Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The September ICM telephone poll sees almost no change
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The September ICM telephone poll sees almost no change
On a positive note for the blues 40% backed the Tories for economic competence compared with 28% in June. LAB saw increase in credibility to 24% from 19% over same period
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
A 4pt lead at this point is not great for Labour. On the other hand, they're ahead despite having Ed Miliband as leader.
We are dominating in the marginals. Simply because that is where our superior ground game is taking the Tories apart.
On another matter, the treachery of Vince.
Of course, he is unsackable, so he can do what he wants. But, wouldn't it be wiser for him to expose the Tories to their right flank (as Blair always did superbly) rather than accuse them of being 'nasty' on immigration etc?
I think he would have far more impact winding up the right wing crazies and sending them toward UKIP.
twitter.com/YouGovCam/status/378454377855737856
There's nothing on their Cambridge website
http://cambridge.yougov.com
or the YouGov politics page.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
It's a prediction by Peter Kellner.
All over now though.
Having a pleasant time at the LibDem conference and enjoyed seeing Mike. It's relatively low-key, to be honest - as Mike observes, there's little if any anti-Clegg feeling and I think people have adopted a certain fatalism about 2015 - they'll do their darnedest in their seats, not worry too much about the rest, and throw the dice.
The government has started to get that back for taxpayers and use it to pay down debt. Nothing incorrect about that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dem-conference-coalition-government-could-come-to-early-end-before-general-election-in-2015-says-vince-cable-8820340.html
I totally agree that politicians of any stripe who talk of paying down the debt when they simply mean reducing the deficit should be taken out and shot. But selling assets is a little different.
You want to aggregate it into the deficit? Bold.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article2481811.ece#tab-4
Agreed.
"Pay down debt" makes me want to punch him in the throat. No matter how much regard I have for him.
It's up there with "fell pregnant".
And that phrase "going forward". Argghhhh. Richard Keys said it every twelve seconds on Talksport. When I see him I'm punching him in the throat too.
There is nothing unusual about using the term pay down rather than pay off debt. The first suggest a partial elimination and the latter a total, but they are generally interchangeable.
And the sale of shares in Lloyds Bank Group wil pay off/down debt as the cash borrowed to finance the purchase of the shares is classified as government debt, albeit hidden by Gordon and ONS in the PSND aggregate figures rather than the more often discussed subset figures PSND ex[cluding financial interventions].
Deficit is defined in so many different ways that it is difficult to say what impact the share shares will have on it.
The bank shares held by the government are periodically revalued in the National Accounts to reflect changes in their market value (they are 'marked to market'). When share prices fell below the prices at which they were purchased a provision was created in the accounts for a loss (if sold at current market prices). Such provisions increase government expenses and thereby make the difference between total revenues and total exoenditure larger, i.e. they increase the annual 'deficit'.
So the impact of selling shares at a price above book value will release any provision held in the accounts for a loss on sale: it will now count as revenue. But don't expect a massive figure here: the accounts should already have near adjusted to the current market price. Also any profit made on the sale will be treated as revenue (or more correctly net profit as net revenue). So the sale of shares at current market prices (if sold at current prices, a big if) would result in a reduction in the deficit.
And because the sale of shares ends the temporary intervention (for that part of the shares held) the impact of the transaction will be entered into the subset figures, eg PSND[B] ex rather than just PSND[B}.
So if Osborne has sold at above purchase price, he will have both paid off/down the debt and reduced the deficit as a result of the transaction. There may also be a whole range of guarantee and fee transactions associated with the shares that also get resolved at the same time.
'Going forward' that is!
And will be demonstrably falling after the Lloyds share sales are booked.
'Labour supports Help to Buy, but warns that the government is not doing enough to boost housebuilding. Pat McFadden, a Labour member of the Treasury select committee, said Britain had a two-speed housing market with London’s boom not replicated elsewhere in the country.'
What? Labour supports it? I'm staggered. Why? Isn't this now the only conceivable chink in Osborne's armour?
But the share sales will affect all of PSND, PSND ex, PSNB, PSNB ex and the equivalent cash accounts.
The media tend to use PSNB ex as their measure of 'deficit' (incorrectly in my view, CACB is the better measure), so the bank share sales will affect the 'deficit' for the reasons set out in my post downthread.
"wind farms look like they be harvesting subsidies for a generation to come. Far from progressive, they seem to be about rent seeking. And what could be more atavistic than that?
Through every age, a tiny parasitical elite seeks to game the system to transfer wealth from the many to the few. The more I think about it, the more the renewable energy scam seems just a contemporary manifestation of this ancient, hideous idea."
While completely true am I the only one amused by the irony of a public school Conservative opposing the wealth stealing of the parasites at the top while Labour and the LibDems support it ?
Carswell, it should be noted, while a publicschoolboy did not do PPE at Oxford or go to Oxbridge at all.
Hence the £0.61 pence per share break-even price stated by the Treasury is net of the insurance/guarantee fees which have already been resolved in the accounts.
How is Chris Huhne - still a Cabinet Minister? lol....
Nearly as insane as making Tony Blair middle East peace envoy or horror of horrors... Gordon Brown PM
Anyway I urge you not to get carried away by your political enthusiasm for Labour to such an extent that you deny even the weakest of claims to fame by others.
9 quarters of growth will be the backdrop of the next election. Labour - why would you?
COA 46%
LAB 36%
I suspect that there are quite a few people that have lost their shirts in the wind-power industry. Many have unfortunately been the simple employees with companies like Vesta, but I'm sure that there have been investors too. Where there's risk there should also be the chance of reward, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that large returns can be made in the industry. If though those returns are simply being generated by subsidies then that's worrying.
The 'tiny parasitical elite' thing could be said of any system where large risks produce winners and losers.
I'm not sure what 'large risks' you think they are running.
@NickPalmer
could you/someone you know do a quick turn around on a translation: 70 page document on vaccines English into German? Rough cut fine, but speed of the essence?
For the avoidance of doubt and to further reconciliation of any remaining conflict of opinion, here are the latest Fiscal Indicators on debt and borrowing published by the ONS.
You will note that in every published measure, bar one, debt and borrowing has fallen under Osborne over the course of this parliament.
The only measure which hasn't fallen is the 'pluperfect subjective' measure: what borrowing would have been, had a whole number of events not taken place (transfer of Royal Mail pension scheme assets, cash transfers from the BoE, resolution of the Asset Purchase Facility, George's first class journey to Tatton on the 10.31 train, the Olympics Opening ceremony, Auntie Joan's birthday etc).
All the other metrics measure real balances.
Take a look and weep.
My general view is that the government should try to be uninvolved in anything that it can possibly be so.
What is concerning is that Osborne's strategy to reduce it to a sustainable level involves restarting household borrowing.
As to debt you are of course well aware that the 'bar one' measure is the one that actually matters.
And arguing about economic senantics isn't going to change that.
Instead all it does is give a mistaken impression that "we are paying down Britain's debts" and thus make if psychologically much harder for the country to adapt when we really do have to start living within our means.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 15m
Cameron has a policy on Europe – what about Clegg and Miliband?: Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have delicate judg... http://ind.pn/18qg3rn
In Australia, counting has got underway again:
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseUpdatedByDivision-17496-NAT.htm
"A series of reports ordered in the wake of the Rochdale sexual exploitation scandal highlighted how children send far from their familiar support networks of family and friends could be more vulnerable to grooming rings."
It's also partly because the children's homes tend to be set up in areas of cheap housing. As a lot of the demand for ultra-cheap prostitution comes from people working in the illegal economy who are also warehoused in those same areas of cheap housing the British state was/is effectively supplying the grooming gangs with fresh victims.
The two important statistics are:
1. The Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget which is not directly reported by the ONS but is left to the OBR to calculate.
It is the annual measure of current revenue less current expenditure excluding capex and non-recurring items. It is adjusted to take into account the cyclical effects of 'boom' and 'bust', So when the CACB balances it should be in a period of neither boom nor bust; with surpluses registered over the upper cycle and deficits during the lower cycle.
The CACB forms the target of the Primary Fiscal Mandate and bringing it into balance is constantly targetted to be within a five year rolling period Current OBR forecast is a balance date of 2017 though this is likely to move back to 2016 in the next EFO due to higher growth than forecast this year. If this was properly reported then we wouldn't need to mess around with the 'pluperfect subjunctive' irrelevance.
2. The amount of fiscal consolidation (tax rises and expenditure cuts) needed for the economy to pay down its debt to a proportion of 60% of GDP by 2030.
This is a measure published by the OECD and indicates where its member countries are in the pursuit of EU and international debt reduction goals.
The last figure I saw quoted for the UK was that current plans (to 2015) represent about 40% of fiscal consolidation required to meet the 2030 target. This is the best measure I have yet seen for answering the question "how long will austerity need to last?".
British Spies Replace Terrorists' Online Bomb Instructions With Cupcake Recipe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/british-spies-terrorist-bomb-cupcake-recipe_n_870882.html
She was a Lothians regional MSP between 2007 and 2011. In 2011 she stood in Edinburgh North and finished 595 votes from the win...her problem was that SNP won all other FPTP constituencies and so they didn't get any list seat.
Man detained...
And it is a measure which can accommodate all kinds of plans. For example, an economist could calculate how much above trend growth would be needed over the period to avoid having to increase taxes and/or cut expenditure.
But at least it attempts to quantify the task ahead so that some proper consideration can be given by our political leaders to how the debt might be reduced to acceptable limits.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100236042/victoria-coren-is-so-right-about-not-banning-the-muslim-burkha-now-lets-allow-slaves-to-wear-their-chains/
"Ban Muslim women from wearing the veil? Victoria Coren is *so* right to protest. Now let's allow slaves to wear their chains… "
I think that expectations are distorted by the usual pattern of the Opposition attracting and then losing a bunch of votes from the main governing party. In this case, as Mike noted the other day, we haven't really gained any so can't lose them again; that's why the Labour figure is so stable.
That said, I should like to see how the conferences go.
Sean's blog was widely discussed on the last thread - even his fans felt it wasn't one of his better efforts, as it's in-groupy bickering between columnists. (Anyway, anyone who criticises Victoria Coren is evil.)
Loss 2: taxpayer paying to make those worthless shares worth something again through ZIRP, QE and all the other economic policies designed to pay off the banksta's gambling debts
Loss 3: taxpayer will eventually pay for a sweetener to ensure success of a future flotation
The taxpayer will only ever get back part of loss 2.
To ask people to specifically accuse others of racism would be a reason for serious action to be taken.
I accept it needs to be proved, but sources are people on the "NO" side.
I would add Derbyshire was a star and could teach others a thing or two in holding a room together and getting questions at least half answered by all sides.
Plus the fact that the boundaries favour Labour now they will not be revised.
' It peaked in 2001, and has fallen sharply at the two subsequent elections...'
How are you calculating that?
"An interesting question is whether the pro-Labour bias in the system that has existed since 1992 will continue. It peaked in 2001, and has fallen sharply at the two subsequent elections..." Rod Crosby
So did the Conservatives waste a lot of time and energy trying (but failing) to get the boudaries revised by equalising the constituency electorates?
Scotsman - Peter Jones: Young are not ripe for revolution
I was chatting to a young student who is very active in the SNP at the weekend about the recent polling which showed this age group overwhelmingly against Independence. They were quite down beat about those undecided, thought that they would default to voting no if they remain unconvinced.
Some of the losses that won't be included in the official tally
1) ZIRP is for the banks - savers take the loss
2) All the costs of the (currently) diluted deflationary spiral caused both by the banks going bust initially and not having a fully functioning banking system since
3) The losses from the BoE buying bank assets at mark-to-unicorn rather than mark-to-market prices will only be counted when their unicorn value is quietly marked down to their real value some time after the banks are refloated
Lots of ways the public have paid and will pay for bailing out the banksta's gambling debts that won't be listed on the final tally of the nationalized banks.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danhodges/
"The debate about Muslim women wearing veils is not complex. This is Britain, and in Britain you can wear what you want"
His argument is nonsense. There are hundreds of different areas where rules are attached to specific clothing e.g. motor-bike helmets, jewelry wearing, nudity etc. Hundreds.
It's perfectly well accepted and judged on a *case by case* basis of whether the infringement on liberty is reasonable or not.
Only multicult fanatics thinks it's reasonable for an accused or witness in a court case to have their face covered so they resort to this nonsense libertarian argument which they don't really believe as can be proven within seconds by pointing out clothing bans they'd agree with e.g. nude primary school teachers.
The issue here is whether there needs to be a practical exception that you have to show your face in court. That's a question about how courts make decisions, not a question of principle about the veil. Different courts seem to have come up with various different conclusions about that. Apparently this is also true of Islamic courts, with some saying they need to see your face and others saying they don't.
If you read the judgement in this case it's quite a good summary, although in practical terms he ends up with what seems like the worst of both worlds, which is that the suspect has to show her face, but only if she gives evidence, which she doesn't have to do.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/lh565p7nyg/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-160913.pdf
Sentiment moving in favour of EU:
vote today:
Stay: 39 (+5)
Leave: 42 (-4)
After Cameron renegotiation:
Stay: 50 (+2)
Leave: 29 (-2)
It is possible to pay down debt while simultaneously increasing borrowing.
We have an asset that can reduce further borrowings: Being rational we [sic, the UK government] chose to sell that asset (as opposed to borrowing on ChinaExpress and paying them interest).
Maths may not be your skill: Paying X now to fund liabilities must be useful if, by funding X, we might incur a cash-bleed of 1x + y over future periods. You could, if you were an economist, argue that there is an opportunity-cost to factor into the sales (and subsequent income-streams thereof): You are not an economist....
You may disagree with Osborne and Cameron, but I doubt they are stupid
You explained how you hated the Tories, but I think it was based on a stereotype of what most Tories believe in
Stay: 30
Leave: 40
Would say stay, but I'm not going out and voting for this stupid shit: 30
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24119836
It's been quite an amazing recovery job. Well done to everyone involved for their work so far, although there's still a long way to go.
As expected, it looks as though the side resting on the rocks is utterly trashed.
Focusing on boundary changes was probably a waste of time.