Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Its a significant change of tune - before it was All the debt and Scotland would be 'debt free' - now it turns out to be only a quarter of the debt they would try to evade.....and I suspect rUK might have a point of view on that too.....
Fluffy and others show why the Tories are unelectable in the majority sense.
To much sneering and dismissiveness. Here's the hard facts Tories. The UK is changing and has changed for good. Either you get on board with winning lots of ethnic minority voters or you consign yourself to never holding a majority.
An a different track, and prompted by that eejit IoS:
How can we reform The Upper House when tick-boxes are promulgated from political central offices? Surely, if we want a more diverse and representative membership, the last thing we need is for paid ass-hats like the Idiot-of-Socialism dictating to local party committees?
Reform of The Lords should be based upon regional and sub-regional elections; each based upon a straight allocation in accordance to the census (a.k.a 125K + 1). Regional electorate committees should be free to allocate as they wish so long as the region/sub-regions are represented equally with their peers.
I doubt anyone takes anything IoS spouts seriously; and if they do I fear for English liberalism. The man is mad, confused and should be sectioned (which is probably why he feels at home in the Labour hierarchy)...
Utterly disagree. Perhaps you should get to know some industries outwith law?
And anyway, the idea that the current HoL is good for this purpose is laughable.
No defence of the existing arrangements was made. My point was that filling the Lords with "experts" will entrench and legitimise lobbies of already powerful vested interests, such as the medics. The result will not be better drafted legislation, but to extend the ability of special interests to capture the political process for their own ends. Being a good doctor or engineer in no way qualifies a person to understand, draft or revise legislation that will not turn out to be a dog's breakfast when it comes before a court of law. A fiasco similar to those of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 would become more, not less likely with a revising chamber made up of "experts".
Whereas at the moment, it is being filled with ex- and failed- politicians and their flunkies. I fail to see how your final sentence could possibly be true.
I think you also underestimate the wisdom (and indeed wit) of some of the people who are respected within their professions. I've only met a small handful in my time, but all were very sage people with wide knowledge outside their areas.
And the fact that the only power these people would have would be one of persuasion over their peers: for instance three civil engineering representatives would have to try and persuade three or four hundred others. They could only do so by passionate force of argument.
IMO since reforming the HoL has proved too difficult the only sensible solution is to abolish it completely. The evidence that it serves a useful function is far from compelling and it is possible that MPs just might be more careful without a revising chamber. Scotland does not really support that theory but hey.
If we did this we would also have to have a procedure by which non MPs could be appointed ministers and held to account but the current committee system is an obvious starting point for that.
Fluffy and others show why the Tories are unelectable in the majority sense.
To much sneering and dismissiveness. Here's the hard facts Tories. The UK is changing and has changed for good. Either you get on board with winning lots of ethnic minority voters or you consign yourself to never holding a majority.
Your comments on how to patronise them and slow down their integration into the Uk have been enlightening...
Josias, my dear chap, I fundamentally disagree. What does a Professor of Chemistry know of planning law, or banking regulation?
The nub of it is the "role" of the House of Lords, which you state to be that of a revising chamber. But why is this? It is only because the House of Lords lost a series of power struggles with the House of Commons, as the development of popular democracy saw the former lose legitimacy. Formerly, the role of the House of Lords was to represent a different franchise to that of the Commons - just as is the case today in many other bicameral democracies, such as the USA, where the Senate balances the interests of States against those of the wider population in the House of Representatives.
In my view there is little point in retaining the House of Lords as a revising chamber - this role should more properly be performed by wider civil society in a less formal manner. I believe that one should either abolish the Lords, or to have it represent a different franchise to the Commons so that the two chambers can play the role of balancing the interests of different constituencies between them.
For example, one might make one chamber the House of Men and the other a House of Women, allowing the two sexes to be equally but separately represented. Or one might use a majoritarian voting system - such as FPTP - for the House of the Executive, and another voting system - some variant of PR - for the House of Consensus. The House of Debtors and the House of Creditors, perhaps? The House of Workers and the House of the Retired, Unemployed, Homemakers, etc?
Anything to save us from this dead-end of a "revising chamber".
We need better laws. The HoC has proved, time and time again, that it is incapable of producing better laws. Removing the handbrake against bad legislation seems a bad idea to me.
But as usual, I call for metrics. In the past I've asked for how many amendments the HoL have made to legislation per year. Is this available in a parsable form anywhere?
''To much sneering and dismissiveness. Here's the hard facts Tories. The UK is changing and has changed for good''
In the past labour has been able to pitch for the ethnic minority vote without having to bother about losing its core WWC support.
Here are the hard facts labour,. UKIP incursions into your heartlands mean those days are over. Last May proved that nowhere is safe. Sunderland? Rotherham?
Online comments are the vocal outreach of a distinct minority. Best ignored when it comes to winning elections. One of the reason the right gets itself in so much trouble. It believes that everyone thinks the same because of the online group think of numpties.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Its a significant change of tune - before it was All the debt and Scotland would be 'debt free' - now it turns out to be only a quarter of the debt they would try to evade.....and I suspect rUK might have a point of view on that too.....
As I say the solution for rUK would simply be to reverse QE by the relevant date.
Salmond should have gone for a Scottish pound from the start. People who are scared of an independent country having its own currency were never really up for the idea of independence anyway.
Fluffy and others show why the Tories Why am I a Tory? Is it because you cannot comprehend the article 'most' are unelectable in the majority sense. Labour 2005 landslide on 36% is a majority?
ToToo much sneering and dismissiveness. Here's the hard facts [you] Tories.: The UK is changing and has changed for good. [Definition: How, why and does this include/exclude Scotland's referendum?] Either you get on board with winning lots of ethnic minority voters or you consign yourself to never holding a majority. [Because a minority should always rule over a majority? Because you do not wish to appeal to a 'greater-good' but prefer to suckle up to 'special-interests'?]
Feck me; what did Cornwall do for the Labour Party to send in this clown...?
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Salmond got a poor second in Economics and Medieval History, presumably he was a brilliant Medievalist.
Online comments are the vocal outreach of a distinct minority. Best ignored when it comes to winning elections. One of the reason the right gets itself in so much trouble. It believes that everyone thinks the same because of the online group think of numpties.
So how come Labour bent over backwards to invite in unlimited immigrants, plied them with cash and gave them special treatment but yet scored at piffling 29% last time we had an election ?
Mr. IOS, I concur only a certain proportion of people will read them and fewer still make the comments, but I'd be wary of dismissing it entirely.
I do think Warsi's resignation, coming during a ceasefire and immediately preceding ISIS' attempts at genocide, will not be the straightforward terrible news story for the Conservatives that some may think.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Salmond got a poor second in Economics and Medieval History, presumably he was a brilliant Medievalist.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Its a significant change of tune - before it was All the debt and Scotland would be 'debt free' - now it turns out to be only a quarter of the debt they would try to evade.....and I suspect rUK might have a point of view on that too.....
Salmond should have gone for a Scottish pound from the start. People who are scared of an independent country having its own currency were never really up for the idea of independence anyway.
Agree. I am not opposed to Scottish independence in principle (though I think it would be a great pity and both Scotland and rUK would be diminished as a result).
What I am opposed to is this half baked cockamaney that the SNP have come up with - instead of indulging in fantasy currency unions, much better to say 'we'll have our own currency, and with the wit & industry of the Scots and Scotland it will be fine. Yes, there may be a few bumps in the road in early days - but the prize is worth it.
Now Salmond has the worst of all worlds - the first act of a new Scottish currency would be to default on its debts - whatever their protestations about 'its our pound too' - that's how it would look.
Fluffy and others show why the Tories are unelectable in the majority sense.
To much sneering and dismissiveness. Here's the hard facts Tories. The UK is changing and has changed for good. Either you get on board with winning lots of ethnic minority voters or you consign yourself to never holding a majority.
90% of voters are White. While it's certainly desirable to win votes from ethnic minority voters, being popular with White voters is the key to winning an election.
The ST is almost value for money today despite David Smith being "away". There is a really interesting piece about generation Z, the young teens, and their views of the world. With a concentration span of 8 seconds these views are not necessarily profound but 70% want to run their own businesses, 73 % check social media within an hour of waking up and 3% of their time is spent on their phones (suspiciously low in my experience ).
Many are wondering what University can teach them that can't be more easily absorbed from the internet and whether it is worth the debt.
As we were discussing earlier this week the idea that parochial nationalism has any reasonance for such a generation is, well, quaint.
Labour may struggle this time but it certainly isn't our ceiling. And as for the voters. It depends on where they are. If the Tories want to win a majority they need to start doing better in London and other majorish conurbations.
Winning a majority is about building a coalition and you can't do that when effectively not trying for 10% (and growing) of the population.
Mr. L, nationalism, perhaps like other political attitudes, may also be a factor of age. These people won't be 16 forever. Even if all else remained the same they might very well have different views at 56 than they do today.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
That doesn't make sense.
The Bank of England owns the debt as an ASSET. Scotland wouldn't be getting it's share of that asset, I can understand, if it doesn't get an equity stake in the Bank. But the liability is owed by the Treasury - which would still be apportioned according to the agreed split.
The ST is almost value for money today despite David Smith being "away". There is a really interesting piece about generation Z, the young teens, and their views of the world. With a concentration span of 8 seconds these views are not necessarily profound but 70% want to run their own businesses, 73 % check social media within an hour of waking up and 3% of their time is spent on their phones (suspiciously low in my experience ).
Many are wondering what University can teach them that can't be more easily absorbed from the internet and whether it is worth the debt.
As we were discussing earlier this week the idea that parochial nationalism has any reasonance for such a generation is, well, quaint.
@alexmassie: Here we go again, this time for simpletons: Yes, indy Scotland can "keep the pound". No sterlingisation is not the same as a currency union
So how come Labour bent over backwards to invite in unlimited immigrants
If Labour was really allowing unlimited immigrants in and still didn't get all that many, it sounds like the UK could safely get rid of all border controls, which would save plenty of money and be a huge boost to business.
Fluffy and others show why the Tories are unelectable in the majority sense.
To much sneering and dismissiveness. Here's the hard facts Tories. The UK is changing and has changed for good. Either you get on board with winning lots of ethnic minority voters or you consign yourself to never holding a majority.
90% of voters are White. While it's certainly desirable to win votes from ethnic minority voters, being popular with White voters is the key to winning an election.
That could be a problem as Peter Mandelson has recently admitted that Labour deliberately engineered mass immigration and sent out ‘search parties’ for foreign workers and immigrants to get them to come to the UK
He also conceded that the influx of new arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.
It's easy to see how the addition of one or two such illustrious people could actually help us towards a more sane legislature and legislation, especially when spread over the totality of society.
Which is exactly how it used to work...
Appointed crossbenchers with recognised expertise, a smattering of working peers, and a non-political base of hereditaries. Of course, there are flaws with the hereditary model but it shouldn't have been impossible to come up with a way of replacing them with a broadly representative group of people.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Its a significant change of tune - before it was All the debt and Scotland would be 'debt free' - now it turns out to be only a quarter of the debt they would try to evade.....and I suspect rUK might have a point of view on that too.....
If you read the actual argument it's the usual specious b*llocks "if we don't get our share of the assets, we won't take our share of the debt".
iScot *will* get the appropriate share of the net assets of the UK. But it won't be x% of each asset: it will be calculated across the whole and divided up accordingly.
The ST is almost value for money today despite David Smith being "away". There is a really interesting piece about generation Z, the young teens, and their views of the world. With a concentration span of 8 seconds these views are not necessarily profound but 70% want to run their own businesses, 73 % check social media within an hour of waking up and 3% of their time is spent on their phones (suspiciously low in my experience ).
Many are wondering what University can teach them that can't be more easily absorbed from the internet and whether it is worth the debt.
As we were discussing earlier this week the idea that parochial nationalism has any reasonance for such a generation is, well, quaint.
Its 3% of time spent communicating via the phone.
If that includes social media on phones as opposed to the old fashioned idea of actually speaking to someone it is definitely low.
One of the things that I have noticed is that when I am speaking to my kids by txt (just to show I am not completely an old fogie) after a few exchanges I will get exasperated and call. They never do because to them txt is more natural (because they are probably speaking to 3 more interesting people at the same time).
The precedent that that [Scotland not paying a share of debt if no currency union]would set for the rest of Europe would be extraordinary – any part could unilaterally have a referendum on independence and have no debt. There are a lot of places in Europe that would like to do that. People have to think about the broader consequence of that”.
And on borrowing costs: “If I, as an international investor, am going to lend you money for ten years, I want to know that there is a good chance of being repaid. This is not a great precedent.”
So there you have it: the NIESR, the IFS, the OBR, Fiscal Affairs Scotland and others: the warning signs are posted. Or there is Alex Salmond, whose response can be summed up in a few bold and stirring words: they’re all wrong.
The best bit is that he used an entire article, in which he could have said anything, to repeat verbatim the argument that lost him the debate and probably the referendum.
If Johnson in place of Cameron would make only a 1% difference now to the Conservatives, that's within moe and amounts to no significant difference.
And what if Johnson did replace Cameron early in a Conservative second term after which he would no longer be judged mainly based on a carefully cultivated image of affability and fluffy hairstyle? I can see the potential for perceptions of Johnson to turn around very quickly if the bumbling posh boy is in charge of country where things are not seen to be going quite right, to put it mildly.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Bit like yourself, given they are borrowing over £2B a week , how do you think they will reverse it. What is embarassing are cringing lapdog Westminster crawlers like yourself , crapping it in case you lose £500 a year from your well filled pockets. Keep doffing your cap and licking those boots.
If Johnson in place of Cameron would make only a 1% difference now to the Conservatives, that's within moe and amounts to no significant difference.
And what if Johnson did replace Cameron early in a Conservative second term after which he would no longer be judged mainly based on a carefully cultivated image of affability and fluffy hairstyle? I can see the potential for perceptions of Johnson to turn around very quickly if the bumbling posh boy is in charge of country where things are not seen to be going quite right, to put it mildly.
I think he's optimizing for the case where Cameron loses rather than planning for how to challenge a sitting Prime Minister. A second-term-winning Cameron would be much politically stronger than the current one, especially if he gets a majority.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Bit like yourself, given they are borrowing over £2B a week , how do you think they will reverse it. What is embarassing are cringing lapdog Westminster crawlers like yourself , crapping it in case you lose £500 a year from your well filled pockets. Keep doffing your cap and licking those boots.
They would reverse it by selling the gilts in the market Malcolm, it has nothing to do with the deficit as such.
QE supposedly increased the money supply. On that the jury is out. But it certainly underwrote the gilts market at a time when the solvency of the UK was at least questionable. Since that is no longer the case selling the gilts would not be cost free but it would not be that difficult either.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Its a significant change of tune - before it was All the debt and Scotland would be 'debt free' - now it turns out to be only a quarter of the debt they would try to evade.....and I suspect rUK might have a point of view on that too.....
Salmond's argument is just intellectual garbage
The argument has "evolved" over time - first the pound 'was an asset' - when it was pointed out that it wasn't, but is in fact a monetary instrument of the UK government (something even the holder of a poor second in economics and medieval history should know) the argument switched to 'the Bank of England - unfortunately, that's not an "asset" either - its an 'institution' that will remain with the continuing UK.......then it was no share of 'all the UK's debt'.....now its no share 'the UK debt held by the Bank of England' - about a quarter of the total.....and of course if Salmond thinks that a secessionist state that defaults on its debt is going to be welcomed into Europe he may be in for an unpleasant surprise.....pour encourager les autres, as the French might say.....
It's easy to see how the addition of one or two such illustrious people could actually help us towards a more sane legislature and legislation, especially when spread over the totality of society.
Which is exactly how it used to work...
Appointed crossbenchers with recognised expertise, a smattering of working peers, and a non-political base of hereditaries. Of course, there are flaws with the hereditary model but it shouldn't have been impossible to come up with a way of replacing them with a broadly representative group of people.
Agree. Flawed and unrepresentative though it was, the hereditary system seems more fit for purpose than the system we have now. But there is no chance of moving back to that system, so we need to move forward in other ways.
When I've got time, I like to listen to debates in both the HoC and HoL. Too often there are few speakers, and those that speak do so from a position of politics, not knowledge.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Its a significant change of tune - before it was All the debt and Scotland would be 'debt free' - now it turns out to be only a quarter of the debt they would try to evade.....and I suspect rUK might have a point of view on that too.....
Salmond's argument is just intellectual garbage
The argument has "evolved" over time - first the pound 'was an asset' - when it was pointed out that it wasn't, but is in fact a monetary instrument of the UK government (something even the holder of a poor second in economics and medieval history should know) the argument switched to 'the Bank of England - unfortunately, that's not an "asset" either - its an 'institution' that will remain with the continuing UK.......then it was no share of 'all the UK's debt'.....now its no share 'the UK debt held by the Bank of England' - about a quarter of the total.....and of course if Salmond thinks that a secessionist state that defaults on its debt is going to be welcomed into Europe he may be in for an unpleasant surprise.....pour encourager les autres, as the French might say.....
You can understand why the likes of Gordon Wilson and Jim Sillers are so infuriated. A credible case could have been made for Scotland having a viable independent future. I personally think it would have been a poorer future with far less opportunity than we have at the moment but it could have been done. Instead, in what will probably be a once in a generation opportunity, we have such a ridiculous presentation of a fantasy that the opportunity will be lost. Personally I am delighted.
The argument has "evolved" over time - first the pound 'was an asset' - when it was pointed out that it wasn't, but is in fact a monetary instrument of the UK government (something even the holder of a poor second in economics and medieval history should know) the argument switched to 'the Bank of England - unfortunately, that's not an "asset" either - its an 'institution' that will remain with the continuing UK.......then it was no share of 'all the UK's debt'.....now its no share 'the UK debt held by the Bank of England' - about a quarter of the total.....and of course if Salmond thinks that a secessionist state that defaults on its debt is going to be welcomed into Europe he may be in for an unpleasant surprise.....pour encourager les autres, as the French might say.....
It's worse than that. Salmond is deliberately confusing people about the difference between assets and debts.
The debt owned by the Bank of England is an ASSET, not a DEBT.
He's too smart for this to be a mistake. Which means it's deliberate*
* at the risk of sounding like @another_richard, language matters. But this is more fundamental than deficit/debt.
The Tories can win a majority of seats with 60% of the voters supporting other parties. They don't HAVE to court minorities. They have to win suburbia and market towns.
The argument has "evolved" over time - first the pound 'was an asset' - when it was pointed out that it wasn't, but is in fact a monetary instrument of the UK government (something even the holder of a poor second in economics and medieval history should know) the argument switched to 'the Bank of England - unfortunately, that's not an "asset" either - its an 'institution' that will remain with the continuing UK.......then it was no share of 'all the UK's debt'.....now its no share 'the UK debt held by the Bank of England' - about a quarter of the total.....and of course if Salmond thinks that a secessionist state that defaults on its debt is going to be welcomed into Europe he may be in for an unpleasant surprise.....pour encourager les autres, as the French might say.....
It's worse than that. Salmond is deliberately confusing people about the difference between assets and debts.
The debt owned by the Bank of England is an ASSET, not a DEBT.
He's too smart for this to be a mistake. Which means it's deliberate*
* at the risk of sounding like @another_richard, language matters. But this is more fundamental than deficit/debt.
Correct. It is an asset for the BoE and it does not change the quantity of debt owed by the UK government which he is now conceding he will have to pay our share of. He has really lost the place.
Salmond changes his tune 'clarifies' his position on the £ and national debt:
The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.
So Scotland would not be 'debt free' - even Salmond admits it would be liable for its share of three quarters of the debt - and of course, one suspects the other quarter would be subject to some negotiation.......
So if the government managed to reverse QE by the time of Scottish independence we would be paying our share of that too? This man claims to have a degree in economics? It is just embarrassing.
Bit like yourself, given they are borrowing over £2B a week , how do you think they will reverse it. What is embarassing are cringing lapdog Westminster crawlers like yourself , crapping it in case you lose £500 a year from your well filled pockets. Keep doffing your cap and licking those boots.
Malcolm, your work in the British Isles is almost done. Move your caravan to the foothills of the German Alps, after a couple of years you'll be a real Bavarian and you can start agitating for freedom from Berlin rule. Please hurry.
On topic, the striking figures are not those of Boris but of Miliband.
To take a step back, yes, UKIP voters have a better perception of Boris than Cameron - though this doesn't necessarily mean he'd attract them back or that Cameron won't when the alternative of Ed is put - but look at the equivalent figures for the Tories: fully 95% have confidence in Dave against just 59% for Boris. That is a huge difference, even if incumbency is a significant advantage for the PM.
However, it's worse for Miliband, who is trying to become PM within the next year: only 59% of Labour voters believe he's PM material. That's 15% of the electorate, or, put another way, Labour would be on just 22% if you strip out those who don't think Ed's up to the demands of No 10.
As Mike has noted many times, the LD-Lab switchers are amongst his strongest supporters. His problem lies with the pre-existing Labour voters. Remarkably, despite Labour scoring their second-lowest total since WWII in 2010 - a position you'd think must be near 'core vote' - less than half that total this he's up to the job. Now, it may be that many thought Brown wasn't either but still voted Red to (try to) keep the Blues out. Even so, they're desperately poor numbers.
The Tories can win a majority of seats with 60% of the voters supporting other parties. They don't HAVE to court minorities. They have to win suburbia and market towns.
That is technically true and the argument that the Tories cannot win more than 325 seats is plainly nonsense but the Tories should be very wary of the example of the Republicans who have increasingly found such a strategy to be a dead end. Any and every mainstream political party should aspire to represent all of our citizens.
On topic, the striking figures are not those of Boris but of Miliband.
To take a step back, yes, UKIP voters have a better perception of Boris than Cameron - though this doesn't necessarily mean he'd attract them back or that Cameron won't when the alternative of Ed is put - but look at the equivalent figures for the Tories: fully 95% have confidence in Dave against just 59% for Boris. That is a huge difference, even if incumbency is a significant advantage for the PM.
However, it's worse for Miliband, who is trying to become PM within the next year: only 59% of Labour voters believe he's PM material. That's 15% of the electorate, or, put another way, Labour would be on just 22% if you strip out those who don't think Ed's up to the demands of No 10.
As Mike has noted many times, the LD-Lab switchers are amongst his strongest supporters. His problem lies with the pre-existing Labour voters. Remarkably, despite Labour scoring their second-lowest total since WWII in 2010 - a position you'd think must be near 'core vote' - less than half that total this he's up to the job. Now, it may be that many thought Brown wasn't either but still voted Red to (try to) keep the Blues out. Even so, they're desperately poor numbers.
My wife just put it very succinctly: " If labour had a Boris Ed would be out the door. "
The Tories can win a majority of seats with 60% of the voters supporting other parties. They don't HAVE to court minorities. They have to win suburbia and market towns.
That is technically true and the argument that the Tories cannot win more than 325 seats is plainly nonsense but the Tories should be very wary of the example of the Republicans who have increasingly found such a strategy to be a dead end. Any and every mainstream political party should aspire to represent all of our citizens.
I agree that it is a dangerous strategy. But in the case of the Tories, winning a majority in suburbia and the market towns would give them the chance to move the boundaries in their favour - and perhaps give them an additional 5 or 10 more years in power. In that time, they could significantly dismantle the public sector, and for example set about popular infrastructure schemes to help win back more urban parts of the North in particular. They could also reach a long-term rebalancing of power with Brussels.
I have no doubt that Cameron would like the Conservative Party to better reflect the UK as a whole as it is today, both in terms of its voters, members and elected politicians. But those noble aims might just be really bad politics.
The Tories can win a majority of seats with 60% of the voters supporting other parties. They don't HAVE to court minorities. They have to win suburbia and market towns.
That is technically true and the argument that the Tories cannot win more than 325 seats is plainly nonsense but the Tories should be very wary of the example of the Republicans who have increasingly found such a strategy to be a dead end. Any and every mainstream political party should aspire to represent all of our citizens.
The last time the Republicans tried that strategy was Pete Wilson's success with proposition 187. The problem is the courts erroneously overturned it. The lesson is immigration wins as strategy and a failure to stop immigration will doom the right as well as western civilisation.
House of Lords: As I've said before, scrap it. Plenty of countries manage just fine with a single chamber. Commons committees should be able to co-opt temporary expert members to help them review legislation, and the Lords chamber could be used as a bingo hall.
While I'm at it - just three months after the voters of NE England pushed Martin Callanan off the Brussels gravy train, and he's on his way to the Lords. Democracy? Yeah, right.
And the rain has arrived in County Durham - gets me out of doing any gardening, anyway.
I don't know what all the fuss is about re. Boris being slightly more popular amongst UKIP supporters than Cameron -amongst the million reasons are, in no particular order: -He hasn't performed so poorly in a national election he needed to join with the Lib Dems -He hasn't used the Coalition agreement to drop everything of worthwhile from his manifesto (and even from the Lib Dem manifesto), and then fail to implement even the worthwhile provisions of that document -He hasn't called for the repatriation of powers, then once in power implemented EU rules on justice and security when there was no need to do so -He hasn't failed to give a referendum on Lisbon, despite all parties agreeing and his own 'cast iron' promise to do so -He hasn't called everyone who votes for UKIP 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists'.
My own personal reason for preferring Boris to Dave is not that I believe him to be more sincere than Cameron, but that I think he's inherently more ambitious -even if this is driven by personal ego. I think Cameron is a chancer, who is happy to have ticked the box of being PM, and will float along enjoying being PM for as long as he can. Boris I think will not be content with this, and wants to be one of the greats -a Churchill, a Disraeli, a Thatcher. My hope would be that his ambition if nothing else will mean he has the balls to stand up to the EU and perhaps even America.
That said, he would not remotely tempt me to return to the Conservative fold, and I suspect this is the same with most newborn Kippers -and those who have yet to see the light. As people on both sides of the debate have said, there's no point in being UKIP-lite -it simply won't work.
Labour may struggle this time but it certainly isn't our ceiling. And as for the voters. It depends on where they are. If the Tories want to win a majority they need to start doing better in London and other majorish conurbations.
Winning a majority is about building a coalition and you can't do that when effectively not trying for 10% (and growing) of the population.
The idea of a particular ethnic vote can be a snare, not least by balkanising our politics.
If you look at voting patterns by ethnicity, you largely see patterns of class based voting combined with generational memory. I mean voting not only on the basis of ones own social class, but also the social class of ones parents. This is true of professional people from working class families as well as being illustrated by voting patterns of ethnically derived voters.
Labour managed to combine the cultural memory of WWC voters with a class based approach to immigrant populations. Both are at risk as generations move on and their cultural memories evolve. It is notable that Hindu and Sikh voters are more middle class and more likely to vote Tory.
A further factor is demographics, so ethnic populations with big families tend to be more interested in issues relating to children for example child benefit. They tend to live in extended families so less bothered by issues of pensions and nursing home care.
I am sounding a little Marxist this morning, but believe that the Tories would do better with the sort of demographic that Javid represents than that of Warsi. Appeal to to the rising BME via supporting their enterprise and freedom rather than tokenism. Similarly by supporting aspirational groups within WWC communities in the North, Wales and Scotland.
This is nothing to do with ukip, this is about Boris positioning himself as leader when Cameron gets booted out next May. Boris supports an amnesty for illegals, he is the antithesis of what ukip voters want, albeit slightly more entertaining than the ghastly Cameron.
DavidL Tories do need some minority voters, but should focus on Jews and Hindus who are more likely to vote for them than Muslims
Perhaps rather than 'focus on Jews' (presumably by ignoring Israeli atrocities in Gaza) they should govern well on behalf of the whole country, and let their record speak for itself?
Luckyguy1983 Jewish voters proved vital in winning seats like Finchley and Golders Green, Harrow East and Hendon for the Tories in 2010. UKIP voters are also the most pro Israel and the Tories need to win them back. Jewish voters may also switch to UKIP if they think Cameron is abandoning them. Muslim voters swing between the LDs and Labour and Respect on the whole which is why Miliband and Clegg are much more pro Palestinian and critical of Israel than Cameron. Most voters think both Israel and Hamas are as bad as each other, so will not change their vote on Gaza, but Muslim and Jewish voters could switch party on the issue.
Comments
Me i took the draw at 1.44 two and a half days ago and am now officially worried about a heavy loss.
To much sneering and dismissiveness. Here's the hard facts Tories. The UK is changing and has changed for good. Either you get on board with winning lots of ethnic minority voters or you consign yourself to never holding a majority.
How can we reform The Upper House when tick-boxes are promulgated from political central offices? Surely, if we want a more diverse and representative membership, the last thing we need is for paid ass-hats like the Idiot-of-Socialism dictating to local party committees?
Reform of The Lords should be based upon regional and sub-regional elections; each based upon a straight allocation in accordance to the census (a.k.a 125K + 1). Regional electorate committees should be free to allocate as they wish so long as the region/sub-regions are represented equally with their peers.
I doubt anyone takes anything IoS spouts seriously; and if they do I fear for English liberalism. The man is mad, confused and should be sectioned (which is probably why he feels at home in the Labour hierarchy)...
I think you also underestimate the wisdom (and indeed wit) of some of the people who are respected within their professions. I've only met a small handful in my time, but all were very sage people with wide knowledge outside their areas.
And the fact that the only power these people would have would be one of persuasion over their peers: for instance three civil engineering representatives would have to try and persuade three or four hundred others. They could only do so by passionate force of argument.
If we did this we would also have to have a procedure by which non MPs could be appointed ministers and held to account but the current committee system is an obvious starting point for that.
But as usual, I call for metrics. In the past I've asked for how many amendments the HoL have made to legislation per year. Is this available in a parsable form anywhere?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28730274
In the past labour has been able to pitch for the ethnic minority vote without having to bother about losing its core WWC support.
Here are the hard facts labour,. UKIP incursions into your heartlands mean those days are over. Last May proved that nowhere is safe. Sunderland? Rotherham?
Online comments are the vocal outreach of a distinct minority. Best ignored when it comes to winning elections. One of the reason the right gets itself in so much trouble. It believes that everyone thinks the same because of the online group think of numpties.
Salmond should have gone for a Scottish pound from the start. People who are scared of an independent country having its own currency were never really up for the idea of independence anyway.
I do think Warsi's resignation, coming during a ceasefire and immediately preceding ISIS' attempts at genocide, will not be the straightforward terrible news story for the Conservatives that some may think.
We didn't invite unlimited immgrants and ply them with cash at all.
And 29% doesn't matter at all. We won 260 seats. That's not much less than the Tories. And that was after being in power for 13 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11023577/Fresh-evidence-of-how-the-West-lured-Ukraine-into-its-orbit.html
er...yes you did. And you told anyone who raised concerns about the inflow that they were racists, even before they had started speaking
But hey, good luck with trying to re-write history next year!!
Mr. K, unsurprising. The EU has the worst aspects of a cabal of meddlesome eunuchs.
With 32 Overs remaining Pakistan only 71 ahead with 2 wkts remaining.
Realistically need to bat another 20 overs to be safe. Cant see them doing that unfortunately
What I am opposed to is this half baked cockamaney that the SNP have come up with - instead of indulging in fantasy currency unions, much better to say 'we'll have our own currency, and with the wit & industry of the Scots and Scotland it will be fine. Yes, there may be a few bumps in the road in early days - but the prize is worth it.
Now Salmond has the worst of all worlds - the first act of a new Scottish currency would be to default on its debts - whatever their protestations about 'its our pound too' - that's how it would look.
National vote share doesn't matter. Parliamentary seats matter. The Tories cannot win over 325.
Many are wondering what University can teach them that can't be more easily absorbed from the internet and whether it is worth the debt.
As we were discussing earlier this week the idea that parochial nationalism has any reasonance for such a generation is, well, quaint.
Labour may struggle this time but it certainly isn't our ceiling. And as for the voters. It depends on where they are. If the Tories want to win a majority they need to start doing better in London and other majorish conurbations.
Winning a majority is about building a coalition and you can't do that when effectively not trying for 10% (and growing) of the population.
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/08/the-sad-desolate-state-of-athens-olympic-venues-10-years-later/
Fortunately, it looks as though London is not heading the same way. I'm still not sure the Olympics were worth the cost, though ...
The Bank of England owns the debt as an ASSET. Scotland wouldn't be getting it's share of that asset, I can understand, if it doesn't get an equity stake in the Bank. But the liability is owed by the Treasury - which would still be apportioned according to the agreed split.
Sadly I think you may be exaggerating.
He also conceded that the influx of new arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.
Appointed crossbenchers with recognised expertise, a smattering of working peers, and a non-political base of hereditaries. Of course, there are flaws with the hereditary model but it shouldn't have been impossible to come up with a way of replacing them with a broadly representative group of people.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/497084/Nigel-Farage-on-Boris-Johnson-and-UK-outside-EU
iScot *will* get the appropriate share of the net assets of the UK. But it won't be x% of each asset: it will be calculated across the whole and divided up accordingly.
Salmond's argument is just intellectual garbage
One of the things that I have noticed is that when I am speaking to my kids by txt (just to show I am not completely an old fogie) after a few exchanges I will get exasperated and call. They never do because to them txt is more natural (because they are probably speaking to 3 more interesting people at the same time).
And on borrowing costs: “If I, as an international investor, am going to lend you money for ten years, I want to know that there is a good chance of being repaid. This is not a great precedent.”
So there you have it: the NIESR, the IFS, the OBR, Fiscal Affairs Scotland and others: the warning signs are posted. Or there is Alex Salmond, whose response can be summed up in a few bold and stirring words: they’re all wrong.
http://www.scotsman.com/business/economy/bill-jamieson-shedding-debt-is-financial-suicide-1-3504459
Numpty.
And what if Johnson did replace Cameron early in a Conservative second term after which he would no longer be judged mainly based on a carefully cultivated image of affability and fluffy hairstyle? I can see the potential for perceptions of Johnson to turn around very quickly if the bumbling posh boy is in charge of country where things are not seen to be going quite right, to put it mildly.
Farage has been pretty quiet on the big foreign policy issues of the day - Gaza, Israel and Iraq.
I guess he doesn;t really need to say anything.
QE supposedly increased the money supply. On that the jury is out. But it certainly underwrote the gilts market at a time when the solvency of the UK was at least questionable. Since that is no longer the case selling the gilts would not be cost free but it would not be that difficult either.
When I've got time, I like to listen to debates in both the HoC and HoL. Too often there are few speakers, and those that speak do so from a position of politics, not knowledge.
I personally think it would have been a poorer future with far less opportunity than we have at the moment but it could have been done. Instead, in what will probably be a once in a generation opportunity, we have such a ridiculous presentation of a fantasy that the opportunity will be lost. Personally I am delighted.
The debt owned by the Bank of England is an ASSET, not a DEBT.
He's too smart for this to be a mistake. Which means it's deliberate*
* at the risk of sounding like @another_richard, language matters. But this is more fundamental than deficit/debt.
To take a step back, yes, UKIP voters have a better perception of Boris than Cameron - though this doesn't necessarily mean he'd attract them back or that Cameron won't when the alternative of Ed is put - but look at the equivalent figures for the Tories: fully 95% have confidence in Dave against just 59% for Boris. That is a huge difference, even if incumbency is a significant advantage for the PM.
However, it's worse for Miliband, who is trying to become PM within the next year: only 59% of Labour voters believe he's PM material. That's 15% of the electorate, or, put another way, Labour would be on just 22% if you strip out those who don't think Ed's up to the demands of No 10.
As Mike has noted many times, the LD-Lab switchers are amongst his strongest supporters. His problem lies with the pre-existing Labour voters. Remarkably, despite Labour scoring their second-lowest total since WWII in 2010 - a position you'd think must be near 'core vote' - less than half that total this he's up to the job. Now, it may be that many thought Brown wasn't either but still voted Red to (try to) keep the Blues out. Even so, they're desperately poor numbers.
I have no doubt that Cameron would like the Conservative Party to better reflect the UK as a whole as it is today, both in terms of its voters, members and elected politicians. But those noble aims might just be really bad politics.
(when will the BBC and MSM stop calling them militants)
AJELive @AJELive 30m
BREAKING: #Iraq's human rights minister says #Yazidi women and children have been buried alive http://aje.me/1yj63Ov
Andrew Neil @afneil 31m
Sky News: Unconfirmed reports that IS has buried alive 500 Yazidi women and children. Surely cannot be true.
Is that possibly in response to US bombings??
While I'm at it - just three months after the voters of NE England pushed Martin Callanan off the Brussels gravy train, and he's on his way to the Lords. Democracy? Yeah, right.
And the rain has arrived in County Durham - gets me out of doing any gardening, anyway.
-He hasn't performed so poorly in a national election he needed to join with the Lib Dems
-He hasn't used the Coalition agreement to drop everything of worthwhile from his manifesto (and even from the Lib Dem manifesto), and then fail to implement even the worthwhile provisions of that document
-He hasn't called for the repatriation of powers, then once in power implemented EU rules on justice and security when there was no need to do so
-He hasn't failed to give a referendum on Lisbon, despite all parties agreeing and his own 'cast iron' promise to do so
-He hasn't called everyone who votes for UKIP 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists'.
My own personal reason for preferring Boris to Dave is not that I believe him to be more sincere than Cameron, but that I think he's inherently more ambitious -even if this is driven by personal ego. I think Cameron is a chancer, who is happy to have ticked the box of being PM, and will float along enjoying being PM for as long as he can. Boris I think will not be content with this, and wants to be one of the greats -a Churchill, a Disraeli, a Thatcher. My hope would be that his ambition if nothing else will mean he has the balls to stand up to the EU and perhaps even America.
That said, he would not remotely tempt me to return to the Conservative fold, and I suspect this is the same with most newborn Kippers -and those who have yet to see the light. As people on both sides of the debate have said, there's no point in being UKIP-lite -it simply won't work.
It's not clear that terrorists is accurate, although they do use terror as a tool of war, because they aspire to statehood.
Rebels doesn't seem correct either given they are fighting multiple countries
Thugs, murderers, vermin etc aren't particularly helpful as a description.
If you look at voting patterns by ethnicity, you largely see patterns of class based voting combined with generational memory. I mean voting not only on the basis of ones own social class, but also the social class of ones parents. This is true of professional people from working class families as well as being illustrated by voting patterns of ethnically derived voters.
Labour managed to combine the cultural memory of WWC voters with a class based approach to immigrant populations. Both are at risk as generations move on and their cultural memories evolve. It is notable that Hindu and Sikh voters are more middle class and more likely to vote Tory.
A further factor is demographics, so ethnic populations with big families tend to be more interested in issues relating to children for example child benefit. They tend to live in extended families so less bothered by issues of pensions and nursing home care.
I am sounding a little Marxist this morning, but believe that the Tories would do better with the sort of demographic that Javid represents than that of Warsi. Appeal to to the rising BME via supporting their enterprise and freedom rather than tokenism. Similarly by supporting aspirational groups within WWC communities in the North, Wales and Scotland.