This is why the EU has a parliament. Turnout will get better as it becomes more influential and more politically polarised.
I think this is overly optimistic. The problem with the European Parliament is not just abysmal turnout. It's a complete and utter lack of understanding of what it does and therefore what the issues that should be debated in the run-up to the election are. And after the election it's the complete and utter indifference shown to it by the electorate. It amounts to MEPs being totally and utterly unaccountable for their actions.
As a result the European Parliament has hardly any legitimacy and it's really difficult to see that changing in the future.
Which media? Broadsheet Print media you might be correct - I think that the FT and Economist are generally right, and have editors to correct as well if required. Tabloid or tv media totally different in my view. (But have to admit that I haven't the time to source evidence about this, and it is more an impression than an accurate, researched point)
What papers and TV shows are you talking about? I have never seen the BBC get the debt and deficit mixed up, nor any of the broadsheets. Of course I don't read/watch them every single day, so it could have happened once or twice, but definitely not to the level you suggested.
I don't read the tabloids, so I couldn't comment on them, but I have a hard time imagining 97% of the journalists in them are wrong.
This is a welcome idea but it also highlights that the starting point is not a good one for the tories. An average lead of 6.8% for Labour over the last week suggests that they have slipped back a per cent or two over the festive period. And this is despite the substantial increase in economic confidence for the country and job confidence for the individuals over that time.
....
The prospects of an easy tory win delivered on the back of an economic recovery are fading. There is much for the tories to do.
Would it that more Conservatives were as open-eyed. A fabulous post.
The simple fact is there is little the tories can do. For whatever reason it seems likely the voters of this country will not reward them for a recovering economy and record employment. Its hard for me to work out why anyone would want labour back, other than perhaps they think they will get lots of free stuff. Labour will borrow and spend again, thats what they have always done, interest rates will go up as will unemployment. In my view this has been a very competent coalition government who have governed for the benefit of the country and not for their party. For this they will get punished by the electorate who will vote back in the lot who made the mess, not just of the economy but of public services. There is nothing as funny as folk.
The Coalition has doubled the debt in five years. Hardly the fierce fiscal Conservatives of popular myth.
They inherited the structural deficit created by Labour, do you really think that you can wipe that out in three years. What happened to Labours cutting too far too fast?
Indeed so. But why they tell the public that they are paying down debt? The myth will be uncovered at the worst possible time for the government.
The relevant metric for measuring debt is its ratio to GDP.
Under Gordon Brown and Labour, Public Sector Net Debt rose from a ratio to GDP of 34.3% at the end of 2004/5 to a ratio of 151.7% at end 2009/10. In other words, during the last Labour government the debt ratio of the UK deteriorated by 342%.
Under Osborne and the Coalition Government, Public Sector Net Debt has fallen from 151.7%, the ratio it inherited from Brown, to a an end 2012/13 ratio of 137.6%., an improvement of 10.2%.
So using the form of measurement stipulated by international treaties and published by multi-national economic agencies, Osborne has "paid down the debt" in the first three years of his Chancellorship.
You don't even need to be a Boy Scout to understand that.
This is a welcome idea but it also highlights that the starting point is not a good one for the tories. An average lead of 6.8% for Labour over the last week suggests that they have slipped back a per cent or two over the festive period. And this is despite the substantial increase in economic confidence for the country and job confidence for the individuals over that time.
....
The prospects of an easy tory win delivered on the back of an economic recovery are fading. There is much for the tories to do.
Would it that more Conservatives were as open-eyed. A fabulous post.
The simple fact is there is little the tories can do. For whatever reason it seems likely the voters of this country will not reward them for a recovering economy and record employment. Its hard for me to work out why anyone would want labour back, other than perhaps they think they will get lots of free stuff. Labour will borrow and spend again, thats what they have always done, interest rates will go up as will unemployment. In my view this has been a very competent coalition government who have governed for the benefit of the country and not for their party. For this they will get punished by the electorate who will vote back in the lot who made the mess, not just of the economy but of public services. There is nothing as funny as folk.
The Coalition has doubled the debt in five years. Hardly the fierce fiscal Conservatives of popular myth.
They inherited the structural deficit created by Labour, do you really think that you can wipe that out in three years. What happened to Labours cutting too far too fast?
Indeed so. But why they tell the public that they are paying down debt? The myth will be uncovered at the worst possible time for the government.
You don't even need to be a Boy Scout to understand that.
He seems to be more comfortable talking "Brownies" frankly..
This is why the EU has a parliament. Turnout will get better as it becomes more influential and more politically polarised.
I think this is overly optimistic. The problem with the European Parliament is not just abysmal turnout. It's a complete and utter lack of understanding of what it does and therefore what the issues that should be debated in the run-up to the election are. And after the election it's the complete and utter indifference shown to it by the electorate. It amounts to MEPs being totally and utterly unaccountable for their actions.
As a result the European Parliament has hardly any legitimacy and it's really difficult to see that changing in the future.
I'm not sure the electorate can be blamed. Even for someone interested in politics such as myself, it's hard enough keeping track of what's happening in local politics and the national government, without adding an extra layer on. It must be worse for those parts of the country who have devolved powers.
How much time and effort should the electorate be spending trying to understand all of these labyrinthine different layers, their roles and powers?
You don't even need to be a Boy Scout to understand that.
Obviously the metric of choice is the one that puts your position most favourably. This is why you admirably stick to PSNB and not PSNB ex, and why Labour now are focusing on a more nebulous feel good factor, as opposed to previous arguments regarding the deficit.
"Clegg needs an attractive message that can withstand a nasty, polarised election. One of his emerging lines was clear on Sunday. The first challenge is repairing the economy, a task now well under way. The second is building a fairer society. His pitch is that the Lib Dems are the only party who marry the two objectives.
Clegg needs a succession of pledges that dramatise his commitment to both prosperity and fairness. The rise in income tax allowances – the biggest single achievement for the Lib Dems in the coalition – is a good start. It should clearly go further, as it is a nonsense to set a minimum wage and then tax people on it.
But the very progress so far means that the promise is less alluring. It is the paradox of reforming parties. The more successful they are, the more their appeal wanes. In the old phrase, the Lib Dems need a "record of action, and the promise of more". Elections are above all about the future, and the message will have to be positive and clear."
I'm not sure the electorate is feeling particularly grateful to the Lib Dems in the first place, mind.
The relevant metric for measuring debt is its ratio to GDP
Probably - but very risky. Many politicians and economists seem to forget that economies are cyclical. There WILL be another recession. If you borrow to spend, the GDP can grow at a higher rate than the deficit. (Remember Gordon anyone?). BUT...and here's the rub...when the recession comes the GDP falls off a cliff and the deficit shoots up. Suddenly you're in a world of shit.
So, yes, look at the ratio. But look at it over a full cycle and recognise that you'll emerge from the next recession at a ratio way worse than you went into it with. Fix roof / sun shines and all that.
Who is blaming the electorate? Clearly the European Parliament is a failure when it comes to bringing democratic legitimacy to the EU. It would be better to rethink how to do this.
Who is blaming the electorate? Clearly the European Parliament is a failure when it comes to bringing democratic legitimacy to the EU. It would be better to rethink how to do this.
Which media? Broadsheet Print media you might be correct - I think that the FT and Economist are generally right, and have editors to correct as well if required. Tabloid or tv media totally different in my view. (But have to admit that I haven't the time to source evidence about this, and it is more an impression than an accurate, researched point)
What papers and TV shows are you talking about? I have never seen the BBC get the debt and deficit mixed up, nor any of the broadsheets. Of course I don't read/watch them every single day, so it could have happened once or twice, but definitely not to the level you suggested.
I don't read the tabloids, so I couldn't comment on them, but I have a hard time imagining 97% of the journalists in them are wrong.
You might well be right, and probably more so recently. It was particularly noticeable in the first year of the Government, but as an example, I don't ever recollect Dimbleby correcting any of the panelists on QT when they got it wrong, or even asking to clarify which they meant. Also, when I say media - I don't necessarily mean news, but the sort of documentaries which ask questions like "the government say that policy X is required so that the UK can pay down the debt left by Labour - do you agree" "Err. No, policy X is required so that the UK can reduce its spiraling deficit..."
Now you might argue that the journalists are just repeating the governments lines, and they know exactly what the difference is, but I have seen little evidence of attempting to educate the populous if that is the case.
You don't even need to be a Boy Scout to understand that.
Obviously the metric of choice is the one that puts your position most favourably. This is why you admirably stick to PSNB and not PSNB ex, and why Labour now are focusing on a more nebulous feel good factor, as opposed to previous arguments regarding the deficit.
PSND ex is a subset of PSND. I quoted both ratios in a post over the weekend. Given all the exclusions currently being applied to the Public Finances figures, probably the most reliable way to measure the UK's debt position is to compare the actual amount of borrowing undertaken each year by the Debt Management Office to maintain debt and service current borrowing. An intermediary measure may be the Central Government and Public Sector Net Cash Requirements, which are used to determine the remit given by the Treasury to the DMO for debt issuance.
The problem with using DMO debt issuance or NCR figures are that they show a much healthier (or probably better stated as "less unhealthy") position than the headline figures used by the ONS and Media.
Nevertheless we should recognise that the true debt position is better than the headline claims. What the headline or 'ex' figures tell us is what the position would have been had a series of one-off events not taken place. They are a flawed attempt to quantify the 'underlying' position of the public finances.
As for Labour focussing on "cost of living" their claims are indeed 'nebulous'. Household Net Disposable Income, as measured by the ONS, has improved in the last two quarters and is forecast to improve through the current 2014/15 Fiscal Year. And this is before Osborne announces any policy measures improving disposable income in the upcoming budget.
The objective, independently measured reality is that the UK is experiencing a "cost of living recovery" not "crisis". This is why we only hear Labour politicians and activists making 'nebulous' statements about such vital measures as the cost of gym membership.
"It is quite obvious that Labour is not going to give the public a vote on Europe. Miliband has plainly made up what passes for his mind."
I can't imagine many people care. Europe is not a salient issue. Boris would be wise to talk about something else, if he wants Cameron to win in 2015. I suspect he does not however.
MEP candidates care, and the next elections in the UK are the May local & EU elections.
This is why the EU has a parliament. Turnout will get better as it becomes more influential and more politically polarised.
I think this is overly optimistic. The problem with the European Parliament is not just abysmal turnout. It's a complete and utter lack of understanding of what it does and therefore what the issues that should be debated in the run-up to the election are. And after the election it's the complete and utter indifference shown to it by the electorate. It amounts to MEPs being totally and utterly unaccountable for their actions.
As a result the European Parliament has hardly any legitimacy and it's really difficult to see that changing in the future.
The voters don't understand much of this stuff in any election. They don't know what the county does as opposed to the town or borough, they don't really understand how an MP does or doesn't affect the way they're governed, they often don't know who their MP is and a lot of the claims they base their votes on are bogus, a fact they're dimly aware of, but they still don't have the time or inclination to sort through it all.
Luckily there's a solution that allows them to make reasonably informed calls without sorting through all that stuff, which is the party brand. That's all they need to vote in elections at any level without screwing it up too badly.
Actually following issues and holding specific MPs accountable is a feature for a small number of advanced voters, but that works pretty well in the Euros for those voters already, and it'll get better as pressure groups find more ways to get stuff into their streams.
I suspect that you and I are in violent agreement on the DMO numbers. However, I would point out they are slightly flattered by the excellent job done by said office in extending the maturity of our debt. In other words, if we replace one year debt with 10 year debt, we're not doing a lot of 'rolling over' and therefore the debt issuance numbers get flattered the next year...
My brother finally made it to Doha after the Qatar Boeing 787 SNAFU at Heathrow yesterday evening. But after a four hour delay, he missed his connection and he can't continue on to Calicut in southern India till tonight. The airline have put him up in a hotel, thankfully.
The relevant metric for measuring debt is its ratio to GDP
Probably - but very risky. Many politicians and economists seem to forget that economies are cyclical. There WILL be another recession. If you borrow to spend, the GDP can grow at a higher rate than the deficit. (Remember Gordon anyone?). BUT...and here's the rub...when the recession comes the GDP falls off a cliff and the deficit shoots up. Suddenly you're in a world of shit.
So, yes, look at the ratio. But look at it over a full cycle and recognise that you'll emerge from the next recession at a ratio way worse than you went into it with. Fix roof / sun shines and all that.
This is A Level syllabus, Patrick.
The Last Boy Scout is currently languishing in the bottom set of the Remove.
You are quite right though and that is why the Primary Fiscal Mandate of the Coalition government is to achieve a Cyclically Adjusted Current Balance within a five year rolling forward forecast period.
The Cyclically Adjusted bit is an attempt to calculate where the mid-point of a natural economic cycle falls. But this is not easy to measure and relies heavily on economists making theoretical calculations about the economy, or at least calculations which are more theoretical than they use to produce other econometrics.
The problem being wrestled with by the OBR is how to calculate the current 'Output Gap' correctly. The output gap is the extent to which the current performance of the economy is underutilising its optimal capacity. The is the starting point for calculating the point at which economy is in cyclical equilibrium. And problem is that the estimates of the estimates of 'output gap' from reliable forecasters range from a high of 6%+ to a low of below 1%. This means that a cyclically adjusted balance could really be anywhere you want it to be.
Still it is an attempt to apply a systematic methodology to provide the measurement you are asking for. And like many econometrics its usefulness is based on there being no better alternative methods rather than it being a divining rod which reveals a truth.
Changes to driving styles could mean a shift in the pecking order. We'll have to wait and see. Loss of downforce should hit Red Bull hardest but they're likely to still have more than most others.
The relevant metric for measuring debt is its ratio to GDP.
Under Gordon Brown and Labour, Public Sector Net Debt rose from a ratio to GDP of 34.3% at the end of 2004/5 to a ratio of 151.7% at end 2009/10. In other words, during the last Labour government the debt ratio of the UK deteriorated by 342%.
Under Osborne and the Coalition Government, Public Sector Net Debt has fallen from 151.7%, the ratio it inherited from Brown, to a an end 2012/13 ratio of 137.6%., an improvement of 10.2%.
So using the form of measurement stipulated by international treaties and published by multi-national economic agencies, Osborne has "paid down the debt" in the first three years of his Chancellorship.
You don't even need to be a Boy Scout to understand that.
A nice sophisticated argument that is accurate and doesn't tell the whole truth.
As Osborne pointed out last week the UK government is borrowing £100bn a year and spending half of that to pay the interest on its accumulated debt and debt interest has a way to go yet even if the most optimistic forecasts come to fruition.
I am not sure Osborne, or indeed anyone else, knows what to do to get us out the mess we are in. Its one thing to say we will cut £12bn from spending in year X and £25bn in year Y and Z, but when pushed he doesn't seem able to say where those sums are going to come from. Furthermore, as has been pointed out on here many times, the areas of spending he hints are targets will not yield the sums he wants, at least not without breaking some coalition pledges.
A policy of relying on a mixture of inflation, growth, salami-slicing and Micawberish hope might enable a politician to present a sophisticated argument that an increasing pile of debt is actually getting smaller. Furthermore it can only disguise the fact that as a country we are getting poorer and poorer as our biggest export seems to be our wealth.
Then we should think about the comments made by Mr. Patrick up-thread. There will be another recession. In the UK they seem to come around every ten to fifteen years, so the next one will probably hit around 2020, maybe a bit before. What happens then?
Maybe, the time has come when the politicing needs to stop. Maybe, the situation is just too serious for a bunch of rich, but essentially clueless, bastards shouting ya-boo at each other as they try and gain power for themselves.
Some major headaches after the May Locals and European elections.
Technically, those swings are impossible! If 11.7 of the Lib's 25 went to Lab, and 12 of their 25 went to UKIP and 4.7 of their 25 went to Con, then there are negative LibDem voters.
I suspect that you and I are in violent agreement on the DMO numbers. However, I would point out they are slightly flattered by the excellent job done by said office in extending the maturity of our debt. In other words, if we replace one year debt with 10 year debt, we're not doing a lot of 'rolling over' and therefore the debt issuance numbers get flattered the next year...
Yes, the figures are superficially more difficult to read than the ONS Debt metrics, but not by so much that the public would never get used to seeing the picture clearly.
Rolling over debt would need explaining. The DMO is due to issue around £155-165 debt instruments this fiscal year, approximately one third of which is to roll over existing debt as it matures and the other two thirds to provide for the governments net cash requirement.
As you say, the mix of very short term debt (Treasury Bills), Short (1-5 Years), Medium (5-15 years) and Long Term (20-50+ years) debt is significant and the reasons/costs/benefits of any change in mix would need to be explained
The mix between fixed and RPI linked interest bearing Gilts would also need explaining, as would the general concept of 'yields' and 'rates'.
Finally (but not exhaustively) the DMO holds a cash balance of current reserves on behalf of the government which is quite sizeable (£50 -70 billion by memory), which is money borrowed but not yet spent.
So it is a new 'business' to expose to the public but not one that is impenetrably complex. It wouldn't require journalists to explaining the 'laws of cricket'.
Some major headaches after the May Locals and European elections.
Technically, those swings are impossible! If 11.7 of the Lib's 25 went to Lab, and 12 of their 25 went to UKIP and 4.7 of their 25 went to Con, then there are negative LibDem voters.
Which is technically impossible.
If the LibDems end up with a national share of -4.4, they could still hold most of their current seats thanks to incumbency if their score drops to say -12% in seats where they don't have incumbents, which doesn't sound like an impossible ask given Clegg's current ratings, except mathematically.
Some major headaches after the May Locals and European elections.
Technically, those swings are impossible! If 11.7 of the Lib's 25 went to Lab, and 12 of their 25 went to UKIP and 4.7 of their 25 went to Con, then there are negative LibDem voters.
''I am not sure Osborne, or indeed anyone else, knows what to do to get us out the mess we are in.''
Contempt for where public money comes from is still endemic. Today we learn at 800 plus public servants earn more than 100 grand, and that London councils alone have more than 600m of council tax arrears.
What the f8ck we'll just send the bill to those that will pay.
Some major headaches after the May Locals and European elections.
Technically, those swings are impossible! If 11.7 of the Lib's 25 went to Lab, and 12 of their 25 went to UKIP and 4.7 of their 25 went to Con, then there are negative LibDem voters.
Which is technically impossible.
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of swing: it means the change in the relative movement of parties. It should perhaps be called "relative" swing but in the days of a two-party system the relative swing coincided with the actual swing in that the votes literally did pass from Party 1 to Party 2.
Lordy me .... a few hours into the Australian Open and Murray is the only Brit left in the draw !!
Not that I'm overly hopeful for Andy this time. He has a very good record there, reaching the final last year but he lacks match fitness after his back operation and may struggle especially if scheduled in the heat sapping times of the day.
Maybe, the time has come when the politicing needs to stop. Maybe, the situation is just too serious for a bunch of rich, but essentially clueless, bastards shouting ya-boo at each other as they try and gain power for themselves.
Not really. Maybe the time has come when we get ourselves a sensible electorate. All deficit funded welfare states are 'Rob peter to pay Paul' societies. Paul has more votes than Peter. Politicians can and will always exploit the stupidity of most of the people to promise them jam tomorrow - and people will vote for it. It's not the politicians who are clueless - they at least recognise that there aren't that many votes in finanical responsibility. And when you have one party and a broadcast media that are quite happy to peddle the 'austerity' nonsense then we get what we deserve.
FWIW I think we should have a written constitution with a debt brake.
Some major headaches after the May Locals and European elections.
Technically, those swings are impossible! If 11.7 of the Lib's 25 went to Lab, and 12 of their 25 went to UKIP and 4.7 of their 25 went to Con, then there are negative LibDem voters.
Which is technically impossible.
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of swing: it means the change in the relative movement of parties. It should perhaps be called "relative" swing but in the days of a two-party system the relative swing coincided with the actual swing in that the votes literally did pass from Party 1 to Party 2.
Au contraire, that is not what swing means.
If we say "Oxford West and Abingdon was a Conservative gain with a 6.9% swing from Liberal Democrat to Conservative", then that happens when we see the Conservative vote move up 9.6, and the LibDem one fall 4.1%. (9.6% + 4.1%) / 2 = a 6.9% swing.
Swing numbers refer to absolute percentage changes, in common parlance.
Some major headaches after the May Locals and European elections.
Technically, those swings are impossible! If 11.7 of the Lib's 25 went to Lab, and 12 of their 25 went to UKIP and 4.7 of their 25 went to Con, then there are negative LibDem voters.
Which is technically impossible.
Aren't those % of people who voted LD?
Yes they are - however - that is not how the word 'swing' is commonly used.
Maybe, the time has come when the politicing needs to stop. Maybe, the situation is just too serious for a bunch of rich, but essentially clueless, bastards shouting ya-boo at each other as they try and gain power for themselves.
Not really. Maybe the time has come when we get ourselves a sensible electorate. All deficit funded welfare states are 'Rob peter to pay Paul' societies. Paul has more votes than Peter. Politicians can and will always exploit the stupidity of most of the people to promise them jam tomorrow - and people will vote for it. It's not the politicians who are clueless - they at least recognise that there aren't that many votes in finanical responsibility. And when you have one party and a broadcast media that are quite happy to peddle the 'austerity' nonsense then we get what we deserve.
FWIW I think we should have a written constitution with a debt brake.
As the Spanish have discovered, you get that for free when you join the Euro. (Ducks)
By the way, quiz question (don't check wikipedia, but just guess).
Government (including local government) spending as a percentage of GDP is 48% in the UK, 56% in France, and 38% in the US.
Some major headaches after the May Locals and European elections.
Technically, those swings are impossible! If 11.7 of the Lib's 25 went to Lab, and 12 of their 25 went to UKIP and 4.7 of their 25 went to Con, then there are negative LibDem voters.
Which is technically impossible.
Aren't those % of people who voted LD?
Yes they are - however - that is not how the word 'swing' is commonly used.
From my reading,
Lib to Lab 11.7 Lib to UKIP 12.0 Lib to Con 4.7
means LibDems have lost 11.7% of their 6.8 million voters in 2010 to Lab 12% to UKIP and 4.7% to Tories. So they still have (100-11.7-12-4.7=) 71.6%, ie. roughly 4.9 million?
Maybe, the time has come when the politicing needs to stop. Maybe, the situation is just too serious for a bunch of rich, but essentially clueless, bastards shouting ya-boo at each other as they try and gain power for themselves.
Not really. Maybe the time has come when we get ourselves a sensible electorate. All deficit funded welfare states are 'Rob peter to pay Paul' societies. Paul has more votes than Peter. Politicians can and will always exploit the stupidity of most of the people to promise them jam tomorrow - and people will vote for it. It's not the politicians who are clueless - they at least recognise that there aren't that many votes in finanical responsibility. And when you have one party and a broadcast media that are quite happy to peddle the 'austerity' nonsense then we get what we deserve.
FWIW I think we should have a written constitution with a debt brake.
As the Spanish have discovered, you get that for free when you join the Euro. (Ducks)
By the way, quiz question (don't check wikipedia, but just guess).
Government (including local government) spending as a percentage of GDP is 48% in the UK, 56% in France, and 38% in the US.
Maybe, the time has come when the politicing needs to stop. Maybe, the situation is just too serious for a bunch of rich, but essentially clueless, bastards shouting ya-boo at each other as they try and gain power for themselves.
Not really. Maybe the time has come when we get ourselves a sensible electorate. All deficit funded welfare states are 'Rob peter to pay Paul' societies. Paul has more votes than Peter. Politicians can and will always exploit the stupidity of most of the people to promise them jam tomorrow - and people will vote for it. It's not the politicians who are clueless - they at least recognise that there aren't that many votes in finanical responsibility. And when you have one party and a broadcast media that are quite happy to peddle the 'austerity' nonsense then we get what we deserve.
FWIW I think we should have a written constitution with a debt brake.
As the Spanish have discovered, you get that for free when you join the Euro. (Ducks)
By the way, quiz question (don't check wikipedia, but just guess).
Government (including local government) spending as a percentage of GDP is 48% in the UK, 56% in France, and 38% in the US.
What is it in Spain?
No idea. Lower than us I guess. However govt spending as a % GDP and deficits are two related but not equal numbers (depending on tax takes). The difference is we are going robustly now and they aren't. Plus we borrow in our own currency (that we control). They can't even print money / QE as a way out and must embrace the suck the hard way.
The 'don't run deficits' rule needs to be applied over long periods of time and can be a cripplingly dumb thing to do when you are already in the shit and borrow in a foreign currency (a la Spain). They're trapped in the Euro. House is on fire and key firmly chucked away. GDP, employment, PMI figures etc all are improving for Spain. It won't save them. Their debt/GDP trajectory will overwhelm them and the other GIPSIs, with possible exception of Ireland IF there is no shock in the next year or two. (Unlikely IMHO).
The 21st century will start this year or next. With the death of deficit funded welfare models when a merket shock hits and many countries aren't able to withstand it.
Some major headaches after the May Locals and European elections.
Technically, those swings are impossible! If 11.7 of the Lib's 25 went to Lab, and 12 of their 25 went to UKIP and 4.7 of their 25 went to Con, then there are negative LibDem voters.
Which is technically impossible.
Aren't those % of people who voted LD?
Yes they are - however - that is not how the word 'swing' is commonly used.
From my reading,
Lib to Lab 11.7 Lib to UKIP 12.0 Lib to Con 4.7
means LibDems have lost 11.7% of their 6.8 million voters in 2010 to Lab 12% to UKIP and 4.7% to Tories. So they still have (100-11.7-12-4.7=) 71.6%, ie. roughly 4.9 million?
Yes?
No !!!!
To simplify , Lib Dems poll 25% and Labour 30% in 2010 the only change is 10% of the total voters move from Lib Dems to Labour and Lib Dems drop to 15% and Labour increase to 40% . There is therefore a 10% swing from LD to Labour . There is though also a 5% swing from LD to Con (average of -10 and zero ) and 5% from Con to Lab ( average of 0 and plus 10 ) .
Also says "John Cridland of the CBI is the new favourite to take over as Britain's commissioner in Brussels".
One of my colleagues was talking to a Conservative MP this weekend, and he said (paraphrasing) that it was necessary to demonstrate sufficient Euroscepticism to one's constituency party, even when it meant saying something one didn't really believe in.
The other point that was made is that once - even Eurosceptic - ministers get into power they are forced to get involved in 'the art of the possible'. And that means there are people from industries (particularly finance, but also some part of manufacturing) that want things changed to benefit or protect their businesses. So, 'The City' is very keen to make sure that changes don't affect its pre-eminent position in Europe, and the pressure is not so much on 'staying in' and opposed to 'leaving', but more that regulations are crafted in a way that benefit them. The politician is left with the choice of ignoring a powerful constituency in the UK - which generates a substantial amount of tax and employs a lot of people - or making compromises that upset other people. That is, we get our way on financial services reform, and in return for which we give up something somewhere else.
Like all international negotiations, (or indeed business ones), you can't unpick a contract. They are exercises in compromise and horse trading.
Of course, we could just leave the EU.
But remember, that if we remain part of the Single Economic Area (as Norway is, for example), then you are (a) still bound by the same regulations as exist in the EU, (b) have no say over said regulations, and (c) would still send a multi-billion pound check to Brussels every year (although it would certainly be smaller).
We could leave the SEA, of course.
But that would be a disaster for - for example - my business in fund management. We can sell across the EU without any restrictions under the 'single passport' concept. However, outside the EU (in Switzerland, for example) you need to have a local agent who takes between a third and two-thirds of your fees. Big companies already have local subsidiaries across the EU, but for a small company like us, it would be a serious blow.
Now, I know we shouldn't make decisions solely for the benefit of my business... but it is important to recognise that there are compromises and consequences of every decision. And while Clegg's "three million" jobs figure may be a fantasy, it would be seriously remiss not to recognise that there are winners and losers from being in or being out.
Maybe, the time has come when the politicing needs to stop. Maybe, the situation is just too serious for a bunch of rich, but essentially clueless, bastards shouting ya-boo at each other as they try and gain power for themselves.
Not really. Maybe the time has come when we get ourselves a sensible electorate. All deficit funded welfare states are 'Rob peter to pay Paul' societies. Paul has more votes than Peter. Politicians can and will always exploit the stupidity of most of the people to promise them jam tomorrow - and people will vote for it. It's not the politicians who are clueless - they at least recognise that there aren't that many votes in finanical responsibility. And when you have one party and a broadcast media that are quite happy to peddle the 'austerity' nonsense then we get what we deserve.
FWIW I think we should have a written constitution with a debt brake.
As the Spanish have discovered, you get that for free when you join the Euro. (Ducks)
By the way, quiz question (don't check wikipedia, but just guess).
Government (including local government) spending as a percentage of GDP is 48% in the UK, 56% in France, and 38% in the US.
What is it in Spain?
Total guess - 65% or so...
Hmm... Just Checked. Interesting. Suggests that the issue isn't excess expenditure as much as lack of tax revenues / large amounts of totally unproductive GDP.
A nice sophisticated argument that is accurate and doesn't tell the whole truth.
As Osborne pointed out last week the UK government is borrowing £100bn a year and spending half of that to pay the interest on its accumulated debt and debt interest has a way to go yet even if the most optimistic forecasts come to fruition.
I am not sure Osborne, or indeed anyone else, knows what to do to get us out the mess we are in. ....
Mr. Llama
I think you are being over-pessimistic in your assessment.
The latest OBR EFO sets out in great detail how the UK can eradicate its deficit, balance its cyclically adjusted current budget and start to reduce debt, even the subset measure which excludes the effect of banking interventions.
There are two main resources needed to get there: political will and time.
I am not too concerned about Osborne's quantification of further spending cuts needed. £12 billion is only around 1.7% of total annual spend so we are not talking about radical surgery. The margins of error in forecast variables far exceed the spending cut figures being quoted so, for example, a small upturn in growth and equivalent downturn in inflation would yield bigger net savings.
This is not to say that all key economic problems have been solved. They haven't and there are many areas where the structure of the UK economy needs to be improved: trade, productivity, real incomes growth, energy costs and dependencies being in the focus of today's spotlights.
But if the economy does turn out broadly to the OBR fiscal forecast, then by the end of the next parliamentary term, the country should be in a strong position to reduce its nominal debt mountain and debt servicing burden over the following term. Even if there were to be a recession in the 2020-25 period, then we would enter it in a much stronger position than the 2007-9 financial crisis.
It is time to be faithful. Osborne, for all the sins of his origin and manner, is turning the economy around and doing so at an internationally competitive rate. We must try to avoid the boredom and frustration of a long voyage.
Maybe, the time has come when the politicing needs to stop. Maybe, the situation is just too serious for a bunch of rich, but essentially clueless, bastards shouting ya-boo at each other as they try and gain power for themselves.
Not really. Maybe the time has come when we get ourselves a sensible electorate. All deficit funded welfare states are 'Rob peter to pay Paul' societies. Paul has more votes than Peter. Politicians can and will always exploit the stupidity of most of the people to promise them jam tomorrow - and people will vote for it. It's not the politicians who are clueless - they at least recognise that there aren't that many votes in finanical responsibility. And when you have one party and a broadcast media that are quite happy to peddle the 'austerity' nonsense then we get what we deserve.
FWIW I think we should have a written constitution with a debt brake.
As the Spanish have discovered, you get that for free when you join the Euro. (Ducks)
By the way, quiz question (don't check wikipedia, but just guess).
Government (including local government) spending as a percentage of GDP is 48% in the UK, 56% in France, and 38% in the US.
What is it in Spain?
Total guess - 65% or so...
Hmm... Just Checked. Interesting. Suggests that the issue isn't excess expenditure as much as lack of tax revenues / large amounts of totally unproductive GDP.
The real problem Spain has was that in 2007, 20% of GDP came from building houses for sale to Germans, Swedes and Brits. (In 2007, one in five employees in Spain worked in construction or construction related activities.)
That business has gone.
Spain is climbing out of that hole right now, but it's a long way to go...
"It is quite obvious that Labour is not going to give the public a vote on Europe. Miliband has plainly made up what passes for his mind."
I can't imagine many people care. Europe is not a salient issue. Boris would be wise to talk about something else, if he wants Cameron to win in 2015. I suspect he does not however.
Also says "John Cridland of the CBI is the new favourite to take over as Britain's commissioner in Brussels".
That is, we get our way on financial services reform, and in return for which we give up something somewhere else.
But do we? EU regulations reportedly drove UK based hedge funds to Switzerland.
I think inland revenue crackdowns on paying oneself through Bermuda are probably the biggest cause of funds leaving! Switzerland actually has only a very small hedge fund industry
Yeah, right. The view in the Jessop household was that it was, sadly, cr@p.
But I bet you knew I was going to say that ...;-)
It looks as though the writers think that it's just Doctor Who, and are taking their bad habits from that show into Sherlock. We're awaiting the expected Doctor Who / Sherlock crossover, when Watson fights a Dalek as the Doctor helps a Greek interpreter.
Yeah, right. The view in the Jessop household was that it was, sadly, cr@p.
But I bet you knew I was going to say that ...;-)
It looks as though the writers think that it's just Doctor Who, and are taking their bad habits from that show into Sherlock. We're awaiting the expected Doctor Who / Sherlock crossover, when Watson fights a Dalek as the Doctor helps a Greek interpreter.
This is why the EU has a parliament. Turnout will get better as it becomes more influential and more politically polarised.
I think this is overly optimistic. The problem with the European Parliament is not just abysmal turnout. It's a complete and utter lack of understanding of what it does and therefore what the issues that should be debated in the run-up to the election are. And after the election it's the complete and utter indifference shown to it by the electorate. It amounts to MEPs being totally and utterly unaccountable for their actions.
As a result the European Parliament has hardly any legitimacy and it's really difficult to see that changing in the future.
I agree Neil. Turnout for the European elections is falling and I suspect turnout will be down again this time. There is no evidence that this is a Parliament that anyone other than a few specialists in a few fields feel any connection to. The chart on Wiki suggests that the turnout has fallen at every election held so far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament
Mike, how are you averaging these polls? Are you simply averaging the headline figures, or are you summing the raw data and producing a new % based on that? My gut instinct says that will produce two different figures.
I suppose that would make sense but it may be a fairly major subsidy to the Scots. New borrowing would almost certainly be at a premium to the rUK rates until some sort of a track record has been established, particularly when the Scottish government seems a lot more practised at finding ways to spend money than generating it.
Comments
As a result the European Parliament has hardly any legitimacy and it's really difficult to see that changing in the future.
I don't read the tabloids, so I couldn't comment on them, but I have a hard time imagining 97% of the journalists in them are wrong.
Under Gordon Brown and Labour, Public Sector Net Debt rose from a ratio to GDP of 34.3% at the end of 2004/5 to a ratio of 151.7% at end 2009/10. In other words, during the last Labour government the debt ratio of the UK deteriorated by 342%.
Under Osborne and the Coalition Government, Public Sector Net Debt has fallen from 151.7%, the ratio it inherited from Brown, to a an end 2012/13 ratio of 137.6%., an improvement of 10.2%.
So using the form of measurement stipulated by international treaties and published by multi-national economic agencies, Osborne has "paid down the debt" in the first three years of his Chancellorship.
You don't even need to be a Boy Scout to understand that.
So Andrew Duff was put 1st in the East of England LD list by members votes; not by party bigwigs.
How much time and effort should the electorate be spending trying to understand all of these labyrinthine different layers, their roles and powers?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/12/nick-clegg-lib-dem-leader-elections
"Clegg needs an attractive message that can withstand a nasty, polarised election. One of his emerging lines was clear on Sunday. The first challenge is repairing the economy, a task now well under way. The second is building a fairer society. His pitch is that the Lib Dems are the only party who marry the two objectives.
Clegg needs a succession of pledges that dramatise his commitment to both prosperity and fairness. The rise in income tax allowances – the biggest single achievement for the Lib Dems in the coalition – is a good start. It should clearly go further, as it is a nonsense to set a minimum wage and then tax people on it.
But the very progress so far means that the promise is less alluring. It is the paradox of reforming parties. The more successful they are, the more their appeal wanes. In the old phrase, the Lib Dems need a "record of action, and the promise of more". Elections are above all about the future, and the message will have to be positive and clear."
I'm not sure the electorate is feeling particularly grateful to the Lib Dems in the first place, mind.
The relevant metric for measuring debt is its ratio to GDP
Probably - but very risky. Many politicians and economists seem to forget that economies are cyclical. There WILL be another recession. If you borrow to spend, the GDP can grow at a higher rate than the deficit. (Remember Gordon anyone?). BUT...and here's the rub...when the recession comes the GDP falls off a cliff and the deficit shoots up. Suddenly you're in a world of shit.
So, yes, look at the ratio. But look at it over a full cycle and recognise that you'll emerge from the next recession at a ratio way worse than you went into it with. Fix roof / sun shines and all that.
So you admit that;-
1, You couldn't find a candidate.
2. Any pretense that your party governs for the whole country is a lie.
Job jobbed.
Now you might argue that the journalists are just repeating the governments lines, and they know exactly what the difference is, but I have seen little evidence of attempting to educate the populous if that is the case.
With some examples - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dont-know-your-debts-from-your-deficits-youre-not-alone-8082168.html
The problem with using DMO debt issuance or NCR figures are that they show a much healthier (or probably better stated as "less unhealthy") position than the headline figures used by the ONS and Media.
Nevertheless we should recognise that the true debt position is better than the headline claims. What the headline or 'ex' figures tell us is what the position would have been had a series of one-off events not taken place. They are a flawed attempt to quantify the 'underlying' position of the public finances.
As for Labour focussing on "cost of living" their claims are indeed 'nebulous'. Household Net Disposable Income, as measured by the ONS, has improved in the last two quarters and is forecast to improve through the current 2014/15 Fiscal Year. And this is before Osborne announces any policy measures improving disposable income in the upcoming budget.
The objective, independently measured reality is that the UK is experiencing a "cost of living recovery" not "crisis". This is why we only hear Labour politicians and activists making 'nebulous' statements about such vital measures as the cost of gym membership.
“We should never take our eyes off the prize: a British economy freed from its debts”
Do you really thing GO meant to say "a British economy freed from its deficit", probably not. A long term goal, perhaps.
“Ed Miliband and Ed Balls fail to realise that when you're up to your neck in debt, it's time to pay it off”
'up to your neck in deficit'... nope.
Plus of course LastBoyScout misunderstands the issue here.
Boris is not talking about the EU. He is talking about the overweening arrogance and contempt for ordinary people of the political elite.
But I'll need to leave it there as I'm catching a plane - back Wednesday. Be good, children.
Luckily there's a solution that allows them to make reasonably informed calls without sorting through all that stuff, which is the party brand. That's all they need to vote in elections at any level without screwing it up too badly.
Actually following issues and holding specific MPs accountable is a feature for a small number of advanced voters, but that works pretty well in the Euros for those voters already, and it'll get better as pressure groups find more ways to get stuff into their streams.
I suspect that you and I are in violent agreement on the DMO numbers. However, I would point out they are slightly flattered by the excellent job done by said office in extending the maturity of our debt. In other words, if we replace one year debt with 10 year debt, we're not doing a lot of 'rolling over' and therefore the debt issuance numbers get flattered the next year...
My brother finally made it to Doha after the Qatar Boeing 787 SNAFU at Heathrow yesterday evening. But after a four hour delay, he missed his connection and he can't continue on to Calicut in southern India till tonight. The airline have put him up in a hotel, thankfully.
The Last Boy Scout is currently languishing in the bottom set of the Remove.
You are quite right though and that is why the Primary Fiscal Mandate of the Coalition government is to achieve a Cyclically Adjusted Current Balance within a five year rolling forward forecast period.
The Cyclically Adjusted bit is an attempt to calculate where the mid-point of a natural economic cycle falls. But this is not easy to measure and relies heavily on economists making theoretical calculations about the economy, or at least calculations which are more theoretical than they use to produce other econometrics.
The problem being wrestled with by the OBR is how to calculate the current 'Output Gap' correctly. The output gap is the extent to which the current performance of the economy is underutilising its optimal capacity. The is the starting point for calculating the point at which economy is in cyclical equilibrium. And problem is that the estimates of the estimates of 'output gap' from reliable forecasters range from a high of 6%+ to a low of below 1%. This means that a cyclically adjusted balance could really be anywhere you want it to be.
Still it is an attempt to apply a systematic methodology to provide the measurement you are asking for. And like many econometrics its usefulness is based on there being no better alternative methods rather than it being a divining rod which reveals a truth.
F1: McLaren's development driver reckons that lack of downforce compared to recent years means even medium/high speed corners will become tricky:
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12479/9113179/exclusive-qa-gary-paffett-discusses-how-mclarens-2014-car-is-developing
Changes to driving styles could mean a shift in the pecking order. We'll have to wait and see. Loss of downforce should hit Red Bull hardest but they're likely to still have more than most others.
Is it possible to tell gross swings at all ?
Con 33 (nc)
Lab 38 (-2)
LD 12 (+1)
UKIP 9 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Online_VI_13-01-2014_BPC.pdf
You should avail yourselves of the 7/4 that Publicity Shy Paddy Power offer on Sitting a MP Defect To UKIP By The Next General Election?
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/sitting-mp-defect-to-ukip-by-the-next-general-election
As Osborne pointed out last week the UK government is borrowing £100bn a year and spending half of that to pay the interest on its accumulated debt and debt interest has a way to go yet even if the most optimistic forecasts come to fruition.
I am not sure Osborne, or indeed anyone else, knows what to do to get us out the mess we are in. Its one thing to say we will cut £12bn from spending in year X and £25bn in year Y and Z, but when pushed he doesn't seem able to say where those sums are going to come from. Furthermore, as has been pointed out on here many times, the areas of spending he hints are targets will not yield the sums he wants, at least not without breaking some coalition pledges.
A policy of relying on a mixture of inflation, growth, salami-slicing and Micawberish hope might enable a politician to present a sophisticated argument that an increasing pile of debt is actually getting smaller. Furthermore it can only disguise the fact that as a country we are getting poorer and poorer as our biggest export seems to be our wealth.
Then we should think about the comments made by Mr. Patrick up-thread. There will be another recession. In the UK they seem to come around every ten to fifteen years, so the next one will probably hit around 2020, maybe a bit before. What happens then?
Maybe, the time has come when the politicing needs to stop. Maybe, the situation is just too serious for a bunch of rich, but essentially clueless, bastards shouting ya-boo at each other as they try and gain power for themselves.
Which is technically impossible.
Rolling over debt would need explaining. The DMO is due to issue around £155-165 debt instruments this fiscal year, approximately one third of which is to roll over existing debt as it matures and the other two thirds to provide for the governments net cash requirement.
As you say, the mix of very short term debt (Treasury Bills), Short (1-5 Years), Medium (5-15 years) and Long Term (20-50+ years) debt is significant and the reasons/costs/benefits of any change in mix would need to be explained
The mix between fixed and RPI linked interest bearing Gilts would also need explaining, as would the general concept of 'yields' and 'rates'.
Finally (but not exhaustively) the DMO holds a cash balance of current reserves on behalf of the government which is quite sizeable (£50 -70 billion by memory), which is money borrowed but not yet spent.
So it is a new 'business' to expose to the public but not one that is impenetrably complex. It wouldn't require journalists to explaining the 'laws of cricket'.
Also - do Populus ask but not disclose, or just do not ask who the 6 people voting for 'Some other Party' are intending to vote for?
Andy Carroll shows off his excitement to be playing again
pic.twitter.com/BIDXaS6adZ
"Pay attention W .... otherwise it's six of the best across your ARSE .... You know I enjoy 'swishing here' .... "
Us lads don't call him PAPA Smithson for no reason
Titters ....
Contempt for where public money comes from is still endemic. Today we learn at 800 plus public servants earn more than 100 grand, and that London councils alone have more than 600m of council tax arrears.
What the f8ck we'll just send the bill to those that will pay.
C 33.3, L 39.1, LD 12.0, UKIP 8.1
Not that I'm overly hopeful for Andy this time. He has a very good record there, reaching the final last year but he lacks match fitness after his back operation and may struggle especially if scheduled in the heat sapping times of the day.
Maybe, the time has come when the politicing needs to stop. Maybe, the situation is just too serious for a bunch of rich, but essentially clueless, bastards shouting ya-boo at each other as they try and gain power for themselves.
Not really. Maybe the time has come when we get ourselves a sensible electorate. All deficit funded welfare states are 'Rob peter to pay Paul' societies. Paul has more votes than Peter. Politicians can and will always exploit the stupidity of most of the people to promise them jam tomorrow - and people will vote for it. It's not the politicians who are clueless - they at least recognise that there aren't that many votes in finanical responsibility. And when you have one party and a broadcast media that are quite happy to peddle the 'austerity' nonsense then we get what we deserve.
FWIW I think we should have a written constitution with a debt brake.
If we say "Oxford West and Abingdon was a Conservative gain with a 6.9% swing from Liberal Democrat to Conservative", then that happens when we see the Conservative vote move up 9.6, and the LibDem one fall 4.1%. (9.6% + 4.1%) / 2 = a 6.9% swing.
Swing numbers refer to absolute percentage changes, in common parlance.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100254119/the-tories-are-torturing-dave-over-europe/
Also says "John Cridland of the CBI is the new favourite to take over as Britain's commissioner in Brussels".
By the way, quiz question (don't check wikipedia, but just guess).
Government (including local government) spending as a percentage of GDP is 48% in the UK, 56% in France, and 38% in the US.
What is it in Spain?
Lib to Lab 11.7
Lib to UKIP 12.0
Lib to Con 4.7
means LibDems have lost 11.7% of their 6.8 million voters in 2010 to Lab
12% to UKIP and 4.7% to Tories. So they still have (100-11.7-12-4.7=) 71.6%, ie. roughly 4.9 million?
Yes?
The 'don't run deficits' rule needs to be applied over long periods of time and can be a cripplingly dumb thing to do when you are already in the shit and borrow in a foreign currency (a la Spain). They're trapped in the Euro. House is on fire and key firmly chucked away. GDP, employment, PMI figures etc all are improving for Spain. It won't save them. Their debt/GDP trajectory will overwhelm them and the other GIPSIs, with possible exception of Ireland IF there is no shock in the next year or two. (Unlikely IMHO).
The 21st century will start this year or next. With the death of deficit funded welfare models when a merket shock hits and many countries aren't able to withstand it.
To simplify , Lib Dems poll 25% and Labour 30% in 2010 the only change is 10% of the total voters move from Lib Dems to Labour and Lib Dems drop to 15% and Labour increase to 40% . There is therefore a 10% swing from LD to Labour . There is though also a 5% swing from LD to Con (average of -10 and zero ) and 5% from Con to Lab ( average of 0 and plus 10 ) .
The other point that was made is that once - even Eurosceptic - ministers get into power they are forced to get involved in 'the art of the possible'. And that means there are people from industries (particularly finance, but also some part of manufacturing) that want things changed to benefit or protect their businesses. So, 'The City' is very keen to make sure that changes don't affect its pre-eminent position in Europe, and the pressure is not so much on 'staying in' and opposed to 'leaving', but more that regulations are crafted in a way that benefit them. The politician is left with the choice of ignoring a powerful constituency in the UK - which generates a substantial amount of tax and employs a lot of people - or making compromises that upset other people. That is, we get our way on financial services reform, and in return for which we give up something somewhere else.
Like all international negotiations, (or indeed business ones), you can't unpick a contract. They are exercises in compromise and horse trading.
Of course, we could just leave the EU.
But remember, that if we remain part of the Single Economic Area (as Norway is, for example), then you are (a) still bound by the same regulations as exist in the EU, (b) have no say over said regulations, and (c) would still send a multi-billion pound check to Brussels every year (although it would certainly be smaller).
We could leave the SEA, of course.
But that would be a disaster for - for example - my business in fund management. We can sell across the EU without any restrictions under the 'single passport' concept. However, outside the EU (in Switzerland, for example) you need to have a local agent who takes between a third and two-thirds of your fees. Big companies already have local subsidiaries across the EU, but for a small company like us, it would be a serious blow.
Now, I know we shouldn't make decisions solely for the benefit of my business... but it is important to recognise that there are compromises and consequences of every decision. And while Clegg's "three million" jobs figure may be a fantasy, it would be seriously remiss not to recognise that there are winners and losers from being in or being out.
A nice sophisticated argument that is accurate and doesn't tell the whole truth.
As Osborne pointed out last week the UK government is borrowing £100bn a year and spending half of that to pay the interest on its accumulated debt and debt interest has a way to go yet even if the most optimistic forecasts come to fruition.
I am not sure Osborne, or indeed anyone else, knows what to do to get us out the mess we are in. ....
Mr. Llama
I think you are being over-pessimistic in your assessment.
The latest OBR EFO sets out in great detail how the UK can eradicate its deficit, balance its cyclically adjusted current budget and start to reduce debt, even the subset measure which excludes the effect of banking interventions.
There are two main resources needed to get there: political will and time.
I am not too concerned about Osborne's quantification of further spending cuts needed. £12 billion is only around 1.7% of total annual spend so we are not talking about radical surgery. The margins of error in forecast variables far exceed the spending cut figures being quoted so, for example, a small upturn in growth and equivalent downturn in inflation would yield bigger net savings.
This is not to say that all key economic problems have been solved. They haven't and there are many areas where the structure of the UK economy needs to be improved: trade, productivity, real incomes growth, energy costs and dependencies being in the focus of today's spotlights.
But if the economy does turn out broadly to the OBR fiscal forecast, then by the end of the next parliamentary term, the country should be in a strong position to reduce its nominal debt mountain and debt servicing burden over the following term. Even if there were to be a recession in the 2020-25 period, then we would enter it in a much stronger position than the 2007-9 financial crisis.
It is time to be faithful. Osborne, for all the sins of his origin and manner, is turning the economy around and doing so at an internationally competitive rate. We must try to avoid the boredom and frustration of a long voyage.
That business has gone.
Spain is climbing out of that hole right now, but it's a long way to go...
Sherlock: Praise for 'perfect' series finale
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25710734
http://stopdeportations.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/revealed-sas-advised-1984-amritsar-raid/
But I bet you knew I was going to say that ...;-)
It looks as though the writers think that it's just Doctor Who, and are taking their bad habits from that show into Sherlock. We're awaiting the expected Doctor Who / Sherlock crossover, when Watson fights a Dalek as the Doctor helps a Greek interpreter.
Did Ariel Sharon die yesterday or 8 years ago?
It would have been a lot worse if General Dyer had managed to get his armoured car into the area.
43% to beat from 2009. No chance.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/syrian-al-qaeda-leader-captured-in-mascara-lipstick-and-a-burqa/
I suppose that would make sense but it may be a fairly major subsidy to the Scots. New borrowing would almost certainly be at a premium to the rUK rates until some sort of a track record has been established, particularly when the Scottish government seems a lot more practised at finding ways to spend money than generating it.