politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some of the headlines after the big statement are not quite

Options
13»

Comments

  • Mick_Pork
    Mick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited June 2013
    As we all remember this was part of the omnishambles triumph and in no way a measure of just how out of touch Osbrowne and his amusingly inept spinners were and still appear to be.

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

    Just imagine how much of a triumph the 'temperature test' for expat pensioners could be? ;^ )

  • astateofdenmark
    astateofdenmark Posts: 82
    OblitusSumMe said:

    astateofdenmark said:

    Bad news is the saving ratio fell steeply in Q1 as households spent more but employees compensation fell slightly.

    Also the current account deficit was even worse that Q4's shocker.

    The ONS says:

    "Real household disposable income increased by 1.4% between 2011 and 2012. This is the highest growth since 2009 when it rose by 1.6%."

    I presume this is due to the increase in employment, since average wages have fallen in real terms. Or is it because of further decreases in mortgage rates?
    From ONS:

    Gross household disposable income (GDI) is the estimate of the total amount of money from income that households have available from wages received, revenue of the self-employed, social benefits and net income (such as interest on savings and dividends from shares) less taxes on income and wealth. All the components that make up GDI are estimated in current prices.

    However, by adjusting gross disposable income to remove the effects of inflation, we are able to estimate another useful measure of disposable income called real. This is a measure of real purchasing power of household incomes in terms of the physical quantity of goods and services they would be able to purchase. We use the household expenditure deflator (which can be found in table J2 of this release) to remove the effects of price inflation.

    ------
  • Grandiose
    Grandiose Posts: 2,323
    CarlottaVance said:

    YouGov poll on relationships between teachers & pupils - both above & below 16. Below 16 both unacceptable and should be illegal. Above 16 unacceptable - but people more split on whether it should be illegal (47:40)

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/bke0b76pf5/YouGov-survey-student-teacher-relationships-130626.pdf

    Makes sense. The 2003 Act proceeded on the basis that some of the harm done with a 16 to 18 year old was 'hidden' - for example, if it confused by implication the picture for under 16s.
  • Grandiose
    Grandiose Posts: 2,323
    Decent poll for Labour from YouGov today, at 11pts. Think they'll be happy with that. UKIP 'just' 10%. In the long run, I'm sure that the "double dip" line being now unworkable will please the gov't though.
  • state_go_away
    state_go_away Posts: 5,855
    I think the temperature test is a way around the EU rule that says benefits must be available across the EU-By saying the benefit is only for places below a certain temperature that may get around it. Personally I dont knwo why they dont just make it taxable income like they do the basic state pension
  • perdix
    perdix Posts: 1,806
    The fluff about who eats what burger in the press and on this site just shows the low level of political discussion in this country.
  • astateofdenmark
    astateofdenmark Posts: 82
    Salaries and benefits both rose in 2012, whilst taxes on salaries fell. Hence the increase in Real Household Disposable Income, despite CPI being higher than wage growth.
  • state_go_away
    state_go_away Posts: 5,855
    tim , now you need to show some evidence -when do I get elections 'wrong'?
  • state_go_away
    state_go_away Posts: 5,855
    Tim- I think the last tip io gave on here was that Prescott was way to short for the PCC humberside job -- I noticed at the time it got a bit of dismissal from the likes of you (see I can bunch people together as well to suit a need)
  • AveryLP
    AveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2013
    Danny Alexander is a very fine Chief Secretary to the Treasury and one of the great successes of the coalition government but he is less impressive as a House of Commons orator.

    Listening to him today after George Osborne yesterday is a bit like having to eat a veggie burger after dining on one made from prime Aberdeen Angus beef.

    Come on Danny, we need more horseradish with the meat.

  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    state_go_away said:

    I think the temperature test is a way around the EU rule that says benefits must be available across the EU-By saying the benefit is only for places below a certain temperature that may get around it. Personally I dont knwo why they dont just make it taxable income like they do the basic state pension

    Personally I don't know why they don't just abolish it. Labour would agree because they will agree to anything at the moment. Apparently this makes them more credible. Snigger.

    It is based on an image of pensioners that is so remote from reality that it really makes no sense. As we go to the new pension arrangements fripperies like this really have to go.

  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    So, no double-dip recession, eh?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

    And the recession in 2008 was deeper than the recession in the early 1930s.

    Let the noise commence.
  • carl
    carl Posts: 750
    Plato:

    Have I just walked into the stupidest thread argument so far this year? The price of a burger?
    I know there isn't much going on bar the CSR that was only yesterday and a very substantive bit of HMG policy setting - but really - arguing about fast food pricing?

    ---

    I'm rather partial to KFC - McD's and BurgerKing - no thanks, they repeat on me something chronic and those weird alien looking pickles - urgh. Does anyone think Oh Yummy!?
    Now curly fries? They're yummy...

    Lol. Bless.
  • Mick_Pork
    Mick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited June 2013
    AveryLP said:

    Danny Alexander is a very fine Chief Secretary to the Treasury and one of the great successes of the coalition government but he is less impressive as a House of Commons orator.

    Listening to him today after George Osborne yesterday is a bit like having to eat a veggie burger after dining on a burger made from prime Aberdeen Angus beef.

    Come on Danny, we need more horseradish with the meat.


    As if your praise wasn't damning enough Seth, he is being utterly destroyed on the lib dem blogosphere along with the hapless Clegg. Little Danny's hilariously bad approval ratings among his fellow lib dem members are going to take yet another tumble.

    He'd best enjoy his ministerial perks while he still can. Perhaps even order a burger or two? ;)
  • carl
    carl Posts: 750
    Anyway, a lot of the political discussion is about the Osborne burger and all its works, as is this thread, so it's fair enough people here are discussing it.

    SO has identified the nastiest, most needlessly spiteful political "dividing line" that Osbrowne came up with yesterday though, the 7 day JSA wait. Using those in genuine hardship as a pawn to try and wrongfoot Labour. Shame on the Tories.
  • CarlottaVance
    CarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    AveryLP said:

    Danny Alexander is a very fine Chief Secretary to the Treasury and one of the great successes of the coalition government but he is less impressive as a House of Commons orator.

    Matt Chorley cruelly tweets: "Danny Alexander to electrify the railways. He is not doing the same in the Commons."
  • state_go_away
    state_go_away Posts: 5,855
    Just checked to get some background on Byron burgers to double check they are a British firm and not a mutilnational (hence more likely to pay tax of course!!!) -Their website seems to be down -oh the publicity !!!

    UK UNcut must be so proud of Osbourne - frequenting places more likely to pay tax eh?


  • CarlottaVance
    CarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    carl said:

    Shame on the Tories.

    And on Ed for not promising to reverse it?

  • carl
    carl Posts: 750
    CarlottaVance said:

    carl said:

    Shame on the Tories.

    And on Ed for not promising to reverse it?

    Ach, there you go. It put pressure on Labour, that's the important thing, who cares what impact it has on people who've lost their jobs? Cameron and Osborne's Tories in a nutshell.

    But yes, Labour should go all out opposing this.
  • OblitusSumMe
    OblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited June 2013
    astateofdenmark said:

    Salaries and benefits both rose in 2012, whilst taxes on salaries fell. Hence the increase in Real Household Disposable Income, despite CPI being higher than wage growth.

    So, taken in the round, it looks like the Chancellor managed to compensate the British public for a decline in their real level of earnings.

    A strange sort of Austerity, really, and the dissonance between reality and rhetoric is doing my head in.

    Edit: And thanks for the explanation.
  • RichardNabavi
    RichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Here's a thought: If the arithmetic works out in such a way that the LibDems have the opportunity to remain in coalition with the Conservatives after 2015, will they be able to resist being part of a government implementing all the plans with Danny Alexander is laying out?
  • Alanbrooke
    Alanbrooke Posts: 25,926
    carl said:

    Anyway, a lot of the political discussion is about the Osborne burger and all its works, as is this thread, so it's fair enough people here are discussing it.

    SO has identified the nastiest, most needlessly spiteful political "dividing line" that Osbrowne came up with yesterday though, the 7 day JSA wait. Using those in genuine hardship as a pawn to try and wrongfoot Labour. Shame on the Tories.

    And what does that tell us ? Labour are adrift on the economy so spend their time on attacking GO since they are clueless. Stupid politics.
  • Plato
    Plato Posts: 15,724
    edited June 2013
    So rather than actually discussing the GDP ONS figs or the CSR - Labourites want to talk about political flotsam and mechanically reclaimed meat.

    I think that sounds like they've lost the argument. I'd like to read about reaction to the CSR - but judging by 90% of the comments after the statement yesterday and today so far - its all very childish stuff.

    What a pity - we're starved of serious stuff to discuss at this time of year and bingo - we get something and its lost in the crap instead.

    *switches Sopranos back on*
  • Mick_Pork
    Mick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited June 2013
    carl said:

    Plato:

    Have I just walked into the stupidest thread argument so far this year? The price of a burger?
    I know there isn't much going on bar the CSR that was only yesterday and a very substantive bit of HMG policy setting - but really - arguing about fast food pricing?

    ---

    I'm rather partial to KFC - McD's and BurgerKing - no thanks, they repeat on me something chronic and those weird alien looking pickles - urgh. Does anyone think Oh Yummy!?
    Now curly fries? They're yummy...

    Lol. Bless.

    Golly. It's all very childish stuff. I'm surprised you haven't flounced off the huff. ;^ )

  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    RichardNabavi said:

    Here's a thought: If the arithmetic works out in such a way that the LibDems have the opportunity to remain in coalition with the Conservatives after 2015, will they be able to resist being part of a government implementing all the plans with Danny Alexander is laying out?

    Ah but Labour are going to implement them all too. Because Osborne is an idiot and wrong about everything except every spending decision, every tax change, every cut. Or something.

    I think we need a little help here from Labour supporters. This really isn't hanging together at the moment.

    Was it a squirrel burger by any chance?

  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited June 2013
    @RichardNabavi Judging by Labour's current stance, they may have a choice of coalition partners to do that with.
  • Alanbrooke
    Alanbrooke Posts: 25,926
    Plato said:

    So rather than actually discussing the borrowing figs or the CSR - Labourites want to talk about political flotsam and mechanically reclaimed meat.

    I think that sounds like they've lost the argument. I'd like to read about reaction to the CSR - but judging by 90% of the comments after the statement yesterday and today so far - its all very childish stuff.

    What a pity - we're starved of serious stuff to discuss at this time of year and bingo - we get something and its lost in the crap instead.

    *switches Sopranos back on*

    it's worse than they've lost the argument, it's that they haven't even got one on which to start the debate. The policy challenge to GO is from the right not the left.

    Labour - the lights are on but no-one's at home.
  • Plato
    Plato Posts: 15,724
    Alanbrooke said:

    carl said:

    Anyway, a lot of the political discussion is about the Osborne burger and all its works, as is this thread, so it's fair enough people here are discussing it.

    SO has identified the nastiest, most needlessly spiteful political "dividing line" that Osbrowne came up with yesterday though, the 7 day JSA wait. Using those in genuine hardship as a pawn to try and wrongfoot Labour. Shame on the Tories.

    And what does that tell us ? Labour are adrift on the economy so spend their time on attacking GO since they are clueless. Stupid politics.
    Labour aren't doing themselves any favours - they're not even double digits ahead in the polls mid-term, and now they're saying they'll do the same as the Tories/won't do the same,will stick to the spending plans/won't, will borrow more/borrowing is evil. I'm totally lost.

    They couldn't be more incoherent if they tried.
  • carl
    carl Posts: 750
    DavidL said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    Here's a thought: If the arithmetic works out in such a way that the LibDems have the opportunity to remain in coalition with the Conservatives after 2015, will they be able to resist being part of a government implementing all the plans with Danny Alexander is laying out?

    Ah but Labour are going to implement them all too. Because Osborne is an idiot and wrong about everything except every spending decision, every tax change, every cut. Or something.

    I think we need a little help here from Labour supporters. This really isn't hanging together at the moment.

    Was it a squirrel burger by any chance?

    As I understand it, Labour have said they'll initially stick to Osborne's deficit reduction targets.

    Not "every cut, every tax change, every spending decision". Not even spending totals, for that matter.I might be wrong, the situation is somewhat fluid...
  • AveryLP
    AveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2013
    Mick_Pork said:

    AveryLP said:

    Danny Alexander is a very fine Chief Secretary to the Treasury and one of the great successes of the coalition government but he is less impressive as a House of Commons orator.

    Listening to him today after George Osborne yesterday is a bit like having to eat a veggie burger after dining on a burger made from prime Aberdeen Angus beef.

    Come on Danny, we need more horseradish with the meat.


    As if your praise wasn't damning enough Seth, he is being utterly destroyed on the lib dem blogosphere along with the hapless Clegg. Little Danny's hilariously bad approval ratings among his fellow lib dem members are going to take yet another tumble.

    He'd best enjoy his ministerial perks while he still can. Perhaps even order a burger or two? ;)
    Pork.

    Reading Lib Dem blogs on the internet is rather like consulting a recipe book for a casserole of green lentils and tofu.

    It is fine if you want to be amused but of little use if you need to eat.

  • MrJones
    MrJones Posts: 3,523
    Patrick said:

    @ASOD

    Is that discrepancy caused by the black economy - which inevitably expands during a recession?

    That's been growing exponential since 2000-ish although there might have been a bit of a sudden bump due to all the public sector jobs going. I wonder if you can know the size of the black economy from official stats? Google time.
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    Alanbrooke said:

    Plato said:

    So rather than actually discussing the borrowing figs or the CSR - Labourites want to talk about political flotsam and mechanically reclaimed meat.

    I think that sounds like they've lost the argument. I'd like to read about reaction to the CSR - but judging by 90% of the comments after the statement yesterday and today so far - its all very childish stuff.

    What a pity - we're starved of serious stuff to discuss at this time of year and bingo - we get something and its lost in the crap instead.

    *switches Sopranos back on*

    it's worse than they've lost the argument, it's that they haven't even got one on which to start the debate. The policy challenge to GO is from the right not the left.

    Labour - the lights are on but no-one's at home.
    I think that is exactly right. The critique of spending cuts is now firmly from the "he hasn't gone far enough" camp.

    Oh for the simplistic simplicities of too fast, too deep.

    It wasn't much of an argument but it at least got Labour through the first question.

  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    astateofdenmark said:

    goodbye double-dip

    2009 was a shocker, though, wasn't it?

    Overall, the revision doesn't amount to very much. Q4 2010,
    Q1 2and Q4 012 get revised up. Q2 and Q3 2012 get revised down.
  • john_zims
    john_zims Posts: 3,399
    @BenM

    'Big revision to 2008-09 recession - 7.2% fall compared to 6.3% previously thought.

    Wow. Just wow.

    Shocking for Labour.'

    Labour,the only government to have achieved zero growth during 5 years of government.
  • AveryLP
    AveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2013
    carl said:

    Anyway, a lot of the political discussion is about the Osborne burger and all its works, as is this thread, so it's fair enough people here are discussing it.

    SO has identified the nastiest, most needlessly spiteful political "dividing line" that Osbrowne came up with yesterday though, the 7 day JSA wait. Using those in genuine hardship as a pawn to try and wrongfoot Labour. Shame on the Tories.

    Southam Observer is a man who wears a hair shirt while smoking a fine havana cigar.

    Take not seriously a confidence exchanged over a glass of rare cognac.
  • carl
    carl Posts: 750
    Plato said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    carl said:

    Anyway, a lot of the political discussion is about the Osborne burger and all its works, as is this thread, so it's fair enough people here are discussing it.

    SO has identified the nastiest, most needlessly spiteful political "dividing line" that Osbrowne came up with yesterday though, the 7 day JSA wait. Using those in genuine hardship as a pawn to try and wrongfoot Labour. Shame on the Tories.

    And what does that tell us ? Labour are adrift on the economy so spend their time on attacking GO since they are clueless. Stupid politics.
    Labour aren't doing themselves any favours - they're not even double digits ahead in the polls mid-term.
    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 26th June - CON 31%, LAB 42%, LD 11%, UKIP 10%;
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    RichardNabavi said:

    Here's a thought: If the arithmetic works out in such a way that the LibDems have the opportunity to remain in coalition with the Conservatives after 2015, will they be able to resist being part of a government implementing all the plans with Danny Alexander is laying out?

    Can't find a bet on there being a Blue/Yellow coalition from 2015 onwards.

    David Cameron to be PM at 6/5 with Paddy Power - but that also covers minority gov.

  • Ishmael_X
    Ishmael_X Posts: 3,664
    The 7 day wait does indeed look spiteful. But listening to Balls on r4 this morning I'd say it worked a treat.
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    edited June 2013
    carl said:

    DavidL said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    Here's a thought: If the arithmetic works out in such a way that the LibDems have the opportunity to remain in coalition with the Conservatives after 2015, will they be able to resist being part of a government implementing all the plans with Danny Alexander is laying out?

    Ah but Labour are going to implement them all too. Because Osborne is an idiot and wrong about everything except every spending decision, every tax change, every cut. Or something.

    I think we need a little help here from Labour supporters. This really isn't hanging together at the moment.

    Was it a squirrel burger by any chance?

    As I understand it, Labour have said they'll initially stick to Osborne's deficit reduction targets.

    Not "every cut, every tax change, every spending decision". Not even spending totals, for that matter.I might be wrong, the situation is somewhat fluid...
    Good try Carl but they have made it clear already that they are not in a position to reverse any cuts in welfare etc, not even the infamous bedroom tax.

    I always tell my kids that if they don't do their homework things will not go well in the exams. I have a good example for them after yesterday.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    Emma Hutchinson ‏@ITVEmmaH
    Transport officials tell me the upgraded A14 will be tolled #A14

    Brilliant - will keep the riff raff off the road.
  • OblitusSumMe
    OblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Plato said:

    So rather than actually discussing the GDP ONS figs or the CSR - Labourites want to talk about political flotsam and mechanically reclaimed meat.

    I think that sounds like they've lost the argument. I'd like to read about reaction to the CSR - but judging by 90% of the comments after the statement yesterday and today so far - its all very childish stuff.

    What a pity - we're starved of serious stuff to discuss at this time of year and bingo - we get something and its lost in the crap instead.

    *switches Sopranos back on*

    Heather Stewart has a good piece in the Guardian about the serious stuff that isn't being discussed.

    "..it's always a bad sign when chancellors start trumpeting projects that should be beneath their notice; and it's an even worse sign when they do so repeatedly.

    For Gordon Brown, it was tax relief for cycle helmets and a statue of the Queen mother; for For Osborne, it's the A14. He first announced that he was going to upgrade the Rugby-Felixstowe trunk road (specifically, the Kettering bypass section), in the autumn statement of 2011; on Wednesday, the A14 got another mention.

    There could be no better indication of how thinly the Treasury is spreading what these days we're meant to take as good news."

    As an aside, Einstein may have once said: "Setting an example is not the main means of influencing others; it is the only means"
  • AveryLP
    AveryLP Posts: 7,815
    carl said:

    Plato said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    carl said:

    Anyway, a lot of the political discussion is about the Osborne burger and all its works, as is this thread, so it's fair enough people here are discussing it.

    SO has identified the nastiest, most needlessly spiteful political "dividing line" that Osbrowne came up with yesterday though, the 7 day JSA wait. Using those in genuine hardship as a pawn to try and wrongfoot Labour. Shame on the Tories.

    And what does that tell us ? Labour are adrift on the economy so spend their time on attacking GO since they are clueless. Stupid politics.
    Labour aren't doing themselves any favours - they're not even double digits ahead in the polls mid-term.
    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 26th June - CON 31%, LAB 42%, LD 11%, UKIP 10%;
    That is before the YouGov figures have been run through the ONS. Once corrected you will find the LAB figure to be very much lower.

  • RichardNabavi
    RichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited June 2013
    TGOHF said:

    Can't find a bet on there being a Blue/Yellow coalition from 2015 onwards.

    6/1 Paddy Power (market 'Government after next election').

    I'm not sure if that's value or not - it might be. One to think about.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    Here's a thought: If the arithmetic works out in such a way that the LibDems have the opportunity to remain in coalition with the Conservatives after 2015, will they be able to resist being part of a government implementing all the plans with Danny Alexander is laying out?

    Can't find a bet on there being a Blue/Yellow coalition from 2015 onwards.

    David Cameron to be PM at 6/5 with Paddy Power - but that also covers minority gov.


    6/1

    http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=282167
    Ta - terriffic value - am on.
  • CarlottaVance
    CarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    carl said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    carl said:

    Shame on the Tories.

    And on Ed for not promising to reverse it?

    But yes, Labour should go all out opposing this.
    And they don't - why not? Could they have learned from the "reprehensible" and "cruel" 'spare room subsidy - that they know they can't make another promise they can't afford another U-turn on?

  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    F1: Webber leaving F1 at the end of the season:
    http://www.espn.co.uk/redbull/motorsport/story/112633.html
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    john_zims said:

    @BenM

    'Big revision to 2008-09 recession - 7.2% fall compared to 6.3% previously thought.

    Wow. Just wow.

    Shocking for Labour.'

    Labour,the only government to have achieved zero growth during 5 years of government.

    In fairness the first administration after WW1 also achieved that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom

    Just as well we were the best prepared for the downturn as per Brown and Darling eh? Largest fall in GDP, largest deficit, highest overall debt. And they criticise Osborne for failing to turn it around on a sixpence.

    Thank goodness the current leadership of Labour had nothing to do with this.

  • Mick_Pork
    Mick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited June 2013
    AveryLP said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    AveryLP said:

    Danny Alexander is a very fine Chief Secretary to the Treasury and one of the great successes of the coalition government but he is less impressive as a House of Commons orator.

    Listening to him today after George Osborne yesterday is a bit like having to eat a veggie burger after dining on a burger made from prime Aberdeen Angus beef.

    Come on Danny, we need more horseradish with the meat.


    As if your praise wasn't damning enough Seth, he is being utterly destroyed on the lib dem blogosphere along with the hapless Clegg. Little Danny's hilariously bad approval ratings among his fellow lib dem members are going to take yet another tumble.

    He'd best enjoy his ministerial perks while he still can. Perhaps even order a burger or two? ;)
    Pork.

    Reading Lib Dem blogs on the internet is rather like consulting a recipe book for a casserole of green lentils and tofu.

    It is fine if you want to be amused but of little use if you need to eat.

    Yes Seth, the lib dems are a cheap laugh and the only reason Cameron is PM which makes it all the more amusing.

    You don't seem to understand that these are mostly lib dems who have stuck it out while the lib dem base was being hammered year on year. They are the loyal ones. The rest left long ago.

    If these lib dem members are as disgusted with little Danny and Clegg as it appears then I fear Clegg's plans for a smooth general election with him as leader are going to be in for a very nasty surprise. The lib dem membership do actually wield quite a bit of power due to the way their party is structured. Their conferences are not just talking shops but have a say on policy. The vehemence of their response to Osbrowne's CSR is quite something so unless Clegg has his head up a burger he'd best get out there and do some damage control pretty damn fast.

  • Alanbrooke
    Alanbrooke Posts: 25,926
    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Plato said:

    So rather than actually discussing the borrowing figs or the CSR - Labourites want to talk about political flotsam and mechanically reclaimed meat.

    I think that sounds like they've lost the argument. I'd like to read about reaction to the CSR - but judging by 90% of the comments after the statement yesterday and today so far - its all very childish stuff.

    What a pity - we're starved of serious stuff to discuss at this time of year and bingo - we get something and its lost in the crap instead.

    *switches Sopranos back on*

    it's worse than they've lost the argument, it's that they haven't even got one on which to start the debate. The policy challenge to GO is from the right not the left.

    Labour - the lights are on but no-one's at home.
    I think that is exactly right. The critique of spending cuts is now firmly from the "he hasn't gone far enough" camp.

    Oh for the simplistic simplicities of too fast, too deep.

    It wasn't much of an argument but it at least got Labour through the first question.

    it's more than the rate of cuts, it the supply side reform arguments:

    - reform of the banking sector
    - reform of the tax system
    - reduction in business regulation
    - size of the state
    - efficient national infrastructure

  • carl
    carl Posts: 750
    AveryLP said:

    carl said:

    Plato said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    carl said:

    Anyway, a lot of the political discussion is about the Osborne burger and all its works, as is this thread, so it's fair enough people here are discussing it.

    SO has identified the nastiest, most needlessly spiteful political "dividing line" that Osbrowne came up with yesterday though, the 7 day JSA wait. Using those in genuine hardship as a pawn to try and wrongfoot Labour. Shame on the Tories.

    And what does that tell us ? Labour are adrift on the economy so spend their time on attacking GO since they are clueless. Stupid politics.
    Labour aren't doing themselves any favours - they're not even double digits ahead in the polls mid-term.
    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 26th June - CON 31%, LAB 42%, LD 11%, UKIP 10%;
    That is before the YouGov figures have been run through the ONS. Once corrected you will find the LAB figure to be very much lower.

    Lol!
  • Cyclefree
    Cyclefree Posts: 25,709
    @NickPalmer and SO: "the despicable 7 day stuff"

    Like you I don't like the demonisation of people who lose their jobs but the response to this measure is verging on the OTT. The existing measure is that claimants have to wait 3 days. So we're talking about an extra 4 days. It's not - surely - unreasonable to expect people to have savings to cover a week or two's living expenses, is it?

    Of course, if this measure saves no or little money or ends up costing more then it is a stupid policy. But to claim (as some on the radio this morning have done) that this is akin to condemning people to starvation is a touch hyperbolic. Apparently it's very similar to policies enacted on most of mainland Europe. Perhaps someone who knows the facts can confirm this.
  • carl
    carl Posts: 750
    Ishmael_X said:

    The 7 day wait does indeed look spiteful. But listening to Balls on r4 this morning I'd say it worked a treat.

    Yeah that just about sums it up.

    How depressing.
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,717
    Fellow PBers, a question for you all: Is Ocado too big to fail?
  • carl
    carl Posts: 750
    DavidL said:

    carl said:

    DavidL said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    Here's a thought: If the arithmetic works out in such a way that the LibDems have the opportunity to remain in coalition with the Conservatives after 2015, will they be able to resist being part of a government implementing all the plans with Danny Alexander is laying out?

    Ah but Labour are going to implement them all too. Because Osborne is an idiot and wrong about everything except every spending decision, every tax change, every cut. Or something.

    I think we need a little help here from Labour supporters. This really isn't hanging together at the moment.

    Was it a squirrel burger by any chance?

    As I understand it, Labour have said they'll initially stick to Osborne's deficit reduction targets.

    Not "every cut, every tax change, every spending decision". Not even spending totals, for that matter.I might be wrong, the situation is somewhat fluid...
    Good try Carl but they have made it clear already that they are not in a position to reverse any cuts in welfare etc, not even the infamous bedroom tax.
    Haven't they said they can't promise at this stage to reverse any specific policy come the manifesto? Slightly different thing. And a fairly standard direction of travel holding position for this stage of the cycle, really.

    As Nick Palmer said earlier, though, they could do with sprinkling a few more specific policies here and there in the near future, and going big on the 7 day wait could replicate the relative success they had over the Bedroom Tax.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. 1000, I would say no. Banks play a critical role in the economy. If a supermarket fails it's work will just be done by another. It won't wreck the whole economy.
  • Alanbrooke
    Alanbrooke Posts: 25,926
    rcs1000 said:

    Fellow PBers, a question for you all: Is Ocado too big to fail?

    If Woolworths can fall what's so special about Ocado ?
  • MikeSmithson
    MikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    New thread
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    rcs1000 said:

    Fellow PBers, a question for you all: Is Ocado too big to fail?

    An interesting question given the current controversies.

    And a question to which the answer is 'No'.
  • Mick_Pork
    Mick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited June 2013
    carl said:

    DavidL said:

    carl said:

    DavidL said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    Here's a thought: If the arithmetic works out in such a way that the LibDems have the opportunity to remain in coalition with the Conservatives after 2015, will they be able to resist being part of a government implementing all the plans with Danny Alexander is laying out?

    Ah but Labour are going to implement them all too. Because Osborne is an idiot and wrong about everything except every spending decision, every tax change, every cut. Or something.

    I think we need a little help here from Labour supporters. This really isn't hanging together at the moment.

    Was it a squirrel burger by any chance?

    As I understand it, Labour have said they'll initially stick to Osborne's deficit reduction targets.

    Not "every cut, every tax change, every spending decision". Not even spending totals, for that matter.I might be wrong, the situation is somewhat fluid...
    Good try Carl but they have made it clear already that they are not in a position to reverse any cuts in welfare etc, not even the infamous bedroom tax.
    Haven't they said they can't promise at this stage to reverse any specific policy come the manifesto? Slightly different thing. And a fairly standard direction of travel holding position for this stage of the cycle, really.

    As Nick Palmer said earlier, though, they could do with sprinkling a few more specific policies here and there in the near future, and going big on the 7 day wait could replicate the relative success they had over the Bedroom Tax.
    I'd wait. There's more chance of a later 'clarification' of the policy due to lib dem pressure than Balls getting his act together first. If Balls does tackle it by trying to get rid of it he'll merely re-triangulate on the triangulation. (That is the Blairite way after all) Something along the lines of scrapping the seven day wait but changing another welfare policy in it's stead. Housing benefits or another tack on wealthy pensioners? That kind of thing.

  • CarlottaVance
    CarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    rcs1000 - if they did, Amazon might buy them on the cheap.....
  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    While I didn't like the way that George Osborne expressed himself when he introduced a 7 day wait for claiming benefits for the newly unemployed, this is a group who will normally have funds to rely upon, either from redundancy or severance payments or from some accrued savings from their past wages. If pain is to be shared around, this is one group of recipients of social security that is more likely to be able to bear a share of the pain than others.
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    Alanbrooke said:

    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Plato said:

    So rather than actually discussing the borrowing figs or the CSR - Labourites want to talk about political flotsam and mechanically reclaimed meat.

    I think that sounds like they've lost the argument. I'd like to read about reaction to the CSR - but judging by 90% of the comments after the statement yesterday and today so far - its all very childish stuff.

    What a pity - we're starved of serious stuff to discuss at this time of year and bingo - we get something and its lost in the crap instead.

    *switches Sopranos back on*

    it's worse than they've lost the argument, it's that they haven't even got one on which to start the debate. The policy challenge to GO is from the right not the left.

    Labour - the lights are on but no-one's at home.
    I think that is exactly right. The critique of spending cuts is now firmly from the "he hasn't gone far enough" camp.

    Oh for the simplistic simplicities of too fast, too deep.

    It wasn't much of an argument but it at least got Labour through the first question.

    it's more than the rate of cuts, it the supply side reform arguments:

    - reform of the banking sector
    - reform of the tax system
    - reduction in business regulation
    - size of the state
    - efficient national infrastructure

    I think you are a little harsh.

    The Financial Services (Banking reform) bill is a major step in the right direction as was returning oversight to the BoE. In my opinion RBS should have been broken up a couple of years ago but now that the Hester barrier has been removed I am hopeful we will see progress. Not enough done to encourage new entrants.

    Tax system has been tightened and I approve of GAAR. Simplification desperately required and incorporation of NI into IT once again seems to have been put on the backburner.

    Business regulation. Well uncle Vince, what can you say that has not been said? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/09/vince-cable-rebuffs-conservatives-deregulation

    If you look at the charts in the spending review yesterday the state is actually shrinking quite fast and will shrink faster as these cuts come into play. Not easy to do given the situation they inherited.

    Probably their biggest failing is infrastructure but the balance yesterday was finally right. Cut current spending and use the money for infrastructure. Without radical cuts in benefits etc this would not have been possible earlier.

  • Alanbrooke
    Alanbrooke Posts: 25,926
    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Plato said:

    So rather than actually discussing the borrowing figs or the CSR - Labourites want to talk about political flotsam and mechanically reclaimed meat.

    I think that sounds like they've lost the argument. I'd like to read about reaction to the CSR - but judging by 90% of the comments after the statement yesterday and today so far - its all very childish stuff.

    What a pity - we're starved of serious stuff to discuss at this time of year and bingo - we get something and its lost in the crap instead.

    *switches Sopranos back on*

    it's worse than they've lost the argument, it's that they haven't even got one on which to start the debate. The policy challenge to GO is from the right not the left.

    Labour - the lights are on but no-one's at home.
    I think that is exactly right. The critique of spending cuts is now firmly from the "he hasn't gone far enough" camp.

    Oh for the simplistic simplicities of too fast, too deep.

    It wasn't much of an argument but it at least got Labour through the first question.

    it's more than the rate of cuts, it the supply side reform arguments:

    - reform of the banking sector
    - reform of the tax system
    - reduction in business regulation
    - size of the state
    - efficient national infrastructure

    I think you are a little harsh.

    The Financial Services (Banking reform) bill is a major step in the right direction as was returning oversight to the BoE. In my opinion RBS should have been broken up a couple of years ago but now that the Hester barrier has been removed I am hopeful we will see progress. Not enough done to encourage new entrants.

    Tax system has been tightened and I approve of GAAR. Simplification desperately required and incorporation of NI into IT once again seems to have been put on the backburner.

    Business regulation. Well uncle Vince, what can you say that has not been said? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/09/vince-cable-rebuffs-conservatives-deregulation

    If you look at the charts in the spending review yesterday the state is actually shrinking quite fast and will shrink faster as these cuts come into play. Not easy to do given the situation they inherited.

    Probably their biggest failing is infrastructure but the balance yesterday was finally right. Cut current spending and use the money for infrastructure. Without radical cuts in benefits etc this would not have been possible earlier.

    That's where the debate sits on the right. I'd argue that GO has been too slow to address the real economy. The UK needs growth and won't get back to it until overdue reforms are enacted. It's a question of priorities and GO sets his on political bear traps rather than what the real world needs. In essence this is a wasted parliament for economic reform, since now nothing contoversial will be addressed before a GE, the next 2 years will be games and giveaways.

    So that's 7 years, before the UK addresses it's banking crash of 2008, 5 years until the tax code can be simplified ( it's bigger than when GO started ), 5 years when regulation grows apace etc.

    For a nation in crisis we are remarkably complacent.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories