Support NeoGAF

[operon]

for once I can actually tolerate the speaker

 

[CHEEZMO™]

This government is such a fucking circus. What a parade of utter tossers.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

She went with more substance. Mostly the same as she's spouted on every news channel/Newsnight, but was going for how he needed to take the blame.

Roughly this:

Good substance from Harman, pretty rare but still good.

Hunt should go. Or be fired. Cameron is being a pussy about all of this and he's really starting to do my fucking head in.

Probably trying to let Hunt take as much shit as possible before sacrificing him to save himself.

He said that Hunt has his full support though so I don't think that will happen. God Cameron can be a real cunt. Hague is pretty much the only Tory that I like these days.

Labour are fucking useless as well though - they need to get rid of the entire front bench team and give some of the 2005/2010 intake a go instead of the shite old guard of Harman, etc.

Cameron doesn't like sacking people, he considers it a weakness of New Labour that they kept sacrificing ministers(he has a point).
Theresa May is lucky she still has a job, she can thank the Home Office for having a bad reputation, but Hunt is taking the piss.

Cameron is a cunt who won't fire his mates. That's the problem. It's not that he doesn't have people to replace them with, it's that he has promised so many jobs to his mates like Lansley and Osborne that he is completely unable to remove them. Dave needs to wait this out and have a massive reshuffle after the May election, get rid of half the cabinet and bring in new blood and new ideas. The thing is I don't see Cameron wielding the axe, he is too chummy and too out of touch. The Tories have a decent history of regicide so I am hopeful that if he doesn't take action after the May election they will threaten him directly and force his hand, but who really knows.

I can't believe the sheer stupidity of Hunt. Even after the whole NOTW, BSKYB, Newscorp story blew up, he still tried to cosy up to the Murdoch's and push the deal through. Arrogant stupidity really is a beautiful thing.

Really, you can't believe the stupidity of Hunt. The cabinet is full of a bunch of incompetent fools, and the problem is that the PM has said he will suffer fools rather than sack his mates.

Dave needs to get a grip, but I fear that he won't and the country will get fucked in the process.

 

[sohois]

His problem is that his party is to the right of him, and he has to satisfy the LibDem's and the coalition agreement. The 2010 Tory intake is meant to be full of rabid Thatcherites. It leaves him with a very limited selection of wets and people who understand compromise and reality.

The conservatives have some talent going to waste, they could definitely strengthen if they wanted. For one thing they should bring back David Laws from the Lib Dem banishment, but just within the Tory party they have David Davis wasting away. Plus from my experience with the new intake I think Rob Wilson(MP for Reading East) could do a good job in the front benches, he is in no way a 'rabid thatcherite'.

In any case I certainly see the logic behind the argument that constant reshuffles were a New Labour thing, they were definitely left with some right dross in the cabinet after all those reshuffles. But that shouldn't stop Cameron from getting rid of some of his weakest members, I mean you can't really do worse than May & Lansley. At the least May could be switched to a less high profile position and someone who knows what they are doing could come in.

 

[twobear]

Astonishing that two years after taking power, the Tories haven't invented any better excuses for any topics than to blame Labour.

 

[PJV3]

The conservatives have some talent going to waste, they could definitely strengthen if they wanted. For one thing they should bring back David Laws from the Lib Dem banishment, but just within the Tory party they have David Davis wasting away. Plus from my experience with the new intake I think Rob Wilson(MP for Reading East) could do a good job in the front benches, he is in no way a 'rabid thatcherite'.

In any case I certainly see the logic behind the argument that constant reshuffles were a New Labour thing, they were definitely left with some right dross in the cabinet after all those reshuffles. But that shouldn't stop Cameron from getting rid of some of his weakest members, I mean you can't really do worse than May & Lansley. At the least May could be switched to a less high profile position and someone who knows what they are doing could come in.

I'm not saying all are, but that very many are. Cameron has the problem that ignoring these right-wingers builds up resentment in the press and party/grassroots. Cameron has beaten Blair in the being hated by your own party competition hands down.

 

[operon]

Good substance from Harman, pretty rare but still good.









Cameron is a cunt who won't fire his mates. That's the problem. It's not that he doesn't have people to replace them with, it's that he has promised so many jobs to his mates like Lansley and Osborne that he is completely unable to remove them. Dave needs to wait this out and have a massive reshuffle after the May election, get rid of half the cabinet and bring in new blood and new ideas. The thing is I don't see Cameron wielding the axe, he is too chummy and too out of touch. The Tories have a decent history of regicide so I am hopeful that if he doesn't take action after the May election they will threaten him directly and force his hand, but who really knows.



Really, you can't believe the stupidity of Hunt. The cabinet is full of a bunch of incompetent fools, and the problem is that the PM has said he will suffer fools rather than sack his mates.

Dave needs to get a grip, but I fear that he won't and the country will get fucked in the process.

Like I said earlier it really highlights the small number of capable politicians on all sides of the house, very few of them I could be bothered to vote for individually

 

[sohois]

I'm not saying all are, but that very many are. Cameron has the problem that ignoring these right-wingers builds up resentment in the press and party/grassroots. Cameron has beaten Blair in the being hated by your own party competition hands down.

Ignoring these elements should surely be a positive for a party leader, assuming you can prevent the resentment from spilling over.

 

[defel]

Im shocked at how radical the government have been. Given that the coalition embarked on a deficit reduction plan and that this parliament would be defined by big spending cuts, all other areas of government should have been focused on low-key, gradual policies in an attempt not to rock-the-boat too much. Instead we have a government that is juggling too many large-scale, parliament defining policies. It feels like each head of State wants their own symbolic policy and result is that we have several big changes to policy without any coherent communication or over-arching strategy from the top. I suppose thats the result of 15 years frustration on the Back Benches (and even longer in the case of the Lib Dems).

 

[BGBW]

Astonishing that two years after taking power, the Tories haven't invented any better excuses for any topics than to blame Labour.

And after two years people still buy it.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Im shocked at how radical the government have been. Given that the coalition embarked on a deficit reduction plan and that this parliament would be defined by big spending cuts, all other areas of government should have been focused on low-key, gradual policies in an attempt not to rock-the-boat too much. Instead we have a government that is juggling too many large-scale, parliament defining policies. It feels like each head of State wants their own symbolic policy and result is that we have several big changes to policy without any coherent communication or over-arching strategy from the top. I suppose thats the result of 15 years frustration on the Back Benches (and even longer in the case of the Lib Dems).

That's the fucking problem though, it has brought a host of unforced errors. They should have just concentrated on making Gove's education reforms a success and getting the deficit down as fast as possible otherwise. Fuck everything else, but now they have got bogged down in arguments over other shitty reforms that should not have been embarked on.

The deficit reduction plan is way off course and the NHS reforms ruined Dave's credibility. Fucking terrible policies in so many areas when they are failing on the policy they were fucking elected on, deficit reduction.

 

[PJV3]

Im shocked at how radical the government have been. Given that the coalition embarked on a deficit reduction plan and that this parliament would be defined by big spending cuts, all other areas of government should have been focused on low-key, gradual policies in an attempt not to rock-the-boat too much. Instead we have a government that is juggling too many large-scale, parliament defining policies. It feels like each head of State wants their own symbolic policy and result is that we have several big changes to policy without any coherent communication or over-arching strategy from the top. I suppose thats the result of 15 years frustration on the Back Benches (and even longer in the case of the Lib Dems).

That is what Cammo hinted at as he entred No10 for the first time, fuck knows why they got ensnared in the Blair philosophy of being as radical as possible early on. It has fucked the LibDem party and spoilt the chance of cameron having a majority Conservative government in 2015.

From a selfish 2015 point of view, whoever bought David the Blair autobiography DESERVES a fucking OBE.

 

[Dambrosi]

Im shocked at how radical the government have been. Given that the coalition embarked on a deficit reduction plan and that this parliament would be defined by big spending cuts, all other areas of government should have been focused on low-key, gradual policies in an attempt not to rock-the-boat too much. Instead we have a government that is juggling too many large-scale, parliament defining policies. It feels like each head of State wants their own symbolic policy and result is that we have several big changes to policy without any coherent communication or over-arching strategy from the top. I suppose thats the result of 15 years frustration on the Back Benches (and even longer in the case of the Lib Dems).

It's been said before, but this whole legislative programme feels like Cameron desperately wants his own "legacy", like Thatcher before him. He wants to be more than just some historical footnote; he wants to be remembered.

He'll be "remembered", all right, but just like Maggie for the majority of Brits, not in the way he wants to be.

That is what Cammo hinted at as he entered No10 for the first time, fuck knows why they got ensnared in the Blair philosophy of being as radical as possible early on. It has fucked the LibDem party and spoilt the chance of Cameron having a majority Conservative government in 2015.

From a selfish 2015 point of view, whoever bought David the Blair autobiography DESERVES a fucking OBE.

Heh, nice edit.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

It's been said before, but this whole legislative programme feels like Cameron desperately wants his own "legacy", like Thatcher before him. He wants to be more than just some historical footnote; he wants to be remembered.

He'll be "remembered", all right, but just like Maggie for the majority of Brits, not in the way he wants to be.

Surprisingly enough to most leftists, Thatcher is the most popular former PM after Churchill. Well ahead of Blair, Wilson, Heath, Macmillan and Callaghan. She is also very unpopular but her popularity amongst the newly wealthy middle classes is unmatched.

 

[Dambrosi]

I guess she's like Marmite then - you either love her or you hate her.

I can't say I like Marmite much. Far too abrasive.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I guess she's like Marmite then - you either love her or you hate her.

I can't say I like Marmite much. Far too abrasive.

No doubt. That's why people who describe Dave as a Thatcherite are clueless. Dave is much more middle of the road like a Blairite.

But that's Dave's real problem, he needs to be loved and wants to be all things to all men. In trying to be that person he has pleased no one, leftists will never vote Tory and by trying to appeal to them with his hug a hoodie/husky crap he has alienated the right wing.

 

[PJV3]

No doubt. That's why people who describe Dave as a Thatcherite are clueless. Dave is much more middle of the road like a Blairite.

But that's Dave's real problem, he needs to be loved and wants to be all things to all men. In trying to be that person he has pleased no one, leftists will never vote Tory and by trying to appeal to them with his hug a hoodie/husky crap he has alienated the right wing.

To rule this country you have to appeal to floating voters in marginal seats, Labour offloaded the left in the 80's, the Tory party need to worry about UKIP becoming more than a fringe group.

 

[Dambrosi]

To rule this country you have to appeal to floating voters in marginal seats, Labour offloaded the left in the 80's, the Tory party need to worry about UKIP becoming more than a fringe group.

And suddenly it all becomes about the voting system again.

Pity the rest of England let the Tories scare them into keeping the current FPTP system.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

To rule this country you have to appeal to floating voters in marginal seats, Labour offloaded the left in the 80's, the Tory party need to worry about UKIP becoming more than a fringe group.

Yes, but in 1997 Labour picked up a bunch of centre right voters, the centre right tends to be much less tribal than centre left. The Tories will never win leftist or centre left voters. Better to aim for the 50% of people that sit to the right and get 40% than aim for the 70% in the centre and get 35% (which is what happened in 2010). If the Tories couldn't get a majority against the worst post-war government and worst post-war PM by running a centrist strategy then it is time for new ideas.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

As many people here know our bank is quite well connected to the government and on policy our suggestions have always been welcomed by the Conservative party, today my boss basically said that economic policy is now up for a rethink and some of us have been tasked with coming up with a few ideas to put forwards.

We did this for the previous government as well, but they very rarely heeded our calls to fix regulation and rearm the Bank in the fight against derivative sales, this government have been better and a lot of our suggestions for Vickers (as a part of the industry wide consultation) were well received.

Anyway, getting to the point, I have an idea which I think needs to be sounded out to leftists and non righties. The idea is that the government should issue special "Infrastructure Gilts" and put them into a separate infrastructure/wealth fund which will be used to build out infrastructure across the country, separate to normal spending. We think the Gilts will be well received by the markets and any moves made by any government of the UK (Labour/Tory/Coalition) that makes it a priority will have the support of banks and markets, despite the headline increase in national debt. We've done some preliminary sums today which suggest that the government could issue £100bn worth of special, 30y Gilts without too much trouble and use that money for a brand new infrastructure build out, from air and road capacity to telecoms and industry. We feel that the added growth that a new infrastructure build out would induce would be worth the extra interest (say £3bn per year for 30 years) and it would increase trend growth in the UK once the world economy has recovered.

 

[sflufan]

As many people here know our bank is quite well connected to the government and on policy our suggestions have always been welcomed by the Conservative party, today my boss basically said that economic policy is now up for a rethink and some of us have been tasked with coming up with a few ideas to put forwards.

We did this for the previous government as well, but they very rarely heeded our calls to fix regulation and rearm the Bank in the fight against derivative sales, this government have been better and a lot of our suggestions for Vickers (as a part of the industry wide consultation) were well received.

Anyway, getting to the point, I have an idea which I think needs to be sounded out to leftists and non righties. The idea is that the government should issue special "Infrastructure Gilts" and put them into a separate infrastructure/wealth fund which will be used to build out infrastructure across the country, separate to normal spending. We think the Gilts will be well received by the markets and any moves made by any government of the UK (Labour/Tory/Coalition) that makes it a priority will have the support of banks and markets, despite the headline increase in national debt. We've done some preliminary sums today which suggest that the government could issue £100bn worth of special, 30y Gilts without too much trouble and use that money for a brand new infrastructure build out, from air and road capacity to telecoms and industry. We feel that the added growth that a new infrastructure build out would induce would be worth the extra interest (say £3bn per year for 30 years) and it would increase trend growth in the UK once the world economy has recovered.

Does the analysis include any projections of extra borrowing costs incurred if UK debt receives a downgrade from the ratings agencies?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Does the analysis include any projections of extra borrowing costs incurred if UK debt receives a downgrade from the ratings agencies?

Yes, but given that we are one of the biggest buyers (and sellers) of EU/US sovereign and corporate debt we don't think a downgrade of the UK by ratings agencies will make very much difference at all (The UK is already rated as AA+/AA by markets tbh, Gilts do not have a AAA premium attached). We also think that special borrowing for infrastructure will be received as a positive move by agencies as the UK's problem right now is growth as well as debt.

 

[sflufan]

Yes, but given that we are one of the biggest buyers (and sellers) of EU/US sovereign and corporate debt we don't think a downgrade of the UK by ratings agencies will make very much difference at all (The UK is already rated as AA+/AA by markets tbh, Gilts do not have a AAA premium attached). We also think that special borrowing for infrastructure will be received as a positive move by agencies as the UK's problem right now is growth as well as debt.

Ah very good, very good!

Of course, this would never pass muster here in gridlocked 'Murica!

 

[milanbaros]

Yes, but given that we are one of the biggest buyers (and sellers) of EU/US sovereign and corporate debt we don't think a downgrade of the UK by ratings agencies will make very much difference at all (The UK is already rated as AA+/AA by markets tbh, Gilts do not have a AAA premium attached). We also think that special borrowing for infrastructure will be received as a positive move by agencies as the UK's problem right now is growth as well as debt.

Your idea is to sell long term gilts, take advantage of the low rates and stimulate the economy through infrastructure investment? That is pretty much what everyone would say to do, surely? Its just repackaged common sense.

 

[sflufan]

Your idea is to sell long term gilts, take advantage of the low rates and stimulate the economy through infrastructure investment? That is pretty much what everyone would say to do, surely? Its just repackaged common sense.

Except that these bonds would be "cordoned off" from the rest of government-issued general purpose securities as they would be specifically targeted to infrastructure investment.

 

[Meadows]

Wouldn't that make normal gilts less attractive?

 

[twobear]

Cameron's sterling work has drawn praise from Krugman.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/camerons-remarkable-achievement/

When David Cameron became PM, and announced his austerity plans — buying completely into both the confidence fairy and the invisible bond vigilantes — many were the hosannas, from both sides of the Atlantic. Pundits here urged Obama to “do a Cameron”; Cameron and Osborne were the toast of Very Serious People everywhere.

Now Britain is officially in double-dip recession, and has achieved the remarkable feat of doing worse this time around than it did in the 1930s.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Your idea is to sell long term gilts, take advantage of the low rates and stimulate the economy through infrastructure investment? That is pretty much what everyone would say to do, surely? Its just repackaged common sense.

The proceeds of the sale would go into a special infrastructure investment vehicle, not into general government coffers.

On common sense, there is a distinct lack of common sense in the government in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[defel]

Infrastructure bonds would be a way for the government to save face and essentially back-pedal on their deficit reduction plan and increase capital spending through the back door. If the markets wouldnt accept £100bn issue of standard 30y Gilts, why should they accept £100bn issue of 30yr infrastructure bonds? Generally,though, its a good idea and as far as Im concerned anything that enables the government to increase capital spending is a good thing.

 

[PJV3]

The proceeds of the sale would go into a special infrastructure investment vehicle, not into general government coffers.

On common sense, there is a distinct lack of common sense in the government in case you hadn't noticed.

I wouldn't be happy if the EU carries on with austerity and then European companies started competing for the UK stimulus cash, wouldn't the money just leave the country?. Hopefully Hollande starts knocking heads together(if he wins). Besides that i'm in favour of it.

 

[milanbaros]

The proceeds of the sale would go into a special infrastructure investment vehicle, not into general government coffers.

On common sense, there is a distinct lack of common sense in the government in case you hadn't noticed.

What's the marginal ROI in terms of GDP for infrastructure currently and what would it be on the £100bn?

Edit: How would the gilt sale and pledge end results differ from a situation where the government announced on the same day that they were going to spend an extra £100bn on investment which will be funded through standard 30 year gilts?

 

[sflufan]

If the markets wouldnt accept £100bn issue of standard 30y Gilts, why should they accept £100bn issue of 30yr infrastructure bonds?

Because the infrastructure investment (theoretically) has the potential for a greater overall ROI (GDP effects) than just throwing more money at the general fund.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Infrastructure bonds would be a way for the government to save face and essentially back-pedal on their deficit reduction plan and increase capital spending through the back door. If the markets wouldnt accept £100bn issue of standard 30y Gilts, why should they accept £100bn issue of 30yr infrastructure bonds? Generally,though, its a good idea and as far as Im concerned anything that enables the government to increase capital spending is a good thing.

Well the idea behind making them special issue is that the markets will know that any money invested in those bonds will only go to infrastructure spending which is conducive to growth rather than general government spending which is not very growth positive. Spending needs to come down, but there has been a chronic lack of infrastructure investment over the past 30 years in the UK, the state became too bloated and underspent on the wrong things.

It is a sad indictment of the past 30 years of government that we need to even look at special issue Gilts to remedy the situation, but I think there is a once in a generation opportunity at the moment where any move for growth will be well received despite increasing the national debt and the government need to take it. Special issue Gilts gives Dave and Co a way to spin it positively for the UK and still hold the austerity course.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

What's the marginal ROI in terms of GDP for infrastructure currently and what would it be on the £100bn?

Edit: How would the gilt sale and pledge end results differ from a situation where the government announced on the same day that they were going to spend an extra £100bn on investment which will be funded through standard 30 year gilts?

We are still doing the ROI sums (the initial sums look decent enough, but as ever policy detail would weigh it down) given that we have only been tasked today.

It would give investors security that a future government couldn't just come in and spunk the money on employing an extra million public sector workers to push paper around. Standard Gilts do not offer that security where a special vehicle does.

I wouldn't be happy if the EU carries on with austerity and then European companies started competing for the UK stimulus cash, wouldn't the money just leave the country?. Hopefully Hollande starts knocking heads together(if he wins). Besides that i'm in favour of it.

Well the government could easily attach stipulations for money being spent within the local area (not UK specific, local specific, which is allowed under EU rules).

 

[PJV3]

Well the government could easily attach stipulations for money being spent within the local area (not UK specific, local specific, which is allowed under EU rules).

Cool, i didn't know that. You just need to rely on the government having a list of worthwhile projects, and then being able to get them off the ground quickly. Sounds good.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Cool, i didn't know that. You just need to rely on the government having a list of worthwhile projects, and then being able to get them off the ground quickly. Sounds good.

Yeah, as I understand the rules, governments can make spending region specific (ensuring that xx% of money spent on a project is spent within the region it is being carried) but not nation specific. So "Yorkshire First" is allowed but "UK First" is not.

 

[Speedymanic]

The figures don't make sense. That's why the markets are unmoved, no big sell off. The policies haven't really made much difference to this anyway, in the figures, government services added 0.1% to growth. It's the production and construction figures that don't make sense, they don't add up with other ONS data, the production figures are very odd, I mean how can they say in Feb that oil and gas output grew by 2% MoM while also saying in the GDP release that it fell QoQ without having the March index ready. Their own index disagrees with their statistics. How can the economy have added jobs from Dec-Feb if the economy actually contracted, that kind of stuff happens very, very rarely.

Right now the ONS have a lot of questions to answer, either their previous data was wrong and about 6 months worth needs to be restated and revised, or the GDP figures are wrong and need to be restated and revised. Their own data conflicts with the GDP figures, that is why the markets haven't taken it seriously. If the ONS came out tomorrow and said that all of the Indices are to be revised downwards and unemployment upwards because of some errors then there would be serious movement in the markets as it would really mean Britain has entered a recession. As of now most here see it as a statistical anomaly which will probably get fixed about a year from now when the ONS go back on "historical data" and redo the sums. It happens pretty often, American banks don't trust ONS data for this reason and trust their own statistics, so do we, and our statistics say 0.3% growth for Q1 and -0.1% contraction for Q4.

So no recession?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

So no recession?

We can't say for 100% certain, but we don't think so at this bank, and it isn't just us. It's the rest of the City as well who are just as confused:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-have-double-dipped-back-into-recession.html

Andrew Goodwin of the Ernst & Young ITEM Club agreed. "Our reaction is one of disbelief," he said. "The divergence is virtually unprecedented and must raise significant question marks over the quality of the data."

The Bank already assumes the ONS data is inaccurate, producing its own "backcast" of growth estimates on which to build its economic policy models.

Last year, the ONS published a raft of revisions that revealed the economy had not shrunk 6.4pc in the recession, but by 7.1pc, and that the downturn had lasted three months less than thought. The changes were dramatic. Rather than contracting 0.4pc in the third quarter of 2009, it grew 0.2pc.

The quality of the statistics has been particularly poor over the past few years and the last quote is what we think will happen again, in 2013 some time the ONS will revise both quarters under the radar and it will turn out we didn't enter a second recession.

I would like to add that I'm not suggesting that the economy is in good shape, it isn't. I just have serious reservations about whether we have entered a recession or not. I would personally give the Bank responsibility to calculate economic statistics.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

If anybody fancies a flutter, Ken is available at really decent odds to win. I can't see Boris winning right now, and as sad as it would be to have to deal with that cunt Ken for another four years, it is a decent opportunity to make money.

I have spoken to quite a few Tories about it recently who say canvassing hasn't been going well for the last few days and their vote is quite depressed, they hope that if it rains they could pull off a win, but otherwise defeat is looking likely. D:

 

[Meadows]

No way Ken is winning. No fucking way.

I think Londoners are thick, but if they're voting for Ken the tax dodging, Chavez-advising, actor hiring Livingstone, especially against a likeable Boris, they're off their fucking head.

 

[Dambrosi]

No way Ken is winning. No fucking way.

I think Londoners are thick, but if they're voting for Ken the tax dodging, Chavez-advising, actor hiring Livingstone, especially against a likeable Boris, they're off their fucking head.

No, Boris needs to be rid of the London Mayor job. He can still take credit for the upcoming success of the Olympics, so he's set there. Let Ken take the blame if they flop or get bombed or whatever other disaster may befall them (gods forbid).

I know! Make Bozza the new Tory Leader after Cameron inevitably resigns! Hell, even I'd consider voting for him!

Spoiler

The amount of sarcasm, real or implied, in this post is entirely up to the readers' discretion. Dambrosi takes no responsibility for any offense taken.

So no recession?

I get the distinct feeling that it doesn't matter if the double dip actually happened or not. The Curse hath been spoke, and thusly shall the vicious cycle runneth.

 

[PJV3]

No way Ken is winning. No fucking way.

I think Londoners are thick, but if they're voting for Ken the tax dodging, Chavez-advising, actor hiring Livingstone, especially against a likeable Boris, they're off their fucking head.

RANT-WARNING.

Bollocks, Boris is a nasty, bullying, cunt. If Ghengis Khan did a 3rd rate Charlie Chaplin impression it wouldn't stop him being a homicidal maniac. Boris is putting it on, it's an act that is so fucking obvious it is insulting. None of this stops Ken being a cunt, but the Boris is so funny bullshit has to stop, jesus christ.

Zomg, i get what you are saying about the latest growth figures(you may be proven right in the end) who knows, but the Tories had projected a total of 4.5% growth by this stage of parliament, all they have managed is 0.4%, It's a fucking disaster.

 

[killer_clank]

Their economic policy has been an utter disaster. The fact they continue to defend it when we may be back in recession is insane. I'd have slightly more respect from them if they admitted they ballsed it up totally, although that would probably bring down the govt.

Quite how the lib dems can continue to play a part in this shambles is a mystery.

 

[J Tourettes]

No way Ken is winning. No fucking way.

I think Londoners are thick, but if they're voting for Ken the tax dodging, Chavez-advising, actor hiring Livingstone, especially against a likeable Boris, they're off their fucking head.

I don't particularly want either of them and I've yet to make up my mind which of the two will get my second preference (Paddick is probably my first). I'll be voting Green for the London assembly as it least my vote will help them there.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Who says there is no need for cuts...

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/thrl2012.pdf

Look for your own council in the list.

Some of these are incredible, Liverpool, Newham and Glasgow are particularly bad.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Zomg, i get what you are saying about the latest growth figures(you may be proven right in the end) who knows, but the Tories had projected a total of 4.5% growth by this stage of parliament, all they have managed is 0.4%, It's a fucking disaster.

Well using our figures or the BoE figures it is closer to 1.5% which is still pretty bad, just not pathetic. The worst part is that the narrative has now changed and there were a lot of positives in the first quarter which could now be undone in the second quarter, I don't think the economy contracted in the first quarter or nearly as much as it did in fourth quarter last year, but I'm sure it will in Q2. We will now successfully talk ourselves into a recession as people hear the words double dip and an irresponsible media making it out to be the worst thing in the world will see that consumer and business spending drops and the economy tanks.

What really gets to me is the complete lack of accountability at the ONS, they get these things wrong all the time and there are no repercussions, if I were to get something of this magnitude wrong on such a regular basis I would find myself with a one way ticket to the dole queue. Once the Q4/1 figures are revised (and they will be, we have received an admission today that it is likely the figures are wrong) I would like to see the government bust some heads over at the ONS to concentrate minds. The figures are too important to get wrong on such a regular basis.

 

[PJV3]

Well using our figures or the BoE figures it is closer to 1.5% which is still pretty bad, just not pathetic. The worst part is that the narrative has now changed and there were a lot of positives in the first quarter which could now be undone in the second quarter, I don't think the economy contracted in the first quarter or nearly as much as it did in fourth quarter last year, but I'm sure it will in Q2. We will now successfully talk ourselves into a recession as people hear the words double dip and an irresponsible media making it out to be the worst thing in the world will see that consumer and business spending drops and the economy tanks.

What really gets to me is the complete lack of accountability at the ONS, they get these things wrong all the time and there are no repercussions, if I were to get something of this magnitude wrong on such a regular basis I would find myself with a one way ticket to the dole queue. Once the Q4/1 figures are revised (and they will be, we have received an admission today that it is likely the figures are wrong) I would like to see the government bust some heads over at the ONS to concentrate minds. The figures are too important to get wrong on such a regular basis.

"Interestingly, this time around Dr Francis is more or less the only expert coming out on the side of the ONS. To him, it's the strong Markit/CIPS survey that is perplexing, and at odds with what many in the industry have been telling him.

He notes, for example, that the survey showed construction activity in March rising at its fastest rate in 21 months, despite new orders for construction having fallen by 14% in 2011. He says new orders are usually a decent guide to future activity."

I think the PMI and other market surveys may have misled people, activity will probably be uprated very slightly, but not by much.

 

[killer_clank]

Why do the ONS even put out provisional figures if they always get changed? In this instance even if the economy did grow slightly after all the damage has been done.

 

[PJV3]

Why do the ONS even put out provisional figures if they always get changed? In this instance even if the economy did grow slightly after all the damage has been done.

The ONS deal with Shit-loads of data, much more than the banks get to see, there are probably errors and missing data, as well as errors made at the ONS itself. But people still want figures and facts to see what is happening, the only other option is to have fewer updates.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

It's not just the Markit surveys that disagree with them, it's their own fucking Indices! That's my problem, their own fucking data disagrees with their GDP release growth in production is apparently down QoQ removing 0.2% from GDP, but using their index, Jan was basically flat and Feb had a huge rise while the March figure is not even ready. How can it be that with a flat Jan and a big rise in Feb that production is actually down QoQ it makes absolutely no sense, one of the data points is wrong, and the Index is usually very, very accurate so the team calculating GDP have fucked it up.

On the construction figures, about a year ago the ONS moved to a new method of counting, before that the Markit data and the ONS data used to be pretty in sync, since that methodology change the ONS data has been extremely volatile (notice the zig-zag nature of the economy) and many in the construction industry have criticised it. That dude's idea that Markit are wrong relies on the ONS data actually being correct which many in the banking industry and the construction industry doubt.

Why do the ONS even put out provisional figures if they always get changed? In this instance even if the economy did grow slightly after all the damage has been done.

They shouldn't. The industry has told them time and again to delay the release of GDP figures by a month but the ONS are too proud to admit they are wrong and prefer to go back and change their figures under the radar hoping that no one will notice. Like you said, the damage is now done.