politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the GE2015 outcome was as the current betting suggests t
Comments
-
That line of argument didn't work out so well for the GOP in 2012.MikeK said:UK GENERAL ELECTION 2015: Is it weighting which influences the polls? http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-it-weighting-which-influences-polls.html?spref=tw …
As with most of the polls UKIP is being unfairly weighted.
Just sayin' ...0 -
Professor Curtice said: “The public are still far from regarding him as someone whom they regard as a potential prime minister. Mr Miliband needs to capitalise on the apparent success of his conference speech rather than allow it to dissipate, as he did last year....
Changing the public’s perceptions will not be easy. No opposition leader whose ratings have been as relentlessly negative as Mr Miliband’s have been within months of taking over, has managed to turn his personal ratings around.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-has-yet-to-convince-voters-he-can-be-pm-poll-of-polls-reveals-8867356.html0 -
It's fairly clear the Tories are going to try are shore up their right flank by going after UKIP voters between now and 2015. Cameron's early love-bombing of the yellows is long over. And yet you want to keep equidistance. Why?MikeSmithson said:
Clegg would find a second CON-LD deal easier for his party to swallow if the alternative was a LAB minority government that didn't win on votes.FrankBooth said:
Clegg would have to get any deal with the Tories past his party. Judging by the polls done recently, I don't see Lib Dem members backing a Tory deal again unless there is no alternative. That said if anti-Clegg people keep leaving the party they could look quite different in 2015.edmundintokyo said:
The interests of the remaining LibDem MPs are the main thing that might keep Cameron in power in a Hung Parliament. Everyone who stands to lose their seat from a Lib-Con deal will already have lost it, and some of the people who remain will be worried about the consequences of making a deal with Lab.Bobajob said:
Surely the most likely outcome is an immediate purge of the Orange Bookers and a coup by the Beveridge Group - presuming they have enough MPs - which would then make a Lib-Lab Pact a natural choice. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of Liberal MPs who would retain their seat on current forecasts, and how they split along factional lines.NickPalmer said:I think that's a good analysis, and suspect that the LibDems on current polling would prefer a period of rethinking too before rushing into a new coalition with anyone.
0 -
Labour supporters should be absolutely terrified at an outcome like this.
Imagine: Ed Miliband walks into Downing St after falling 15-20 seats short on a vote share of;
Con 35% Lab 34% Lib-Dem 17% UKIP 7%
How on earth could they govern successfully for a full term as a minority government on those numbers, especially given they'll still be the need for significant cuts to dish out to their client base?0 -
I disagree with our host. The two Eds could get more of their agenda through more reliably with the Lib Dems on board. Like Roxie and Velma, Labour and the Lib Dems would forget the past insults and team up if it meant success at the box office.0
-
Because there's no point being in politics if you can't govern. The Lib-Dems have done very well out of the coalition - They've got a lot of policies through and have been taken seriously (and treated very well) by their Tory partners.FrankBooth said:
It's fairly clear the Tories are going to try are shore up their right flank by going after UKIP voters between now and 2015. Cameron's early love-bombing of the yellows is long over. And yet you want to keep equidistance. Why?
It has been a surprisingly good (and stable) government.
0 -
Ralph Miliband's politics revisited.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-real-scandal-of-ralph-milibands-politics/#.UlUphlBOOVF0 -
Labour to LDs...If you are good to Momma, Momma's good to you.
0 -
Probably, but we're talking about Labour in this thread and whatever the Tories are doing in Opposition, Labour's numbers in that sort of scenario look horrendous.tim said:GIN1138 said:Labour supporters should be absolutely terrified at an outcome like this.
Imagine: Ed Miliband walks into Downing St after falling 15-20 seats short on a vote share of;
Con 35% Lab 34% Lib-Dem 17% UKIP 7%
How on earth could they govern successfully for a full term as a minority government on those numbers, especially given they'll still be the need for significant cuts to dish out to their client base?
You don't think the Tories would remove the Cameron/Osborne clique and have a civil war over Europe?
Actually, I suspect they wouldn't go into civil war over Europe as the view within the Tory Party is fairly well set. They would just get rid of the leadership and bring on a leader who better reflects the party's view.
0 -
I really love the way those on here who are themost antipathetic to the LDs are also those seemingly blessed with foresight as to what the Party will and won't do after the next election.
I must ask Tim to say something pleasant about Osborne and Cameron or Mr Flashman (Deceased) to offer a kind word to Mr Balls.
Back in the real world, my sense within the Party is that there is no desire for a Coalition with Labour or indeed for another with the Conservatives. I think the most likely outcome is that the reduced Liberal Democrat parliamentary Party will retreat to the Opposition benches while the reduced activist base starts working out how to rebuild the base locally.0 -
From the POV of a Tory. Of course the ambition should be to be in government but the LD leadership gives the impression it believes in nothing BUT being in government. Call me a cynic but let's not forget there's a nice salary and lifestyle that goes with it.GIN1138 said:
Because there's no point being in politics if you can't govern. The Lib-Dems have done very well out of the coalition - They've got a lot of policies through and have been taken seriously (and treated very well) by their Tory partners.FrankBooth said:
It's fairly clear the Tories are going to try are shore up their right flank by going after UKIP voters between now and 2015. Cameron's early love-bombing of the yellows is long over. And yet you want to keep equidistance. Why?
It has been a surprisingly good (and stable) government.0 -
Well if that is the case, you need to start with finding party members with some ambition. If you're telling me the LDs wish to be a pressure group I'll know not to consider voting for them in 2014 or 2015.stodge said:I really love the way those on here who are themost antipathetic to the LDs are also those seemingly blessed with foresight as to what the Party will and won't do after the next election.
I must ask Tim to say something pleasant about Osborne and Cameron or Mr Flashman (Deceased) to offer a kind word to Mr Balls.
Back in the real world, my sense within the Party is that there is no desire for a Coalition with Labour or indeed for another with the Conservatives. I think the most likely outcome is that the reduced Liberal Democrat parliamentary Party will retreat to the Opposition benches while the reduced activist base starts working out how to rebuild the base locally.0 -
So, in summary: there's no viable government in a 2015 hung parliament.
Plan your affairs accordingly.0 -
I think you are correct, the Tories are unlikely to have a civil war over Europe. The party seems pretty thouroughly Eurosceptic, and likely to be even more so after the Election.GIN1138 said:
Probably, but we're talking about Labour in this thread and whatever the Tories are doing in Opposition, Labour's numbers in that sort of scenario look horrendous.tim said:GIN1138 said:Labour supporters should be absolutely terrified at an outcome like this.
Imagine: Ed Miliband walks into Downing St after falling 15-20 seats short on a vote share of;
Con 35% Lab 34% Lib-Dem 17% UKIP 7%
How on earth could they govern successfully for a full term as a minority government on those numbers, especially given they'll still be the need for significant cuts to dish out to their client base?
You don't think the Tories would remove the Cameron/Osborne clique and have a civil war over Europe?
Actually, I suspect they wouldn't go into civil war over Europe as the view within the Tory Party is fairly well set. They would just get rid of the leadership and bring on a leader who better reflects the party's view.
There is potential for the LibDems to pick up some Europhile centrist votes. It is a minority view but not an insignificant one.
Interestingly Huhne, Davey and Cable all wrote the original Orange book, so not so far from the Cleggitte/Laws/Browne/Alexander school of thought as some on here would have.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism
It would be difficult for a party that has just suffered major seat losses to play kingmaker, so in Mikes Scenario would expect a minority govt. Likely to be followed by an early second election.0 -
Perhaps we'll have a scenario like 1923/1924 - Labour in as a minority for a year then a big Tory win (under Boris or Teresa maybe?)RichardNabavi said:So, in summary: there's no viable government in a 2015 hung parliament.
Plan your affairs accordingly.
0 -
Brilliantly bad https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWIL3X5IgAALbWh.png:large
Sam Bowman @s8mb
My favourite Google Translate of the day, feat @eamonnbutler: pic.twitter.com/LEInf8H8Cu0 -
I can understand why people might feel weary about it now, but following the election when, perhaps, the worst predictions about Lib Dem meltdown have been avoided, and with prospective Coalition partners offering policy and ministerial concessions, things might look a bit different.stodge said:Back in the real world, my sense within the Party is that there is no desire for a Coalition with Labour or indeed for another with the Conservatives. I think the most likely outcome is that the reduced Liberal Democrat parliamentary Party will retreat to the Opposition benches while the reduced activist base starts working out how to rebuild the base locally.
If either Miliband or Cameron actually ends up with a majority there will be some Lib Dems relieved not to be faced with that choice, but there will also be some disappointed at the resulting loss of influence.0 -
Did the IMF speak too soon? Did Osbo bray too much?
Suddenly a massive fall in British industrial production!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24455710
0 -
"As with most of the polls UKIP is being unfairly weighted."
Why do you think it's unfair?0 -
Stodge is calling this pretty much correctly . The chances of a Lab/Lib coalition after the next election are close to zero and the chances of a renewed Con/Lib coalition only a little higher as that would only occur if the Lib Dems suffered no or almost no loss of seats .
As I have posted many times before all parties need a time in opposition to regroup and recover and I expect that will be where the Lib Dems are post 2015 .0 -
So the party which espouses coalition government doesn't want to enter in to one ?MarkSenior said:Stodge is calling this pretty much correctly . The chances of a Lab/Lib coalition after the next election are close to zero and the chances of a renewed Con/Lib coalition only a little higher as that would only occur if the Lib Dems suffered no or almost no loss of seats .
As I have posted many times before all parties need a time in opposition to regroup and recover and I expect that will be where the Lib Dems are post 2015 .
WTF ?0 -
Not to the extent of the fall. 1.1%MikeK said:Did the IMF speak too soon? Did Osbo bray too much?
Suddenly a massive fall in British industrial production!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-244557100 -
And for full fat, Back to the Futurism, the Daily Mail publishing a forged letter to damage the Left?GIN1138 said:
Perhaps we'll have a scenario like 1923/1924 - Labour in as a minority for a year then a big Tory win (under Boris or Teresa maybe?)
Nah, the modern, principled Mail would never stoop to such skulduggery.
0 -
I can see why they'd prefer that somebody won a majority, but if coalition was tough, minority government would be even tougher. Whenever there was anything mildly unpopular with anybody they'd be on the spot about whether they were going to let it through or not. They'd end up infuriating absolutely everyone. At least coalition rips off the bandage in one go, and they get some actual power in return.MarkSenior said:Stodge is calling this pretty much correctly . The chances of a Lab/Lib coalition after the next election are close to zero and the chances of a renewed Con/Lib coalition only a little higher as that would only occur if the Lib Dems suffered no or almost no loss of seats .
As I have posted many times before all parties need a time in opposition to regroup and recover and I expect that will be where the Lib Dems are post 2015 .0 -
How betfair see the next GE
Most seats (the important market)
Lab 1.84-1.89
Con 2.18 - 2.24
Been stuck around these numbers for a while - no real movement.
OM
Lab 2.82
Con 3.95
NOM 2.5 (looks the value)
The clean thing about these markets is that they are based on the results not the backroom deals afterwards.
0 -
What are you criticising Tim?tim said:This interesting
Ben Chu @BenChu_ 10m
In June 2010 the OBR expected the UK economy to have grow by 8.9% by now. Out-turn: 3.2% growth.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ 4m
Here's expenditure breakdown of the OBR's forecast misses. Wrong on consumption, investment, net exports & even gov: pic.twitter.com/qCZXvIADyY
The OBR got every positive contribution from private consumption, business investment, net trade, stocks and residential investment wrong, and managed to also get the increase in govt spending under the incompetent Austerity Osborne wrong too.
Almost all the growth is down to an overshoot of govt spending.
That good old magic money tree.
The OBR for the quality of its forecasts or are you using this as evidence that austerity wasn't as effective as Osborne thought? Because it hardly stacks up against the second claim let alone overcomes the evidential burden.
0 -
From our previous exchanges, you've never struck me as a prospective Lib Dem voter. This is something all parties do after longer or shorter periods in power. It's effectively what the Labour Party did for much of the 80s and 90s and the Conservatives from 1997-2010.Alanbrooke said:
Well if that is the case, you need to start with finding party members with some ambition. If you're telling me the LDs wish to be a pressure group I'll know not to consider voting for them in 2014 or 2015.stodge said:Back in the real world, my sense within the Party is that there is no desire for a Coalition with Labour or indeed for another with the Conservatives. I think the most likely outcome is that the reduced Liberal Democrat parliamentary Party will retreat to the Opposition benches while the reduced activist base starts working out how to rebuild the base locally.
If there is a majority for any one Party in 2015, it won't matter anyway. All the prognostications about the LDs supporting one side or another are predicated on there being no overall majority in 2015. That may well not happen - indeed, I would contend that in some ways a Government with a tiny majority (less than 10) is as unstable as one with no majority at all.
0 -
Oh, please. The Party which esposuses Coalition Government is David Cameron's Conservatives. He made the offer the day after the election which made the Coalition happen - he could have walked away, said no deals, and waited to form a minority.Alanbrooke said:
So the party which espouses coalition government doesn't want to enter in to one ?MarkSenior said:Stodge is calling this pretty much correctly . The chances of a Lab/Lib coalition after the next election are close to zero and the chances of a renewed Con/Lib coalition only a little higher as that would only occur if the Lib Dems suffered no or almost no loss of seats .
As I have posted many times before all parties need a time in opposition to regroup and recover and I expect that will be where the Lib Dems are post 2015 .
WTF ?
Likewise, in 2015, any Coalition will only happen if Ed Miliband wants it to. If he doesn't want to play, there's no pont having a discussion.
0 -
PMQ's.
If I was Ed Miliband, I would start off by thanking Cameron for his kind words and support re the Mail saga. This would then obviously be followed up by a question on Leveson.0 -
Mr. Stodge. it's worth pointing out that if we did not have the Coalition we would've ended up with probably another election after Brown and Darling cocked things up even more (cf Darling signing us up to the eurozone bailout scheme).0
-
Well why should I ? You're from the left of the LDs so see blues as the enemy. But as I have commented here before I have voted yellow and did so at the councils because I think Osborne's a prat. However since you're a southern LD the tories are the natural enemy, if you were oop north things might be different.stodge said:
From our previous exchanges, you've never struck me as a prospective Lib Dem voter. This is something all parties do after longer or shorter periods in power. It's effectively what the Labour Party did for much of the 80s and 90s and the Conservatives from 1997-2010.Alanbrooke said:
Well if that is the case, you need to start with finding party members with some ambition. If you're telling me the LDs wish to be a pressure group I'll know not to consider voting for them in 2014 or 2015.stodge said:Back in the real world, my sense within the Party is that there is no desire for a Coalition with Labour or indeed for another with the Conservatives. I think the most likely outcome is that the reduced Liberal Democrat parliamentary Party will retreat to the Opposition benches while the reduced activist base starts working out how to rebuild the base locally.
If there is a majority for any one Party in 2015, it won't matter anyway. All the prognostications about the LDs supporting one side or another are predicated on there being no overall majority in 2015. That may well not happen - indeed, I would contend that in some ways a Government with a tiny majority (less than 10) is as unstable as one with no majority at all.
Both you and Mark appear to think opposition and regrouping is a good thing. political parties regroup because they have LOST, not because they want to do Greta Garbo impersonations. If there a NOM next time as seems likely, Cleggy will once again hold the balance of power.
On your basis he should pass up on the chance to re-enter government. It sort of makes me wonder why you're bothering to field candidates at all. You could have a really good soul search without being encumbered with MPs and decisions or anything which gets in the way of purity of ideas like compromise or the real world. So if you're saying the LDs have no intention of going in to govt. then I still like to undertsand why anyone should bother voting for them.0 -
It does rather depend on the offer, doesn't it? The Lib Dems are under no obligation to accept any old offer. Labour will have to give a little, or perhaps a lot. As MarkSenior says, the Lib Dems will probably be hurting with loss of seats, and any coalition deal would have to be more advantageous from their point of view than the 2010 Conservative deal was.Bobajob said:@Mark Senior
Why? The Libs will surely do a deal with Labour if an offer is put on the table.0 -
Andrew Neil tearing strips out of Sadiq over the economy.0
-
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 2m
Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust pleads guilty to safety breaches over death of diabetic patient Gillian Astbury in 2007 http://bbc.in/1fZe8nK
Nothing going wrong at Mid-Stafford...nothing to see ....0 -
One question I don't think we've discussed much is, given another Hung Parliament, what could each side offer the LibDems? I reckon the Tories start out at a disadvantage because:JosiasJessop said:
It does rather depend on the offer, doesn't it? The Lib Dems are under no obligation to accept any old offer. Labour will have to give a little, or perhaps a lot. As MarkSenior says, the Lib Dems will probably be hurting with loss of seats, and any coalition deal would have to be more advantageous from their point of view than the 2010 Conservative deal was.Bobajob said:@Mark Senior
Why? The Libs will surely do a deal with Labour if an offer is put on the table.
1) They've already picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit.
2) They start expecting boundary changes and an EU referendum (*), both of which the LibDems will want compensation for agreeing to.
(*) I know it was in their manifesto, but they don't want one really, and if they did I'm sure they'd rather wait until such time as the Eurozone sorts its shit out.0 -
“The Icelandic economy is prosperous and flexible. Per capita income is among the highest
and income inequality among the lowest in the world. Labor and product markets are open
and flexible. Institutions and policy frameworks are strong, and the government's debt is very
low. The remarkable management of the country's natural resources has enabled Iceland to
diversify the economy and help ensure sustainability. Against this backdrop, the long-term
economic prospects for the Icelandic economy remain enviable”.
The IMF’s view of the Icelandic economy (from the so-called “Article IV Consultation”
published 4th August 2008).0 -
That's fine. You're aginst coalitions, so you are prepared to accept the chances of LDs being in a government on their own are fairly remote. I do however wonder if you're in the right party, if you don't believe in coalition govt. you appear to be at odds with a long held LD belief. I assume you prefer FPTP ?stodge said:
Oh, please. The Party which esposuses Coalition Government is David Cameron's Conservatives. He made the offer the day after the election which made the Coalition happen - he could have walked away, said no deals, and waited to form a minority.Alanbrooke said:
So the party which espouses coalition government doesn't want to enter in to one ?MarkSenior said:Stodge is calling this pretty much correctly . The chances of a Lab/Lib coalition after the next election are close to zero and the chances of a renewed Con/Lib coalition only a little higher as that would only occur if the Lib Dems suffered no or almost no loss of seats .
As I have posted many times before all parties need a time in opposition to regroup and recover and I expect that will be where the Lib Dems are post 2015 .
WTF ?
Likewise, in 2015, any Coalition will only happen if Ed Miliband wants it to. If he doesn't want to play, there's no pont having a discussion.0 -
On the industrial output figures the ONS said this,
"The statistics office said there was no specific reason for the decline in manufacturing, but noted that output in August tended to be weak and that seasonal adjustment to offset this was complicated by the London Olympics in August last year".
Not sure if that helps the debate.0 -
Would expect electoral reform of some kind to be there. Labour would be hesitant to offer anything which ditches FPTP as it works so well for them, and AV is a somewhat non-starter as it's already been rejected by the public.edmundintokyo said:
One question I don't think we've discussed much is, given another Hung Parliament, what could each side offer the LibDems? I reckon the Tories start out at a disadvantage because:JosiasJessop said:
It does rather depend on the offer, doesn't it? The Lib Dems are under no obligation to accept any old offer. Labour will have to give a little, or perhaps a lot. As MarkSenior says, the Lib Dems will probably be hurting with loss of seats, and any coalition deal would have to be more advantageous from their point of view than the 2010 Conservative deal was.Bobajob said:@Mark Senior
Why? The Libs will surely do a deal with Labour if an offer is put on the table.
1) They've already picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit.
2) They start expecting boundary changes and an EU referendum (*), both of which the LibDems will want compensation for agreeing to.
(*) I know it was in their manifesto, but they don't want one really, and if they did I'm sure they'd rather wait until such time as the Eurozone sorts its shit out.
Oh, and house of lords reform, but that's been there for about 100+ years already.
0 -
You know, the Libs should really welcome an EU referendum. If its won - "Hooray! We won, we told you the Brits wanted to be in Europe all along" - and if the vote is for 'out', then the Libs are no longer saddled with a deeply unpopular policy.edmundintokyo said:
One question I don't think we've discussed much is, given another Hung Parliament, what could each side offer the LibDems? I reckon the Tories start out at a disadvantage because:JosiasJessop said:
It does rather depend on the offer, doesn't it? The Lib Dems are under no obligation to accept any old offer. Labour will have to give a little, or perhaps a lot. As MarkSenior says, the Lib Dems will probably be hurting with loss of seats, and any coalition deal would have to be more advantageous from their point of view than the 2010 Conservative deal was.Bobajob said:@Mark Senior
Why? The Libs will surely do a deal with Labour if an offer is put on the table.
1) They've already picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit.
2) They start expecting boundary changes and an EU referendum (*), both of which the LibDems will want compensation for agreeing to.
(*) I know it was in their manifesto, but they don't want one really, and if they did I'm sure they'd rather wait until such time as the Eurozone sorts its shit out.0 -
Insofar as there is any debate on the figures, I wouldn't say anything other than not to make too much of one set of figures for one month, just as not to make too much of one opinion poll.tessyC said:On the industrial output figures the ONS said this,
"The statistics office said there was no specific reason for the decline in manufacturing, but noted that output in August tended to be weak and that seasonal adjustment to offset this was complicated by the London Olympics in August last year".
Not sure if that helps the debate.0 -
Ed winning the shriilest voice competition.
0 -
"Captain of the Titanic running on safety record" - brilliant line
0 -
If we end up with rather fewer seats in 2015 then we will have lost . If not and Cleggy holds the balance of power then it would be up to Ed M or Dave to offer attractive enough terms to re enter a Coalition . That IMHO is unlikely but it is not saying that the LDs have no intention of going into governmentAlanbrooke said:
Well why should I ? You're from the left of the LDs so see blues as the enemy. But as I have commented here before I have voted yellow and did so at the councils because I think Osborne's a prat. However since you're a southern LD the tories are the natural enemy, if you were oop north things might be different.stodge said:Alanbrooke said:
Well if that is the case, you need to start with finding party members with some ambition. If you're telling me the LDs wish to be a pressure group I'll know not to consider voting for them in 2014 or 2015.stodge said:Back in the real world, my sense within the Party is that there is no desire for a Coalition with Labour or indeed for another with the Conservatives. I think the most likely outcome is that the reduced Liberal Democrat parliamentary Party will retreat to the Opposition benches while the reduced activist base starts working out how to rebuild the base locally.
Both you and Mark appear to think opposition and regrouping is a good thing. political parties regroup because they have LOST, not because they want to do Greta Garbo impersonations. If there a NOM next time as seems likely, Cleggy will once again hold the balance of power.
On your basis he should pass up on the chance to re-enter government. It sort of makes me wonder why you're bothering to field candidates at all. You could have a really good soul search without being encumbered with MPs and decisions or anything which gets in the way of purity of ideas like compromise or the real world. So if you're saying the LDs have no intention of going in to govt. then I still like to undertsand why anyone should bother voting for them.0 -
2nd dig at the BBC from Cameron during PMQs....0
-
Being pro EU may not be a majority position amongst voters as a whole but it is still one with substantial minority support which in fact exceeds that of LD VI in the polls .rcs1000 said:
You know, the Libs should really welcome an EU referendum. If its won - "Hooray! We won, we told you the Brits wanted to be in Europe all along" - and if the vote is for 'out', then the Libs are no longer saddled with a deeply unpopular policy.edmundintokyo said:
One question I don't think we've discussed much is, given another Hung Parliament, what could each side offer the LibDems? I reckon the Tories start out at a disadvantage because:JosiasJessop said:
It does rather depend on the offer, doesn't it? The Lib Dems are under no obligation to accept any old offer. Labour will have to give a little, or perhaps a lot. As MarkSenior says, the Lib Dems will probably be hurting with loss of seats, and any coalition deal would have to be more advantageous from their point of view than the 2010 Conservative deal was.Bobajob said:@Mark Senior
Why? The Libs will surely do a deal with Labour if an offer is put on the table.
1) They've already picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit.
2) They start expecting boundary changes and an EU referendum (*), both of which the LibDems will want compensation for agreeing to.
(*) I know it was in their manifesto, but they don't want one really, and if they did I'm sure they'd rather wait until such time as the Eurozone sorts its shit out.0 -
Ed started well but floundered badly when his record on Climate Change was brought up.
By then end of the bout it was one thumping after another for Chairman Milliband.
0 -
Maybe, but they'd be better off with it done in a way that optimized the chances of winning, which means:rcs1000 said:
You know, the Libs should really welcome an EU referendum. If its won - "Hooray! We won, we told you the Brits wanted to be in Europe all along" - and if the vote is for 'out', then the Libs are no longer saddled with a deeply unpopular policy.edmundintokyo said:
One question I don't think we've discussed much is, given another Hung Parliament, what could each side offer the LibDems? I reckon the Tories start out at a disadvantage because:JosiasJessop said:
It does rather depend on the offer, doesn't it? The Lib Dems are under no obligation to accept any old offer. Labour will have to give a little, or perhaps a lot. As MarkSenior says, the Lib Dems will probably be hurting with loss of seats, and any coalition deal would have to be more advantageous from their point of view than the 2010 Conservative deal was.Bobajob said:@Mark Senior
Why? The Libs will surely do a deal with Labour if an offer is put on the table.
1) They've already picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit.
2) They start expecting boundary changes and an EU referendum (*), both of which the LibDems will want compensation for agreeing to.
(*) I know it was in their manifesto, but they don't want one really, and if they did I'm sure they'd rather wait until such time as the Eurozone sorts its shit out.
1) In a reasonably good economy, because a bad one feeds poujadism.
2) With good EU economies, for obvious reasons.
3) Just a normal referendum without Cameron's whole "renegotiation" thing, which will disappoint moderate Eurosceptics by not doing anything much about the issues they're concerned with while containing just enough right-wingery to demotivate the "in" vote on the centre-left.0 -
@MarkSenior, outside the EU, the LibDems could attract people like Richard Tyndall - who would they lose?0
-
Ed 4 Cameron 6
Win for Cameron, line about the Titanic was amusing.0 -
There is rather more to life and politics than formulating policy based on opinion polls as to what the majority of voters want .rcs1000 said:@MarkSenior, outside the EU, the LibDems could attract people like Richard Tyndall - who would they lose?
0 -
Yes, tim, £4bn in an economy of £1.6 trillion must be the explanation.tim said:OBR on Govt borrowing
"Our forecast for 2013/14 now implies a £4.2bn increase over 2012/13"
Unsecured personal borrowing and extra govt spending/borrowing driving growth?0 -
It would be good for the Conservatives for the same (reversed) reasons too.rcs1000 said:
You know, the Libs should really welcome an EU referendum. If its won - "Hooray! We won, we told you the Brits wanted to be in Europe all along" - and if the vote is for 'out', then the Libs are no longer saddled with a deeply unpopular policy.edmundintokyo said:
One question I don't think we've discussed much is, given another Hung Parliament, what could each side offer the LibDems? I reckon the Tories start out at a disadvantage because:JosiasJessop said:
It does rather depend on the offer, doesn't it? The Lib Dems are under no obligation to accept any old offer. Labour will have to give a little, or perhaps a lot. As MarkSenior says, the Lib Dems will probably be hurting with loss of seats, and any coalition deal would have to be more advantageous from their point of view than the 2010 Conservative deal was.Bobajob said:@Mark Senior
Why? The Libs will surely do a deal with Labour if an offer is put on the table.
1) They've already picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit.
2) They start expecting boundary changes and an EU referendum (*), both of which the LibDems will want compensation for agreeing to.
(*) I know it was in their manifesto, but they don't want one really, and if they did I'm sure they'd rather wait until such time as the Eurozone sorts its shit out.0 -
"Ed Miliband's pollster has dramatically warned that Labour is losing the argument on welfare reform, the Evening Standard can reveal.
Polling expert James Morris told a private meeting that voters in “politically salient target groups” were overwhelmingly likely to support rather than oppose controversial Government benefit changes.
He warned: “The challenge is very severe.” Voters on average backed the reforms being driven through by David Cameron’s Government by about two to one — but among Labour-Conservative swing voters the divide was a huge 64 per cent to nine per cent."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-winning-on-welfare-says-labour-pollster-8868718.html0 -
If you liked the divisions they had about the right degree of "in", you'll love their divisions when it comes to the precise degree of "out"...Pulpstar said:
It would be good for the Conservatives for the same (reversed) reasons too.rcs1000 said:
You know, the Libs should really welcome an EU referendum. If its won - "Hooray! We won, we told you the Brits wanted to be in Europe all along" - and if the vote is for 'out', then the Libs are no longer saddled with a deeply unpopular policy.edmundintokyo said:
One question I don't think we've discussed much is, given another Hung Parliament, what could each side offer the LibDems? I reckon the Tories start out at a disadvantage because:JosiasJessop said:
It does rather depend on the offer, doesn't it? The Lib Dems are under no obligation to accept any old offer. Labour will have to give a little, or perhaps a lot. As MarkSenior says, the Lib Dems will probably be hurting with loss of seats, and any coalition deal would have to be more advantageous from their point of view than the 2010 Conservative deal was.Bobajob said:@Mark Senior
Why? The Libs will surely do a deal with Labour if an offer is put on the table.
1) They've already picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit.
2) They start expecting boundary changes and an EU referendum (*), both of which the LibDems will want compensation for agreeing to.
(*) I know it was in their manifesto, but they don't want one really, and if they did I'm sure they'd rather wait until such time as the Eurozone sorts its shit out.0 -
Hodges on the cull of the Blairites:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100240618/ed-miliband-and-the-strange-case-of-the-vanishing-blairites/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"But then having realised his cull of the Blairites would – not unreasonably – be reported as a cull of the Blairites, Miliband panicked. For some reason known only to himself, he suddenly decided that even though he was indeed culling Blairites he didn’t want anyone to know he was culling Blairites. So his spin doctors were rapidly dispatched to tell everyone that, contrary to appearances, no one had been doing any culling at all."0 -
First Welfare Reform, next Healthcare...CarlottaVance said:"Ed Miliband's pollster has dramatically warned that Labour is losing the argument on welfare reform, the Evening Standard can reveal.
Polling expert James Morris told a private meeting that voters in “politically salient target groups” were overwhelmingly likely to support rather than oppose controversial Government benefit changes.
He warned: “The challenge is very severe.” Voters on average backed the reforms being driven through by David Cameron’s Government by about two to one — but among Labour-Conservative swing voters the divide was a huge 64 per cent to nine per cent."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-winning-on-welfare-says-labour-pollster-8868718.html0 -
Hodges is not doing brilliantly, either.tim said:
He's getting worse, from a very low base.CarlottaVance said:Hodges on the cull of the Blairites:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100240618/ed-miliband-and-the-strange-case-of-the-vanishing-blairites/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"But then having realised his cull of the Blairites would – not unreasonably – be reported as a cull of the Blairites, Miliband panicked. For some reason known only to himself, he suddenly decided that even though he was indeed culling Blairites he didn’t want anyone to know he was culling Blairites. So his spin doctors were rapidly dispatched to tell everyone that, contrary to appearances, no one had been doing any culling at all."0 -
Ed must be praying Davey will block any carbon tax cuts....0
-
Tim, could you link the treasury forecast from 2005Q1 to 2008Q2 just so we have a yardstick to measure against from th previous electoral cycle ?
0 -
Interestingly the PM went on the attack over Labour's carbon targets (quite rightly) adding to bills.
I assume the PM is now going to become 'relaxed' about carbon targets if they mean pain for the working man ? Or do the greenies still rule energy policy.0 -
At least Hodges is entertaining!Ishmael_X said:
Hodges is not doing brilliantly, either.tim said:
He's getting worse, from a very low base.CarlottaVance said:Hodges on the cull of the Blairites:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100240618/ed-miliband-and-the-strange-case-of-the-vanishing-blairites/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"But then having realised his cull of the Blairites would – not unreasonably – be reported as a cull of the Blairites, Miliband panicked. For some reason known only to himself, he suddenly decided that even though he was indeed culling Blairites he didn’t want anyone to know he was culling Blairites. So his spin doctors were rapidly dispatched to tell everyone that, contrary to appearances, no one had been doing any culling at all."
0 -
Ed Balls is making a point of order.
Cameron said all married couples who were basic rate taxpayers would benefit from the tax break for marriage. That is just not true, Balls says. Would Cameron like to correct the record.
Cameron says the transferable tax allowance is available to every basic rate taxpayer.
Actually, Balls is right on that of course.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/09/david-cameron-and-ed-miliband-at-pmqs-politics-live-blog
0 -
Why not all three? They are a gimmick, they're unbelievably damaging, but the Tories can make their own more sensible proposals to help limit energy costs.tim said:Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson
Ed Miliband exposes Tory confusion over whether to attack "Marxist" energy price controls, ape them or simply call them a gimmick0 -
What will labour do when Osborne cuts the green taxes on energy,will the greenest labour front bench match them ?tim said:PMQ's.
Another week of Labours energy price freeze dominating.
0 -
What Cameron should have said was "If you believe that suppliers aren't passing on price falls quickly enough to consumers, then the answer is to support competition rather than to impose a price freeze, which, if anyway, could well encourage suppliers to not pass on falls."
Cameron was definitely not on his best form given he must have expected this.
Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson
Ed Miliband exposes Tory confusion over whether to attack "Marxist" energy price controls, ape them or simply call them a gimmick
Not sure I agree with that though: "Gimmick at best, dangerous Marxist price control at worst" is not an implausible line.0 -
No I don't,but if Osborne does get some cuts to it,I will be reminding you me old matey ;-)tim said:Tykejohnno said:
What will labour do when Osborne cuts the green taxes on energy,will the greenest labour front bench match them ?tim said:PMQ's.
Another week of Labours energy price freeze dominating.
You think they are going to reverse the Climate CHange Act which Cameron and Osborne supported?
Fancy a bet?
0 -
I don't want to defend the price-fixing pander but that sounds like Labour's policy. The caveat is that fixing the allegedly broken competition element can't be done overnight, so they have the price fix as a two-year stop-gap until their amazing competitive reforms come in and magic world gas prices away.Grandiose said:What Cameron should have said was "If you believe that suppliers aren't passing on price falls quickly enough to consumers, then the answer is to support competition rather than to impose a price freeze, which, if anyway, could well encourage suppliers to not pass on falls."
0 -
Hmm. tim's flapping...0
-
The reason why not all three is because of argument dillution which happens when you have a multi-point answer. Cameron needs a much better line than that which came up at PMQs today.RichardNabavi said:
Why not all three? They are a gimmick, they're unbelievably damaging, but the Tories can make their own more sensible proposals to help limit energy costs.tim said:Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson
Ed Miliband exposes Tory confusion over whether to attack "Marxist" energy price controls, ape them or simply call them a gimmick
0 -
That's an interesting question. But I personally feel that the coalition has worked fairly well, and the arguments have not been as deep or personal as they could well have been. Indeed, they've probably been less than they were in the last government.edmundintokyo said:
One question I don't think we've discussed much is, given another Hung Parliament, what could each side offer the LibDems? I reckon the Tories start out at a disadvantage because:JosiasJessop said:
It does rather depend on the offer, doesn't it? The Lib Dems are under no obligation to accept any old offer. Labour will have to give a little, or perhaps a lot. As MarkSenior says, the Lib Dems will probably be hurting with loss of seats, and any coalition deal would have to be more advantageous from their point of view than the 2010 Conservative deal was.Bobajob said:@Mark Senior
Why? The Libs will surely do a deal with Labour if an offer is put on the table.
1) They've already picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit.
2) They start expecting boundary changes and an EU referendum (*), both of which the LibDems will want compensation for agreeing to.
(*) I know it was in their manifesto, but they don't want one really, and if they did I'm sure they'd rather wait until such time as the Eurozone sorts its shit out.
The Lib Dems who will be in the driving seat to do a deal after the next election are those that retain their seat and have been in positions of power in government, unless the Lib Dems are severely hurt at the election. These people will have worked with the Conservative ministers without too much rancour. Doing a deal with Labour will introduce a whole load of extra uncertainty about personalities.
It could be a case of better the devil you know.0 -
One journo agrees with youTykejohnno said:
What will labour do when Osborne cuts the green taxes on energy,will the greenest labour front bench match them ?tim said:PMQ's.
Another week of Labours energy price freeze dominating.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth 41m
This PMQs suggests Cameron is confident that he and Osborne will be able to see off Ed Davey's objections to binning various green taxes
0 -
Retro politics from Labour - price controls.
Have there been any energy company mergers since May 2010? Ed M and Co had the chance to veto them or were they just nodded through? Why not just try and tell the tides to go back.
Green energy policies is toxic - pushes up prices for all, without providing security of supply or stable prices. Though it isn't just Labour's fault.
Am looking forward to Jack Dromey's thoughts on Police Reform - and how he helped the Tories into power for 18 years.
0 -
Osborne must go to war on green taxes to cut bills
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/435168/Osborne-must-go-to-war-on-green-taxes-to-cut-bills0 -
Off topic - electoral roll
If I wanted to see old copies of the electoral roll, from 2004, or 2007, would that be possible?0 -
Why the price freeze element if the scheme is about competition?edmundintokyo said:
I don't want to defend the price-fixing pander but that sounds like Labour's policy. The caveat is that fixing the allegedly broken competition element can't be done overnight, so they have the price fix as a two-year stop-gap until their amazing competitive reforms come in and magic world gas prices away.Grandiose said:What Cameron should have said was "If you believe that suppliers aren't passing on price falls quickly enough to consumers, then the answer is to support competition rather than to impose a price freeze, which, if anyway, could well encourage suppliers to not pass on falls."
And why if you've got a freeze and think a freeze won't have any impact on investment etc. is it only for two years?
0 -
timtim said:
According to the OBR increased govt spending is the only part of the economy that has contributed more to growth since 2010 than it forecast.RichardNabavi said:
Yes, tim, £4bn in an economy of £1.6 trillion must be the explanation.tim said:OBR on Govt borrowing
"Our forecast for 2013/14 now implies a £4.2bn increase over 2012/13"
Unsecured personal borrowing and extra govt spending/borrowing driving growth?
A few facts:
1. The household sector is reducing its debt.
Unsecured personal borrowing has been flat in nominal terms since mid 2010, representing a significant fall in real terms.
The rate of growth in mortgage lending has fallen from around 4% p.a. to being flat (£0.2 bn net repayments per month this year).
Personal deposits have increased at an average of 4% per year since 2010 and are currently running at around £2.7 bn per month.
There have been some indications that consumers may be about to increase borrowing in the past three months but this has not yet worked its way through into the figures.
2. Your OBR claim is a real little twister of deception. In 2010 the OBR forecast strong growth through the first three years of the parliamentary term, entirely missing the impact on growth of the Eurozone debt crisis. In the event the Eurozone went into a double dip recession and growth rates across the world plummeted. Although the UK narrowly avoided going back into recession, its economic activity fell well below the 2010 OBR forecasts and government revenues collapsed. In the circumstances it is hardly surprising, let alone of value, to point out that all sectors of the economy contributed less to forecast growth than the government spending.
You can't fule PB Tories, tim. Why not apply instead for a job at the IMF?
0 -
You can certainly see the attraction as it highlights Ed Milliband's previous form whilst in government which didn't seem to display much of an appetite for reducing energy bills.TGOHF said:
One journo agrees with youTykejohnno said:
What will labour do when Osborne cuts the green taxes on energy,will the greenest labour front bench match them ?tim said:PMQ's.
Another week of Labours energy price freeze dominating.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth 41m
This PMQs suggests Cameron is confident that he and Osborne will be able to see off Ed Davey's objections to binning various green taxes
Personally I think the whole energy bill debate is a bit over done. It's not something people (outside the bubble) seem to be talking about. I also think it will be largely neutralised if wages start to go up. Which I can see starting next year.0 -
Until 2000 anyone could look at the full electoral roll. But then some old fogey took umbrage at people being able to know where he lived and took it to court.anotherDave said:Off topic - electoral roll
If I wanted to see old copies of the electoral roll, from 2004, or 2007, would that be possible?0 -
Because (slipping for a moment into the alternate reality where we talk about pre-election policies as if they're actual real things as opposed to stories made up to impress the few remaining voters too dim to have made their minds up who to vote for yet) after two years Labour's competition policy starts taking effect, so you no longer have excess profits at the expense of the long-suffering hard-working marginal floating voter, and the price fix is no longer necessary.Grandiose said:
Why the price freeze element if the scheme is about competition?edmundintokyo said:
I don't want to defend the price-fixing pander but that sounds like Labour's policy. The caveat is that fixing the allegedly broken competition element can't be done overnight, so they have the price fix as a two-year stop-gap until their amazing competitive reforms come in and magic world gas prices away.
And why if you've got a freeze and think a freeze won't have any impact on investment etc. is it only for two years?0 -
Spam from justinarther01 below?
egg sausage and bacon
Egg and spam
Egg, bacon and spam
Egg, bacon, sausage and spam
Spam, bacon, sausage and spam
Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam
Spam, sausage, spam, spam, spam, bacon, spam tomato and spam
Spam, spam, spam, egg and spam
Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam.0 -
GrandioseGrandiose said:
Why the price freeze element if the scheme is about competition?edmundintokyo said:
I don't want to defend the price-fixing pander but that sounds like Labour's policy. The caveat is that fixing the allegedly broken competition element can't be done overnight, so they have the price fix as a two-year stop-gap until their amazing competitive reforms come in and magic world gas prices away.Grandiose said:What Cameron should have said was "If you believe that suppliers aren't passing on price falls quickly enough to consumers, then the answer is to support competition rather than to impose a price freeze, which, if anyway, could well encourage suppliers to not pass on falls."
And why if you've got a freeze and think a freeze won't have any impact on investment etc. is it only for two years?
Did you catch my post on IMF growth calculations on the previous thread?
The calculation is a straight forward annual growth percentage based on the ONS Real GDP actuals to 2012 and IMF forecasts from 2013 to 2018. You just have to dig into the IMF datasets to get the annual GDP series.
0 -
@Tykejohnno
'What will labour do when Osborne cuts the green taxes on energy,will the greenest labour front bench match them ?'
I'm sure they will start to focus on the economy,benefits cap,unemployment,welfare cuts,immigration,education,an EU referendum or the deterioration in local government services.
No need for them to get boxed in as a single issue pressure group.0 -
From the article below - On Osborne and green taxes -
Yet the Conservatives have a trump card, and one that it seems George Osborne is toying with the idea of playing in his autumn financial statement.
For he has it within his power not just to freeze energy bills but to cut them permanently, not just for 20 months. He can do this by relaxing some of the green levies which this year are adding an average of £112 to household gas and electricity bills, and which by 2020 are projected to add nearly double that to bills.
If the tories can do this,this will turn the debate on energy prices back in they favour and the pressure will then turn back on the greenest labour party to match them.
0 -
I didn't. I shall find it.AveryLP said:
GrandioseGrandiose said:
Why the price freeze element if the scheme is about competition?edmundintokyo said:
I don't want to defend the price-fixing pander but that sounds like Labour's policy. The caveat is that fixing the allegedly broken competition element can't be done overnight, so they have the price fix as a two-year stop-gap until their amazing competitive reforms come in and magic world gas prices away.Grandiose said:What Cameron should have said was "If you believe that suppliers aren't passing on price falls quickly enough to consumers, then the answer is to support competition rather than to impose a price freeze, which, if anyway, could well encourage suppliers to not pass on falls."
And why if you've got a freeze and think a freeze won't have any impact on investment etc. is it only for two years?
Did you catch my post on IMF growth calculations on the previous thread?
The calculation is a straight forward annual growth percentage based on the ONS Real GDP actuals to 2012 and IMF forecasts from 2013 to 2018. You just have to dig into the IMF datasets to get the annual GDP series.
0 -
IF - and I suspect those handwringing LDs will block it - he did this it would be even more popular than welfare reforms.Tykejohnno said:From the article below - On Osborne and green taxes -
Yet the Conservatives have a trump card, and one that it seems George Osborne is toying with the idea of playing in his autumn financial statement.
For he has it within his power not just to freeze energy bills but to cut them permanently, not just for 20 months. He can do this by relaxing some of the green levies which this year are adding an average of £112 to household gas and electricity bills, and which by 2020 are projected to add nearly double that to bills.
If the tories can do this,this will turn the debate on energy prices back in they favour and the pressure will then turn back on the greenest labour party to match them.
But - the LDs will kybosh it for self harm reasons.0 -
Mid Staffs Hospital Trust in Administration...court case on News re 2007 treatment failures.
Is this a cynical political move to deter other cases?0 -
Even the greenest political party(lib dems) except for the greens know the cost of living is hurting and with a 2015 GE,even the lib dems can't be that stupid ?TGOHF said:
IF - and I suspect those handwringing LDs will block it - he did this it would be even more popular than welfare reforms.Tykejohnno said:From the article below - On Osborne and green taxes -
Yet the Conservatives have a trump card, and one that it seems George Osborne is toying with the idea of playing in his autumn financial statement.
For he has it within his power not just to freeze energy bills but to cut them permanently, not just for 20 months. He can do this by relaxing some of the green levies which this year are adding an average of £112 to household gas and electricity bills, and which by 2020 are projected to add nearly double that to bills.
If the tories can do this,this will turn the debate on energy prices back in they favour and the pressure will then turn back on the greenest labour party to match them.
But - the LDs will kybosh it for self harm reasons.
;-)
0 -
I guess we are about to find out..Tykejohnno said:
Even the greenest political party(lib dems) except for the greens know the cost of living is hurting and with a 2015 GE,even the lib dems can't be that stupid ?TGOHF said:
IF - and I suspect those handwringing LDs will block it - he did this it would be even more popular than welfare reforms.Tykejohnno said:From the article below - On Osborne and green taxes -
Yet the Conservatives have a trump card, and one that it seems George Osborne is toying with the idea of playing in his autumn financial statement.
For he has it within his power not just to freeze energy bills but to cut them permanently, not just for 20 months. He can do this by relaxing some of the green levies which this year are adding an average of £112 to household gas and electricity bills, and which by 2020 are projected to add nearly double that to bills.
If the tories can do this,this will turn the debate on energy prices back in they favour and the pressure will then turn back on the greenest labour party to match them.
But - the LDs will kybosh it for self harm reasons.
;-)
0 -
Is it true that Grayling has refused to intervene regarding the Baby P case?
If so, he is an utter failure as a Tory MP.0 -
tim,
Cammo's not one for detail but Labour seizing on the married tax break statement is a little desperate. Did you really think he meant that it was available for someone earning £1,000,000 pa who is a basic rate taxpayer as well as a higher rate taxpayer?
You could spend the rest of your life going after 90% of political statements on that basis.
And I thought I was a pedant.
0 -
=========================
Thanks Avery.
Year NGDP_R Annual
Increase
-------------------------
2009 1461.361 |
2010 1485.616 1.7% | ONS
2011 1502.216 1.1% | Outcomes
2012 1504.777 0.2% |
2013 1526.344 1.4% |
2014 1554.877 1.9% |
2015 1585.637 2.0% | IMF
2016 1617.023 2.0% | Forecasts
2017 1650.266 2.1% |
2018 1688.537 2.3% |
=========================
I'm still a way from understanding what the implied Q3 and Q4 growth rates by the IMF are in ONS terms!
0 -
But do copies of the electoral roll from past years exist? Are they archived by the local council?AndyJS said:
Until 2000 anyone could look at the full electoral roll. But then some old fogey took umbrage at people being able to know where he lived and took it to court.anotherDave said:Off topic - electoral roll
If I wanted to see old copies of the electoral roll, from 2004, or 2007, would that be possible?
0 -
Grauniad verdict on PMQs:
"PMQs Verdict: Well, they weren't talking about David Cameron's party conference speech.......Instead today's PMQs was a mini-seminar on Ed Miliband's energy announcement and, for that reason alone, he probably left the chamber feeling slightly more upbeat than Cameron........
........But Miliband's problem was that he did not engage with Cameron's argument about his record, leaving those of us who are not great experts in renewable obligations and the economics of energy suspecting that Cameron was on to something."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/09/david-cameron-and-ed-miliband-at-pmqs-politics-live-blog
Expect to hear a lot more about Miliband's record......0 -
AEP suggesting that the new Fed lady will link QE to the jobs rate
Sounds familiar..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100025713/rejoice-the-yellen-fed-will-print-money-forever-to-create-jobs/
"So there we have it. The next chairman of the Fed is going to track the labour participation rate"0 -
==============================
Looks too low still.
IMF measure | "Usual" ONS figure
---------------------------------------
2010 1485.616 1.7% | 1.8%
2011 1502.216 1.1% | 1.1%
2012 1504.777 0.2% | -0.2%
2013 1526.344 1.4% | Probably ~ 2.5% if Q4 is OK
2014 1554.877 1.9% |
2015 1585.637 2.0% |
2016 1617.023 2.0% |
2017 1650.266 2.1% |
2018 1688.537 2.3% |
==============================
0 -
0
