politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An improving economy: The biggest threat to the future of t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An improving economy: The biggest threat to the future of the UK?
If you subscribe to the theory that the next election will be largely determined by the performance of the economy, then 2013 has been interesting, at the start of the year, the main economic news was whether we would avoid a triple dip recession.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I reckon the Scots will want their share of the English Shale Gas.....
A protein found in the membranes of ancient microorganisms that live in desert salt flats could offer a new way of using sunlight to generate environmentally friendly hydrogen fuel, according to a new study by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130719140006.htm
Mike, what you are missing here is salience (funny that as you are very focused on it in other topics).
Of course if you stop someone in the street and say 'what do you think about plain packaging for fags' they will think fags are bad therefore packaging makes me sound like a good person.
I think this is actually a great topic for the Tories. (1) Very few people will change their votes (2) those LDs who will be more encouraged to vote Labour are unlikely to be Tory votters anyway. (3) It allows Tories tberal/small state - appealing to bothe Orange Bookers and UKIP. So helps the narrative a lot at a marginal cost in terms of actual votes.
Apologies for any typos - on my blackberry. My daughter didn't realise that reading the Spectator's Coffee House didn't involve actual coffee so currently sans laptop...
George Osborne @George_Osborne 48s
Coalition outing with Danny Alexander to Lords. Who'd have thought a Scotsman could teach an Englishman about #cricket
Despite the fact that the last government wasn't convinced of the case. Despite the fact that this was effectively killed by multiple senior Cabinet Ministers (May plus others IIRC) last year on the grounds it was politically disastrous, you make allegations, without evidence, that are difficult to disprove.
Labour tactics are the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife"
A nasty little party, led by nasty little people.
If this is a measure of their desperation - roll on - its very telling.
Really chaps - if this is the best you can do, I can only say Latvian Homophobes were equally effective as a vote shifter.
You know it's statistical bullshit - it's beene xplained multiple times.
Cameron wasn't able to resist the political shidt away from the top 2 parties that has been going on for a generation. But within that framwork he did far better than Kinnock.
The fact he is PM is one indicator of that.
'Scottish Independence vote: 46% don’t know enough
Less than half of Scots feel well informed enough about the issues surrounding independence and the referendum, research by pro-independence campaign group Yes Scotland has found.
A survey commissioned by the organisation revealed that, of those polled, 46% believe they know enough ahead of the 2014 vote.
Of those people, 47% said they plan to vote yes, 1% behind the number who said they planned to vote no.
The survey - which is part of a wider programme of research by Yes Scotland - quizzed more than 1,000 people in April.'
http://tinyurl.com/mdlcbt4
Cabinet makes policy decisions based on a wide remit.
I'm sure that plain packaging would have a benefit (although not much since, in larger stores they are already behind shutters) and there is a risk that it could increase the "cool" factor in adopting smoking among kids.
But you have to weigh this against the question of freedom. If a product is legal, why should the government interfere like this? That is the remit of Cabinet.
The PM only talks about what government policy is at the moment he is asked. If he muses in public about the possibility of a change then it becomes a "PM slaps down X story".
He is one ANGRY boy.
If we're not careful, he might put his tongue OUT next.
After three years of being the only main Opposition, and with the public giving Ed and his team an extended benefit of doubt, they still have nothing to offer but this. And the bad news underlying the legacy of the previous Labour Government that so many of the Shadow Cabinet were a part of still keeps rolling out. We know what they did to the UK economy, welfare, NHS etc, and we are now awaiting the Chilcot Inquiry which will bring back the spectre of Blair, Brown and Iraq. After the New Labour years of spin, the Labour party are now reaping what they sowed.
Better to keep the argument to one election at a time.
Otherwise it might confuse tim.
Police comissioners have happened, or didn't you notice? Low turnout, in part because of the silly date chosen for the election, but the shift of political overisght from an unelected body to a post with a democratic mandate is a good thing in my view. And they haven't been the disaster that so many opponents were claiming.
I suspect the marriage tax will happen either before the election or be in the manifesto. Not a big vote shifter though.
Now shall we get back to Labour's dependence on smearing a basically decent guy because they don't have any substantive policies?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/authorinterviews/10190208/Martin-Amis-Cameron-looks-very-plausible.html
So the cost to the taxpayer is the (cost of capital * cash injections) + (fully loaded cost of guarantees - fees charged for the guarantees) - value of equity received in return. A lot less than £500bn I suspect
"of course we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy. Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term. "
Spivs , speculators , a parcel of rogues , and a bag of shite.
Cost of non intervention in Syria?
Cost of non intervention in Bosnia?
Cost of non intervention in Rwanda?
Cost of non intervention in Congo?
There are approximately 200 nations now at the UN - the other 190-odd could have intervened in any of these without us if they so wished.
Douglas Hurd - one from the archives!
The mind boggles!
http://live.cricket.com.au/Event/The_Second_Ashes_Test_-_Lords
Isn't this double-edged, either way?
If the economy's rubbish the SNP can say, "Vote for independence, then we'll be prosperous." However, economic pessimism might make voters risk averse.
If the economy's super the SNP might hope that'll make people optimistic for the future, but unionists can say, "Isn't this lovely? Why change now?"
Under whose banking regulations did HBOS operate? To which exchequer did they pay their taxes?
Would it be too much to ask for a Latvian homophobe for old time's sake?
1. The economy is sluggish, not helped by subsidising Scotland. Let's bin them off and rUK will be in a better position.
2. The economy is doing splendidly, but could be even better if we stopped subsidising Scotland. Let's bin them off and rUK will be in a better position.
Rosie Cooper
Vicky Fowler
Jo Stevens
Josie Channor
Claire Edwards
Natasha Millward
Rowenna Davis
Tulip Siddiq
Leonie Mathers
Chris Oxlade
Veronica Bennett
Purna Sen
Will Martindale
Cat Smith
Catherine Atkinson
Andrew Gwynne
Lindsay Hoyle
Sarah Jones
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi
It's thw same with oil and Faslane and everything else. There needs to be a calculation of a fair split of total assets rather than worrying about a or b. If someone absolutely insists on having a then they need to argue for that in the discussions and give up something else in return.
Jonathan Portes is director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and former chief economist at the Cabinet Office"
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/8566191/
"we had not realised that our government was capable of such folly and such crookedness."
We certainly did not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10192271/The-betrayal-of-Dr-David-Kelly-10-years-on.html
Oh, to have so many options!
"Campbell lied to Parliament about the content of this memo, giving the Foreign Affairs Committee an altered copy which omitted his comments on the 45-minute claim and played down his interventions on most of the other issues."
Of course they did pay taxes to the UK and operate under the financial rules of the UK of which Scotland is part. Whether they choose to keep their head office in an independent Scotland would be an interesting decision. It would have political as well as financial implications.
If financial implications were the only ones I'd encourage them to go the Cayman Islands route for a better shareholder return.
A good and intelligent article and an explanation if one was needed why only simple minds parrot the figure of 13,000 deaths.
50% refund if 10.1 to 24.5 overs are bowled.
Do you have a ticket, IYDMMA?
http://www.lords.org/visiting/coming-to-lords/general-ground-regulations/
That rule lasted as late as 1992 IIRC.
That'd mean close on a £2.5mil refund. Whew! As all the players were expecting a match anyway, shame there isn't thought given to a 50 over contest. That was how the international shorter form took off in the first place if I recall.