Advertising is regulated in a completely different way in the US and the UK. In the US an ad has to be signed off by a representative of both the agency and client and if they overclaim or are dishonest the signatories can be personally sued by their competitors.
In the UK a script at inception is presented to a regulator where each claim has to be proven. Then on completion it is resubmitted to ensure that all disclaimers have enough screen time and the type is large enough to be read by people with normal sight.
Political advertising in the UK is a hybrid. The frequency and timing is regulated but the content isn't. If advertising rules applied then I'd be for it. Political parties and their advertisers would be forced to be creative which always makes for good TV and where lazy efforts like the UKIP one above would get thrown out before they'd delivered their first line
"Where foreign fishermen aren't allowed to plunder our seas break the rules and destroy our livelihoods"
"The SNP have formed the government in the Scottish Parliament two elections running now. They obviously want to hold this referendum and they have earned the right to hold it by virtue of their electoral success."
Sure they have but hold it tomorrow morning. It is obvious to small children cycling around Loch Lomond that there will not be an "Out" vote. I'm not sure what the AV referendum showed. Not to my knowldedge that people want to create Scotland as an independent country.
It is the waste of time and resources that is so irritating. Have the referendum, make the concessions (by HMG) that will come after the "In" vote and move on.
I mean this is a betting site - how have you priced an "Out" vote?
OT for US TV watchers - new series Defiance is dreadful - was it developed from a computer game? I managed to endure about 80 mins of the pilot and it was a real struggle.
The Client List is another that I've tried to persevere with and its pants. Hopefully, we'll get some good summer run stuff instead. I enquired about Luther but got no takers - don't bother, overacted/shouty BBC crime drama.
By the way: watching the UKIP commercial, has anyone worked out how we can make sure the farmers get paid more milk, while ensuring that consumers don't pay more for milk?
The message the dairy lobbyists have been pushing is that the evil supermarkets are making enormous profits on the backs of the poor, unfortunate dairy farmers, who work at a loss because they love cows so much. They do that graphic where they draw lines on a milk bottle that show everything above the price the processor sells to the supermarket for as "profit", as if building the supermarket and paying people to work there was free. And they have a number lower down showing what it cost the farmer to make the milk, without telling you that the number includes the expected return on investment of the land and the amount you have to pay the farmer to keep him in the style to which he's accustomed.
So presumably the thought is that the supermarkets will cough up.
Miss Plato, I'd read that the game/TV show were meant to go together, with players having some influence over the way the plot goes and perhaps vice versa. Online gaming isn't my thing, though, so I didn't really look into it.
Mr. Tokyo, after two Scottish Chancellors and a Scottish Prime Minister
I'm pretty sure (and this is the very nub of the debate) that these three individuals would describe themselves primarily as British, and that they'd consider anyone connecting their performance to 'Scottishness' as petty ethnic nationalists.
Miss Plato, I'd read that the game/TV show were meant to go together, with players having some influence over the way the plot goes and perhaps vice versa. Online gaming isn't my thing, though, so I didn't really look into it.
Ah - well that'd explain it - its still crap mind.
Great post Mike. We need much more communication in our political debate, with policy being central. But, as you say, we need tougher controls on where the money comes from. No one individual, company or union should be allowed to account for a large share of a party's funding, as that gives that agent disproportionate influence over our politics.
Sadly the history of videogame and film/TV collaborations is not a happy one. I almost hope they don't make the Metal Gear Solid film, because it's hard to imagine it being good given the history of such things.
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
It would have been very funny if the UK government had lost the case.
As funny as three tory party treasurers in row having to quit under a cloud? You appear to have forgotten the trouble party finance has gotten the tories into. Repeatedly. Labour would also like to forget the trouble they got into when they were courting the big money. Nor are the tories or labour that much better off where their finances are concerned these days.
As much as it would have totally crippled the smaller parties it would have also just led to an advertising arms race between labour and the tories which neither side could possibly afford. Then the voters would see the consequences of that desperation for funding playing out in a slow motion car crash of sleaze. Yes, that sounds like a great idea.
• Public sector current budget deficit was £10.6 billion in March 2013; this is a £0.9 billion higher deficit than in March 2012, when there was a deficit of £9.7 billion.
• Public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £15.1 billion in March 2013; this is £1.6 billion lower net borrowing than in March 2012, when net borrowing was £16.7 billion.
• For 2012/13, public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £86.2 billion; this is £34.7 billion lower net borrowing than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £120.9 billion.
• For 2012/13, central government net cash requirement was £109.5 billion; this is £17 billion lower net cash requirement than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £126.5 billion.
• In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing and public sector current budget deficit are reduced by £6.4 billion as a result of cash transfers from the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund to Government.
• In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing and public sector net investment are reduced by £28.0 billion as a result of the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan in April 2012.
• After removing the effects of the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the transfers from the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility the first 2012/13 estimate of public sector net borrowing is similar in level to last year’s borrowing at £120.6 billion, £0.3 billion lower net borrowing than in 2011/12.
• Public sector net debt was £1,185.8 billion at the end of March 2013, equivalent to 75.4% of gross domestic product (GDP).
• March 2013 public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was not affected by the cash transfers from the Bank of England Purchase Facility Fund to Government. The £3.8 billion transferred in March does impact on central government net cash requirement and public sector net debt (PSND ex).
Advertising is regulated in a completely different way in the US and the UK. In the US an ad has to be signed off by a representative of both the agency and client and if they overclaim or are dishonest the signatories can be personally sued by their competitors.
In the UK a script at inception is presented to a regulator where each claim has to be proven. Then on completion it is resubmitted to ensure that all disclaimers have enough screen time and the type is large enough to be read by people with normal sight.
Political advertising in the UK is a hybrid. The frequency and timing is regulated but the content isn't. If advertising rules applied then I'd be for it. Political parties and their advertisers would be forced to be creative which always makes for good TV and where lazy efforts like the UKIP one above would get thrown out before they'd delivered their first line
"Where foreign fishermen aren't allowed to plunder our seas break the rules and destroy our livelihoods"
Thank you for providing that background, Roger. I think your idea of treating political advertising just like any other kind is worthy of consideration. As you say, it would invalidate some of the more outlandish cheap political slogans used by all parties. That said, it's not always easy to independently substantiate ideas and claims of, for example, future economic growth or savings.
Topping - I think it is important to hold the referendum as it moves the debate on either way.
The WLQ needs resolved soon after - ideally before May 2015 - now that would be a poison pill for an incoming Labour government or Lib/Lab coalition.
I couldn't agree more - but let's do it tomorrow morning.
When we still have to find out what a NO result woud mean? Barnett health consequentilas, taxation powers if any, devo max the tory way and the ubiquitous jam tomorrow?
By the way: watching the UKIP commercial, has anyone worked out how we can make sure the farmers get paid more milk, while ensuring that consumers don't pay more for milk?
The message the dairy lobbyists have been pushing is that the evil supermarkets are making enormous profits on the backs of the poor, unfortunate dairy farmers, who work at a loss because they love cows so much. They do that graphic where they draw lines on a milk bottle that show everything above the price the processor sells to the supermarket for as "profit", as if building the supermarket and paying people to work there was free. And they have a number lower down showing what it cost the farmer to make the milk, without telling you that the number includes the expected return on investment of the land and the amount you have to pay the farmer to keep him in the style to which he's accustomed.
So presumably the thought is that the supermarkets will cough up.
It's pretty clear supermarkets have oligopsony power in the purchasing of stuff from farmers. In addition, if you look at the history of agricultural reform in New Zealand, after subsidies were removed, prices dropped for consumers and increased productivity of the sector saw more money go to farmers.
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
Was Gadaffi a threat to Germany? Presumably all things being equal they'd prefer people in other countries got to live in democracies rather than dictatorships, but strategically I wouldn't have thought they were massively bothered one way or the other.
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
Was Gadaffi a threat to Germany? Presumably all things being equal they'd prefer people in other countries got to live in democracies rather than dictatorships, but strategically I wouldn't have thought they were massively bothered one way or the other.
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
Was Gadaffi a threat to Germany? Presumably all things being equal they'd prefer people in other countries got to live in democracies rather than dictatorships, but strategically I wouldn't have thought they were massively bothered one way or the other.
Topping - I think it is important to hold the referendum as it moves the debate on either way.
The WLQ needs resolved soon after - ideally before May 2015 - now that would be a poison pill for an incoming Labour government or Lib/Lab coalition.
I couldn't agree more - but let's do it tomorrow morning.
When we still have to find out what a NO result woud mean? Barnett health consequentilas, taxation powers if any, devo max the tory way and the ubiquitous jam tomorrow?
My impression (please disabuse me of it) is that independence transcends Barnett formulae and whatnot. It is a visceral, emotional desire to be free. Are you really telling me that if it's agreed that Scotland is liable for, say, 8.2% of debt and 8.6% of assets then a whole tranche of Scots voters will say: "oh yes that's swung it for me - independence gains us £1.653bn more than we had hoped."
On topic, I'd have no problem with ditching PPBs, which are now past their sell-by date, in a multi-channel, multi-media age. I'd be far less keen on paid political advertising.
The US model is instructive. The great deal of advertising is spent not on promoting one side but on knocking the other. While that's less effective in a system with more than two parties, I suspect we'd still see much the same here: negative campaigning is effective. Of course, that might be good news if you're not one of the two main parties and therefore benefit by default by being 'not the others'.
Consequently, the idea that it would raise participation is hopeful at best. Participation in the US is poor by UK standards (admittedly, the registration rules don't help there), and negative TV / radio ads would be more likely to depress turnout than increase it.
When the US brought in the "I'm Candidate X and I approve this message" negative advertising dropped dramatically. Unfortunately, it was negated by the allowance of super PACs that didn't have to say who they were. We could learn from that experience.
I doubt that George Osborne is going to be a regular fixture in the Scottish independence debate. But he had to speak at least once, so he might as well do it on a subject where he has good technical points to make.
Topping - I think it is important to hold the referendum as it moves the debate on either way.
The WLQ needs resolved soon after - ideally before May 2015 - now that would be a poison pill for an incoming Labour government or Lib/Lab coalition.
I couldn't agree more - but let's do it tomorrow morning.
It's becoming tedious having to tell tories what their own party is doing.
Cameron CAN sort out the WLQ tomorrow morning but only IF he wants to.
The McKay commission reported and gave recommendations for tackling the WLQ which are now under consideration by this government. If they choose to leave it alone that's their choice but let's not hear any whining if they do. The WLQ applies to all devolved powers and places where it applies, not just scotland. So it can be acted on even before an independence referendum.
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
Was Gadaffi a threat to Germany? Presumably all things being equal they'd prefer people in other countries got to live in democracies rather than dictatorships, but strategically I wouldn't have thought they were massively bothered one way or the other.
It's pretty clear supermarkets have oligopsony power in the purchasing of stuff from farmers.
IIUC farmers don't normally sell milk direct to supermarkets - they sell to a smaller number of milk processors, which then sell to the supermarkets. In theory it's possible that the milk processors have oligopsony power over the farmers, but at least one of the big ones seems to be a farmer-owned cooperative, so if they were really making excessive profits off the backs of the farmers you'd think the farmers would be able to stop themselves screwing themselves.
It's not a magic money tree. New Zealand showed the case very clearly: it's possible to get rid of subsidies yet have farmers make more money. I know the idea that competition, innovation, reputation-building and other aspects of a free market creating more wealth is alien to those of a left-wing mindset, who think there is a fixed pie that can only be redistributed, but it's the reality.
Topping - I think it is important to hold the referendum as it moves the debate on either way.
The WLQ needs resolved soon after - ideally before May 2015 - now that would be a poison pill for an incoming Labour government or Lib/Lab coalition.
I couldn't agree more - but let's do it tomorrow morning.
When we still have to find out what a NO result woud mean? Barnett health consequentilas, taxation powers if any, devo max the tory way and the ubiquitous jam tomorrow?
My impression (please disabuse me of it) is that independence transcends Barnett formulae and whatnot. It is a visceral, emotional desire to be free. Are you really telling me that if it's agreed that Scotland is liable for, say, 8.2% of debt and 8.6% of assets then a whole tranche of Scots voters will say: "oh yes that's swung it for me - independence gains us £1.653bn more than we had hoped."
Sadly for many it comes down to what is in it for me. A Panelbase poll ( I think) asked if you were 500 quid better off independent would you go for it and the majority said yes. So IF it is proven scots will be better off the case is lost, hence the fear and scare stories as the facts suggest that 500 a year better off is no problem on current oil revenues. People want to know they will not be worse off at the very least! So saying all is doom and gloom when there is no argument except austerity and the status quo at best is a hard one to push without a complicit MSM. Luckily the NO campaign has that all sewn up.
The topic is currency and they send the CoTE - Scotland should be honoured.
The only people who have a problem with that are class bigots.
And yet Cammie says he will not debate as it is an issue for Scots. If that is the case what is Osborne doing? Cammie running scared as fop Tories are toxic full stop north of Berwick.
Outturns on Public Finances vs. Latest OBR Forecasts (March)
OBR: We forecast that [PSNB ex] will come in at £86.5 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP) this year.
ONS: For 2012/13, public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £86.2 billion;
So, £0.3 bn less than forecast last month.
OBR: We forecast an underlying deficit of £120.9 billion (7.8 per cent of GDP) in 2012-13
ONS: Public sector net borrowing is similar in level to last year’s borrowing at £120.6 billion.
So £0.3 bn less than forecast last month.
Looks like the Treasury have decided to come in just under the OBR's latest forecast.
This means that the deficit has fallen in every year of this parliament.
More interesting is the actual cash borrowing requirement:
ONS: For 2012/13, central government net cash requirement was £109.5 billion; this is £17 billion lower net cash requirement than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £126.5 billion.
All this smacks of the Treasury currently being in coimplete control of the key statistics. Generally when figures outturn almost exactly to forecast it means the 'accountants' haven't had to struggle too much to find 'good news'.
The clue is in the difference between borrowings in cash and accrued borrowing. The £17 bn lower cash borrowing suggests that there is a lot of accrued borrowing in the PSND ex figures. Another way of putting this is to suggest that Osborne and Alexander look as though they have shifted some of the 2013-14 fiscal year's borrowing to the 2012-13 fiscal year.
It's pretty clear supermarkets have oligopsony power in the purchasing of stuff from farmers.
IIUC farmers don't normally sell milk direct to supermarkets - they sell to a smaller number of milk processors, which then sell to the supermarkets. In theory it's possible that the milk processors have oligopsony power over the farmers, but at least one of the big ones seems to be a farmer-owned cooperative, so if they were really making excessive profits off the backs of the farmers you'd think the farmers would be able to stop themselves screwing themselves.
The supermarkets have oligopsony power over the milk processors, reducing their revenues, which reduces what the processors can pay the farmers.
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
The US and Canada are part of NATO but somehow manage to survive outside the EU!
The topic is currency and they send the CoTE - Scotland should be honoured.
The only people who have a problem with that are class bigots.
And yet Cammie says he will not debate as it is an issue for Scots. If that is the case what is Osborne doing? Cammie running scared as fop Tories are toxic full stop north of Berwick.
What Scotland would do after a Yes is indeed their problem. However GO is right to point out that a rUK BoE would not be influenced by a foreign country. The BoE remit would be set by the rUK government quite rightly.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky HANG ON: when you remove effect of reclassification of Northern Rock/B&B assets, the deficit is actually £400m HIGHER than last year (ONS)
What if you exclude VAT receipts from train tickets ? What about stamp duty ? What if you take off 4G ? What if , what if ???
On-topic: I completely disagree. To allow much larger political advertising budgets would be to play with fire, and he who plays with fire will probably get burnt. What is the case for continuing the ban in the digital television era? It's about domination of the airwaves depriving the voter of an independent choice. It would also strengthen the party machine. As the ECtHR notes, broadcast media still plays a very large role: few people watch PPBs online or indeed anything more than the odd banner ad.
"In any case there’s no ban on TV type ads on the Internet which is becoming increasingly important." - it is still just half of the TV advertising budget and with less 'punch'. That "the parties should be able to reach them by being able to advertise on the TV channels that they watch" is a testament to that. The Internet gives many more options for proper voter engagement.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky HANG ON: when you remove effect of reclassification of Northern Rock/B&B assets, the deficit is actually £400m HIGHER than last year (ONS)
I think Conway must have received an email from I'll-Ave-Another Blancmange.
It is nonsense, tim.
Without checking the full bulletin, the NR & BB assets were reclassified from Public Sector Financial Corporations to Central Government. It reflected the reality that the government were holding the assets and managing the loan book for their own benefit and on a long term basis (i.e. til the loans are paid off).
The move should not affect the deficit as there has been no increased borrowing as a result of the reclassification. It should affect Public Sector Net Debt exluding financial interventions vs. PSND including financial interventions.
Lets see, the ONS will want to look at all the delayed payments.
And deficit reduction is "stalled" for three years. But you believed George's growth forecasts, zero growth since he announced his genius had established it.
Desperate stuff to question the integrity of the ONS.
There needs, as some have alluded to, to be a "gentlemen's agreement" between and across all parties that advertising should be promotional rather than derogatory
In the US they spend billions on political advertising. I think we can therefore be quite confident that the reason negative advertising dominates over promotional advertising is because it works.
You only have to see with British billboard campaigns, from the tax bombshell, Blair's demon eyes, Hague in a wig, through to the misleading anti-AV campaign, that no gentleman's agreement would have a chance in hell of holding back a tidal wave of negative advertising.
Chris Leslie @ChrisLeslieMP 7m Osborne's failure to grasp that strong economy is key to deficit reduction means at current rates he won't balance the books until year 2415
I wonder when the books will be balanced if Labour got into office, with their recent idea of spending more than the Tories at the next election?
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 2m Mixed picture for Chancellor. Borrowing down by 1.6bn year on year, but deficit up 0.9bn year on year. http://polho.me/14Lsin3
Waugh is wrong unless he is using a different definition of "deficit" to the ONS (quite possible as deficit is used in different contexts very loosely).
Have a look at the end of my two previous posts where I have added detail by edit.
The story of the day should be why is cash borrowing down by £17 bn but accrued borrowing is nearly the same as last year. I bet you anything it is not George delaying payments due!
Chris Leslie @ChrisLeslieMP 7m Osborne's failure to grasp that strong economy is key to deficit reduction means at current rates he won't balance the books until year 2415
I wonder when the books will be balanced if Labour got into office, with their recent idea of spending more than the Tories at the next election?
Chris Leslie's comment is as sensible as estimating the time taken to travel by car from London to Edinburgh using as input the car's speed whilst halted at traffic lights.
Perhaps he should get some help pn figures from the British Obama.
@tim - No, it wasn't supposed to be like this. World economic conditions turned even tougher than anyone was forecasting, as anyone who's read a newspaper in the last three years should know.
Still, given the perils on all sides, Osborne has judged things well. The outcome's not great, but we're not in fiscal crisis, losing the confidence of markets, seeing unemployment increase dramatically, or being forced (like many of our EU friends) into panic measures to cut spending in an uncontrolled way. If you want to see what the latter looks like, you can either read a French newspaper now, or vote Labour in 2015.
Firstly, the fall is three hundred million pounds (if it is not revised) and Labour would do well not to play down the size of that - so I understand the 0.3% figure.
Secondly, as the Spectator says, this is important politically. If the deficit had risen, Osborne would not have cut it in every year of the parliament. Opponents would have jumped on even the smallest rise and it's natural that a small cut is greeted with relief.
Thirdly, as the Spectator's graph shows, there has been a considerable improvement in the deficit over last year in the last three months of the year, with the middle six on the whole being poor. Borrowing in March was £1.6bn lower than last year, around 10%. Osborne will want to do even better than that, this year, but a fall of 10% would still be very significant.
@tim - Shares for rights is an excellent idea. I think on this topic I can fairly claim to be a hell of a lot more knowledgeable than the House of Lords, an institution not exactly renowned for being stuffed full of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and venture capitalists.
The supermarkets have oligopsony power over the milk processors, reducing their revenues, which reduces what the processors can pay the farmers.
Yeah, apparently these little guys only have 24% market share, the lack of competition on the buying side must create a very unequal negotiation when dealing with Aldi, Asda, Budgens, Co-op, Iceland, Lidl, Londis, Mace, Morrisons, Sainsbury's, SPAR, Tesco or Waitrose.
The supermarkets have oligopsony power over the milk processors, reducing their revenues, which reduces what the processors can pay the farmers.
Yeah, apparently these little guys only have 24% market share, the lack of competition on the buying side must create a very unequal negotiation when dealing with Aldi, Asda, Budgens, Co-op, Iceland, Lidl, Londis, Mace, Morrisons, Sainsbury's, SPAR, Tesco or Waitrose.
Bring back the Milk Marketing Board and their cycling sponsorship!
Partners in businesses have reduced employment rights in return for shares in the business. I'm not sure quite what the objection is to that very long-standing model being extended into other areas to try to encourage more of a partnership approach to business, but no doubt the Lords have their reasons.
@tim - I missed the bit in Lord Forsyth's CV where he managed a three-man company struggling to pay the bills each month, had to give personal guarantees for bank lending, had to personally do all the PAYE and VAT admin in his spare time while trying to drum up business, or did (as I've done) due diligence studies for venture capitalists on companies comprising two men, a dog and a bright idea.
The supermarkets have oligopsony power over the milk processors, reducing their revenues, which reduces what the processors can pay the farmers.
Yeah, apparently these little guys only have 24% market share, the lack of competition on the buying side must create a very unequal negotiation when dealing with Aldi, Asda, Budgens, Co-op, Iceland, Lidl, Londis, Mace, Morrisons, Sainsbury's, SPAR, Tesco or Waitrose.
How big is the market share of the other players? The four largest supermarkets have 62% market share in grocery, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was even larger in milk purchasing.
@tim - No, it wasn't supposed to be like this. World economic conditions turned even tougher than anyone was forecasting, as anyone who's read a newspaper in the last three years should know.
Still, given the perils on all sides, Osborne has judged things well. The outcome's not great, but we're not in fiscal crisis, losing the confidence of markets, seeing unemployment increase dramatically, or being forced (like many of our EU friends) into panic measures to cut spending in an uncontrolled way. If you want to see what the latter looks like, you can either read a French newspaper now, or vote Labour in 2015.
What do you think the government bond yield will go over post-2015, if there's a Labour government?
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
Twentieth Century precedents for Germany doing its own fighting suggest this is not something to be encouraged.
I did think Humphries' interview of Osborne was poor today - he could have usefully discussed the 'shares for rights' debate - but instead went after this:
The supermarkets have oligopsony power over the milk processors, reducing their revenues, which reduces what the processors can pay the farmers.
Yeah, apparently these little guys only have 24% market share, the lack of competition on the buying side must create a very unequal negotiation when dealing with Aldi, Asda, Budgens, Co-op, Iceland, Lidl, Londis, Mace, Morrisons, Sainsbury's, SPAR, Tesco or Waitrose.
Probably as much a problem dealing with this 'Arla' if you are a farmer. Anyway the rest of the supermarkets somewhat 'catching up' to Tesco is I think a good thing for the UK Dairy industry.
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
Twentieth Century precedents for Germany doing its own fighting suggest this is not something to be encouraged.
You're referring of course to them losing two World Wars?
What do you think the government bond yield will go over post-2015, if there's a Labour government?
How can I possibly answer that without knowing whether the two Eds plan to do an Hollande (i.e. tell their supporters one thing and do the diametric opposite), or whether they really are sincere in their opposition to almost every measure which might save some money?
My guess is more the former than the latter, but I think a gamble based on the hope that they are completely dishonest is a gamble too far. That is why I'm rebalancing my portfolio away from dependence on the UK economy. The political risk is just too great, especially since Miliband does seem to have some spectacularly naive ideas.
What's more, there's another risk which makes it even worse, namely that we end up with a weak government in a hung parliament (or with a tiny majority), incapable of taking any difficult decisions. In that scenario we'd get dithering and pork-barrelling, followed inevitably by a sudden correction as the markets got cold feet.
Given that we start with the highest deficit in Europe, and our interest payments already exceed £50bn, these are serious risks.
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
Twentieth Century precedents for Germany doing its own fighting suggest this is not something to be encouraged.
After six and a half decades of being a democracy, I think their political system is mature enough they can be a normal country once again.
"Are the SNP’s plans for a currency union a) Expedient, b) Sensible, c) Dangerous or d) All of the Above"
The problem for the SNP, I think, is not so much that its currency proposals are unworkable (they may not be!) but that they compromise the nationalist’s core message. That is to say that the SNP spends so much time falling back to freshly dug defensive positions that it is in danger of conceding so much ground to Unionists that one begins to wonder just what the nationalists will not sacrifice in their pursuit of a victory – the worth of which must be diluted by the concessions they are making. Independence on these terms may be achievable but is it either necessary or sufficient? This, not the details of economic policy, is the uncertainty that damages the SNP.
Is a linear negative correlation using 73 data points with an R-squared of 0.6 statistically significant?
How about a positive correlation with an R-squared of 0.4?
Both are highly significant as tests of a null of no association. It would be decisively rejected in both cases. The graph would be very interesting to see.
Is a linear negative correlation using 73 data points with an R-squared of 0.6 statistically significant?
How about a positive correlation with an R-squared of 0.4?
Both are highly significant as tests of a null of no association. It would be decisively rejected in both cases. The graph would be very interesting to see.
I would attach it to this message if I could, but Vanilla won't let me! Only in this one solitary aspect do I miss the old Disqus!
Firstly, the fall is three hundred million pounds (if it is not revised) and Labour would do well not to play down the size of that - so I understand the 0.3% figure.
Secondly, as the Spectator says, this is important politically. If the deficit had risen, Osborne would not have cut it in every year of the parliament. Opponents would have jumped on even the smallest rise and it's natural that a small cut is greeted with relief.
Thirdly, as the Spectator's graph shows, there has been a considerable improvement in the deficit over last year in the last three months of the year, with the middle six on the whole being poor. Borrowing in March was £1.6bn lower than last year, around 10%. Osborne will want to do even better than that, this year, but a fall of 10% would still be very significant.
Absolutely, Grandiose. The key point is that Osborne has managed to reduce the deficit by a significant amount over the past three months.
This tells us that:
1. GDP has been growing in Q1 2013 much faster than in Q4 2012; or 2. The Deficit can be reduced in a 'flat-lining' economy.
My belief is that the deficit reduction is actually bigger than disclosed today and that Osborne has decided to carry forward unneeded reductions into the next fiscal year.
This makes political sense. All he needed to do this fiscal year was to ensure borrowing came in under last year's figure so that he can claim to have reduced the deficit in every year of this parliament.
The next political task is to satsify markets, supra-national economic agencies and the media that the trajectory of deficit reduction is downward. So good Q1 2013-14 figures are far more useful to him in this respect that making the previous year's undershoot bigger.
As I said downthread the news of the day is the difference between the cash and accrued borrowing figures. This is like a Chief Accountant telling a CEO that UK PLC has borrowed 50 million and the CEO then asks why the bank overdraft is only 30 million.
Is a linear negative correlation using 73 data points with an R-squared of 0.6 statistically significant?
How about a positive correlation with an R-squared of 0.4?
Both are highly significant as tests of a null of no association. It would be decisively rejected in both cases. The graph would be very interesting to see.
I would attach it to this message if I could, but Vanilla won't let me! Only in this one solitary aspect do I miss the old Disqus!
My belief is that the deficit reduction is actually bigger than disclosed today and that Osborne has decided to carry forward unneeded reductions into the next fiscal year.
This makes political sense.
That's quite a damaging claim, do you really think Osborne is massaging the figures for political impact?
How can I possibly answer that without knowing whether the two Eds plan to do an Hollande (i.e. tell their supporters one thing and do the diametric opposite), or whether they really are sincere in their opposition to almost every measure which might save some money?
The first one, obviously. But the Tory line will have to be that it's the second one so they can blame them for whatever goes wrong.
My belief is that the deficit reduction is actually bigger than disclosed today and that Osborne has decided to carry forward unneeded reductions into the next fiscal year.
This makes political sense.
That's quite a damaging claim, do you really think Osborne is massaging the figures for political impact?
Seeing as the whole flipping world runs off expectations management including financial analysts I'd have thought this was an emminently sensible piece of 'management'. Certainly better than 'managing' the figures the other way as he did with the 4G sales.
Is a linear negative correlation using 73 data points with an R-squared of 0.6 statistically significant?
How about a positive correlation with an R-squared of 0.4?
Both are highly significant as tests of a null of no association. It would be decisively rejected in both cases. The graph would be very interesting to see.
I would attach it to this message if I could, but Vanilla won't let me! Only in this one solitary aspect do I miss the old Disqus!
Is the data suitable for ANOVAing ?
Sorry what's ANOVA? I thought I might link to them on Twitter but not sure if others need an account to view it.
Gideon was called sometime during the period of the debt (many billions). Cameron asked him to save the British from fierce oppression from the Labourites. But, Gideon was rather incredulous. He felt he was too insignificant of a person to take on such a chore; so he asked for a sign from the austerity angel who spoke with him.
My belief is that the deficit reduction is actually bigger than disclosed today and that Osborne has decided to carry forward unneeded reductions into the next fiscal year.
This makes political sense.
That's quite a damaging claim, do you really think Osborne is massaging the figures for political impact?
Is a linear negative correlation using 73 data points with an R-squared of 0.6 statistically significant?
How about a positive correlation with an R-squared of 0.4?
Both are highly significant as tests of a null of no association. It would be decisively rejected in both cases. The graph would be very interesting to see.
I would attach it to this message if I could, but Vanilla won't let me! Only in this one solitary aspect do I miss the old Disqus!
Is the data suitable for ANOVAing ?
Sorry what's ANOVA? I thought I might link to them on Twitter but not sure if others need an account to view it.
ANalysis Of VAriance. A statistical model to compare sets of data
Is a linear negative correlation using 73 data points with an R-squared of 0.6 statistically significant?
How about a positive correlation with an R-squared of 0.4?
Both are highly significant as tests of a null of no association. It would be decisively rejected in both cases. The graph would be very interesting to see.
I would attach it to this message if I could, but Vanilla won't let me! Only in this one solitary aspect do I miss the old Disqus!
Is the data suitable for ANOVAing ?
Sorry what's ANOVA? I thought I might link to them on Twitter but not sure if others need an account to view it.
ANalysis Of VAriance - But we need to know what the data is first
"Are the SNP’s plans for a currency union a) Expedient, b) Sensible, c) Dangerous or d) All of the Above"
The problem for the SNP, I think, is not so much that its currency proposals are unworkable (they may not be!) but that they compromise the nationalist’s core message. That is to say that the SNP spends so much time falling back to freshly dug defensive positions that it is in danger of conceding so much ground to Unionists that one begins to wonder just what the nationalists will not sacrifice in their pursuit of a victory – the worth of which must be diluted by the concessions they are making. Independence on these terms may be achievable but is it either necessary or sufficient? This, not the details of economic policy, is the uncertainty that damages the SNP.
My belief is that the deficit reduction is actually bigger than disclosed today and that Osborne has decided to carry forward unneeded reductions into the next fiscal year.
This makes political sense.
That's quite a damaging claim, do you really think Osborne is massaging the figures for political impact?
Naturally you're right, apart from Osborne's claims when he took office to be different.
Ah, ANOVA. Reminds me of SPSS at university. I was really surprised how much maths was involved (at certain times) in psychology. Some of the most interesting stuff was to do with p values, Eigenvalues and the importance of asking questions backwards.
Makes me wonder what the p value of polls are. (The p value refers to the odds on a psychometric test throwing up a result which is the result of random chance rather than accurately measuring what's meant to be found out. A p value of 0.95, equating to a 95% chance of accurate measurement, is sought, but higher is always better).
Is a linear negative correlation using 73 data points with an R-squared of 0.6 statistically significant?
How about a positive correlation with an R-squared of 0.4?
Both are highly significant as tests of a null of no association. It would be decisively rejected in both cases. The graph would be very interesting to see.
I would attach it to this message if I could, but Vanilla won't let me! Only in this one solitary aspect do I miss the old Disqus!
Is the data suitable for ANOVAing ?
Sorry what's ANOVA? I thought I might link to them on Twitter but not sure if others need an account to view it.
ANalysis Of VAriance - But we need to know what the data is first
Comments
In the UK a script at inception is presented to a regulator where each claim has to be proven. Then on completion it is resubmitted to ensure that all disclaimers have enough screen time and the type is large enough to be read by people with normal sight.
Political advertising in the UK is a hybrid. The frequency and timing is regulated but the content isn't. If advertising rules applied then I'd be for it. Political parties and their advertisers would be forced to be creative which always makes for good TV and where lazy efforts like the UKIP one above would get thrown out before they'd delivered their first line
"Where foreign fishermen aren't allowed to plunder our seas break the rules and destroy our livelihoods"
"The SNP have formed the government in the Scottish Parliament two elections running now. They obviously want to hold this referendum and they have earned the right to hold it by virtue of their electoral success."
Sure they have but hold it tomorrow morning. It is obvious to small children cycling around Loch Lomond that there will not be an "Out" vote. I'm not sure what the AV referendum showed. Not to my knowldedge that people want to create Scotland as an independent country.
It is the waste of time and resources that is so irritating. Have the referendum, make the concessions (by HMG) that will come after the "In" vote and move on.
I mean this is a betting site - how have you priced an "Out" vote?
The Client List is another that I've tried to persevere with and its pants. Hopefully, we'll get some good summer run stuff instead. I enquired about Luther but got no takers - don't bother, overacted/shouty BBC crime drama.
The WLQ needs resolved soon after - ideally before May 2015 - now that would be a poison pill for an incoming Labour government or Lib/Lab coalition.
So presumably the thought is that the supermarkets will cough up.
First estimate of Public Sector Finances 2012/13 outturn: net #borrowing at £86.2bn, £34.7bn lower than 2011/12 goo.gl/2Aga8
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/22/uk-military-eu-german-minister
Perhaps they're a bit worried they'd have to do their fighting for themselves rather than rely on British blood and treasure to take out threats like Gadaffi.
You appear to have forgotten the trouble party finance has gotten the tories into. Repeatedly.
Labour would also like to forget the trouble they got into when they were courting the big money. Nor are the tories or labour that much better off where their finances are concerned these days.
As much as it would have totally crippled the smaller parties it would have also just led to an advertising arms race between labour and the tories which neither side could possibly afford. Then the voters would see the consequences of that desperation for funding playing out in a slow motion car crash of sleaze. Yes, that sounds like a great idea.
Key findings
• Public sector current budget deficit was £10.6 billion in March 2013; this is a £0.9 billion higher deficit than in March 2012, when there was a deficit of £9.7 billion.
• Public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £15.1 billion in March 2013; this is £1.6 billion lower net borrowing than in March 2012, when net borrowing was £16.7 billion.
• For 2012/13, public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £86.2 billion; this is £34.7 billion lower net borrowing than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £120.9 billion.
• For 2012/13, central government net cash requirement was £109.5 billion; this is £17 billion lower net cash requirement than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £126.5 billion.
• In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing and public sector current budget deficit are reduced by £6.4 billion as a result of cash transfers from the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund to Government.
• In 2012/13, public sector net borrowing and public sector net investment are reduced by £28.0 billion as a result of the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan in April 2012.
• After removing the effects of the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the transfers from the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility the first 2012/13 estimate of public sector net borrowing is similar in level to last year’s borrowing at £120.6 billion, £0.3 billion lower net borrowing than in 2011/12.
• Public sector net debt was £1,185.8 billion at the end of March 2013, equivalent to 75.4% of gross domestic product (GDP).
• March 2013 public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was not affected by the cash transfers from the Bank of England Purchase Facility Fund to Government. The £3.8 billion transferred in March does impact on central government net cash requirement and public sector net debt (PSND ex).
Cameron CAN sort out the WLQ tomorrow morning but only IF he wants to.
The McKay commission reported and gave recommendations for tackling the WLQ which are now under consideration by this government. If they choose to leave it alone that's their choice but let's not hear any whining if they do. The WLQ applies to all devolved powers and places where it applies, not just scotland. So it can be acted on even before an independence referendum.
Clever, yet satirical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXcLVDhS8fM
The only people who have a problem with that are class bigots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon
A Panelbase poll ( I think) asked if you were 500 quid better off independent would you go for it and the majority said yes. So IF it is proven scots will be better off the case is lost, hence the fear and scare stories as the facts suggest that 500 a year better off is no problem on current oil revenues.
People want to know they will not be worse off at the very least! So saying all is doom and gloom when there is no argument except austerity and the status quo at best is a hard one to push without a complicit MSM. Luckily the NO campaign has that all sewn up.
Outturns on Public Finances vs. Latest OBR Forecasts (March)
OBR: We forecast that [PSNB ex] will come in at £86.5 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP) this year.
ONS: For 2012/13, public sector net borrowing (PSNB ex) was £86.2 billion;
So, £0.3 bn less than forecast last month.
OBR: We forecast an underlying deficit of £120.9 billion (7.8 per cent of GDP) in 2012-13
ONS: Public sector net borrowing is similar in level to last year’s borrowing at £120.6 billion.
So £0.3 bn less than forecast last month.
Looks like the Treasury have decided to come in just under the OBR's latest forecast.
This means that the deficit has fallen in every year of this parliament.
More interesting is the actual cash borrowing requirement:
ONS: For 2012/13, central government net cash requirement was £109.5 billion; this is £17 billion lower net cash requirement than in 2011/12, when net borrowing was £126.5 billion.
All this smacks of the Treasury currently being in coimplete control of the key statistics. Generally when figures outturn almost exactly to forecast it means the 'accountants' haven't had to struggle too much to find 'good news'.
The clue is in the difference between borrowings in cash and accrued borrowing. The £17 bn lower cash borrowing suggests that there is a lot of accrued borrowing in the PSND ex figures. Another way of putting this is to suggest that Osborne and Alexander look as though they have shifted some of the 2013-14 fiscal year's borrowing to the 2012-13 fiscal year.
How about a positive correlation with an R-squared of 0.4?
What about stamp duty ?
What if you take off 4G ?
What if , what if ???
Borrowing is down....
"In any case there’s no ban on TV type ads on the Internet which is becoming increasingly important." - it is still just half of the TV advertising budget and with less 'punch'. That "the parties should be able to reach them by being able to advertise on the TV channels that they watch" is a testament to that. The Internet gives many more options for proper voter engagement.
It is nonsense, tim.
Without checking the full bulletin, the NR & BB assets were reclassified from Public Sector Financial Corporations to Central Government. It reflected the reality that the government were holding the assets and managing the loan book for their own benefit and on a long term basis (i.e. til the loans are paid off).
The move should not affect the deficit as there has been no increased borrowing as a result of the reclassification. It should affect Public Sector Net Debt exluding financial interventions vs. PSND including financial interventions.
Ah yes, that old chestnut!
You only have to see with British billboard campaigns, from the tax bombshell, Blair's demon eyes, Hague in a wig, through to the misleading anti-AV campaign, that no gentleman's agreement would have a chance in hell of holding back a tidal wave of negative advertising.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191786/ScotlandAnalysis_acc-1.pdf
Perhaps a quiet period of reflection tending your cows may calm you down.
Poor thing...enjoy the sunshine (it's almost blue sky in Basingstoke..soon be home). But there's always the GDP figures on Thursday.
Have a look at the end of my two previous posts where I have added detail by edit.
The story of the day should be why is cash borrowing down by £17 bn but accrued borrowing is nearly the same as last year. I bet you anything it is not George delaying payments due!
Perhaps he should get some help pn figures from the British Obama.
Surely a ban is incoming.
Still, given the perils on all sides, Osborne has judged things well. The outcome's not great, but we're not in fiscal crisis, losing the confidence of markets, seeing unemployment increase dramatically, or being forced (like many of our EU friends) into panic measures to cut spending in an uncontrolled way. If you want to see what the latter looks like, you can either read a French newspaper now, or vote Labour in 2015.
Three points.
Firstly, the fall is three hundred million pounds (if it is not revised) and Labour would do well not to play down the size of that - so I understand the 0.3% figure.
Secondly, as the Spectator says, this is important politically. If the deficit had risen, Osborne would not have cut it in every year of the parliament. Opponents would have jumped on even the smallest rise and it's natural that a small cut is greeted with relief.
Thirdly, as the Spectator's graph shows, there has been a considerable improvement in the deficit over last year in the last three months of the year, with the middle six on the whole being poor. Borrowing in March was £1.6bn lower than last year, around 10%. Osborne will want to do even better than that, this year, but a fall of 10% would still be very significant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22260952
Odd.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10012025/BBC-criticised-for-probing-George-Osborne-about-tears-at-Thatcher-funeral.html
Why??
History surely shows us that when Germany fights it tends to do it rather well.
My guess is more the former than the latter, but I think a gamble based on the hope that they are completely dishonest is a gamble too far. That is why I'm rebalancing my portfolio away from dependence on the UK economy. The political risk is just too great, especially since Miliband does seem to have some spectacularly naive ideas.
What's more, there's another risk which makes it even worse, namely that we end up with a weak government in a hung parliament (or with a tiny majority), incapable of taking any difficult decisions. In that scenario we'd get dithering and pork-barrelling, followed inevitably by a sudden correction as the markets got cold feet.
Given that we start with the highest deficit in Europe, and our interest payments already exceed £50bn, these are serious risks.
"Are the SNP’s plans for a currency union a) Expedient, b) Sensible, c) Dangerous or d) All of the Above"
The problem for the SNP, I think, is not so much that its currency proposals are unworkable (they may not be!) but that they compromise the nationalist’s core message. That is to say that the SNP spends so much time falling back to freshly dug defensive positions that it is in danger of conceding so much ground to Unionists that one begins to wonder just what the nationalists will not sacrifice in their pursuit of a victory – the worth of which must be diluted by the concessions they are making. Independence on these terms may be achievable but is it either necessary or sufficient? This, not the details of economic policy, is the uncertainty that damages the SNP.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/04/are-the-snps-plans-for-a-currency-union-a-expedient-b-sensible-c-dangerous-or-d-all-of-the-above/
"You're referring of course to them losing two World Wars?"
And one World Cup Final .... It is St.George's Day after all !!
This tells us that:
1. GDP has been growing in Q1 2013 much faster than in Q4 2012; or
2. The Deficit can be reduced in a 'flat-lining' economy.
My belief is that the deficit reduction is actually bigger than disclosed today and that Osborne has decided to carry forward unneeded reductions into the next fiscal year.
This makes political sense. All he needed to do this fiscal year was to ensure borrowing came in under last year's figure so that he can claim to have reduced the deficit in every year of this parliament.
The next political task is to satsify markets, supra-national economic agencies and the media that the trajectory of deficit reduction is downward. So good Q1 2013-14 figures are far more useful to him in this respect that making the previous year's undershoot bigger.
As I said downthread the news of the day is the difference between the cash and accrued borrowing figures. This is like a Chief Accountant telling a CEO that UK PLC has borrowed 50 million and the CEO then asks why the bank overdraft is only 30 million.
http://biblesaints.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/saint-gideon-rather-hesitant-warrior.html
The OBR were due to publish their commentary on the ONS Public Finances Release at 12:00 Noon but it is nowhere to be seen.
He must be hard at work revising his forecast deficit reduction figures.
He really should not have taken Roger's scribblings on a paper napkin seriously last March.
How long will we have to wait?
Makes me wonder what the p value of polls are. (The p value refers to the odds on a psychometric test throwing up a result which is the result of random chance rather than accurately measuring what's meant to be found out. A p value of 0.95, equating to a 95% chance of accurate measurement, is sought, but higher is always better).