Another poll shows record support for SNP , Tories stagnant and Labour moribund. New YouGov poll in Times: SNP 50%, Conservatives 21%, Labour 15.5%, Green 6%, Lib Dem 5.5%, UKIP 2%. Indy Y46 N54.
'Tories stagnant'? At 21%? That might represent little advance from May - indeed, it's a marginal decline - but set against the last twenty years, that share represents plateauing at a historically high level.
David if that is success then Tories are easily pleased. It is just a tussle among them and Labour to be best loser, also rans.
Not about compromise; they want to be righteous. Smiling Jemimas need to be taught that middle class industrial disputes do not work.
I think the NHS should get and does need more money, the population is aging after all. But it needs to go on hospitals, beds, staff numbers. Not pay.
I thought they just got bunged another 2 or was it 3 billion last year. Either way what happens to this money it just seems to disappear into a massive black hole and the chorus of "we are underfunded and need more resources" just starts all over again.
Treatments (and diagnoses) are getting more expensive, and even the Americans are complaining.
[I]nterest rates pushed down to just one step away from zero in order to keep the plates spinning.
Wrong! The rate was cut and more money printed because Carney wants to give the sense that the economy is crashing and that this is what you would do in those circumstances. The man is dangerous and should be removed from office asap.
I refer you to the discussion on PB last week. Your view is an outlier.
@tlg86 takes it too far, but I have yet to meet anyone who thinks the rate cut was a good idea
I don't think it was a good idea myself, viewed strictly in terms of economic logic. But the consensus on here last week was somewhere between "there were signs of a wobble and the cut settled everything down and kept people spending" and "people were expecting it and after one deferral another could have been an unwelcome surprise/shock". So more psychology than economics. As ever the difficulty is in knowing how the alternative universe with the opposite decision might look.
Do you honestly think 0.25 pp makes a difference to how people behave? The bigger issue, in my opinion, is the QE. The government needs to get its house in order, it can't keep going to the magic money tree.
I agree, QE is somewhat akin to chemotherapy that doesn't work. The sooner we get rid, the better.
Don't however underestimate the psychological benefit of millions of mortgage payers getting a reduction in their monthly payments, however small, at a time when a lot of people were worried about the future.
Take my sister, for example, she got on to a fixed rate deal about a year ago thinking that sooner or later rates would have to start to rise. She has felt no benefit of the cut and in fact she has some savings in a Santander 123 account which is having its rate cut in half.
For too long this country has danced to the tune of borrowers. Eventually the house of cards will come crashing down.
Sounds uncannily similar to my situation. New fixed rate deal as convinced rates would rise - therefore no benefit except a cut in interest rate for my Santander account. Bah.
[I]nterest rates pushed down to just one step away from zero in order to keep the plates spinning.
Wrong! The rate was cut and more money printed because Carney wants to give the sense that the economy is crashing and that this is what you would do in those circumstances. The man is dangerous and should be removed from office asap.
I refer you to the discussion on PB last week. Your view is an outlier.
@tlg86 takes it too far, but I have yet to meet anyone who thinks the rate cut was a good idea
I don't think it was a good idea myself, viewed strictly in terms of economic logic. But the consensus on here last week was somewhere between "there were signs of a wobble and the cut settled everything down and kept people spending" and "people were expecting it and after one deferral another could have been an unwelcome surprise/shock". So more psychology than economics. As ever the difficulty is in knowing how the alternative universe with the opposite decision might look.
Do you honestly think 0.25 pp makes a difference to how people behave? The bigger issue, in my opinion, is the QE. The government needs to get its house in order, it can't keep going to the magic money tree.
I agree, QE is somewhat akin to chemotherapy that doesn't work. The sooner we get rid, the better.
Don't however underestimate the psychological benefit of millions of mortgage payers getting a reduction in their monthly payments, however small, at a time when a lot of people were worried about the future.
Take my sister, for example, she got on to a fixed rate deal about a year ago thinking that sooner or later rates would have to start to rise. She has felt no benefit of the cut and in fact she has some savings in a Santander 123 account which is having its rate cut in half.
For too long this country has danced to the tune of borrowers. Eventually the house of cards will come crashing down.
Future borrowers are being treated no good by the massive asset price inflation these mad interest rates have helped stoke.
My guess would be that a largish part of what's currently identified as Lab in the national polls (a quarter or so?) is extremely flaky and were a better opposition home available, would migrate quickly.
Outside Scotland, there is no alternative available now or on the horizon. The LDs (8 seats) UKIP (1 seat) not only are ideologically different they offer absolutely nothing towards the goal of change of govt. The SDP2 is very unlikely IMO for the same reason.
For as long as Corbyn is unelectable, Labour offers nothing towards the goal of a change of government either. The LDs and UKIP are undeniably ideologically different but that ideology still overlaps with fair-sized chunks of what has historically been Labour support.
Regardless of leader, Labour are several orders of magnitude more likely to form a national government than either the LDs or UKIP. Not only that, Labour run London and control large areas of local government.
If you are serious about government and oppose the Tories, Labour are the only game in town.
Not about compromise; they want to be righteous. Smiling Jemimas need to be taught that middle class industrial disputes do not work.
I think the NHS should get and does need more money, the population is aging after all. But it needs to go on hospitals, beds, staff numbers. Not pay.
I thought they just got bunged another 2 or was it 3 billion last year. Either way what happens to this money it just seems to disappear into a massive black hole and the chorus of "we are underfunded and need more resources" just starts all over again.
Well if the government caves into unions then it will forever more disappear down a black hole. Same with signing crap PFI contracts. But as a % of gdp we're still reasonably low - I think the NHS is actually pretty good at what it does - it does need another % of gdp spending on it though AND the waste tackling.
I am a great supporter of the NHS but in normal circumstances when more cash injected then working and operational practices also have to adapt. Labour would never touch the "sacred cow" but as soon as the Tories or anyone else makes an attempt to modernise and adapt the service to meet today's demands then screams of "privatisation" and " 10 seconds to save the NHS" are heard.
Until we are able to have a grown up conversation on this the situation will remain as it is. It will only get worse now as Labour has shot just about all of its bolts. The NHS comfort blanket is all that remains for them to shout about now.
I see Labour got beaten badly in Stockton.. So much for Corbyn using local election result to boost him as leader.. Expect more of this type of result if Corbyn is re-elected. Labour voters will not vote Labour, only the die-hard lefties will. #electoralsuicide
... which is why I think the Labour GE vote in current polls is overstated, far more likely to be actually circa 23%
I agree it is much lower. I expect the underlying Labour vote is circa 25%. The polls are as usual overstating Labour.
25% to 30% is most likely, even in 1983 with a strong social democratic alternative and a hard left manifesto Labour got 27%
Labour polled 28.3% in GB at the 1983 election but national electoral support was much less fragmented at that time.
Not about compromise; they want to be righteous. Smiling Jemimas need to be taught that middle class industrial disputes do not work.
I think the NHS should get and does need more money, the population is aging after all. But it needs to go on hospitals, beds, staff numbers. Not pay.
I thought they just got bunged another 2 or was it 3 billion last year. Either way what happens to this money it just seems to disappear into a massive black hole and the chorus of "we are underfunded and need more resources" just starts all over again.
Well if the government caves into unions then it will forever more disappear down a black hole. Same with signing crap PFI contracts. But as a % of gdp we're still reasonably low - I think the NHS is actually pretty good at what it does - it does need another % of gdp spending on it though AND the waste tackling.
I am a great supporter of the NHS but in normal circumstances when more cash injected then working and operational practices also have to adapt. Labour would never touch the "sacred cow" but as soon as the Tories or anyone else makes an attempt to modernise and adapt the service to meet today's demands then screams of "privatisation" and " 10 seconds to save the NHS" are heard.
Until we are able to have a grown up conversation on this the situation will remain as it is. It will only get worse now as Labour has shot just about all of its bolts. The NHS comfort blanket is all that remains for them to shout about now.
My guess would be that a largish part of what's currently identified as Lab in the national polls (a quarter or so?) is extremely flaky and were a better opposition home available, would migrate quickly.
Outside Scotland, there is no alternative available now or on the horizon. The LDs (8 seats) UKIP (1 seat) not only are ideologically different they offer absolutely nothing towards the goal of change of govt. The SDP2 is very unlikely IMO for the same reason.
For as long as Corbyn is unelectable, Labour offers nothing towards the goal of a change of government either. The LDs and UKIP are undeniably ideologically different but that ideology still overlaps with fair-sized chunks of what has historically been Labour support.
Regardless of leader, Labour are several orders of magnitude more likely to form a national government than either the LDs or UKIP. Not only that, Labour run London and control large areas of local government.
If you are serious about government and oppose the Tories, Labour are the only game in town.
What do we want - "opposition to the Tories" When do we want it - "permanently, because we're not going to beat them like this"
My guess would be that a largish part of what's currently identified as Lab in the national polls (a quarter or so?) is extremely flaky and were a better opposition home available, would migrate quickly.
Outside Scotland, there is no alternative available now or on the horizon. The LDs (8 seats) UKIP (1 seat) not only are ideologically different they offer absolutely nothing towards the goal of change of govt. The SDP2 is very unlikely IMO for the same reason.
For as long as Corbyn is unelectable, Labour offers nothing towards the goal of a change of government either. The LDs and UKIP are undeniably ideologically different but that ideology still overlaps with fair-sized chunks of what has historically been Labour support.
Regardless of leader, Labour are several orders of magnitude more likely to form a national government than either the LDs or UKIP. Not only that, Labour run London and control large areas of local government.
If you are serious about government and oppose the Tories, Labour are the only game in town.
What do we want - "opposition to the Tories" When do we want it - "permanently, because we're not going to beat them like this"
An aside: if there's a winter crisis, this provides cover for the Government. "Things would've been much better if the junior doctors had turned up for work..."
[I]nterest rates pushed down to just one step away from zero in order to keep the plates spinning.
Wrong! The rate was cut and more money printed because Carney wants to give the sense that the economy is crashing and that this is what you would do in those circumstances. The man is dangerous and should be removed from office asap.
I refer you to the discussion on PB last week. Your view is an outlier.
@tlg86 takes it too far, but I have yet to meet anyone who thinks the rate cut was a good idea
I don't think it was a good idea myself, viewed strictly in terms of economic logic. But the consensus on here last week was somewhere between "there were signs of a wobble and the cut settled everything down and kept people spending" and "people were expecting it and after one deferral another could have been an unwelcome surprise/shock". So more psychology than economics. As ever the difficulty is in knowing how the alternative universe with the opposite decision might look.
Do you honestly think 0.25 pp makes a difference to how people behave? The bigger issue, in my opinion, is the QE. The government needs to get its house in order, it can't keep going to the magic money tree.
I agree, QE is somewhat akin to chemotherapy that doesn't work. The sooner we get rid, the better.
Don't however underestimate the psychological benefit of millions of mortgage payers getting a reduction in their monthly payments, however small, at a time when a lot of people were worried about the future.
Take my sister, for example, she got on to a fixed rate deal about a year ago thinking that sooner or later rates would have to start to rise. She has felt no benefit of the cut and in fact she has some savings in a Santander 123 account which is having its rate cut in half.
For too long this country has danced to the tune of borrowers. Eventually the house of cards will come crashing down.
Future borrowers are being treated no good by the massive asset price inflation these mad interest rates have helped stoke.
Well quite. The thing is people get to their late 20s and early 30s and think "I'm at an age when I should be able to buy." Unfortunately, at some point there will be a price correction and there will be a generation that will feel like they have been completely screwed over by the system.
My guess would be that a largish part of what's currently identified as Lab in the national polls (a quarter or so?) is extremely flaky and were a better opposition home available, would migrate quickly.
Outside Scotland, there is no alternative available now or on the horizon. The LDs (8 seats) UKIP (1 seat) not only are ideologically different they offer absolutely nothing towards the goal of change of govt. The SDP2 is very unlikely IMO for the same reason.
For as long as Corbyn is unelectable, Labour offers nothing towards the goal of a change of government either. The LDs and UKIP are undeniably ideologically different but that ideology still overlaps with fair-sized chunks of what has historically been Labour support.
Regardless of leader, Labour are several orders of magnitude more likely to form a national government than either the LDs or UKIP. Not only that, Labour run London and control large areas of local government.
If you are serious about government and oppose the Tories, Labour are the only game in town.
What do we want - "opposition to the Tories" When do we want it - "permanently, because we're not going to beat them like this"
eh?
Oppsitionism is Labour's problem. They have few policies that their historic supporters like, and all that unites them is a bizarre dislike of the Tories.
Not about compromise; they want to be righteous. Smiling Jemimas need to be taught that middle class industrial disputes do not work.
I think the NHS should get and does need more money, the population is aging after all. But it needs to go on hospitals, beds, staff numbers. Not pay.
I thought they just got bunged another 2 or was it 3 billion last year. Either way what happens to this money it just seems to disappear into a massive black hole and the chorus of "we are underfunded and need more resources" just starts all over again.
It disappears because there's always something to spend it on: new equipment, new drugs, more choice of drugs, longer treatments, more beds, higher pay, new facilities, more doctors, more nurses, more carers, inflation and people live longer and longer each year. More conditions are quality-of-life issues for those in their 60s and 70s, not fatal, but require medication for, potentially, decades.
This isn't going to stop, so the NHS needs to focus on what it what it really wants to do. It isn't economically efficient, nor sensible, to spend every pound we can on it.
[I]nterest rates pushed down to just one step away from zero in order to keep the plates spinning.
Wrong! The rate was cut and more money printed because Carney wants to give the sense that the economy is crashing and that this is what you would do in those circumstances. The man is dangerous and should be removed from office asap.
I refer you to the discussion on PB last week. Your view is an outlier.
@tlg86 takes it too far, but I have yet to meet anyone who thinks the rate cut was a good idea
I don't think it was a good idea myself, viewed strictly in terms of economic logic. But the consensus on here last week was somewhere between "there were signs of a wobble and the cut settled everything down and kept people spending" and "people were expecting it and after one deferral another could have been an unwelcome surprise/shock". So more psychology than economics. As ever the difficulty is in knowing how the alternative universe with the opposite decision might look.
Do you honestly think 0.25 pp makes a difference to how people behave? The bigger issue, in my opinion, is the QE. The government needs to get its house in order, it can't keep going to the magic money tree.
I agree, QE is somewhat akin to chemotherapy that doesn't work. The sooner we get rid, the better.
Don't however underestimate the psychological benefit of millions of mortgage payers getting a reduction in their monthly payments, however small, at a time when a lot of people were worried about the future.
Take my sister, for example, she got on to a fixed rate deal about a year ago thinking that sooner or later rates would have to start to rise. She has felt no benefit of the cut and in fact she has some savings in a Santander 123 account which is having its rate cut in half.
For too long this country has danced to the tune of borrowers. Eventually the house of cards will come crashing down.
Future borrowers are being treated no good by the massive asset price inflation these mad interest rates have helped stoke.
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
The NHS management should be using the strikes as the time to find out how to make the NHS run with fewer resources. Get more for less.
Really though we need a step change in preventative care and to change the attitude of the British public who seem to turn up at A&E (or even to the GP) with a bout of sniffles these days.
Not about compromise; they want to be righteous. Smiling Jemimas need to be taught that middle class industrial disputes do not work.
I think the NHS should get and does need more money, the population is aging after all. But it needs to go on hospitals, beds, staff numbers. Not pay.
I thought they just got bunged another 2 or was it 3 billion last year. Either way what happens to this money it just seems to disappear into a massive black hole and the chorus of "we are underfunded and need more resources" just starts all over again.
It disappears because there's always something to spend it on: new equipment, new drugs, more choice of drugs, longer treatments, more beds, higher pay, new facilities, more doctors, more nurses, more carers, inflation and people live longer and longer each year. More conditions are quality-of-life issues for those in their 60s and 70s, not fatal, but require medication for, potentially, decades.
This isn't going to stop, so the NHS needs to focus on what it what it really wants to do. It isn't economically efficient, nor sensible, to spend every pound we can on it.
The same last sentence could end ...to let the junior docs win this bizarre industrial dispute.
[I]nterest rates pushed down to just one step away from zero in order to keep the plates spinning.
Wrong! The rate was cut and more money printed because Carney wants to give the sense that the economy is crashing and that this is what you would do in those circumstances. The man is dangerous and should be removed from office asap.
Yep. And until be goes, there will be no rise in interest rates.
Well quite. The thing is people get to their late 20s and early 30s and think "I'm at an age when I should be able to buy." Unfortunately, at some point there will be a price correction and there will be a generation that will feel like they have been completely screwed over by the system.
Currently house prices are being determined by BTL Interest only mortgage rates and monthly rental levels...
That really means houses prices are only going to go in one direction as the S24 tax changes on interest relief and Basel 3 on capital ratios take effect regardless of what happens to interest rates.
Not about compromise; they want to be righteous. Smiling Jemimas need to be taught that middle class industrial disputes do not work.
I think the NHS should get and does need more money, the population is aging after all. But it needs to go on hospitals, beds, staff numbers. Not pay.
I thought they just got bunged another 2 or was it 3 billion last year. Either way what happens to this money it just seems to disappear into a massive black hole and the chorus of "we are underfunded and need more resources" just starts all over again.
It disappears because there's always something to spend it on: new equipment, new drugs, more choice of drugs, longer treatments, more beds, higher pay, new facilities, more doctors, more nurses, more carers, inflation and people live longer and longer each year. More conditions are quality-of-life issues for those in their 60s and 70s, not fatal, but require medication for, potentially, decades.
This isn't going to stop, so the NHS needs to focus on what it what it really wants to do. It isn't economically efficient, nor sensible, to spend every pound we can on it.
The same last sentence could end ...to let the junior docs win this bizarre industrial dispute.
My guess would be that a largish part of what's currently identified as Lab in the national polls (a quarter or so?) is extremely flaky and were a better opposition home available, would migrate quickly.
Outside Scotland, there is no alternative available now or on the horizon. The LDs (8 seats) UKIP (1 seat) not only are ideologically different they offer absolutely nothing towards the goal of change of govt. The SDP2 is very unlikely IMO for the same reason.
For as long as Corbyn is unelectable, Labour offers nothing towards the goal of a change of government either. The LDs and UKIP are undeniably ideologically different but that ideology still overlaps with fair-sized chunks of what has historically been Labour support.
Regardless of leader, Labour are several orders of magnitude more likely to form a national government than either the LDs or UKIP. Not only that, Labour run London and control large areas of local government.
If you are serious about government and oppose the Tories, Labour are the only game in town.
What do we want - "opposition to the Tories" When do we want it - "permanently, because we're not going to beat them like this"
eh?
Oppsitionism is Labour's problem. They have few policies that their historic supporters like, and all that unites them is a bizarre dislike of the Tories.
You might say the same about the Conservatives. Not much coherence to their programme or personalities. Many would not have touched May with a barge poll less than a year ago. Cameron did many things that would have been unacceptable to Tories just ten years ago. The party is most united by keeping Labour out.
[I]nterest rates pushed down to just one step away from zero in order to keep the plates spinning.
.
I don't think it was a good idea myself, viewed strictly in terms of economic logic. But the consensus on here last week was somewhere between "there were signs of a wobble and the cut settled everything down and kept people spending" and "people were expecting it and after one deferral another could have been an unwelcome surprise/shock". So more psychology than economics. As ever the difficulty is in knowing how the alternative universe with the opposite decision might look.
Do you honestly think 0.25 pp makes a difference to how people behave? The bigger issue, in my opinion, is the QE. The government needs to get its house in order, it can't keep going to the magic money tree.
I agree, QE is somewhat akin to chemotherapy that doesn't work. The sooner we get rid, the better.
Don't however underestimate the psychological benefit of millions of mortgage payers getting a reduction in their monthly payments, however small, at a time when a lot of people were worried about the future.
Take my sister, for example, she got on to a fixed rate deal about a year ago thinking that sooner or later rates would have to start to rise. She has felt no benefit of the cut and in fact she has some savings in a Santander 123 account which is having its rate cut in half.
For too long this country has danced to the tune of borrowers. Eventually the house of cards will come crashing down.
Future borrowers are being treated no good by the massive asset price inflation these mad interest rates have helped stoke.
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
With the amount of money sloshing around in funds since the western world discovered mass pensionisation and sovereign nations borrowed capital from the East, it is little wonder that rates of return are so low.
Just as endowments failed as future protection mechanisms, so pensions seem like they will for the next generation.
I understood that if the interest rate rose by only a couple of % quite a number of mortgage holders would be unable to continue to finance the monthly payments. That might be a considerable number of foreclosures and a considerable correction at some point to both personal wealth and status as well as to the housing market. Where would they then live?
Failing to pay the mortgage as I recollect always used to be considered as making yourself intentionally homeless ( maybe different now) and thus not easy to get on the council house ladder.
Combine above with pension deficits and overall lack of preparation for retirement years and we have a serious problem approaching.
Not about compromise; they want to be righteous. Smiling Jemimas need to be taught that middle class industrial disputes do not work.
I think the NHS should get and does need more money, the population is aging after all. But it needs to go on hospitals, beds, staff numbers. Not pay.
I thought they just got bunged another 2 or was it 3 billion last year. Either way what happens to this money it just seems to disappear into a massive black hole and the chorus of "we are underfunded and need more resources" just starts all over again.
It disappears because there's always something to spend it on: new equipment, new drugs, more choice of drugs, longer treatments, more beds, higher pay, new facilities, more doctors, more nurses, more carers, inflation and people live longer and longer each year. More conditions are quality-of-life issues for those in their 60s and 70s, not fatal, but require medication for, potentially, decades.
This isn't going to stop, so the NHS needs to focus on what it what it really wants to do. It isn't economically efficient, nor sensible, to spend every pound we can on it.
The same last sentence could end ...to let the junior docs win this bizarre industrial dispute.
Aiui the current dispute is cash-neutral.
Things that are cash neutral can still make economic sense to oppose- teaching the politicised docs that they are employees is one of them.
We seem to have a mix of headless chickens and Housepricecrash.com here today.
When people are talking about the economy and interest rates what else would you expect.
There are probably more clueful economists on House Price Crash than in the BofE... At least on HPC they understand both that markets can stay irrational longer than you have money and that all bubbles most at the end return to normality...
The NHS management should be using the strikes as the time to find out how to make the NHS run with fewer resources. Get more for less.
Really though we need a step change in preventative care and to change the attitude of the British public who seem to turn up at A&E (or even to the GP) with a bout of sniffles these days.
Yet the NHS would be snookered if those in their 20s and 30s not having kids used it.
I barely touch it, except for a 10 min GP chat every couple of years, but i reckon I pay £2,500 in taxes to fund it annually.
In addition, my Employer pays a premium of £1,600 for private healthcare for me and my partner, which I also pay tax on, but rarely use. The exception was last year when my wife had a lump scare.
That money represents a good chunk of funds to cover others. Yet still isn't easy for me to get a GP appointment without taking time off work as a paying customer.
Which, at this stage in my life, is all I'm really interested in.
There is a potentially limitless demand for medical services. There is only so much money any country can afford to spend on healthcare. Those two facts add up to the inevitable story that the NHS (and every other country's system) is in 'financial crisis'. If we spent 10bn more, 20bn more, 30 bn more it would still be true - just at a different level of care. It's a purely political choice how much to spend. The challenge for a health secretary (who probably has the least enviable job in the whole public sector) is to decide at what level of care / money the party ends. The UK's system is inefficient but moderately effective. We get a reasonably good care outcome for a reasonable level of spend. We'd get more care for the same money if the system was more efficient - but that would never square the supply / demand problem because it is insoluble in the absence of limitless money. Actually I think the UK's system is overall not so bad. I just wish we'd recognise that the founding concept of the NHS (free at the point of delivery and paid for out of general taxation) does not demand that delivery itself must be a giant Stalinist state monopoly. We can and should expect efficiency levels equivalent to other industries and be flexible to accept any delivery models that are efficient.
Try being poor and sick in the USA and find out how bad we have it really.
I understood that if the interest rate rose by only a couple of % quite a number of mortgage holders would be unable to continue to finance the monthly payments. That might be a considerable number of foreclosures and a considerable correction at some point to both personal wealth and status as well as to the housing market. Where would they then live?
Failing to pay the mortgage as I recollect always used to be considered as making yourself intentionally homeless ( maybe different now) and thus not easy to get on the council house ladder.
Combine above with pension deficits and overall lack of preparation for retirement years and we have a serious problem approaching.
My guess would be that a largish part of what's currently identified as Lab in the national polls (a quarter or so?) is extremely flaky and were a better opposition home available, would migrate quickly.
Outside Scotland, there is no alternative available now or on the horizon. The LDs (8 seats) UKIP (1 seat) not only are ideologically different they offer absolutely nothing towards the goal of change of govt. The SDP2 is very unlikely IMO for the same reason.
For as long as Corbyn is unelectable, Labour offers nothing towards the goal of a change of government either. The LDs and UKIP are undeniably ideologically different but that ideology still overlaps with fair-sized chunks of what has historically been Labour support.
Regardless of leader, Labour are several orders of magnitude more likely to form a national government than either the LDs or UKIP. Not only that, Labour run London and control large areas of local government.
If you are serious about government and oppose the Tories, Labour are the only game in town.
What do we want - "opposition to the Tories" When do we want it - "permanently, because we're not going to beat them like this"
eh?
Oppsitionism is Labour's problem. They have few policies that their historic supporters like, and all that unites them is a bizarre dislike of the Tories.
I finally blocked a nitwit on Twitter yesterday - she claimed to be an expert on everything, has a I Heart NHS avatar and demanded everyone else 'DEBATED THE ISSUES!!!' whilst she threw insults.
If I had to sum up an attitude - it's her. She's voting for Owen BTW. Last time she was dead keen on Corbyn. I think she's about 40.
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
Do you remember when the BoE told us they wouldn't put up interest rates when inflation was at 5% back in 2011 because it wasn't "proper inflation"? I don't see why we shouldn't be putting up interest rates before we start to get "proper inflation".
I understood that if the interest rate rose by only a couple of % quite a number of mortgage holders would be unable to continue to finance the monthly payments. That might be a considerable number of foreclosures and a considerable correction at some point to both personal wealth and status as well as to the housing market. Where would they then live?
Failing to pay the mortgage as I recollect always used to be considered as making yourself intentionally homeless ( maybe different now) and thus not easy to get on the council house ladder.
Combine above with pension deficits and overall lack of preparation for retirement years and we have a serious problem approaching.
I think the delinquency rate only really starts to go up if interest rates rise above 2%. The BoE could raise rates to that level and hold for 4-6 years so incomes catch up with the higher cost of mortgage payments. You also have to take into account behavioural changes, people who live "on the breadline" usually don't and have discretionary spending which they can easily cut to make sure they meet their mortgage payments. A couple who go out to eat 3 times a week can easily cut that down to one time a week to save £300 per month to meet the rise in their mortgage costs, but at the moment they may also answer truthfully to surveys that they don't have much money left at the end of every month.
I see Labour got beaten badly in Stockton.. So much for Corbyn using local election result to boost him as leader.. Expect more of this type of result if Corbyn is re-elected. Labour voters will not vote Labour, only the die-hard lefties will. #electoralsuicide
... which is why I think the Labour GE vote in current polls is overstated, far more likely to be actually circa 23%
I agree it is much lower. I expect the underlying Labour vote is circa 25%. The polls are as usual overstating Labour.
25% to 30% is most likely, even in 1983 with a strong social democratic alternative and a hard left manifesto Labour got 27%
But Foot was a patriot, the unions stronger and the country more left wing.
Foot's manifesto was not dissimilar to Corbyn's, there was a stronger social democratic alternative and the voters still want to tax the rich while being a little more socially liberal
I see Labour got beaten badly in Stockton.. So much for Corbyn using local election result to boost him as leader.. Expect more of this type of result if Corbyn is re-elected. Labour voters will not vote Labour, only the die-hard lefties will. #electoralsuicide
Though Stockton already has a Tory MP
But it's a marginal ward in a marginal constituency - one of the most important by-elections to have come up in recent weeks. Every MP that Stockton South has returned since 1987 has supported the government of the day. Not since 1983, when the SDP beat Con by 102 votes in what was then a new seat, have they returned someone for the opposition.
Corbyn will not make virtually any gains in 2020 but I can't see Labour falling below 150 to 200 seats under FPTP either i.e. the same number the Tories got from 1997 to 2005
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
Do you remember when the BoE told us they wouldn't put up interest rates when inflation was at 5% back in 2011 because it wasn't "proper inflation"? I don't see why we shouldn't be putting up interest rates before we start to get "proper inflation".
Several countries did put rates up in 2010-2011---and then were obliged to bring them back down again. So the BoE was almost certainly right then.
The NHS management should be using the strikes as the time to find out how to make the NHS run with fewer resources. Get more for less.
Really though we need a step change in preventative care and to change the attitude of the British public who seem to turn up at A&E (or even to the GP) with a bout of sniffles these days.
Yet the NHS would be snookered if those in their 20s and 30s not having kids used it.
I barely touch it, except for a 10 min GP chat every couple of years, but i reckon I pay £2,500 in taxes to fund it annually.
In addition, my Employer pays a premium of £1,600 for private healthcare for me and my partner, which I also pay tax on, but rarely use. The exception was last year when my wife had a lump scare.
That money represents a good chunk of funds to cover others. Yet still isn't easy for me to get a GP appointment without taking time off work as a paying customer.
Which, at this stage in my life, is all I'm really interested in.
Ironically, the GP service is semi-private and subject to market competition but the simple fact is that common GP opening hours are convenient for most patients: the elderly and retired, the chronically sick and not working, and pre-school children.
Let us not forget that the result of a party leadership election will be announced today, with a good chance that the Greens will announce a joint leadership, proving once again that they have no interest in doing politics seriously.
While Corbyn leads Labour there is little need for the Greens anyway, most of their platform will be in the next Labour manifesto
Indeed. Which you'd think would make it all the more important for them to have a strong voice as leader rather than doling the position out on a job-share basis.
The NHS management should be using the strikes as the time to find out how to make the NHS run with fewer resources. Get more for less.
Really though we need a step change in preventative care and to change the attitude of the British public who seem to turn up at A&E (or even to the GP) with a bout of sniffles these days.
Yet the NHS would be snookered if those in their 20s and 30s not having kids used it.
I barely touch it, except for a 10 min GP chat every couple of years, but i reckon I pay £2,500 in taxes to fund it annually.
In addition, my Employer pays a premium of £1,600 for private healthcare for me and my partner, which I also pay tax on, but rarely use. The exception was last year when my wife had a lump scare.
That money represents a good chunk of funds to cover others. Yet still isn't easy for me to get a GP appointment without taking time off work as a paying customer.
Which, at this stage in my life, is all I'm really interested in.
Yes, that is what I find so frustrating about the NHS, I barely use its services but when I am actually ill I have to wait 2 weeks to get an appointment by which time I'll be dead or won't have a problem. A couple of years ago I had an ear infection, the appointment was 2 weeks away and once I got there I was given a massive lecture by the doctor because I could have had severe loss of hearing in one ear if I had waited any longer for antibiotics. It seems like one can never win with the NHS because I'm sure if I had gone to A&E earlier on I would have been given a lecture by that doctor to go and see my GP next time.
Despite the wishful thinking of the sad Scottish subregional Tories, it will be before the EU exit.
Oh Malcolm. Never going to happen.
But you've got to admire the faith "Let's protect 15% of our trade by fecking 60% of our trade!"
I have faith Scots voters will spot the flaw in the "logic".....
Exactly. Sturgeon is being entirely dishonest about the benefits of the EU vs benefits of the UK. Essentially, she's battling against her own members pressure for another vote.
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
Do you remember when the BoE told us they wouldn't put up interest rates when inflation was at 5% back in 2011 because it wasn't "proper inflation"? I don't see why we shouldn't be putting up interest rates before we start to get "proper inflation".
Several countries did put rates up in 2010-2011---and then were obliged to bring them back down again. So the BoE was almost certainly right then.
I'm not saying they weren't right. The mistake I think that they made was not starting to raise them at the end of 2012.
Despite the wishful thinking of the sad Scottish subregional Tories, it will be before the EU exit.
Oh Malcolm. Never going to happen.
But you've got to admire the faith "Let's protect 15% of our trade by fecking 60% of our trade!"
I have faith Scots voters will spot the flaw in the "logic".....
Exactly. Sturgeon is being entirely dishonest about the benefits of the EU vs benefits of the UK. Essentially, she's battling against her own members pressure for another vote.
Well it's Orwell's 1984 syndrome with the SNP isn't it? The phoney war against the English/Tories/'Not proper Scots' has to continue forever to keep the SNP regime/cult together.
History of Parliament Today's blog is the latest in our series from @KathrynRix on the lives of MPs who died fighting WWI: Duncan Campbell https://t.co/oO2qq38df5
Another poll shows record support for SNP , Tories stagnant and Labour moribund. New YouGov poll in Times: SNP 50%, Conservatives 21%, Labour 15.5%, Green 6%, Lib Dem 5.5%, UKIP 2%. Indy Y46 N54.
'Tories stagnant'? At 21%? That might represent little advance from May - indeed, it's a marginal decline - but set against the last twenty years, that share represents plateauing at a historically high level.
Though it perhaps also indicates the limitations of a personally popular leader at the head of mediocre to crap elected representatives (and a hotchpotch of ever changing policies to boot).
I see Labour got beaten badly in Stockton.. So much for Corbyn using local election result to boost him as leader.. Expect more of this type of result if Corbyn is re-elected. Labour voters will not vote Labour, only the die-hard lefties will. #electoralsuicide
Stagnant polls leave SNP becalmed and scrabbling for Brexit discards
Instead of leading a campaign for independence, Ms Sturgeon could find herself in the coming months scrabbling for scraps from Theresa May’s unionist table.
I see Labour got beaten badly in Stockton.. So much for Corbyn using local election result to boost him as leader.. Expect more of this type of result if Corbyn is re-elected. Labour voters will not vote Labour, only the die-hard lefties will. #electoralsuicide
My guess would be that a largish part of what's currently identified as Lab in the national polls (a quarter or so?) is extremely flaky and were a better opposition home available, would migrate quickly.
Outside Scotland, there is no alternative available now or on the horizon. The LDs (8 seats) UKIP (1 seat) not only are ideologically different they offer absolutely nothing towards the goal of change of govt. The SDP2 is very unlikely IMO for the same reason.
For as long as Corbyn is unelectable, Labour offers nothing towards the goal of a change of government either. The LDs and UKIP are undeniably ideologically different but that ideology still overlaps with fair-sized chunks of what has historically been Labour support.
Regardless of leader, Labour are several orders of magnitude more likely to form a national government than either the LDs or UKIP. Not only that, Labour run London and control large areas of local government.
If you are serious about government and oppose the Tories, Labour are the only game in town.
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
Do you remember when the BoE told us they wouldn't put up interest rates when inflation was at 5% back in 2011 because it wasn't "proper inflation"? I don't see why we shouldn't be putting up interest rates before we start to get "proper inflation".
Several countries did put rates up in 2010-2011---and then were obliged to bring them back down again. So the BoE was almost certainly right then.
I'm not saying they weren't right. The mistake I think that they made was not starting to raise them at the end of 2012.
This would be when GDP growth was well below trend, core inflation was around 2% and dropping and the Fed was just starting a massive new phase of QE, right?
The NHS management should be using the strikes as the time to find out how to make the NHS run with fewer resources. Get more for less.
Really though we need a step change in preventative care and to change the attitude of the British public who seem to turn up at A&E (or even to the GP) with a bout of sniffles these days.
Yet the NHS would be snookered if those in their 20s and 30s not having kids used it.
I barely touch it, except for a 10 min GP chat every couple of years, but i reckon I pay £2,500 in taxes to fund it annually.
In addition, my Employer pays a premium of £1,600 for private healthcare for me and my partner, which I also pay tax on, but rarely use. The exception was last year when my wife had a lump scare.
That money represents a good chunk of funds to cover others. Yet still isn't easy for me to get a GP appointment without taking time off work as a paying customer.
Which, at this stage in my life, is all I'm really interested in.
Yes, that is what I find so frustrating about the NHS, I barely use its services but when I am actually ill I have to wait 2 weeks to get an appointment by which time I'll be dead or won't have a problem. A couple of years ago I had an ear infection, the appointment was 2 weeks away and once I got there I was given a massive lecture by the doctor because I could have had severe loss of hearing in one ear if I had waited any longer for antibiotics. It seems like one can never win with the NHS because I'm sure if I had gone to A&E earlier on I would have been given a lecture by that doctor to go and see my GP next time.
In the old days, I had a single GP practice and no appointments: first come, first served. Now you wait a few days for an appointment and then still sit around for what seems like hours as consultations overrun and emergencies jump the queue.
Hunt should settle with the juniors and then commission some research into better appointment systems. £500k in a couple of research grants should do it; there is probably a decent system in another industry they could adapt. It would do far more good for patients.
Despite the wishful thinking of the sad Scottish subregional Tories, it will be before the EU exit.
Oh Malcolm. Never going to happen.
But you've got to admire the faith "Let's protect 15% of our trade by fecking 60% of our trade!"
I have faith Scots voters will spot the flaw in the "logic".....
Exactly. Sturgeon is being entirely dishonest about the benefits of the EU vs benefits of the UK. Essentially, she's battling against her own members pressure for another vote.
Well it's Orwell's 1984 syndrome with the SNP isn't it? The phoney war against the English/Tories/'Not proper Scots' has to continue forever to keep the SNP regime/cult together.
The SNP's now like SLab of a decade ago. Fattened and ready for slaughter.
The NHS management should be using the strikes as the time to find out how to make the NHS run with fewer resources. Get more for less.
Really though we need a step change in preventative care and to change the attitude of the British public who seem to turn up at A&E (or even to the GP) with a bout of sniffles these days.
Yet the NHS would be snookered if those in their 20s and 30s not having kids used it.
I barely touch it, except for a 10 min GP chat every couple of years, but i reckon I pay £2,500 in taxes to fund it annually.
In addition, my Employer pays a premium of £1,600 for private healthcare for me and my partner, which I also pay tax on, but rarely use. The exception was last year when my wife had a lump scare.
That money represents a good chunk of funds to cover others. Yet still isn't easy for me to get a GP appointment without taking time off work as a paying customer.
Which, at this stage in my life, is all I'm really interested in.
Yes, that is what I find so frustrating about the NHS, I barely use its services but when I am actually ill I have to wait 2 weeks to get an appointment by which time I'll be dead or won't have a problem. A couple of years ago I had an ear infection, the appointment was 2 weeks away and once I got there I was given a massive lecture by the doctor because I could have had severe loss of hearing in one ear if I had waited any longer for antibiotics. It seems like one can never win with the NHS because I'm sure if I had gone to A&E earlier on I would have been given a lecture by that doctor to go and see my GP next time.
In the old days, I had a single GP practice and no appointments: first come, first served. Now you wait a few days for an appointment and then still sit around for what seems like hours as consultations overrun and emergencies jump the queue.
Hunt should settle with the juniors and then commission some research into better appointment systems. £500k in a couple of research grants should do it; there is probably a decent system in another industry they could adapt. It would do far more good for patients.
No need for any of that. Charge £5 for all appointments but season tickets for the long term sick (like for prescriptions)
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
Do you remember when the BoE told us they wouldn't put up interest rates when inflation was at 5% back in 2011 because it wasn't "proper inflation"? I don't see why we shouldn't be putting up interest rates before we start to get "proper inflation".
Several countries did put rates up in 2010-2011---and then were obliged to bring them back down again. So the BoE was almost certainly right then.
I'm not saying they weren't right. The mistake I think that they made was not starting to raise them at the end of 2012.
This would be when GDP growth was well below trend, core inflation was around 2% and dropping and the Fed was just starting a massive new phase of QE, right?
And house prices were starting to take off again. House prices aren't the be all and end all of this issue, but they have been willfully ignored in the assessment of monetary policy.
My guess would be that a largish part of what's currently identified as Lab in the national polls (a quarter or so?) is extremely flaky and were a better opposition home available, would migrate quickly.
Outside Scotland, there is no alternative available now or on the horizon. The LDs (8 seats) UKIP (1 seat) not only are ideologically different they offer absolutely nothing towards the goal of change of govt. The SDP2 is very unlikely IMO for the same reason.
For as long as Corbyn is unelectable, Labour offers nothing towards the goal of a change of government either. The LDs and UKIP are undeniably ideologically different but that ideology still overlaps with fair-sized chunks of what has historically been Labour support.
Regardless of leader, Labour are several orders of magnitude more likely to form a national government than either the LDs or UKIP. Not only that, Labour run London and control large areas of local government.
If you are serious about government and oppose the Tories, Labour are the only game in town.
That's what they used to say in Scotland
Not really. The SNP were the opposition in the Scottish Parliament and a clear alternative in Scotland. There is nothing remotely close to the SNP in England.
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
Do you remember when the BoE told us they wouldn't put up interest rates when inflation was at 5% back in 2011 because it wasn't "proper inflation"? I don't see why we shouldn't be putting up interest rates before we start to get "proper inflation".
Several countries did put rates up in 2010-2011---and then were obliged to bring them back down again. So the BoE was almost certainly right then.
I'm not saying they weren't right. The mistake I think that they made was not starting to raise them at the end of 2012.
This would be when GDP growth was well below trend, core inflation was around 2% and dropping and the Fed was just starting a massive new phase of QE, right?
And house prices were starting to take off again. House prices aren't the be all and end all of this issue, but they have been willfully ignored in the assessment of monetary policy.
House prices barely grew in 2012, and grew less than 3% in 2013 even.
I was playing around with numbers to see what we could realistically spend on health. Government's peak share of national GDP pre-crash was 41%. It's currently 40.5%, but debt servicing reduces that to an effective ~36%. Our biggest recent peak was in 2010 when Brown was trying to buy the election @ 45.5%.
If UKIP sorts itself out (admittedly, an enormous 'if') and enjoys the same sort of progress it did in the course of the previous Parliament, it could take a significant number of seats off Labour. But I cannot see it being in a position to either overtake Labour or deal such a damaging blow that it effectively signals the beginning of the end for the reds.
ONS Oliver & Amelia were the most popular names for babies born in England & Wales in 2015 https://t.co/dn53Rcwbpm #babynames
There were 4 new entries in the top 100 most popular boys’ names in 2015 for England and Wales: Jaxon, Roman, Reggie and Carter. These replaced Owen, Robert, Joey and Finlay which were in the top 100 in 2014. Within the boys’ top 100, Jaxon showed the largest rise, up 35 places to number 80. Kian, down 44 places to number 98, showed the largest fall.
There were 6 new entries in the top 100 most popular girls’ names in 2015: Penelope, Mila, Clara, Arabella, Maddison and Aria. These replaced Lydia, Faith, Mollie, Brooke, Isabel and Amy. Within the girls’ top 100, Aria showed the largest rise, gaining 70 places to number 100. Katie, down 22 places to number 99, showed the largest fall.
ONS Oliver & Amelia were the most popular names for babies born in England & Wales in 2015 https://t.co/dn53Rcwbpm #babynames
There were 4 new entries in the top 100 most popular boys’ names in 2015 for England and Wales: Jaxon, Roman, Reggie and Carter. These replaced Owen, Robert, Joey and Finlay which were in the top 100 in 2014. Within the boys’ top 100, Jaxon showed the largest rise, up 35 places to number 80. Kian, down 44 places to number 98, showed the largest fall.
There were 6 new entries in the top 100 most popular girls’ names in 2015: Penelope, Mila, Clara, Arabella, Maddison and Aria. These replaced Lydia, Faith, Mollie, Brooke, Isabel and Amy. Within the girls’ top 100, Aria showed the largest rise, gaining 70 places to number 100. Katie, down 22 places to number 99, showed the largest fall.
The ONS Visual site is good for this sort of thing:
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
Do you remember when the BoE told us they wouldn't put up interest rates when inflation was at 5% back in 2011 because it wasn't "proper inflation"? I don't see why we shouldn't be putting up interest rates before we start to get "proper inflation".
Several countries did put rates up in 2010-2011---and then were obliged to bring them back down again. So the BoE was almost certainly right then.
I'm not saying they weren't right. The mistake I think that they made was not starting to raise them at the end of 2012.
This would be when GDP growth was well below trend, core inflation was around 2% and dropping and the Fed was just starting a massive new phase of QE, right?
And house prices were starting to take off again. House prices aren't the be all and end all of this issue, but they have been willfully ignored in the assessment of monetary policy.
House prices are not a reason to raise interest rates - I do believe house prices are far too high but increasing interest rates won't actually solve that....
ONS Oliver & Amelia were the most popular names for babies born in England & Wales in 2015 https://t.co/dn53Rcwbpm #babynames
There were 4 new entries in the top 100 most popular boys’ names in 2015 for England and Wales: Jaxon, Roman, Reggie and Carter. These replaced Owen, Robert, Joey and Finlay which were in the top 100 in 2014. Within the boys’ top 100, Jaxon showed the largest rise, up 35 places to number 80. Kian, down 44 places to number 98, showed the largest fall.
There were 6 new entries in the top 100 most popular girls’ names in 2015: Penelope, Mila, Clara, Arabella, Maddison and Aria. These replaced Lydia, Faith, Mollie, Brooke, Isabel and Amy. Within the girls’ top 100, Aria showed the largest rise, gaining 70 places to number 100. Katie, down 22 places to number 99, showed the largest fall.
The ONS Visual site is good for this sort of thing:
Another poll shows record support for SNP , Tories stagnant and Labour moribund. New YouGov poll in Times: SNP 50%, Conservatives 21%, Labour 15.5%, Green 6%, Lib Dem 5.5%, UKIP 2%. Indy Y46 N54.
'Tories stagnant'? At 21%? That might represent little advance from May - indeed, it's a marginal decline - but set against the last twenty years, that share represents plateauing at a historically high level.
Though it perhaps also indicates the limitations of a personally popular leader at the head of mediocre to crap elected representatives (and a hotchpotch of ever changing policies to boot).
At this point it would appear Project Fear is in tatters along with Cameron and Osborne's careers?
We still have to wait for Monday's services PMI which by far the most important. Construction & manufacturing are ~16% of the economy. Given that construction has been suffering for months, there's reason to be optimistic about Monday's figures too.
Stagnant polls leave SNP becalmed and scrabbling for Brexit discards
Instead of leading a campaign for independence, Ms Sturgeon could find herself in the coming months scrabbling for scraps from Theresa May’s unionist table.
ONS Oliver & Amelia were the most popular names for babies born in England & Wales in 2015 https://t.co/dn53Rcwbpm #babynames
There were 4 new entries in the top 100 most popular boys’ names in 2015 for England and Wales: Jaxon, Roman, Reggie and Carter. These replaced Owen, Robert, Joey and Finlay which were in the top 100 in 2014. Within the boys’ top 100, Jaxon showed the largest rise, up 35 places to number 80. Kian, down 44 places to number 98, showed the largest fall.
There were 6 new entries in the top 100 most popular girls’ names in 2015: Penelope, Mila, Clara, Arabella, Maddison and Aria. These replaced Lydia, Faith, Mollie, Brooke, Isabel and Amy. Within the girls’ top 100, Aria showed the largest rise, gaining 70 places to number 100. Katie, down 22 places to number 99, showed the largest fall.
The ONS Visual site is good for this sort of thing:
Stagnant polls leave SNP becalmed and scrabbling for Brexit discards
Instead of leading a campaign for independence, Ms Sturgeon could find herself in the coming months scrabbling for scraps from Theresa May’s unionist table.
ONS Oliver & Amelia were the most popular names for babies born in England & Wales in 2015 https://t.co/dn53Rcwbpm #babynames
There were 4 new entries in the top 100 most popular boys’ names in 2015 for England and Wales: Jaxon, Roman, Reggie and Carter. These replaced Owen, Robert, Joey and Finlay which were in the top 100 in 2014. Within the boys’ top 100, Jaxon showed the largest rise, up 35 places to number 80. Kian, down 44 places to number 98, showed the largest fall.
There were 6 new entries in the top 100 most popular girls’ names in 2015: Penelope, Mila, Clara, Arabella, Maddison and Aria. These replaced Lydia, Faith, Mollie, Brooke, Isabel and Amy. Within the girls’ top 100, Aria showed the largest rise, gaining 70 places to number 100. Katie, down 22 places to number 99, showed the largest fall.
The ONS Visual site is good for this sort of thing:
Solid construction figures, I had it pencilled in at 48.5 after yesterday's surprise, so the end figure beat my optimistic forecast as well. I still did better than the City forecast of 46.1 and our forecast of 45.9, as ever I'm waiting for a reaction from our good friend Mr Tombs before I make my mind up on how awful this is for the economy and why this means the people are all stupid.
Quite. It's lunacy. Can't see them reversing the last cut till post Xmas at least as earlier would indicate they didn't know what they were doing (!!). We need a plan to get to 3% or so rates really, to restore some equilibrium. If it takes a burst of inflation to get us there then so be it. Helicopter the cash - whatever, but this present low rates regime is without precedent since 1694 and is causing huge strains.
Do you remember when the BoE told us they wouldn't put up interest rates when inflation was at 5% back in 2011 because it wasn't "proper inflation"? I don't see why we shouldn't be putting up interest rates before we start to get "proper inflation".
Several countries did put rates up in 2010-2011---and then were obliged to bring them back down again. So the BoE was almost certainly right then.
I'm not saying they weren't right. The mistake I think that they made was not starting to raise them at the end of 2012.
This would be when GDP growth was well below trend, core inflation was around 2% and dropping and the Fed was just starting a massive new phase of QE, right?
And house prices were starting to take off again. House prices aren't the be all and end all of this issue, but they have been willfully ignored in the assessment of monetary policy.
House prices are not a reason to raise interest rates - I do believe house prices are far too high but increasing interest rates won't actually solve that....
As a thought experiment if interest rates were say put up to 50%, then do you think it would have no effect on house prices ?
It's weird how Leavers are celebrating that Brexit has had zero negative impact when it hasn't even happened yet.
They might as well say it will all be over by Christmas.
Amnesia, Jonathan? The forecast was for an immediate recession.
I just don't buy the hype either way. It's too early to see how this will play out.
Oh, I'm with you there. I'm on record here as saying it really will take fifteen years to see if it really was economically too damaging for us to have left.
However, we're only human. I hunkered down for a couple of weeks after the vote, waiting for the sky to fall, as forecast by the great+good. Now, I feel quite relieved and not above gloating at the economists who predicted instant Armageddon.
At this point it would appear Project Fear is in tatters along with Cameron and Osborne's careers?
Well taking a step back phase 2 of Project Fear, based on an immediate UK recession and punishment budget, looks in pretty serious trouble.
But Phase 1 based on dubious forecasts of long-term damage rooted in rigged models and the ignoring of decades of empirical evidence on trade and productivity is still being deployed - but now to try to support the EEA option or even the barmy notion of staying in the customs union.
So we need to explode that next, which will take careful research - unfortunately we can't just let the incoming data speak for itself there, for obvious reasons.
And Cameron's last desperate Phase 3 - 'it's all too much of a faff' is still around as well. In fact, that is now becoming the most common angle used by Continuity Remain (or should we call it the 88 County Non-Sovereignty Movement?).
This consists of trying to think up all kinds of Yes Minister-style reasons for delaying - shaking your head with faux concern or throwing your hands in the air in mock despair. I imagine that will go on for a while also.
ONS Oliver & Amelia were the most popular names for babies born in England & Wales in 2015 https://t.co/dn53Rcwbpm #babynames
There were 4 new entries in the top 100 most popular boys’ names in 2015 for England and Wales: Jaxon, Roman, Reggie and Carter. These replaced Owen, Robert, Joey and Finlay which were in the top 100 in 2014. Within the boys’ top 100, Jaxon showed the largest rise, up 35 places to number 80. Kian, down 44 places to number 98, showed the largest fall.
There were 6 new entries in the top 100 most popular girls’ names in 2015: Penelope, Mila, Clara, Arabella, Maddison and Aria. These replaced Lydia, Faith, Mollie, Brooke, Isabel and Amy. Within the girls’ top 100, Aria showed the largest rise, gaining 70 places to number 100. Katie, down 22 places to number 99, showed the largest fall.
The ONS Visual site is good for this sort of thing:
ONS Oliver & Amelia were the most popular names for babies born in England & Wales in 2015 https://t.co/dn53Rcwbpm #babynames
There were 4 new entries in the top 100 most popular boys’ names in 2015 for England and Wales: Jaxon, Roman, Reggie and Carter. These replaced Owen, Robert, Joey and Finlay which were in the top 100 in 2014. Within the boys’ top 100, Jaxon showed the largest rise, up 35 places to number 80. Kian, down 44 places to number 98, showed the largest fall.
There were 6 new entries in the top 100 most popular girls’ names in 2015: Penelope, Mila, Clara, Arabella, Maddison and Aria. These replaced Lydia, Faith, Mollie, Brooke, Isabel and Amy. Within the girls’ top 100, Aria showed the largest rise, gaining 70 places to number 100. Katie, down 22 places to number 99, showed the largest fall.
The ONS Visual site is good for this sort of thing:
Where on Earth does Jaxon and Roman come from? When I was little - there was a glut of Samanthas after Bewitched.
Roman might have something to do with European migrants. The only Roman I can think of is the footballer Roman Neustädter.
Polanski, Abramovitch? Not sure I'd want to name kids after either, mind
I wasn't thinking of naming after someone, more where that name is popular. It seems a popular name in Russia - not that they're in the EU, of course.
The fashions for names is really weird. In my class during the 70s/80s I'd two Fionas, three Helens, three Alisons and four Joannas. All my male friends were called Mark, David or Andrew.
And Cameron's last desperate Phase 3 - 'it's all too much of a faff' is still around as well. In fact, that is now becoming the most common angle used by Continuity Remain (or should we call it the 88 County Non-Sovereignty Movement?).
This consists of trying to think up all kinds of Yes Minister-style reasons for delaying - shaking your head with faux concern or throwing your hands in the air in mock despair. I imagine that will go on for a while also.
Yep, the biggest threat to Brexit now is just simply that the whole thing will get shoved into the "long grass".
However, I've got confidence in Theresa May to get this done.
Still can't make up my mind whether in the Internet age it's an advantage to have a unique name that means you are instantly discoverable or something that gives you the option to hide in the crowd.
Comments
Mr. Moses, everything I've heard makes it sound horrendous.
F1: first practice kicks off in just over 20 minutes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769798/Melania-Trump-retraction.html
If you are serious about government and oppose the Tories, Labour are the only game in town.
Until we are able to have a grown up conversation on this the situation will remain as it is. It will only get worse now as Labour has shot just about all of its bolts. The NHS comfort blanket is all that remains for them to shout about now.
When do we want it - "permanently, because we're not going to beat them like this"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37253067
An aside: if there's a winter crisis, this provides cover for the Government. "Things would've been much better if the junior doctors had turned up for work..."
This isn't going to stop, so the NHS needs to focus on what it what it really wants to do. It isn't economically efficient, nor sensible, to spend every pound we can on it.
Really though we need a step change in preventative care and to change the attitude of the British public who seem to turn up at A&E (or even to the GP) with a bout of sniffles these days.
That really means houses prices are only going to go in one direction as the S24 tax changes on interest relief and Basel 3 on capital ratios take effect regardless of what happens to interest rates.
Just as endowments failed as future protection mechanisms, so pensions seem like they will for the next generation.
Failing to pay the mortgage as I recollect always used to be considered as making yourself intentionally homeless ( maybe different now) and thus not easy to get on the council house ladder.
Combine above with pension deficits and overall lack of preparation for retirement years and we have a serious problem approaching.
There are probably more clueful economists on House Price Crash than in the BofE... At least on HPC they understand both that markets can stay irrational longer than you have money and that all bubbles most at the end return to normality...
Separately you could always look at Money Saving Expert and this corker from last week http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5516143#topofpage
I barely touch it, except for a 10 min GP chat every couple of years, but i reckon I pay £2,500 in taxes to fund it annually.
In addition, my Employer pays a premium of £1,600 for private healthcare for me and my partner, which I also pay tax on, but rarely use. The exception was last year when my wife had a lump scare.
That money represents a good chunk of funds to cover others. Yet still isn't easy for me to get a GP appointment without taking time off work as a paying customer.
Which, at this stage in my life, is all I'm really interested in.
Try being poor and sick in the USA and find out how bad we have it really.
If I had to sum up an attitude - it's her. She's voting for Owen BTW. Last time she was dead keen on Corbyn. I think she's about 40.
I have faith Scots voters will spot the flaw in the "logic".....
8am. Now @SamuelPepys has acquired a boat. From the Thames he can see fire tearing through the dense slums along the bank. #GreatFire350
Today's blog is the latest in our series from @KathrynRix on the lives of MPs who died fighting WWI: Duncan Campbell https://t.co/oO2qq38df5
Stagnant polls leave SNP becalmed and scrabbling for Brexit discards
Instead of leading a campaign for independence, Ms Sturgeon could find herself in the coming months scrabbling for scraps from Theresa May’s unionist table.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/stagnant-polls-leave-snp-becalmed-and-scrabbling-for-brexit-discards-3xbzps05b
Metro is liveblogging the Great Fire of London, and in an unsettlingly modern media mind frame to boot: https://t.co/5FjxbCykOF
Hunt should settle with the juniors and then commission some research into better appointment systems. £500k in a couple of research grants should do it; there is probably a decent system in another industry they could adapt. It would do far more good for patients.
Pepys rescued some cheese and buried it in the garden, I think, for safety.
The surgeries would empty v quickly..
If UKIP sorts itself out (admittedly, an enormous 'if') and enjoys the same sort of progress it did in the course of the previous Parliament, it could take a significant number of seats off Labour. But I cannot see it being in a position to either overtake Labour or deal such a damaging blow that it effectively signals the beginning of the end for the reds.
Oliver & Amelia were the most popular names for babies born in England & Wales in 2015 https://t.co/dn53Rcwbpm #babynames
There were 4 new entries in the top 100 most popular boys’ names in 2015 for England and Wales: Jaxon, Roman, Reggie and Carter. These replaced Owen, Robert, Joey and Finlay which were in the top 100 in 2014. Within the boys’ top 100, Jaxon showed the largest rise, up 35 places to number 80. Kian, down 44 places to number 98, showed the largest fall.
There were 6 new entries in the top 100 most popular girls’ names in 2015: Penelope, Mila, Clara, Arabella, Maddison and Aria. These replaced Lydia, Faith, Mollie, Brooke, Isabel and Amy. Within the girls’ top 100, Aria showed the largest rise, gaining 70 places to number 100. Katie, down 22 places to number 99, showed the largest fall.
http://tinyurl.com/hjwze7x
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/15376f2b3e73422c93567a6b724f8ee1
They might as well say it will all be over by Christmas.
However, we're only human. I hunkered down for a couple of weeks after the vote, waiting for the sky to fall, as forecast by the great+good. Now, I feel quite relieved and not above gloating at the economists who predicted instant Armageddon.
But Phase 1 based on dubious forecasts of long-term damage rooted in rigged models and the ignoring of decades of empirical evidence on trade and productivity is still being deployed - but now to try to support the EEA option or even the barmy notion of staying in the customs union.
So we need to explode that next, which will take careful research - unfortunately we can't just let the incoming data speak for itself there, for obvious reasons.
And Cameron's last desperate Phase 3 - 'it's all too much of a faff' is still around as well. In fact, that is now becoming the most common angle used by Continuity Remain (or should we call it the 88 County Non-Sovereignty Movement?).
This consists of trying to think up all kinds of Yes Minister-style reasons for delaying - shaking your head with faux concern or throwing your hands in the air in mock despair. I imagine that will go on for a while also.
"jumped to 49.2 from 45.9 in July, the biggest monthly gain since November 2013."
"beat the median estimate of economists in a Bloomberg News survey for a rise to 46.3"
Not a great time to be an economist. Median prediction of a 0.4 rise, out by a factor of eight.
However, I've got confidence in Theresa May to get this done.
.@NicolaSturgeon dubs the Tories "the real separatists" as a result of #Brexit - I think that's what's called "bold"...
Well, if we ever run low on Brass Necks we'll know where to look.....