Mr. Nabavi, one suspects Labour's opposition to a £26,000 per year cap on benefits will get raised by both Coalition parties. It was bonkers at the time and remains bonkers now.
It is a big Labour weak point. Mind you which party do the scroungers turn to - Doubt it is the coalition...
Quietly drop opposition I'd say... or Labour will 'not deny' that they will 'not reverse' it.
Ok, even more confusing is why Cameron should be trumpeting a pension indexation policy that delivered LOWER state pensions over this parliament than the old, pre-triple lock policy would have delivered.
Because he's smart?
He better be careful not to be too smart by half
I mean he's not polling very well amongst pensioners. Maybe they've noticed more than our media has?
''Irish unemployment has fallen from a peak of 15.1% to 12.5%, with the most rapid improvement happening in the last three months (with almost a 1% reduction). ''
Many left-orientated posters were arguing on here 18 months ago that Ireland's revival was effectively impossible because of its austerity policy.
''Irish unemployment has fallen from a peak of 15.1% to 12.5%, with the most rapid improvement happening in the last three months (with almost a 1% reduction). ''
Many left-orientated posters were arguing on here 18 months ago that Ireland's revival was effectively impossible because of its austerity policy.
Yes.
One of the nice things about the Eurozone from an economic theory perspective (rather than a being good for the people in it, which is of course a very different issue...) is that it allows us to test what is important for boosting a country's economy, with factors such as monetary policy and exchange rate taken out.
So, Germany: low deficits, low growth in government spending, liberal labour laws, no excessive consumer debt, strong manufacturing culture = good growth
Ireland: cut spending, liberalised labour laws, reduced private sector debt, cleaned up banks = recovering, albeit from a low level
France: increase spending, make it harder for firms to fire people = getting worse
A Zero spending review would be an excellent 'thing'. But I doubt Labour will go near that in a million years.
Well, they claim to be doing so. Quite how they will reconcile such an approach with their opposition to almost every single cut, let alone tell their supporters that they've decided to cut out a whole raft of spending which Osborne wasn't targeting, remains to be seen.
I really don't understand why they've gone down this route. Just as the Tories can't out-snake Milband in his cost-of-living snake oil, Labour can never win in a match of who is best placed to control public spending.
Richard
Labour always have the option of breaking out of Osborne's fiscal corset by ditching either or both of HS2 or Trident.
An electoral risk maybe, but one where the long term disadvantages may be outweighed by the short term electoral benefit of being able to offer a bounty of sweets to an austerity starved electorate.
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
Osborne has to be careful with his 25billion number.
Voters will see that overseas aid plus EU net contributions are in this ballpark.
I would have thought other voters will be asking how we can afford to contemplate reducing the additional rate of tax for the very richest (as floated by Cameron) while also having to deliver huge benefit cuts for the most vulnerable.
Trotsky and Stalin were just two of a number of men who lived in central Vienna in 1913 and whose lives were destined to mould, indeed to shatter, much of the 20th Century, writes Andy Walker.
This is one of GO's biggest failings. We have a sick oligopoly on continued taxpayer life support which is failing to lend to the business sector.
When he has broken up a mega bank, restored competition, got interest rates back to normal levels and restored commercial lending he can think about making the claim. In between he's simply fiddling the books in the hope that our bank failures can do a Lazarus.
I think there are two separate bank issues:
1. Whether the banks are fundamentally solvent 2. Whether there is a functioning market for providing banking services to businesses
Number one has clearly been sorted out. None of the UK banks need capital right now. There are all solvent.
However, number two has not been sorted out, and I agree with you that we need to increase competition in the sector to get lending to business moving again.
Ha Ha Ha , Typical Tory lies , you seem to have got your numbers mixed up just a bit. How embarrassing for the unionists, 62% want more powers or independence and so given the only way to get more power is to vote YES. More Tory lies and manipulation of numbers, LOL
A new poll for the No campaign has backfired after it found independence is more popular than the status quo.
The YouGov survey on behalf of Better Together, which gave respondents three options found only 29% of people in Scotland support the status quo – the position of the No campaign – with 30% of those polled saying they backed independence and 32% opting for more powers.
The SNP immediately seized on the results calling them embarrassing for the No campaign, which has repeatedly insisted it will not campaign for more powers.
Follow up to previous Commenting, SNP MSP Linda Fabiani said:
"What an embarrassing start to the year for the No campaign as their own poll boomerangs. The result tells us that independence is more popular than the status quo.
"And we know that the only way to ensure Scotland gets the powers over welfare and the economy that we need and to remove Trident is by voting Yes for independence this year.
"The No campaign has bizarrely asked questions on more powers for the parliament that they themselves blocked from the ballot paper. This poll is an absolute embarrassment.
"The reality is that this poll is consistent with a previous YouGov poll for the SNP that showed people want the Scottish Government to have powers over welfare, tax and pensions.
"But we know from history - and the latest revelations published this week - that Westminster parties can't be trusted to deliver any more powers at all for Scotland.
"All Scotland got after the 1979 referendum was 18 years of Tory Government we didn't vote for. It is clear Scotland couldn't trust a Tory government back then, so why should we trust Westminster now?
"A Yes vote is a vote for good government from Scotland, where decisions are made by the people who live and work here - not by a remote Westminster system."
However Better Together head Blair McDougall insisted the survey backed his own campaign’s anti-independence stance.
"The choice we face in September is between continuing the success of devolution as part of the wider UK or giving up on devolution and going it alone.
"Devolution has been a success and new tax-raising and borrowing powers are being delivered for our parliament. The three pro-devolution parties are committed to strengthening and continuing the success of the Scottish parliament.
"Even the SNP, after a vote to remain in the UK, will have to become a pro-devolution party. It is clear there is already strong support among their own voters for devolution."
Last week head of Better Together, Labour MP Alistair Darling, insisted the No campaign was not designed to define what follows a No vote and that the three parties who formed the anti-independence group would set out their own proposals at some point.
However the nationalists have argued that the No campaign must set out exactly what new powers will be handed to Scotland in the event of a No vote. The option of more powers was blocked from appearing on the ballot paper after the UK Government refused to back the idea.
Responding to the poll, A spokesman for Yes Scotland said: "What this survey shows is that most people want decisions about Scotland to be made in Scotland, and the only way to guarantee that is with a ‘yes’ vote in September. There is no option for 'more powers' on the ballot paper."
Trotsky and Stalin were just two of a number of men who lived in central Vienna in 1913 and whose lives were destined to mould, indeed to shatter, much of the 20th Century, writes Andy Walker.
Ok, even more confusing is why Cameron should be trumpeting a pension indexation policy that delivered LOWER state pensions over this parliament than the old, pre-triple lock policy would have delivered.
Because he's smart?
He better be careful not to be too smart by half
I mean he's not polling very well amongst pensioners. Maybe they've noticed more than our media has?
Neil
You are too demanding.
A 4.7% positive gap in the Basic State Pension over average earnings is a generous settlement by any measure.
Far better that than Gordon financing the increases by taking our gold to the pawn shop.
Richard, thanks for brightening up a cold January day with some mirth. The very idea that Labour give a toss ( to quote the SCoE ) is just risible.
True enough, but they seem to have trapped themselves into a position where they'll be saying they do, but won't be able to answer the most basic questions about how - or at least, not without alienating the support base.
You can see the dilemma they've made for themselves here, in an announcement which Labour did their level best to bury by releasing on the 19th December (!):
A 4.7% positive gap in the Basic State Pension over average earnings is a generous settlement by any measure.
I havent commented on the level of uprating, Avery. Just that flaunting the fact that you've screwed pensioners over is a rather original tactic to court pensioner votes with some potential for blowback.
''Irish unemployment has fallen from a peak of 15.1% to 12.5%, with the most rapid improvement happening in the last three months (with almost a 1% reduction). ''
Many left-orientated posters were arguing on here 18 months ago that Ireland's revival was effectively impossible because of its austerity policy.
This is the silliest proposal the government have come out with since they came top power.
The government is proposing to set up a 60mph speed limit for a 32-mile stretch of the M1, in an effort to cut air pollution and help traffic flow.
The Highways Agency says the new restriction would apply from 7am to 7pm, seven days a week.
It would be in place from junction 28, near Matlock, Derbyshire, to junction 35a, north of Rotherham.
The agency said the limit, which has been put out to consultation, was likely to remain for "several years".
In its document, it stated that the current use of the national 70mph speed limit for motorways was having "adverse impacts on air quality" in the area and that cutting it would reduce emissions.
Referendums are not a choice between 'the status quo' and 'not the status quo', they're a choice between 'the change on offer' and 'not the change on offer'.
Ah yes, the bizarre and somewhat arrogant belief by the No side that only they get to decide what the referendum is about and the terms of debate. Good luck with that.
Mick, hasn't the question been decided already? And isn't David correct that it is a simple choice between 'in' and 'out'?
Salmond clearly wanted 'In' or 'DevoMax'.
He has got what he wanted , only way to get the popular choices is YES. Cameron was too scared to have Devo Max included and so people have the choice of all or nothing. He is still running scared , spending millions trying to scare people but terrified to debate with Salmond.
I would have thought other voters will be asking how we can afford to contemplate reducing the additional rate of tax for the very richest (as floated by Cameron) while also having to deliver huge benefit cuts for the most vulnerable.
I see your point but I think that's an easier one to explain. After all, the top 1% pay 30% of all the taxes.
For me voters just do not understand how the chancellor can write giant cheques to poor countries and the EU and at the same time tell his own people to tighten their belts much further.
This is the silliest proposal the government have come out with since they came top power.
The government is proposing to set up a 60mph speed limit for a 32-mile stretch of the M1, in an effort to cut air pollution and help traffic flow.
The Highways Agency says the new restriction would apply from 7am to 7pm, seven days a week.
It would be in place from junction 28, near Matlock, Derbyshire, to junction 35a, north of Rotherham.
The agency said the limit, which has been put out to consultation, was likely to remain for "several years".
In its document, it stated that the current use of the national 70mph speed limit for motorways was having "adverse impacts on air quality" in the area and that cutting it would reduce emissions.
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
You've lost me, TSE. Are you saying that "Victorian" levels of inequality were a good thing? If not, how much more inequality would you like to see?
This is the silliest proposal the government have come out with since they came top power.
The government is proposing to set up a 60mph speed limit for a 32-mile stretch of the M1, in an effort to cut air pollution and help traffic flow.
The Highways Agency says the new restriction would apply from 7am to 7pm, seven days a week.
It would be in place from junction 28, near Matlock, Derbyshire, to junction 35a, north of Rotherham.
The agency said the limit, which has been put out to consultation, was likely to remain for "several years".
In its document, it stated that the current use of the national 70mph speed limit for motorways was having "adverse impacts on air quality" in the area and that cutting it would reduce emissions.
Labour always have the option of breaking out of Osborne's fiscal corset by ditching either or both of HS2 or Trident.
Trident's too small to have any impact on the public finances in the next parliament (£3bn or so a year from 2017). Similarly, HS2 represents a lot of dosh (£40+bn and counting), but spread over a period to 2032 (and counting).
Those might be examples of Edmund's token cuts which Labour could propose, but they don't really impact very much on the public finances in the next parliament.
This is one of GO's biggest failings. We have a sick oligopoly on continued taxpayer life support which is failing to lend to the business sector.
When he has broken up a mega bank, restored competition, got interest rates back to normal levels and restored commercial lending he can think about making the claim. In between he's simply fiddling the books in the hope that our bank failures can do a Lazarus.
I think there are two separate bank issues:
1. Whether the banks are fundamentally solvent 2. Whether there is a functioning market for providing banking services to businesses
Number one has clearly been sorted out. None of the UK banks need capital right now. There are all solvent.
However, number two has not been sorted out, and I agree with you that we need to increase competition in the sector to get lending to business moving again.
Well without getting too geeky about it, I would obviously disagree with point 1, imo I'd say we're about half way through it. Only now are banks volunteering to come off govt. life support programmes, but they're still getting a huge subsidy via historically low interest rates and state backed lending guarantees. In addition we have yet to see how much more mess sits in the Augean stables of UK banking since it would be a brave man who says PPI and rate fixing were only isolated problems.
So yes while you can argue that the banks are technically solvent, I would question if some of them would be so were it not for taxpayer support. Some of them are out of the woods but there are still a lot of walking wounded.
The thought is that once an ISP stops routing traffic indiscriminately and starts censoring, for example, sites about politics and betting, they cease to be a "common carrier" and become responsible for the content that they do carry. So if somebody says something defamatory about you on Twitter, you can sue not only the person who said it, but also any any censorship-compliant ISP that transmitted it to the readers.
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
You've lost me, TSE. Are you saying that "Victorian" levels of inequality were a good thing? If not, how much more inequality would you like to see?
My tongue may have been in the vicinity of my cheek.
But the Victorian era wasn't all bad, the British Empire was at its zenith and Arthur Conan Doyle was producing his Sherlock novels and stories.
I think that Osborne's speech was attempting to do more than that today, quite apart from setting a very clear trap for the Shadow Treasury team to navigate on cuts in this Parliament or in a future Labour Government. Osborne also then very craftily turned Labour's recent 'cost of living crisis' narrative into another timely reminder of Labour's woeful economic legacy, and therefore their responsibility for our far more straitened financial circumstances in the longer term.
The cost of living "debate" started by Miliband in his Conference speech was a bold and temporarily successful policy to get back to what Labour does best. In short ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you.
Osborne is attempting to get this back to where the tories feel comfortable, namely discussing where the further cuts are going to fall. Labour find this very difficult territory as their campaign is all about goodies for selected groups. Will Osborne succeed? The key obvious fact in his corner is a deficit of £100bn a year that needs serious sorting. No one can credibly argue this is a state with money to burn.
But does the population as a whole want to hear more pain? I think that is harder to answer. I am just sure that it is a better conversation for the tories to have with the electorate than the one they have been having for the last 3 months.
This is one of GO's biggest failings. We have a sick oligopoly on continued taxpayer life support which is failing to lend to the business sector.
When he has broken up a mega bank, restored competition, got interest rates back to normal levels and restored commercial lending he can think about making the claim. In between he's simply fiddling the books in the hope that our bank failures can do a Lazarus.
I think there are two separate bank issues:
1. Whether the banks are fundamentally solvent 2. Whether there is a functioning market for providing banking services to businesses
Number one has clearly been sorted out. None of the UK banks need capital right now. There are all solvent.
However, number two has not been sorted out, and I agree with you that we need to increase competition in the sector to get lending to business moving again.
Well without getting too geeky about it, I would obviously disagree with point 1, imo I'd say we're about half way through it. Only now are banks volunteering to come off govt. life support programmes, but they're still getting a huge subsidy via historically low interest rates and state backed lending guarantees. In addition we have yet to see how much more mess sits in the Augean stables of UK banking since it would be a brave man who says PPI and rate fixing were only isolated problems.
So yes while you can argue that the banks are technically solvent, I would question if some of them would be so were it not for taxpayer support. Some of them are out of the woods but there are still a lot of walking wounded.
And if interest rate rose anywhere near what we used to consider normal the banks would be back in deep doodoo because there is a huge amount of debt on their books that will go bad if rates rise.
True but HS2 is spending on us. There is a logic to it and a potential return. Voters see aid or contributions to the EU as simply dead money.
What flabbergasts many voters for me (and what is the true appeal of UKIP) is their MPs are meant to represent them but behave as if they are the honourable member for Strasbourg, Brussels, South Sudan or New Delhi.
Daily Telegraph - 30pc back Scottish independence as referendum phoney war ends " Less than a third of Scots want to leave the United Kingdom, according to an opinion poll published today as the phoney war over independence ends and the battle to win this year’s referendum starts in earnest.
Better Together, the pro-UK campaign, published a survey showing support for separation has stagnated at 30 per cent despite Alex Salmond recently unveiling his long-awaited blueprint for separation.
Support for remaining in the UK is more than twice as high (61 per cent), according to the You Gov poll, and more than third of Scots who voted SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election are opposed to independence."
*tears of laughter etc.*
You didn't understand the poll then?
Here's someone who did.
Anti-independence campaign shoot themselves in the foot by publishing YouGov poll that shows Scots are overwhelmingly opposed to the constitutional status quo
Incomprehensibly, 'Better Together' - the campaign that is fighting to maintain the constitutional status quo - has just published a YouGov poll revealing that the status quo is the least popular of three constitutional options...
More powers for the Scottish Parliament - 32% Full independence - 30% Status quo - 29%
This could be a bit of a political ticking time bomb for the SNP in the run up to the next Holyrood elections.
As big a political ticking time bomb as your curiously oft delayed scottish tory surge?
Referendums are not a choice between 'the status quo' and 'not the status quo', they're a choice between 'the change on offer' and 'not the change on offer'.
The change on offer in this case is independence, which very clearly has minority support. After all, those who want more powers for the Scottish parliament but not independence can only get to that position by voting No (unless they believe that Yes is going to lose by some distance and want to add a bit of pressure for their position). Either way, it's a good poll for Better Together.
He failed to notice the uptick in consumer confidence apparently. And the far more significant uptick in business confidence, and the increase in investment, and the increase in construction, and the ever more solid future orders figures, and the failures of France in adopting policies he was advocating for here, and the successes of Ireland in adopting an even more vigorous version of the policies adopted here, etc etc.
Labour always have the option of breaking out of Osborne's fiscal corset by ditching either or both of HS2 or Trident.
Trident's too small to have any impact on the public finances in the next parliament (£3bn or so a year from 2017). Similarly, HS2 represents a lot of dosh (£40+bn and counting), but spread over a period to 2032 (and counting).
Those might be examples of Edmund's token cuts which Labour could propose, but they don't really impact very much on the public finances in the next parliament.
I think they'd be more likely to propose some kind of tax, but you can get a lot of symbolic spending differences with £3 billion. The key to this game is that in election campaigns nobody wants to talk about the things the parties agree on and both sides want to talk up the way the other side differs from them. If you want to tell the voters what what a disaster it will be if the other side wins, you can't go around saying their policies are basically the same as yours. So you don't need much actual difference between the two parties' positions to make a lot of noise and create the impression of some vast ideological gulf.
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
You've lost me, TSE. Are you saying that "Victorian" levels of inequality were a good thing? If not, how much more inequality would you like to see?
My tongue may have been in the vicinity of my cheek.
But the Victorian era wasn't all bad, the British Empire was at its zenith and Arthur Conan Doyle was producing his Sherlock novels and stories.
Makes you proud to be British.
Conan Doyle obviously did a much better job than Mark Gatiss,
On the thread topic rather like England cricket side down under I'd suggest the Tories don't want to be caught out fighting the next battle relying on outmoded strategies that worked in the previous one. People are now far more aware than they were in 2010 of the taxpayer funded largesse doled out to wealthy pensioners, many of whom have switched to UKIP anyway. That doesn't mean it's an all or nothing situation. Minor reforms should be introduced to make the winter fuel allowance and other pensioner benefits taxable which would quell any resentment. Poorer pensioners who don't pay tax would be unaffected.
The thought is that once an ISP stops routing traffic indiscriminately and starts censoring, for example, sites about politics and betting, they cease to be a "common carrier" and become responsible for the content that they do carry. So if somebody says something defamatory about you on Twitter, you can sue not only the person who said it, but also any any censorship-compliant ISP that transmitted it to the readers.
Three points need to be made in relation to that. (1) The interpretation of 'select or modify' must be read in line with CJEU case law, and the Directive must be read as a whole. (2) Directives do not take direct effect in law in the United Kingdom. Whether ISPs' censorship plans affect their liability in English law will thus depend on the terms of incorporation. (3) If, however, the argument posted is right, then ISPs would become liable not merely in defamation, but in criminal law for offences committed via the internet by their customers. Either they have negligent lawyers, or are mad.
Ireland now runs a trade surplus, has sorted out its banks, and is showing annualised GDP growth of close 4% a year. I suspect unemployment will be below 10% by the the end of this year, and government debt-to-GDP should start falling this year.
I see Ireland's December services PMI was 61.8 - no sign of the recent acceleration dropping off.
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
You've lost me, TSE. Are you saying that "Victorian" levels of inequality were a good thing? If not, how much more inequality would you like to see?
My tongue may have been in the vicinity of my cheek.
But the Victorian era wasn't all bad, the British Empire was at its zenith and Arthur Conan Doyle was producing his Sherlock novels and stories.
Makes you proud to be British.
Conan Doyle obviously did a much better job than Mark Gatiss,
Oh behave.
Last night's episode was sensationally brilliant, the Conan Doyle fans and the ratings back me up.
Referendums are not a choice between 'the status quo' and 'not the status quo', they're a choice between 'the change on offer' and 'not the change on offer'.
Ah yes, the bizarre and somewhat arrogant belief by the No side that only they get to decide what the referendum is about and the terms of debate. Good luck with that.
Mick, hasn't the question been decided already? And isn't David correct that it is a simple choice between 'in' and 'out'?
Salmond clearly wanted 'In' or 'DevoMax'.
The infamous porridge factory photos may bave overshadowed what happened at the time of the Edinburgh agreement a year or so ago. What Mr S actually said was he wanted indy full stop, but because so many people - a majority or at least plurality in the polls at the time - wanted devo max (essentially, full fiscal and other indy apart from foreign affairs and defence as I recall), he felt he morally had to push for it to be offered as well even though he did not want it. This surprised me very much at the time (which is why I remember it so well) and I was even more surprised when Mr Cameron refused with contumely when he would have won the referendum hands down with devo max (at the price of moving Scotland another step towards full independence in the longer term).
Okay, even if he could square it with enough of his backbenchers not to cause a leadership crisis in the Tory Party, Mr C would have had a problem getting devo max past the EWNI MPS and electorate after the incessant rain of sponging Scots stories - it was only after that that the No campaign started to backpedal on that, and the message still has not percolated to the Daily Mail readers etc. So Mr S was seen to do the decent democratic thing, and Mr C was seen to chicken out and to be very antidemocratic to the Scots - and it is not as if his party and the LDs collectively have many MPs in Scotland.
The result is that the devo maxers have to decide which way to go and it is still nine months before they really start. This is not an election but requires a mind shift to vote yes, and that takes time, especially if it does not need to be done now, so I hesitate to put too much reliance on the polls either way. Who called the bets rightly is of course the question, and we'll have to wait and see. But one interpretation is that Salmond saw Cameron coming a mile off and played a very neat, if high risk, zugzwang.
This could be a bit of a political ticking time bomb for the SNP in the run up to the next Holyrood elections. STV News - Teachers 'angry and frustrated' with new National exam structure "Increased workloads for teachers caused by the new National exams are impacting on Scottish pupils' lessons, educators have warned.
The EIS union said it was seeing an "unprecedented" level of concern from teachers frustrated with the amount of administration needed to deliver the exams.
Many teachers have also expressed concerns that the extra pressure will have a negative impact on lessons, the union said.
The first set of students taught the new qualification will sit exams in the spring but teachers have cited a lack of support from the body that developed the changes.
In a survey carried out by the EIS, they raised concerns over poor quality materials provided by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), frequent revisions to guideline documents and the "cumbersome" assessment process."
What bollocks, when are Teachers ever not moaning about their 17 weeks holidays , gold plated pensions and 6 hour days. The EIS are a bunch of out of touch fann****
Well without getting too geeky about it, I would obviously disagree with point 1, imo I'd say we're about half way through it. Only now are banks volunteering to come off govt. life support programmes, but they're still getting a huge subsidy via historically low interest rates and state backed lending guarantees. In addition we have yet to see how much more mess sits in the Augean stables of UK banking since it would be a brave man who says PPI and rate fixing were only isolated problems.
So yes while you can argue that the banks are technically solvent, I would question if some of them would be so were it not for taxpayer support. Some of them are out of the woods but there are still a lot of walking wounded.
Half way through!
In 2005, Lloyds TSB has a tier one ratio of 5.4%. Very basically, this meant that for every pound of risky loans to customers, it carried 5p of its own money. It now carries almost three times that level - 14.3% at end of 2013. In addition, it has written off £71 billion pounds of bad loans in the intervening period. So, it's got rid of a large number of bad loans and carries three times the amount of capital for the remainder. I can't think of a single large bank in the world that has more capital than Lloyds TSB.
The story with RBS is similar, although it came from a worse place. Tier one has gone from a miserly 3.8% to 10% and they have written off more than £50bn of bad loans. Yes, they should probably increase their equity capital further - but (after taking bad debt charges in the first half of the year) the business is now profitable and so capital should naturally build every quarter.
Labour always have the option of breaking out of Osborne's fiscal corset by ditching either or both of HS2 or Trident.
Trident's too small to have any impact on the public finances in the next parliament (£3bn or so a year from 2017). Similarly, HS2 represents a lot of dosh (£40+bn and counting), but spread over a period to 2032 (and counting).
Those might be examples of Edmund's token cuts which Labour could propose, but they don't really impact very much on the public finances in the next parliament.
As an American senator on a Senate Committee once said - A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money.
Its precisely the sort of nonsense I'd expect from the Greens. Or Chris Huhne.
It's come from the professionals who are paid to manage our motorways. Feel free to read through the consultation document and let them (and us!) know which parts are nonsense:
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
You've lost me, TSE. Are you saying that "Victorian" levels of inequality were a good thing? If not, how much more inequality would you like to see?
My tongue may have been in the vicinity of my cheek.
But the Victorian era wasn't all bad, the British Empire was at its zenith and Arthur Conan Doyle was producing his Sherlock novels and stories.
Makes you proud to be British.
Conan Doyle obviously did a much better job than Mark Gatiss,
Oh behave.
Last night's episode was sensationally brilliant, the Conan Doyle fans and the ratings back me up.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
Nonsense Mr Eagles. Last night's episode was like watching Caesar dress up like a Pharaoh, it makes you want to buy Brutus a new set of kitchen knives.
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
You've lost me, TSE. Are you saying that "Victorian" levels of inequality were a good thing? If not, how much more inequality would you like to see?
My tongue may have been in the vicinity of my cheek.
But the Victorian era wasn't all bad, the British Empire was at its zenith and Arthur Conan Doyle was producing his Sherlock novels and stories.
Makes you proud to be British.
Conan Doyle obviously did a much better job than Mark Gatiss,
Oh behave.
Last night's episode was sensationally brilliant, the Conan Doyle fans and the ratings back me up.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
In last night's episode, Sherlock inferred that a man had erectile dysfunction from the shape of his shoes.
Mr. Tokyo, your summary reminds me of councils not trying to grit or remove ice from pavements in winter. If they do so but someone slips and falls they're liable for compensation (I believe). But if they don't even try and leave them icy then they are not liable. It's crackers.
Its precisely the sort of nonsense I'd expect from the Greens. Or Chris Huhne.
It's come from the professionals who are paid to manage our motorways. Feel free to read through the consultation document and let them (and us!) know which parts are nonsense:
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
Around junctions 33 to 34, there's generally congestion due to the location of Meadowhall, The Hallam FM Arena and the fact it becomes a two lane motorway at 34 for a bit.
The queues can stretch for a few junctions.
Please note, at Meadowhall, is where they are planning to build the HS2 station for Sheffield, so it will become even more congested.
Reducing the speed limit around this area, has to be the worst idea since The Frogs invented the Maginot Line to stop a German invasion.
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
You've lost me, TSE. Are you saying that "Victorian" levels of inequality were a good thing? If not, how much more inequality would you like to see?
My tongue may have been in the vicinity of my cheek.
But the Victorian era wasn't all bad, the British Empire was at its zenith and Arthur Conan Doyle was producing his Sherlock novels and stories.
Makes you proud to be British.
Conan Doyle obviously did a much better job than Mark Gatiss,
Oh behave.
Last night's episode was sensationally brilliant, the Conan Doyle fans and the ratings back me up.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
Nonsense Mr Eagles. Last night's episode was like watching Caesar dress up like a Pharaoh, it makes you want to buy Brutus a new set of kitchen knives.
Paddy Power's reason for withdrawing sponsorship from the Rodman / North Korea basketball thing:
“It was really a reaction to the worldwide focus and total condemnation of the North Korean regime over recent events,” the betting firm said. “We don’t want to be associated with that.”
Because before recent events it was such a cuddly regime?! Have these people not even seen Team America?
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
You've lost me, TSE. Are you saying that "Victorian" levels of inequality were a good thing? If not, how much more inequality would you like to see?
My tongue may have been in the vicinity of my cheek.
But the Victorian era wasn't all bad, the British Empire was at its zenith and Arthur Conan Doyle was producing his Sherlock novels and stories.
Makes you proud to be British.
Conan Doyle obviously did a much better job than Mark Gatiss,
Oh behave.
Last night's episode was sensationally brilliant, the Conan Doyle fans and the ratings back me up.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
In last night's episode, Sherlock inferred that a man had erectile dysfunction from the shape of his shoes.
What would he infer from your shoes? ;-)
Most people infer from my shoes, that I'm a friend of Dorothy.
Well without getting too geeky about it, I would obviously disagree with point 1, imo I'd say we're about half way through it. Only now are banks volunteering to come off govt. life support programmes, but they're still getting a huge subsidy via historically low interest rates and state backed lending guarantees. In addition we have yet to see how much more mess sits in the Augean stables of UK banking since it would be a brave man who says PPI and rate fixing were only isolated problems.
So yes while you can argue that the banks are technically solvent, I would question if some of them would be so were it not for taxpayer support. Some of them are out of the woods but there are still a lot of walking wounded.
Half way through!
In 2005, Lloyds TSB has a tier one ratio of 5.4%. Very basically, this meant that for every pound of risky loans to customers, it carried 5p of its own money. It now carries almost three times that level - 14.3% at end of 2013. In addition, it has written off £71 billion pounds of bad loans in the intervening period. So, it's got rid of a large number of bad loans and carries three times the amount of capital for the remainder. I can't think of a single large bank in the world that has more capital than Lloyds TSB.
The story with RBS is similar, although it came from a worse place. Tier one has gone from a miserly 3.8% to 10% and they have written off more than £50bn of bad loans. Yes, they should probably increase their equity capital further - but (after taking bad debt charges in the first half of the year) the business is now profitable and so capital should naturally build every quarter.
HSBC was never financially stressed, of course.
Well Robert if they're all so financially sound why do they need continued subsidy in its various forms ? And since LBG has simply hacked back on lending are we looking at a sound bank or a bunch of blokes paretoing their customer base out of existence ? The ratios don't mean a lot if the banks aren't doing their job.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
This could be a bit of a political ticking time bomb for the SNP in the run up to the next Holyrood elections. STV News - Teachers 'angry and frustrated' with new National exam structure "Increased workloads for teachers caused by the new National exams are impacting on Scottish pupils' lessons, educators have warned.
The EIS union said it was seeing an "unprecedented" level of concern from teachers frustrated with the amount of administration needed to deliver the exams.
Many teachers have also expressed concerns that the extra pressure will have a negative impact on lessons, the union said.
The first set of students taught the new qualification will sit exams in the spring but teachers have cited a lack of support from the body that developed the changes.
In a survey carried out by the EIS, they raised concerns over poor quality materials provided by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), frequent revisions to guideline documents and the "cumbersome" assessment process."
What bollocks, when are Teachers ever not moaning about their 17 weeks holidays , gold plated pensions and 6 hour days. The EIS are a bunch of out of touch fann****
I have found it difficult to take the EIS seriously since they opposed the inclusion of at least a token amount of Scottish literature in the English syllabus. Now it's important that people get the chance to at least sample some of their local literature (I would wholeheartedly support, for instance, a little Hardy in teaching in Dorset). And this could be anything from a single poem to a short story or than a book, in plain English as well as Scots, and from any date right down to today, so it could in principle be anything from Burns through Stevenson and Spark to Welsh (though the actual selection was rather smaller). And the problem could not be the principle of set books alone. So the suspicion was that it was motivated purely by politics.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
A load of barristers are protesting about the legal aid cuts, Natalie Bennett of the Greens has chimed in, I'm even more in favour of the government's policy now.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
You've lost me, TSE. Are you saying that "Victorian" levels of inequality were a good thing? If not, how much more inequality would you like to see?
My tongue may have been in the vicinity of my cheek.
But the Victorian era wasn't all bad, the British Empire was at its zenith and Arthur Conan Doyle was producing his Sherlock novels and stories.
Makes you proud to be British.
Conan Doyle obviously did a much better job than Mark Gatiss,
Oh behave.
Last night's episode was sensationally brilliant, the Conan Doyle fans and the ratings back me up.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
Nonsense Mr Eagles. Last night's episode was like watching Caesar dress up like a Pharaoh, it makes you want to buy Brutus a new set of kitchen knives.
Were you watching the same episode as I?
Maybe not, the episode I was watching seemed to be written by Richard Curtis in gooey slop mode. It had as much suspense as discovering there was a murder in Midsomer.
Must say I wasn't too taken with last night's Sherlock. The first episode was better, and for 2/3 to be focused on non-crime issues (return of Sherlock and Watson's wedding) is a bit much. I also dislike Wife of Watson, whose role appears to be to remember things Sherlock inexplicably forgets (room 207) and to blatantly get two men whose jobs are to notice very subtle things to spend some time together without either one of them noticing.
Personally, I'd kill her in episode 3 of this series.
Mr. Tokyo, your summary reminds me of councils not trying to grit or remove ice from pavements in winter. If they do so but someone slips and falls they're liable for compensation (I believe). But if they don't even try and leave them icy then they are not liable. It's crackers.
In the private sector the upshot is government-enforced anarchism. Bitcoin is a good example: If you wanted to build a centralized payment processing company with really low-cost transactions and no right to get them reversed in the case of a dispute, you'd get killed by regulation and litigation. But do the thing as a p2p network and there's nobody to regulate or sue.
I don't think the governments of the world intended to force us to restructure the world economy on decentralized crypto-anarchist principles, but that's what they're doing, and I think I like it.
@DavidL SeanT might also want to add that David Blanchflower article to his library of early liberal commentaries on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration.
Further to the discussion about Gove, Boris has weighed in mightily on his behalf in the Telly....
Boris Johnson: Tristram Hunt should resign over First World War comments The Mayor of London says that if the shadow education secretary denies German militarism was at the root of the First World War he cannot be fit to oversee schools
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
My response begins to them, is when was the last time you drove on that stretch of road?
I did once begin a letter, with the following
"I see that concurrently being the Director of the Parking Partnership, and the local idiot at your village is leading to you confusing what your day job in Manchester is"
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
BDO, a firm of Chartered Accountants, which euphemistically and rather nauseatingly describes itself as "the firm known in the market for exceptional service delivered by empowered people" is the first external commentator/forecaster to predict December's Retail Sales.
It's conclusion is that retailers have experienced "a steady, but not spectacular, end to the year".
Of particular note is their observation that retailers have not pursued volume at the expense of margin to the same extent as last year. This bodes well for profits performance and sector stability.
Online sales have risen most and now account for nearly 20% of total. The winners and losers in the sector will be determined by those retailers which have best managed to balance these two distribution channels.
Figures released today from BDO’s December High Street Sales Tracker show overall like-for-like sales up 1.9% year-on-year.
While not the bumper end to the year some were hoping for, retailers will be breathing a sigh of relief after recovering from floundering sales in the week before Christmas (ending 16 December) which dipped 3.7% year-on-year.
...
[R]etailers were buoyed by a 30.9% year-on-year growth in non-store sales with shoppers becoming ever more comfortable with online purchasing – especially from big name brands - as well as making use of growing Wi-Fi and 4G coverage to pick up bargains while on the move.
My response begins to them, is when was the last time you drove on that stretch of road?
Er, the Highways Agency is out on all stretches of the motorway network all the time. And they have access to all the data all the time which is surely better than any one person's impression of what the traffic is like no matter how often they drive the route.
F1: apparently, to the surprise of no-one, new doubts have arisen regarding the 2015 plans for New Jersey (via the BBC's Gossip page). They should just axe it instead of shilly-shallying.
I've just given a speech setting out the long-term economic plan that the Conservatives are working through - and wanted to email you straightaway to explain what that means for you and for Britain.
Our economic plan builds a stronger, more competitive economy and secures a better future for Britain by:
Reducing the deficit so we deal with our debts, safeguard our economy for the long term and keep mortgage rates low Cutting income taxes and freezing fuel duty to help hardworking people feel more financially secure Creating more jobs by backing small business and enterprise with better infrastructure and lower jobs taxes Capping welfare and reducing immigration so our economy delivers for people who want to work hard and play by the rules Delivering the best schools and skills for young people so the next generation can succeed in the global race
The plan is working. For the first time in a long while, there's a real sense that Britain is on the rise. But it's far too soon to say job done - it's not even half done.
There are still plenty of risks, and the greatest one here at home is the Labour Party. Labour offer more spending, higher taxes and more borrowing. Their economic approach brought economic ruin once, and would do the same all over again. Why would you give the keys back to the people who crashed the car?
So this year Britain faces a choice: to go on working through the plan that is delivering for Britain, or to squander what we've achieved and go back to economic ruin.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
Well, it's indicative (although far from proof) that the stretch of road may have problems. And ISTR studies that show slower speeds do decrease congestion. Perhaps it's part of the rationale behind the variable speed limits they've introduced on some motorways such as the M42?
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
Well, it's indicative (although far from proof) that the stretch of road may have problems. And ISTR studies that show slower speeds do decrease congestion. Perhaps it's part of the rationale behind the variable speed limits they've introduced on some motorways such as the M42?
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
Well they widened between 30 and 32 a few years ago.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
Well, it's indicative (although far from proof) that the stretch of road may have problems. And ISTR studies that show slower speeds do decrease congestion. Perhaps it's part of the rationale behind the variable speed limits they've introduced on some motorways such as the M42?
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
Well they widened between 30 and 32 a few years ago.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
Well, it's indicative (although far from proof) that the stretch of road may have problems. And ISTR studies that show slower speeds do decrease congestion. Perhaps it's part of the rationale behind the variable speed limits they've introduced on some motorways such as the M42?
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
Well they widened between 30 and 32 a few years ago.
But you can't widen it at 34.
You could. But it'd cost a few quid.
You can't, the rail and tram tracks under/next to the flyover are immovable.
Mm, thanks, that's interesting - looks as if it is targeted at its members though rather than signing up the union leadership (not the same thing, of course).
Mm, thanks, that's interesting - looks as if it is targeted at its members though rather than signing up the union leadership (not the same thing, of course).
I think they've just realised that slagging off an organisation with a large membership and no official policy on independence is probably not a great tactic for winning a referendum!
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
Well, it's indicative (although far from proof) that the stretch of road may have problems. And ISTR studies that show slower speeds do decrease congestion. Perhaps it's part of the rationale behind the variable speed limits they've introduced on some motorways such as the M42?
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
Well they widened between 30 and 32 a few years ago.
But you can't widen it at 34.
You could. But it'd cost a few quid.
You can't, the rail and tram tracks under/next to the flyover are immovable.
Nothing's ever immovable in civil engineering. It's just a case of having people like me on hand with some explosives and diggers. (*) ;-)
I can imagine that this change might encourage some of he long-distance traffic onto the M18/A1(M) combo instead of the M1.
(*) I did type 'doggers', which gave the sentence a rather different meaning ...
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
Well, it's indicative (although far from proof) that the stretch of road may have problems. And ISTR studies that show slower speeds do decrease congestion. Perhaps it's part of the rationale behind the variable speed limits they've introduced on some motorways such as the M42?
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
Well they widened between 30 and 32 a few years ago.
But you can't widen it at 34.
You could. But it'd cost a few quid.
You can't, the rail and tram tracks under/next to the flyover are immovable.
Nothing's ever immovable in civil engineering. It's just a case of having people like me on hand with some explosives and diggers. (*) ;-)
I can imagine that this change might encourage some of he long-distance traffic onto the M18/A1(M) combo instead of the M1.
(*) I did type 'doggers', which gave the sentence a rather different meaning ...
But there's also The River Don, which is immovable.
He's also written to the made-up person who exists only as a signer of a petition on being mean to pedophiles or something they did a while back: http://mailinator.com/inbox.jsp?to=davidjobs
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
Lloyds is being broken up, with TSB being created. RBS is being broken up, with Williams & Glyn coming back into existence. HMG will sell down a substantial portion of its holding this year, just as the US Treasury has been exiting AIG.
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
Well, it's indicative (although far from proof) that the stretch of road may have problems. And ISTR studies that show slower speeds do decrease congestion. Perhaps it's part of the rationale behind the variable speed limits they've introduced on some motorways such as the M42?
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
Well they widened between 30 and 32 a few years ago.
But you can't widen it at 34.
You could. But it'd cost a few quid.
You can't, the rail and tram tracks under/next to the flyover are immovable.
Nothing's ever immovable in civil engineering. It's just a case of having people like me on hand with some explosives and diggers. (*) ;-)
I can imagine that this change might encourage some of he long-distance traffic onto the M18/A1(M) combo instead of the M1.
(*) I did type 'doggers', which gave the sentence a rather different meaning ...
But there's also The River Don, which is immovable.
Pah, how come the Russians could do it ? Typical Yorkshire.
Mr. Eagles, indeed. Millions of people emulate Hannibal's example rather than Caesar's. In the same way, people wish to reach old age in good health rather than being murdered by their close friends.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
Well, it's indicative (although far from proof) that the stretch of road may have problems. And ISTR studies that show slower speeds do decrease congestion. Perhaps it's part of the rationale behind the variable speed limits they've introduced on some motorways such as the M42?
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
Well they widened between 30 and 32 a few years ago.
But you can't widen it at 34.
You could. But it'd cost a few quid.
You can't, the rail and tram tracks under/next to the flyover are immovable.
Nothing's ever immovable in civil engineering. It's just a case of having people like me on hand with some explosives and diggers. (*) ;-)
I can imagine that this change might encourage some of he long-distance traffic onto the M18/A1(M) combo instead of the M1.
(*) I did type 'doggers', which gave the sentence a rather different meaning ...
But there's also The River Don, which is immovable.
Pah, how come the Russians could do it ? Typical Yorkshire.
Comments
Quietly drop opposition I'd say... or Labour will 'not deny' that they will 'not reverse' it.
ITV News @itvnews 4s View translation
German Chancellor Angela Merkel 'breaks pelvis' in skiing accident
http://itv.co/1hqk7Cb
I mean he's not polling very well amongst pensioners. Maybe they've noticed more than our media has?
Do a search for Krugeman and Ireland.
Voters will see that overseas aid plus EU net contributions are in this ballpark.
One of the nice things about the Eurozone from an economic theory perspective (rather than a being good for the people in it, which is of course a very different issue...) is that it allows us to test what is important for boosting a country's economy, with factors such as monetary policy and exchange rate taken out.
So, Germany: low deficits, low growth in government spending, liberal labour laws, no excessive consumer debt, strong manufacturing culture = good growth
Ireland: cut spending, liberalised labour laws, reduced private sector debt, cleaned up banks = recovering, albeit from a low level
France: increase spending, make it harder for firms to fire people = getting worse
Labour always have the option of breaking out of Osborne's fiscal corset by ditching either or both of HS2 or Trident.
An electoral risk maybe, but one where the long term disadvantages may be outweighed by the short term electoral benefit of being able to offer a bounty of sweets to an austerity starved electorate.
This is what Miss Bennett has said.
We are getting to a point where there won't be the legal aid available or access to justice that is vital for the functioning of a democracy. We are going back to Victorian times in terms of inequality in society.
Trotsky and Stalin were just two of a number of men who lived in central Vienna in 1913 and whose lives were destined to mould, indeed to shatter, much of the 20th Century, writes Andy Walker.
Which is it, Andy? Mould or shatter?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25576645
1. Whether the banks are fundamentally solvent
2. Whether there is a functioning market for providing banking services to businesses
Number one has clearly been sorted out. None of the UK banks need capital right now. There are all solvent.
However, number two has not been sorted out, and I agree with you that we need to increase competition in the sector to get lending to business moving again.
A new poll for the No campaign has backfired after it found independence is more popular than the status quo.
The YouGov survey on behalf of Better Together, which gave respondents three options found only 29% of people in Scotland support the status quo – the position of the No campaign – with 30% of those polled saying they backed independence and 32% opting for more powers.
The SNP immediately seized on the results calling them embarrassing for the No campaign, which has repeatedly insisted it will not campaign for more powers.
Commenting, SNP MSP Linda Fabiani said:
"What an embarrassing start to the year for the No campaign as their own poll boomerangs. The result tells us that independence is more popular than the status quo.
"And we know that the only way to ensure Scotland gets the powers over welfare and the economy that we need and to remove Trident is by voting Yes for independence this year.
"The No campaign has bizarrely asked questions on more powers for the parliament that they themselves blocked from the ballot paper. This poll is an absolute embarrassment.
"The reality is that this poll is consistent with a previous YouGov poll for the SNP that showed people want the Scottish Government to have powers over welfare, tax and pensions.
"But we know from history - and the latest revelations published this week - that Westminster parties can't be trusted to deliver any more powers at all for Scotland.
"All Scotland got after the 1979 referendum was 18 years of Tory Government we didn't vote for. It is clear Scotland couldn't trust a Tory government back then, so why should we trust Westminster now?
"A Yes vote is a vote for good government from Scotland, where decisions are made by the people who live and work here - not by a remote Westminster system."
However Better Together head Blair McDougall insisted the survey backed his own campaign’s anti-independence stance.
"The choice we face in September is between continuing the success of devolution as part of the wider UK or giving up on devolution and going it alone.
"Devolution has been a success and new tax-raising and borrowing powers are being delivered for our parliament. The three pro-devolution parties are committed to strengthening and continuing the success of the Scottish parliament.
"Even the SNP, after a vote to remain in the UK, will have to become a pro-devolution party. It is clear there is already strong support among their own voters for devolution."
Last week head of Better Together, Labour MP Alistair Darling, insisted the No campaign was not designed to define what follows a No vote and that the three parties who formed the anti-independence group would set out their own proposals at some point.
However the nationalists have argued that the No campaign must set out exactly what new powers will be handed to Scotland in the event of a No vote. The option of more powers was blocked from appearing on the ballot paper after the UK Government refused to back the idea.
Responding to the poll, A spokesman for Yes Scotland said: "What this survey shows is that most people want decisions about Scotland to be made in Scotland, and the only way to guarantee that is with a ‘yes’ vote in September. There is no option for 'more powers' on the ballot paper."
Now I know, and you know, and everyone else on this board knows that forward Capital spending and current non-capital spending are chalk and cheese.
But the average person can barely distinguish between debt and deficit.
I see several lines of attack for UKIP here.
You are too demanding.
A 4.7% positive gap in the Basic State Pension over average earnings is a generous settlement by any measure.
Far better that than Gordon financing the increases by taking our gold to the pawn shop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0
Because that could obviously never backfire.
The government is proposing to set up a 60mph speed limit for a 32-mile stretch of the M1, in an effort to cut air pollution and help traffic flow.
The Highways Agency says the new restriction would apply from 7am to 7pm, seven days a week.
It would be in place from junction 28, near Matlock, Derbyshire, to junction 35a, north of Rotherham.
The agency said the limit, which has been put out to consultation, was likely to remain for "several years".
In its document, it stated that the current use of the national 70mph speed limit for motorways was having "adverse impacts on air quality" in the area and that cutting it would reduce emissions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25619914
CourtNewsUK @CourtNewsUK 1m
NHS worker threatened to collect a patient’s pubic hair and attach them to his face ‘Wiggins style’
I see your point but I think that's an easier one to explain. After all, the top 1% pay 30% of all the taxes.
For me voters just do not understand how the chancellor can write giant cheques to poor countries and the EU and at the same time tell his own people to tighten their belts much further.
I live about a mile as the crow flies from J31 and use it fairly frequently to visit relatives.
The air is fine around here.
Numpties.
Fortunately that stretch covers Meadowhall, and 35a is the gateway to Manchester, so it'll go down like a lead balloon
Those might be examples of Edmund's token cuts which Labour could propose, but they don't really impact very much on the public finances in the next parliament.
So yes while you can argue that the banks are technically solvent, I would question if some of them would be so were it not for taxpayer support. Some of them are out of the woods but there are still a lot of walking wounded.
http://falkvinge.net/2014/01/06/censorship-causes-liability-uk-isps-need-to-be-sued-way-out-into-atlantic/#comment-117480
The thought is that once an ISP stops routing traffic indiscriminately and starts censoring, for example, sites about politics and betting, they cease to be a "common carrier" and become responsible for the content that they do carry. So if somebody says something defamatory about you on Twitter, you can sue not only the person who said it, but also any any censorship-compliant ISP that transmitted it to the readers.
But the Victorian era wasn't all bad, the British Empire was at its zenith and Arthur Conan Doyle was producing his Sherlock novels and stories.
Makes you proud to be British.
True but HS2 is spending on us. There is a logic to it and a potential return. Voters see aid or contributions to the EU as simply dead money.
What flabbergasts many voters for me (and what is the true appeal of UKIP) is their MPs are meant to represent them but behave as if they are the honourable member for Strasbourg, Brussels, South Sudan or New Delhi.
The change on offer in this case is independence, which very clearly has minority support. After all, those who want more powers for the Scottish parliament but not independence can only get to that position by voting No (unless they believe that Yes is going to lose by some distance and want to add a bit of pressure for their position). Either way, it's a good poll for Better Together.
LOL, another dumb Tory
He failed to notice the uptick in consumer confidence apparently. And the far more significant uptick in business confidence, and the increase in investment, and the increase in construction, and the ever more solid future orders figures, and the failures of France in adopting policies he was advocating for here, and the successes of Ireland in adopting an even more vigorous version of the policies adopted here, etc etc.
Its precisely the sort of nonsense I'd expect from the Greens. Or Chris Huhne.
Last night's episode was sensationally brilliant, the Conan Doyle fans and the ratings back me up.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
Okay, even if he could square it with enough of his backbenchers not to cause a leadership crisis in the Tory Party, Mr C would have had a problem getting devo max past the EWNI MPS and electorate after the incessant rain of sponging Scots stories - it was only after that that the No campaign started to backpedal on that, and the message still has not percolated to the Daily Mail readers etc. So Mr S was seen to do the decent democratic thing, and Mr C was seen to chicken out and to be very antidemocratic to the Scots - and it is not as if his party and the LDs collectively have many MPs in Scotland.
The result is that the devo maxers have to decide which way to go and it is still nine months before they really start. This is not an election but requires a mind shift to vote yes, and that takes time, especially if it does not need to be done now, so I hesitate to put too much reliance on the polls either way. Who called the bets rightly is of course the question, and we'll have to wait and see. But one interpretation is that Salmond saw Cameron coming a mile off and played a very neat, if high risk, zugzwang.
In 2005, Lloyds TSB has a tier one ratio of 5.4%. Very basically, this meant that for every pound of risky loans to customers, it carried 5p of its own money. It now carries almost three times that level - 14.3% at end of 2013. In addition, it has written off £71 billion pounds of bad loans in the intervening period. So, it's got rid of a large number of bad loans and carries three times the amount of capital for the remainder. I can't think of a single large bank in the world that has more capital than Lloyds TSB.
The story with RBS is similar, although it came from a worse place. Tier one has gone from a miserly 3.8% to 10% and they have written off more than £50bn of bad loans. Yes, they should probably increase their equity capital further - but (after taking bad debt charges in the first half of the year) the business is now profitable and so capital should naturally build every quarter.
HSBC was never financially stressed, of course.
As an American senator on a Senate Committee once said - A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267632/M1_J28_to_J35a_MSL_Consultation_Document.pdf
What would he infer from your shoes? ;-)
Around junctions 33 to 34, there's generally congestion due to the location of Meadowhall, The Hallam FM Arena and the fact it becomes a two lane motorway at 34 for a bit.
The queues can stretch for a few junctions.
Please note, at Meadowhall, is where they are planning to build the HS2 station for Sheffield, so it will become even more congested.
Reducing the speed limit around this area, has to be the worst idea since The Frogs invented the Maginot Line to stop a German invasion.
“It was really a reaction to the worldwide focus and total condemnation of the North Korean regime over recent events,” the betting firm said. “We don’t want to be associated with that.”
Because before recent events it was such a cuddly regime?! Have these people not even seen Team America?
Can we not talk about E*ectile D*sfunction.
I'm going to start getting those adverts again.
Will WBA hurry up and appoint a new manager ?
Managed to get a decent book on the matter anyway through some quick betfair/bookie work last night:
Malky Mackay
+67.98
Mendilibar
+135.3
Others
+.05
Flores
+63.63
Are you on Mckay ?
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
Personally, I'd kill her in episode 3 of this series.
I don't think the governments of the world intended to force us to restructure the world economy on decentralized crypto-anarchist principles, but that's what they're doing, and I think I like it.
The Mayor of London says that if the shadow education secretary denies German militarism was at the root of the First World War he cannot be fit to oversee schools
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10552981/Boris-Johnson-Tristram-Hunt-should-resign-over-First-World-War-comments.html
Usual political discourse, Boris is attacking the Hon Hunt for something he didn't say for attacking Gove for something he didn't say.....
One of the reasons I am a Conservative is that, in the end, I just can’t stand the intellectual dishonesty of the Left.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10552336/Germany-started-the-Great-War-but-the-Left-cant-bear-to-say-so.html
I did once begin a letter, with the following
"I see that concurrently being the Director of the Parking Partnership, and the local idiot at your village is leading to you confusing what your day job in Manchester is"
http://www.yesscotland.net/sites/default/files/resources/documents/trade_unions_leaflet_eis.pdf
BDO, a firm of Chartered Accountants, which euphemistically and rather nauseatingly describes itself as "the firm known in the market for exceptional service delivered by empowered people" is the first external commentator/forecaster to predict December's Retail Sales.
It's conclusion is that retailers have experienced "a steady, but not spectacular, end to the year".
Of particular note is their observation that retailers have not pursued volume at the expense of margin to the same extent as last year. This bodes well for profits performance and sector stability.
Online sales have risen most and now account for nearly 20% of total. The winners and losers in the sector will be determined by those retailers which have best managed to balance these two distribution channels.
Figures released today from BDO’s December High Street Sales Tracker show overall like-for-like sales up 1.9% year-on-year.
While not the bumper end to the year some were hoping for, retailers will be breathing a sigh of relief after recovering from floundering sales in the week before Christmas (ending 16 December) which dipped 3.7% year-on-year.
...
[R]etailers were buoyed by a 30.9% year-on-year growth in non-store sales with shoppers becoming ever more comfortable with online purchasing – especially from big name brands - as well as making use of growing Wi-Fi and 4G coverage to pick up bargains while on the move.
Full press release here: http://bit.ly/1cG4caT
Over the peaks to Manchester I can sort of see why some of it is restricted to 50.
Dear Carlotta,
I've just given a speech setting out the long-term economic plan that the Conservatives are working through - and wanted to email you straightaway to explain what that means for you and for Britain.
Our economic plan builds a stronger, more competitive economy and secures a better future for Britain by:
Reducing the deficit so we deal with our debts, safeguard our economy for the long term and keep mortgage rates low
Cutting income taxes and freezing fuel duty to help hardworking people feel more financially secure
Creating more jobs by backing small business and enterprise with better infrastructure and lower jobs taxes
Capping welfare and reducing immigration so our economy delivers for people who want to work hard and play by the rules
Delivering the best schools and skills for young people so the next generation can succeed in the global race
The plan is working. For the first time in a long while, there's a real sense that Britain is on the rise. But it's far too soon to say job done - it's not even half done.
There are still plenty of risks, and the greatest one here at home is the Labour Party. Labour offer more spending, higher taxes and more borrowing. Their economic approach brought economic ruin once, and would do the same all over again. Why would you give the keys back to the people who crashed the car?
So this year Britain faces a choice: to go on working through the plan that is delivering for Britain, or to squander what we've achieved and go back to economic ruin.
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
But you can't widen it at 34.
One other observation on Hannibal vs Caesar.
Hannibal's greatest achievement is crossing the Alps, that's nothing, like others, I've crossed the Alps on my skiing holidays.
Not many have crossed the Rubicon.
Just saying.
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
You appear to have an infatuation with all things Caesarian, you should spend more time on mumsnet.
I visited once, I haven't been that scared since the time I was accidentally invited to a Phil Woolas election strategy meeting.
I can imagine that this change might encourage some of he long-distance traffic onto the M18/A1(M) combo instead of the M1.
(*) I did type 'doggers', which gave the sentence a rather different meaning ...
http://mailinator.com/inbox.jsp?to=davidjobs
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
The time Phil Woolas met Purdy
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X10GOlJtvzU
For all my fellow Yorkshire folk out there, and you Lancastrians, take note.
pic.twitter.com/WtcltNLHX4