politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling differential in the marginals that would mean t
Comments
-
It's about competition rather than prudential regulation.JosiasJessop said:
Go on then, what is the point?Neil said:
I think you have managed to completely miss the point.JosiasJessop said:
Still, it's stupid, as the CoOp's own crisis shows: it's not the size of the bank, but the (mis)management.0 -
My guess would be "not as efficiently as they should be", although much more efficiently than even 2 or 3 years ago.MikeSmithson said:
But is UKIP knocking on doors, talking to voters, and feeding the responses into smart computer systems?MikeK said:
UKIP, which now have almost 34K members and many more supporters, are now getting it's boots on the ground, at least in London and the areas around London that I have been informed about. Leafleting and pounding the pavements are now in full swing.MikeSmithson said:
In London the absolute focus of all local parties is the May Borough elections - not GE2015.Cyclefree said:
I live in a 3-way marginal, currently held by Labour by 42 votes. In my ward the most leg work, knocking on doors, stalls in the high street etc has been done by the Tories, followed by the Lib Dems. Labour have been invisible.MikeSmithson said:Those living in marginals, as I do, for experience a totally different election than those who don't. Nick Palmer reports regularly on the level of activity he is doing in Broxtowe this far out from. May 2015. I noted his comment that they give 2010 LDs as much attention as is necessary.
In my seat, I since know many LD voters all of whom have had visits from the Labour candidate former MP. The Tories just started to get their together putting out a glossy calendar from the sitting MP. They need to be knocking on doors.
IoS is right. The ground game matters and you need a motivated activist force for that.
Anecdotal obviously - and Labour probably don't need this ward to win. But still. Striking that Labour appear to be so lackadaisical.
As a general rule there is far far more activity for local council seats then general elections.
If your ward is solid Tory or LD-CON then it is not suprising that you are not seeing much LAB effort.
I live in a marginal where there are not local elections this year so the effort is on GE2105
On topic, I see no evidence from local elections that Labour are outperforming in marginal seats, generally. As far as I can tell, the biggest single factor, when it comes to outperformance, is incumbency.
Labour incumbents in 2001, firs elected in 1997, negatived the impact of the overall swing to the Conservatives. Labour incumbents stepping down in 2010 produced an above-average swing to the Conservatives.
0 -
Talk about Hope and Tory.AveryLP said:Burberry Group Plc announced a an increase in revenue of 14 percent to £528 million in the three months ending 2013, beating analyst expectations and sending their shares up 7.2%.
The economic recovery must be reaching the coastal towns of Essex, Lincolnshire and Kent.
Good news for the Tories as the more fashionable Kippers are now likely to migrate back to their mother party.
If wishes were fishes, You'd be a fisherman. And perhaps thats what you really are, AveryLP.
0 -
There's so much wrong with that, it's hard to know where to start.Neil said:
It's about competition rather than prudential regulation.JosiasJessop said:
Go on then, what is the point?Neil said:
I think you have managed to completely miss the point.JosiasJessop said:
Still, it's stupid, as the CoOp's own crisis shows: it's not the size of the bank, but the (mis)management.
For one: do you really think that more smaller banks or building societies, and larger banks that are artificially hamstrung, is better for competition or the consumer?
I'd appreciate the 'small banks / building society' argument more if it were not for Northern Rock and the CoOp.0 -
Why are you behaving so oddly regarding this bet of ours? I only keep asking for confirmation so there is no dispute should the odds change.Scott_P said:@PickardJE: Miliband to announce review on Friday into high street banks - whether to cap market share and at what level - rather than definitive action
Note to Neil. I hereby predict this Fag Packet idea will not propel Ed into Downing Street.
If you don't want to have it please say so and we can forget it, but this dithering is ridiculous0 -
Well, on this I tend to listen to our competition authorities more than to you. They have consistently stated there is over-concentration in this market and that barriers to entry and to growth are too high. You obviously disagree but you'll understand if I place more weight on the experts' opinions.JosiasJessop said:
There's so much wrong with that, it's hard to know where to start.Neil said:
It's about competition rather than prudential regulation.JosiasJessop said:
Go on then, what is the point?Neil said:
I think you have managed to completely miss the point.JosiasJessop said:
Still, it's stupid, as the CoOp's own crisis shows: it's not the size of the bank, but the (mis)management.
For one: do you really think that more smaller banks or building societies, and larger banks that are artificially hamstrung, is better for competition or the consumer?
I'd appreciate the 'small banks / building society' argument more if it were not for Northern Rock and the CoOp.0 -
Like these guys?Neil said:you'll understand if I place more weight on the experts' opinions.
@patrickwintour: "An arbitrary cap on structure is the wrong way to boost choice in banking". CBI0 -
You have been unable or unwilling to unambiguously state the terms. I suggest you give up.isam said:
Why are you behaving so oddly regarding this bet of ours? I only keep asking for confirmation so there is no dispute should the odds change.
If you don't want to have it please say so and we can forget it, but this dithering is ridiculous0 -
The competition authorities are no doubt right. Surely the sensible solution is to address the cause of the problem by removing barriers to entry and growth, rather than its symptoms by imposing an artificial cap on market share?Neil said:Well, on this I tend to listen to our competition authorities more than to you. They have consistently stated there is over-concentration in this market and that barriers to entry and to growth are too high. You obviously disagree but you'll understand if I place more weight on the experts' opinions.
0 -
Robert Preston on Radio 4 this morning said pretty much the same thing on my drive home from work.SouthamObserver said:Ed's banking ruse is pretty much the same as George's "tough decisions, £25 billion more of cuts with no tax rises" ruse. Both are designed to discomfit the other side. Ed wants the Tories to defend banks; George wants Labour to defend the benefits system. The practicalities of implementation are very much secondary considerations.
Our politicians are more concerned with tripping the other side up, than actually coming up with policies that might actually work.
0 -
Like, for example, this guy:Scott_P said:
Like these guys?Neil said:you'll understand if I place more weight on the experts' opinions.
@patrickwintour: "An arbitrary cap on structure is the wrong way to boost choice in banking". CBI
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/speeches/2012/speech0212.pdf
I'm not arguing that Miliband's proposals are the right answer, mainly because they havent been announced so we havent got a clue what they are. But that the competition issues the speech appears to be addressing are real and a debate on how to deal with them is timely and legitimate.
Of course for some on pbc this translates to "Ed is a raving communist and is going to destroy the economy". As we saw at the time of his last conference speech. Voters dont seem to half as put out by what he has to say as many posters on pbc.0 -
Good luck with the cataract operation, me old Weathercock.MikeK said:
Talk about Hope and Tory.AveryLP said:Burberry Group Plc announced a an increase in revenue of 14 percent to £528 million in the three months ending 2013, beating analyst expectations and sending their shares up 7.2%.
The economic recovery must be reaching the coastal towns of Essex, Lincolnshire and Kent.
Good news for the Tories as the more fashionable Kippers are now likely to migrate back to their mother party.
If wishes were fishes, You'd be a fisherman. And perhaps thats what you really are, AveryLP.
My mother who is of your generation had her operation a couple of years ago. The results were impressive. Formerly shortsighted, her long vision improved miraculously enabling her to dispense with spectacles altogether.
Her former colour blindness also improved. She was tritanopic and suffered from total absence of blue retinal receptors, leading her to see blues as muddly purples. All now cured. The sky is clear blue right to the horizon.
I wish you all the best and hope you have similar results.
0 -
That's a perfectly legitimate debate to be had. Maybe that's where Ed will find himself by the time he writes his manifesto? Or maybe he'll have the chance to explain why he thinks the more dramatic market intervention is necessary. In the meantime the world will keep on turning.Life_ina_market_town said:
The competition authorities are no doubt right. Surely the sensible solution is to address the cause of the problem by removing barriers to entry and growth, rather than its symptoms by imposing an artificial cap on market share?Neil said:Well, on this I tend to listen to our competition authorities more than to you. They have consistently stated there is over-concentration in this market and that barriers to entry and to growth are too high. You obviously disagree but you'll understand if I place more weight on the experts' opinions.
0 -
Blairites for Cameron.
'If we can't have the real thing, a facsimile (however poor) will do.'
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 1m
@alexmassie I think it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as PM next year.
0 -
No, that's definitely wrong, the polling on the energy price freeze that some on pbc reacted hysterically to was very positive. It resonated and it was popular. Despite the reaction to it here. Go figure.Scott_P said:
That's because voters are not listening to anything politicians are saying, nit because what he is saying isn't fantastic nonsense.Neil said:Voters dont seem to half as put out by what he has to say as many posters on pbc.
0 -
That's right. The key guiding force for both George and Ed is to be getting the other side to be seen to defend what are considered electorally toxic constituencies - the banking sector and people on benefits. Neither has any serious idea about what they are actually going to do beyond generating the headlines they are looking for. Essentially, it's the Conservative Club v the Labour Club at Oxford University; except that it is not just wizard wheezes that embarrass the other side, what they are actually doing is stuff that has a real effect on real lives that are lived only once.TwistedFireStopper said:
Robert Preston on Radio 4 this morning said pretty much the same thing on my drive home from work.SouthamObserver said:Ed's banking ruse is pretty much the same as George's "tough decisions, £25 billion more of cuts with no tax rises" ruse. Both are designed to discomfit the other side. Ed wants the Tories to defend banks; George wants Labour to defend the benefits system. The practicalities of implementation are very much secondary considerations.
Our politicians are more concerned with tripping the other side up, than actually coming up with policies that might actually work.
0 -
Whoever would have thought it?Theuniondivvie said:Blairites for Cameron.
'If we can't have the real thing, a facsimile (however poor) will do.'
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 1m
@alexmassie I think it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as PM next year.
0 -
hahaha!!What are you talking about?!!! I have stated the terms many times, it is clear as crystal!!,Scott_P said:
You have been unable or unwilling to unambiguously state the terms. I suggest you give up.isam said:
Why are you behaving so oddly regarding this bet of ours? I only keep asking for confirmation so there is no dispute should the odds change.
If you don't want to have it please say so and we can forget it, but this dithering is ridiculous
The bet is will Farage take part in one, any one, of the leader debates
I say yes and want to bet £100@9/4
You say it would be illegal, so would presumably want to lay the bet
Where is the ambiguity?
if you want to play in smaller size that is fine, but don't try and blame it on me, it is not ambiguous!
Everyone can see clearly what the bet is, why are you so cautious?
You keep saying I am not explaining the bet unambiguously, and when I try to, you don't reply or point out where you think the problem is... I think the truth is you just don't fancy the bet, but don't like to say so
0 -
Andrew Neil just said the latest ICM poll with a Labour lead of 3 points might be a "rogue poll"
Ed just grabbed his prayer mat !!0 -
Is Chris Leslie completely ignorant or deliberately dishonest?
Shadow treasury chief secretary Chris Leslie said: "At a time when families face a cost-of-living crisis and bank lending to business is falling, it cannot be right for George Osborne to approve a doubling of the bank bonus cap.
"As the majority shareholder, the government should reject any request from RBS to increase the cap. We will put this to a vote in the House of Commons as part of our opposition day debate on the government's wider failures on banking."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25739565
As any fule no, the government is NOT a majority shareholder in RBS, so RBS will NOT be making any request to the government. The RBS shares are owned by an organisation called UK Financial Investments Limited, very sensibly* set up by the last Labour government specifically to keep decisions such as this at arms-length from the government.
* Of course that was in the days when Labour's senior figures included some sensible people such as Alistair Darling.0 -
Links, please.Neil said:
Well, on this I tend to listen to our competition authorities more than to you. They have consistently stated there is over-concentration in this market and that barriers to entry and to growth are too high. You obviously disagree but you'll understand if I place more weight on the experts' opinions.JosiasJessop said:
There's so much wrong with that, it's hard to know where to start.Neil said:
It's about competition rather than prudential regulation.JosiasJessop said:
Go on then, what is the point?Neil said:
I think you have managed to completely miss the point.JosiasJessop said:
Still, it's stupid, as the CoOp's own crisis shows: it's not the size of the bank, but the (mis)management.
For one: do you really think that more smaller banks or building societies, and larger banks that are artificially hamstrung, is better for competition or the consumer?
I'd appreciate the 'small banks / building society' argument more if it were not for Northern Rock and the CoOp.
Section 5 (pg. 203) of the following link is interesting, as is, indeed, the whole document:
http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/46040053.pdfMarket concentration does not in itself determine whether markets are competitive. Highly concentrated industries can be competitive and this may benefit consumers if larger companies are able to reduce production costs by achieving economies of scale. Measuring market concentration can be a useful initial indicator of competition, but it is by no means the sole indicator. Rather, there are a wide range of factors which determine the level of competitiveness in financial markets. The European Commission, in guidance relating to Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, notes the potential importance of market shares as a useful first indication of market structure, but states that 'the Commission will interpret market shares in the light of the relevant market conditions, and in particular the
It isn't a simple case of larger being worse. Both large and small financial organisations failed.
dynamics of the market and of the extent to which products are differentiated.‘
What's more, I'd argue that there is limited room for safe innovation in banking. A large portion of the crisis seems to have come from the creation of increasingly arcane financial products that few people, if any, genuinely understood.
There can be real innovation in the retail side - for instance better Internet banking, branch opening times, cheque payment improvements - but many 'innovations' are actually worse for the consumer, especially when they make comparisons between products difficult or impossible.0 -
Nabbers, I think you may have just pre-empted the Ed and Dave show at PMQ's.RichardNabavi said:Is Chris Leslie completely ignorant or deliberately dishonest?
Shadow treasury chief secretary Chris Leslie said: "At a time when families face a cost-of-living crisis and bank lending to business is falling, it cannot be right for George Osborne to approve a doubling of the bank bonus cap.
"As the majority shareholder, the government should reject any request from RBS to increase the cap. We will put this to a vote in the House of Commons as part of our opposition day debate on the government's wider failures on banking."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25739565
As any fule no, the government is NOT a majority shareholder in RBS, so RBS will NOT be making any request to the government. The RBS shares are owned by an organisation called UK Financial Investments Limited, very sensibly set up by the last Labour government specifically to keep decisions such as this at arms-length from the government.
0 -
Again, the point is that this is a competition issue rather than a prudential regulation issue. If you need convincing of the consensus opinion that there is over-concentration in the UK and barriers to entry and growth then I suggest you read the speech I linked to below or use google to find any number of other reports or papers on this.JosiasJessop said:
It isn't a simple case of larger being worse. Both large and small financial organisations failed.0 -
Except that £25 billion additional cuts in government spending over the next three years would unquestionably have a positive impact on the UK economy.TwistedFireStopper said:
Robert Preston on Radio 4 this morning said pretty much the same thing on my drive home from work.SouthamObserver said:Ed's banking ruse is pretty much the same as George's "tough decisions, £25 billion more of cuts with no tax rises" ruse. Both are designed to discomfit the other side. Ed wants the Tories to defend banks; George wants Labour to defend the benefits system. The practicalities of implementation are very much secondary considerations.
Our politicians are more concerned with tripping the other side up, than actually coming up with policies that might actually work.
The same cannot be said about Miliband's proposals to cap the market share of the existing state intervened banking groups.
And Neil should beware the assumptions of competition authorities that a less concentrated banking industry would automatically lead to better customer service, lower prices and more products. The fallacy is the assumption that the banking sector behaves to the same rules as other industries.
This is not an argument against competition or an endorsement of barriers to market entry. What creates competition in the banking sector are small, single product new market entrants who rapidly gain market share in their chosen niche and force the big players into a competitive response, either by replicating the product features/pricing or by acquiring the competitor.
Examples are the entry of US based credit card lenders, eg MNBA and Capital One, to the UK market in the 1990s. Or the introduction of the Virgin One mortgage account, which combined 'current account' banking with long term lending. Metro Bank is following a similar route with commercial lending to SMEs.
Where Miliband is going wrong is assuming that splitting monolith high street banks into two monolith high street banks will result in the demise of Wonga.com . It is wonga.com who will eventually force the high street banks to respond with competitive products. Miliband would be better helping US consumer finance companies set up payday loan companies than attempting to take a machete to the high street banks.
Ironic, innit?
0 -
Again, you link to one line of my post and ignore the rest of it.Neil said:
Again, the point is that this is a competition issue rather than a prudential regulation issue. If you need convincing of the consensus opinion that there is over-concentration in the UK and barriers to entry and growth then I suggest you read the speech I linked to below or use google to find any number of other reports or papers on this.JosiasJessop said:
It isn't a simple case of larger being worse. Both large and small financial organisations failed.
Banking is complex, and just repeatedly screaming "this is a competition issue rather than a prudential regulation issue" ignores the very real fact that prudential regulation and competition are intertwined.0 -
@Josias
The OFT has been reviewing how to improve competition in banking for the last couple of years and the Tories and LDs have been fairly active in talking about it.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/markets-work/SME-banking-review/#.UtZySNJ_veA
Why Ed has suddenly decided he also needs to have a review into it is strange. Especially since Labour's botched Energy Market reforms led to ever decreasing levels of switching.0 -
I have sympathy with what Miliband says, but he doesn't appear to want to break any of the govt owned giants up. If he was serious about competition surely he should be injecting a sizeable slice of new competitors in to the markets.Neil said:
Again, the point is that this is a competition issue rather than a prudential regulation issue. If you need convincing of the consensus opinion that there is over-concentration in the UK and barriers to entry and growth then I suggest you read the speech I linked to below or use google to find any number of other reports or papers on this.JosiasJessop said:
It isn't a simple case of larger being worse. Both large and small financial organisations failed.0 -
I think we have just seen a case of someone not convinced of their own argument enough to back it up with cash!
Looks like Farage is more likely to be in the leader debates than Tories like to admit0 -
The fallacy is the assumption that the banking sector behaves to the same rules as other industries.AveryLP said:
Except that £25 billion additional cuts in government spending over the next three years would unquestionably have a positive impact on the UK economy.TwistedFireStopper said:
Robert Preston on Radio 4 this morning said pretty much the same thing on my drive home from work.SouthamObserver said:Ed's banking ruse is pretty much the same as George's "tough decisions, £25 billion more of cuts with no tax rises" ruse. Both are designed to discomfit the other side. Ed wants the Tories to defend banks; George wants Labour to defend the benefits system. The practicalities of implementation are very much secondary considerations.
Our politicians are more concerned with tripping the other side up, than actually coming up with policies that might actually work.
The same cannot be said about Miliband's proposals to cap the market share of the existing state intervened banking groups.
And Neil should beware the assumptions of competition authorities that a less concentrated banking industry would automatically lead to better customer service, lower prices and more products. The fallacy is the assumption that the banking sector behaves to the same rules as other industries.
This is not an argument against competition or an endorsement of barriers to market entry. What creates competition in the banking sector are small, single product new market entrants who rapidly gain market share in their chosen niche and force the big players into a competitive response, either by replicating the product features/pricing or by acquiring the competitor.
Examples are the entry of US based credit card lenders, eg MNBA and Capital One, to the UK market in the 1990s. Or the introduction of the Virgin One mortgage account, which combined 'current account' banking with long term lending. Metro Bank is following a similar route with commercial lending to SMEs.
Where Miliband is going wrong is assuming that splitting monolith high street banks into two monolith high street banks will result in the demise of Wonga.com . It is wonga.com who will eventually force the high street banks to respond with competitive products. Miliband would be better helping US consumer finance companies set up payday loan companies than attempting to take a machete to the high street banks.
Ironic, innit?
The we're special argument of every subisdised business since the year dot. There's nothing special about the UK banking sector except how badly it's run.0 -
I await Ed saying that the politics market has served the public poorly, that the big parties should be broken up and new entrants encouraged.0
-
Well Andrew Neil may well be right, but the case in favour of it being at the outer limits was undermined by last night's YouGov poll.JackW said:Andrew Neil just said the latest ICM poll with a Labour lead of 3 points might be a "rogue poll"
Ed just grabbed his prayer mat !!
Stodge's nap for the 3.20 at Plumpton may have been looking good at the home turn but it now looks distinctly short on stamina.
0 -
And you should beware condemning Miliband's announcement before you know what it is. If you end up condemning 5 completely different versions of what he might say then you might appear to be slightly partisan and your credibility might be damaged!AveryLP said:
And Neil should beware the assumptions of competition authorities that a less concentrated banking industry would automatically lead to better customer service, lower prices and more products. The fallacy is the assumption that the banking sector behaves to the same rules as other industries.0 -
Vote Morris Dancer! No other party can match our pledge to fire Ed Balls into the heart of the sun!0
-
Huge cheers for Ed .... from the government benches !!
Lollipop for Nabbers on bankers bonuses ....0 -
That ICM isn't a rogue poll.
It obviously samples on the low side for Labour with it's turnout filter because Labour voters don't like to get out of bed to vote on rainy days.
Conservative voters more likely to get to polls and 'core' Lib Dems even more so.
And if the VI filters are to be believed UKIP supporters are the MOST motivated to vote.0 -
Can't we just launch him over the channel into France - They could do with his brand of help..!Morris_Dancer said:Vote Morris Dancer! No other party can match our pledge to fire Ed Balls into the heart of the sun!
0 -
'Avery - "Except that £25 billion additional cuts in government spending over the next three years would unquestionably have a positive impact on the UK economy."
That is a very bold claim to make given who might potentially be affected and who might not be. But putting that to one side, lots of things might be good for the UK economy. A better functioning banking system would be too. But whether huge extra cuts or more competition between banks are achievable or not, on the parameters set by George and Ed, is another thing completely. As we approach a GE, this is all about political positioning and putting the other side on the defensive - nothing more. It's the JCR, not the real world.
0 -
not bad from Cam from what was certainly a tricky question.
Attack is of course the best form of defence.
Particularly at PMQs0 -
"The we're special argument of every subsidised business since the year dot. There's nothing special about the UK banking sector except how badly it's run."
That doesn't make the UK banking sector very special either.0 -
Yup and Osborne has no plans for banking reform bar how much cash he can get for selling his stakes in RBS and LBG and the rest of the economy can go to pot.SouthamObserver said:'Avery - "Except that £25 billion additional cuts in government spending over the next three years would unquestionably have a positive impact on the UK economy."
That is a very bold claim to make given who might potentially be affected and who might not be. But putting that to one side, lots of things might be good for the UK economy. A better functioning banking system would be too. But whether huge extra cuts or more competition between banks are achievable or not, on the parameters set by George and Ed, is another thing completely. As we approach a GE, this is all about political positioning and putting the other side on the defensive - nothing more. It's the JCR, not the real world.0 -
"Slightly partisan"? "Damaged credibility"?Neil said:
And you should beware condemning Miliband's announcement before you know what it is. If you end up condemning 5 completely different versions of what he might say then you might appear to be slightly partisan and your credibility might be damaged!AveryLP said:
And Neil should beware the assumptions of competition authorities that a less concentrated banking industry would automatically lead to better customer service, lower prices and more products. The fallacy is the assumption that the banking sector behaves to the same rules as other industries.
I am fully partisan and make no assumptions on credibility.
But be reassured, Neil. I am on the waiting list for a cataracts operation and am trusting in my surgeon to restore my green retinal receptors.
0 -
Launching people into the channelSimonStClare said:
Can't we just launch him over the channel into France - They could do with his brand of help..!Morris_Dancer said:Vote Morris Dancer! No other party can match our pledge to fire Ed Balls into the heart of the sun!
0 -
oh dear EdM - heading to "feeling slightly sorry for him" territory.0
-
Cam on the side of tim wrt housing.
Go Dave.0 -
(And note to PB mods: no, I am not accusing David Cameron of being tim.)0
-
It gets confusing, doesnt it? I think Dave is back to being slightly green again so you could probably do with those receptors.AveryLP said:
But be reassured, Neil. I am on the waiting list for a cataracts operation and am trusting in my surgeon to restore my green retinal receptors.0 -
Ed now reaping what he has sown on having no economic policies.
Old Mother Miliband has gone to the cupboard and found it is bare.0 -
Ed was a bit crap today, not knowing that a quarter of a million is the same as 250,000.
Blimey, open goals for Dave there.0 -
Every seat is different. In my marginal there is very high recognition of the marginal status and consequently a great deal of tactical voting inteniton. I'd think that's quite common in many, but not all, marginals.0
-
But not just executionally (the quarter of a million slip) but also strategically - why did he AGAIN (last week it was gambling) go on a topic (Banker bonuses) that even an IDS could lay at the door of the previous Labour government?TheScreamingEagles said:Ed was a bit crap today, not knowing that a quarter of a million is the same as 250,000.
Blimey, open goals for Dave there.
0 -
No, SO.SouthamObserver said:'Avery - "Except that £25 billion additional cuts in government spending over the next three years would unquestionably have a positive impact on the UK economy."
That is a very bold claim to make given who might potentially be affected and who might not be. But putting that to one side, lots of things might be good for the UK economy. A better functioning banking system would be too. But whether huge extra cuts or more competition between banks are achievable or not, on the parameters set by George and Ed, is another thing completely. As we approach a GE, this is all about political positioning and putting the other side on the defensive - nothing more. It's the JCR, not the real world.
JCR politics is a bearded candidate standing for the Onanist Party and demanding at the hustings that onlookers show their support by raising their hands, then lowering their hands...
At least that was my recollection of the last JCR election meeting I attended many, many years ago.
Of course there is political messaging going on and intensifying in the run up to the election. But George does have credibility on fiscal consolidation and the course he has set out is based on a fully costed five year forecast of economic performance.
The same cannot be said about Miliband's shoot first and think later proposals on energy pricing caps and banking sector concentration. But then, like Mark Duggan, he appears to have thrown away the gun before pointing it at the bankers. All we need to do now is await the outocome of the inquest.
0 -
On topic, I've never lived in a marginal, I've only ever lived in safe Tory seats* or a Labour shithole stronghold.
I feel like I'm missing out.
*Well it was considered safe prior to 19970 -
Quite flat from Ed at PMQ's.
Was this just a poor performance or part of his more considered and less yah boo approach noted by Andrew Neil last week.0 -
The usual hysteria re: a couple of MOE polls. Presumably the same Conservative supporters will be commenting when the Labour lead reverts to seven points.0
-
You might always consider moving to Lerwick and live under a yellow peril hegemony !!TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I've never lived in a marginal, I've only ever lived in safe Tory seats* or a Labour shithole stronghold.
I feel like I'm missing out.
*Well it was considered safe prior to 1997
0 -
Right wing rag...
@GdnPolitics: Snap verdict on #PMQs: "A defeat (possibly permanent) for Miliband's sensible, no-sloganising approach." http://t.co/SWo4gqBjuy0 -
He'll be saving the bit about cats for election year.TOPPING said:Cam on the side of tim wrt housing.
Go Dave.0 -
Well he can't go on about the economy as Ed has been proved wrong about that.CarlottaVance said:
But not just executionally (the quarter of a million slip) but also strategically - why did he AGAIN (last week it was gambling) go on a topic (Banker bonuses) that even an IDS could lay at the door of the previous Labour government?TheScreamingEagles said:Ed was a bit crap today, not knowing that a quarter of a million is the same as 250,000.
Blimey, open goals for Dave there.
I did like Dave saying to Ed "You have all the moral of authority of Reverend Flowers" line.0 -
An interesting leader in today's Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10571873/Keep-Scotland-in-the-UK-and-give-all-the-nations-much-more-power.html
Basically saying that even if Scotland votes to stay we should anyway complete the devolution journey and create an English Parliament. I fully agree.
Here's the question though: Wouldn't offering an English Parliament and full devomax for ALL the UK countries in a GE manifesto be wildly popular? Especially in England.
If Dave is looking for something to move the polling goalposts wouldn't being the first political party to finally give England a voice be rewarded? He's pretty much lost Wales, Scotland and NI anyway and has nothing to lose. And watching Labour squirm as they seek to deny England would be a joy to behold. What's not to like?0 -
I do live under the joyous rule of Nick Clegg.JackW said:
You might always consider moving to Lerwick and live under a yellow peril hegemony !!TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I've never lived in a marginal, I've only ever lived in safe Tory seats* or a Labour shithole stronghold.
I feel like I'm missing out.
*Well it was considered safe prior to 19970 -
Is Long Term Economic plan some sort of bingo phrase amongst Tory MPs?0
-
Then of course there's the 'Winter NHS Crisis'......or 'Licensing Teachers'....which Ed also failed to mention......TheScreamingEagles said:
Well he can't go on about the economy as Ed has been proved wrong about that.CarlottaVance said:
But not just executionally (the quarter of a million slip) but also strategically - why did he AGAIN (last week it was gambling) go on a topic (Banker bonuses) that even an IDS could lay at the door of the previous Labour government?TheScreamingEagles said:Ed was a bit crap today, not knowing that a quarter of a million is the same as 250,000.
Blimey, open goals for Dave there.
I did like Dave saying to Ed "You have all the moral of authority of Reverend Flowers" line.
0 -
Is Jack Straw talking about Dave's package? Oooh errr0
-
That is a brilliant idea and therefore there is absolutely no chance of Dave actually offering it.Patrick said:An interesting leader in today's Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10571873/Keep-Scotland-in-the-UK-and-give-all-the-nations-much-more-power.html
Basically saying that even if Scotland votes to stay we should anyway complete the devolution journey and create an English Parliament. I fully agree.
Here's the question though: Wouldn't offering an English Parliament and full devomax for ALL the UK countries in a GE manifesto be wildly popular? Especially in England.
If Dave is looking for something to move the polling goalposts wouldn't being the first political party to finally give England a voice be rewarded? He's pretty much lost Wales, Scotland and NI anyway and has nothing to lose. And watching Labour squirm as they seek to deny England would be a joy to behold. What's not to like?0 -
I really don't think your beef is with banking sector structure, Mr. Brooke.Alanbrooke said:
Yup and Osborne has no plans for banking reform bar how much cash he can get for selling his stakes in RBS and LBG and the rest of the economy can go to pot.SouthamObserver said:'Avery - "Except that £25 billion additional cuts in government spending over the next three years would unquestionably have a positive impact on the UK economy."
That is a very bold claim to make given who might potentially be affected and who might not be. But putting that to one side, lots of things might be good for the UK economy. A better functioning banking system would be too. But whether huge extra cuts or more competition between banks are achievable or not, on the parameters set by George and Ed, is another thing completely. As we approach a GE, this is all about political positioning and putting the other side on the defensive - nothing more. It's the JCR, not the real world.
It is far more about lending criteria, volume of funds available for lending to industry and priorities within the banks in their lending options (e.g. less lending for residential property purchase and more to foster business investment).
In all the above areas the fingers of the Carney are very much on the pulse and it is the BoE more than the Treasury which has the cure for the problems.
Osborne should get the credit for appointing Carney and setting the BoE the remit and powers to solve the problems which he had correctly diagnosed long before he made these decisions.
0 -
A confident performance from the PM at PMQ's
Some gloomy faces on the opposition benches.0 -
Have you experienced a Cleggasm yet ??TheScreamingEagles said:
I do live under the joyous rule of Nick Clegg.JackW said:
You might always consider moving to Lerwick and live under a yellow peril hegemony !!TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I've never lived in a marginal, I've only ever lived in safe Tory seats* or a Labour shithole stronghold.
I feel like I'm missing out.
*Well it was considered safe prior to 1997
0 -
You're probably right. But even Dave must realise the electoral gains this would imply for his party. The Tories would be much more regularly in charge of health, police, courts, etc. Really I can't see any downside and it is manifestly fair (resolving the WLQ, boundaries and bunch of other crap in one go). And all he has to do is put it in the manifesto - nothing actually needs to change now.CopperSulphate said:
That is a brilliant idea and therefore there is absolutely no chance of Dave actually offering it.Patrick said:An interesting leader in today's Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10571873/Keep-Scotland-in-the-UK-and-give-all-the-nations-much-more-power.html
Basically saying that even if Scotland votes to stay we should anyway complete the devolution journey and create an English Parliament. I fully agree.
Here's the question though: Wouldn't offering an English Parliament and full devomax for ALL the UK countries in a GE manifesto be wildly popular? Especially in England.
If Dave is looking for something to move the polling goalposts wouldn't being the first political party to finally give England a voice be rewarded? He's pretty much lost Wales, Scotland and NI anyway and has nothing to lose. And watching Labour squirm as they seek to deny England would be a joy to behold. What's not to like?0 -
I'm a happily married man.JackW said:
Have you experienced a Cleggasm yet ??TheScreamingEagles said:
I do live under the joyous rule of Nick Clegg.JackW said:
You might always consider moving to Lerwick and live under a yellow peril hegemony !!TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I've never lived in a marginal, I've only ever lived in safe Tory seats* or a Labour shithole stronghold.
I feel like I'm missing out.
*Well it was considered safe prior to 19970 -
The star of PMQs was Andrew Bridgen.
Even Labour MPs were smiling.0 -
Outlier and rogue polls always tend to attract more comment, TLBS.TheLastBoyScout said:The usual hysteria re: a couple of MOE polls. Presumably the same Conservative supporters will be commenting when the Labour lead reverts to seven points.
0 -
I don't think there would be all that much support for yet another layer of government.Patrick said:
You're probably right. But even Dave must realise the electoral gains this would imply for his party. The Tories would be much more regularly in charge of health, police, courts, etc. Really I can't see any downside and it is manifestly fair (resolving the WLQ, boundaries and bunch of other crap in one go). And all he has to do is put it in the manifesto - nothing actually needs to change now.CopperSulphate said:
That is a brilliant idea and therefore there is absolutely no chance of Dave actually offering it.Patrick said:An interesting leader in today's Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10571873/Keep-Scotland-in-the-UK-and-give-all-the-nations-much-more-power.html
Basically saying that even if Scotland votes to stay we should anyway complete the devolution journey and create an English Parliament. I fully agree.
Here's the question though: Wouldn't offering an English Parliament and full devomax for ALL the UK countries in a GE manifesto be wildly popular? Especially in England.
If Dave is looking for something to move the polling goalposts wouldn't being the first political party to finally give England a voice be rewarded? He's pretty much lost Wales, Scotland and NI anyway and has nothing to lose. And watching Labour squirm as they seek to deny England would be a joy to behold. What's not to like?0 -
JackJackW said:
Have you experienced a Cleggasm yet ??TheScreamingEagles said:
I do live under the joyous rule of Nick Clegg.JackW said:
You might always consider moving to Lerwick and live under a yellow peril hegemony !!TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I've never lived in a marginal, I've only ever lived in safe Tory seats* or a Labour shithole stronghold.
I feel like I'm missing out.
*Well it was considered safe prior to 1997
Clegg is definitely pursuing a more tantric approach to 2015 than he did in 2010.
I put it down to maturity.
0 -
It's a great idea. And presumably the English parliament would be elected on the same terms as the Scottish and Welsh ones.Patrick said:An interesting leader in today's Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10571873/Keep-Scotland-in-the-UK-and-give-all-the-nations-much-more-power.html
Basically saying that even if Scotland votes to stay we should anyway complete the devolution journey and create an English Parliament. I fully agree.
Here's the question though: Wouldn't offering an English Parliament and full devomax for ALL the UK countries in a GE manifesto be wildly popular? Especially in England.
If Dave is looking for something to move the polling goalposts wouldn't being the first political party to finally give England a voice be rewarded? He's pretty much lost Wales, Scotland and NI anyway and has nothing to lose. And watching Labour squirm as they seek to deny England would be a joy to behold. What's not to like?
0 -
I suspect that's a theme that will run & run......TheScreamingEagles said:The star of PMQs was Andrew Bridgen.
Even Labour MPs were smiling.
0 -
No Mr Pole my beef is on competition too. IMV pushing back the wave of noughties banking mergers would be a good thing. The Cons made a mistake in allowing buiding Socs to be privatised since competition had a way of keeping banks clean and almost self regulating. The newly privatised BSocs very quickly showed they had little clear plan of what to do bar give the Board a mega pay rise and then sell themselves for a shedload.AveryLP said:
I really don't think your beef is with banking sector structure, Mr. Brooke.Alanbrooke said:
Yup and Osborne has no plans for banking reform bar how much cash he can get for selling his stakes in RBS and LBG and the rest of the economy can go to pot.SouthamObserver said:'Avery - "Except that £25 billion additional cuts in government spending over the next three years would unquestionably have a positive impact on the UK economy."
That is a very bold claim to make given who might potentially be affected and who might not be. But putting that to one side, lots of things might be good for the UK economy. A better functioning banking system would be too. But whether huge extra cuts or more competition between banks are achievable or not, on the parameters set by George and Ed, is another thing completely. As we approach a GE, this is all about political positioning and putting the other side on the defensive - nothing more. It's the JCR, not the real world.
It is far more about lending criteria, volume of funds available for lending to industry and priorities within the banks in their lending options (less on property more on business.
In all the above areas the fingers of the Carney are very much on the pulse and it is the BoE more than the Treasury which has the cure for the problems.
Osborne should get the credit for appointing Carney and setting the BoE the remit to solve the problems which he had correctly diagnosed long before he made these decisions.
We need what Charles calls the utility banks who do the simple transactional end of banking.0 -
Don't be a curmudgeon, some of us have money riding on a Tory lead.TheLastBoyScout said:The usual hysteria re: a couple of MOE polls. Presumably the same Conservative supporters will be commenting when the Labour lead reverts to seven points.
0 -
No, it should be PR^2... ;-)SouthamObserver said:
It's a great idea. And presumably the English parliament would be elected on the same terms as the Scottish and Welsh ones.Patrick said:An interesting leader in today's Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10571873/Keep-Scotland-in-the-UK-and-give-all-the-nations-much-more-power.html
Basically saying that even if Scotland votes to stay we should anyway complete the devolution journey and create an English Parliament. I fully agree.
Here's the question though: Wouldn't offering an English Parliament and full devomax for ALL the UK countries in a GE manifesto be wildly popular? Especially in England.
If Dave is looking for something to move the polling goalposts wouldn't being the first political party to finally give England a voice be rewarded? He's pretty much lost Wales, Scotland and NI anyway and has nothing to lose. And watching Labour squirm as they seek to deny England would be a joy to behold. What's not to like?0 -
LOL ....TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm a happily married man.JackW said:
Have you experienced a Cleggasm yet ??TheScreamingEagles said:
I do live under the joyous rule of Nick Clegg.JackW said:
You might always consider moving to Lerwick and live under a yellow peril hegemony !!TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I've never lived in a marginal, I've only ever lived in safe Tory seats* or a Labour shithole stronghold.
I feel like I'm missing out.
*Well it was considered safe prior to 1997
You are a politician and I claim your expenses for a year !!
0 -
Oh my, even Arthur Scargill is a Thatcherite
Former miners' union leader Arthur Scargill tried to use laws introduced by Margaret Thatcher to buy a council flat in London, the BBC has found.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-257313280 -
Ed's maths on YouTube already:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KCQkIGR_o
0 -
Just type the address without the http://CarlottaVance said:Ed's maths on YouTube already:
Edit - don't know how to stop YouTube embedding....
Search "Ed Miliband can't do basic maths"0 -
@JackW A query on ARSE.
What I didn't understand was how the Tories do so well but taking only a couple of LD seats
These are very high on the blue target list
0 -
Ed Miliband should talk about the polls or Europe splits at PMQs - its the only thing he has got left going in his favour.
0 -
Are the Tories actually doing worse in the marginals, or is it that there's a bigger movement from LD to Lab in those seats?
In 1992 the swing in the marginals was 4% compared to 2% nationally which is why John Major almost had his majority wiped out despite being 7.6% ahead overall, but the reason for this wasn't that the Tories did worse in the marginals but that a greater number of LDs decided to switch to Labour in order to defeat the Conservatives.0 -
Miliband went into PMQs thinking he had a certain victory over the PM on bankers’ bonuses, and was defeated by a mix of clever announcements and old-fashioned aggression.
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2014/01/pmqs-cameron-breaks-the-truce-and-wins/0 -
@Alan_Brooke_Esq_in_the_county_of_Warwickshire
No Mr Pole my beef is on competition too. IMV pushing back the wave of noughties banking mergers would be a good thing. The Cons made a mistake in allowing buiding Socs to be privatised since competition had a way of keeping banks clean and almost self regulating. The newly privatised BSocs very quickly showed they had little clear plan of what to do bar give the Board a mega pay rise and then sell themselves for a shedload.
We need what Charles calls the utility banks who do the simple transactional end of banking.
Building Society deregulation was inevitable. It is a trend that has been followed in all major developed markets.
The clearing banks had begun to erode the market share of building societies by introducing mortgages and the old dependence of building societies on local retail deposits was declining as interbank lending and securitisation of loan books changed the industry's funding profile.
The UK may have been in the forefront of deregulating the retail banking markets but this enabled us to avoid, say, the 'savings and loan bank' collapses experienced by the US in the 1980s and, even today, in, say, the Caixa network in Spain.
Single product or funding channel dependency may give a false appearance of stability in the short term but it increases systemic risk over longer economic cycles. Multi product portfolios, multiple funding sources and banks operating in a wide geographic spread of markets is the best way for large institutions to manage risk
It is not an accident that the HSBC Group was the only UK high street bank to emerge relatively unscathed from the global financial crisis. And that Halifax, the UK's largest mortgage lender and perceived to be a pillar of prudential stability, became the country's biggest casualty.0 -
While Tory Euro-splits are an easy target, it would require some sort of Euro-policy from Ed.....and those of us with long memories remember Labour civil wars over Europe too.....TGOHF said:Ed Miliband should talk about the polls or Europe splits at PMQs - its the only thing he has got left going in his favour.
0 -
Another PMQs, and Miliband still hasn't got the balls or honour to apologise to Mitchell.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538939/Apologise-Plebgate-role-Tories-tell-Miliband-Supporters-say-Labour-leader-instrumental-forcing-Mitchell-resign.html
What a class act he is.
On another note: the Amritsar/SAS story has plenty of pitfalls for the Conservative party. The PM's answers today were okayish, but relying on the Indian army's take on events and word is far from persuasive.
Goodness knows how it's going to end up. The two questions from Labour MPs indicate that the Labour party thinks there's a trap or two ahead.0 -
But the UK's economic problems predated the banking crisis by years.edmundintokyo said:
The banking system exploded.another_richard said:
I wonder if someone could explain why if immigration has been such a greater economic benefit during the last decade why the UK economy has suffered its worst ever decade on record.edmundintokyo said:
IIUC immigrants tend to have more kids so it'll be them instead, but either way you get to invest the surplus for a working lifetime before you start having to pay out, which is a big deal thanks to the miracle of compound interest.another_richard said:
Did Robert Chote explain what would happen when the immigrants get old ?antifrank said:One for the anti-immigration headbangers:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/838de446-7d2f-11e3-a579-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2qRv1GRad
"Immgration has surged up the political agenda as the government has hardened its rhetoric on the issue but ministers have failed to provide evidence to back claims, repeated by Mr Cameron, that many migrants travel to Britain for generous benefits.
The government's discomfort on the issue was compounded on Tuesday when Robert Chote, head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, told MPs that the country's fiscal position would be worse if net migration was lower because immigrants were more likely to be of working age."
I assume that even more immigrants would be brought in to pay for the previous immigrants.
But it is to be expected that the OBR sees nothing wrong with human ponzi schemes, after all they see nothing wrong with economic ponzi schemes.
So either:
1) Immigration hasn't been the great economic benefit it is claimed to be by those with a vested interest in it
2) The UK economy has received massive structural damage some time after 2000
I'll let everyone else have a think about that as its time for me to do some real work.
The stock market and industrial production reached their high's in 1999-2000, the trade deficit became perpetual, productivity growth declined, borrowing (household and/or government) suprassed £100bn each and every year, pension provisions declined, socioeconomic mobility went negative and wealth inequality grew..
All the banking crisis did was partially expose the Emperor's New Clothes fraud, it was an inevitable symptom not the cause.
0 -
On Bankers bonuses why doesn't Cam just say the truth. He'd be an idiot to limit bankers' bonuses because the more they get paid, the more the treasury gets paid.
I thought Ed Miliband wanted to increase the amount the rich pay in tax. You can;t do that by limiting their pay.0 -
Fair play to the Labour supporters for their calm and confident outlook for the party's prospects. Relying on Ukip and electoral bias to see them home would worry the horses of less robust types.CarlottaVance said:
While Tory Euro-splits are an easy target, it would require some sort of Euro-policy from Ed.....and those of us with long memories remember Labour civil wars over Europe too.....TGOHF said:Ed Miliband should talk about the polls or Europe splits at PMQs - its the only thing he has got left going in his favour.
0 -
MikeSmithson said:
@JackW A query on ARSE.
What I didn't understand was how the Tories do so wellbut taking only a couple of LD seats
These are very high on the blue target list
I'm always glad to entertain a question from an aged twitter god !!
The latest ARSE projection notes a net loss of 20 seats for the LibDems - most of these are to Labour but there is also an exchange between the Tories and LibDems favouring the former at the margin - Somewhat like 2010.
There is also a net loss to Labour from the Conservatives but amounting to fewer than 20. Accordingly the present numbers are :
Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 370 -
Well I'm shocked by this, shocked I tell you.
Alan Travis @alantravis40 7m
Designation as 'national statistics' withdrawn from police recorded crime stats due to 'accumulating evidence' they may not be reliable.....
....The announcement by the UK Statistics Authority comes in advance of next week's set of quarterly crime figures....
....Decision to withdraw 'national statistics' status from police recorded crime figures follows accusations they have been subject to fiddling0 -
Its interesting that the tories are using Osborne to bash the EU now - for example today's 'reform or we quit'.
Is this because kippers just cannot abide Dave on Europe I wonder, no matter if he came back with Barrosso's head in a sack?0 -
0
-
Sky News exclusive on drugs gangs is pretty good, but the copper being interviewed and expressing his shock at the professionalism and industrial nature of cannabis farming is a bit unbelievable. We deal with cannabis farms quite a bit, and local coppers tell me that in a medium sized town, they expect there to be at least six well run cannabis farms at anyone time.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
