Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
The Economist's latest offering from Will Jennings and Christopher Wlezien should be filed under pro-pollster hyper-quantist wishful thinking.
They say "the amount of uncertainty (polls) contain — and thus how secure the leading candidate’s advantage is — is measurable". The problem with that is it isn't true. You can measure how accurate polls have been in the past, but you cannot MEASURE the amount of uncertainty in polls for a future election.
That would be so even if the last 17 days hadn't seen jihadist or jihadist-labelled terrorist attacks in London, St Petersburg, and Stockholm.
There's also the possibility of fighting between the US and Russia. That's even if some have opined that the deconfliction agreement - that Russia has withdrawn from - wasn't really worth anything, and it was only to keep the silly Russians happy, because US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance are so reliable that they can do without it. (So forget everything you know about snafus.)
They have calculated the average error of polls going back to 1965, and they brag that that's 642 polls. That takes us to a time long before Facebook - what a waste of time! But wait, they give us a link to the Wikipedia article on root-mean-square deviation. To gauge how robust their conclusions are going to be, it's sufficient to know that it's an average that treats all the polls the same. More exactly, they've weighted them by the number of respondents; but still, it's naive to assume that data from 1965 is as useful as data from 2017, and it's even more naive to assume that the "error" this time is likely to be similar to what it has been before. I would be much more interested if they'd looked at the RANGE of past errors and if they'd run simulations based on small errors and big errors, perhaps using the inter-quartile range, or better still, quantiles that are even further out. Then we could get an impression of the SENSITIVITY of the result to polling "errors" of sizes conceived proportionally to the range of error sizes in the past.
Hedging, they say "our forecast depends on the absence of what might be called a 'May surprise' — a bombshell revelation that undermines a candidate’s chances just days before the run-off."
(Note to subs: try not to use "bombshell" as a metaphor in the present climate, OK?. And there are three weeks left in April too.)
In fact their methodology rests on assuming a certain probability of a certain size of vote-changing "surprise".
They'd have been much better off looking at polling errors in the past 10 years, giving more weight to polls in the past two years and even more weight to poll swings for the French primaries.
Their conclusion is ludicrous: that if round two is between Macron and Le Pen, then Le Pen's chance of winning will be less than 1%. Which of us wouldn't be happy to back Le Pen against Macron (bet void if those aren't the last two) at 80\1?
The question is how to disentangle ourselves from the situation we're now in. Clearly 'something has to give' as you say but what.
A wholesale correction of 25% would be welcomed by those not on the ladder and long-term owners. If you bought your place for 100k and it goes from 1m to 750k, so what, right? But the people it will screw over the most are first time buyers proabaly in their twenties and thirties who will be pushed into negative equity just a time when they may have a growing family and need to be trading up.
Then you have people whose wealth is all tied up in houses. Knowingly or not the government has vastly incentivised using buy to lets as a pension pot.
A correction of 50% would cause a panic and depress the economy - over-reliant as it is on wealth artificially created through the housing bubble - for the next decade. And a correction of 10% wouldn't make a difference to anyone who really needs it.
My solution would be to use a combination of policies to affect supply and demand over the next few years, keeping house prices roughly stable but in a slow, manageable decline (say 25% over the next 10 years).
- Disincentivise further buy to let purchases via tax, tax should be on purchase / sale rather than rental income to protect investors and prevent a glut of sales
- Build more houses! Obvious, this one. Reduce regulations on building new houses, where they can be built, height of buildings etc, while also increasing regulations on quality of stock, size of rooms etc, to ensure houses are of a high standard and retain their value.
- Reduce demand by controlling immigration. The population rises by 300,000 each year but the housing stock doesn't. We will never get house prices under control until we tackle immigration.
This should be coupled with greater protection for renters, standards and secure tenancies.
One of the surest signs of Conservative votership is home ownership, unless the Tories get this under control in the next decade they could easily be out of power for a generation.
The UK has now had 229 consecutive months of trade deficits:
At some point this will have to stop and the UK will have to live within its means for a while.
In the next decade the UK will likely experience the end of the Osbrowne borrowing binge, the economic effects of Brexit and the increasing effects of computerisation / automation / globalisation.
I don't know if that will lead to the house prices soaring, collapsing or whatever but I suspect it will be increasing difficult for many parts of society to become home owners.
People need to remember that it will be 10 years of tory government by 2020. There will be people desperate for a sensible anti-government vote option simply because that is what happens after 10 years in power. Corbyn will lose to May of course, but the LDs may see large gains regardless of Brexit, simply by presenting themselves as the sane alternative to the tories.
Normally I'd agree. The risk is that if they appear monomaniacal about Brexit they will put some people off (e.g. That guy from Woking who posted the other day that he was a winnable vote for the LibDems who wasn't voting for them in the locals because of this)
So the assessment they have to make is whether anti Brexit (probably smaller but more certain) is a better positioning than "sane opposition" (I'd guess higher potential but more risky)
And, of course, by the general election it'll likely not be "anti Brexit" but pro-Rejoin(+euro+Schengen).
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
On a totally unrelated matter, I couldn't help but be hugely irritated by Labour Education spokesperson Angela Rayner. I had assumed her shocking diction was just a trait that disguised her acute intelllect...however having reviewed her biography it appears not. As the shadow education spokesperson left school at 16 with no qualifications - it could only happen in Corbyn's Labour Party!
I'm optimistic TM will be more in touch on this and will try to address it...
Theresa May has already been in office for over a tenth of David Cameron's entire tenure. When does the time for optimism end and the time for judgement begin?
When will she ever get past platitudes and actually do something.
No legislation passed in the last year.....jollies to California & New York....oh - that's Nicola!
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yep, and he weaselled his way out of it, talking about the morality of the decision - rather than the naked partisanship it was at the time in 2013. tps://youtube.com/watch?v=sxdkBzdEFxc
To be fair to Ed, having watched the whole thing he didn't give a bad account of himself overall - after the Syria questions.
Can't be easy to spend an hour talking about bacon sandwiches, large stones, Jeremy Corbyn and sibling relationships on a sofa with four comedians. He also made a good point about those who voted leave and remain needed to make an effort to understand each other better, using his own constituents in Doncaster as an example.
People need to remember that it will be 10 years of tory government by 2020. There will be people desperate for a sensible anti-government vote option simply because that is what happens after 10 years in power. Corbyn will lose to May of course, but the LDs may see large gains regardless of Brexit, simply by presenting themselves as the sane alternative to the tories.
Normally I'd agree. The risk is that if they appear monomaniacal about Brexit they will put some people off (e.g. That guy from Woking who posted the other day that he was a winnable vote for the LibDems who wasn't voting for them in the locals because of this)
So the assessment they have to make is whether anti Brexit (probably smaller but more certain) is a better positioning than "sane opposition" (I'd guess higher potential but more risky)
And, of course, by the general election it'll likely not be "anti Brexit" but pro-Rejoin(+euro+Schengen).
I'm not sure even the LDs would be that foolish. But they could make a powerful case to end the transitional arrangements with an application to rejoin EFTA and from that permanent mebership of the EEA and the single market.
On a totally unrelated matter, I couldn't help but be hugely irritated by Labour Education spokesperson Angela Rayner. I had assumed her shocking diction was just a trait that disguised her acute intelllect...however having reviewed her biography it appears not. As the shadow education spokesperson left school at 16 with no qualifications - it could only happen in Corbyn's Labour Party!
Leaving school at 16 doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid.
Security of tenure, and rent controls, killed off mainstream private renting from 1965 to 1988, and opened the Market to the most unscrupulous landlords who used brutal methods to get vacant possession.
I'd agree with mass building and controlling immigration. I'd add punitive taxes on people who buy property and neither reside in it or let it out.
A fair point.
There are no easy answers. I was thinking from the perspective of "I'm the Tory prime minister, how do I ensure there are actually enough Tory voters in 15 years' time if renting becomes the new norm for people in their 40s and older?"
We keep on talking about the need for immigration because of an aging population and the fact that people aren't having kids any more, would you be having kids if you rented a flat and moved on from year to year because the landlord wants to turf you out and jack up the rent by 20%? And that had happened to you every year for the last 5 years?
Immigration, birth rate and housing anre all inextricably linked from where I'm seeing it.
Agreed - rent controls don't work, they distort the market and lower supply. But what can we do in the short to medium term while we're lowering overall demand slowly enough to not cause a panic, while building more houses? No easy answers.
I am beginning to think Macron will not make the run-off.
Yes it's possible he may sink in the same way that Ed MIliband did in 2015, by being popular with the types of voters who don't necessarily show up at the polling station.
I'm optimistic TM will be more in touch on this and will try to address it...
Theresa May has already been in office for over a tenth of David Cameron's entire tenure. When does the time for optimism end and the time for judgement begin?
When will she ever get past platitudes and actually do something.
No legislation passed in the last year.....jollies to California & New York....oh - that's Nicola!
I see as usual you have no response to the truth other than juvenile drivel. Go stalk someone else.
My solution would be to use a combination of policies to affect supply and demand over the next few years, keeping house prices roughly stable but in a slow, manageable decline (say 25% over the next 10 years).
- Disincentivise further buy to let purchases via tax, tax should be on purchase / sale rather than rental income to protect investors and prevent a glut of sales
How would you distinguish between purchasers who buy in order to let and those who buy and then there comes a time when they decide to let for a while?
And as you say, demand for renting is likely to grow.
The statistics seem staggering - particularly for older people. As a young person i was fine renting in London for the flexibility... That can't be the case for all those people in their fifties....
Something has to give surely.
...Ed M. was trying to grapple with these issues. Osborne just wanted to inflate housing further. I'm optimistic TM will be more in touch on this and will try to address it... But Brexit will have to be the focus.
The question is how to disentangle ourselves from the situation we're now in. Clearly 'something has to give' as you say but what.
A wholesale correction of 25% would be welcomed by those not on the ladder and long-term owners. If you bought your place for 100k and it goes from 1m to 750k, so what, right? But the people it will screw over the most are first time buyers proabaly in their twenties and thirties who will be pushed into negative equity just a time when they may have a growing family and need to be trading up.
Then you have people whose wealth is all tied up in houses. Knowingly or not the government has vastly incentivised using buy to lets as a pension pot.
A correction of 50% would cause a panic and depress the economy - over-reliant as it is on wealth artificially created through the housing bubble - for the next decade. And a correction of 10% wouldn't make a difference to anyone who really needs it.
My solution would be to use a combination of policies to affect supply and demand over the next few years, keeping house prices roughly stable but in a slow, manageable decline (say 25% over the next 10 years).
- Disincentivise further buy to let purchases via tax, tax should be on purchase / sale rather than rental income to protect investors and prevent a glut of sales
- Build more houses! Obvious, this one. Reduce regulations on building new houses, where they can be built, height of buildings etc, while also increasing regulations on quality of stock, size of rooms etc, to ensure houses are of a high standard and retain their value.
- Reduce demand by controlling immigration. The population rises by 300,000 each year but the housing stock doesn't. We will never get house prices under control until we tackle immigration.
This should be coupled with greater protection for renters, standards and secure tenancies.
One of the surest signs of Conservative votership is home ownership, unless the Tories get this under control in the next decade they could easily be out of power for a generation.
London property is a bubble - tinkering will not fix it - the only solution is the bubble bursting as it did back in 1988/89 - back then prices in my area (Balham) fell by around 40% !!
On a totally unrelated matter, I couldn't help but be hugely irritated by Labour Education spokesperson Angela Rayner. I had assumed her shocking diction was just a trait that disguised her acute intelllect...however having reviewed her biography it appears not. As the shadow education spokesperson left school at 16 with no qualifications - it could only happen in Corbyn's Labour Party!
Leaving school at 16 doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid.
I'm optimistic TM will be more in touch on this and will try to address it...
Theresa May has already been in office for over a tenth of David Cameron's entire tenure. When does the time for optimism end and the time for judgement begin?
When will she ever get past platitudes and actually do something.
No legislation passed in the last year.....jollies to California & New York....oh - that's Nicola!
I see as usual you have no response to the truth other than juvenile drivel. Go stalk someone else.
I'm optimistic TM will be more in touch on this and will try to address it...
Theresa May has already been in office for over a tenth of David Cameron's entire tenure. When does the time for optimism end and the time for judgement begin?
When will she ever get past platitudes and actually do something.
No legislation passed in the last year.....jollies to California & New York....oh - that's Nicola!
I see as usual you have no response to the truth other than juvenile drivel. Go stalk someone else.
On topic, I've done so much fiddling with my Betfair position I'm almost lost. I can easily lay Macron, Fillon, Melenchon and/or Asselineau for a profit - if only I could decide which of them is going to make the final two...!
F1: not fully confirmed but seems Palmer/Grosjean each have a 5 place grid penalty for speeding under yellows.
Not entirely unexpected, harsh but fair given there was a dead car and lots of debris in the middle of the track between the final corner and the finish line. Would have been a red flag if they'd not already shown the chequered.
On a totally unrelated matter, I couldn't help but be hugely irritated by Labour Education spokesperson Angela Rayner. I had assumed her shocking diction was just a trait that disguised her acute intelllect...however having reviewed her biography it appears not. As the shadow education spokesperson left school at 16 with no qualifications - it could only happen in Corbyn's Labour Party!
Leaving school at 16 doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid.
Having no qualifications probably does
For someone who left school at 16 without qualifications, when she was pregnant, and whose mother was illiterate, she has achieved a very great deal and she is obviously not stupid, even if you are sarcastic about her low-caste accent.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
I'm optimistic TM will be more in touch on this and will try to address it...
Theresa May has already been in office for over a tenth of David Cameron's entire tenure. When does the time for optimism end and the time for judgement begin?
When will she ever get past platitudes and actually do something.
No legislation passed in the last year.....jollies to California & New York....oh - that's Nicola!
I see as usual you have no response to the truth other than juvenile drivel. Go stalk someone else.
I am beginning to think Macron will not make the run-off.
Yes it's possible he may sink in the same way that Ed MIliband did in 2015, by being popular with the types of voters who don't necessarily show up at the polling station.
On a totally unrelated matter, I couldn't help but be hugely irritated by Labour Education spokesperson Angela Rayner. I had assumed her shocking diction was just a trait that disguised her acute intelllect...however having reviewed her biography it appears not. As the shadow education spokesperson left school at 16 with no qualifications - it could only happen in Corbyn's Labour Party!
Leaving school at 16 doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid.
Having no qualifications probably does
For someone who left school at 16 without qualifications, when she was pregnant, and whose mother was illiterate, she has achieved a very great deal and she is obviously not stupid, even if you are sarcastic about her low-caste accent.
On a totally unrelated matter, I couldn't help but be hugely irritated by Labour Education spokesperson Angela Rayner. I had assumed her shocking diction was just a trait that disguised her acute intelllect...however having reviewed her biography it appears not. As the shadow education spokesperson left school at 16 with no qualifications - it could only happen in Corbyn's Labour Party!
Leaving school at 16 doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid.
Having no qualifications probably does
For someone who left school at 16 without qualifications, when she was pregnant, and whose mother was illiterate, she has achieved a very great deal and she is obviously not stupid, even if you are sarcastic about her low-caste accent.
I did not realise she had been a tarty trollop!
Perhaps Angela Rayner would be better suited for the role of Shadow minister for voter engagement and youth affairs, rather than Labour Education spokesperson which she is not.
Does anyone have a list of constituencies / boroughs which have the highest number of private renters and the highest increase in private renter over the last decade or two.
It might be interesting to see what the concurrent electoral changes were.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
I'm reading Mélenchon's manifesto, "The Future Together" ("L'Avenir En Commun"). Like Le Pen and Dupont-Aignan, he wants to enable "referendums by popular initiative". (They propose a threshold of 500,000 supporters; he doesn't give a figure.) All of them also want to make revisions of the constitution dependent on referendums.
From the point of view of the Kremlin, Trump Tower, and Facebook, that would be one of the most important political changes.
Like Macron, Mélenchon wants to bring back conscription - not only military, but including a military component for all conscripts except conscientious objectors.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
Mr. Sandpit, working my way through the pre-race article now.
Indeed. Verstappen's only 4.5 for a podium. I think that's rubbish. Probably won't back this either, but 34 each way for the win looks better value.
Max is a fiesty young driver, great in the rain. But he still starts 17th, with a question mark about his car and all the quicker drivers and cars in front of him. 4.5 is a clear lay for a podium place.
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Most people may be "sick to death of Brexit" but the trouble is it's happening and it affects people's jobs, savings, prices and plenty of other things. It also cannot happen quickly, I'm afraid the option of 'moving on' isn't there.
As I note in my forthcoming ramble (still waiting for a few markets to wake up), his massive advantage at Interlagos last year was in incredibly wet conditions. I'm not sure that'll occur tomorrow.
My solution would be to use a combination of policies to affect supply and demand over the next few years, keeping house prices roughly stable but in a slow, manageable decline (say 25% over the next 10 years).
- Disincentivise further buy to let purchases via tax, tax should be on purchase / sale rather than rental income to protect investors and prevent a glut of sales
How would you distinguish between purchasers who buy in order to let and those who buy and then there comes a time when they decide to let for a while?
And as you say, demand for renting is likely to grow.
The simplest way would be the way it's being done now, a tax on second homes.If it's your only home you're exempt / pay the lower rate of stamp duty. Prevent 'flipping' by demonstrating you've been on the electoral register there during occupancy (e.g. for at least 5 years).
Demand for renting will grow but purchase and rental price need not if we reduce planning restrictions on where we can build and how high we can build. I'd rather a city centre full of affordable skyscrapers than a picturesque and unaffordable 21st century with panoramic views of how cities used to be 200 years ago.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
He seems to be in full blown don't mention the IndyRef2 mode !!
what are these great ideas then Calum, hard to find them anywhere in the media, I stand ready to be amazed that Mundell could come up with anything about anything.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
The question is how to disentangle ourselves from the situation we're now in. Clearly 'something has to give' as you say but what.
Then you have people whose wealth is all tied up in houses. Knowingly or not the government has vastly incentivised using buy to lets as a pension pot.
A correction of 50% would cause a panic and depress the economy - over-reliant as it is on wealth artificially created through the housing bubble - for the next decade. And a correction of 10% wouldn't make a difference to anyone who really needs it.
My solution would be to use a combination of policies to affect supply and demand over the next few years, keeping house prices roughly stable but in a slow, manageable decline (say 25% over the next 10 years).
- Disincentivise further buy to let purchases via tax, tax should be on purchase / sale rather than rental income to protect investors and prevent a glut of sales
- Build more houses! Obvious, this one. Reduce regulations on building new houses, where they can be built, height of buildings etc, while also increasing regulations on quality of stock, size of rooms etc, to ensure houses are of a high standard and retain their value.
- Reduce demand by controlling immigration. The population rises by 300,000 each year but the housing stock doesn't. We will never get house prices under control until we tackle immigration.
This should be coupled with greater protection for renters, standards and secure tenancies.
One of the surest signs of Conservative votership is home ownership, unless the Tories get this under control in the next decade they could easily be out of power for a generation.
The UK has now had 229 consecutive months of trade deficits:
At some point this will have to stop and the UK will have to live within its means for a while.
In the next decade the UK will likely experience the end of the Osbrowne borrowing binge, the economic effects of Brexit and the increasing effects of computerisation / automation / globalisation.
I don't know if that will lead to the house prices soaring, collapsing or whatever but I suspect it will be increasing difficult for many parts of society to become home owners.
The UK has a permanent get-out clause. Another devaluation ! That is what we are good at.
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
On a totally unrelated matter, I couldn't help but be hugely irritated by Labour Education spokesperson Angela Rayner. I had assumed her shocking diction was just a trait that disguised her acute intelllect...however having reviewed her biography it appears not. As the shadow education spokesperson left school at 16 with no qualifications - it could only happen in Corbyn's Labour Party!
Leaving school at 16 doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid.
Having no qualifications probably does
For someone who left school at 16 without qualifications, when she was pregnant, and whose mother was illiterate, she has achieved a very great deal and she is obviously not stupid, even if you are sarcastic about her low-caste accent.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
I am beginning to think Macron will not make the run-off.
Yes it's possible he may sink in the same way that Ed MIliband did in 2015, by being popular with the types of voters who don't necessarily show up at the polling station.
Would be sort of funny if it ended up being Le Pen and Fillion after all.
Does anyone have a list of constituencies / boroughs which have the highest number of private renters and the highest increase in private renter over the last decade or two.
It might be interesting to see what the concurrent electoral changes were.
Just a guess, but i'd be suprised if inner London didn't top that list, with Labour making big gains because of it.
I am beginning to think Macron will not make the run-off.
Yes it's possible he may sink in the same way that Ed MIliband did in 2015, by being popular with the types of voters who don't necessarily show up at the polling station.
Would be sort of funny if it ended up being Le Pen and Fillion after all.
You've got to wonder what kind of ground game his new 'movement' will have. Presumably the FN and Les Republicains will have experienced activists and years of canvassing data.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
Is oil counted in the above ? If so, that would explain it.
Who knows, it was just to ridicule the pathetic daily dirge from Lady Haw Haw. The right hand side of the graph has her salivating and slavering about Scotland having issues, despite the fact that it is her heroes who run the economy. PS: Previously had been stated that oil price drop had minimal impact on GDP, under 1% I believe but not sure if that opinion was ever changed.
I am beginning to think Macron will not make the run-off.
Yes it's possible he may sink in the same way that Ed MIliband did in 2015, by being popular with the types of voters who don't necessarily show up at the polling station.
Would be sort of funny if it ended up being Le Pen and Fillion after all.
And Le Pen is scoring 45-47% against Fillion in the latest head-to-head polls.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
He seems to be in full blown don't mention the IndyRef2 mode !!
Do you think talk of IndyRef2 is increasing business confidence and willingness to invest?
We already know it's got bond holders inserting clauses in loans for full repayment in the event of Indy.
I think most businesses are focused on getting through BREXIT rather than IndyRef2 ! - As we saw last week folks like Mariott still see Scotland as worth investing in.
Hadn't heard about such bond clauses - that is worrying.
Just had a look at Thursday's by-election results. Outstanding Lib Dem performance. There is something bubbling. Moderate Labour voters must be drifting en masse.
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Most people may be "sick to death of Brexit" but the trouble is it's happening and it affects people's jobs, savings, prices and plenty of other things. It also cannot happen quickly, I'm afraid the option of 'moving on' isn't there.
My point is that - contrary to what political anoraks and the commentariat keep saying - it will not be a key determinant of how people vote in a General Election!
The UK has a permanent get-out clause. Another devaluation ! That is what we are good at.
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
2015 France GDP per capita by PPP: $37,489.78 2015 UK GDP per capita by PPP: $38,865.59 2015 Germany GDP per capita by PPP: $44,187.86
The UK produces more per capita by PPP than France. Less per capita by PPP than Germany but by no means 20% or 25% less.
Of course the fact that France has an unemployment rate of 10.5% while the UK has an unemployment rate of 5.4% makes a big difference. If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Most people may be "sick to death of Brexit" but the trouble is it's happening and it affects people's jobs, savings, prices and plenty of other things. It also cannot happen quickly, I'm afraid the option of 'moving on' isn't there.
Thanks for pointing that out to Justin. His post was just about the most obtuse response I've ever had on PB.
Does anyone have a list of constituencies / boroughs which have the highest number of private renters and the highest increase in private renter over the last decade or two.
It might be interesting to see what the concurrent electoral changes were.
Just a guess, but i'd be suprised if inner London didn't top that list, with Labour making big gains because of it.
Ilford North was a relatively surprising Labour gain in 2015. IIRC the odds on offer were 4.5. Any connection to more rented accommodation?
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Most people may be "sick to death of Brexit" but the trouble is it's happening and it affects people's jobs, savings, prices and plenty of other things. It also cannot happen quickly, I'm afraid the option of 'moving on' isn't there.
My point is that - contrary to what political anoraks and the commentariat keep saying - it will not be a key determinant of how people vote in a General Election!
You've been lulled into a false sense of ennui by the lack of impact on the real world since the vote. Brexit and its consequences will become more salient over time, not less, and people's opinions will be more affected by their experience of it than by what they thought on June 23rd last year.
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Most people may be "sick to death of Brexit" but the trouble is it's happening and it affects people's jobs, savings, prices and plenty of other things. It also cannot happen quickly, I'm afraid the option of 'moving on' isn't there.
Thanks for pointing that out to Justin. His post was just about the most obtuse response I've ever had on PB.
I did not require it to be pointed out - for the simple reason that I am well aware of that reality. That does not alter the fact that its psephological impact will be pretty minor.
I remember it being run while the football games were being played.
Yes, used to be 3:40 didn't it? Probably the same reason they played the FA cup final at five-something for the past few years - to maximise the TV audience.
The plan to turn Nine Elms in Battersea - once one of London's most deprived areas (and with a very interesting political history) - into a "mini-Manhattan" or "Dubai on Thames" takes the breath away!
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Most people may be "sick to death of Brexit" but the trouble is it's happening and it affects people's jobs, savings, prices and plenty of other things. It also cannot happen quickly, I'm afraid the option of 'moving on' isn't there.
My point is that - contrary to what political anoraks and the commentariat keep saying - it will not be a key determinant of how people vote in a General Election!
For what it is worth, I agree with you. The only place where I hear Brexit discussed now is on here, it has long since ceased to be a topic of conversation anywhere else I go. My thought is that the people have had their say and now expect HMG to get on with it. By 2020 we will know what the future deal will look like and will probably be out of the EU. The average punter will have other matters to think about when it comes to voting.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
It was certainly a timely distraction from his domestic problems. Always amazing how these things just happen to pop up when western politicians are in trouble.
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
He seems to be in full blown don't mention the IndyRef2 mode !!
Do you think talk of IndyRef2 is increasing business confidence and willingness to invest?
We already know it's got bond holders inserting clauses in loans for full repayment in the event of Indy.
I think most businesses are focused on getting through BREXIT rather than IndyRef2 ! - As we saw last week folks like Mariott still see Scotland as worth investing in.
Hadn't heard about such bond clauses - that is worrying.
Calum, usual scaremongering by Lady Haw Haw , it was on one Aberdeen bond , a 37 year one , and is obviously just a precautionary measure to safeguard their investment in case there was a bad split with UK. Very sensible precaution given there is no clue how Brexit and then any independence could impact long term. No sense that it would be used, and in fact if as is liekly we end up in a much better position on EU than UK then it would be seen to have been superfluous. Usual unionist Fear tactics.
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Most people may be "sick to death of Brexit" but the trouble is it's happening and it affects people's jobs, savings, prices and plenty of other things. It also cannot happen quickly, I'm afraid the option of 'moving on' isn't there.
Thanks for pointing that out to Justin. His post was just about the most obtuse response I've ever had on PB.
I did not require it to be pointed out - for the simple reason that I am well aware of that reality. That does not alter the fact that its psephological impact will be pretty minor.
The point (which you can continue to ignore if you wish) is that Brexit will have economic consequences. At the moment what they will be is largely speculative. By 2020, after the two years of negotiations have been completed, they will be clearer. Whether the negotiations have gone well or badly for the UK will have electoral implications.
The plan to turn Nine Elms in Battersea - once one of London's most deprived areas (and with a very interesting political history) - into a "mini-Manhattan" or "Dubai on Thames" takes the breath away!
Weren't the Septics going to build their new Embassy there? Or has that all fallen through?
Just had a look at Thursday's by-election results. Outstanding Lib Dem performance. There is something bubbling. Moderate Labour voters must be drifting en masse.
I that is OTT - only one of the four wards contested this week saw a dramatic rise for the LibDems and that was the seat gained from UKIP in Aylesbury. Even there the LibDems had managed to top the poll in that two member ward in the disastrous year of 2015.
The plan to turn Nine Elms in Battersea - once one of London's most deprived areas (and with a very interesting political history) - into a "mini-Manhattan" or "Dubai on Thames" takes the breath away!
They're turning Battersea into a tax haven free zone?
Interesting to see the Guardian start to realise that immigration is partially responsible for the London property boom though.
The plan to turn Nine Elms in Battersea - once one of London's most deprived areas (and with a very interesting political history) - into a "mini-Manhattan" or "Dubai on Thames" takes the breath away!
Weren't the [deleted] going to build their new Embassy there? Or has that all fallen through?
The new US embassy is currently under construction there, as is an extension of the Northern Line.
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Most people may be "sick to death of Brexit" but the trouble is it's happening and it affects people's jobs, savings, prices and plenty of other things. It also cannot happen quickly, I'm afraid the option of 'moving on' isn't there.
Thanks for pointing that out to Justin. His post was just about the most obtuse response I've ever had on PB.
I did not require it to be pointed out - for the simple reason that I am well aware of that reality. That does not alter the fact that its psephological impact will be pretty minor.
The point (which you can continue to ignore if you wish) is that Brexit will have economic consequences. At the moment what they will be is largely speculative. By 2020, after the two years of negotiations have been completed, they will be clearer. Whether the negotiations have gone well or badly for the UK will have electoral implications.
I am disputing that there will be economic consequences - and indirectly effects on the NHS and Education.. My point is that people will end up voting on 'the state of the economy', 'the NHS' and 'Education' - rather than 'Brexit ' per se. You simply reflect the mindset of political anoraks and the commentariat. The electorate at large will wish to focuss on other issues - partly because Brexit is seen as a highly technical subject.
The plan to turn Nine Elms in Battersea - once one of London's most deprived areas (and with a very interesting political history) - into a "mini-Manhattan" or "Dubai on Thames" takes the breath away!
Weren't the Septics going to build their new Embassy there? Or has that all fallen through?
It's going ahead. They've topped it out. Not sure when it will be finished and they will move into it.
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
He seems to be in full blown don't mention the IndyRef2 mode !!
We already know it's got bond holders inserting clauses in loans for full repayment in the event of Indy.
I think most businesses are focused on getting through BREXIT rather than IndyRef2 ! - As we saw last week folks like Mariott still see Scotland as worth investing in.
Hadn't heard about such bond clauses - that is worrying.
Calum, usual scaremongering by Lady Haw Haw , it was on one Aberdeen bond , a 37 year one , and is obviously just a precautionary measure to safeguard their investment in case there was a bad split with UK. Very sensible precaution given there is no clue how Brexit and then any independence could impact long term. No sense that it would be used, and in fact if as is liekly we end up in a much better position on EU than UK then it would be seen to have been superfluous. Usual unionist Fear tactics.
Calum, re previous, the clause is an option only clause. There is absolutely no repayment on independence whatsoever, merely an option to redeem if independence impacted the terms etc. Usual twisting of facts by Carlotta.
I remember it being run while the football games were being played.
Yes, used to be 3:40 didn't it? Probably the same reason they played the FA cup final at five-something for the past few years - to maximise the TV audience.
Bring back the traditional event times I say.
Yes and then moved to 4:20 I believe and now 5:15, crazy.
I am disputing that there will be economic consequences - and indirectly effects on the NHS and Education.. My point is that people will end up voting on 'the state of the economy', 'the NHS' and 'Education' - rather than 'Brexit ' per se. You simply reflect the mindset of political anoraks and the commentariat. The electorate at large will wish to focuss on other issues - partly because Brexit is seen as a highly technical subject.
The ERM was a highly technical subject until people saw an ashen-faced Norman Lamont's badger in the headlights act and then it suddenly became personal.
Brexit will be the same. We don't yet know every detail of how or when, but there will be moments that crystallise the impact in voters' minds and they will not forget when the next election comes.
Does anyone have a list of constituencies / boroughs which have the highest number of private renters and the highest increase in private renter over the last decade or two.
It might be interesting to see what the concurrent electoral changes were.
Just a guess, but i'd be suprised if inner London didn't top that list, with Labour making big gains because of it.
Ilford North was a relatively surprising Labour gain in 2015. IIRC the odds on offer were 4.5. Any connection to more rented accommodation?
Ilford North was 77% owner occupier and 7% privately rented in 2001:
Will the Ed Stone go down as the worst political stunt of the 21st century?
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
Yes and Ed M said he would have made the same decision though he understood what a difficult choice Trump had to make
Interesting, thanks. I actually don't think it was a difficult choice for Trump. The really difficult choice is what to do if there is another chemical attack.
I just hope that the Russians and Americans don't use this as an excuse to try out different weapons systems
Nicola in California.....Nicola in New York...
At least with Nicola so distracted it was heartening to see some great ideas from David Mundell about how the UK Government were going to combat Scotland's slumping economy:
He seems to be in full blown don't mention the IndyRef2 mode !!
We already know it's got bond holders inserting clauses in loans for full repayment in the event of Indy.
I think most businesses are focused on getting through BREXIT rather than IndyRef2 ! - As we saw last week folks like Mariott still see Scotland as worth investing in.
Hadn't heard about such bond clauses - that is worrying.
Calum, usual scaremongering by Lady Haw Haw , it was on one Aberdeen bond , a 37 year one , and is obviously just a precautionary measure to safeguard their investment in case there was a bad split with UK. Very sensible precaution given there is no clue how Brexit and then any independence could impact long term. No sense that it would be used, and in fact if as is liekly we end up in a much better position on EU than UK then it would be seen to have been superfluous. Usual unionist Fear tactics.
Calum, re previous, the clause is an option only clause. There is absolutely no repayment on independence whatsoever, merely an option to redeem if independence impacted the terms etc. Usual twisting of facts by Carlotta.
Thanks for this. I wonder if there are any bonds with Brexit clauses !!
The UK has a permanent get-out clause. Another devaluation ! That is what we are good at.
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
2015 France GDP per capita by PPP: $37,489.78 2015 UK GDP per capita by PPP: $38,865.59 2015 Germany GDP per capita by PPP: $44,187.86
The UK produces more per capita by PPP than France. Less per capita by PPP than Germany but by no means 20% or 25% less.
Of course the fact that France has an unemployment rate of 10.5% while the UK has an unemployment rate of 5.4% makes a big difference. If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?
" If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?"
Are you telling us that our business are employing more people than they need to ? What kind of businesses are these ?
The plan to turn Nine Elms in Battersea - once one of London's most deprived areas (and with a very interesting political history) - into a "mini-Manhattan" or "Dubai on Thames" takes the breath away!
Weren't the Septics going to build their new Embassy there? Or has that all fallen through?
It's going ahead. They've topped it out. Not sure when it will be finished and they will move into it.
Thanks for that and thanks to ThreeQuidder for the information on the Northern line extension.
I don't get up to Town much these days and miss out on these things, though once that area was my home turf (well twice really as I had a job in Vauxhall for a few years in the 1990s).
If they are going to redevelop Nine Elms, I wonder what they are going to do with the Covent Garden market.
The UK has a permanent get-out clause. Another devaluation ! That is what we are good at.
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
2015 France GDP per capita by PPP: $37,489.78 2015 UK GDP per capita by PPP: $38,865.59 2015 Germany GDP per capita by PPP: $44,187.86
The UK produces more per capita by PPP than France. Less per capita by PPP than Germany but by no means 20% or 25% less.
Of course the fact that France has an unemployment rate of 10.5% while the UK has an unemployment rate of 5.4% makes a big difference. If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?
" If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?"
Are you telling us that our business are employing more people than they need to ? What kind of businesses are these ?
The businesses that employ people on zero hours contracts perhaps.
I am disputing that there will be economic consequences - and indirectly effects on the NHS and Education.. My point is that people will end up voting on 'the state of the economy', 'the NHS' and 'Education' - rather than 'Brexit ' per se. You simply reflect the mindset of political anoraks and the commentariat. The electorate at large will wish to focuss on other issues - partly because Brexit is seen as a highly technical subject.
The ERM was a highly technical subject until people saw an ashen-faced Norman Lamont's badger in the headlights act and then it suddenly became personal.
Brexit will be the same. We don't yet know every detail of how or when, but there will be moments that crystallise the impact in voters' minds and they will not forget when the next election comes.
I am disputing that there will be economic consequences - and indirectly effects on the NHS and Education.. My point is that people will end up voting on 'the state of the economy', 'the NHS' and 'Education' - rather than 'Brexit ' per se. You simply reflect the mindset of political anoraks and the commentariat. The electorate at large will wish to focuss on other issues - partly because Brexit is seen as a highly technical subject.
The ERM was a highly technical subject until people saw an ashen-faced Norman Lamont's badger in the headlights act and then it suddenly became personal.
Brexit will be the same. We don't yet know every detail of how or when, but there will be moments that crystallise the impact in voters' minds and they will not forget when the next election comes.
ERM was trying to push people in the UK closer to the EU without their permission.
I am disputing that there will be economic consequences - and indirectly effects on the NHS and Education.. My point is that people will end up voting on 'the state of the economy', 'the NHS' and 'Education' - rather than 'Brexit ' per se. You simply reflect the mindset of political anoraks and the commentariat. The electorate at large will wish to focuss on other issues - partly because Brexit is seen as a highly technical subject.
The ERM was a highly technical subject until people saw an ashen-faced Norman Lamont's badger in the headlights act and then it suddenly became personal.
Brexit will be the same. We don't yet know every detail of how or when, but there will be moments that crystallise the impact in voters' minds and they will not forget when the next election comes.
I thought it was never going to happen?
I use 'Brexit' as shorthand for 'the attempted Brexit'.
You wonder though , after May elections debacle, when they swap Kezia for Anas Sarwar if they will be making progress or just going even further backwards and becoming even more Torylite. He makes previous Scottish Labour leaders look like Titans.
Had a tricky time picking what to back. In the end, decided Hulkenberg to be top 6 and several cars not to be classified (one stake sliced up) made the most sense.
Seems the forecast is for heavy rain at the start. The last thing we need is 20 laps of trundling around then pitting immediately for intermediates. Hope the race director lets them actually race.
The UK has a permanent get-out clause. Another devaluation ! That is what we are good at.
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
2015 France GDP per capita by PPP: $37,489.78 2015 UK GDP per capita by PPP: $38,865.59 2015 Germany GDP per capita by PPP: $44,187.86
The UK produces more per capita by PPP than France. Less per capita by PPP than Germany but by no means 20% or 25% less.
Of course the fact that France has an unemployment rate of 10.5% while the UK has an unemployment rate of 5.4% makes a big difference. If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?
" If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?"
Are you telling us that our business are employing more people than they need to ? What kind of businesses are these ?
Denmark in 2015: $US 46,000. An ultra-liberal labour market, possibly more than the UK with very low social costs for employers. But a welfare state that you can rely on.
" If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?"
Are you telling us that our business are employing more people than they need to ? What kind of businesses are these ?
Does anyone have a list of constituencies / boroughs which have the highest number of private renters and the highest increase in private renter over the last decade or two.
It might be interesting to see what the concurrent electoral changes were.
Just a guess, but i'd be suprised if inner London didn't top that list, with Labour making big gains because of it.
Ilford North was a relatively surprising Labour gain in 2015. IIRC the odds on offer were 4.5. Any connection to more rented accommodation?
Ilford North was 77% owner occupier and 7% privately rented in 2001:
Ilford North is undergoing dramatic change in both ethnic mix and housing tenure, both of which contributed to Labour's narrow win in 2015. Both are continuing, although Labour support in London is showing the first signs of succumbing to its national drop in the polls, from which the capital has been relatively insulated.
Assuming the boundary changes go through, the map of local constituencies is likely to be considerably different in 2020 in any event.
I am disputing that there will be economic consequences - and indirectly effects on the NHS and Education.. My point is that people will end up voting on 'the state of the economy', 'the NHS' and 'Education' - rather than 'Brexit ' per se. You simply reflect the mindset of political anoraks and the commentariat. The electorate at large will wish to focuss on other issues - partly because Brexit is seen as a highly technical subject.
The ERM was a highly technical subject until people saw an ashen-faced Norman Lamont's badger in the headlights act and then it suddenly became personal.
Brexit will be the same. We don't yet know every detail of how or when, but there will be moments that crystallise the impact in voters' minds and they will not forget when the next election comes.
ERM was trying to push people in the UK closer to the EU without their permission.
So almost the opposite of Brexit.
The ERM was a macroeconomic policy that ultimately came a cropper because we couldn't keep pace with Germany. Brexit is a macropolitical policy that will fail for the same reason.
Global Britain will increasingly become a joke as the EU forges ahead in the world and we can only bob along in their wake saying, "Can we have that trade deal too after we leave?"
On topic - so if Macron wins, no radical agenda to change France...
2020 is all going to be about Brexit. If it's looking good, the Tories will win by a landslide that could even surpass Blair's in 1997. However, if it's not, the LDs will be pretty much the only party in England able to take advantage (even if Labour have ejected Corbyn by then, their disarray is now too far gone for recovery by 2020).
I could not disagree more. Most people are already sick to death of Brexit and have moved on.Political anoraks on here and the commentariat have failed to do that, but I have little doubt that they are stuck in their own bubble. That is not to deny that Brexit is a highly important issue - but is not a very salient issue for the mast majority of voters regardless of how they voted in last year's Referendum. It will not shift many votes one way or the other.I am confident that this would be true of a General Election held in mid-2017 - never mind May 2020.
Most people may be "sick to death of Brexit" but the trouble is it's happening and it affects people's jobs, savings, prices and plenty of other things. It also cannot happen quickly, I'm afraid the option of 'moving on' isn't there.
Thanks for pointing that out to Justin. His post was just about the most obtuse response I've ever had on PB.
I did not require it to be pointed out - for the simple reason that I am well aware of that reality. That does not alter the fact that its psephological impact will be pretty minor.
The point (which you can continue to ignore if you wish) is that Brexit will have economic consequences. At the moment what they will be is largely speculative. By 2020, after the two years of negotiations have been completed, they will be clearer. Whether the negotiations have gone well or badly for the UK will have electoral implications.
I am disputing that there will be economic consequences - and indirectly effects on the NHS and Education.. My point is that people will end up voting on 'the state of the economy', 'the NHS' and 'Education' - rather than 'Brexit ' per se. You simply reflect the mindset of political anoraks and the commentariat. The electorate at large will wish to focuss on other issues - partly because Brexit is seen as a highly technical subject.
Correction - I meant to say 'I am not disputing that there will be economic consequences'.
Comments
They say "the amount of uncertainty (polls) contain — and thus how secure the leading candidate’s advantage is — is measurable". The problem with that is it isn't true. You can measure how accurate polls have been in the past, but you cannot MEASURE the amount of uncertainty in polls for a future election.
That would be so even if the last 17 days hadn't seen jihadist or jihadist-labelled terrorist attacks in London, St Petersburg, and Stockholm.
There's also the possibility of fighting between the US and Russia. That's even if some have opined that the deconfliction agreement - that Russia has withdrawn from - wasn't really worth anything, and it was only to keep the silly Russians happy, because US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance are so reliable that they can do without it. (So forget everything you know about snafus.)
They have calculated the average error of polls going back to 1965, and they brag that that's 642 polls. That takes us to a time long before Facebook - what a waste of time! But wait, they give us a link to the Wikipedia article on root-mean-square deviation. To gauge how robust their conclusions are going to be, it's sufficient to know that it's an average that treats all the polls the same. More exactly, they've weighted them by the number of respondents; but still, it's naive to assume that data from 1965 is as useful as data from 2017, and it's even more naive to assume that the "error" this time is likely to be similar to what it has been before. I would be much more interested if they'd looked at the RANGE of past errors and if they'd run simulations based on small errors and big errors, perhaps using the inter-quartile range, or better still, quantiles that are even further out. Then we could get an impression of the SENSITIVITY of the result to polling "errors" of sizes conceived proportionally to the range of error sizes in the past.
Hedging, they say "our forecast depends on the absence of what might be called a 'May surprise' — a bombshell revelation that undermines a candidate’s chances just days before the run-off."
(Note to subs: try not to use "bombshell" as a metaphor in the present climate, OK?. And there are three weeks left in April too.)
In fact their methodology rests on assuming a certain probability of a certain size of vote-changing "surprise".
They'd have been much better off looking at polling errors in the past 10 years, giving more weight to polls in the past two years and even more weight to poll swings for the French primaries.
Their conclusion is ludicrous: that if round two is between Macron and Le Pen, then Le Pen's chance of winning will be less than 1%. Which of us wouldn't be happy to back Le Pen against Macron (bet void if those aren't the last two) at 80\1?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/ikbj/mret
And on the wider finances 77 consecutive quarters of current account deficits:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp
At some point this will have to stop and the UK will have to live within its means for a while.
In the next decade the UK will likely experience the end of the Osbrowne borrowing binge, the economic effects of Brexit and the increasing effects of computerisation / automation / globalisation.
I don't know if that will lead to the house prices soaring, collapsing or whatever but I suspect it will be increasing difficult for many parts of society to become home owners.
Can't be easy to spend an hour talking about bacon sandwiches, large stones, Jeremy Corbyn and sibling relationships on a sofa with four comedians. He also made a good point about those who voted leave and remain needed to make an effort to understand each other better, using his own constituents in Doncaster as an example.
There are no easy answers. I was thinking from the perspective of "I'm the Tory prime minister, how do I ensure there are actually enough Tory voters in 15 years' time if renting becomes the new norm for people in their 40s and older?"
We keep on talking about the need for immigration because of an aging population and the fact that people aren't having kids any more, would you be having kids if you rented a flat and moved on from year to year because the landlord wants to turf you out and jack up the rent by 20%? And that had happened to you every year for the last 5 years?
Immigration, birth rate and housing anre all inextricably linked from where I'm seeing it.
Agreed - rent controls don't work, they distort the market and lower supply. But what can we do in the short to medium term while we're lowering overall demand slowly enough to not cause a panic, while building more houses? No easy answers.
And as you say, demand for renting is likely to grow.
https://twitter.com/DavidMundellDCT
He seems to be in full blown don't mention the IndyRef2 mode !!
Indeed. Verstappen's only 4.5 for a podium. I think that's rubbish. Probably won't back this either, but 34 each way for the win looks better value.
Does anyone have a list of constituencies / boroughs which have the highest number of private renters and the highest increase in private renter over the last decade or two.
It might be interesting to see what the concurrent electoral changes were.
From the point of view of the Kremlin, Trump Tower, and Facebook, that would be one of the most important political changes.
Like Macron, Mélenchon wants to bring back conscription - not only military, but including a military component for all conscripts except conscientious objectors.
We already know it's got bond holders inserting clauses in loans for full repayment in the event of Indy.
As I note in my forthcoming ramble (still waiting for a few markets to wake up), his massive advantage at Interlagos last year was in incredibly wet conditions. I'm not sure that'll occur tomorrow.
Demand for renting will grow but purchase and rental price need not if we reduce planning restrictions on where we can build and how high we can build. I'd rather a city centre full of affordable skyscrapers than a picturesque and unaffordable 21st century with panoramic views of how cities used to be 200 years ago.
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/850492096792408065/photo/1
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
Isn't 17:15 late for it to start ?
I remember it being run while the football games were being played.
PS: Previously had been stated that oil price drop had minimal impact on GDP, under 1% I believe but not sure if that opinion was ever changed.
Rogue Angel
Pleasant Company
Thunder and Roses
Blaklion
Bishop's Road
Hadn't heard about such bond clauses - that is worrying.
Deborah Orr"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/07/no-longer-just-london-britain-encircled-property-sharks
2015 UK GDP per capita by PPP: $38,865.59
2015 Germany GDP per capita by PPP: $44,187.86
The UK produces more per capita by PPP than France. Less per capita by PPP than Germany but by no means 20% or 25% less.
Of course the fact that France has an unemployment rate of 10.5% while the UK has an unemployment rate of 5.4% makes a big difference. If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?
IIRC the odds on offer were 4.5.
Any connection to more rented accommodation?
Bring back the traditional event times I say.
Pre-race article will be up just as soon as I decide...
Interesting to see the Guardian start to realise that immigration is partially responsible for the London property boom though.
Usual twisting of facts by Carlotta.
Expected, but there we are.
Brexit will be the same. We don't yet know every detail of how or when, but there will be moments that crystallise the impact in voters' minds and they will not forget when the next election comes.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/ilfordnorth/
but 70% owner occupier and 18 privately rented in 2011:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/ilfordnorth/
Are you telling us that our business are employing more people than they need to ? What kind of businesses are these ?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/labour-should-stop-indulging-its-scottish-party-and-broker-progressive
I don't get up to Town much these days and miss out on these things, though once that area was my home turf (well twice really as I had a job in Vauxhall for a few years in the 1990s).
If they are going to redevelop Nine Elms, I wonder what they are going to do with the Covent Garden market.
ERM was trying to push people in the UK closer to the EU without their permission.
So almost the opposite of Brexit.
Betting PostF1: pre-race ramble is finally up:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/china-pre-race-2017.html
Had a tricky time picking what to back. In the end, decided Hulkenberg to be top 6 and several cars not to be classified (one stake sliced up) made the most sense.
Seems the forecast is for heavy rain at the start. The last thing we need is 20 laps of trundling around then pitting immediately for intermediates. Hope the race director lets them actually race.
Assuming the boundary changes go through, the map of local constituencies is likely to be considerably different in 2020 in any event.
Global Britain will increasingly become a joke as the EU forges ahead in the world and we can only bob along in their wake saying, "Can we have that trade deal too after we leave?"