I say this as a Labour supporter, but this is a catastrophic decision from Ed Balls. Completely retarded political strategy. Even leaving aside the fact it's going to mean cutting things that will infuriate Labour supporters, it pushes the deficit back to the top of the agenda, which is NEVER going to be an area Labour win on, just as it was starting to slip down the agenda. Truly baffling decision from Labour, almost as if they think things are going too well and they want to try and make things difficult for themselves.
What's more, for all the political commentariat mindlessly parrotting that Labour must start talking about cuts to be "credible", the polling evidence shows the exact opposite: the last time Labour were behind in the polls was early 2012, when Balls needlessly enraged Labour supporters by backing the public-sector payfreeze, and then the closest they've come to losing their lead since was last summer when they again started talking about cuts. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories finally get some leads on the back of this.
Its like a.Lib Dem CEO voting himself a cuastity belt. A lot of frustration followed by a sticky end.
Well if labour are now prepared to debate the economy, it will be a step forward. how will he do it - "growth" no doubt.
If you just follow the current projections and plans then don't boost spending much post-2017 or so wouldn't you expect a surplus on 2% growth or so? It's just that unexpected things happen and governments tend not to have that discipline.
I say this as a Labour supporter, but this is a catastrophic decision from Ed Balls. Completely retarded political strategy. Even leaving aside the fact it's going to mean cutting things that will infuriate Labour supporters, it pushes the deficit back to the top of the agenda, which is NEVER going to be an area Labour win on, just as it was starting to slip down the agenda. Truly baffling decision from Labour, almost as if they think things are going too well and they want to try and make things difficult for themselves.
But it was always going to come to this. The facts remain we are borrowing too much and the only sensible way to get out of the mess is proper economic growth. labour has ducked this issue for 3 years. 6 months early won't make a difference.
Productivity - oil and gas production declines have had a big impact on this as it is a very high productivity sector. Additionally - although I haven't looked for stats to back this up, so it is an instinctive argument - new employees would typically be lower productivity and would take some time to improve their skills in a new position. Hence a rapid increase in employment might well be associated with a decline in average productivity.
On the trade balance - yes, but the manufacturing base has been so denude and the general population so addicted to cheap consumer tat that it is unrealistic to expect a turn around in 3.5 years. The first thing to do is to get the education system fixed, then fix welfare and the banks. None of these are short jobs.
You raise some worthwhile points Charles.
A few responses:
The decline of UK oil and gas output is very much a case of 'Dutch disease' going into reverse.
But while Dutch disease was responsible for the damage to manufacturing (and other world competiting sectors) as was seen in the UK in the early 1980s I'm not sure what is meant to happen when it goes into reverse ie falling output leading to a weaker currency.
Now in the long term that might mean an increase in manufacturing but we tend to find governments aren't willing to wait that long and so various quick fixes are sought. In this country they have been attempts by governments to get house prices increasing and subsidising personal consumption, under Labour this was via public sector workers whilst under this government its via pensioners. It is no coincidence that public sector workers are a Labour voting block and pensioners a Conservative voting block.
As to productivity I think you're right. But the steady shift from a wealth creating society to a wealth consuming society by itself has a negative effect on productivity.
As an example if you are making something or producing an exportable service then if one person can do the job of two then that's deemed a good thing. But if you are consuming services then having fewer people assisting you - whether nurses on a hospital ward or checkout assistants at the supermarket - is felt to be a bad thing.
I also suspect that the productivity and employment numbers are being affected by it no longer being allowable to compulsorily retire workers at 65. Workers whose pensions don't come up to what they've been promised are now staying longer in employment. In some ways this can be a good thing but it also means that the numbers of high cost 'dead wood' workers are increasing rapidly.
Its like a.Lib Dem CEO voting himself a cuastity belt. A lot of frustration followed by a sticky end.
Well if labour are now prepared to debate the economy, it will be a step forward. how will he do it - "growth" no doubt.
You are right, Mr. Brooke.
It will all boil down to competing claims for the rate of growth.
And that being very difficult to quantify, will mean that it will be equally difficult to refute the 'borrow to invest' arguments of Balls.
In the end, although I strongly believe the Osborne.OECD strategy of borrowing only what you can afford, whether to invest or meet current expenses, is right, Balls will at least be able to point to Obama's America as a model for his plans.
'Balls will seek to raise a greater proportion of the fiscal consolidation required to eliminate the deficit from tax rises.'
Good news,the sooner the Labour tax bombshell comes out of the closet the better,the bankers bonus tax has already been spent at least five times so no mileage left with that.
Its like a.Lib Dem CEO voting himself a cuastity belt. A lot of frustration followed by a sticky end.
Well if labour are now prepared to debate the economy, it will be a step forward. how will he do it - "growth" no doubt.
You are right, Mr. Brooke.
It will all boil down to competing claims for the rate of growth.
And that being very difficult to quantify, will mean that it will be equally difficult to refute the 'borrow to invest' arguments of Balls.
In the end, although I strongly believe the Osborne.OECD strategy of borrowing only what you can afford, whether to invest or meet current expenses, is right, Balls will at least be able to point to Obama's America as a model for his plans.
Osborne is lucky he doesn;t have to debate someone competent. He will be put under little pressure by Balls. Lots of heat but no light I'm afraid.
Power outages like the one that plunged Kanaza’s shop into darkness have become more frequent. The power grid was starved of investment as the government kept electricity prices low to contain inflation.
But capping energy prices doesn't have any risks. Oh no.
I say this as a Labour supporter, but this is a catastrophic decision from Ed Balls. Completely retarded political strategy. Even leaving aside the fact it's going to mean cutting things that will infuriate Labour supporters, it pushes the deficit back to the top of the agenda, which is NEVER going to be an area Labour win on, just as it was starting to slip down the agenda. Truly baffling decision from Labour, almost as if they think things are going too well and they want to try and make things difficult for themselves.
What's more, for all the political commentariat mindlessly parrotting that Labour must start talking about cuts to be "credible", the polling evidence shows the exact opposite: the last time Labour were behind in the polls was early 2012, when Balls needlessly enraged Labour supporters by backing the public-sector payfreeze, and then the closest they've come to losing their lead since was last summer when they again started talking about cuts. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories finally get some leads on the back of this.
So in your opinion Labour's best hope is to either ignore or lie about what needs to be done for the economy? You're honest, I'll give you that.
I could be cynical and suggest that Osborne deliberately overforecast borrowing in 2010-11 but as time progressed his forecasts became increasingly costly in their errors.
Can anyone recommend a decent 24 hour cafe in London?
Balans in Soho?
Get you, Ducky. I thought the man wanted a 24 cafe - surely Balans fails on both counts?
Haha my ex flatmate used to go there late doors, I've never been!
I walked for miles today trying to find a cafe on edgware Rd that didnt have people smoking hookahs outside and served food! I wouldn't call that area 'diverse'
Much the same in that right wing rag, those capitalist wreckers at the Guardian.
Economic observers blame the government's populist policies – including keeping utility prices artificially low to disguise inflation – for the power crisis. They say this has made it impossible for firms to invest in maintaining power lines.
Power outages like the one that plunged Kanaza’s shop into darkness have become more frequent. The power grid was starved of investment as the government kept electricity prices low to contain inflation.
But capping energy prices doesn't have any risks. Oh no.
Can anyone recommend a decent 24 hour cafe in London?
If you want a late-night restaurant servinge nice food in the medium(ish!) prices range, plucking one example off the Internet at random gives us Cafe Boheme (http://www.cafeboheme.co.uk/ )
I have to say I am looking forward to reading the text of the delivered version of Balls' speech tomorrow. I have a feeling its going to be a keeper. The published draft as reported in the Telegraph seems to contain more holes than my favourite Emmental and that great get out clause, "but we won'y know if we can actually do this until we are in office and see the books".
Power outages like the one that plunged Kanaza’s shop into darkness have become more frequent. The power grid was starved of investment as the government kept electricity prices low to contain inflation.
But capping energy prices doesn't have any risks. Oh no.
Its almost as stupid as shutting down operational power stations because they're not of the fashionable variety.
Tell me David will you be cheering when the cooling towers of Ferrybridge and Eggborough receive the dynamite in 2016 ?
Can anyone recommend a decent 24 hour cafe in London?
If you want a late-night restaurant servinge nice food in the medium(ish!) prices range, plucking one example off the Internet at random gives us Cafe Boheme (http://www.cafeboheme.co.uk/ )
I say this as a Labour supporter, but this is a catastrophic decision from Ed Balls. Completely retarded political strategy. Even leaving aside the fact it's going to mean cutting things that will infuriate Labour supporters, it pushes the deficit back to the top of the agenda, which is NEVER going to be an area Labour win on, just as it was starting to slip down the agenda. Truly baffling decision from Labour, almost as if they think things are going too well and they want to try and make things difficult for themselves.
But it was always going to come to this. The facts remain we are borrowing too much and the only sensible way to get out of the mess is proper economic growth. labour has ducked this issue for 3 years. 6 months early won't make a difference.
Well, I'm not going to debate economics with you. My instinct is I don't agree, but I can't honestly say I'm expert enough in it to argue passionately ... in fact, I think the last few years have shown that even the so-called "experts" have little real idea of what is good economics or predicting what will happen in the future.
My rant is mainly about it from a political aspect, and the Dan Hodges and Blairite insistence that mimicking the Tories on the economy is in Labour's strategic interest. Irrespective of whether it's the right thing to do economically, the polls clearly show it's not good for them strategically.
I could be cynical and suggest that Osborne deliberately overforecast borrowing in 2010-11 but as time progressed his forecasts became increasingly costly in their errors.
ar
There is no way Osborne could have forecast borrowing in 2010 on the basis of unforeseeable one-off events or accounting re-classifications which occurred after the date of forecast.
There is one measure of PSNB ex and that is what he forecast in 2010.
Now you are wanting to compare it with subsequently introduced measures such as PSNB ex (also excluding Royal Mail, APF, Swiss Tax Agreements, SLS etc, etc, etc,). This is the muddle ONS has got itself into by introducing so many measures and one which they will attempt to un-muddle by revising their methodology this year.
All these exclusions artificially overstate or understate the real borrowing position and we are getting so far from reality that the only reliable measure today has to be what the DMO borrows through gilt and t-bills issuance less redemptions and changes in reserve cash stocks.
The fact remains that George Osborne's 2010 forecast, which you quoted, has turned out so far to be very accurate.
You owe him an apology!
And I could have played the special one-off game too but didn't. Even though 2012 and 2013 borrowing figures look very close, 2013, on an underlying basis, is much better due to the relative absence of special one off favourable transasctions. I didn't go down this route because it just exacerbates the overall comparison problem.
Still George has another tranche of Lloyds shares and the sale of the Olympic Village to come to get the figures down by another £10 bn or so this fiscal year.
Well, I'm not going to debate economics with you. My instinct is I don't agree, but I can't honestly say I'm expert enough in it to argue passionately ... in fact, I think the last few years have shown that even the so-called "experts" have little real idea of what is good economics or predicting what will happen in the future.
Noone is an expert in economics, and passion won't help at all. Predicting the economic future is much like weather forecasting - but less sure.
My rant is mainly about it from a political aspect, and the Dan Hodges and Blairite insistence that mimicking the Tories on the economy is in Labour's strategic interest. Irrespective of whether it's the right thing to do economically, the polls clearly show it's not good for them strategically.
Having some small regard for the actual results of economic experiments (conducted at taxpayer expense) seems wise. Labour have consistently tried to do things their own way and have consistently produced results that have been poor. A small statistical sample certainly, but a wise man would at least take some heed.
I say this as a Labour supporter, but this is a catastrophic decision from Ed Balls. Completely retarded political strategy. Even leaving aside the fact it's going to mean cutting things that will infuriate Labour supporters, it pushes the deficit back to the top of the agenda, which is NEVER going to be an area Labour win on, just as it was starting to slip down the agenda. Truly baffling decision from Labour, almost as if they think things are going too well and they want to try and make things difficult for themselves.
But it was always going to come to this. The facts remain we are borrowing too much and the only sensible way to get out of the mess is proper economic growth. labour has ducked this issue for 3 years. 6 months early won't make a difference.
Well, I'm not going to debate economics with you. My instinct is I don't agree, but I can't honestly say I'm expert enough in it to argue passionately ... in fact, I think the last few years have shown that even the so-called "experts" have little real idea of what is good economics or predicting what will happen in the future.
My rant is mainly about it from a political aspect, and the Dan Hodges and Blairite insistence that mimicking the Tories on the economy is in Labour's strategic interest. Irrespective of whether it's the right thing to do economically, the polls clearly show it's not good for them strategically.
Danny
You are arguing that Balls setting out his strategy for managing the public finances is risking the attempt of Labour to get elected back into office in 2015.
This rather suggests that you want Labour to achieve power without really knowing or caring what they will do with it if successful.
Balls's plans, though you and I might disagree with them, or even not believe them. are at least telling the electorate what a Labour government plans to do in office. It enables both the electorate and the markets to make their judgements on much better information.
Balls is to be congratulated for setting out his 'high-level' plans.
Even Osborne himself uses the same numbers as I do:
" Mr Deputy Speaker, the deficit continues to come down. We have taken many tough decisions to bring that deficit down – and we will continue to do so. The deficit has fallen from 11.2pc of GDP in 2009-10, to a forecast of 7.4pc this year. That is a fall of a third. It then falls further to 6.8pc next year, 5.9pc in 2014-15. 5pc in 2015-16. Then 3.4pc the following year – reaching 2.2pc by 2017-18.
These numbers all exclude the transfer of the Royal Mail pension fund to the government which reduces the deficit still further for this year alone.
Borrowing then falls from £108bn next year and falls again to £97bn in 2014-15. Then £87bn in the last year of this Parliament. Before falling again to £61bn and £42bn in the following two years.
And to ensure complete transparency, the OBR publish the numbers without the APF cash transfers. They show, that on that measure too, borrowing is just forecast to fall. "
Can anyone recommend a decent 24 hour cafe in London?
If you want a late-night restaurant servinge nice food in the medium(ish!) prices range, plucking one example off the Internet at random gives us Cafe Boheme (http://www.cafeboheme.co.uk/ )
Just read a hilarious passage in SeanT's dating book which includes the sentence "she was into bondage and agreed to show me the ropes". Or something like that.
Even Osborne himself uses the same numbers as I do:
" Mr Deputy Speaker, the deficit continues to come down. We have taken many tough decisions to bring that deficit down – and we will continue to do so. The deficit has fallen from 11.2pc of GDP in 2009-10, to a forecast of 7.4pc this year. That is a fall of a third. It then falls further to 6.8pc next year, 5.9pc in 2014-15. 5pc in 2015-16. Then 3.4pc the following year – reaching 2.2pc by 2017-18.
These numbers all exclude the transfer of the Royal Mail pension fund to the government which reduces the deficit still further for this year alone.
Borrowing then falls from £108bn next year and falls again to £97bn in 2014-15. Then £87bn in the last year of this Parliament. Before falling again to £61bn and £42bn in the following two years.
And to ensure complete transparency, the OBR publish the numbers without the APF cash transfers. They show, that on that measure too, borrowing is just forecast to fall. "
Avery, you're like one of those old Japanese soldiers still trying to fight a war their own side long ago surrended in.
ar
You are continuing to use measures and to refer to events which were not foreseen at the time of and which took place after George Osborne made his 2010 PSNB ex forecast.
You can only judge the accuracy of his 2010 forecast on the basis of the measurement he used at the time.
If you want me to move towards your position, I will accept:
1. George's outturns have, to date, been very close to his 2010 forecasts, but the route by which he achieved the outturns has been very different from that contemplated at the time he made the original forecasts. Special one off receipts have plugged holes that would otherwise have arisen.
2. Current OBR forecasts, based on existing spending plans and policies, diverge significantly from the last two years of his five year forecast made in 2010. So he has done well up to now but it is forecast he will overshoot in the last two years (but not I expect by anything like the extent the OBR is currently forecasting).
That said, George has still made his forecasts to date! You cannot legitimately accuse him of not doing so.
Just read a hilarious passage in SeanT's dating book which includes the sentence "she was into bondage and agreed to show me the ropes". Or something like that.
I know we're not allowed to discuss moderation but ...
... does anyone know if SeanT will ever be allowed back and if so when.
We could do with an equivalent of the yellow card timers they have on rugby coverage.
Just read a hilarious passage in SeanT's dating book which includes the sentence "she was into bondage and agreed to show me the ropes". Or something like that.
Power outages like the one that plunged Kanaza’s shop into darkness have become more frequent. The power grid was starved of investment as the government kept electricity prices low to contain inflation.
But capping energy prices doesn't have any risks. Oh no.
What Labour are proposing is minor and short-term. Arguably the utilities will make up for it by raising prices before and after. The price cap policy is bullshit, but it's not going to plunge Britain into darkness.
Just read a hilarious passage in SeanT's dating book which includes the sentence "she was into bondage and agreed to show me the ropes". Or something like that.
I know we're not allowed to discuss moderation but ...
... does anyone know if SeanT will ever be allowed back and if so when.
We could do with an equivalent of the yellow card timers they have on rugby coverage.
I didn't realise he was banned - thought he was otherwise engaged in Thailand.
Just read a hilarious passage in SeanT's dating book which includes the sentence "she was into bondage and agreed to show me the ropes". Or something like that.
I know we're not allowed to discuss moderation but ...
... does anyone know if SeanT will ever be allowed back and if so when.
We could do with an equivalent of the yellow card timers they have on rugby coverage.
I don't think either Sean or tim were given long bans. Mike has commented on the length of tim's ban (a day or two at most) but not on Sean's but I would doubt it differs much.
It is pride and vanity and false allegiance to perceived principles which is keeping them away.
So come back you silly b*ggers. We are missing you both.
You are continuing to use measures and to refer to events which were not foreseen at the time of and which took place after George Osborne made his 2010 PSNB ex forecast.
You can only judge the accuracy of his 2010 forecast on the basis of the measurement he used at the time.
If you want me to move towards your position, I will accept:
1. George's outturns have, to date, been very close to his 2010 forecasts, but the route by which he achieved the outturns has been very different from that contemplated at the time he made the original forecasts. Special one off receipts have plugged holes that would otherwise have arisen.
2. Current OBR forecasts, based on existing spending plans and policies, diverge significantly from the last two years of his five year forecast made in 2010. So he has done well up to now but it is forecast he will overshoot in the last two years (but not I expect by anything like the extent the OBR is currently forecasting).
That said, George has still made his forecasts to date! You cannot legitimately accuse him of not doing so.
That seems to be a lot of long winded and pretentious verbiage to disguise the fact that another richard has won the argument.
That neither Richard Nabavi or Charles has ever deemed fit to back you up on this long running discussion should have been warning enough that you were on to a loser.
Now if you want to grow up and stop acting like a Brownite of 2009-10 I'm sure the whole site will be much relieved.
Perhaps then you could join in with the more practical discussions of government economic and financial policies.
My first suggestion would be stop these tedious mentions of the OBN [sic], Osborne's pet quango has no more authority than any other economic forecasting organisation.
You are continuing to use measures and to refer to events which were not foreseen at the time of and which took place after George Osborne made his 2010 PSNB ex forecast.
You can only judge the accuracy of his 2010 forecast on the basis of the measurement he used at the time.
If you want me to move towards your position, I will accept:
1. George's outturns have, to date, been very close to his 2010 forecasts, but the route by which he achieved the outturns has been very different from that contemplated at the time he made the original forecasts. Special one off receipts have plugged holes that would otherwise have arisen.
2. Current OBR forecasts, based on existing spending plans and policies, diverge significantly from the last two years of his five year forecast made in 2010. So he has done well up to now but it is forecast he will overshoot in the last two years (but not I expect by anything like the extent the OBR is currently forecasting).
That said, George has still made his forecasts to date! You cannot legitimately accuse him of not doing so.
That seems to be a lot of long winded and pretentious verbiage to disguise the fact that another richard has won the argument.
That neither Richard Nabavi or Charles has ever deemed fit to back you up on this long running discussion should have been warning enough that you were on to a loser.
Now if you want to grow up and stop acting like a Brownite of 2009-10 I'm sure the whole site will be much relieved.
Perhaps then you could join in with the more practical discussions of government economic and financial policies.
My first suggestion would be stop these tedious mentions of the OBN [sic], Osborne's pet quango has no more authority than any other economic forecasting organisation.
It is no concession.
The argument is resolvable by published statistics not opinion.
And whatever you and I may think of the OBR, it remains the official forecasting authority of the country, with access to and co-operation with the Treasury and other government ministries which any external forecaster could only dream of.
It has its faults and limitations (as does the ONS), but it has learnt fast and is growing in stature. We are better with it than without.
Power outages like the one that plunged Kanaza’s shop into darkness have become more frequent. The power grid was starved of investment as the government kept electricity prices low to contain inflation.
But capping energy prices doesn't have any risks. Oh no.
What Labour are proposing is minor and short-term. Arguably the utilities will make up for it by raising prices before and after. The price cap policy is bullshit, but it's not going to plunge Britain into darkness.
The period of the proposed freeze includes the date "early 2016" when imported US shale gas is due to start arriving at Grangemouth. So the price freeze might actually prevent a fall in fuel prices.
And whatever you and I may think of the OBR, it remains the official forecasting authority of the country, with access to and co-operation with the Treasury and other government ministries which any external forecaster could only dream of.
And yet its forecasts have been mediocre in the extreme.
So all that has been achieved is that the wealth creating part of the economy is now funding an extra quango to produce economic forecasts which < surprise, surprise > always seem to be in agreement with what the government wants.
In other words a government created, taxpayer funded non-job organisation.
If they're below 60% of median earnings then they will be with us officially.
I can see Bill Gates becoming a hate figure to the poverty industry, there's a lot of people whose livelihoods depend upon the poor always being with us.
If they're below 60% of median earnings then they will be with us officially.
I can see Bill Gates becoming a hate figure to the poverty industry, there's a lot of people whose livelihoods depend upon the poor always being with us.
Absolutely. They don't mind predictions of no poor people in x years' time but I suspect they'll always be annoyed by them in the present, whenever that is.
And whatever you and I may think of the OBR, it remains the official forecasting authority of the country, with access to and co-operation with the Treasury and other government ministries which any external forecaster could only dream of.
And yet its forecasts have been mediocre in the extreme.
So all that has been achieved is that the wealth creating part of the economy is now funding an extra quango to produce economic forecasts which < surprise, surprise > always seem to be in agreement with what the government wants.
In other words a government created, taxpayer funded non-job organisation.
Another echo of the Gordon Brown years.
Economic forecasting is a mugs game. However well you do it the probability is that what you forecast will turn out to be wrong.
Still that doesn't invalidate the role of forecasting. The main benefit is to tell the user what the 'central' or 'consensus' outlook was at the time that decisions are made and policy formulated.
Judges interpreting contracts or statute try hard to understand what the parties or parliament were contemplating or seeking to achieve at the time the disputed wording was agreed. Forecasts are documented evidence of an applicable background and range of assumptions which applied at the time decisions were made.
That is why forecasting is regularly updated and published simultaneously with major policy events (budgets, autumn statements in the case of the OBR's EFO).
They reflect not so much "what the government wants" but how the government sees the status quo, most likely future outcomes (with upside and downsides) and the most likely future impact of contemplated policies. There is bound therefore to be mutual agreement with the government and much joint work in the forecast's preparation.
The ideal forecast from the OBR must be to just underestimate outcomes in good times and just overestimate them in bad. This way their client gets plaudits for overachieving whichever way the economy is going.
That might not be true independence, but it sure as hell is likely to keep you in a job,
In answer to the question on the previous thread about collecting signatures for nomination papers:
In all of my 21 elections, my method was to go from door-to-door along a random/conveniently chosen street, ring door bells, and ask people (mostly complete strangers). The time it took to get 10 signatures was an average of about 2 and a half hours with a minimum of 47 minutes and a maximum of 5 hours 10 minutes. (Obviously it varies according to how many people are likely to be in the house at the time (daytime, evening, workday, weekend etc.)).
To get 10 people to say "yes", you have to ask about 20 to 40 people; to ask those people you have to ring on about 60 to 100 doorbells. It is highly likely that at least 1 out of the 10 people who say "yes" will be (a) newly arrived, and not on the register yet, or (b) the cleaner / child-minder / house-sitter or otherwise not eligible to sign, so it is very important to check as you go along that the name of the person matches the name on the electoral register.
I was surprised by the comment from someone who said that they ask people in a pub in an afternoon and then "check on the register in the evening". That method is very risky unless you know the individuals very well.
And on the subject of guns and politicians. I had never heard of Budd Dywer till the other day. He was an American politician who committed suicide by gun, live on telly, after reading out a long statement. The footage is on youtube. Bonkers.
Not so bonkers. Dwyer was almost certainly an innocent man with a record of blameless public service. A codefendant fingered him in exchange for a lighter sentence, and years later admitted as much. Dwyer was convicted largely on this testimony. On his sentencing (he was looking at a 55 year sentence) his family would lose their entire pension benefits, etc. While still in office, the day before sentencing, Budd chose to call a press conference . and blow his brains out of live TV.
I would not go in search of the footage. It'll never leave you....
I knew about the case of Budd Dwyer, and I did watch the footage on Youtube a few years ago. But I was unaware that the person who blamed him had virtually admitted framing him. As Rod says, don't even try to find or watch the footage unless you are absolutely non-squeamish.
P.S. As someone also said, the process of collecting 10 nomination signatures for election candidates is the most pointless and time-wasting part of the whole process. It does nothing to "show widespread support for a candidate" (which is what I think it was originally supposed to be for). On 2 occasions out of my 21 elections I have been nominated by someone who also nominated someone else (luckily, both times I was the first one into the elections office, and the other candidate had to go out and get more nominations as a result).
In the Croydon North by-election, three candidates went along the same road and several of the nomination signatures were duplicated.
Back on topic: I am broadly optimistic that the different swing patterns of previous Lib Dem voters may readjust itself in time for the General Election, just as some sort of swingback normally occurs.
When it comes to the crunch, former Lib Dem voters who have since swung to Labour (because they were annoyed by the formation of the Coalition) will be scared of the prospect of a Miliband Labour majority government, and will get cold feet about wanting to switch. Voters in LD/Lab marginals (and perhaps Con/LD marginals also) will want to stick with Lib Dems in the hope of getting as much influence as possible in the next coalition (whether it's a Lab/LD colaition or even a new Con/LD coalition).
I hope I'm not too optimistic and thinking with rose-tinted glasses just because I'm a pro-PR liberal Conservative.
For a Lab PPC that is a huge assumption about a different political grouping. It's unlike you, for that matter, unless you are drunk on Arsenal's success. Everyone who puts a cross in a box wants that action to be validated. Same for every party. And yes I've done my hours on the streets interacting with "voters". The "candidate" as you know because you are one, has very little time to engage with enough people to produce a view like that.
In fact reading your post "if anything, because power requires compromise, many regard it as a negative" is almost surreally misguided not to say nonsense. As a teenager might say - what does that even mean?
If you are saying that LDs are a uniquely idealistic grouping who vote in order to maintain or create an optimal political environment and don't worry about who eventually assumes power then I'm afraid I am equally non-plussed. Having ideals, whatever they are, doesn't obviate the desire to have a society where you the voter has had a positive input.
Sure, I've not spoken to them all - I'm really going on polls more than personal interaction. But you were arguing (unless I misread you) that 2010 LibDems are primarily interested in power. If you're primarily interested in power, you aren't a LibDem to start with.
I have lots of philosophical disagreements with many LibDems, but I do respect their reformist ideals, and think that those are their primary motivation. If push comes to shove, I think most would say that the ideals have a better chance of implementation in a Lab/Lib environment than a Con/Lib one, so if you press them to vote on the basis of power choice, they'll tend to go Labour, as somewhere between a quarter and a third of 2010 LibDems intend to do. Your best bet of persuading them not to is actually the opposite - to say never mind about who wins, stay true to your beliefs. Certainly an argument that they might miss out on 0.x% of extra growth or n% faster deficit reduction will get you nowhere with most 2010 LibDems, as the last year's polling has shown.
Populus survey on what people remember of last week: 29% toddler's death, 12% Syria (quite a lot for foreign news, that), 5% Rennard, 5% the weather, 4% each sex trials and unemployment down. #TTMN gets that update every week.
P.S. As someone also said, the process of collecting 10 nomination signatures for election candidates is the most pointless and time-wasting part of the whole process. It does nothing to "show widespread support for a candidate" (which is what I think it was originally supposed to be for). On 2 occasions out of my 21 elections I have been nominated by someone who also nominated someone else (luckily, both times I was the first one into the elections office, and the other candidate had to go out and get more nominations as a result).
In the Croydon North by-election, three candidates went along the same road and several of the nomination signatures were duplicated.
I suppose it's effective as a "proof of work" to stop people spamming the ballot paper. The deposit does the same thing, but arguably it's good to have something non-monetary to even out the burden between rich and poor.
It seems to be generally agreed that Mike Hancock is such a booliak that he wouldn't voluntarily resign and allow a by-election unless he were actually sent to prison. But what if he's such a mega-booliak that he decides that he can ride out the current crisis by seeking a fresh mandate? He could resign, trigger a snap by-election, and stand as an Independent.
If the people of Portsmouth South are foolish enough to have re-elected him the last few times anyway, then it could be a five-way marginal. The Lib Dem vote splits evenly between Lib Dem and Independent, the Conservative vote splits evenly between Conservative and UKIP, and the Labour vote goes up a bit.
Remember, it was Portsmouth Central which had a close 4-way marginal result in 1922.
Comments
What's more, for all the political commentariat mindlessly parrotting that Labour must start talking about cuts to be "credible", the polling evidence shows the exact opposite: the last time Labour were behind in the polls was early 2012, when Balls needlessly enraged Labour supporters by backing the public-sector payfreeze, and then the closest they've come to losing their lead since was last summer when they again started talking about cuts. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories finally get some leads on the back of this.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100256394/unless-the-tories-engage-with-issues-black-voters-care-about-they-face-electoral-oblivion/
You went very quiet from about midnight local time last night. I was worried about you.
Did you go to bed early with toothache?
Balls farts and your average Al-Beeb journalist wants to take a whiff of the odour. 2015 may see a few more Grauniad readers facing the dole-queue....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25885606
:twunts:
A few responses:
The decline of UK oil and gas output is very much a case of 'Dutch disease' going into reverse.
But while Dutch disease was responsible for the damage to manufacturing (and other world competiting sectors) as was seen in the UK in the early 1980s I'm not sure what is meant to happen when it goes into reverse ie falling output leading to a weaker currency.
Now in the long term that might mean an increase in manufacturing but we tend to find governments aren't willing to wait that long and so various quick fixes are sought. In this country they have been attempts by governments to get house prices increasing and subsidising personal consumption, under Labour this was via public sector workers whilst under this government its via pensioners. It is no coincidence that public sector workers are a Labour voting block and pensioners a Conservative voting block.
As to productivity I think you're right. But the steady shift from a wealth creating society to a wealth consuming society by itself has a negative effect on productivity.
As an example if you are making something or producing an exportable service then if one person can do the job of two then that's deemed a good thing. But if you are consuming services then having fewer people assisting you - whether nurses on a hospital ward or checkout assistants at the supermarket - is felt to be a bad thing.
I also suspect that the productivity and employment numbers are being affected by it no longer being allowable to compulsorily retire workers at 65. Workers whose pensions don't come up to what they've been promised are now staying longer in employment. In some ways this can be a good thing but it also means that the numbers of high cost 'dead wood' workers are increasing rapidly.
It will all boil down to competing claims for the rate of growth.
And that being very difficult to quantify, will mean that it will be equally difficult to refute the 'borrow to invest' arguments of Balls.
In the end, although I strongly believe the Osborne.OECD strategy of borrowing only what you can afford, whether to invest or meet current expenses, is right, Balls will at least be able to point to Obama's America as a model for his plans.
'Balls will seek to raise a greater proportion of the fiscal consolidation required to eliminate the deficit from tax rises.'
Good news,the sooner the Labour tax bombshell comes out of the closet the better,the bankers bonus tax has already been spent at least five times so no mileage left with that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545023/At-Wages-rise-faster-prices-poorest-benefit-says-ONS.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-23/argentina-debt-default-specter-looms
Couldn't help but notice this extract: But capping energy prices doesn't have any risks. Oh no.
Irrespective of how much I've had to drink I'm still able to detect fraudulent figures.
If you want to include the Royal Mail pension fund assets then you also need to include the Royal Mail pension fund liabilities.
Its very revealing that despite all the criticism of all the off balance sheet financing that Gordon Brown indulged in you are doing the same thing.
As you well know the correct numbers for government borrowing are:
2010-11
forecast £149bn
actual £139bn
2011-12
forecast £116bn
actual £118bn
2012-13
forecast £89bn
actual £115bn
2013-14
forecast £60bn
actual £108bn est
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_349775.pdf
I could be cynical and suggest that Osborne deliberately overforecast borrowing in 2010-11 but as time progressed his forecasts became increasingly costly in their errors.
I walked for miles today trying to find a cafe on edgware Rd that didnt have people smoking hookahs outside and served food! I wouldn't call that area 'diverse'
Economic observers blame the government's populist policies – including keeping utility prices artificially low to disguise inflation – for the power crisis. They say this has made it impossible for firms to invest in maintaining power lines.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/peso-collapse-argentina-economic-crisis-fernandez-de-kirchner
The future of Britain under the control of Balls.
Tears of laughter etc....
But capping energy prices doesn't have any risks. Oh no.
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/1/24/284671/default/v2/front25-1-329x437.jpg
Somehow, in an age in whichno-one wishes to take responsibility; where it is always someone elses' fault, well....
:could-not-give-a-feck:
More realistically, one technique is to visit the large railway termini. Some of the eateries there are open until 1am. For an example, see http://www.networkrail.co.uk/london-waterloo-station/shops/
If you are limited in your search area, try allinlondon for eateries near to a given tube station. An example is http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/directory/tube-152-1103.php
If it's cheap, hot food done quick you want then (entirely unsarcastically), try a late-opening McDonalds or Burger King.
Elsewise, try www.yell.com
Its almost as stupid as shutting down operational power stations because they're not of the fashionable variety.
Tell me David will you be cheering when the cooling towers of Ferrybridge and Eggborough receive the dynamite in 2016 ?
My rant is mainly about it from a political aspect, and the Dan Hodges and Blairite insistence that mimicking the Tories on the economy is in Labour's strategic interest. Irrespective of whether it's the right thing to do economically, the polls clearly show it's not good for them strategically.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24946089
We might have seens such things if Hitler had won.
Except we did it to ourselves.
I wonder if someone could explain to me why how carbon emissions are reduced by relocating a power station tubine from Oxfordshire to Germany.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25867613
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/22/uk-deficit-falls-lower-unemployment-higher-tax
Though the Guardian might regard a government overspend as a good thing in itself.
There is no way Osborne could have forecast borrowing in 2010 on the basis of unforeseeable one-off events or accounting re-classifications which occurred after the date of forecast.
There is one measure of PSNB ex and that is what he forecast in 2010.
Now you are wanting to compare it with subsequently introduced measures such as PSNB ex (also excluding Royal Mail, APF, Swiss Tax Agreements, SLS etc, etc, etc,). This is the muddle ONS has got itself into by introducing so many measures and one which they will attempt to un-muddle by revising their methodology this year.
All these exclusions artificially overstate or understate the real borrowing position and we are getting so far from reality that the only reliable measure today has to be what the DMO borrows through gilt and t-bills issuance less redemptions and changes in reserve cash stocks.
The fact remains that George Osborne's 2010 forecast, which you quoted, has turned out so far to be very accurate.
You owe him an apology!
And I could have played the special one-off game too but didn't. Even though 2012 and 2013 borrowing figures look very close, 2013, on an underlying basis, is much better due to the relative absence of special one off favourable transasctions. I didn't go down this route because it just exacerbates the overall comparison problem.
Still George has another tranche of Lloyds shares and the sale of the Olympic Village to come to get the figures down by another £10 bn or so this fiscal year.
http://news.sky.com/story/1200305/fat-cows-must-go-on-diet-farmers-warned
Any news on the sheep...?
As for Billingsgate: is that in the nice or nasty part of the Isle of Dogs? I'm unclear on the boundaries
You are arguing that Balls setting out his strategy for managing the public finances is risking the attempt of Labour to get elected back into office in 2015.
This rather suggests that you want Labour to achieve power without really knowing or caring what they will do with it if successful.
Balls's plans, though you and I might disagree with them, or even not believe them. are at least telling the electorate what a Labour government plans to do in office. It enables both the electorate and the markets to make their judgements on much better information.
Balls is to be congratulated for setting out his 'high-level' plans.
" Mr Deputy Speaker, the deficit continues to come down. We have taken many tough decisions to bring that deficit down – and we will continue to do so. The deficit has fallen from 11.2pc of GDP in 2009-10, to a forecast of 7.4pc this year. That is a fall of a third. It then falls further to 6.8pc next year, 5.9pc in 2014-15. 5pc in 2015-16. Then 3.4pc the following year – reaching 2.2pc by 2017-18.
These numbers all exclude the transfer of the Royal Mail pension fund to the government which reduces the deficit still further for this year alone.
Borrowing then falls from £108bn next year and falls again to £97bn in 2014-15. Then £87bn in the last year of this Parliament. Before falling again to £61bn and £42bn in the following two years.
And to ensure complete transparency, the OBR publish the numbers without the APF cash transfers. They show, that on that measure too, borrowing is just forecast to fall. "
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/george-osbornes-budget-speech-full-text
Let us see how Osborne's forecasts have changed:
2013-14
2010 forecast £60bn
2013 forecast £108bn
2014-15
2010 forecast £37bn
2013 forecast £97bn
2015-16
2010 forecast £20bn
2013 forecast £87bn
Avery, you're like one of those old Japanese soldiers still trying to fight a war their own side long ago surrended in.
http://news.sky.com/story/1200521/twitter-trolls-jailed-for-sending-abusive-tweets
You are continuing to use measures and to refer to events which were not foreseen at the time of and which took place after George Osborne made his 2010 PSNB ex forecast.
You can only judge the accuracy of his 2010 forecast on the basis of the measurement he used at the time.
If you want me to move towards your position, I will accept:
1. George's outturns have, to date, been very close to his 2010 forecasts, but the route by which he achieved the outturns has been very different from that contemplated at the time he made the original forecasts. Special one off receipts have plugged holes that would otherwise have arisen.
2. Current OBR forecasts, based on existing spending plans and policies, diverge significantly from the last two years of his five year forecast made in 2010. So he has done well up to now but it is forecast he will overshoot in the last two years (but not I expect by anything like the extent the OBR is currently forecasting).
That said, George has still made his forecasts to date! You cannot legitimately accuse him of not doing so.
... does anyone know if SeanT will ever be allowed back and if so when.
We could do with an equivalent of the yellow card timers they have on rugby coverage.
What Labour are proposing is minor and short-term. Arguably the utilities will make up for it by raising prices before and after. The price cap policy is bullshit, but it's not going to plunge Britain into darkness.
Nigel Evans trial is set for March 10th. Is it likely to last more than a few days?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10595528/Nigel-Evans-denies-sex-offence-charges.html
It is pride and vanity and false allegiance to perceived principles which is keeping them away.
So come back you silly b*ggers. We are missing you both.
That neither Richard Nabavi or Charles has ever deemed fit to back you up on this long running discussion should have been warning enough that you were on to a loser.
Now if you want to grow up and stop acting like a Brownite of 2009-10 I'm sure the whole site will be much relieved.
Perhaps then you could join in with the more practical discussions of government economic and financial policies.
My first suggestion would be stop these tedious mentions of the OBN [sic], Osborne's pet quango has no more authority than any other economic forecasting organisation.
The argument is resolvable by published statistics not opinion.
And whatever you and I may think of the OBR, it remains the official forecasting authority of the country, with access to and co-operation with the Treasury and other government ministries which any external forecaster could only dream of.
It has its faults and limitations (as does the ONS), but it has learnt fast and is growing in stature. We are better with it than without.
The period of the proposed freeze includes the date "early 2016" when imported US shale gas is due to start arriving at Grangemouth. So the price freeze might actually prevent a fall in fuel prices.
So all that has been achieved is that the wealth creating part of the economy is now funding an extra quango to produce economic forecasts which < surprise, surprise > always seem to be in agreement with what the government wants.
In other words a government created, taxpayer funded non-job organisation.
Another echo of the Gordon Brown years.
"The poor won't always be with us".
I can see Bill Gates becoming a hate figure to the poverty industry, there's a lot of people whose livelihoods depend upon the poor always being with us.
Still that doesn't invalidate the role of forecasting. The main benefit is to tell the user what the 'central' or 'consensus' outlook was at the time that decisions are made and policy formulated.
Judges interpreting contracts or statute try hard to understand what the parties or parliament were contemplating or seeking to achieve at the time the disputed wording was agreed. Forecasts are documented evidence of an applicable background and range of assumptions which applied at the time decisions were made.
That is why forecasting is regularly updated and published simultaneously with major policy events (budgets, autumn statements in the case of the OBR's EFO).
They reflect not so much "what the government wants" but how the government sees the status quo, most likely future outcomes (with upside and downsides) and the most likely future impact of contemplated policies. There is bound therefore to be mutual agreement with the government and much joint work in the forecast's preparation.
The ideal forecast from the OBR must be to just underestimate outcomes in good times and just overestimate them in bad. This way their client gets plaudits for overachieving whichever way the economy is going.
That might not be true independence, but it sure as hell is likely to keep you in a job,
In all of my 21 elections, my method was to go from door-to-door along a random/conveniently chosen street, ring door bells, and ask people (mostly complete strangers). The time it took to get 10 signatures was an average of about 2 and a half hours with a minimum of 47 minutes and a maximum of 5 hours 10 minutes. (Obviously it varies according to how many people are likely to be in the house at the time (daytime, evening, workday, weekend etc.)).
To get 10 people to say "yes", you have to ask about 20 to 40 people; to ask those people you have to ring on about 60 to 100 doorbells. It is highly likely that at least 1 out of the 10 people who say "yes" will be (a) newly arrived, and not on the register yet, or (b) the cleaner / child-minder / house-sitter or otherwise not eligible to sign, so it is very important to check as you go along that the name of the person matches the name on the electoral register.
I was surprised by the comment from someone who said that they ask people in a pub in an afternoon and then "check on the register in the evening". That method is very risky unless you know the individuals very well.
In the Croydon North by-election, three candidates went along the same road and several of the nomination signatures were duplicated.
By how much I am not sure.
When it comes to the crunch, former Lib Dem voters who have since swung to Labour (because they were annoyed by the formation of the Coalition) will be scared of the prospect of a Miliband Labour majority government, and will get cold feet about wanting to switch. Voters in LD/Lab marginals (and perhaps Con/LD marginals also) will want to stick with Lib Dems in the hope of getting as much influence as possible in the next coalition (whether it's a Lab/LD colaition or even a new Con/LD coalition).
I hope I'm not too optimistic and thinking with rose-tinted glasses just because I'm a pro-PR liberal Conservative.
I have lots of philosophical disagreements with many LibDems, but I do respect their reformist ideals, and think that those are their primary motivation. If push comes to shove, I think most would say that the ideals have a better chance of implementation in a Lab/Lib environment than a Con/Lib one, so if you press them to vote on the basis of power choice, they'll tend to go Labour, as somewhere between a quarter and a third of 2010 LibDems intend to do. Your best bet of persuading them not to is actually the opposite - to say never mind about who wins, stay true to your beliefs. Certainly an argument that they might miss out on 0.x% of extra growth or n% faster deficit reduction will get you nowhere with most 2010 LibDems, as the last year's polling has shown.
It seems to be generally agreed that Mike Hancock is such a booliak that he wouldn't voluntarily resign and allow a by-election unless he were actually sent to prison. But what if he's such a mega-booliak that he decides that he can ride out the current crisis by seeking a fresh mandate? He could resign, trigger a snap by-election, and stand as an Independent.
If the people of Portsmouth South are foolish enough to have re-elected him the last few times anyway, then it could be a five-way marginal. The Lib Dem vote splits evenly between Lib Dem and Independent, the Conservative vote splits evenly between Conservative and UKIP, and the Labour vote goes up a bit.
Remember, it was Portsmouth Central which had a close 4-way marginal result in 1922.