politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After ICM another phone poll, Ipsos-MORI, has UKIP on 12 pe

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Patrick said:

DavidL is right. We went on an unearned binge. And convinced ourselves the sugar rush was a normal sustainable thing.

They will never admit it, and this is one reason I hate them, but Labour with their incontinent borrowing and spending, their open doors and their dumbing down have royally fuc*ed the life chances of millions.

It is a problem that goes well beyond the UK and one that did not begin with decisions taken from 1997 onwards. The political and historical reality is that societies which do not deliver improving standards of living for the majority of their citizens are seldom sustainable. The consequences of that will be felt by rich and poor alike.

There've been quite big periods of history in which living standards were static, or even declined, but it's a couple of hundred years since we've experienced such a thing.

We've never had a period in history before in which conspicuous wealth has been so widely visible. And we do not have the religious certainties that used to sustain very unequal societies in the past.

I'm not so sure. The very rich in medieval times and the Ancient World went out of their way to flaunt their wealth, and power. Paradoxically, many of the poor would think badly of rich people who didn't do so.

Something that might be of interest, a festival and related painting involving the semi-ritual humbling of the poor in order to receive charity. (It was far from unique in this way, the rich of the early modern period often liked to use charity as a way of displaying weath, power and superior status).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tichborne_Dole

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Slackbladder said:

taffys said:

here've been quite big periods of history in which living standards were static, or even declined, but it's a couple of hundred years since we've experienced such a thing.

I'm no historian, but it would be interesting to look at living standards for working and middle class people in France in the second half of the 18 century and Russia in the latter part of the 19th. Were there noticeable drops? and how much richer did the very rich get?

I would expect for an awful lot of groups of people their 'wealth' didn't change much for hundreds of years. It would only have been the industrial revolution which transformed the way people lived their lives.

Someone living in a village in say Suffolk in the 11th century would have been very similar to someone living in the same village in the 18th century...

But I'm no historican also. Probably the wool trade and merchants etc were able to growth wealth, but then are they any different to the bankers of today (ie the 1% compared with the 99%).....

Slackbladder said:

taffys said:

here've been quite big periods of history in which living standards were static, or even declined, but it's a couple of hundred years since we've experienced such a thing.

I'm no historian, but it would be interesting to look at living standards for working and middle class people in France in the second half of the 18 century and Russia in the latter part of the 19th. Were there noticeable drops? and how much richer did the very rich get?

I would expect for an awful lot of groups of people their 'wealth' didn't change much for hundreds of years. It would only have been the industrial revolution which transformed the way people lived their lives.

Someone living in a village in say Suffolk in the 11th century would have been very similar to someone living in the same village in the 18th century...

But I'm no historican also. Probably the wool trade and merchants etc were able to growth wealth, but then are they any different to the bankers of today (ie the 1% compared with the 99%).....

That Suffolk village and its environs, though, would have been the world to the villagers. They would have had nothing to compare their lives to and an all-powerful church telling them that their lives were essentially pre-ordained by God.

Do/did Catholics believe in temporal predestination? I genuinely don't know.

There's a big difference between theory in practice. In theory, there were three estates - those who fought, those who prayed, and those who laboured. In practice, there was a lot of social mobility in medieval Europe. War, the Church, social change in the wake of the Black Death, the growth of trade, all gave opportunities for the talented poor. And at the same time, noble and gentry families died out, or gradually declined.

The Spanish economy can do without this!

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 21m

Lionel #Messi & father filed fraudulent tax returns, defrauding Spain of 4m euros (£3.4m; $5m), tax officials allege http://bbc.in/1a3XKN4

One of the most admirable things about the Germans is their collective attitude to debt. The German word Schuld means both Debt and Guilt. Being in debt is a shameful thing. Borrowing likewise.

All of the bubbles, all of the financial collapses across history pretty much have excess debt and excess leverage at their core.

If we had been alot more German and alot less Brownian for the last 15 yeare we would not be in such deep doodoo.

AveryLP said:

Meanwhile in the Eurozone ...

Greece is downgraded to "emerging-market" status:

The equity index provider MSCI Inc has lowered Greece from 'developed'- to 'emerging-market' status, because the Hellenic Republic has not met size requirements for the last two years.

But will the Greeks know this? The Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (ERT) has closed down taking the state broadcaster off the air.

And the Greeks have failed to complete the sale of state assets demanded as a condition for the latest Troika bail-out.

Gazprom, the Russian state energy company, has pulled out of a deal to buy Greece's state gas company, Depa, leaving a shortfall in government receipts.

Markets now expect the Greek government to impose further austerity measures and to need additional bailout funds just to meet existing Trioka requirements.

But we need fear nothing. As Citoyen Hollande insists: "There is no longer any crisis in the Eurozone".

While I am no Hollande fan (quite the opposite), I think he was referring more to the fact that the other major Eurozone countries no longer have any difficulty in funding themselves in the market.

Italian ten year bonds yield 4.3%, and Spain yields 4.5%. Once you 'knock off' inflation (running at an annualised 1.5%), then Italy is paying under 3% real, and Spain is at 3%. These are not numbers that send creditors running. Ireland is also clearly on the recovery path - its 10 year bonds yield 4% flat. Even Portugal's yields have come in somewhat - at 6% from highs of above 16%.

Of course, this does not make Greece's situation any less dire. Unemployment - unlike in Spain - does not appear to have turned a corner. The decision to shutter the national TV station seems utterly bizarre, and may split the ruling coalition. Greek 10 bonds yield 10%, which is about 4 to 5% above the level where one might regard the situation as sustainable. Similarly, falling GDP means a worse deficit, means more cuts, etc. It's also worth noting that while Spain and Italy have not just stopped capital flight, but largely reversed it, Greece continues to have a nasty current account deficit.

As an aside, mediterranean Europe is getting a boost right now from the problems in Turkey and in North Africa. From what I hear, Spain and Portugal are showing the biggest booking improvements since the crisis began. Given how dependent both those countries are on foreigners with chequebooks, that has to be good news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

edmundintokyo said:

Patrick said:

One thing is for sure. The EU is more blind than the UK to the need for competition. Dave was banging on about competitiveness the other day. Balls has got religion recently on spending and welfare universality. We may have arguments about this in the UK but at least we do have arguments.

France is chief ostrich in the EU - an EU which wants to pretend supply side reform and competitiveness away. We're in for a brutally hard adjustment as the rest of the world out-competes us (or at least out-competes the unskilled). Nothing that comes from Brussels is going to make that adjustment faster or smoother - quite the opposite in fact. The EU will make the journey and the outcome way more painful for the UK than if we just walk.

German labour market reforms under Schroeder were very successful. Hollande is trying to copy them, and Germany and the EU Commission will be prodding him to go faster.

Spain has been particularly enthusiastic in deregulating its labour market. When I saw Martin Sorrell in Barcelona last November, he marvelled "you can do anything here". Of course, labour market liberalisation is always horrible in the short term (see Britain, especially Northern England and Scotland) in the early 1980s, or German unemployment in the 1990s, or Spanish unemployment now. But in the long-run, if you make it easier to fire people, employers are much less reticent about hiring people.

At the other end of the spectrum, Italy has made many promises to liberalise its labour market. But slow decline is less painful to politicians, than a sudden rise in unemployment to 18%, and then recovery.

BenM said:

AveryLP said:

Bobajob said:

AveryLP said:

FPT

stodge said:

AveryLP said:

Some measured and balanced comments on the employment figures by economists at Barclays:

“Secondly, the improvement in earnings growth was driven by bonus pay and core average weekly earnings growth remains close to record lows. As prices continue to increase faster than earnings by some margin still, the already prolonged period of negative real pay growth seems set to continue and is likely to remain a hurdle to further improvements in consumer demand.”

Here is the big political problem for the Coalition. All this frothy news is well and good but it's not translating into direct improvement in the economic prospects for individuals and families (voters) as the next GE approaches.

For many, if not most people the economic picture remains weak if not stagnant at best and downright lousy at worst. People are not better off and do not feel better off and until they do, the blandishments of UKIP and Labour will be attractive.

Of course, stodge and this is the reason that Ed Miliband tried to focus on falls in living standards in this week's PMQs. This is a problem the Coalition won't and can't solve in the time left before 2015

However, voters are not completely dumb. Eradicating the deficit on the back of competitive growth rates is creating the foundations for slowly redressing the gap in living standards. Income levels will rise with productivity gains but the immediate priority is wider employment. Fiscal consolidation and multi-sector deleveraging will also eventually lead to balanced budgets and surplus revenues which can be used to improve living standards by reducing tax burdens and accelerating growth through increased investment.

Voters will have to ask themselves whether they are closer to this nirvana in 2015 than they were in 2010.

As for the economic picture remaining "weak if not stagnant", this is really not the case today in the UK.

Take the view of the markets as proof:

The U.K. currency strengthened against most of its 16 major peers as a wider measure of unemployment declined in April, providing further evidence that an economic recovery is under way.

“The pound is outperforming across the board,” said Neil Jones, head of European hedge-fund sales at Mizuho Corporate Bank Ltd. in London. “U.K. data continues to point to a recovery. Overseas investors are encouraged by the data and are buying the pound in order to purchase U.K. assets.”

We are getting there. It may be a long journey, but the destination is in sight.

"eradicating the deficit"

Do you actually believe this drivel?

Eradicating the deficit, in context, means balancing the Cyclicaly Adjusted Current Budget. This means that when growth rates are on trend, the account will balance. When growth exceeds trend there will be surpluses and when growth is below trend there will be a temporary deficit.

The CACB only includes current expenditure and revenues and excludes non-recurring movements in net investment.

The OBR forecast in March that the government is currently on target to balance the CACB within their fiscal mandate of five years. It is likely the forecast date for completion will be moved forward substantially in OBR's July forecast.

So, yes, Bobajob, I not only believe it but am currently forecasting it will happen.

It's a rolling mandate, so the government is *always* going to meet it within 5 years.

Silly boy, Ben.

It may be a rolling mandate but each quarter the OBR estimate the date at which they forecast it will be met.

Let's start with a definition:

The Charter for Budget Responsibility defines the fiscal mandate as “a forward-looking target to achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period”. This means that total public sector receipts need to at least equal total public sector spending (minus spending on net investment) in five years time, after adjusting for the impact of any remaining spare capacity in the economy. For the purposes of this forecast, as in our last forecast at the time of the Autumn Statement, the five-year horizon ends in 2017-18. For our autumn 2013 EFO, the horizon will roll forward to 2018-19.

And now for the forecast:

Table 5.1 shows that in the absence of Budget measures our central forecast would show the CACB in surplus by 0.5 per cent of GDP in 2017-18 and in deficit by 0.2 per cent of GDP in 2016-17. Budget measures improve the balance by a quarter of a per cent of GDP in both years. This is sufficient to put the CACB back into surplus in 2016-17 and to achieve a surplus in 2017-18 that is only fractionally smaller than that we forecast in December. So there remains a greater than 50 per cent chance of the Government achieving balance on this measure in 2017-18 and as a result we judge it to be on course to achieve the mandate.


Would you like to bet with me whether the OBR July forecasts that the CACB will be in surplus at an earlier date than forecast in March? I say earlier, you say later?

[Note: both quotations from OBR EFO March 2013]

TGOHF said:

edmundintokyo said:

Patrick said:

One thing is for sure. The EU is more blind than the UK to the need for competition. Dave was banging on about competitiveness the other day. Balls has got religion recently on spending and welfare universality. We may have arguments about this in the UK but at least we do have arguments.

France is chief ostrich in the EU - an EU which wants to pretend supply side reform and competitiveness away. We're in for a brutally hard adjustment as the rest of the world out-competes us (or at least out-competes the unskilled). Nothing that comes from Brussels is going to make that adjustment faster or smoother - quite the opposite in fact. The EU will make the journey and the outcome way more painful for the UK than if we just walk.

German labour market reforms under Schroeder were very successful. Hollande is trying to copy them, and Germany and the EU Commission will be prodding him to go faster.

What German type labour market reforms has Hollande tried to copy ?

While France has made too little progress labour reform, they have copied the Germans with their 'flexi-security' concept. This allows employers to unilaterally cut wages and working hours of employees for up to two years. The quid-pro-quo is that the employers doesn't let people go. It's progress, but it's limited.

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

Meanwhile in the Eurozone ...

Greece is downgraded to "emerging-market" status:

The equity index provider MSCI Inc has lowered Greece from 'developed'- to 'emerging-market' status, because the Hellenic Republic has not met size requirements for the last two years.

But will the Greeks know this? The Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (ERT) has closed down taking the state broadcaster off the air.

And the Greeks have failed to complete the sale of state assets demanded as a condition for the latest Troika bail-out.

Gazprom, the Russian state energy company, has pulled out of a deal to buy Greece's state gas company, Depa, leaving a shortfall in government receipts.

Markets now expect the Greek government to impose further austerity measures and to need additional bailout funds just to meet existing Trioka requirements.

But we need fear nothing. As Citoyen Hollande insists: "There is no longer any crisis in the Eurozone".

While I am no Hollande fan (quite the opposite), I think he was referring more to the fact that the other major Eurozone countries no longer have any difficulty in funding themselves in the market.

Or more probably to the ECB's stated intention of supporting individual country's Eurobond issuing "whatever the costs".

A policy being scrutinised by the German Constitutional Court today with a ruling expected in September.

ECB policy is definitely making it more difficult for the markets to attack the weaker Eurozone countries, as are the new regulatory restrictions on shorting activities being introduced by the EU, but neither are fundamentally altering the economic prospects of the Euro issuers.

The ECB is just ensuring a slower and more painful death.

And as Lamont can remind us, if the markets will they will get.

JamesKelly said:

"O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech."

I think she's wrong, but in what sense is Page 3 a form of "speech"?

The "News in Briefs" part of course

JosiasJessop said:

JonathanD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Slackbladder said:

So we agree... the only difference is that you think a path of ever increasing prosperity can be found, and I'm not so sure it can....

However it is costly. As an example: the $1 billion IFMIF plant is being built to investigate materials that might be able to be used in a nuclear fusion reactor. Not to build a reactor: just to develop the required materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fusion_Materials_Irradiation_Facility

/

From your link IFMIF looks rather undeveloped and I can't even see where it is meant to be located. Is there any likelihood of it actually happening?

Also in the link they were talking about radiation damage levels of 100dpa. We're not far off that in some of the very long life components in current fission LWRs, so at the rate fusion research is going, their fission cousins may have already found the necessary materials.

I'm not an expert on IFMIF, but AIUI current research is being done in existing plants in Japan and France. However, these have limits, and so IFMIF will need to be created - its location has not been decided.

Again, IANAE, but from memory the radiation levels / heat / neutron flux / weird sh*t in a production fusion reactor would be orders of magnitudes higher than in fission plants. Such levels effect superconducting magnets and other mechanisms, and the research will also be into the effects.

The main problem is that we will really be in 'there be dragons' territory with ITER, yet alone production fusion plants.

More info:
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/nuclear-fusion-jet-and-iter-your-questions-answered/1014477.article

Just to add to the conversation, this is the direction I think we should be going in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

rcs1000 said:

Patrick said:

One of the most admirable things about the Germans is their collective attitude to debt. The German word Schuld means both Debt and Guilt. Being in debt is a shameful thing. Borrowing likewise.

All of the bubbles, all of the financial collapses across history pretty much have excess debt and excess leverage at their core.

If we had been alot more German and alot less Brownian for the last 15 yeare we would not be in such deep doodoo.

When you save, you are lending money to a bank. For every saver there has to be a borrower. You cannot have an entire world of savers.

Or to put it another way, saving and borrowing are time transfers of work. When you save, you are exchanging work you have done now for work someone else will do you in the future. Without a borrower, there is no-one to pay you with 'work' in the future.

That said, you are absolutely right that excessive leverage is at the heart of almost every major financial crisis of the last 250 years or so.

In short, the important word was excess rather than debt.

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

Meanwhile in the Eurozone ...

Greece is downgraded to "emerging-market" status:

The equity index provider MSCI Inc has lowered Greece from 'developed'- to 'emerging-market' status, because the Hellenic Republic has not met size requirements for the last two years.

But will the Greeks know this? The Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (ERT) has closed down taking the state broadcaster off the air.

And the Greeks have failed to complete the sale of state assets demanded as a condition for the latest Troika bail-out.

Gazprom, the Russian state energy company, has pulled out of a deal to buy Greece's state gas company, Depa, leaving a shortfall in government receipts.

Markets now expect the Greek government to impose further austerity measures and to need additional bailout funds just to meet existing Trioka requirements.

But we need fear nothing. As Citoyen Hollande insists: "There is no longer any crisis in the Eurozone".

While I am no Hollande fan (quite the opposite), I think he was referring more to the fact that the other major Eurozone countries no longer have any difficulty in funding themselves in the market.

Or more probably to the ECB's stated intention of supporting individual country's Eurobond issuing "whatever the costs".

A policy being scrutinised by the German Constitutional Court today with a ruling expected in September.

ECB policy is definitely making it more difficult for the markets to attack the weaker Eurozone countries, as are the new regulatory restrictions being introduced on shorting activities being introduced by the EU, but neither are fundamentally altering the economic prospects of the Euro issuers.

The ECB is just ensuring a slower and more painful death.

And as Lamont can remind us, if the markets will they will get.

While it's quite possible that the Eurozone disappears, I think you've missed the progress that many countries have made to reduce spending and narrow budget deficits. Take Ireland: in 2008, Irish government spending was about €7.4bn per month; it's now €5.9bn. That's a pretty astonishing reduction in spending levels, especially in the context of a recession which tends to naturally increase government spending. Of course, Ireland still runs a substantial budget deficit, but with growth appearing to return, with unemployment having fallen several percent from its 15.1% high in early 2012, and the country now running twin current account and trade surplus, there is considerable room for optimism.

A similar story can be told about Spain: there have been incredibly painful structural reforms, unemployment is falling (albeit from incredibly high levels), the banks have recognised most of their bad debts, and - just like Ireland - the country now has both current account and trade surpluses. Government spending has gone from €107bn a month to €98bn - not so drastic a decline as in Ireland, but directionally right.

In Italy, there are serious problems with competitiveness, and I doubt whether the Italian political class will allow proper reform. That said, Italy will run a primary budget surplus this year (i.e. before interest payments). Of the big Eurozone economies, this is the one I worry most about. (That said, that said: Italy has very unindebted consumers and business - personal debt-to-GDP is around 60% versus 200% in the UK. So Italy certainly has the opportunity to turn things around. It may not have the stomach, however.)

Regarding ECB bond buying, I'd point out that the 'OMT' - or open market transactions - that constitute the 'as much as it takes' buying hasn't actually been activated yet. It's quite possible that the German constitutional court will strike it down. The markets know all that. The reason Ireland and Spain and Italy all pay lower interest rates today is that their exports now exceed their imports, and in each case, government spending has been cut.

Finally, I'd point out that the EU ban on certain short-selling has been challenged by the UK (and we'll almost certainly win). And, even if we didn't, there are various 'synthetic' ways to get around the restrictions, such as CFDs and bond futures. In other words, macro hedge funds are not being prevented from betting against the Eurozone by regulation; they are not doing it because they see - in places - glimmers of recovery.

@RCS1000

Yes - but its more leveraged than that. I save money and put it in the bank. Bank lends to someone else, who parks his working capital in the bank too and his profits. Bank lends that out too. In an endless cycle. Hence the term Fractional Reserve banking. UK banks are leveraged up about 30 to 40 times I seem to recall. But at least this bank cycle is potentially viable and productive as it usually relates to a house or a business investment - it doesn't always imply bank runs and collapses.

Government borrowing is much more pernicious. They just print Treasuries so they can spend. Borrowing to spend is dodgy. Likewise credit card debt.

Borrowing to invest - potentially wonderful and not necessarily dangerous. Borrowing to spend - always an utter fuc*up.

I believe this is why Gordon always borrowed to spend and called it 'investing in public services'. What a cnut that man is. And his acolyte.

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

The wankpolice.

its actually a Satanic Leaf Tailed gecko

Did you edit out the shot of David Attenborough looking on admiringly?

Patrick said:

@RCS1000

Yes - but its more leveraged than that. I save money and put it in the bank. Bank lends to someone else, who parks his working capital in the bank too and his profits. Bank lends that out too. In an endless cycle. Hence the term Fractional Reserve banking. UK banks are leveraged up about 30 to 40 times I seem to recall. But at least this bank cycle is potentially viable and productive as it usually relates to a house or a business investment - it doesn't always imply bank runs and collapses.

Government borrowing is much more pernicious. They just print Treasuries so they can spend. Borrowing to spend is dodgy. Likewise credit card debt.

Borrowing to invest - potentially wonderful and not necessarily dangerous. Borrowing to spend - always an utter fuc*up.

I believe this is why Gordon always borrowed to spend and called it 'investing in public services'. What a cnut that man is. And his acolyte.

I agree with almost everything you say. That said, I'd point out that leverage at large banks has been massively reduced. RBS went into the crisis with tier-one capital of c. 3% (i.e. 33-1 levered). Now pretty much every European bank has 9+% tier-one capital. So we're now only 10-1 levered.

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

Meanwhile in the Eurozone ...

Greece is downgraded to "emerging-market" status:

The equity index provider MSCI Inc has lowered Greece from 'developed'- to 'emerging-market' status, because the Hellenic Republic has not met size requirements for the last two years.

But will the Greeks know this? The Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (ERT) has closed down taking the state broadcaster off the air.

And the Greeks have failed to complete the sale of state assets demanded as a condition for the latest Troika bail-out.

Gazprom, the Russian state energy company, has pulled out of a deal to buy Greece's state gas company, Depa, leaving a shortfall in government receipts.

Markets now expect the Greek government to impose further austerity measures and to need additional bailout funds just to meet existing Trioka requirements.

But we need fear nothing. As Citoyen Hollande insists: "There is no longer any crisis in the Eurozone".

While I am no Hollande fan (quite the opposite), I think he was referring more to the fact that the other major Eurozone countries no longer have any difficulty in funding themselves in the market.

Or more probably to the ECB's stated intention of supporting individual country's Eurobond issuing "whatever the costs".

A policy being scrutinised by the German Constitutional Court today with a ruling expected in September.

ECB policy is definitely making it more difficult for the markets to attack the weaker Eurozone countries, as are the new regulatory restrictions being introduced on shorting activities being introduced by the EU, but neither are fundamentally altering the economic prospects of the Euro issuers.

The ECB is just ensuring a slower and more painful death.

And as Lamont can remind us, if the markets will they will get.

While it's quite possible that the Eurozone disappears, I think you've missed the progress that many countries have made to reduce spending and narrow budget deficits. Take Ireland: in 2008, Irish government spending was about €7.4bn per month; it's now €5.9bn. That's a pretty astonishing reduction in spending levels, especially in the context of a recession which tends to naturally increase government spending. Of course, Ireland still runs a substantial budget deficit, but with growth appearing to return, with unemployment having fallen several percent from its 15.1% high in early 2012, and the country now running twin current account and trade surplus, there is considerable room for optimism.

A similar story can be told about Spain: there have been incredibly painful structural reforms, unemployment is falling (albeit from incredibly high levels), the banks have recognised most of their bad debts, and - just like Ireland - the country now has both current account and trade surpluses. Government spending has gone from €107bn a month to €98bn - not so drastic a decline as in Ireland, but directionally right.

In Italy, there are serious problems with competitiveness, and I doubt whether the Italian political class will allow proper reform. That said, Italy will run a primary budget surplus this year (i.e. before interest payments). Of the big Eurozone economies, this is the one I worry most about. (That said, that said: Italy has very unindebted consumers and business - personal debt-to-GDP is around 60% versus 200% in the UK. So Italy certainly has the opportunity to turn things around. It may not have the stomach, however.)

Regarding ECB bond buying, I'd point out that the 'OMT' - or open market transactions - that constitute the 'as much as it takes' buying hasn't actually been activated yet. It's quite possible that the German constitutional court will strike it down. The markets know all that. The reason Ireland and Spain and Italy all pay lower interest rates today is that their exports now exceed their imports, and in each case, government spending has been cut.

Finally, I'd point out that the EU ban on certain short-selling has been challenged by the UK (and we'll almost certainly win). And, even if we didn't, there are various 'synthetic' ways to get around the restrictions, such as CFDs and bond futures. In other words, macro hedge funds are not being prevented from betting against the Eurozone by regulation; they are not doing it because they see - in places - glimmers of recovery.

I am not predicting the Eurozone will disappear but it will need to adjust to reality. In the short term I see the pressures coming more from social unrest than being led by pressure in the markets. What we are seeing in Istambul is just a forerunner of what is likely to be a lively summer.

Mostly agree with your assessments but am cooler on Spain than you are. The smaller peripheral countries have a much greater ability to respond to shock therapy. It is the large economies that will struggle to recover.

Italy has industrial strength and relatively low leverage. Even if it lacks the political will to reform, it has the capacity to stumble on for some time.

Spain is less fortunate. The recent rise in employment is probably just seasonal and I don't share your confidence in the strength of the Spanish banks's balance sheets. I also believe that the property market is far from bottoming out. And finding jobs for millions is much harder than than for hundreds of thousands.

My fears on the Spanish commercial banks may even be shared by the central bank. Hence this curious announcement last week:

The Bank of Spain is planning on running its own set of stress tests without warning the country's financial institutions, but will keep the findings under wraps.

The Spanish central bank plans on using criteria similar to the tests run in the US, implying much stricter conditions than those required by the European Banking Authority (EBA).

Still Wolfgang Schäuble is confident the Spanish problem can be solved by getting German workers to buy coastal villas at distressed prices and by BMW training twenty four young graduates. I live in hope.

tim said:

As support for the party slips six points following May's record, there may well be less to Nigel Farage than many of us think

Too much emphasis on one poll, but the spasming immigration obsessives seem a little less perky.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/rise-ukip-blip-not-shift?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+theguardian/commentisfree/rss+(Comment+is+free)

Up three points since April is the truth...

Aren't all the comments just lefties saying they don't like Farage?

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

Obviously you and, say, French beachgoers have different ideas about what constitutes pornography.

Isn't the very purpose of Page 3 that it's sexual titillation for its readers?

I think that Caroline Lucas' point is that page 3 should be banned, if the Sun won't stop publishing it.

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

Obviously you and, say, French beachgoers have different ideas about what constitutes pornography.

Isn't the very purpose of Page 3 that it's sexual titillation for its readers?

Yes. But female breasts are titillating. But that doesn't make it pornography. If a topless woman walked off the beach, got on a plane at Toulon, landed at Stansted Airport, jumped on the Stansted Express and then walked through Liverpool Street station, at what point does her behaviour become pornographic?

Plato said:

I missed this quip from PMQs - its rather amusing

"Mr Cameron joked that while he had been on holiday on Ibiza, the Balearic island famous for its nightclub, the Opposition leadership were the ones taking “policy-altering substances”.

That would have been last week's PMQs.

This is why page 3 shouldn't be banned.

Doctors say looking at busty women for 10 minutes a day is good for your health


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health/doctors-say-looking-busty-women-1107578

Socrates said:

Pulpstar said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

The wankpolice.

You believe pornography should be unregulated?

Theres legal porn and illegal porn. I have no problem with that. Child porn, and violent porn of course should be regulated.

But pictures of people doing what has been done since the dawn of time?? You're not going to change human nature of people wanting to look at naked people, or people doing things together... as long as it's consentual (although a line with violent images granted), and as long as minors are protected, and as long as you can't 'stumble' upon it, then hell...it's never going to be banned.

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

Obviously you and, say, French beachgoers have different ideas about what constitutes pornography.

Isn't the very purpose of Page 3 that it's sexual titillation for its readers?

I think that Caroline Lucas' point is that page 3 should be banned, if the Sun won't stop publishing it.

I think it's an issue of very minor importance, but is it that unreasonable? If, as a society, we have decided that women's naked chests should not be seen in public for reasons of decency, why should they be allowed in a freely available newspaper?

I suppose because in the first case, it's invading other peoples' space, whereas in the second case, people actually have to go and buy the paper.

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

Obviously you and, say, French beachgoers have different ideas about what constitutes pornography.

Isn't the very purpose of Page 3 that it's sexual titillation for its readers?

I think that Caroline Lucas' point is that page 3 should be banned, if the Sun won't stop publishing it.

I think it's an issue of very minor importance, but is it that unreasonable? If, as a society, we have decided that women's naked chests should not be seen in public for reasons of decency, why should they be allowed in a freely available newspaper?

I suppose because in the first case, it's invading other peoples' space, whereas in the second case, people actually have to go and buy the paper.

So would you oppose a fully nude woman on Page 3?

I suppose that if the woman were fully nude, then it would be appropriate to place it on the top shelf.

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

Obviously you and, say, French beachgoers have different ideas about what constitutes pornography.

Isn't the very purpose of Page 3 that it's sexual titillation for its readers?

Yes. But female breasts are titillating. But that doesn't make it pornography. If a topless woman walked off the beach, got on a plane at Toulon, landed at Stansted Airport, jumped on the Stansted Express and then walked through Liverpool Street station, at what point does her behaviour become pornographic?

At no point, because it's not printed material?

As for printed material, surely the whole issue is the purpose of it. Topless, or indeed fully naked, women in sexual education materials is not pornographic. Topless or full naked women in a magazine looking sexy to titillate male readers is pornographic. Clearly Page 3 is the mildest of mild forms of porn, but let's not deny what it is.

Then we should get rid of underwear ads, Diet Coke ads, Car ads, perfume ads... all of which have bigger or smaller amounts of sexual 'titilation'... if the aim is what is important, then these are very little different.

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

Obviously you and, say, French beachgoers have different ideas about what constitutes pornography.

Isn't the very purpose of Page 3 that it's sexual titillation for its readers?

Yes. But female breasts are titillating. But that doesn't make it pornography. If a topless woman walked off the beach, got on a plane at Toulon, landed at Stansted Airport, jumped on the Stansted Express and then walked through Liverpool Street station, at what point does her behaviour become pornographic?

At no point, because it's not printed material?

As for printed material, surely the whole issue is the purpose of it.

So if a man were to travel to a French beach specifically to see female breasts, would they (the breasts) then constitute pornography?

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

Obviously you and, say, French beachgoers have different ideas about what constitutes pornography.

Isn't the very purpose of Page 3 that it's sexual titillation for its readers?

I think that Caroline Lucas' point is that page 3 should be banned, if the Sun won't stop publishing it.

I think it's an issue of very minor importance, but is it that unreasonable? If, as a society, we have decided that women's naked chests should not be seen in public for reasons of decency, why should they be allowed in a freely available newspaper?

I suppose because in the first case, it's invading other peoples' space, whereas in the second case, people actually have to go and buy the paper.

So would you oppose a fully nude woman on Page 3?

I suppose that if the woman were fully nude, then it would be appropriate to place it on the top shelf.

A proper public school Tory would prefer to place a fully nude woman on a pedestal rather than a shelf.

Shirley?

Socrates said:

tim said:

Socrates said:

tim said:

As support for the party slips six points following May's record, there may well be less to Nigel Farage than many of us think

Too much emphasis on one poll, but the spasming immigration obsessives seem a little less perky.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/rise-ukip-blip-not-shift?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+theguardian/commentisfree/rss+(Comment+is+free)

There's enough spasming on here about housing benefit and George Osborne to use up all the other issues' share.

Sad old right wing Tories and Kippers posting about race and immigration incessantly have had their day.

Multi-ethnic London – good thing or bad thing?

The recent census revealed that White British people are now a minority in London. According to the census, the ethnic makeup of London is now 45% White British, 15% from another White background with the remaining 40% made up of people from other ethnicities.

Londoners are divided on whether the capital’s multi-ethnic makeup is a good thing or a bad thing, and here again younger Londoners are substantially more likely than older Londoners to see the city’s racial diversity as a positive thing.

Amongst all Londoners, 39% say the city’s current ethnic makeup is a good thing, while 37% say it is a bad thing and 24% are undecided. However, 48% of 18-24-year-olds and 47% are 25-39-year-olds say what the census results show is a good thing, versus 30% and 26% (respectively) who it is bad.

Londoners are in the 40-59-year-old age bracket are evenly split on whether the capital’s multi-ethnicity is good or bad, while for those who are 60+ a majority (60%) say it is a bad thing.

- See more at: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/06/12/londoners-just-concerned-about-immigration/#sthash.tC6urLXk.dpuf



The recent census showed that the ethnic
makeup of the London was 45% White British,
15% from another White background with the
remaining 40% made up of people from other
ethnicities.

Good thing

Con 27
Lab 52
LD 67
UKIP 11

Race and immigration are separate issues. In general, people, rightly, don't have an issue with the colour of people's skin. In general, people, rightly, have concerns about the impact of large scale immigration.

It would be interesting if the results were broken down by ethnicity. It would probably produce the startling finding that White British voters are rather unhappy with the census figures, and voters who aren't white British are happy with them.

In any case (as the poll on EU membership demonstrates) London's political attitudes diverge markedly from those of the country as a whole.

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790

O/T, but it's nice to see Caroline Lucas demonstrating her commitment to free speech.

To be fair, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate pornography.

Obviously you and, say, French beachgoers have different ideas about what constitutes pornography.

Isn't the very purpose of Page 3 that it's sexual titillation for its readers?

I think that Caroline Lucas' point is that page 3 should be banned, if the Sun won't stop publishing it.

I think it's an issue of very minor importance, but is it that unreasonable? If, as a society, we have decided that women's naked chests should not be seen in public for reasons of decency, why should they be allowed in a freely available newspaper?

I suppose because in the first case, it's invading other peoples' space, whereas in the second case, people actually have to go and buy the paper.

So would you oppose a fully nude woman on Page 3?

I suppose that if the woman were fully nude, then it would be appropriate to place it on the top shelf.

I don't really understand the inconsistency. If, as a society, we think naked breasts are sexualised, they deserve to be restricted to other sexual printed materials on the top shelf. If we think they're not sexual, then we shouldn't have an issue with women displaying them in public.

Well, we'd have to restrict access to rather a lot of famous paintings if we were truly consistent about this.

Just watching PMQs. Good questions from Miliband on Syria.

Ed Balls remains a [MODERATED]. Miliband was far weaker on both substance and delivery when it came to economic knockabout.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjtWQ3vkzL0

@RCS1000

Thanks for that. I guess most of the EZ bonds will need to be zero weighted soon enough. And then the EZ banks will look insolvent.

Life_ina_market_town said:

Socrates said:

I don't really understand the inconsistency. If, as a society, we think naked breasts are sexualised, they deserve to be restricted to other sexual printed materials on the top shelf. If we think they're not sexual, then we shouldn't have an issue with women displaying them in public.

You are arguing from a false premise. Per section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a woman would not be criminally liable for exposure if she exposed her breasts in public. If a woman is free under the law of England to expose her breasts in public, then it is only logical that a newspaper ought to be able to publish an image of such exposure. Parliament has provided that a different set of rules apply to the exposure of genitalia.

Women bare their breasts in public for breastfeeding on a daily basis, which (as long as it's done discretely) people should have no problem with.

Michael Savage ‏@michaelsavage 9m
RT @LadPolitics Ladbrokes took a £10k bet on Tories to win most seats at next General Election today. Price cut from 2/1 to 7/4

Someones putting their money where their mouth is...

taffys said:

I bet you a penny to a pound that if a woman walked onto the Central Line topless then, if an BTP officer was called, and she refused to cover up, she would be arrested.

Quite. Just think how much that would offend muslims.

I was once waiting for a train early morning at Bath train station when a man on the opposite platform took all his clothes off.... most odd.

Patrick said:

@RCS1000

Thanks for that. I guess most of the EZ bonds will need to be zero weighted soon enough. And then the EZ banks will look insolvent.

My examples were not using real numbers! I don't know how much of the banks balance sheets are government bonds. I would guess they go from a low of 5% to a high of 15%. Italian banks probably own the largest number of domestic government bonds (and, as I mentioned below, it is the Italian government I would be most worried about). This is probably one of the reasons why Unicredit and Banco de Monte Pachi di Siena trade at such a sizeable discount to peers in the UK or France or Germany.

It is - of course - worth noting that a good quality bank like BNP probably owns as many US Treasuries and UK Gilts as they do French government bonds, so you would need to be a little careful about taking raw numbers.

rcs1000 said:

@Life, Slackbladder, etc

Can I propose we run an experiment to determine exactly what she'd be arrested for. Is anyone willing to volunteer?

My moobs aren't quite big enough to pass as a woman...

rcs1000 said:

AveryLP said:

Still Wolfgang Schäuble is confident the Spanish problem can be solved by getting German workers to buy coastal villas at distressed prices and by BMW training twenty four young graduates. I live in hope.

By the way, the Spanish employment numbers are seasonally adjusted.

But the figures I have seen tend to indicate that the 98 thousand drop in unemployment is due to short term contracts linked to the tourist season.

In Malaga Province, nett unemployment has fallen by 5,247 to a figure of 209,362 people. Once again, this is thanks to the "Servicies" sector, that’s to say hotels & restaurants. In Malaga Province, mainly the Costa del Sol, 4,418 people have received a temporary contract.

For Andalusia there are 26,529 less unemployed. 16,467 have found work in hotels & restaurants, 3,275 in agricultura, 4,921 in construction & only 1,419 in the industrial sector.

The new contracts are mainly seasonal contracts, in other words in the Autumn these people will return to be on the unemployed statistics. It’s quite clear that no quality jobs are being created, but above all seasonal work in tourism & agriculture has slightly changed the situation.


The above from http://www.andaluz.tv/news/new-andalusia.php?idNot=12285 which has a nice chart showing the climb in unemployment each year from 2009. There is a promising dip to coincide with the most recent figures but I wouldn't punt my Marbella villa on it being a long term trend.

On Germans buying Spanish coastal property, your point about transferring debt from the Spanish to German banks is persuasive. But this won't help solve the problems with the empty 'social housing' developments outside the tourist areas which form the main bulk of Spain's property problems.

Life_ina_market_town said:

TOPPING said:

I bet you a penny to a pound that if a woman walked onto the Central Line topless then, if an BTP officer was called, and she refused to cover up, she would be arrested.

She might be arrested for disorderly behaviour liable to cause harassment, alarm or distress, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986, but she could not be arrested for a sexual offence.

so it is illegal to bare your breasts (as presumably that would be the law for which the woman would be arrested).

rcs1000 said:

@Life, Slackbladder, etc

Can I propose we run an experiment to determine exactly what she'd be arrested for. Is anyone willing to volunteer?

I am dealing with what she could lawfully be arrested for. Your average plod is however, not necessarily conversant with the finer points of the law! Incidentally, exposure of one's genitalia is not in and of itself a criminal offence. It only becomes unlawful when the exposure is accompanied by an intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Neil said:

Slackbladder said:

Michael Savage ‏@michaelsavage 9m
RT @LadPolitics Ladbrokes took a £10k bet on Tories to win most seats at next General Election today. Price cut from 2/1 to 7/4

Someones putting their money where their mouth is...

Rod?

tim, more likely.

Would explain the attempt to ramp Labour's odds.

TOPPING said:

so it is illegal to bare your breasts (as presumably that would be the law for which the woman would be arrested).

No, it would be for the Crown to prove that under the circumstances the exposure was disorderly, that there was within sight a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, and that the woman intended her behaviour to be, or was aware that it may be disorderly. There are also article 10 ECHR issues involved. It is by no means clear cut.