@Alanbrooke - "So in simple terms there's no debate on the principle just some quibbling round the edges."
Absolutely right - it's been about that ever since the Coalition took the route it did. And that's why being seen to be in tune with voters is so important. If cuts and savings are necessary, who do you want to do them and over what time scale? The Tories lead on who is best for the country; Labour leads on who is best for me and my family. Dave leads on best PM/leader; Ed leads on being more in touch with ordinary people. Something has to give.
The labour lead on who is best for me and my family is vulnerable as I stated back in September last year to much mirth from PBlefties, but I still stick by it.
Much as the Eds have called the economy wrong they've now shifted the debate on to territory the Coalition can beat them on. IMO this will be because:
1. More people will get in to jobs 2. The economy is recovering and wages will now start to rise 3. The Coalition will stick more money in people's pocket this year 4. People ain't daft they know the macro level needs to be right for the micro level to pay up
So all Ed's posturing while great for headlines won't actually amount to a hill of beans.
The OBR in its latest EFO has a 'box note' on the impact of car manufacturing on GDP and the BoP, which is worth quoting.
Car consumption and production
In volume terms, spending on cars in the UK has grown strongly, accounting for nearly a third of household consumption growth since the third quarter of 2011. Facilitating this spending, car finance has been the main reason for the strong recent growth in unsecured credit.
... The current recovery began in mid-2011, and has continued, with new car registrations rising more than 10 per cent a year.
But UK car consumption is highly import intensive. [T]he share of new car registrations met by domestic production has fallen from 45 per cent two decades ago to just 14 per cent now. This limits the benefit to GDP growth of stronger car consumption. ... [M]ore than half the contribution to household consumption growth from car consumption was accounted for by imports.
But the UK also produces cars for export and overseas demand has also been strong. While overall net trade has made a very modest contribution to GDP in recent years, the UK car-trade balance has moved from a 0.5 per cent of GDP deficit in 2007 to a small surplus in the first three quarters of 2013, helped by the strength of non-EU exports (particularly to China).
But again the impact on GDP is limited, as domestic car production uses nearly three times more imports for every pound of output than the economy as a whole.
I am beginning to think the same as you and St. George on this. Import substitution in the supply chain is the key.
That was why George was giving his New Year 'State of the Economy' speech at a Sertec Birmingham plant yesterday. A big supplier to JLR ("Sertec is proud to supply 154 parts to the all new Range Rover and 142 parts are manufactured for the recently launched, stunning Jaguar F –Type") and the second largest employer to BMW in its area, it is planning to increase employment by 400 over the next three years. Impressive for a Brummie metal basher!
And what is more (*Avery drops volume to a mere whisper*), Lloyds Bank is financing their planned expansion.
On topic I don't think it is the amount Cameron pays for a haircut that matters, but the implied cronyism.
However good a hairdresser this bloke is, would he have been awarded an MBE if he didn't cut Cameron's hair?
Are hairdressers not worthy enough to be awarded MBE's?
If you read the DM article you'll note that the cutter in question has been instrumental in a campaign to have hairdressing established as a profession.
@Alanbrooke - "So in simple terms there's no debate on the principle just some quibbling round the edges."
Absolutely right - it's been about that ever since the Coalition took the route it did. And that's why being seen to be in tune with voters is so important. If cuts and savings are necessary, who do you want to do them and over what time scale? The Tories lead on who is best for the country; Labour leads on who is best for me and my family. Dave leads on best PM/leader; Ed leads on being more in touch with ordinary people. Something has to give.
The labour lead on who is best for me and my family is vulnerable as I stated back in September last year to much mirth from PBlefties, but I still stick by it.
Much as the Eds have called the economy wrong they've now shifted the debate on to territory the Coalition can beat them on. IMO this will be because:
1. More people will get in to jobs 2. The economy is recovering and wages will now start to rise 3. The Coalition will stick more money in people's pocket this year 4. People ain't daft they know the macro level needs to be right for the micro level to pay up
So all Ed's posturing while great for headlines won't actually amount to a hill of beans.
We'll see. As I have said on here a few times before, the Tories *should* win handily in 2015: the economy is improving and the opposition is no great shakes. So, if they do lose power in 2015 it will have very little to do with anything Labour has said or done. It will be entirely their own fault.
I think the MBE was seriously devalued anyway a few years ago when Paul Collingwood got one for scoring 17 runs at an average of 8.5 per innings. Labour was in power when that gong was handed out so I don't think they can complain if Cameron carries on the 'silly season'
@Alanbrooke - "So in simple terms there's no debate on the principle just some quibbling round the edges."
Absolutely right - it's been about that ever since the Coalition took the route it did. And that's why being seen to be in tune with voters is so important. If cuts and savings are necessary, who do you want to do them and over what time scale? The Tories lead on who is best for the country; Labour leads on who is best for me and my family. Dave leads on best PM/leader; Ed leads on being more in touch with ordinary people. Something has to give.
The labour lead on who is best for me and my family is vulnerable as I stated back in September last year to much mirth from PBlefties, but I still stick by it.
Much as the Eds have called the economy wrong they've now shifted the debate on to territory the Coalition can beat them on. IMO this will be because:
1. More people will get in to jobs 2. The economy is recovering and wages will now start to rise 3. The Coalition will stick more money in people's pocket this year 4. People ain't daft they know the macro level needs to be right for the micro level to pay up
So all Ed's posturing while great for headlines won't actually amount to a hill of beans.
We'll see. As I have said on here a few times before, the Tories *should* win handily in 2015: the economy is improving and the opposition is no great shakes. So, if they do lose power in 2015 it will have very little to do with anything Labour has said or done. It will be entirely their own fault.
I can't see the Tories getting an outright majority since as you have pointed out Cameron has done little to address his core weaknesses of :
1. getting WWC voters in his tent 2. treating Scotland as a place he needs to win votes 3. breaking out of his southern bastions
He will still be in the position of racking up huge majorities in places where it doesn't count while failing to reach the parts other parties can reach.
On topic I don't think it is the amount Cameron pays for a haircut that matters, but the implied cronyism.
However good a hairdresser this bloke is, would he have been awarded an MBE if he didn't cut Cameron's hair?
Are hairdressers not worthy enough to be awarded MBE's?
If you read the DM article you'll note that the cutter in question has been instrumental in a campaign to have hairdressing established as a profession.
No opinion really one way or the other about who should and shouldn't get them, and I am pretty ignorant of the rules guiding who does and doesn't deserve one.
I assumed it was all a bit of a mates favour really, and fair enough... So far away from affecting me and my crowd it might as well not exist
On topic I don't think it is the amount Cameron pays for a haircut that matters, but the implied cronyism.
However good a hairdresser this bloke is, would he have been awarded an MBE if he didn't cut Cameron's hair?
Are hairdressers not worthy enough to be awarded MBE's?
If you read the DM article you'll note that the cutter in question has been instrumental in a campaign to have hairdressing established as a profession.
No opinion really one way or the other about who should and shouldn't get them, and I am pretty ignorant of the rules guiding who does and doesn't deserve one.
I assumed it was all a bit of a mates favour really, and fair enough... So far away from affecting me and my crowd it might as well not exist
It all went downhill when people were awarded them for kicking an inflated pigs bladder to each other on a patch of grass.
Presumably their timesheet software will not cope with and entry for Industrial action. I can imagine a barrister or two wondering where the code is for strike action then saying ' oh sod it lets put 4 hours down to News of the World phone hacking'
Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 37 .. SNP 10 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Green 1 .. Respect 0 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 30 seats short of a majority.
That result really would be a nightmare whichever way you look at it. There would very probably be no stable government possible.
As I've said before, the financial markets are currently underestimating political risk in the UK. Luckily they will continue to do so until near the end of 2014, so no need to panic as yet, and who knows, maybe voters will vote on substance not haircuts.
@isam A few years ago there was a theory in the US that the presidential candidate with the most luxuriant hair always won. That has been debunked since John Kerry, John McCain and Mitt Romney all lost to less follically-blessed rivals. So perhaps Mr Cameron should go for the short back and sides and polish on top?
Disclosure of interest: I'm currently sporting a number one, as usual.
The OBR in its latest EFO has a 'box note' on the impact of car manufacturing on GDP and the BoP, which is worth quoting.
Car consumption and production
In volume terms, spending on cars in the UK has grown strongly, accounting for nearly a third of household consumption growth since the third quarter of 2011. Facilitating this spending, car finance has been the main reason for the strong recent growth in unsecured credit.
... The current recovery began in mid-2011, and has continued, with new car registrations rising more than 10 per cent a year.
But UK car consumption is highly import intensive. [T]he share of new car registrations met by domestic production has fallen from 45 per cent two decades ago to just 14 per cent now. This limits the benefit to GDP growth of stronger car consumption. ... [M]ore than half the contribution to household consumption growth from car consumption was accounted for by imports.
But the UK also produces cars for export and overseas demand has also been strong. While overall net trade has made a very modest contribution to GDP in recent years, the UK car-trade balance has moved from a 0.5 per cent of GDP deficit in 2007 to a small surplus in the first three quarters of 2013, helped by the strength of non-EU exports (particularly to China).
But again the impact on GDP is limited, as domestic car production uses nearly three times more imports for every pound of output than the economy as a whole.
I am beginning to think the same as you and St. George on this. Import substitution in the supply chain is the key.
That was why George was giving his New Year 'State of the Economy' speech at a Sertec Birmingham plant yesterday. A big supplier to JLR ("Sertec is proud to supply 154 parts to the all new Range Rover and 142 parts are manufactured for the recently launched, stunning Jaguar F –Type") and the second largest employer to BMW in its area, it is planning to increase employment by 400 over the next three years. Impressive for a Brummie metal basher!
And what is more (*Avery drops volume to a mere whisper*), Lloyds Bank is financing their planned expansion.
We may be reconciled yet, Mr. Brooke.
Oh Mr Pole you do make me laugh.
You can't have lots of suppliers without a lead manufacture to create the volume. You appear to be struggling with the concept that we need about another 3 car plants and a van plant to satisfy domestic demand. Back in the old days she who cannot be named would just have gone out and got them ( though in truth it takes about 5+ years to do it ). Gormless George just sits back and expects things to happen.
As for your comment on Lloyds, it's been Sertec's bank for ages, the surprise would have been if LBG had done something novel.
@Alanbrooke - "So in simple terms there's no debate on the principle just some quibbling round the edges."
Absolutely right - it's been about that ever since the Coalition took the route it did. And that's why being seen to be in tune with voters is so important. If cuts and savings are necessary, who do you want to do them and over what time scale? The Tories lead on who is best for the country; Labour leads on who is best for me and my family. Dave leads on best PM/leader; Ed leads on being more in touch with ordinary people. Something has to give.
The labour lead on who is best for me and my family is vulnerable as I stated back in September last year to much mirth from PBlefties, but I still stick by it.
Much as the Eds have called the economy wrong they've now shifted the debate on to territory the Coalition can beat them on. IMO this will be because:
1. More people will get in to jobs 2. The economy is recovering and wages will now start to rise 3. The Coalition will stick more money in people's pocket this year 4. People ain't daft they know the macro level needs to be right for the micro level to pay up
So all Ed's posturing while great for headlines won't actually amount to a hill of beans.
We'll see. As I have said on here a few times before, the Tories *should* win handily in 2015: the economy is improving and the opposition is no great shakes. So, if they do lose power in 2015 it will have very little to do with anything Labour has said or done. It will be entirely their own fault.
I can't see the Tories getting an outright majority since as you have pointed out Cameron has done little to address his core weaknesses of :
1. getting WWC voters in his tent 2. treating Scotland as a place he needs to win votes 3. breaking out of his southern bastions
He will still be in the position of racking up huge majorities in places where it doesn't count while failing to reach the parts other parties can reach.
Yup, if the Tories do not win in 2015 it will be largely because of self-inflicted wounds.
@Alanbrooke - "So in simple terms there's no debate on the principle just some quibbling round the edges."
Absolutely right - it's been about that ever since the Coalition took the route it did. And that's why being seen to be in tune with voters is so important. If cuts and savings are necessary, who do you want to do them and over what time scale? The Tories lead on who is best for the country; Labour leads on who is best for me and my family. Dave leads on best PM/leader; Ed leads on being more in touch with ordinary people. Something has to give.
The labour lead on who is best for me and my family is vulnerable as I stated back in September last year to much mirth from PBlefties, but I still stick by it.
Much as the Eds have called the economy wrong they've now shifted the debate on to territory the Coalition can beat them on. IMO this will be because:
1. More people will get in to jobs 2. The economy is recovering and wages will now start to rise 3. The Coalition will stick more money in people's pocket this year 4. People ain't daft they know the macro level needs to be right for the micro level to pay up
So all Ed's posturing while great for headlines won't actually amount to a hill of beans.
We'll see. As I have said on here a few times before, the Tories *should* win handily in 2015: the economy is improving and the opposition is no great shakes. So, if they do lose power in 2015 it will have very little to do with anything Labour has said or done. It will be entirely their own fault.
I can't see the Tories getting an outright majority since as you have pointed out Cameron has done little to address his core weaknesses of :
1. getting WWC voters in his tent 2. treating Scotland as a place he needs to win votes 3. breaking out of his southern bastions
He will still be in the position of racking up huge majorities in places where it doesn't count while failing to reach the parts other parties can reach.
Yup, if the Tories do not win in 2015 it will be largely because of self-inflicted wounds.
It was largely self inflicted wounds stopped them in 2010.
The simple fact is if as you hope Labour get in they will also need to find this money from somewhere. We all know Balls is talking nonsense when he says that he will deliver much higher growth. So Labour will have to either do the Hollande approach (which is most likely) and increase taxes or do the Ireland approach and cut Government spending. Now you do not have to be a brain surgeon to work out which approach has been most successful. All the gleeful gloating I read on here about Osborne being a failure just makes me laugh. Do you lot really think that the economy would be in a better place if the Eds were in charge? As seems likely we will find out in 2015. God help us.
UKIP and Farage blow hot and cold - We have the ridiculous (for a free market party) sovereign wealth fund policy and yet he was brilliant on Radio 4 today talking about immigration and linking it with Europe.
The Sov Wealth Fund is just a way of selling the public on fracking.
That result really would be a nightmare whichever way you look at it. There would very probably be no stable government possible.
I dunno - Con + Lab = 479, it's not as if they disagree on all that much anyway.
What odds are you offering? I made good money on the German Grand Coalition, but even so...
Last time I looked a Grand Coalition was the shortest priced outcome from the next Irish GE too (though the Government parties have staged a comeback since exiting the bailout). But I never said it was likely - just that it would be stable!
That result really would be a nightmare whichever way you look at it. There would very probably be no stable government possible.
I dunno - Con + Lab = 479, it's not as if they disagree on all that much anyway.
What odds are you offering? I made good money on the German Grand Coalition, but even so...
Last time I looked a Grand Coalition was the shortest priced outcome from the next Irish GE too (though the Government parties have staged a comeback since exiting the bailout). But I never said it was likely - just that it would be stable!
Just checked - Paddy Power now have FG / FF and FG / Lab both at 11/8.
So we're back once again to the same old question - will the desire among those who despise the Coalition for whatever reason be stronger than the vague sense of economic well-being engendered by two or three years of recovery ?
There are those who are undoubtedly so ill-disposed toward the Government that they wouldn't vote for them even if David Cameron came to their front door with a wheelbarrow full of cash so the notion that a recovering economy is some kind of electoral panacea may not be accurate.
The notion that it's just about the wallet may no longer fit the dynamic of the electorate - people vote for many and varied reasons and more often for what they are against than what they are for. It may be hard for some on here to understand but an intellectual dismissal of Labour's chances won't influence that many people and especially those whose personal and cultural points of reference have engendered a dislike for the Conservatives.
We alo have the not insignificant factor that the debasement of the political culture has created such a mistrust for and antipathy toward politicians that reasoned argument may not have the force it once did if it comes from those who have lost the public's trust.
The OBR in its latest EFO has a 'box note' on the impact of car manufacturing on GDP and the BoP, which is worth quoting.
Car consumption and production
In volume terms, spending on cars in the UK has grown strongly, accounting for nearly a third of household consumption growth since the third quarter of 2011. Facilitating this spending, car finance has been the main reason for the strong recent growth in unsecured credit.
... The current recovery began in mid-2011, and has continued, with new car registrations rising more than 10 per cent a year.
....
We may be reconciled yet, Mr. Brooke.
Oh Mr Pole you do make me laugh.
You can't have lots of suppliers without a lead manufacture to create the volume. You appear to be struggling with the concept that we need about another 3 car plants and a van plant to satisfy domestic demand. Back in the old days she who cannot be named would just have gone out and got them ( though in truth it takes about 5+ years to do it ). Gormless George just sits back and expects things to happen.
As for your comment on Lloyds, it's been Sertec's bank for ages, the surprise would have been if LBG had done something novel.
Yebbut.
1. It is Vince's primary responsibility to secure new investment, though your point about Maggie doing someone else's job for them if they don't do it themselves is valid as is the concept of collective responsibility. But it remains Vince to whom we should look first.
2. I accept the economy of scale argument but not to the extent that UK intermediate manufacturers should give up if it doesn't materialise. But who is likely to invest in a new European plant for mass market production on the basis of a UK recovery only? A better bet - at least in the short term - would be to encourage and support the existing top end marque manufacturers to develop new mass market products. But that route has risks as Aston Martin discovered with the untimely death of their Cygnet.
ps Paddy Power are offering 5/6 on a 'yes' vote of <57% in Ireland's gay marriage referendum (now expected in 2015). I think that's value. 'yes' is doing better than that in the polls but there's a long history of polling this far out not always being reflected in the final result. This is a country that only decriminalised homosexuality 20 years ago and allowed divorce by less than 1%.
Potentially, George Osborne's cut cut and cut again whilst we are blowing billions on international aid and the EU is as toxic as the omnishambles budget.
For clever people, the tories really are sometimes monumentally stupid.
@Alanbrooke - "So in simple terms there's no debate on the principle just some quibbling round the edges."
Absolutely right - it's been about that ever since the Coalition took the route it did. And that's why being seen to be in tune with voters is so important. If cuts and savings are necessary, who do you want to do them and over what time scale? The Tories lead on who is best for the country; Labour leads on who is best for me and my family. Dave leads on best PM/leader; Ed leads on being more in touch with ordinary people. Something has to give.
The labour lead on who is best for me and my family is vulnerable as I stated back in September last year to much mirth from PBlefties, but I still stick by it.
Much as the Eds have called the economy wrong they've now shifted the debate on to territory the Coalition can beat them on. IMO this will be because:
1. More people will get in to jobs 2. The economy is recovering and wages will now start to rise 3. The Coalition will stick more money in people's pocket this year 4. People ain't daft they know the macro level needs to be right for the micro level to pay up
So all Ed's posturing while great for headlines won't actually amount to a hill of beans.
We'll see. As I have said on here a few times before, the Tories *should* win handily in 2015: the economy is improving and the opposition is no great shakes. So, if they do lose power in 2015 it will have very little to do with anything Labour has said or done. It will be entirely their own fault.
I can't see the Tories getting an outright majority since as you have pointed out Cameron has done little to address his core weaknesses of :
1. getting WWC voters in his tent 2. treating Scotland as a place he needs to win votes 3. breaking out of his southern bastions
He will still be in the position of racking up huge majorities in places where it doesn't count while failing to reach the parts other parties can reach.
Yup, if the Tories do not win in 2015 it will be largely because of self-inflicted wounds.
It was largely self inflicted wounds stopped them in 2010.
Nope.
It was close on half a generation of society being bribed with borrowed money, publically and privately, in an environment of asset price inflation which underwrote the borrowing.
Sure the Tories are toffs, toxic, etc but they are only portrayed as nasty because they had and have a desire to stop the unaffordable lunacy.
On topic, will be interesting to see if Paddy Power put up some markets on this.
On hair, I've always thought Ed Miliband maybe vulnerable, clearly his barber arranges for a bird to shit on a certain part of his hair, that must cost a bomb.
Potentially, George Osborne's cut cut and cut again whilst we are blowing billions on international aid and the EU is as toxic as the omnishambles budget.
For clever people, the tories really are sometimes monumentally stupid.
Evry autumn statement or budget George always looks really rather too happy also. As EiT pointed out they had to make cuts and looked like they weren't enjoying it.
Now the economy has recovered and Ed Balls is a muppet at the best of times so there is plenty to laugh/be cheerful about when you are George during one of these set pieces.
But the juxtaposition of GO looking far too happy/'more cuts' is just downright awful in terms of PR.
It should have been so easy. Ed Balls is ScoTE. That is almost as good a facing Brown when he was PM !
On topic I don't think it is the amount Cameron pays for a haircut that matters, but the implied cronyism.
However good a hairdresser this bloke is, would he have been awarded an MBE if he didn't cut Cameron's hair?
exactly
Robert
I am loathe to spark a family argument but the issue isn't as clear cut as you suggest.
Of course honours get given more to those who come into contact with the great and the good, especially at the low rank public service level. The whole system relies on nominations and greater weight will always be given to a heavyweight nominator.
But that is not the point. Lollipop ladies, nurses, school caretakers etc are given honours as much to reward the kind of work they do as to single out individuals who carry out superlative work. An exemplary honour given to a Lollipop lady becomes a reward for all Lollipop ladies.
No one is suggesting that Lino Carbosieri is the only hardworking and successful crimper in town. But singling him out for an honour raises the social status of all hairdressers and all working in the personal grooming services sector.
This is the point missed by Roger. It is time we honoured a snapper too to avoid the pecking order being upset with consequent demarcation disputes holding back economic output.
Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 37 .. SNP 10 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Green 1 .. Respect 0 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 30 seats short of a majority.
That result really would be a nightmare whichever way you look at it. There would very probably be no stable government possible.
As I've said before, the financial markets are currently underestimating political risk in the UK. Luckily they will continue to do so until near the end of 2014, so no need to panic as yet, and who knows, maybe voters will vote on substance not haircuts.
A continuing Coalition majority of just 16. Effectively more like plus 20 with SF abstentionism and Labour would have to gather all Others to defeat the government. Certainly a very tricky situation for the government but not outside the realms of reason.
It's the lowest Coalition number since the July 13 ARSE projection that had Con on 290 and LibDems on 40.
The OBR in its latest EFO has a 'box note' on the impact of car manufacturing on GDP and the BoP, which is worth quoting.
Car consumption and production
In volume terms, spending on cars in the UK has grown strongly, accounting for nearly a third of household consumption growth since the third quarter of 2011. Facilitating this spending, car finance has been the main reason for the strong recent growth in unsecured credit.
... The current recovery began in mid-2011, and has continued, with new car registrations rising more than 10 per cent a year.
....
We may be reconciled yet, Mr. Brooke.
Oh Mr Pole you do make me laugh.
As for your comment on Lloyds, it's been Sertec's bank for ages, the surprise would have been if LBG had done something novel.
Yebbut.
1. It is Vince's primary responsibility to secure new investment, though your point about Maggie doing someone else's job for them if they don't do it themselves is valid as is the concept of collective responsibility. But it remains Vince to whom we should look first.
2. I accept the economy of scale argument but not to the extent that UK intermediate manufacturers should give up if it doesn't materialise. But who is likely to invest in a new European plant for mass market production on the basis of a UK recovery only? A better bet - at least in the short term - would be to encourage and support the existing top end marque manufacturers to develop new mass market products. But that route has risks as Aston Martin discovered with the untimely death of their Cygnet.
Well you won't find me praising Vince he's not so much laissez-faire as faire rien. However if HMG ain't delivering the goods top man should change it. That's his job - kick butt or change them, it's what he's paid for.
As for your second point it's got bugger all to do with scale and everything to do with market segmentation. The UK has a successful high end car industry only Japan and Germany have one ( maybe a niche Italian or 2 ) which is primarily export driven. As a next step this industry is most likely to set up car plants overseas rather than expand much more in the UK.
What the UK has let go is an industry that serves its own domestic consumption. That's the bit that needs to expand and there's no real reason why it can't. Most of what we import is from either high cost countries ( Germany, France, Spain - so no cost penalty ) or Asian manufacturers who will soon be looking a European base, ( though probably too late for the Koreans now ). We should offer them one.
It really should have been so easy. The tories only really needed to freeze international aid or trim by half a billion, just as a token to show that we are all in this together. Would it have really have made any difference to the starving billions abroad?
But no. They have stuck tooth and nail to a policy that is staggeringly unpopular in the country, at the same time as preaching parsimony to their voter bedrock.
The eagerly awaited Baden Wuerttemberg December CPI data is out, and shows a 1.3% y-o-y increase, and a 0.3% m-o-m increase. That means they are exactly the same as November's numbers
More details as this story develops
You haven't answered my question on the identity of the world's first communist!
King Ethelred the Unready?
Nope.
Christopher Columbus.
Go on...
Three reasons.
1. When he set out he didn't know where he was going.
2. When he arrived he didn't know where he was.
3. He did it all on state money.
My second favourite Soviet era joke.
The favourite would get me banned if printed on PB.
Strictly speaking, Columbus did know where he was aiming to arrive, though he grossly under-estimated how long it would take to get there.
On topic I don't think it is the amount Cameron pays for a haircut that matters, but the implied cronyism.
However good a hairdresser this bloke is, would he have been awarded an MBE if he didn't cut Cameron's hair?
exactly
Robert
I am loathe to spark a family argument but the issue isn't as clear cut as you suggest.
Of course honours get given more to those who come into contact with the great and the good, especially at the low rank public service level. The whole system relies on nominations and greater weight will always be given to a heavyweight nominator.
But that is not the point. Lollipop ladies, nurses, school caretakers etc are given honours as much to reward the kind of work they do as to single out individuals who carry out superlative work. An exemplary honour given to a Lollipop lady becomes a reward for all Lollipop ladies.
No one is suggesting that Lino Carbosieri is the only hardworking and successful crimper in town. But singling him out for an honour raises the social status of all hairdressers and all working in the personal grooming services sector.
This is the point missed by Roger. It is time we honoured a snapper too to avoid the pecking order being upset with consequent demarcation disputes holding back economic output.
Sir Wodger awise!
If raising social status of ordinary hard working hairdressers and groomers were the aim, wouldn't it be wiser to honour one just as hard working, but less well connected?
On topic I don't think it is the amount Cameron pays for a haircut that matters, but the implied cronyism.
However good a hairdresser this bloke is, would he have been awarded an MBE if he didn't cut Cameron's hair?
exactly
Robert
I am loathe to spark a family argument but the issue isn't as clear cut as you suggest.
Of course honours get given more to those who come into contact with the great and the good, especially at the low rank public service level. The whole system relies on nominations and greater weight will always be given to a heavyweight nominator.
But that is not the point. Lollipop ladies, nurses, school caretakers etc are given honours as much to reward the kind of work they do as to single out individuals who carry out superlative work. An exemplary honour given to a Lollipop lady becomes a reward for all Lollipop ladies.
No one is suggesting that Lino Carbosieri is the only hardworking and successful crimper in town. But singling him out for an honour raises the social status of all hairdressers and all working in the personal grooming services sector.
This is the point missed by Roger. It is time we honoured a snapper too to avoid the pecking order being upset with consequent demarcation disputes holding back economic output.
Sir Wodger awise!
If raising social status of ordinary hard working hairdressers and groomers were the aim, wouldn't it be wiser to honour one just as hard working, but less well connected?
No. You reward the one most likely to get publicity.
A continuing Coalition majority of just 16. Effectively more like plus 20 with SF abstentionism and Labour would have to gather all Others to defeat the government. Certainly a very tricky situation for the government but not outside the realms of reason.
Tricky indeed. However, the first hurdle would be whether the LibDems (and some Tories) would play ball in such a scenario. I don't think that could be relied upon at all. There could also be a Conservative leadership challenge which would mean further instability.
The eagerly awaited Baden Wuerttemberg December CPI data is out, and shows a 1.3% y-o-y increase, and a 0.3% m-o-m increase. That means they are exactly the same as November's numbers
More details as this story develops
You haven't answered my question on the identity of the world's first communist!
King Ethelred the Unready?
Nope.
Christopher Columbus.
Go on...
Three reasons.
1. When he set out he didn't know where he was going.
2. When he arrived he didn't know where he was.
3. He did it all on state money.
My second favourite Soviet era joke.
The favourite would get me banned if printed on PB.
Strictly speaking, Columbus did know where he was aiming to arrive, though he grossly under-estimated how long it would take to get there.
I hope you are not suggesting George Osborne is a communist, David?
@Alanbrooke - "So in simple terms there's no debate on the principle just some quibbling round the edges."
Absolutely right - it's been about that ever since the Coalition took the route it did. And leads on best PM/leader; Ed leads on being more in touch with ordinary people. Something has to give.
The labour lead on who is best for me and my family is vulnerable as I stated back in September last year to much mirth from PBlefties, but I still stick by it. el to pay up
So all Ed's posturing while great for headlines won't actually amount to a hill of beans.
We'll see. As I have said on here a few times before, the Tories *should* win handily in 2015: the economy is improving and the opposition is no great shakes. So, if they do lose power in 2015 it will have very little to do with anything Labour has said or done. It will be entirely their own fault.
I can't see the Tories getting an outright majority since as you have pointed out Cameron has done little to address his core weaknesses of :
He will still be in the position of racking up huge majorities in places where it doesn't count while failing to reach the parts other parties can reach.
Yup, if the Tories do not win in 2015 it will be largely because of self-inflicted wounds.
It was largely self inflicted wounds stopped them in 2010.
Nope.
It was close on half a generation of society being bribed with borrowed money, publically and privately, in an environment of asset price inflation which underwrote the borrowing.
Sure the Tories are toffs, toxic, etc but they are only portrayed as nasty because they had and have a desire to stop the unaffordable lunacy.
In a nutshell why the Tories struggle to win elections. Nobody wants to look at why they didn't win and to pass all the blame to outside factors. Get real.
IMO here were some of the Tory mistakes in 2010:
1. crap campaign 2. poor groundwork in the North, cities and Scotland 3. the referendum welch 4. Cameron didn't create a broad enough church 5. they just weren't hungry enough
About the only external factors I can think of are Mandelson ran a cracking campaigh for Labour and the Cleggasm.
btw, have now seen virtually all the BAFTA/Oscar contendors except for 12 Years A Slave (tonight). Real gem was "Her" with Joaquin Phoenix. And "Labor Day" - a film that some find sickly but I thought was just spot on. Also "Dallas Buyers Club" - Matthew McConaughy is extraordinary - a real Oscar shot. (Jared Leto is also outstanding and at least worthy of a best supporting nod.) However, Robert Redford will be hard to beat in the single-hander All Is Lost - even though he barely has a line of dialogue. It might be his swan-song - and Oscar voters are a sentimental lot!
American Hustle starts well but is probably 40 minutes too long. August: Osage County reminded me of The Big Chill but with vast amounts of venom - one of those gathering movies where it all goes hideously wrong as secrets are revealed. Meryl is brilliant again, Julia Roberts very good too.
Gravity could do well - it represents a new way of making movies and Oscar voters like innovation too. It does look stunning too. And as with All Is Lost, Sandra Bullock has to undertake much of the film solo.
The Railwayman is hard watching in places but ultimately uplifting. Despicable Me 2 is the antidote: such a blast, fantastic writing that doesn't get the kudos it deserves for being animation.
Did not get anything at all from the Coen Brothers "Inside Llewyn Davis" - biggest disappointment of the lot. Can't see why it gets award talk.
Really enjoyed Wolf of Wall Street, but the Oscar voters are gonna hate its reveling in hedonistic sex and drug-fueled excess as the little guys get fleeced of their money.
tim would have said that George Osborne will doubtless enjoy it.
As I have said on here a few times before, the Tories *should* win handily in 2015: the economy is improving and the opposition is no great shakes.
Not so sure.
In 2010, Labour was no great shakes and had by common consent not made a good job of the economy. Still, the Conservatives didn't win, let alone handily.
Come 2015, Labour may not be the finest opposition on record, yet they're likely to be in a better position than they were in 2010.
This is, of course, what makes 2015 so fascinating. Lord Ashcroft's numbers suggest that there hasn't been much movement from Con to Lab or vice versa, but as has been rehearsed here ad infinitum, it's the shifting UKIP and LibDem votes that have put everything in play. If we assume a static Lab vote and that very few LibDems will switch to Con, any degree of churn over 2010 can only benefit Labour.
So it's a little harsh to say that a Con loss in 2015 would be "entirely their own fault". The dynamics at present are such that, given an averagely competent Conservative party and an averagely competent Labour party, the election is Labour's to lose.
The eagerly awaited Baden Wuerttemberg December CPI data is out, and shows a 1.3% y-o-y increase, and a 0.3% m-o-m increase. That means they are exactly the same as November's numbers
More details as this story develops
You haven't answered my question on the identity of the world's first communist!
King Ethelred the Unready?
Nope.
Christopher Columbus.
Go on...
Three reasons.
1. When he set out he didn't know where he was going.
2. When he arrived he didn't know where he was.
3. He did it all on state money.
My second favourite Soviet era joke.
The favourite would get me banned if printed on PB.
Strictly speaking, Columbus did know where he was aiming to arrive, though he grossly under-estimated how long it would take to get there.
I hope you are not suggesting George Osborne is a communist, David?
A continuing Coalition majority of just 16. Effectively more like plus 20 with SF abstentionism and Labour would have to gather all Others to defeat the government. Certainly a very tricky situation for the government but not outside the realms of reason.
Tricky indeed. However, the first hurdle would be whether the LibDems (and some Tories) would play ball in such a scenario. I don't think that could be relied upon at all. There could also be a Conservative leadership challenge which would mean further instability.
Certainly they are potential obstacles but the reality of the alternative would focus minds wonderfully.
Realistically what do Conservatives and LibDem luminaries expect ?? If they manage to get back in government after 5 years of trouble and strife then they deserve a medal !! .... MBE's and free hair cuts all round !!
A continuing Coalition majority of just 16. Effectively more like plus 20 with SF abstentionism and Labour would have to gather all Others to defeat the government. Certainly a very tricky situation for the government but not outside the realms of reason.
Tricky indeed. However, the first hurdle would be whether the LibDems (and some Tories) would play ball in such a scenario. I don't think that could be relied upon at all. There could also be a Conservative leadership challenge which would mean further instability.
Wouldn't it depend, to some extent, on WHICH LibDems were re-elected?
UKIP and Farage blow hot and cold - We have the ridiculous (for a free market party) sovereign wealth fund policy and yet he was brilliant on Radio 4 today talking about immigration and linking it with Europe.
The Sov Wealth Fund is just a way of selling the public on fracking.
Actually, I think this makes a lot of sense. Ideally, we could introduce a strong local element - because it's local communities who will have to cope with the hundreds of trucks carrying water, sand, frac trucks, etc.
Potentially, George Osborne's cut cut and cut again whilst we are blowing billions on international aid and the EU is as toxic as the omnishambles budget.
Increasing overseas aid whilst cutting at home was always going to be tricky. Cameron has got away with it so far because it doesn't suit Labour to make a fuss on the issue and none of the mainstream media seem to want to run with it. That might change, but I doubt it. So whilst it will undoubtedly cost the Conservatives some votes, I don't think it is going to be sufficiently toxic to affect the outcome in 2015.
Potentially, George Osborne's cut cut and cut again whilst we are blowing billions on international aid and the EU is as toxic as the omnishambles budget.
Increasing overseas aid whilst cutting at home was always going to be tricky. Cameron has got away with it so far because it doesn't suit Labour to make a fuss on the issue and none of the mainstream media seem to want to run with it. That might change, but I doubt it. So whilst it will undoubtedly cost the Conservatives some votes, I don't think it is going to be sufficiently toxic to affect the outcome in 2015.
Increasing Overseas Aid was in the 2010 LD Manifesto -
'Increasing the UK's aid budget to reach the UN target of 0.7pc of GNI by 2013'
On topic I don't think it is the amount Cameron pays for a haircut that matters, but the implied cronyism.
However good a hairdresser this bloke is, would he have been awarded an MBE if he didn't cut Cameron's hair?
exactly
Robert
I am loathe to spark a family argument but the issue isn't as clear cut as you suggest.
Of course honours get given more to those who come into contact with the great and the good, especially at the low rank public service level. The whole system relies on nominations and greater weight will always be given to a heavyweight nominator.
But that is not the point. Lollipop ladies, nurses, school caretakers etc are given honours as much to reward the kind of work they do as to single out individuals who carry out superlative work. An exemplary honour given to a Lollipop lady becomes a reward for all Lollipop ladies.
No one is suggesting that Lino Carbosieri is the only hardworking and successful crimper in town. But singling him out for an honour raises the social status of all hairdressers and all working in the personal grooming services sector.
This is the point missed by Roger. It is time we honoured a snapper too to avoid the pecking order being upset with consequent demarcation disputes holding back economic output.
Sir Wodger awise!
If raising social status of ordinary hard working hairdressers and groomers were the aim, wouldn't it be wiser to honour one just as hard working, but less well connected?
No. You reward the one most likely to get publicity.
Hmmm... Not sure i buy that, or that this one is likely to get most publicity (other than negative)
I don't really care either way, but politically, Cameron honouring his personal hairdresser gives an easy shot for accusers of cronyism, especially after Rebecca Brooks, Steve Coulson, & the Etonians in the cabinet, particularly Osborne
Honouring a relatively unknown hairdresser with a chain up north would have been better for Cameron's man of the people image than the Guinness, pasties etc
On topic I don't think it is the amount Cameron pays for a haircut that matters, but the implied cronyism.
However good a hairdresser this bloke is, would he have been awarded an MBE if he didn't cut Cameron's hair?
exactly
Robert
I am loathe to spark a family argument but the issue isn't as clear cut as you suggest.
Of course honours get given more to those who come into contact with the great and the good, especially at the low rank public service level. The whole system relies on nominations and greater weight will always be given to a heavyweight nominator.
But that is not the point. Lollipop ladies, nurses, school caretakers etc are given honours as much to reward the kind of work they do as to single out individuals who carry out superlative work. An exemplary honour given to a Lollipop lady becomes a reward for all Lollipop ladies.
No one is suggesting that Lino Carbosieri is the only hardworking and successful crimper in town. But singling him out for an honour raises the social status of all hairdressers and all working in the personal grooming services sector.
This is the point missed by Roger. It is time we honoured a snapper too to avoid the pecking order being upset with consequent demarcation disputes holding back economic output.
Sir Wodger awise!
If raising social status of ordinary hard working hairdressers and groomers were the aim, wouldn't it be wiser to honour one just as hard working, but less well connected?
No. You reward the one most likely to get publicity.
Hmmm... Not sure i buy that, or that this one is likely to get most publicity (other than negative)
I don't really care either way, but politically, Cameron honouring his personal hairdresser gives an easy shot for accusers of cronyism, especially after Rebecca Brooks, Steve Coulson, & the Etonians in the cabinet, particularly Osborne
Honouring a relatively unknown hairdresser with a chain up north would have been better for Cameron's man of the people image than the Guinness, pasties etc
isam
It is the reason why Becks didn't get his knighthood in the New Year's Honours.
It has been delayed to the Queen's Birthday Honours which get announced in June.
@Alanbrooke - "So in simple terms there's no debate on the principle just some quibbling round the edges."
Absolutely right - it's been about that ever since the Coalition took the route it did. And leads on best PM/leader; Ed leads on being more in touch with ordinary people. Something has to give.
The labour lead on who is best for me and my family is vulnerable as I stated back in S
We'll see.
I can't see the Tories getting an outright majority since as you have pointed out Cameron has done little to address his core weaknesses of :
He will still be in the position of racking up huge majorities in places where it doesn't count while failing to reach the parts other parties can reach.
Yup, if the Tories do not win in 2015 it will be largely because of self-inflicted wounds.
It was largely self inflicted wounds stopped them in 2010.
Nope.
It was close on half a generation of society being bribed with borrowed money, publically and privately, in an environment of asset price inflation which underwrote the borrowing.
Sure the Tories are toffs, toxic, etc but they are only portrayed as nasty because they had and have a desire to stop the unaffordable lunacy.
In a nutshell why the Tories struggle to win elections. Nobody wants to look at why they didn't win and to pass all the blame to outside factors. Get real.
IMO here were some of the Tory mistakes in 2010:
1. crap campaign 2. poor groundwork in the North, cities and Scotland 3. the referendum welch 4. Cameron didn't create a broad enough church 5. they just weren't hungry enough
About the only external factors I can think of are Mandelson ran a cracking campaigh for Labour and the Cleggasm.
1. Agree 2. Agree 3. Agree 4. Agree 5. Agree
But
That's just tinkering around the edges. They promised fiscal responsibility and no one wanted to listen. Lab (ADarling) did also but of course no one believed them.
The 2010 election was about a structural change in Britain and we the Brits weren't prepared for that change.
Which is fine. As long as people vote with their eyes open. The difficulty is that Lab is still propagating the lies and people will want to believe them. And that's also fine, good luck to the People.
If I did "embed an image in my post", what would I be doing, and how would I be doing it? If I made sure that I was not "embedding an image in my post", what and how would i being so, apart from the vast majority of posts which don't involve images anyway?
Certainly they are potential obstacles but the reality of the alternative would focus minds wonderfully.
Realistically what do Conservatives and LibDem luminaries expect ?? If they manage to get back in government after 5 years of trouble and strife then they deserve a medal !!
I agree, but I seem to be in a minority. And whilst the Conservative and LibDem luminaries might take a sensible view, they are dependent on the parliamentary votes of some less luminous MPs.
Personally, I thought the only people from 2013 worth honouring were the three women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers and comforted him as he lay dying. That shows true class and, frankly, does not need some bauble. But if we are to have honours I'd rather it went to fewer and more worthwhile people than now.
The woman who was the fixer and the sorter out of problems on Benefits Street had enough drive and intelligence to run a small company, let alone hold down a job.
Did every other f*cker in the country manage to get mis-sold PPI except me.
I feel like I've missed out.
It's alright - I missed out too - I assiduously rejected all PPI offers having carefully calculated the cost/benefit to me. What's the point of being smart and financially responsible?
Did every other f*cker in the country manage to get mis-sold PPI except me.
I feel like I've missed out.
No I am another one. Personally I thought they were a tax on stupidity. It is a bit galling when stupidity is rewarded.
(Still get endless messages and phone calls claiming I am due specific sums however. Is starting a business relationship with someone who deliberately lies to you at their first point of contact another form of stupidity?)
So are you trying to tell me that the left are pointing and shouting about the most trivial stories whilst having absolutely no positive vision for the country whatsoever?
Personally, I thought the only people from 2013 worth honouring were the three women who confronted Lee Rigby's killers and comforted him as he lay dying. That shows true class and, frankly, does not need some bauble. But if we are to have honours I'd rather it went to fewer and more worthwhile people than now.
There was some talk of linking the honours system with volunteerism, but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.
Comments
Much as the Eds have called the economy wrong they've now shifted the debate on to territory the Coalition can beat them on. IMO this will be because:
1. More people will get in to jobs
2. The economy is recovering and wages will now start to rise
3. The Coalition will stick more money in people's pocket this year
4. People ain't daft they know the macro level needs to be right for the micro level to pay up
So all Ed's posturing while great for headlines won't actually amount to a hill of beans.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 16h
Chancellor wants 25billion of cuts while the international aid budget soars.
The expression he has on his twitter pic sums up his thoughts methinks.
And just for you Avery "brummy metal bashing".
The OBR in its latest EFO has a 'box note' on the impact of car manufacturing on GDP and the BoP, which is worth quoting.
Car consumption and production
In volume terms, spending on cars in the UK has grown strongly, accounting for nearly a third of household consumption growth since the third quarter of 2011. Facilitating this spending, car finance has been the main reason for the strong recent growth in unsecured credit.
... The current recovery began in mid-2011, and has continued, with new car registrations rising more than 10 per cent a year.
But UK car consumption is highly import intensive. [T]he share of new car registrations met by domestic production has fallen from 45 per cent two decades ago to just 14 per cent now. This limits the benefit to GDP growth of stronger car consumption. ... [M]ore than half the contribution to household consumption growth from car consumption was accounted for by imports.
But the UK also produces cars for export and overseas demand has also been strong. While overall net trade has made a very modest contribution to GDP in recent years, the UK car-trade balance has moved from a 0.5 per cent of GDP deficit in 2007 to a small surplus in the first three quarters of 2013, helped by the strength of non-EU exports (particularly to China).
But again the impact on GDP is limited, as domestic car production uses nearly three times more imports for every pound of output than the economy as a whole.
I am beginning to think the same as you and St. George on this. Import substitution in the supply chain is the key.
That was why George was giving his New Year 'State of the Economy' speech at a Sertec Birmingham plant yesterday. A big supplier to JLR ("Sertec is proud to supply 154 parts to the all new Range Rover and 142 parts are manufactured for the recently launched, stunning Jaguar F –Type") and the second largest employer to BMW in its area, it is planning to increase employment by 400 over the next three years. Impressive for a Brummie metal basher!
And what is more (*Avery drops volume to a mere whisper*), Lloyds Bank is financing their planned expansion.
We may be reconciled yet, Mr. Brooke.
If you read the DM article you'll note that the cutter in question has been instrumental in a campaign to have hairdressing established as a profession.
1. getting WWC voters in his tent
2. treating Scotland as a place he needs to win votes
3. breaking out of his southern bastions
He will still be in the position of racking up huge majorities in places where it doesn't count while failing to reach the parts other parties can reach.
You have been reading too many Tristram Hunt revisionist texts on the Gordon Brown area.
Historical methodology has moved on in the Gove era.
I assumed it was all a bit of a mates favour really, and fair enough... So far away from affecting me and my crowd it might as well not exist
As I've said before, the financial markets are currently underestimating political risk in the UK. Luckily they will continue to do so until near the end of 2014, so no need to panic as yet, and who knows, maybe voters will vote on substance not haircuts.
Disclosure of interest: I'm currently sporting a number one, as usual.
You can't have lots of suppliers without a lead manufacture to create the volume. You appear to be struggling with the concept that we need about another 3 car plants and a van plant to satisfy domestic demand. Back in the old days she who cannot be named would just have gone out and got them ( though in truth it takes about 5+ years to do it ). Gormless George just sits back and expects things to happen.
As for your comment on Lloyds, it's been Sertec's bank for ages, the surprise would have been if LBG had done something novel.
Blimey you are aching for an argument!
No one said that!
So we're back once again to the same old question - will the desire among those who despise the Coalition for whatever reason be stronger than the vague sense of economic well-being engendered by two or three years of recovery ?
There are those who are undoubtedly so ill-disposed toward the Government that they wouldn't vote for them even if David Cameron came to their front door with a wheelbarrow full of cash so the notion that a recovering economy is some kind of electoral panacea may not be accurate.
The notion that it's just about the wallet may no longer fit the dynamic of the electorate - people vote for many and varied reasons and more often for what they are against than what they are for. It may be hard for some on here to understand but an intellectual dismissal of Labour's chances won't influence that many people and especially those whose personal and cultural points of reference have engendered a dislike for the Conservatives.
We alo have the not insignificant factor that the debasement of the political culture has created such a mistrust for and antipathy toward politicians that reasoned argument may not have the force it once did if it comes from those who have lost the public's trust.
1. It is Vince's primary responsibility to secure new investment, though your point about Maggie doing someone else's job for them if they don't do it themselves is valid as is the concept of collective responsibility. But it remains Vince to whom we should look first.
2. I accept the economy of scale argument but not to the extent that UK intermediate manufacturers should give up if it doesn't materialise. But who is likely to invest in a new European plant for mass market production on the basis of a UK recovery only? A better bet - at least in the short term - would be to encourage and support the existing top end marque manufacturers to develop new mass market products. But that route has risks as Aston Martin discovered with the untimely death of their Cygnet.
Chancellor: George Osborne
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Ed Balls
For clever people, the tories really are sometimes monumentally stupid.
It was close on half a generation of society being bribed with borrowed money, publically and privately, in an environment of asset price inflation which underwrote the borrowing.
Sure the Tories are toffs, toxic, etc but they are only portrayed as nasty because they had and have a desire to stop the unaffordable lunacy.
On hair, I've always thought Ed Miliband maybe vulnerable, clearly his barber arranges for a bird to shit on a certain part of his hair, that must cost a bomb.
Now the economy has recovered and Ed Balls is a muppet at the best of times so there is plenty to laugh/be cheerful about when you are George during one of these set pieces.
But the juxtaposition of GO looking far too happy/'more cuts' is just downright awful in terms of PR.
It should have been so easy. Ed Balls is ScoTE. That is almost as good a facing Brown when he was PM !
I can't see them, and couldn't see them last night.
I want to back Gove and Paterson as next out of the cabinet.
I am loathe to spark a family argument but the issue isn't as clear cut as you suggest.
Of course honours get given more to those who come into contact with the great and the good, especially at the low rank public service level. The whole system relies on nominations and greater weight will always be given to a heavyweight nominator.
But that is not the point. Lollipop ladies, nurses, school caretakers etc are given honours as much to reward the kind of work they do as to single out individuals who carry out superlative work. An exemplary honour given to a Lollipop lady becomes a reward for all Lollipop ladies.
No one is suggesting that Lino Carbosieri is the only hardworking and successful crimper in town. But singling him out for an honour raises the social status of all hairdressers and all working in the personal grooming services sector.
This is the point missed by Roger. It is time we honoured a snapper too to avoid the pecking order being upset with consequent demarcation disputes holding back economic output.
Sir Wodger awise!
It's the lowest Coalition number since the July 13 ARSE projection that had Con on 290 and LibDems on 40.
As for your second point it's got bugger all to do with scale and everything to do with market segmentation. The UK has a successful high end car industry only Japan and Germany have one ( maybe a niche Italian or 2 ) which is primarily export driven. As a next step this industry is most likely to set up car plants overseas rather than expand much more in the UK.
What the UK has let go is an industry that serves its own domestic consumption. That's the bit that needs to expand and there's no real reason why it can't. Most of what we import is from either high cost countries ( Germany, France, Spain - so no cost penalty ) or Asian manufacturers who will soon be looking a European base, ( though probably too late for the Koreans now ). We should offer them one.
Small greens on Jones, Mel and Pellegrino now too...
*publicly
Jeez.
It really should have been so easy. The tories only really needed to freeze international aid or trim by half a billion, just as a token to show that we are all in this together. Would it have really have made any difference to the starving billions abroad?
But no. They have stuck tooth and nail to a policy that is staggeringly unpopular in the country, at the same time as preaching parsimony to their voter bedrock.
It really is quite incredibly bad politics.
If so, I fear for Keighley's prospects in 2015.
IMO here were some of the Tory mistakes in 2010:
1. crap campaign
2. poor groundwork in the North, cities and Scotland
3. the referendum welch
4. Cameron didn't create a broad enough church
5. they just weren't hungry enough
About the only external factors I can think of are Mandelson ran a cracking campaigh for Labour and the Cleggasm.
American Hustle starts well but is probably 40 minutes too long. August: Osage County reminded me of The Big Chill but with vast amounts of venom - one of those gathering movies where it all goes hideously wrong as secrets are revealed. Meryl is brilliant again, Julia Roberts very good too.
Gravity could do well - it represents a new way of making movies and Oscar voters like innovation too. It does look stunning too. And as with All Is Lost, Sandra Bullock has to undertake much of the film solo.
The Railwayman is hard watching in places but ultimately uplifting. Despicable Me 2 is the antidote: such a blast, fantastic writing that doesn't get the kudos it deserves for being animation.
Did not get anything at all from the Coen Brothers "Inside Llewyn Davis" - biggest disappointment of the lot. Can't see why it gets award talk.
Really enjoyed Wolf of Wall Street, but the Oscar voters are gonna hate its reveling in hedonistic sex and drug-fueled excess as the little guys get fleeced of their money.
tim would have said that George Osborne will doubtless enjoy it.
In 2010, Labour was no great shakes and had by common consent not made a good job of the economy. Still, the Conservatives didn't win, let alone handily.
Come 2015, Labour may not be the finest opposition on record, yet they're likely to be in a better position than they were in 2010.
This is, of course, what makes 2015 so fascinating. Lord Ashcroft's numbers suggest that there hasn't been much movement from Con to Lab or vice versa, but as has been rehearsed here ad infinitum, it's the shifting UKIP and LibDem votes that have put everything in play. If we assume a static Lab vote and that very few LibDems will switch to Con, any degree of churn over 2010 can only benefit Labour.
So it's a little harsh to say that a Con loss in 2015 would be "entirely their own fault". The dynamics at present are such that, given an averagely competent Conservative party and an averagely competent Labour party, the election is Labour's to lose.
Realistically what do Conservatives and LibDem luminaries expect ?? If they manage to get back in government after 5 years of trouble and strife then they deserve a medal !! .... MBE's and free hair cuts all round !!
My film of the last year was Iron Man 3.
Honourable mentions to Rush and Filth.
I enjoyed American Hustle, apart from Amy Adams cleavage being so prominent. Batman was awesome in it.
I've been reading the ABSCAM scandal it was based, the film is largely true.
"Honourable mentions to Rush and Filth"
Do you have to discuss your sex life here ?!?
Christ it was like an episode of the Jeremy Kyle Show.
Sheffield is the location of the Garden of Eden.
Very long on problems, but very short on answers.
'Increasing the UK's aid budget to reach the UN target of 0.7pc of GNI by 2013'
Tories can't take all the blame for that.
Hmmm... Not sure i buy that, or that this one is likely to get most publicity (other than negative)
I don't really care either way, but politically, Cameron honouring his personal hairdresser gives an easy shot for accusers of cronyism, especially after Rebecca Brooks, Steve Coulson, & the Etonians in the cabinet, particularly Osborne
Honouring a relatively unknown hairdresser with a chain up north would have been better for Cameron's man of the people image than the Guinness, pasties etc
We owe Tony Blair an apology.
When we invaded Iraq, he said Al Qaeda were active in Iraq.
Turns out he was right, ok, they became active after we invaded, but Blair's a visionary.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/confusion-prevails-over-clashes-iraq-201416124840445692.html
Maybe you are right. I wonder what might happen if Farage pledged to slash the overseas aid budget in half, however.
It is the reason why Becks didn't get his knighthood in the New Year's Honours.
It has been delayed to the Queen's Birthday Honours which get announced in June.
Just in time for the World Cup.
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Agree
5. Agree
But
That's just tinkering around the edges. They promised fiscal responsibility and no one wanted to listen. Lab (ADarling) did also but of course no one believed them.
The 2010 election was about a structural change in Britain and we the Brits weren't prepared for that change.
Which is fine. As long as people vote with their eyes open. The difficulty is that Lab is still propagating the lies and people will want to believe them. And that's also fine, good luck to the People.
But it's a shame nevertheless.
- breaks down sobbing -
This show?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefits-street-channel-4-documentary-2994242
She was wearing a top that says "I [heart symbol] PB"
I'd have liked it if they'd interviewed one of the 10% 'in work' people who lives there. Now there's somebody to feel sorry for.
If I did "embed an image in my post", what would I be doing, and how would I be doing it?
If I made sure that I was not "embedding an image in my post", what and how would i being so, apart from the vast majority of posts which don't involve images anyway?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25635819
Did every other f*cker in the country manage to get mis-sold PPI except me.
I feel like I've missed out.
I'll only believe that when I see Pork flying up there.
(Still get endless messages and phone calls claiming I am due specific sums however. Is starting a business relationship with someone who deliberately lies to you at their first point of contact another form of stupidity?)
I'm sorry I can't believe it.