cash Requirement and its Public Sector equivalent). This would have given a better indication of how far actual borrowing (i.e. gilt issuance) is being reduced, but this would show massively better figures than the PSNB ex series.
I have been generous to George Odysseus's opponents, ar.
For anyone wondering why Avery has the 2012-2013 borrowing at £80bn while I have it at £115bn its because Avery has included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing.
He has not felt it necessary to include the corresponding Royal Mail pension liabilities.
Such pension fund stealing makes me wonder if Avery has been a Labour politician at some point in the past.
Lol you either count the assets and liabilities or neither.
For anyone wondering why Avery has the 2012-2013 borrowing at £80bn while I have it at £115bn its because Avery has included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing.
He has not felt it necessary to include the corresponding Royal Mail pension liabilities.
Such pension fund stealing makes me wonder if Avery has been a Labour politician at some point in the past.
I have quoted official ONS and OBR headline statistics without amendment.
The OBR series and ONS series are not completely compatible and require reconciliation but the overall direction and scale of borrowing reduction is clear to all.
I could have quoted the Treasury's Net Financing Requirement (based on Central Government Net Cash Requirement and its Public Sector equivalent). This would have given a better indication of how far actual borrowing (i.e. gilt issuance) is being reduced, but this would show massively better figures than the PSNB ex series.
I have been generous to George Odysseus's opponents, ar.
Retreating into bolloxspeak wont work when someone's got the ONS report open:
For anyone wondering why Avery has the 2012-2013 borrowing at £80bn while I have it at £115bn its because Avery has included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing.
He has not felt it necessary to include the corresponding Royal Mail pension liabilities.
Such pension fund stealing makes me wonder if Avery has been a Labour politician at some point in the past.
Lol you either count the assets and liabilities or neither.
Well not if you want to comply with ESA95 accounting standards. Same with the APF (QE) scheme where there are likely to be book losses on eventual bond redemption. Same with mortgage guarantees issued to banks under the Help to Buy schemes. They all follow the general principle that National Accounts do not attempt to quantify contingent (when unknown) liabilities.
The accounting treatment of the Royal Mail Pension Scheme does may sense, The government, preparing the Royal Mail for public sale, realised that the value of the company would be massively diminished if the floated enterprise had to meet future pension liabilities of its existing and former employees.
The government was committed to meet these liabilities for as long as the Royal Mail remained in the public sector, or at least the extent to which future liabilities could not be met from accrued assets in the Royal Mail Pension Fund. Under the public offer deal, the government retained its responsibility for meeting future liabilities accrued at the time of the sale. Effectively postmen retained their accrued state pensions.
As the government meets state pension liabilities out of general funds then there was no point in retaining the assets held in the former Royal Mail pension fund. The assets were transferred with the intent of being sold on the open market. The associated liabilities were rolled up into the government's future pension liabilities for the entire public sector.
Given the circumstances and the international accounting rules which currently apply to national accounts there was nothing dodgy at all about the accounting treatment of the transaction.
It should be noted however that a new set of accounting standards ESA10 will be implemented from late 2014. These do include rules for the accounting treatment of contingent liabilities and this should lead to a a more transparent treatment of all pension liabilities in National Accounts.
The ONS is due to publish a bulletin on the changes that will apply to the Royal Mail transaction as a result of ESA10 during the first half of 2014.
WRT to kippers, I can't lose. Either their vote will fail to materialize, which will be amusing as they sob gently into their Nige shrines. Or it will and they get a Milliband government, which will be even more amusing as the realization of what they have achieved dawn's on them. BNP for pussies, provides amusement in either event.
For anyone wondering why Avery has the 2012-2013 borrowing at £80bn while I have it at £115bn its because Avery has included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing.
He has not felt it necessary to include the corresponding Royal Mail pension liabilities.
Such pension fund stealing makes me wonder if Avery has been a Labour politician at some point in the past.
I have quoted official ONS and OBR headline statistics without amendment.
The OBR series and ONS series are not completely compatible and require reconciliation but the overall direction and scale of borrowing reduction is clear to all.
I could have quoted the Treasury's Net Financing Requirement (based on Central Government Net Cash Requirement and its Public Sector equivalent). This would have given a better indication of how far actual borrowing (i.e. gilt issuance) is being reduced, but this would show massively better figures than the PSNB ex series.
I have been generous to George Odysseus's opponents, ar.
Retreating into bolloxspeak wont work when someone's got the ONS report open:
Page 42 is the important one if anyone else wants a look.
You see its easy to demolish bullshitters when you have the facts at hand.
Now why didn't Osborne manage to do that to Labour when he was shadow Chancellor ?
All it needs to find the info is an open mind, a bit of common sense and an hour or two looking at the ONS.
Which of those was Osborne lacking in ?
ar
You are arguing how many angels can fit on the tip of a needle. Seasonal maybe, but not material to a long term view of PSNB ex figures.
FYI, the OBR series in my comment derives from the table on page 150 of OBR's December 2013 EFO.
The ONS series derive from the same document linked by you but from Table PSF2 on page 43, column PSNBex. I rounded the figures to the nearest billion.
Both documents are open on my pc, but I have no intention of referring to them again tonight.
ESA95 sounds like quite the accounting fiction. I assume ESA10 will be analogous to the more up to date IAS/IFRS which have a far more honest approach to the balance sheet (Or Statement of financial position as it is now known)...
In fact your treatment of the assets and liabilities sounds RIGHT OUT of the Gordon Brown playbook >.>
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion."
Now lets have a look at what happened:
2010-11 £139bn 2011-12 £118bn 2012-13 £115bn 2013-14 £110bn est
Looks like George is down by £68bn so far.
Fancy a bet that he'll meant his target ?
I will bet that the March 2015 EFO published by the OBR concludes that George Osborne is meeting the Primary Fiscal Mandate and, additionally, that he will have done so throughout the 2010-2015 parliamentary term.
Suggest your odds and stake, ar.
I'll bet that government borrowing of 2010-11 to 2014-15 exceeds the £451bn which George Osborne predicted it would be.
Suggest your odds and stake Avery.
Pointing out that George undershot the 2010 OBR forecasts is as relevant as demonstrating that he exceeded the 2013 OBR and OECD, and IMF and almost all other external forecasts.
Forecasts come and go. Sometimes they are met, sometimes undershot, sometimes exceeded.
The key measure is not short term forecast targets but the rolling five year primary fiscal mandate. That gives us a view of how the government's fiscal management is performing over a medium term with short term fluctuations properly diminished.
You have to make a distinction between on-line polls, and telephone polls. The former are very prone to 'enthusiasm' bias: as we see in these august pages, the Kippers are terribly excited; that makes them much more likely to respond to a poll if they are members of a panel which is sent an invitation to participate in a political poll. Therefore it is almost certainly correct to weight them down in such polls, possibly by quite a lot. The unknown, of course, is by how much.
Considering just the on-line polls for the moment, we can see a huge disagreement between Survation, ComRes and Opinium on the one hand, and Populus on the other. The former routinely report UKIP figures in the 16-19% range, the latter in the 7-8% range. YouGov seems to be somewhere in the middle.
Normally we might be able to form a view on which is more likely to be correct by looking at the telephone polls, where the typical UKIP figure is around 10% or 11%, but they in turn might be subject to error because of the past-vote weighting.
I suspect that the telephone polls are a better guide, but we shall only really know the answer when the election comes and then only if, in the polls leading up to the election, the discrepancy persists.
Richard
UKIP supporters can't remember where they placed their spectacles five minutes ago.
Can pollsters really expect them to remember how they voted in May 2010?
OGH's big red marker pen should be drawing an arrow which points at the 208/10% figures not the 21/1% ones.
Wonderful stuff Avery, I will remember these cheap insults from you and your shambles of a party when you are whinging that it was UKIP that stopped you getting a majority in 2015.
Being rude about people whose support you want is a strange strategy.
Being rude about kippers who are inconsistent, hysterical and irreconcilable is OK. They won't vote any other way, so it's not worth trying to gain their support.
It's your tree Perdix. You're the one who's sitting in it.
Lots of classical analogies to describe George Osborne, but I don't think I've yet seen anyone else comment on the fact that there's a George Osborne in Vanity Fair.
An unpleasant character with a high degree of self-entitlement as I remember.
He was killed at Waterloo:
'Darkness came down on the field; and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart'
Well, my free tip to any fellow PB gardeners is this: it makes no difference when you plant spring bulbs. Some years I'm organised and plant them in early autumn and some years - like this year - I plant them at Xmas (the last of the tulips went in this morning) and, when I've been particularly lazy or busy, I've even planted them in January - and they still come up when they feel like it.
Mind you, it has been so mild this winter, that I've still got roses blooming and a melianthus and salvia still growing strongly.
Merry Xmas to all - our festivities start on Xmas Eve, like all good Neapolitans!
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion."
Now lets have a look at what happened:
2010-11 £139bn 2011-12 £118bn 2012-13 £115bn 2013-14 £110bn est
Looks like George is down by £68bn so far.
Fancy a bet that he'll meant his target ?
I will bet that the March 2015 EFO published by the OBR concludes that George Osborne is meeting the Primary Fiscal Mandate and, additionally, that he will have done so throughout the 2010-2015 parliamentary term.
Suggest your odds and stake, ar.
I'll bet that government borrowing of 2010-11 to 2014-15 exceeds the £451bn which George Osborne predicted it would be.
Suggest your odds and stake Avery.
Pointing out that George undershot the 2010 OBR forecasts is as relevant as demonstrating that he exceeded the 2013 OBR and OECD, and IMF and almost all other external forecasts.
Forecasts come and go. Sometimes they are met, sometimes undershot, sometimes exceeded.
The key measure is not short term forecast targets but the rolling five year primary fiscal mandate. That gives us a view of how the government's fiscal management is performing over a medium term with short term fluctuations properly diminished.
Fiscal mandate it is, ar.
Name your weapons and second.
I deal in official numbers Avery not bolloxspeak which is all you're capable of producing.
So I repeat do you want to bet that government borrowing between 2010-11 and 2014-15 is over or under the £451bn which George Osborne said it would be.
Yes of No Avery and no more pretentious crap in an attempt to look intellectual.
If irs No then your boy George has lost and its a chickensuit for you in the Christmas presents.
Lots of classical analogies to describe George Osborne, but I don't think I've yet seen anyone else comment on the fact that there's a George Osborne in Vanity Fair.
An unpleasant character with a high degree of self-entitlement as I remember.
He was killed at Waterloo:
'Darkness came down on the field; and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart'
No one emerges well from Vanity Fair
It is a wonderful book, though. Cynical and sardonic and humorous and a tremendous guide to early 19th C life - far better than Dickens. We badly need a Vanity Fair for our times: it seems to me we are living through a similar time when worship of money, amorality and the appearance of things are the guiding spirits of our age.
I've had him down as the Artabanus to David Cameron's Xerxes I.
Was Artabanus a eunuch?
You may be thinking of Artabanus as portrayed in Metastasio's libretto for his opera Artaserse. In Riccardo Broschi's 1734 version of the opera, Artabanus was sung by Farinelli, arguably the most famous castrato singer of all time.
The aria of Artabanus most often performed is "Son qual nave ch'agitata". Here is a version from the film "Farinelli":
Interestingly, the castrato voice projected in the film was a blend of a male counter-tenor and female soprano voices. The singers were were Derek Lee Ragin (countertenor) and Ewa Malas-Godlewska (soprano).
Anyway tonight's hero is Daniel Levy. Its ashame he didn't appoint Zola which would have netted me about 400 squid, but at least the risk free profit of £20 on Sherwood came in and freed up 600 of liquidity !
Lots of classical analogies to describe George Osborne, but I don't think I've yet seen anyone else comment on the fact that there's a George Osborne in Vanity Fair.
An unpleasant character with a high degree of self-entitlement as I remember.
He was killed at Waterloo:
'Darkness came down on the field; and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart'
WRT to kippers, I can't lose. Either their vote will fail to materialize, which will be amusing as they sob gently into their Nige shrines. Or it will and they get a Milliband government, which will be even more amusing as the realization of what they have achieved dawn's on them. BNP for pussies, provides amusement in either event.
This UKIP-is-the-BNP-in-tweed schtick is getting tiresome.
Personally, I think a Milliband government will be one term only, its internal contradictions will rip it apart when faced with the reality of the economy and the demand the public sector places upon it.
The key aim for me is that the Cameroons/modernisers are comprehensively defeated and shown to be completely wrong. The key point to realise about the Conservative Party is how obsessed they are about being in power. Once they realise they will never regain power in the place they are on the political spectrum, they will shift. They have done so throughout the 20th Century, that's why they've been so successful.
As for Ukippers, their problem is winning a referendum with a pro-EU Government in power. Virtually impossible, that's why plebiscites have such a bad reputation. We have had an example of this recently with the referendum on AV. That's also why PBers shouldn't be too quick to write off Alex Salmond in Scotland, he is First Minister in control of the Scottish Government.
After the Conservative Party re-aligns (or less likely, UKIP replaces the Conservative Party), the EU-exit referendum becomes winnable.
ESA95 sounds like quite the accounting fiction. I assume ESA10 will be analogous to the more up to date IAS/IFRS which have a far more honest approach to the balance sheet (Or Statement of financial position as it is now known)...
In fact your treatment of the assets and liabilities sounds RIGHT OUT of the Gordon Brown playbook >.>
It is not my treatment, Pulpstar: it is the current internationally agreed standard treatment.
National Accounts are much more difficult to rule for than corporate accounts due to the difficulty of capturing data and the different accounting treatment of such data in the massive range of sources.
The standards for National Accounts are slowly being improved but there will still be many weaknesses and inconsistencies even after the implementation of ESA10.
For example, 'Maastricht' debt, as submitted by each EU country to Brussels is calculated on a gross basis (i.e. related assets are not netted off). UK National Accounts state net debt.
There is enough inconsistency there to keep another richard in bets for years!
Lots of classical analogies to describe George Osborne, but I don't think I've yet seen anyone else comment on the fact that there's a George Osborne in Vanity Fair.
An unpleasant character with a high degree of self-entitlement as I remember.
He was killed at Waterloo:
'Darkness came down on the field; and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart'
No one emerges well from Vanity Fair
It is a wonderful book, though. Cynical and sardonic and humorous and a tremendous guide to early 19th C life - far better than Dickens. We badly need a Vanity Fair for our times: it seems to me we are living through a similar time when worship of money, amorality and the appearance of things are the guiding spirits of our age.
Bonfire of the Vanities was supposed to fill that niche.
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion."
Now lets have a look at what happened:
2010-11 £139bn 2011-12 £118bn 2012-13 £115bn 2013-14 £110bn est
Looks like George is down by £68bn so far.
Fancy a bet that he'll meant his target ?
I will bet that the March 2015 EFO published by the OBR concludes that George Osborne is meeting the Primary Fiscal Mandate and, additionally, that he will have done so throughout the 2010-2015 parliamentary term.
Suggest your odds and stake, ar.
I'll bet that government borrowing of 2010-11 to 2014-15 exceeds the £451bn which George Osborne predicted it would be.
Suggest your odds and stake Avery.
Pointing out that George undershot the 2010 OBR forecasts is as relevant as demonstrating that he exceeded the 2013 OBR and OECD, and IMF and almost all other external forecasts.
Forecasts come and go. Sometimes they are met, sometimes undershot, sometimes exceeded.
The key measure is not short term forecast targets but the rolling five year primary fiscal mandate. That gives us a view of how the government's fiscal management is performing over a medium term with short term fluctuations properly diminished.
Fiscal mandate it is, ar.
Name your weapons and second.
I deal in official numbers Avery not bolloxspeak which is all you're capable of producing.
So I repeat do you want to bet that government borrowing between 2010-11 and 2014-15 is over or under the £451bn which George Osborne said it would be.
Yes of No Avery and no more pretentious crap in an attempt to look intellectual.
If irs No then your boy George has lost and its a chickensuit for you in the Christmas presents.
The problem that the main parties have in trying to appeal to Ukip supporters is that it is quite hard to identify who they are and what they support. They are a supposedly libertarian party with considerable support amongst social conservatives. Their anti-immigration message appeals to the Tory blue-rinser brigade and Labour's D/E heartlands (neither of which identifies with the other). They can't be out-Ukipped on Europe (don't even try Dave!). Polling data indicates them to be reliably negative and cynical, so it is unlikely good news will do the trick. I think that leaves the Tories flogging welfare reform and jobs, with a side order of Euro-bashing and Labour flogging cost of living, each to no real effect.
Largely agree with that, which is why I tend to agree with Mike and think UKIP will do pretty well. But to the extent that they draw from normal non-voters and don't actually win, it won't affect the result (though it will affect the climate of opinion).
None of the grassroots party people (me, for example) see the full picture, because we mainly get a dialogue with people who are wavering between our party and UKIP (which is not many in my suburban patch). If someone tells me "No, I'm not Labour" and shuts the door, I've no idea if he'll vote and who for, except by looking at past votes.
A couple of questions to reflect on:
1. How much does the Euro result matter?
I think it matters a lot to the third placed party. If UKIP win, people will say yeah, that's because it's Europe. If Labour wins, people will say, that because UKIP borrowed Tory votes this time. In both cases it'll give a boost to morale, but nothing decisive. If the Tories win, it'll be interesting, but IMO that won't happen.
But third? If UKIP are third, they'll be seen as fading out. If Labour or the Tories are third, there will be some serious soul-searching. Personally I expect Labour and UKIP to be neck and neck with the Tories well back.
2. What are 2010 LibDem don't knows really like?
There are lots of them - maybe 30% of their 2010 vote. Are they disgruntled but will drift back in the end? Are they disillusioned with politics, yet unwilling to vote UKIP, so won't vote? Are they going to follow those who have already mo ed to other parties? Are they mostly longstanding LIbDems or people who drifted over after the Cleggasm?
The ones I meet are unhappy with the government but often still quite LibDem at heart and vote readily for them at local level. They will, I think, mostly vote, and split fasirly evenly Lib/Lab with a few to other parties. But that's not any kind of scientific finding, just an impression. What do others think?
There are lots of them - maybe 30% of their 2010 vote. Are they disgruntled but will drift back in the end? Are they disillusioned with politics, yet unwilling to vote UKIP, so won't vote? Are they going to follow those who have already mo ed to other parties? Are they mostly longstanding LIbDems or people who drifted over after the Cleggasm?
The ones I meet are unhappy with the government but often still quite LibDem at heart and vote readily for them at local level. They will, I think, mostly vote, and split fasirly evenly Lib/Lab with a few to other parties. But that's not any kind of scientific finding, just an impression. What do others think?
I suspect a decent chunk of them will simply not vote, similarly to Lab voters in 2010 who weren't close enough to any other major party to switch sides but didn't feel comfortable actively supporting them at the ballot box. The rest will split depending on values, constituency situation (polls suggest so far that more will stick with the LDs if they are facing the Tories, but desert them if facing Labour) and election campaigning (which is why the LDs believe they can climb back to 13-15% or so).
UKIP supporters can't remember where they placed their spectacles five minutes ago.
Can pollsters really expect them to remember how they voted in May 2010?
OGH's big red marker pen should be drawing an arrow which points at the 208/10% figures not the 21/1% ones.
Wonderful stuff Avery, I will remember these cheap insults from you and your shambles of a party when you are whinging that it was UKIP that stopped you getting a majority in 2015.
Being rude about people whose support you want is a strange strategy.
I said back in 2011 that the Cameroons will lash out in all directions as their ship sinks.
The one group which they wont lay any blame against are themselves.
The sense of entitlement really does play badly.
Yes, they are pretty disgusting. They blamed their own party members for not winning a majority, the Chumocracy, of course, having played a perfect game. That explains their sheer contempt for their membership, who having finally got the message how they are viewed (swivel-eyed loons ring any bells?) have gone to UKIP or simply left the Tory Party.
Frankly, David Cameron's inability to win a majority against Gordon Brown and being outshone by Clegg in the debates shows his lack of political skill. Big Society? What voluntary group has Cameron ever run? The Conservative Party - and he's trashed that.
But I have a deeper explanation for Cameron and Osborne's political incompetence. They are both dyed-in-the-wool politicos with very little experience of ordinary life.
Economists have been often criticised for trying to fit the people to their models rather than their models to the people. Politicos are similar, trying to fit the electorate (and party membership) to their political theories, rather than the other way round. Furthermore, both economics and politics are social sciences, not natural ones. They both depend on an intimate knowledge of how people will react and Cameron and Osborne's youth and very limited experience of ordinary people (Bullingdon?) leaves them very short of that intimate knowledge.
So, how do they react when the world doesn't agree with their nice theories? They lash out like petulant children against those closest to whom upon whom they rely.
UKIP supporters can't remember where they placed their spectacles five minutes ago.
Can pollsters really expect them to remember how they voted in May 2010?
OGH's big red marker pen should be drawing an arrow which points at the 208/10% figures not the 21/1% ones.
Wonderful stuff Avery, I will remember these cheap insults from you and your shambles of a party when you are whinging that it was UKIP that stopped you getting a majority in 2015.
Being rude about people whose support you want is a strange strategy.
I said back in 2011 that the Cameroons will lash out in all directions as their ship sinks.
The one group which they wont lay any blame against are themselves.
The sense of entitlement really does play badly.
Yes, they are pretty disgusting. They blamed their own party members for not winning a majority, the Chumocracy, of course, having played a perfect game. That explains their sheer contempt for their membership, who having finally got the message how they are viewed (swivel-eyed loons ring any bells?) have gone to UKIP or simply left the Tory Party.
Frankly, David Cameron's inability to win a majority against Gordon Brown and being outshone by Clegg in the debates shows his lack of political skill. Big Society? What voluntary group has Cameron ever run? The Conservative Party - and he's trashed that.
But I have a deeper explanation for Cameron and Osborne's political incompetence. They are both dyed-in-the-wool politicos with very little experience of ordinary life.
Economists have been often criticised for trying to fit the people to their models rather than their models to the people. Politicos are similar, trying to fit the electorate (and party membership) to their political theories, rather than the other way round. Furthermore, both economics and politics are social sciences, not natural ones. They both depend on an intimate knowledge of how people will react and Cameron and Osborne's youth and very limited experience of ordinary people (Bullingdon?) leaves them very short of that intimate knowledge.
So, how do they react when the world doesn't agree with their nice theories? They lash out like petulant children against those closest to whom upon whom they rely.
And some posters lash out when they are annoyed that their political opponents are achieving some success with the economy, education, welfare, etc, and they can only find insults to make a point.
UKIP supporters can't remember where they placed their spectacles five minutes ago.
Can pollsters really expect them to remember how they voted in May 2010?
OGH's big red marker pen should be drawing an arrow which points at the 208/10% figures not the 21/1% ones.
Wonderful stuff Avery, I will remember these cheap insults from you and your shambles of a party when you are whinging that it was UKIP that stopped you getting a majority in 2015.
Being rude about people whose support you want is a strange strategy.
I said back in 2011 that the Cameroons will lash out in all directions as their ship sinks.
The one group which they wont lay any blame against are themselves.
The sense of entitlement really does play badly.
Yes, they are pretty disgusting. They blamed their own party members for not winning a majority, the Chumocracy, of course, having played a perfect game. That explains their sheer contempt for their membership, who having finally got the message how they are viewed (swivel-eyed loons ring any bells?) have gone to UKIP or simply left the Tory Party.
Frankly, David Cameron's inability to win a majority against Gordon Brown and being outshone by Clegg in the debates shows his lack of political skill. Big Society? What voluntary group has Cameron ever run? The Conservative Party - and he's trashed that.
But I have a deeper explanation for Cameron and Osborne's political incompetence. They are both dyed-in-the-wool politicos with very little experience of ordinary life.
Economists have been often criticised for trying to fit the people to their models rather than their models to the people. Politicos are similar, trying to fit the electorate (and party membership) to their political theories, rather than the other way round. Furthermore, both economics and politics are social sciences, not natural ones. They both depend on an intimate knowledge of how people will react and Cameron and Osborne's youth and very limited experience of ordinary people (Bullingdon?) leaves them very short of that intimate knowledge.
So, how do they react when the world doesn't agree with their nice theories? They lash out like petulant children against those closest to whom upon whom they rely.
And some posters lash out when they are annoyed that their political opponents are achieving some success with the economy, education, welfare, etc, and they can only find insults to make a point.
That's rich in relation to the Cameroons (on many occasions) and Anna Soubry (only just this Sunday).
UKIP supporters can't remember where they placed their spectacles five minutes ago.
Can pollsters really expect them to remember how they voted in May 2010?
OGH's big red marker pen should be drawing an arrow which points at the 208/10% figures not the 21/1% ones.
Wonderful stuff Avery, I will remember these cheap insults from you and your shambles of a party when you are whinging that it was UKIP that stopped you getting a majority in 2015.
Being rude about people whose support you want is a strange strategy.
I said back in 2011 that the Cameroons will lash out in all directions as their ship sinks.
The one group which they wont lay any blame against are themselves.
The sense of entitlement really does play badly.
Yes, they are pretty disgusting. They blamed their own party members for not winning a majority, the Chumocracy, of course, having played a perfect game. That explains their sheer contempt for their membership, who having finally got the message how they are viewed (swivel-eyed loons ring any bells?) have gone to UKIP or simply left the Tory Party.
Frankly, David Cameron's inability to win a majority against Gordon Brown and being outshone by Clegg in the debates shows his lack of political skill. Big Society? What voluntary group has Cameron ever run? The Conservative Party - and he's trashed that.
But I have a deeper explanation for Cameron and Osborne's political incompetence. They are both dyed-in-the-wool politicos with very little experience of ordinary life.
Economists have been often criticised for trying to fit the people to their models rather than their models to the people. Politicos are similar, trying to fit the electorate (and party membership) to their political theories, rather than the other way round. Furthermore, both economics and politics are social sciences, not natural ones. They both depend on an intimate knowledge of how people will react and Cameron and Osborne's youth and very limited experience of ordinary people (Bullingdon?) leaves them very short of that intimate knowledge.
So, how do they react when the world doesn't agree with their nice theories? They lash out like petulant children against those closest to whom upon whom they rely.
And some posters lash out when they are annoyed that their political opponents are achieving some success with the economy, education, welfare, etc, and they can only find insults to make a point.
Comments
Paddy Power waiting for announcement :P
I hope you're not suggesting that the 'recovery' is based on city funny money and building fake confidence through an ultimately damaging housing boom......
Because it certainly looks like it from here.
To many want to be Aias, Achilles or Agamemnon, but the parties would be better with a few more chaps like Nestor.
Mind you, playing in this windy, wet weather can't be pleasent.
Just in case I don't get a chance to post again:
Merry Christmas to you all!
I wish my brain was more like a computer and I could choose which bits of memory to keep and which to overwrite. Or have some form of secondary backup system more advanced than writing memories down.
"Ah, *that* ex-girlfriend. Nope, she'll have to go."
"That walk, in the rain, over the Eildon Hills? That's a keeper."
The sad things is I'd probably prefer to keep more memories of walks than of girlfriends ... ;-)
It looks like they're playing in April ...
http://www.europetheband.com/tourdates.html
That is, does it work when the UKIP vote share goes up between elections? Because if it doesn't, it's not much use.
I actually forgot the name of probably the second most important character in Bane of Souls (Francis) a few months after releasing it.
1) The first peace time coalition in decades
2) The emergence of a party to the right of the Tories.
3) Dave annoying his own base and being crap
4) Ed being even crapper than Dave
5) Clegg being consistently crapper than Ed.
6) In the next few months we could see a Ed/Nick crossover in the Mori leadership ratings.
I can't remember any of it now. Not one bit. It stayed in there for a few months and then fluttered merrily out of my ears. I guess my interest wasn't deep enough to maintain it.
Mind you, the fact I was doped up to the eyeballs on Codeine probably didn't help ...
I prefer the Silmarillion, to be honest.
I would've thought you'd prefer... Song of Songs, is it? Or Song of Solomon? Something like that.
Though I do like Ezekiel 23:20
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
I will use one scenario to expose its inadequacy in the current situation.
Suppose UKIP was a completely new party [ i.e. 0% in GE2010 ].
How would the pollsters have fealt with that ? Make the UKIP support 0% ?
They need to look at this again !
I hate no political opponents.
UKIP won't win any election by projecting themselves as a slighted and oppressed minority.
A fine man of principle who gave his life to his country on the playing fields of Waterloo.
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion."
Now lets have a look at what happened:
2010-11 £139bn
2011-12 £118bn
2012-13 £115bn
2013-14 £110bn est
Looks like George is down by £68bn so far.
Fancy a bet that he'll meant his target ?
Suggest your odds and stake, ar.
He was killed at Waterloo:
'Darkness came down on the field; and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart'
Suggest your odds and stake Avery.
I would be afraid of their bite if it wasn't for their dentures.
He has not felt it necessary to include the corresponding Royal Mail pension liabilities.
Such pension fund stealing makes me wonder if Avery has been a Labour politician at some point in the past.
The OBR series and ONS series are not completely compatible and require reconciliation but the overall direction and scale of borrowing reduction is clear to all.
I could have quoted the Treasury's Net Financing Requirement (based on Central Government Net Cash Requirement and its Public Sector equivalent). This would have given a better indication of how far actual borrowing (i.e. gilt issuance) is being reduced, but this would show massively better figures than the PSNB ex series.
I have been generous to George Odysseus's opponents, ar.
That is if you live outside central London.
Things can be different there.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_344397.pdf
Page 42 is the important one if anyone else wants a look.
You see its easy to demolish bullshitters when you have the facts at hand.
Now why didn't Osborne manage to do that to Labour when he was shadow Chancellor ?
All it needs to find the info is an open mind, a bit of common sense and an hour or two looking at the ONS.
Which of those was Osborne lacking in ?
The accounting treatment of the Royal Mail Pension Scheme does may sense, The government, preparing the Royal Mail for public sale, realised that the value of the company would be massively diminished if the floated enterprise had to meet future pension liabilities of its existing and former employees.
The government was committed to meet these liabilities for as long as the Royal Mail remained in the public sector, or at least the extent to which future liabilities could not be met from accrued assets in the Royal Mail Pension Fund. Under the public offer deal, the government retained its responsibility for meeting future liabilities accrued at the time of the sale. Effectively postmen retained their accrued state pensions.
As the government meets state pension liabilities out of general funds then there was no point in retaining the assets held in the former Royal Mail pension fund. The assets were transferred with the intent of being sold on the open market. The associated liabilities were rolled up into the government's future pension liabilities for the entire public sector.
Given the circumstances and the international accounting rules which currently apply to national accounts there was nothing dodgy at all about the accounting treatment of the transaction.
It should be noted however that a new set of accounting standards ESA10 will be implemented from late 2014. These do include rules for the accounting treatment of contingent liabilities and this should lead to a a more transparent treatment of all pension liabilities in National Accounts.
The ONS is due to publish a bulletin on the changes that will apply to the Royal Mail transaction as a result of ESA10 during the first half of 2014.
You are arguing how many angels can fit on the tip of a needle. Seasonal maybe, but not material to a long term view of PSNB ex figures.
FYI, the OBR series in my comment derives from the table on page 150 of OBR's December 2013 EFO.
The ONS series derive from the same document linked by you but from Table PSF2 on page 43, column PSNBex. I rounded the figures to the nearest billion.
Both documents are open on my pc, but I have no intention of referring to them again tonight.
ESA95 sounds like quite the accounting fiction. I assume ESA10 will be analogous to the more up to date IAS/IFRS which have a far more honest approach to the balance sheet (Or Statement of financial position as it is now known)...
In fact your treatment of the assets and liabilities sounds RIGHT OUT of the Gordon Brown playbook >.>
Forecasts come and go. Sometimes they are met, sometimes undershot, sometimes exceeded.
The key measure is not short term forecast targets but the rolling five year primary fiscal mandate. That gives us a view of how the government's fiscal management is performing over a medium term with short term fluctuations properly diminished.
Fiscal mandate it is, ar.
Name your weapons and second.
Mind you, it has been so mild this winter, that I've still got roses blooming and a melianthus and salvia still growing strongly.
Merry Xmas to all - our festivities start on Xmas Eve, like all good Neapolitans!
So I repeat do you want to bet that government borrowing between 2010-11 and 2014-15 is over or under the £451bn which George Osborne said it would be.
Yes of No Avery and no more pretentious crap in an attempt to look intellectual.
If irs No then your boy George has lost and its a chickensuit for you in the Christmas presents.
The aria of Artabanus most often performed is "Son qual nave ch'agitata". Here is a version from the film "Farinelli":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piYvb6wtjZY
Interestingly, the castrato voice projected in the film was a blend of a male counter-tenor and female soprano voices. The singers were were Derek Lee Ragin (countertenor) and Ewa Malas-Godlewska (soprano).
Personally, I think a Milliband government will be one term only, its internal contradictions will rip it apart when faced with the reality of the economy and the demand the public sector places upon it.
The key aim for me is that the Cameroons/modernisers are comprehensively defeated and shown to be completely wrong. The key point to realise about the Conservative Party is how obsessed they are about being in power. Once they realise they will never regain power in the place they are on the political spectrum, they will shift. They have done so throughout the 20th Century, that's why they've been so successful.
As for Ukippers, their problem is winning a referendum with a pro-EU Government in power. Virtually impossible, that's why plebiscites have such a bad reputation. We have had an example of this recently with the referendum on AV. That's also why PBers shouldn't be too quick to write off Alex Salmond in Scotland, he is First Minister in control of the Scottish Government.
After the Conservative Party re-aligns (or less likely, UKIP replaces the Conservative Party), the EU-exit referendum becomes winnable.
National Accounts are much more difficult to rule for than corporate accounts due to the difficulty of capturing data and the different accounting treatment of such data in the massive range of sources.
The standards for National Accounts are slowly being improved but there will still be many weaknesses and inconsistencies even after the implementation of ESA10.
For example, 'Maastricht' debt, as submitted by each EU country to Brussels is calculated on a gross basis (i.e. related assets are not netted off). UK National Accounts state net debt.
There is enough inconsistency there to keep another richard in bets for years!
None of the grassroots party people (me, for example) see the full picture, because we mainly get a dialogue with people who are wavering between our party and UKIP (which is not many in my suburban patch). If someone tells me "No, I'm not Labour" and shuts the door, I've no idea if he'll vote and who for, except by looking at past votes.
A couple of questions to reflect on:
1. How much does the Euro result matter?
I think it matters a lot to the third placed party. If UKIP win, people will say yeah, that's because it's Europe. If Labour wins, people will say, that because UKIP borrowed Tory votes this time. In both cases it'll give a boost to morale, but nothing decisive. If the Tories win, it'll be interesting, but IMO that won't happen.
But third? If UKIP are third, they'll be seen as fading out. If Labour or the Tories are third, there will be some serious soul-searching. Personally I expect Labour and UKIP to be neck and neck with the Tories well back.
2. What are 2010 LibDem don't knows really like?
There are lots of them - maybe 30% of their 2010 vote. Are they disgruntled but will drift back in the end? Are they disillusioned with politics, yet unwilling to vote UKIP, so won't vote? Are they going to follow those who have already mo ed to other parties? Are they mostly longstanding LIbDems or people who drifted over after the Cleggasm?
The ones I meet are unhappy with the government but often still quite LibDem at heart and vote readily for them at local level. They will, I think, mostly vote, and split fasirly evenly Lib/Lab with a few to other parties. But that's not any kind of scientific finding, just an impression. What do others think?
Frankly, David Cameron's inability to win a majority against Gordon Brown and being outshone by Clegg in the debates shows his lack of political skill. Big Society? What voluntary group has Cameron ever run? The Conservative Party - and he's trashed that.
But I have a deeper explanation for Cameron and Osborne's political incompetence. They are both dyed-in-the-wool politicos with very little experience of ordinary life.
Economists have been often criticised for trying to fit the people to their models rather than their models to the people. Politicos are similar, trying to fit the electorate (and party membership) to their political theories, rather than the other way round. Furthermore, both economics and politics are social sciences, not natural ones. They both depend on an intimate knowledge of how people will react and Cameron and Osborne's youth and very limited experience of ordinary people (Bullingdon?) leaves them very short of that intimate knowledge.
So, how do they react when the world doesn't agree with their nice theories? They lash out like petulant children against those closest to whom upon whom they rely.
Merry Christmas to everyonel at PB