Mr. Smithson, really not my period, but didn't Churchill massively cock-up the election campaign, expecting instead to just cruise to victory? If so, that'd be an argument against complacency, more than anything else.
That said, I agree with you that gratitude is not a way to retain power. A party has to be seen to be best for the next term (or least bad).
Whilst there were bad mistakes in the Churchill's campaign the 45 election was massively lost already. Voters reflected on the National government of the thirties, appeasement and were overwhelmingly looking to turn the page after 6 years of war. Remember there had been no general election since 1935.
Labour's motto of "Cheer Churchill but vote Labour" seemed to sum up the mood accurately.
There was a historian on Radio 4 a few years back who said Labour won the 1945 election because they were seen as the party who would demob the military faster.
I'm not sure there's any evidence that the swing away from the Conservatives was any larger in the armed forces than in the general population.
Labour offered the NHS and the Welfare State and a group of proven wartime ministers whereas for all of Churchill's war time brilliance the Conservatives offered the past that voters were desperate to leave behind.
But surely not all of them were Labour ministers, Jack?
The Conservative ministers would have had pre-War baggage that the Labour ministers didn't have.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
There were two weaknesses in Osborne's statement. One was the inherent one that it returned to the cause of rapid deficit reduction which the Tories have soft-pedalled for the last year, making it harder to talk about tax reductions. The other is that he's refrained from spelling out most of the cuts in welfare that he thinks necessary, choosing only to focus on a couple of easy ones that raise tuppence. The obvious line of attack is to fill in the blanks with the most unpopular options - "Chanceller to withdraw support for popular group X?" - forcing him to deny it, after which they move on to the next popular victims, until he finally has to come clean.
See Kirkup's analysis in the Telegraph (apols for length) - will post separately.
Osborne is on track to double the national debt by the General Election, when most people I speak to think he is paying it off. When this becomes clear it could be the Conservatives who are on the back foot.
Which is why most people need to learn the difference between debt and deficit. He is reducing one to enable the other to be reduced over time.
He is, just barely. But he himself and his colleagues have used such phrases as "paying down the debt" - words that will come back to haunt them when the public catch on.
I must admit, I find the idea of subsidising non-work, and taxing work, truly bizarre.
Work is good. And it's good not just in a generating taxes and economic output way, but good in a having a purpose in life way. People who work are happier. People who work are less likely, all other things being equal, to commit crimes. People who work are healthier both physically and mentally. And it's the correlation is clearly from work to these good things: having a routine in life is - simply - a good thing.
Once you've got understood this point, it's clear the tax and benefit system is completely and utterly broken.
We should offer no benefits whatsoever for people without jobs, but should have negative income tax at the low-end of the scale. So, someone who can only command a job paying £1/hour in the free market, should receive benefits of £5/hour. £2/hour should result in £4.50/hour, etc.. In this way, *all* work pays. But someone who chooses to stay home receives nothing.
People without skills become more much employable under this system - and once they start working (and earning) they start having an interest in the economic and political system.
We would have to get rid of benefits like housing benefit - of course - under this system, as they continue to discourage work. All benefits should be based around the fundamental assumption that work is good and should be encouraged.
Your assumption being that most people that do not have jobs simply do not want them?
I'm interested to know how you would cut child tax credit without punishing the children for the sins of their parents
Actually it is quite easy. One of the lesser known things about our welfare system is that for those without children welfare payments are dickensian, for those with children welfare payments through tax credits are absurdly lavish and do not even get taken away if you have £100,000 stashed in an ISA, as capital is not taken into account in calculating tax credits nor is interest in ISAs
Do you really think the children actually get the tax credit money? As I said earlier:
"There are two real problems that need sorting in welfare
1) Housing benefit is welfare benefit that funnels straight into private landlords pockets (and also into housing associations with over generous salaries and pensions, particularly for executives, pockets). Building council estates and rent control + licencing for private landlords would bring down housing benefit far more than osbornes vicious proposal against under 25s
2) Child tax credits. These are grossly over generous in four regards.
(a) for each child an addtional child allowance of over £2,750 p.a. is given. Tapering is consecutive. This is absurd and encourages child farming. Subsequent children do not cost as much as the first as you can hand down cots clothes etc. The child allowance for second and subsequent children should be halved.
(b) Disabled element (£3,100 p.a.) should only apply for serious disabilites, not for things like attention deficit disorder which disreputable parents are keen to get a diagnosis of to access the cash machine.
(c) Self employed fiddle. Someone registering as self employed can claim tax credits indefinitely even if they only make £500 a year, they don't actually have to do much work and are ratrely if ever monitored to ensure they are working. (Universal credit will end this by deeming self employed people to be earning 35hours x mininum wage even if they dont earn that much after first year)
(d) The part time fiddle. Someone with children can work 16 or 24 hours part time (16 for some, 24 for others) on tax credits for the minimum wage and get an equivalent salary to a wage of £30,000. This is an outrageous subisidy to businesses employing un/low skilled people who knowing this cut their salaries to minimum wage and offer mainly part time work. People without children who cannot access tax credits are left high and dry in poverty by this."
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
Labour are favourites to win the next election.
Is Southam the person who was sure that Mitt Romney has it in the bag?
Labour's lack of backbone on tough decisions and lacking seriousness. This is one of the critical battles where the next election will be won and lost.
You don't think the "Cost of gym membership crisis" will swing it?
It would require a vault in imagination, Carlotta. The problem for Labour is that they see revenues and costs as asymmetric. To my mind that is the reason they are on the floor and I am beaming.
There were two weaknesses in Osborne's statement. One was the inherent one that it returned to the cause of rapid deficit reduction which the Tories have soft-pedalled for the last year, making it harder to talk about tax reductions. The other is that he's refrained from spelling out most of the cuts in welfare that he thinks necessary, choosing only to focus on a couple of easy ones that raise tuppence. The obvious line of attack is to fill in the blanks with the most unpopular options - "Chanceller to withdraw support for popular group X?" - forcing him to deny it, after which they move on to the next popular victims, until he finally has to come clean.
See Kirkup's analysis in the Telegraph (apols for length) - will post separately.
Osborne is on track to double the national debt by the General Election, when most people I speak to think he is paying it off. When this becomes clear it could be the Conservatives who are on the back foot.
The Scouts clearly don't give badges for arithmetic.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
As I say, the Tories will blame everyone but themselves if they are not returned to power in 2015.
. Of course, you can argue they get a better type of accommodation than they can afford, which is true, but it doesn't alter the fact that the simple maths is misleading.
I'm interested to know how you would cut child tax credit without punishing the children for the sins of their parents What pisses people off is when housing benefits allow the unemployed to have a considerably higher standard of accommodation than those in work. Ask any of the commuter drones trudging into London on a daily basis.
As for child credit make the announcement of any changes 12 months in advance. If you have a child in the age of effective contraception, it's by choice. A choice you should pay for.
rcs1000 [9.02am] Are you saying that I would have derived more psychological benefit from my article here yesterday if OGH had paid me for it? If so, you must surely also believe that the more work is paid, the better it is. This is an extreme materialist position - you are of course entitled to hold it, bit I do wonder if - as with AudreyAnne a little earlier - you aren't seeking to pass off political ideology as common sense or some other sort of wisdom.
Actually, IA, you are welcome to do what you like :-)
Here's the thing. Routine is good. People who get up at 7am, make breakfast, go to work, and come home in the evening. Well, they're relatively happy.
Human beings were made to be creatures of routine. If you take the routine away from someone you make them less happy. If you bring routine to someone who does not have it, they become more happy. These aren't just assertions - these have been born out by very large scale studies.
If someone doesn't work for a sustained period of time then they become less employable. I want to break that by making sure that *everyone* is working. And everyone can be working. There is no fixed lump of work that needs to be done, and after that point, we're done.
If you could get the front of your house painted for half cost, you know what - people would get their house painted more often. If you lower the cost of labour, you get more demand for it.
And I suspect this would have another advantage: this would make British people more employable. More work would get done. It's hard to think of anything that would have a more positive impact on the British economy.
People can convince themselves of anything. The neutrals among us look for the facts. I do wonder if some Conservatives seek comfort in the strangest places. Labour will just match Conservative spending plans I should think, and neither party will do a bean to address the spiralling debt.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
Labour are favourites to win the next election.
Is Southam the person who was sure that Mitt Romney has it in the bag?
I am not saying the Tories will win; I am saying that they should win. The economy is undoubtedly improving, Labour has done little to set the world on fire, EdM is personally unpopular.
I was spectacularly wrong about Romney; I have been right about other stuff. None of us is perfect.
I must admit, I find the idea of subsidising non-work, and taxing work, truly bizarre.
Work is good. And it's good not just in a generating taxes and economic output way, but good in a having a purpose in life way. People who work are happier. People who work are less likely, all other things being equal, to commit crimes. People who work are healthier both physically and mentally. And it's the correlation is clearly from work to these good things: having a routine in life is - simply - a good thing.
Once you've got understood this point, it's clear the tax and benefit system is completely and utterly broken.
We should offer no benefits whatsoever for people without jobs, but should have negative income tax at the low-end of the scale. So, someone who can only command a job paying £1/hour in the free market, should receive benefits of £5/hour. £2/hour should result in £4.50/hour, etc.. In this way, *all* work pays. But someone who chooses to stay home receives nothing.
People without skills become more much employable under this system - and once they start working (and earning) they start having an interest in the economic and political system.
We would have to get rid of benefits like housing benefit - of course - under this system, as they continue to discourage work. All benefits should be based around the fundamental assumption that work is good and should be encouraged.
Your assumption being that most people that do not have jobs simply do not want them?
No, my assumption is that they are priced out of the labour market.
If the value of the work you produce per hour is - say £4, and the minimum wage is £7: guess what, you won't have a job.
Here's the thing: the more work you do, the better you become at it. (Like anything else.) By subsidizing people who are not (currently) very economically productive, we give them experience and they become better at working.
I must admit, I find the idea of subsidising non-work, and taxing work, truly bizarre.
Work is good. And it's good not just in a generating taxes and economic output way, but good in a having a purpose in life way. People who work are happier. People who work are less likely, all other things being equal, to commit crimes. People who work are healthier both physically and mentally. And it's the correlation is clearly from work to these good things: having a routine in life is - simply - a good thing.
Once you've got understood this point, it's clear the tax and benefit system is completely and utterly broken.
We should offer no benefits whatsoever for people without jobs, but should have negative income tax at the low-end of the scale. So, someone who can only command a job paying £1/hour in the free market, should receive benefits of £5/hour. £2/hour should result in £4.50/hour, etc.. In this way, *all* work pays. But someone who chooses to stay home receives nothing.
People without skills become more much employable under this system - and once they start working (and earning) they start having an interest in the economic and political system.
We would have to get rid of benefits like housing benefit - of course - under this system, as they continue to discourage work. All benefits should be based around the fundamental assumption that work is good and should be encouraged.
Your assumption being that most people that do not have jobs simply do not want them?
No, my assumption is that they are priced out of the labour market.
If the value of the work you produce per hour is - say £4, and the minimum wage is £7: guess what, you won't have a job.
Here's the thing: the more work you do, the better you become at it. (Like anything else.) By subsidizing people who are not (currently) very economically productive, we give them experience and they become better at working.
So the state should be subsidising employers more than it is at the moment?
@Southam Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
That is what Labour thought in Scotland. The truth is that Labour are benefitting temporarily from the implosion of the Conservatives, hastened by Cameron driving social conservatives into UKIP. What we are seeing is a repeat of how the DUP a working/lower middle class small "c" conservative party eclipsed the NIs tories, the UUP.
The bad news for labour is that they will be replaced by the Lib Dems in due course as they have nothing to offer other than bread and circuses for their client vote, but for the next 10 years they will temporarily dominate the UK as they dominated the Scottish parliament in its early days. They will go the way of the SDLP.
Sale East and Wythenshawe will be something of a watershed by election. The consitutency is a mixture of suburban Sale East and the huge Wythenshawe estate. Wythenshawe has only 10% ethnic minorities and 50% are over 30 Paul Goggins was a devout Roman Catholic who voted against abortion and gay marriage. Labour were only 7,000 ahead of the Tories in 2010, so it is not safe Labour in the way Sunderland and Rotherham were. This is a very good opportunity for UKIP, especially if Labour select someone right on and progressive..
I must admit, I find the idea of subsidising non-work, and taxing work, truly bizarre.
Work is good. And it's good not just in a generating taxes and economic output way, but good in a having a purpose in life way. People who work are happier. People who work are less likely, all other things being equal, to commit crimes. People who work are healthier both physically and mentally. And it's the correlation is clearly from work to these good things: having a routine in life is - simply - a good thing.
Once you've got understood this point, it's clear the tax and benefit system is completely and utterly broken.
We should offer no benefits whatsoever for people without jobs, but should have negative income tax at the low-end of the scale. So, someone who can only command a job paying £1/hour in the free market, should receive benefits of £5/hour. £2/hour should result in £4.50/hour, etc.. In this way, *all* work pays. But someone who chooses to stay home receives nothing.
People without skills become more much employable under this system - and once they start working (and earning) they start having an interest in the economic and political system.
We would have to get rid of benefits like housing benefit - of course - under this system, as they continue to discourage work. All benefits should be based around the fundamental assumption that work is good and should be encouraged.
Your assumption being that most people that do not have jobs simply do not want them?
No, my assumption is that they are priced out of the labour market.
If the value of the work you produce per hour is - say £4, and the minimum wage is £7: guess what, you won't have a job.
Here's the thing: the more work you do, the better you become at it. (Like anything else.) By subsidizing people who are not (currently) very economically productive, we give them experience and they become better at working.
This is an explanation used by some people because it's the easiest one that fits with Econ 101 models. But it's not the explanation for unemployment. I'll use another situation to prove my point: why do you get empty retail stores? There's no minimum rental price.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
As I say, the Tories will blame everyone but themselves if they are not returned to power in 2015.
Au contraire. If they lose then it's every man and woman for themselves as the gloves really come off for the internal EU warfare and split. A repetition of a commitment to an IN/OUT referendum is the bare minimum any aspiring new tory leader will have to give to stand a chance. It's going to be just how far towards full blown OUT any potential leaders are prepared to go as tory MPs and the activist base count the cost of a potentially high kipper vote. Needless to say a continuity fop candidacy is unlikely to go down well.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
Labour are favourites to win the next election.
Is Southam the person who was sure that Mitt Romney has it in the bag?
I am not saying the Tories will win; I am saying that they should win. The economy is undoubtedly improving, Labour has done little to set the world on fire, EdM is personally unpopular.
I was spectacularly wrong about Romney; I have been right about other stuff. None of us is perfect.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
Which is nonsense. Suppose this were a Tory government rather than a coalition one, as it might have been with a more competent Tory campaign, or had Brown not brought Mandelson back. Sure, some things would have been slightly different policywise but I suspect not too much.
The big difference in polling terms would be that the LD-Lab switch would never have taken place. Remove that 8% from Labour's total and you end up with a very skinny looking 31% or so - in the middle of prolonged cuts. It might even be lower, with a Lab TO LD swing, leaving all three parties in the same kind of ballpark.
This is not a Labour country, or a Tory one. In fact, all parties have a decreasing claim on any sector of the electorate and core votes are diminishing.
There will be more Tory infighting over Europe if they win than if they lose. If they win then "renegotiate and vote on it" becomes something they have to do, with all the very high political barriers to that being feasible, with all the disagreement about precisely what should be renegotiated and with the inevitable disappointment of the small amount Cameron gets. If they lose, then any new leader can just recommit to the same policy and contrast themselves with the europhile in Number 10.
I must admit, I find the idea of subsidising non-work, and taxing work, truly bizarre.
Work is good. And it's good not just in a generating taxes and economic output way, but good in a having a purpose in life way. People who work are happier. People who work are less likely, all other things being equal, to commit crimes. People who work are healthier both physically and mentally. And it's the correlation is clearly from work to these good things: having a routine in life is - simply - a good thing.
Once you've got understood this point, it's clear the tax and benefit system is completely and utterly broken.
We should offer no benefits whatsoever for people without jobs, but should have negative income tax at the low-end of the scale. So, someone who can only command a job paying £1/hour in the free market, should receive benefits of £5/hour. £2/hour should result in £4.50/hour, etc.. In this way, *all* work pays. But someone who chooses to stay home receives nothing.
People without skills become more much employable under this system - and once they start working (and earning) they start having an interest in the economic and political system.
We would have to get rid of benefits like housing benefit - of course - under this system, as they continue to discourage work. All benefits should be based around the fundamental assumption that work is good and should be encouraged.
Your assumption being that most people that do not have jobs simply do not want them?
No, my assumption is that they are priced out of the labour market.
If the value of the work you produce per hour is - say £4, and the minimum wage is £7: guess what, you won't have a job.
Here's the thing: the more work you do, the better you become at it. (Like anything else.) By subsidizing people who are not (currently) very economically productive, we give them experience and they become better at working.
Which is fine in theory but wouldn't that just lead everyone whose market rate is under the minimum wage being paid £1/hr and the government picking up the tab?
There were two weaknesses in Osborne's statement. One was the inherent one that it returned to the cause of rapid deficit reduction which the Tories have soft-pedalled for the last year, making it harder to talk about tax reductions. The other is that he's refrained from spelling out most of the cuts in welfare that he thinks necessary, choosing only to focus on a couple of easy ones that raise tuppence. The obvious line of attack is to fill in the blanks with the most unpopular options - "Chanceller to withdraw support for popular group X?" - forcing him to deny it, after which they move on to the next popular victims, until he finally has to come clean.
See Kirkup's analysis in the Telegraph (apols for length) - will post separately.
Osborne is on track to double the national debt by the General Election, when most people I speak to think he is paying it off. When this becomes clear it could be the Conservatives who are on the back foot.
Which is why most people need to learn the difference between debt and deficit. He is reducing one to enable the other to be reduced over time.
He is, just barely. But he himself and his colleagues have used such phrases as "paying down the debt" - words that will come back to haunt them when the public catch on.
Do you have a link to Osbourne saying that I can't think of any?
Why would one remove 8pts from Labour's score? Those former Liberals are now confirmed Labourites. As I say, Conservatives seek comfort in the strangest places.
There will be more Tory infighting over Europe if they win than if they lose. If they win then "renegotiate and vote on it" becomes something they have to do, with all the very high political barriers to that being feasible, with all the disagreement about precisely what should be renegotiated and with the inevitable disappointment of the small amount Cameron gets. If they lose, then any new leader can just recommit to the same policy and contrast themselves with the europhile in Number 10.
If they win they'll be in power and just like before sitting tory MPs will suddenly find any old rubbish convincing because they actually quite enjoy being MPs. It's not as if they haven't been made to look gullible for believing Cammie many times already and Cammie is self-evidently still there. Which isn't to say that there wouldn't be yet more infighting because there certainly would. All Cameron has done with his referendum pledge is pull the pin out of a grenade and hope he either isn't there or can somehow dodge it when it goes off in the tory party.
The same old policy won't cut it. If they lose then they'll have fought an election with that policy and lost with the kipper vote being squarely blamed. It was blamed by some tories in 2010 after all when it was a mere 3.1%. The pressure from the base will be for a far more eurosceptic position (which now means far closer to or just full blown OUT) even if there was still a majority of MPs who were in favour of staying IN. Which there likely would be but not by all that much. You would then have a tory opposition party that isn't just pointing at labour because right beside them would be a beaming Farage saying "I told you so" and claiming they lost because they just aren't eurosceptic enough. Something unlikely to breed a great deal of harmony in the tory party. Something far more inclined to start all the talk of deals and pacts off again with a vengeance with those in favour of staying IN firmly on the backfoot.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
According to UKPR, 63% of people currently say they'll vote against Labour in May 2015. We can safely assume that percentage figure will be higher by the time of the next election. That makes the UK anything but a Labour country.
And, I wouldn't pin my hopes on Generations X and Y. 62% of the electorate are aged over 40, and they have a much better record of turnout than the Under 40's.
So the state should be subsidising employers more than it is at the moment?
No. I think that we have created a large cadre of people who (currently) produce less economic output than it costs to employ them.
And I think unemployment is an evil that we need to be more creative in finding ways to reduce it.
Let me give you an example. I founded a company called Betgenius Ltd 13 or 14 years ago. About six years ago, data collection was moved to Estonia - and the operation in that country certainly employs more than 100 people now.
Why did we move it there? Well, it's a fairly low-skilled job. In the UK we were paying minimum wage. But we found that it was increasingly difficult in Central London to get anyone even applying for a minimum wage job - and those that we did get were pretty awful. So, we ended up starting a company in Estonia and paying people £2-3/hour to do data collection.
What's terrible is that there are people in the UK who would do that job. But even the best data collector probably couldn't be paid more than £4/hour if we wanted to be profitable. (At a naieve level, think of it as someone who went to a bookmaker's page and noted down what they were offering on 2/1 for Tottenham to win.) The value of the data they collect is simply not that high.
So, we started an Estonian business, and lot's of people are employed there. And as demand for labour has increased in Estonia, we have raised everyone in the country's salaries an infinitesimal amount.
I want to think of ways we can increase demand for labour. I don't believe that the most efficient way to increase the total amount of work done, and to increase everyone's wages (which should be the twin goals) is to ban immigration - because all that does is encourage Betgenius Ltd to move more of its operations to Estonia.
Which is fine in theory but wouldn't that just lead everyone whose market rate is under the minimum wage being paid £1/hr and the government picking up the tab?
No because some of those people would produce economic output of £2/hour, and you'd want to employ those guys rather than the ones who produced £1/hour. You'd probably pay £1.50/hour for the first person - and that would mean that his income would go from:
Good header David. Labour does indeed face serious challenges in making a credible platform for government. Putting further cuts in place after the election makes it even more difficult to promise either sweeties or to rule out tax increases. It is also economically necessary. We cannot afford a government with the current level of spending.
But Labour start with considerable advantages. They have the boundaries and the fact that voting Labour in most of the north is worth significantly more than someone voting tory in the south. They have the BBC and other media who will always personalise the story of any cut in spending in a way that makes it look wicked. They have a populace who have seen years of incomprehensibly large deficits and no sign of the sky falling in (yet). They have the benefits of the anguish of the Lib Dems finally forced to choose in office rather than pontificating in opposition and they have a country which has struggled to recover (as it always does) from a financial recession.
All of these factors mean that the next election should see Labour as the largest party. The tories are ultimately reliant on the two Eds doing a Kinnock. All Osborne can do is increase the range of opportunities for them to manage this. He is doing that quite well and there is room for hope. My guess is that his best card at the next election will not be the necessary deficit reduction but a significant increase in the minumum wage against a background of growing employment.
This is an explanation used by some people because it's the easiest one that fits with Econ 101 models. But it's not the explanation for unemployment. I'll use another situation to prove my point: why do you get empty retail stores? There's no minimum rental price.
Well: there are several different answers to your question.
Firstly, (and probably the answer you're getting at) is that rent is not the only cost to a retail store. So, reducing the rental cost would not help reduce the cost of business rates, electricity and the cost of carrying stock.
Secondly, (and probably just as importantly in the real world), rental leases are long (5 to 10 years). Landlords would rather wait for the market to improve than accept a decline in rents - especially when that decline would allow people to apply for downward rent reviews.
Your first point is a good one. There are people whose skills are so poor, that the cost of employing them is such that even as 'free' labour you wouldn't want to do it. And that's a fair point. However, I still don't think it's an overwhelming one. There are plenty of people who are capable of producing good levels of economic output and live in areas of unemployment. If I could pay them £4/hour, they'd recieve more than they do currently and be less of a burden on the state, and more work (i.e. economic output) would be created in total.
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
According to UKPR, 63% of people currently say they'll vote against Labour in May 2015. We can safely assume that percentage figure will be higher by the time of the next election. That makes the UK anything but a Labour country.
And, I wouldn't pin my hopes on Generations X and Y. 62% of the electorate are aged over 40, and they have a much better record of turnout than the Under 40's.
I think GenX are mostly 40 years old now with kids and mortgages...
Why would one remove 8pts from Labour's score? Those former Liberals are now confirmed Labourites. As I say, Conservatives seek comfort in the strangest places.
The former Lib Dems who now say they are going to vote Labour are NOT confirmed Labourites . When they have had the opportunity to vote Labour the majority of them have sat on their hands and not voted at all . Some of them in the Broxtowe local elections for example actually went out and voted Lib Dem . Though NIck Palmer EXMP assures us that this was a temporary aberration voting for councillors they like and in a GE they will vote Labour . This may or may not prove to be true but it is self delusion to confirm someone as in your camp who has not actually voted for you let alone assume that everyone who has voted for you in the past will continue to do so . Indeed the polls regularly show that 1-2% of those who voted Labour in 2010 say they will vote Lib Dem in 2015 .
So the state should be subsidising employers more than it is at the moment?
No. I think that we have created a large cadre of people who (currently) produce less economic output than it costs to employ them.
And I think unemployment is an evil that we need to be more creative in finding ways to reduce it.
Let me give you an example. I founded a company called Betgenius Ltd 13 or 14 years ago. About six years ago, data collection was moved to Estonia - and the operation in that country certainly employs more than 100 people now.
Why did we move it there? Well, it's a fairly low-skilled job. In the UK we were paying minimum wage. But we found that it was increasingly difficult in Central London to get anyone even applying for a minimum wage job - and those that we did get were pretty awful. So, we ended up starting a company in Estonia and paying people £2-3/hour to do data collection.
What's terrible is that there are people in the UK who would do that job. But even the best data collector probably couldn't be paid more than £4/hour if we wanted to be profitable. (At a naieve level, think of it as someone who went to a bookmaker's page and noted down what they were offering on 2/1 for Tottenham to win.) The value of the data they collect is simply not that high.
So, we started an Estonian business, and lot's of people are employed there. And as demand for labour has increased in Estonia, we have raised everyone in the country's salaries an infinitesimal amount.
I want to think of ways we can increase demand for labour. I don't believe that the most efficient way to increase the total amount of work done, and to increase everyone's wages (which should be the twin goals) is to ban immigration - because all that does is encourage Betgenius Ltd to move more of its operations to Estonia.
Robert
In the 1980-90s I worked closely with a Finnish banker. He worked full time for his bank but came from a family of undertakers.
This wasn't undertaking in the sense that a Goldman Sachs alumnus might understand, but a trade of a much more earthly nature.
Anyway, this fellow moonlighted for his family and made a decision to move all production of coffins to Estonia. This had a double benefit: low labour costs as well as access to cheap wood.
The family business thrived and knocked the competition dead.
Tallinn is a good place for an occasional visit too.
Having rejected the notion some time ago that Osborne was a bold mixture of Ho Chi Minh and the recently deceased General Giap in his level of tactical nous and strategic genius,I find it hard to accept David's premise. In fact,the announcement immediately blew up in his face when it was shown the 2 suggested areas of cuts,Bob Crow's council house and housing benefit cuts to the under 25s will not even register one million let alone 12-unless the Tories are prepared to throw young mums and dads onto the streets and send young people back to abusive families.What is unsaid is that the 11million+ to come must either wipe out benefits for disabled people,maternity provision or the basic safety net needed if falling on hard times through loss of job for example. It's not the Opposition who has to worry when Osborne turns his fire against himself.
Can I just say before I run away again that that is an excellent post by @Paul_Mid_Beds
Welfare cuts are necessary and the obvious targets are the absurdly generous working tax credits and Child Tax credits which in many cases effectively pay the part time worker full time wages at the cost of the rest of us. One of the many frustrations about the delays in Universal Credit is that it makes this less obvious than it should be.
It is also interesting that although there has been a lot of emphasis on the triple lock for pensions there is still room for manouvre on the other fripperies doled out to pensioners.
I suspect the Treasuries' computers are burning hot trying to calculate the net cost/saving of an increase in the minimum wage too.
@Southam Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
That is what Labour thought in Scotland. The truth is that Labour are benefitting temporarily from the implosion of the Conservatives, hastened by Cameron driving social conservatives into UKIP. What we are seeing is a repeat of how the DUP a working/lower middle class small "c" conservative party eclipsed the NIs tories, the UUP.
The bad news for labour is that they will be replaced by the Lib Dems in due course as they have nothing to offer other than bread and circuses for their client vote, but for the next 10 years they will temporarily dominate the UK as they dominated the Scottish parliament in its early days. They will go the way of the SDLP.
Sale East and Wythenshawe will be something of a watershed by election. The consitutency is a mixture of suburban Sale East and the huge Wythenshawe estate. Wythenshawe has only 10% ethnic minorities and 50% are over 30 Paul Goggins was a devout Roman Catholic who voted against abortion and gay marriage. Labour were only 7,000 ahead of the Tories in 2010, so it is not safe Labour in the way Sunderland and Rotherham were. This is a very good opportunity for UKIP, especially if Labour select someone right on and progressive..
There's a bit of a non sequitur in there - you mention the UUP being overtaken by the working class DUP and the decline of the SDLP (implying being overtaken by working-class SF) yet you predict Labour losing out to the decidedly not working class LDs.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
That will also be a good point to make before and after comparisons on the shape as well as the size of the UK economy.
And to see how much 'rebalancing' has taken place.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
Counting the Royal Mail's pension fund's assets as income but ignoring their liabilities is known as fraud in the real world Avery.
As to OBR predictions what were their 2010 predictions of government borrowing and how accurate have they been shown to be ?
Forgive me for being sceptical about the prouncements of a government agency on how successful government policies are expected to be.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
That will also be a good point to make before and after comparisons on the shape as well as the size of the UK economy.
And to see how much 'rebalancing' has taken place.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
Counting the Royal Mail's pension fund's assets as income but ignoring their liabilities is known as fraud in the real world Avery.
As to OBR predictions what were their 2010 predictions of government borrowing and how accurate have they been shown to be ?
Forgive me for being sceptical about the prouncements of a government agency on how successful government policies are expected to be.
I could give you Net Cash Requirement figures (either central government or public sector) if you prefer, ar.
But the figures would favour Osborne far more than the PSNB ex official figures which I used in my original post.
I could even use the DMO gilts and Treasury bills issuance outcomes but these would only back up the NCR figures.
But the latter two stats are as close to real borrowing as you can get. Indeed gilt and bills issuance is the only real borrowing to measure.
No. I think that we have created a large cadre of people who (currently) produce less economic output than it costs to employ them.
And I think unemployment is an evil that we need to be more creative in finding ways to reduce it.
Let me give you an example. I founded a company called Betgenius Ltd 13 or 14 years ago. About six years ago, data collection was moved to Estonia - and the operation in that country certainly employs more than 100 people now.
Why did we move it there? Well, it's a fairly low-skilled job. In the UK we were paying minimum wage. But we found that it was increasingly difficult in Central London to get anyone even applying for a minimum wage job - and those that we did get were pretty awful. So, we ended up starting a company in Estonia and paying people £2-3/hour to do data collection.
What's terrible is that there are people in the UK who would do that job. But even the best data collector probably couldn't be paid more than £4/hour if we wanted to be profitable. (At a naieve level, think of it as someone who went to a bookmaker's page and noted down what they were offering on 2/1 for Tottenham to win.) The value of the data they collect is simply not that high.
So, we started an Estonian business, and lot's of people are employed there. And as demand for labour has increased in Estonia, we have raised everyone in the country's salaries an infinitesimal amount.
I want to think of ways we can increase demand for labour. I don't believe that the most efficient way to increase the total amount of work done, and to increase everyone's wages (which should be the twin goals) is to ban immigration - because all that does is encourage Betgenius Ltd to move more of its operations to Estonia.
I do understand what you are saying but surely the conclusion you draw from your story is completely wrong. The argument you have made - that the job is unprofitable for you at a pay level that is below minimum wage - is an argument not against immigration controls but against the minimum wage.
Anyone you recruit in the UK would have to be paid at least the minimum wage whether they are immigrants or not. So by claiming that the job is not worth doing for more than £4 an hour the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the job cannot be done in Britain, immigration or no immigration.
If your business model is dependent on paying less than the minimum wage then in the end it is not a viable business in the UK.
no that's a link to someone saying he did. Do you have a link to him saying it?
It was in fact Cameron who said 'We’re paying down Britain’s debts' in a PPB. Perhaps he hadn't run it by the near-perfect one beforehand, but I doubt it.
no that's a link to someone saying he did. Do you have a link to him saying it?
It was in fact Cameron who said 'We’re paying down Britain’s debts' in a PPB. Perhaps he hadn't run it by the near-perfect one beforehand, but I doubt it.
Let me give you an example. I founded a company called Betgenius Ltd 13 or 14 years ago. About six years ago, data collection was moved to Estonia - and the operation in that country certainly employs more than 100 people now.
Why did we move it there? Well, it's a fairly low-skilled job. In the UK we were paying minimum wage. But we found that it was increasingly difficult in Central London to get anyone even applying for a minimum wage job - and those that we did get were pretty awful. So, we ended up starting a company in Estonia and paying people £2-3/hour to do data collection.
What's terrible is that there are people in the UK who would do that job. But even the best data collector probably couldn't be paid more than £4/hour if we wanted to be profitable. (At a naieve level, think of it as someone who went to a bookmaker's page and noted down what they were offering on 2/1 for Tottenham to win.) The value of the data they collect is simply not that high.
So, we started an Estonian business, and lot's of people are employed there. And as demand for labour has increased in Estonia, we have raised everyone in the country's salaries an infinitesimal amount.
I want to think of ways we can increase demand for labour. I don't believe that the most efficient way to increase the total amount of work done, and to increase everyone's wages (which should be the twin goals) is to ban immigration - because all that does is encourage Betgenius Ltd to move more of its operations to Estonia.
I do understand what you are saying but surely the conclusion you draw from your story is completely wrong. The argument you have made - that the job is unprofitable for you at a pay level that is below minimum wage - is an argument not against immigration controls but against the minimum wage.
Anyone you recruit in the UK would have to be paid at least the minimum wage whether they are immigrants or not. So by claiming that the job is not worth doing for more than £4 an hour the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the job cannot be done in Britain, immigration or no immigration.
If your business model is dependent on paying less than the minimum wage then in the end it is not a viable business in the UK.
Robert's problem is also indicative of the declining productivity and lack of investment problems in the UK.
Had Robert not had access to Estonian operations, his only survival route in the UK would have been to invest in automated data mining, thereby reducing per unit of output labour costs and (hopefully) increasing capital efficiency.
If Robert is still interested in this route, I could provide him with a few eBay links.
No. I think that we have created a large cadre of people who (currently) produce less economic output than it costs to employ them.
And I think unemployment is an evil that we need to be more creative in finding ways to reduce it.
Let me give you an example. I founded a company called Betgenius Ltd 13 or 14 years ago. About six years ago, data collection was moved to Estonia - and the operation in that country certainly employs more than 100 people now.
Why did we move it there? Well, it's a fairly low-skilled job. In the UK we were paying minimum wage. But we found that it was increasingly difficult in Central London to get anyone even applying for a minimum wage job - and those that we did get were pretty awful. So, we ended up starting a company in Estonia and paying people £2-3/hour to do data collection.
What's terrible is that there are people in the UK who would do that job. But even the best data collector probably couldn't be paid more than £4/hour if we wanted to be profitable. (At a naieve level, think of it as someone who went to a bookmaker's page and noted down what they were offering on 2/1 for Tottenham to win.) The value of the data they collect is simply not that high.
So, we started an Estonian business, and lot's of people are employed there. And as demand for labour has increased in Estonia, we have raised everyone in the country's salaries an infinitesimal amount.
I want to think of ways we can increase demand for labour. I don't believe that the most efficient way to increase the total amount of work done, and to increase everyone's wages (which should be the twin goals) is to ban immigration - because all that does is encourage Betgenius Ltd to move more of its operations to Estonia.
I do understand what you are saying but surely the conclusion you draw from your story is completely wrong. The argument you have made - that the job is unprofitable for you at a pay level that is below minimum wage - is an argument not against immigration controls but against the minimum wage.
Anyone you recruit in the UK would have to be paid at least the minimum wage whether they are immigrants or not. So by claiming that the job is not worth doing for more than £4 an hour the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the job cannot be done in Britain, immigration or no immigration.
If your business model is dependent on paying less than the minimum wage then in the end it is not a viable business in the UK.
no that's a link to someone saying he did. Do you have a link to him saying it?
It was in fact Cameron who said 'We’re paying down Britain’s debts' in a PPB. Perhaps he hadn't run it by the near-perfect one beforehand, but I doubt it.
Why would he bother asking Salmond?
I think we all know that there's only one pol described as 'near-perfect' in PB Tory World (and that Cameron is too feart to have any kind of conversation with Salmond).
Let me give you an example. I founded a company called Betgenius Ltd 13 or 14 years ago. About six years ago, data collection was moved to Estonia - and the operation in that country certainly employs more than 100 people now.
Why did we move it there? Well, it's a fairly low-skilled job. In the UK we were paying minimum wage. But we found that it was increasingly difficult in Central London to get anyone even applying for a minimum wage job - and those that we did get were pretty awful. So, we ended up starting a company in Estonia and paying people £2-3/hour to do data collection.
What's terrible is that there are people in the UK who would do that job. But even the best data collector probably couldn't be paid more than £4/hour if we wanted to be profitable. (At a naieve level, think of it as someone who went to a bookmaker's page and noted down what they were offering on 2/1 for Tottenham to win.) The value of the data they collect is simply not that high.
If your business model is dependent on paying less than the minimum wage then in the end it is not a viable business in the UK.
Robert's problem is also indicative of the declining productivity and lack of investment problems in the UK.
Had Robert not had access to Estonian operations, his only survival route in the UK would have been to invest in automated data mining, thereby reducing per unit of output labour costs and (hopefully) increasing capital efficiency.
If Robert is still interested in this route, I could provide him with a few eBay links.
It sort of makes you wonder why our useless chancellor hasn't made more effort to get business investment moving to raise productivity or broken up our banking oligopoly to provide better access to commercial finance.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
That will also be a good point to make before and after comparisons on the shape as well as the size of the UK economy.
And to see how much 'rebalancing' has taken place.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
Counting the Royal Mail's pension fund's assets as income but ignoring their liabilities is known as fraud in the real world Avery.
As to OBR predictions what were their 2010 predictions of government borrowing and how accurate have they been shown to be ?
Forgive me for being sceptical about the prouncements of a government agency on how successful government policies are expected to be.
I could give you Net Cash Requirement figures (either central government or public sector) if you prefer, ar.
But the figures would favour Osborne far more than the PSNB ex official figures which I used in my original post.
I could even use the DMO gilts and Treasury bills issuance outcomes but these would only back up the NCR figures.
But the latter two stats are as close to real borrowing as you can get. Indeed gilt and bills issuance is the only real borrowing to measure.
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
Didn't do too well did they and what a surprise they were on the optimistic side.
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
Osborne like Brown believes his own spin - a significant problem. He is creating dividing lines that don't exist - Tory debt responsibility vs Labour spending doesn't work when the national debt is exploding upwards to unprecedented levels under his Chancellorship.
We have austerity which is hammering the poor yet is having zero impact on national finances. If Labour can demonstrate this - juxtaposition of a chart showing national debt with a chart showing the explosion in food bank use perhaps - and it negates this dividing line.
Nor do I think the big austerity plan with it all on the young and poor has appeal. Perhaps if debt was coming down, but it isn't. So Labour should continue the one nation line, ask what we stand for as a country. Are making people homeless and hungry acceptable to not actually cut the debt? I don't think people are quite as self centred and uncaring as Osborne and IDS think.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
Counting the Royal Mail's pension fund's assets as income but ignoring their liabilities is known as fraud in the real world Avery.
As to OBR predictions what were their 2010 predictions of government borrowing and how accurate have they been shown to be ?
Forgive me for being sceptical about the prouncements of a government agency on how successful government policies are expected to be.
...
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
Didn't do too well did they and what a surprise they were on the optimistic side.
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
The one certainty of economic forecasting is that outcomes will show you have got it wrong.
Lots of talk about the 2010 forecasts being too optimistic but little about the 2013 being too pessimistic (except, of course, on PB).
I fear for my life at the weekends with the twin fronts of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire to navigate.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
There are two real problems that need sorting in welfare
1) Housing benefit is welfare benefit that funnels straight into private landlords pockets (and also into housing associations with over generous salaries and pensions, particularly for executives, pockets). Building council estates and rent control + licencing for private landlords would bring down housing benefit far more than osbornes vicious proposal against under 25s
2) Child tax credits. These are grossly over generous in four regards.
(a) for each child an addtional child allowance of over £2,750 p.a. is given. Tapering is consecutive. This is absurd and encourages child farming. Subsequent children do not cost as much as the first as you can hand down cots clothes etc. The child allowance for second and subsequent children should be halved.
(b) Disabled element (£3,100 p.a.) should only apply for serious disabilites, not for things like attention deficit disorder which disreputable parents are keen to get a diagnosis of to access the cash machine.
(c) Self employed fiddle. Someone registering as self employed can claim tax credits indefinitely even if they only make £500 a year, they don't actually have to do much work and are ratrely if ever monitored to ensure they are working. (Universal credit will end this by deeming self employed people to be earning 35hours x mininum wage even if they dont earn that much after first year)
(d) The part time fiddle. Someone with children can work 16 or 24 hours part time (16 for some, 24 for others) on tax credits for the minimum wage and get an equivalent salary to a wage of £30,000. This is an outrageous subisidy to businesses employing un/low skilled people who knowing this cut their salaries to minimum wage and offer mainly part time work. People without children who cannot access tax credits are left high and dry in poverty by this."
Good list. I think most people understand the welfare system is out of whack and will support specific, though-out changes but obviously they're not going to vote for people who they think want to take advantage of the situation to drive everyone back to the slums.
There is an additional point though. The reason large employers of low and unskilled labour have been giving lobbyists lots of money to encourage the political class to open the borders is mass immigration shifts their wage costs onto the welfare system. Trying to unravel what the political class has done won't be pretty any way round.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
Counting the Royal Mail's pension fund's assets as income but ignoring their liabilities is known as fraud in the real world Avery.
As to OBR predictions what were their 2010 predictions of government borrowing and how accurate have they been shown to be ?
Forgive me for being sceptical about the prouncements of a government agency on how successful government policies are expected to be.
...
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
Didn't do too well did they and what a surprise they were on the optimistic side.
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
The one certainty of economic forecasting is that outcomes will show you have got it wrong.
Lots of talk about the 2010 forecasts being too optimistic but little about the 2013 being too pessimistic (except, of course, on PB).
I fear for my life at the weekends with the twin fronts of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire to navigate.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
Osborne like Brown believes his own spin - a significant problem. He is creating dividing lines that don't exist - Tory debt responsibility vs Labour spending doesn't work when the national debt is exploding upwards to unprecedented levels under his Chancellorship.
We have austerity which is hammering the poor yet is having zero impact on national finances. If Labour can demonstrate this - juxtaposition of a chart showing national debt with a chart showing the explosion in food bank use perhaps - and it negates this dividing line.
Nor do I think the big austerity plan with it all on the young and poor has appeal. Perhaps if debt was coming down, but it isn't. So Labour should continue the one nation line, ask what we stand for as a country. Are making people homeless and hungry acceptable to not actually cut the debt? I don't think people are quite as self centred and uncaring as Osborne and IDS think.
The proper measure of debt is its ratio to GDP and yes, over a five year forward forecast, it is coming down on any measure.
This contrasts with Debt under Brown rising from 35.4% of GDP at the end of the 2005/6 financial year to 151.7% at the end of 2009/10.
So far George Osborne has reduced the ratio from 151.7% to 137.6%. As he keeps repeating there remains a long way to go, but at least George is heading in the right direction.
Osborne is trying to set traps for his opponents without realising they have anticipated by accepting Tory spending limits for departmental spending and blunted his attack.
Thank goodness we will get rid of this guy in 2015.
Presuming you are right who would we then have as chancellor and what would he do? What would you personally want him to do?
Anyone with a better understanding of how an economy works than someone whose only experience is folding towels and recording deaths in a NHS hospital will do.
The most likely person to replace Osborne is Balls who has the required experience.He has to learn the lessons of Gordon and George`s failings and deliver a gradual falling deficit with rising living standards.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
...
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
And lookee here Avery, the OBR forecasts of Novermber 2010:
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
The one certainty of economic forecasting is that outcomes will show you have got it wrong.
Lots of talk about the 2010 forecasts being too optimistic but little about the 2013 being too pessimistic (except, of course, on PB).
I fear for my life at the weekends with the twin fronts of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire to navigate.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
With both Richards ( AR and RT ) on thread plus myself you could be heading for the perfect storm Mr Pole. It simply shows the challenge to Osborne comes from right of centre since his policies are Brown in slow motion.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
...
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
And lookee here Avery, the OBR forecasts of Novermber 2010:
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
The one certainty of economic forecasting is that outcomes will show you have got it wrong.
Lots of talk about the 2010 forecasts being too optimistic but little about the 2013 being too pessimistic (except, of course, on PB).
I fear for my life at the weekends with the twin fronts of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire to navigate.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
With both Richards ( AR and RT ) on thread plus myself you could be heading for the perfect storm Mr Pole. It simply shows the challenge to Osborne comes from right of centre since his policies are Brown in slow motion.
I am beginning to regret that weekends are taken as holidays in Sussex.
I have also resolved to be nicer to Pork in future. You never know whom you might need on your side in a fight.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
...
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
And lookee here Avery, the OBR forecasts of Novermber 2010:
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
The one certainty of economic forecasting is that outcomes will show you have got it wrong.
Lots of talk about the 2010 forecasts being too optimistic but little about the 2013 being too pessimistic (except, of course, on PB).
I fear for my life at the weekends with the twin fronts of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire to navigate.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
With both Richards ( AR and RT ) on thread plus myself you could be heading for the perfect storm Mr Pole. It simply shows the challenge to Osborne comes from right of centre since his policies are Brown in slow motion.
I am beginning to regret that weekends are taken as holidays in Sussex.
I have also resolved to be nicer to Pork in future. You never know whom you might need on your side in a fight.
Well if you spend your weekends in Mordor what do you expect ? You should should call out the Sussex Militia and demand Caprtain Nabavi bring reinforcements.
Alternatively you could just agree Osborne's a lost cause and enjoy a glass of the local fizz,
If you get rid of the minimum wage, but do not slash benefits, then there is no incentive for anyone to take a low wage job.
You are continuing a situation where people are priced out of the labour market
I am very much in favour of slashing benefits. As far as I am concerned this government has only scratched the surface of what needs to be done to deal with the unsustainable amount we as a country spend on benefits.
But that does not change the basic point of my posting which is that, based on the figures you provided, your argument has to be with the minimum wage rather than with immigration controls because it is this which was preventing you employing people (whether immigrants or not) for less than £4 an hour.
If you get rid of the minimum wage, but do not slash benefits, then there is no incentive for anyone to take a low wage job.
You are continuing a situation where people are priced out of the labour market
Everyone in this country is priced out of the labour market because we have included in the labour market countries which keep workers in dickensian conditions, sleeping in decrepit dormitories and working 14 hours a day for a few pence per hour.
Import tariffs should be set at the difference between UK median wages and the median wage of the country concerned. Where the country has poor health and safety regulations, then additional tariffs should be levied to discourage such conditions.
Similarly work permit quotas (including for EU countries) should be set so that the lower the median wage of the country the fewer the permits, with unlimited permits only where the median wage is 85% of UKs or greater.
If we cut benefits to chase wages down, then ultimately all we are doing is ensuring that our grandchildren will also live in decrepit dormitories working 14 hours a day for a few pence and hour and our GDP implodes because people who earn low wages cannot afford consumer goods.
Of course our government can do nothing about any of this because setting of such tariffs and immigration within the EU is an EU competency.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
...
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
And lookee here Avery, the OBR forecasts of Novermber 2010:
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
The one certainty of economic forecasting is that outcomes will show you have got it wrong.
Lots of talk about the 2010 forecasts being too optimistic but little about the 2013 being too pessimistic (except, of course, on PB).
I fear for my life at the weekends with the twin fronts of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire to navigate.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
With both Richards ( AR and RT ) on thread plus myself you could be heading for the perfect storm Mr Pole. It simply shows the challenge to Osborne comes from right of centre since his policies are Brown in slow motion.
I didn't have time to check on Thursday but did Avery honour the trade figures with a yellow box ?
Thinking about it your advocacy of an import substitution strategy and my advocacy of wealth creation among middle to lower skilled workers are in accordance.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
...
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
And lookee here Avery, the OBR forecasts of Novermber 2010:
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
The one certainty of economic forecasting is that outcomes will show you have got it wrong.
Lots of talk about the 2010 forecasts being too optimistic but little about the 2013 being too pessimistic (except, of course, on PB).
I fear for my life at the weekends with the twin fronts of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire to navigate.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
With both Richards ( AR and RT ) on thread plus myself you could be heading for the perfect storm Mr Pole. It simply shows the challenge to Osborne comes from right of centre since his policies are Brown in slow motion.
I am beginning to regret that weekends are taken as holidays in Sussex.
I have also resolved to be nicer to Pork in future. You never know whom you might need on your side in a fight.
Hoping to trap us between the forces of the South and the Army of the Scots? Sounds like the Siege of Newark all over again. What are you going to promise the Covenanters to draw them into the war on your side?
There's a bit of a non sequitur in there - you mention the UUP being overtaken by the working class DUP and the decline of the SDLP (implying being overtaken by working-class SF) yet you predict Labour losing out to the decidedly not working class LDs.
The only working class thing about the modern Labour party is the people who vote for it. The libdems were originally the party who the working class voted for until the unions got fed up with them as they were not reforming fast enough and founded their own party. Sure, parties like Respect will also benefit but only the Lidems can replace labour as the centreleft party of government. It is mostly the votes of middle class voters in labour/lib marginals that will be lost to liberals in 2015 not the working class votes in tory/lib marginals.
Yes, those who did not vote Labour rejected Labour. But more people voted for Labour than for any other party in 1950 and 1951. That does not indicate a decisive rejection.
1945-51 explanation is simple. Labour lost about 1.5% in 1950 and picked up 2.5% in 1951. However, the independent Liberals contested just 109 seats in 1951 compared to 475 a year before. The Tories picked up ex-Liberals in middle-class marginals, while Labour stacked up bigger and bigger majorities in the cities. (Rationing was very unpopular among the well-off who wanted advanced consumer goods, but it wasn't enough to invert the class interest of Labour voters during the most class-based period of UK politics.)
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
...
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
And lookee here Avery, the OBR forecasts of Novermber 2010:
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
The one certainty of economic forecasting is that outcomes will show you have got it wrong.
Lots of talk about the 2010 forecasts being too optimistic but little about the 2013 being too pessimistic (except, of course, on PB).
I fear for my life at the weekends with the twin fronts of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire to navigate.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
With both Richards ( AR and RT ) on thread plus myself you could be heading for the perfect storm Mr Pole. It simply shows the challenge to Osborne comes from right of centre since his policies are Brown in slow motion.
I didn't have time to check on Thursday but did Avery honour the trade figures with a yellow box ?
Thinking about it your advocacy of an import substitution strategy and my advocacy of wealth creation among middle to lower skilled workers are in accordance.
ar
Haven't looked at the bulletin, ar, but did note that the deficit had marginally narrowed.
Have you, in turn, noticed the OBR/ONS have revised upward by 66% the contribution made to GDP by net trade between 2011 Q2 and 2012 Q4? I won't give you the exact figures for fear of your reaction giving good cause for you to be drummed out of the Normanby Hall Golf Club.
this means that the UK GDP will have 'recovered' from the impact of the financial crisis somewhere between Q2 and Q3 this year. This will be an important political milestone and one that is certain to impact voter attitudes in the run up to the General Election. Using the Obama/EiT analogy, it will be the equivalent of a near write-off of a car being returned from the panel beaters gleaming and ready to roll.
At the end of 2009, the UK was borrowing £155,623 bn per year. At the end of 2012, this has reduced to £93,522 bn. It is still falling and the official OBR forecast, based on Osborne's current plans is for PSNB ex to reduce to just £2 bn in 2018-19.
Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
...
Stick to using the 'Net Borrowing ex RM & APF' column on page 42 of this:
And lookee here Avery, the OBR forecasts of Novermber 2010:
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
With both Richards ( AR and RT ) on thread plus myself you could be heading for the perfect storm Mr Pole. It simply shows the challenge to Osborne comes from right of centre since his policies are Brown in slow motion.
I didn't have time to check on Thursday but did Avery honour the trade figures with a yellow box ?
Thinking about it your advocacy of an import substitution strategy and my advocacy of wealth creation among middle to lower skilled workers are in accordance.
On the economics I think we generally agree on most things. It's probably that unfashionable view you still find in the Shires of working for a living. Avery still believes in an economy based on asset inflation and borrowing to fund lives sub-optimised on benefits.
Avery, having checked ONS, Eurostat and IMF sources all show UK debt increasing towards 100%, not dropping from 150% as you suggest.
What definition of debt are you using?
He's using the one which includes the debt of the nationalised banks as government debt.
In other words he's playing silly buggers again.
See the link to the ONS in my earlier post.
In other words the measure (PSND) used consistently in all official statistics (since they moved from a cash to accrual basis) until Brown started to hide his sins in 2009.
PSND ex (Brown's fantasy) sees the figures move from 34.3% in 2004/5 to 56.4% in 2009/10. Still in the wrong direction but understated by excluding the borrowing needed to bail out the banks.
Actually the Sussex sparkling wines really are rather good. Nyetimber is now quite well known and available in Waitrose, but for my money the products of the Ridgeview Estate at Ditchling are better and cheaper and outclass all but the very best the French can produce (Ridgeview is also owned and run by a very nice family). Honourable mention should also be given to Bolney Wines that are also very good, though unlike Ridgeview they don't concentrate solely on the Sparkling stuff.
So staying at home and enjoying the local fizz is a great idea if one lives in Sussex.
Actually the Sussex sparkling wines really are rather good. Nyetimber is now quite well known and available in Waitrose, but for my money the products of the Ridgeview Estate at Ditchling are better and cheaper and outclass all but the very best the French can produce (Ridgeview is also owned and run by a very nice family). Honourable mention should also be given to Bolney Wines that are also very good, though unlike Ridgeview they don't concentrate solely on the Sparkling stuff.
So staying at home and enjoying the local fizz is a great idea if one lives in Sussex.
You were away when this subject was last raised by Mr. Brooke.
He is very fond of a Perry made in Warwickshire.
The Nyetimber has been put on ice pending the crossover of French and UK GDP.
Haven't looked at the bulletin, ar, but did note that the deficit had marginally narrowed.
Have you, in turn, noticed the OBR/ONS have revised upward by 66% the contribution made to GDP by net trade between 2011 Q2 and 2012 Q4? I won't give you the exact figures for fear of your reaction giving good cause for you to be drummed out of the Normanby Hall Golf Club.
On the subject of trade revisions the only reason the November deficit has marginally narrowed from October's is that October's deficit was revised upwards by nearly a billion (and a similar negative revision was made to those of July, August and September).
Can I just say before I run away again that that is an excellent post by @Paul_Mid_Beds
Welfare cuts are necessary and the obvious targets are the absurdly generous working tax credits and Child Tax credits which in many cases effectively pay the part time worker full time wages at the cost of the rest of us. One of the many frustrations about the delays in Universal Credit is that it makes this less obvious than it should be.
It is also interesting that although there has been a lot of emphasis on the triple lock for pensions there is still room for manouvre on the other fripperies doled out to pensioners.
I suspect the Treasuries' computers are burning hot trying to calculate the net cost/saving of an increase in the minimum wage too.
I seem to recall that the Speenhamland system - 19th century, subsidising farm labourers' below starvation wages through local taxation rather than support them as paupers in the workhouse, was universally decried by historians as unfair to the labourers and taxpayers. So I have been surprised to see it arise again here in the UK without as much criticism as might be expected - the posters here being a notable exception.
Of course Labour is now moving towards restoring the 50% top rate, so the LDs would have to push a Mansion Tax in response and promise to keep the 45% rate for now. Personally, I am of the view that a Tory-LD Coalition is the best bet again in 2015. Osborne does not deserve a majority after failing to restore the public finances by 2015 as he promised in 2010. But Balls would simply return the nation to the same spending and borrowing which got us into the mess in the first place. The LDs will clearly lose seats, but their activists will again have to get used to being a party of government and not just protest, and hopefully they can ensure that neither the 'slash and burn' approach to spending favoured by the Tory right, or the 'spending splurge' favoured by the Labour left win out!
If you get rid of the minimum wage, but do not slash benefits, then there is no incentive for anyone to take a low wage job.
You are continuing a situation where people are priced out of the labour market
Everyone in this country is priced out of the labour market because we have included in the labour market countries which keep workers in dickensian conditions, sleeping in decrepit dormitories and working 14 hours a day for a few pence per hour.
Import tariffs should be set at the difference between UK median wages and the median wage of the country concerned. Where the country has poor health and safety regulations, then additional tariffs should be levied to discourage such conditions.
Similarly work permit quotas (including for EU countries) should be set so that the lower the median wage of the country the fewer the permits, with unlimited permits only where the median wage is 85% of UKs or greater.
If we cut benefits to chase wages down, then ultimately all we are doing is ensuring that our grandchildren will also live in decrepit dormitories working 14 hours a day for a few pence and hour and our GDP implodes because people who earn low wages cannot afford consumer goods.
Of course our government can do nothing about any of this because setting of such tariffs and immigration within the EU is an EU competency.
I would happily slash overseas aid, but I think it's morally wrong to try to ensure that poor countries remain poor, which is what that tariff policy implies.
Why would one remove 8pts from Labour's score? Those former Liberals are now confirmed Labourites. As I say, Conservatives seek comfort in the strangest places.
The former Lib Dems who now say they are going to vote Labour are NOT confirmed Labourites . When they have had the opportunity to vote Labour the majority of them have sat on their hands and not voted at all . Some of them in the Broxtowe local elections for example actually went out and voted Lib Dem . Though NIck Palmer EXMP assures us that this was a temporary aberration voting for councillors they like and in a GE they will vote Labour . This may or may not prove to be true but it is self delusion to confirm someone as in your camp who has not actually voted for you let alone assume that everyone who has voted for you in the past will continue to do so . Indeed the polls regularly show that 1-2% of those who voted Labour in 2010 say they will vote Lib Dem in 2015 .
Is that why Lib Dems have lost hundreds of council seats in the last three years?Another straw clutcher except you are on the LibDem rather than Tory side.
If you get rid of the minimum wage, but do not slash benefits, then there is no incentive for anyone to take a low wage job.
You are continuing a situation where people are priced out of the labour market
Everyone in this country is priced out of the labour market because we have included in the labour market countries which keep workers in dickensian conditions, sleeping in decrepit dormitories and working 14 hours a day for a few pence per hour.
Import tariffs should be set at the difference between UK median wages and the median wage of the country concerned. Where the country has poor health and safety regulations, then additional tariffs should be levied to discourage such conditions.
Similarly work permit quotas (including for EU countries) should be set so that the lower the median wage of the country the fewer the permits, with unlimited permits only where the median wage is 85% of UKs or greater.
If we cut benefits to chase wages down, then ultimately all we are doing is ensuring that our grandchildren will also live in decrepit dormitories working 14 hours a day for a few pence and hour and our GDP implodes because people who earn low wages cannot afford consumer goods.
Of course our government can do nothing about any of this because setting of such tariffs and immigration within the EU is an EU competency.
If you impose tariffs on goods coming into the UK, other countries will impose tariffs on our goods. Your economic recipe, of cutting us of from the rest of the world, while a bureaucracy decides what the correct tariffs should be on a country by country basis, is a short cut to poverty.
"He is very fond of a Perry made in Warwickshire."
*shudders*
He is an Ulsterman, so I suppose allowances have to be made.
As it happens Mr L I asked for and got a bottle of Nyetimber (Rose) for Xmas as I rather like the stuff and refuse to buy Champagne as you never know who's feet have been in it. Wrt local produce I always happily support our local industry and would recommend Hogans - Cider though they do also make an excellent perry - if only chappies like Avery could find some useful brews instead of drinking Stella Artois Cidre to try and win friends.
Furthermore since you are a beer drinker from memory Mr L I can recommend the Purity Brewery and it's excellent products, top advice from an Alcesterman.
Haven't we been running a modern version of the Speenhamland system for years? The amount of in work benefits being paid out would seem to suggest we have been subsidising employers as a cheaper alternative to mass unemployment for quite a while now.
A couple of years ago there was much mirth, not least on this site, when Miliband suggested a policy of pre-distribution (i.e. jacking up the minimum wage so as to save on the need to pay benefits). Am I he only one to be amused by the fact that the Conservatives are now edging towards just that policy, which once they decried and ridiculed.
"(d) The part time fiddle. Someone with children can work 16 or 24 hours part time (16 for some, 24 for others) on tax credits for the minimum wage and get an equivalent salary to a wage of £30,000. This is an outrageous subisidy to businesses employing un/low skilled people who knowing this cut their salaries to minimum wage and offer mainly part time work. People without children who cannot access tax credits are left high and dry in poverty by this."
You are blithely ignoring the fact that the CTC is paid to cover the cost of childcare, which are of course not applicable to people without children. It is not free money - it goes against the childcare bill. If you want to cut the cost of tax credits, try improving childcare provision and reducing its cost.
If you abolish CTC, you will force many parents on low wages to stop working and go on benefits, which will just cost more.
"(a) for each child an addtional child allowance of over £2,750 p.a. is given. Tapering is consecutive. This is absurd and encourages child farming. Subsequent children do not cost as much as the first as you can hand down cots clothes etc. The child allowance for second and subsequent children should be halved."
Again, CTC is for childcare costs only. Nurseries will charge just as much for a second child as a first. Maybe a 10% discount if you're lucky.
Haven't looked at the bulletin, ar, but did note that the deficit had marginally narrowed.
Have you, in turn, noticed the OBR/ONS have revised upward by 66% the contribution made to GDP by net trade between 2011 Q2 and 2012 Q4? I won't give you the exact figures for fear of your reaction giving good cause for you to be drummed out of the Normanby Hall Golf Club.
On the subject of trade revisions the only reason the November deficit has marginally narrowed from October's is that October's deficit was revised upwards by nearly a billion (and a similar negative revision was made to those of July, August and September).
Haven't looked at the bulletin, ar, but did note that the deficit had marginally narrowed.
Have you, in turn, noticed the OBR/ONS have revised upward by 66% the contribution made to GDP by net trade between 2011 Q2 and 2012 Q4? I won't give you the exact figures for fear of your reaction giving good cause for you to be drummed out of the Normanby Hall Golf Club.
On the subject of trade revisions the only reason the November deficit has marginally narrowed from October's is that October's deficit was revised upwards by nearly a billion (and a similar negative revision was made to those of July, August and September).
Any predictions as to when we can expect a single month's trade surplus Avery ?
It is the year for 'hard truths' isn't it ?
The OBR are forecasting a positive contribution to GDP from net trade in 2015. This would be the first time for over a decade.
So we are getting there ... slowly.
"slowly"
Pole we demand your unconditional surrender, your defences are collapsing, the Nabavi yeomanry has stayed at home and our secret weapon hasn't been released yet ( can't say obviously, but beware of wolves dressed in Llama's clothing ). Lay down your pictures of Osborne and find us a real Chancellor.
Why would one remove 8pts from Labour's score? Those former Liberals are now confirmed Labourites. As I say, Conservatives seek comfort in the strangest places.
The former Lib Dems who now say they are going to vote Labour are NOT confirmed Labourites . When they have had the opportunity to vote Labour the majority of them have sat on their hands and not voted at all . Some of them in the Broxtowe local elections for example actually went out and voted Lib Dem . Though NIck Palmer EXMP assures us that this was a temporary aberration voting for councillors they like and in a GE they will vote Labour . This may or may not prove to be true but it is self delusion to confirm someone as in your camp who has not actually voted for you let alone assume that everyone who has voted for you in the past will continue to do so . Indeed the polls regularly show that 1-2% of those who voted Labour in 2010 say they will vote Lib Dem in 2015 .
Is that why Lib Dems have lost hundreds of council seats in the last three years?Another straw clutcher except you are on the LibDem rather than Tory side.
The Lib Dems have lost seats because they have polled fewer votes than they got in the years in which they won them . That is not necessarily because those voters have voted for another party . In most cases they have simply not voted at all and/or Labour voters who sat on their hands and did not vote in 2006 to 2009 have returned to voting Labour now they are in opposition . The point I have tried to make is that most voters who tell the pollsters that they voted LD in 2010 but will vote Labour in 2015 have not yet voted for Labour . They may do so but until they do they are not confirmed Labourites .
Thanks for that recommendation for Purity beer. I see that the Foresters' Arms (a fine little pub) in Horsham sells it. I shall make an expedition to go and try some.
Have you tried the Wood Farm Brewery's products? A small brewery near Rugby. Our local club had some on guest ales weekend. Very, very nice; especially their 1823 dark mild a great session beer, not too strong but full of flavour and better for my money than the Harvey's equivalent.
I am surprised you find Nyetimber superior to Ridgeview. Are you sure you were comparing equivalent brews? Or perhaps its drinking all that perry. Anyway each to his own.
Comments
And congratulations on your predictive powers!
That's total rubbish. Gen X and Gen Y have formed a large lefty coalition that is very hard to crack, whatever the government does. Many Conservatives say privately that Labour cannot lose, as this is now a Labour country.
Do you really think the children actually get the tax credit money? As I said earlier:
"There are two real problems that need sorting in welfare
1) Housing benefit is welfare benefit that funnels straight into private landlords pockets (and also into housing associations with over generous salaries and pensions, particularly for executives, pockets). Building council estates and rent control + licencing for private landlords would bring down housing benefit far more than osbornes vicious proposal against under 25s
2) Child tax credits. These are grossly over generous in four regards.
(a) for each child an addtional child allowance of over £2,750 p.a. is given. Tapering is consecutive. This is absurd and encourages child farming. Subsequent children do not cost as much as the first as you can hand down cots clothes etc. The child allowance for second and subsequent children should be halved.
(b) Disabled element (£3,100 p.a.) should only apply for serious disabilites, not for things like attention deficit disorder which disreputable parents are keen to get a diagnosis of to access the cash machine.
(c) Self employed fiddle. Someone registering as self employed can claim tax credits indefinitely even if they only make £500 a year, they don't actually have to do much work and are ratrely if ever monitored to ensure they are working. (Universal credit will end this by deeming self employed people to be earning 35hours x mininum wage even if they dont earn that much after first year)
(d) The part time fiddle. Someone with children can work 16 or 24 hours part time (16 for some, 24 for others) on tax credits for the minimum wage and get an equivalent salary to a wage of £30,000. This is an outrageous subisidy to businesses employing un/low skilled people who knowing this cut their salaries to minimum wage and offer mainly part time work. People without children who cannot access tax credits are left high and dry in poverty by this."
Is Southam the person who was sure that Mitt Romney has it in the bag?
. Of course, you can argue they get a better type of accommodation than they can afford, which is true, but it doesn't alter the fact that the simple maths is misleading.
I'm interested to know how you would cut child tax credit without punishing the children for the sins of their parents
What pisses people off is when housing benefits allow the unemployed to have a considerably higher standard of accommodation than those in work. Ask any of the commuter drones trudging into London on a daily basis.
As for child credit make the announcement of any changes 12 months in advance. If you have a child in the age of effective contraception, it's by choice. A choice you should pay for.
Here's the thing. Routine is good. People who get up at 7am, make breakfast, go to work, and come home in the evening. Well, they're relatively happy.
Human beings were made to be creatures of routine. If you take the routine away from someone you make them less happy. If you bring routine to someone who does not have it, they become more happy. These aren't just assertions - these have been born out by very large scale studies.
If someone doesn't work for a sustained period of time then they become less employable. I want to break that by making sure that *everyone* is working. And everyone can be working. There is no fixed lump of work that needs to be done, and after that point, we're done.
If you could get the front of your house painted for half cost, you know what - people would get their house painted more often. If you lower the cost of labour, you get more demand for it.
And I suspect this would have another advantage: this would make British people more employable. More work would get done. It's hard to think of anything that would have a more positive impact on the British economy.
People can convince themselves of anything. The neutrals among us look for the facts. I do wonder if some Conservatives seek comfort in the strangest places. Labour will just match Conservative spending plans I should think, and neither party will do a bean to address the spiralling debt.
I was spectacularly wrong about Romney; I have been right about other stuff. None of us is perfect.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25694630
If the value of the work you produce per hour is - say £4, and the minimum wage is £7: guess what, you won't have a job.
Here's the thing: the more work you do, the better you become at it. (Like anything else.) By subsidizing people who are not (currently) very economically productive, we give them experience and they become better at working.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/islamist-rule-tunisia-over
The bad news for labour is that they will be replaced by the Lib Dems in due course as they have nothing to offer other than bread and circuses for their client vote, but for the next 10 years they will temporarily dominate the UK as they dominated the Scottish parliament in its early days. They will go the way of the SDLP.
Sale East and Wythenshawe will be something of a watershed by election. The consitutency is a mixture of suburban Sale East and the huge Wythenshawe estate. Wythenshawe has only 10% ethnic minorities and 50% are over 30 Paul Goggins was a devout Roman Catholic who voted against abortion and gay marriage. Labour were only 7,000 ahead of the Tories in 2010, so it is not safe Labour in the way Sunderland and Rotherham were. This is a very good opportunity for UKIP, especially if Labour select someone right on and progressive..
The big difference in polling terms would be that the LD-Lab switch would never have taken place. Remove that 8% from Labour's total and you end up with a very skinny looking 31% or so - in the middle of prolonged cuts. It might even be lower, with a Lab TO LD swing, leaving all three parties in the same kind of ballpark.
This is not a Labour country, or a Tory one. In fact, all parties have a decreasing claim on any sector of the electorate and core votes are diminishing.
There will be more Tory infighting over Europe if they win than if they lose. If they win then "renegotiate and vote on it" becomes something they have to do, with all the very high political barriers to that being feasible, with all the disagreement about precisely what should be renegotiated and with the inevitable disappointment of the small amount Cameron gets. If they lose, then any new leader can just recommit to the same policy and contrast themselves with the europhile in Number 10.
If you are going to be rude it would help if you knew what you were talking about. You see, we can both be rude. It's easy to be rude.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100145733/budget-2012-george-osborne-is-not-paying-down-the-debt-hes-increasing-it-less-slowly/
I would rather sit in silence and play with my woggle.
Why would one remove 8pts from Labour's score? Those former Liberals are now confirmed Labourites. As I say, Conservatives seek comfort in the strangest places.
The same old policy won't cut it. If they lose then they'll have fought an election with that policy and lost with the kipper vote being squarely blamed. It was blamed by some tories in 2010 after all when it was a mere 3.1%. The pressure from the base will be for a far more eurosceptic position (which now means far closer to or just full blown OUT) even if there was still a majority of MPs who were in favour of staying IN. Which there likely would be but not by all that much. You would then have a tory opposition party that isn't just pointing at labour because right beside them would be a beaming Farage saying "I told you so" and claiming they lost because they just aren't eurosceptic enough. Something unlikely to breed a great deal of harmony in the tory party. Something far more inclined to start all the talk of deals and pacts off again with a vengeance with those in favour of staying IN firmly on the backfoot.
And, I wouldn't pin my hopes on Generations X and Y. 62% of the electorate are aged over 40, and they have a much better record of turnout than the Under 40's.
And I think unemployment is an evil that we need to be more creative in finding ways to reduce it.
Let me give you an example. I founded a company called Betgenius Ltd 13 or 14 years ago. About six years ago, data collection was moved to Estonia - and the operation in that country certainly employs more than 100 people now.
Why did we move it there? Well, it's a fairly low-skilled job. In the UK we were paying minimum wage. But we found that it was increasingly difficult in Central London to get anyone even applying for a minimum wage job - and those that we did get were pretty awful. So, we ended up starting a company in Estonia and paying people £2-3/hour to do data collection.
What's terrible is that there are people in the UK who would do that job. But even the best data collector probably couldn't be paid more than £4/hour if we wanted to be profitable. (At a naieve level, think of it as someone who went to a bookmaker's page and noted down what they were offering on 2/1 for Tottenham to win.) The value of the data they collect is simply not that high.
So, we started an Estonian business, and lot's of people are employed there. And as demand for labour has increased in Estonia, we have raised everyone in the country's salaries an infinitesimal amount.
I want to think of ways we can increase demand for labour. I don't believe that the most efficient way to increase the total amount of work done, and to increase everyone's wages (which should be the twin goals) is to ban immigration - because all that does is encourage Betgenius Ltd to move more of its operations to Estonia.
£1 pay + £5 subsidy
to
£1.50 pay + £4.75 subsidy
But Labour start with considerable advantages. They have the boundaries and the fact that voting Labour in most of the north is worth significantly more than someone voting tory in the south. They have the BBC and other media who will always personalise the story of any cut in spending in a way that makes it look wicked. They have a populace who have seen years of incomprehensibly large deficits and no sign of the sky falling in (yet). They have the benefits of the anguish of the Lib Dems finally forced to choose in office rather than pontificating in opposition and they have a country which has struggled to recover (as it always does) from a financial recession.
All of these factors mean that the next election should see Labour as the largest party. The tories are ultimately reliant on the two Eds doing a Kinnock. All Osborne can do is increase the range of opportunities for them to manage this. He is doing that quite well and there is room for hope. My guess is that his best card at the next election will not be the necessary deficit reduction but a significant increase in the minumum wage against a background of growing employment.
Firstly, (and probably the answer you're getting at) is that rent is not the only cost to a retail store. So, reducing the rental cost would not help reduce the cost of business rates, electricity and the cost of carrying stock.
Secondly, (and probably just as importantly in the real world), rental leases are long (5 to 10 years). Landlords would rather wait for the market to improve than accept a decline in rents - especially when that decline would allow people to apply for downward rent reviews.
Your first point is a good one. There are people whose skills are so poor, that the cost of employing them is such that even as 'free' labour you wouldn't want to do it. And that's a fair point. However, I still don't think it's an overwhelming one. There are plenty of people who are capable of producing good levels of economic output and live in areas of unemployment. If I could pay them £4/hour, they'd recieve more than they do currently and be less of a burden on the state, and more work (i.e. economic output) would be created in total.
This may or may not prove to be true but it is self delusion to confirm someone as in your camp who has not actually voted for you let alone assume that everyone who has voted for you in the past will continue to do so . Indeed the polls regularly show that 1-2% of those who voted Labour in 2010 say they will vote Lib Dem in 2015 .
In the 1980-90s I worked closely with a Finnish banker. He worked full time for his bank but came from a family of undertakers.
This wasn't undertaking in the sense that a Goldman Sachs alumnus might understand, but a trade of a much more earthly nature.
Anyway, this fellow moonlighted for his family and made a decision to move all production of coffins to Estonia. This had a double benefit: low labour costs as well as access to cheap wood.
The family business thrived and knocked the competition dead.
Tallinn is a good place for an occasional visit too.
In fact,the announcement immediately blew up in his face when it was shown the 2 suggested areas of cuts,Bob Crow's council house and housing benefit cuts to the under 25s will not even register one million let alone 12-unless the Tories are prepared to throw young mums and dads onto the streets and send young people back to abusive families.What is unsaid is that the 11million+ to come must either wipe out benefits for disabled people,maternity provision or the basic safety net needed if falling on hard times through loss of job for example.
It's not the Opposition who has to worry when Osborne turns his fire against himself.
Welfare cuts are necessary and the obvious targets are the absurdly generous working tax credits and Child Tax credits which in many cases effectively pay the part time worker full time wages at the cost of the rest of us. One of the many frustrations about the delays in Universal Credit is that it makes this less obvious than it should be.
It is also interesting that although there has been a lot of emphasis on the triple lock for pensions there is still room for manouvre on the other fripperies doled out to pensioners.
I suspect the Treasuries' computers are burning hot trying to calculate the net cost/saving of an increase in the minimum wage too.
And to see how much 'rebalancing' has taken place.
Or more accurately hasn't. Government borrowing in 2012 was actually £121,550.
Counting the Royal Mail's pension fund's assets as income but ignoring their liabilities is known as fraud in the real world Avery.
As to OBR predictions what were their 2010 predictions of government borrowing and how accurate have they been shown to be ?
Forgive me for being sceptical about the prouncements of a government agency on how successful government policies are expected to be.
But the figures would favour Osborne far more than the PSNB ex official figures which I used in my original post.
I could even use the DMO gilts and Treasury bills issuance outcomes but these would only back up the NCR figures.
But the latter two stats are as close to real borrowing as you can get. Indeed gilt and bills issuance is the only real borrowing to measure.
Anyone you recruit in the UK would have to be paid at least the minimum wage whether they are immigrants or not. So by claiming that the job is not worth doing for more than £4 an hour the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the job cannot be done in Britain, immigration or no immigration.
If your business model is dependent on paying less than the minimum wage then in the end it is not a viable business in the UK.
Had Robert not had access to Estonian operations, his only survival route in the UK would have been to invest in automated data mining, thereby reducing per unit of output labour costs and (hopefully) increasing capital efficiency.
If Robert is still interested in this route, I could provide him with a few eBay links.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536819/Liam-Fox-lined-job-Nato.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAT_RW693BQ
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_344397.pdf
And lookee here Avery, the OBR forecasts of Novermber 2010:
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/econ_fiscal_outlook_291110.pdf
Didn't do too well did they and what a surprise they were on the optimistic side.
So please stop pretending the OBR is the holy grail of economic forecasting and not another government agency with predictions to suit what the government wants it to say.
We have austerity which is hammering the poor yet is having zero impact on national finances. If Labour can demonstrate this - juxtaposition of a chart showing national debt with a chart showing the explosion in food bank use perhaps - and it negates this dividing line.
Nor do I think the big austerity plan with it all on the young and poor has appeal. Perhaps if debt was coming down, but it isn't. So Labour should continue the one nation line, ask what we stand for as a country. Are making people homeless and hungry acceptable to not actually cut the debt? I don't think people are quite as self centred and uncaring as Osborne and IDS think.
Lots of talk about the 2010 forecasts being too optimistic but little about the 2013 being too pessimistic (except, of course, on PB).
I fear for my life at the weekends with the twin fronts of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire to navigate.
I am thinking of staying down South in Bognor. At least Mark Senior's bark is worse than his bite.
There is an additional point though. The reason large employers of low and unskilled labour have been giving lobbyists lots of money to encourage the political class to open the borders is mass immigration shifts their wage costs onto the welfare system. Trying to unravel what the political class has done won't be pretty any way round.
If you get rid of the minimum wage, but do not slash benefits, then there is no incentive for anyone to take a low wage job.
You are continuing a situation where people are priced out of the labour market
This contrasts with Debt under Brown rising from 35.4% of GDP at the end of the 2005/6 financial year to 151.7% at the end of 2009/10.
So far George Osborne has reduced the ratio from 151.7% to 137.6%. As he keeps repeating there remains a long way to go, but at least George is heading in the right direction.
I have also resolved to be nicer to Pork in future. You never know whom you might need on your side in a fight.
Alternatively you could just agree Osborne's a lost cause and enjoy a glass of the local fizz,
But that does not change the basic point of my posting which is that, based on the figures you provided, your argument has to be with the minimum wage rather than with immigration controls because it is this which was preventing you employing people (whether immigrants or not) for less than £4 an hour.
Import tariffs should be set at the difference between UK median wages and the median wage of the country concerned. Where the country has poor health and safety regulations, then additional tariffs should be levied to discourage such conditions.
Similarly work permit quotas (including for EU countries) should be set so that the lower the median wage of the country the fewer the permits, with unlimited permits only where the median wage is 85% of UKs or greater.
If we cut benefits to chase wages down, then ultimately all we are doing is ensuring that our grandchildren will also live in decrepit dormitories working 14 hours a day for a few pence and hour and our GDP implodes because people who earn low wages cannot afford consumer goods.
Of course our government can do nothing about any of this because setting of such tariffs and immigration within the EU is an EU competency.
Thinking about it your advocacy of an import substitution strategy and my advocacy of wealth creation among middle to lower skilled workers are in accordance.
What definition of debt are you using?
Haven't looked at the bulletin, ar, but did note that the deficit had marginally narrowed.
Have you, in turn, noticed the OBR/ONS have revised upward by 66% the contribution made to GDP by net trade between 2011 Q2 and 2012 Q4? I won't give you the exact figures for fear of your reaction giving good cause for you to be drummed out of the Normanby Hall Golf Club.
In other words he's playing silly buggers again.
See the link to the ONS in my earlier post.
On the economics I think we generally agree on most things. It's probably that unfashionable view you still find in the Shires of working for a living. Avery still believes in an economy based on asset inflation and borrowing to fund lives sub-optimised on benefits.
PSND ex (Brown's fantasy) sees the figures move from 34.3% in 2004/5 to 56.4% in 2009/10. Still in the wrong direction but understated by excluding the borrowing needed to bail out the banks.
Actually the Sussex sparkling wines really are rather good. Nyetimber is now quite well known and available in Waitrose, but for my money the products of the Ridgeview Estate at Ditchling are better and cheaper and outclass all but the very best the French can produce (Ridgeview is also owned and run by a very nice family). Honourable mention should also be given to Bolney Wines that are also very good, though unlike Ridgeview they don't concentrate solely on the Sparkling stuff.
So staying at home and enjoying the local fizz is a great idea if one lives in Sussex.
He is very fond of a Perry made in Warwickshire.
The Nyetimber has been put on ice pending the crossover of French and UK GDP.
*shudders*
He is an Ulsterman, so I suppose allowances have to be made.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_347845.pdf
Any predictions as to when we can expect a single month's trade surplus Avery ?
It is the year for 'hard truths' isn't it ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25694630
Furthermore since you are a beer drinker from memory Mr L I can recommend the Purity Brewery and it's excellent products, top advice from an Alcesterman.
http://www.puritybrewing.com/
PS tried Ridgeview, still reckon NT has the edge.
Haven't we been running a modern version of the Speenhamland system for years? The amount of in work benefits being paid out would seem to suggest we have been subsidising employers as a cheaper alternative to mass unemployment for quite a while now.
A couple of years ago there was much mirth, not least on this site, when Miliband suggested a policy of pre-distribution (i.e. jacking up the minimum wage so as to save on the need to pay benefits). Am I he only one to be amused by the fact that the Conservatives are now edging towards just that policy, which once they decried and ridiculed.
You are blithely ignoring the fact that the CTC is paid to cover the cost of childcare, which are of course not applicable to people without children. It is not free money - it goes against the childcare bill. If you want to cut the cost of tax credits, try improving childcare provision and reducing its cost.
See http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/work-pay-childcare.htm
If you abolish CTC, you will force many parents on low wages to stop working and go on benefits, which will just cost more.
"(a) for each child an addtional child allowance of over £2,750 p.a. is given. Tapering is consecutive. This is absurd and encourages child farming. Subsequent children do not cost as much as the first as you can hand down cots clothes etc. The child allowance for second and subsequent children should be halved."
Again, CTC is for childcare costs only. Nurseries will charge just as much for a second child as a first. Maybe a 10% discount if you're lucky.
So we are getting there ... slowly.
"slowly"
Pole we demand your unconditional surrender, your defences are collapsing, the Nabavi yeomanry has stayed at home and our secret weapon hasn't been released yet ( can't say obviously, but beware of wolves dressed in Llama's clothing ). Lay down your pictures of Osborne and find us a real Chancellor.
The point I have tried to make is that most voters who tell the pollsters that they voted LD in 2010 but will vote Labour in 2015 have not yet voted for Labour . They may do so but until they do they are not confirmed Labourites .
Thanks for that recommendation for Purity beer. I see that the Foresters' Arms (a fine little pub) in Horsham sells it. I shall make an expedition to go and try some.
Have you tried the Wood Farm Brewery's products? A small brewery near Rugby. Our local club had some on guest ales weekend. Very, very nice; especially their 1823 dark mild a great session beer, not too strong but full of flavour and better for my money than the Harvey's equivalent.
I am surprised you find Nyetimber superior to Ridgeview. Are you sure you were comparing equivalent brews? Or perhaps its drinking all that perry. Anyway each to his own.