Support NeoGAF

[War Peaceman]

I'm not totally anti Labour by the way, apart from the crash and being too warmongery and being oblivious to it they did quite well. I am anti Ed's though, as I think they are both blithering idiots and I won't vote Labour with them at the helm. Milliband is my towns MP though, so I'm entitled to my opinion.

Ed Balls I can completely understand, but why Ed Milliband?

Why not have every youngster take the British Citizenship Test and let them vote if they pass it? At whatever age.

Why? If you are born in the UK or an eligible citizen, you should be able to vote. Arbitrary tests like this are undemocratic. Why does it matter whether a person knows who were the dominant immigrant group in the 1980s or the population of under 18s?

My initial reaction is to say no.

This is largely, I think, because 16-17 year olds are by and large not independent - not financially, not mentally, not socially. But that's a dangerous argument, as something very similar was used for many years to deny women the vote.

I'm still inclined to say no though, and on much the same grounds. That's a huge block vote of questionable political maturity, the vast majority of whose lives is spent under the influence of state-sponsored educators of notably leftish leaning and with near-as-dammit no idea of the financial implications of anything.

Questionable political authority? I'd say that applies to a vast majority of people in the UK. For all their lack of life experience they do know things that adult voters will have less intimate knowledge of. Education, being the primary element. Also they will be affected by the decisions made in parliament - as adults - and thus should probably be involved in the process(Though obviously you have to draw the line at some point). I don't actively support a reduction to 16, but I just don't find the arguments against it persuasive.

Besides, vast chunks of politicians time will be spent making soundbites to appeal to the youngsters and they'll have even less time to say anything sensible to the rest of us.

Plus, 16 being the age of consent, they probably got their minds on other things.

I doubt many will vote anyway - look at the rates for 18 year olds. But I see nothing wrong with politicians appealing to voters of any particular age. They should be doing that. If you are criticising that they will say rather than do things to appeal to these groups, then that is definitely a problem. But the problem there is not the suffrage of 16 and 17 year olds but the political class and process.

Bung it up to 21 again, like it was before 1970.

That is ridiculous. Some people will have been paying tax for 5 years before they can vote. Well educated people will be unable to vote.

 

[SteveWD40]

Ed Balls I can completely understand, but why Ed Milliband?

I can't speak for kitch, but for myself and many people I know Ed's biggest problem is he seems so weak. I know personality politics are not healthy but it's a reality that being able to take the opposition to task is a big part of being PM, and when you have a laundry list of fuck up's that Cameron has had (the Brooks thing could have been his death knell for example) and you can't capitalise on it because you sound like an angry 6th former having a tantrum?

Well that's not good.

I know someone (edits a corporate Environmental magazine) who met him when he was SoS for Energy and Climate change as well and he was apparently not only pretty shitty with people but knew fuck all about his job from what they said.

So yeah, don't despise him, he is alright as far as politicians go but not a party leader and certainly not a leader capable of putting Labour back in power.

 

[PJV3]

Ed Milliband is doing okay, i didn't expect Labour to be in the running after such a long period in power. He won't win the next election though, the tories will lose it, unless they get a grip before the coalition starts to seperate in 2014.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Ed Milliband is doing okay, i didn't expect Labour to be in the running after such a long period in power. He won't win the next election though, the tories will lose it, unless they get a grip before the coalition starts to seperate in 2014.

the winds of economic change are going to play into it a lot IMO... you would think it's in their best interests to make sure ordinary people don't feel miserable and squeezed.

I don't think a positive economic change particularly gets people out to vote Tory, but I think it might result in a few potential labour/liberal voters staying home. If we have a negative change or laboured recovery approaching a 'lost decade'? No chance in hell the Tories win.

 

[Jackpot]

There's a reason Nicola Murray was a suitable stand-in as Ed's fictional equivalent.

 

[PJV3]

There's a reason Nicola Murray was a suitable stand-in as Ed's fictional equivalent.

I think that's what everybody was expecting when he became leader, he's turned out to be a lot better than that.
He seems to make Cameron lose his cool once a month.

 

[mclem]

Ed Milliband is doing okay, i didn't expect Labour to be in the running after such a long period in power. He won't win the next election though, the tories will lose it, unless they get a grip before the coalition starts to seperate in 2014.

The problem the Tories have is the Lib Dem voters, really. Have they convinced the Lib Dem voters to vote Tory next election? I doubt it. Have they relinquished sufficient power to the Lib Dems to encourage their voters to continue to vote Lib Dem next election? I doubt it. I suspect the choice for many LD voters next election will be between going Labour or not voting at all.

Bizarre as it sounds, I think the best strategy for the Tories is to try to disillusion Lib Dem voters so much that they just don't vote!

 

[PJV3]

The problem the Tories have is the Lib Dem voters, really. Have they convinced the Lib Dem voters to vote Tory next election? I doubt it. Have they relinquished sufficient power to the Lib Dems to encourage their voters to continue to vote Lib Dem next election? I doubt it. I suspect the choice for many LD voters next election will be between going Labour or not voting at all.

Bizarre as it sounds, I think the best strategy for the Tories is to try to disillusion Lib Dem voters so much that they just don't vote!

A lot of LibDem seats are based on tactical voting, i'm torn between hating Ed Davey and letting in another Norman Lamont. Adding in the UKIP effect on the tory vote, I haven't got a clue how the next election will pan out.

I wish we had PR, elections are a mind fuck.

 

[phisheep]

I think the reason it should be normalised is that the whole point of banning things by age is that people's faculties of rationality have not developed to a point where they can be trusted to make the right decision. Now, like you say, this certainly doesn't happen to everyone at the same time, and to some people never does. But... well, we need to draw a line somewhere. It doesn't, to my mind, make any sense to say that any given person's mind is developed enough to have sex but not gamble, for example. Why the difference?

Largely, I think, it is about what the laws are there for. The laws on sexual consent are there for the protection of the unwilling and bullied victim (to the possible disadvantage of others); the laws on driving are for the protection of third-party victims and of the insurance industry; on smoking for the protection of public health; on criminal liability for the protection of the public and the punishment of crimes and on voting for, well, the preservation of voting by those at least potentially politically informed.

Not all of these are a question of an individuals maturity (or motor skills, or judgment or whatever) and there's absolutely no reason they should be assumed to happen at the same stage of some mythical 'maturity'. The ages mentioned above vary from 10 to 18 already.

I'd question the ability of a test to accurately test one's maturity. Knowing 'the government' it would become, in not so short a time, a smorgasbord of propaganda about those items that it 'unlocks',

Oops. I'd hoped you would notice that my reference to the test was more a criticism of the test that it was a serious suggestion!

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think Ed is OK, but very weak. His tactic - and I can't knock its success - is to let the Tories make mistakes without actually announcing anything. They say they'd cut less but not on what (though they're back peddling on that a bit). He opposes free schools but doesn't suggest n alternative even though it is basicly a labour policy.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It is pretty old, but someone just linked me to his video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYye0zZ3fH4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Which is quite like Because you dont often find politicians speaking so candidly about how terrible an idea is when it isnt across the aisles. Anyone have any other favourite sparring videos? Hague's 'when wil you hand over to me' president of EU speech is a classic too.

 

[Psychotext]

I don't like Gideon, but he does a reasonable job there.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I don't like Gideon, but he does a reasonable job there.

When Osborne does economics it is reasonable and he doesn't do a poor job, it's when he tries to combine politics and economics he fails.

Calling him Gideon is slightly immature...

 

[Psychotext]

It's his name.

I went through a stage of calling myself John in my teens... I could have changed it, but it wouldn't really mean it was my name either. Same goes for those poor bastards called tigerlilly ultrafish the 8th. You were born with it, you can live with it.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yeah. Sort of like how everyone called our old PM Anthony Blair.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Yeah. Sort of like how everyone called our old PM Anthony Blair.

I do remember him being called Tony back in his popular days. Then Teflon Tony. Then Bliar.
I wonder what we'll call Gideon in a few years?

I do think he spoke / acquitted himself very well in that video btw. I wish he spoke like that more often. His performances for the cameras in interviews or in parliament is much more distasteful to watch, sadly. Time will tell on his policies.

 

[Psychotext]

Poodle mostly wasn't it? \o/

 

[UnblessedSoul]

1% growth, not bad mostly from Olympics obviously

 

[radioheadrule83]

I've seen this being posted around, anyone care to take a pop at it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ram...7552.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

There are some English / grammar mistakes, but if the salient points and figures are correct then I can see why people are sharing this.

The general gist of it is this:

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on"
- Winston Churchill

As a Conservative I have no pleasure in exposing David Cameron's deficit claims. However, as long as the party continues to talk down the economy via the blame game, confidence will not be given an opportunity to return. For it is an undeniable and inescapable economic fact: without confidence and certainty there can be no real growth.

Below are the 3 deficit claims - the mess. The evidence comes from the IMF, OECD, OBR, HM Treasury, ONS and even George Osborne. The claims put into context are:

CLAIM 1: The last government left the biggest debt in the developed world.

CLAIM 2: Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.

CLAIM 3: Our borrowing costs are low because the markets have confidence in George Osborne's austerity plan and without it the UK will end up like Greece.

He goes on to try and debunk each of the claims. He links to these sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AQYfPhtWpy8 (George in front of the Treasury Select Committee)
http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/public-debt-how-does-the-uk-compare/

http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_33733_20347538_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture
http://www.citywire.co.uk/wealth-ma...s/a495048?ref=wealth-manager-latest-news-list​

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_224167.pdf
http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2012/
http://twitpic.com/8tpev3
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/10/19040/

 

[Clay Davis]

1% growth, not bad mostly from Olympics obviously

good news, but as you said, it might be mostly from the Olympics. next two quarters will be the ones to give a more accurate picture of the economy won't it?

does anyone have any thoughts on the ford factory closing down due to downturn in the eu market? argos are also downsizing, this isn't unexpected though and it's something I am surprised they didn't do it earlier.

 

[SteveWD40]

1% growth, not bad mostly from Olympics obviously

Wow, actually getting out of the decimals. As you say, mostly Olympics but it's still good as it might push sentiment and give retail a good Christmas / Q4 if nothing else.

 

[Clay Davis]

I've seen this being posted around, anyone care to take a pop at it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ram...7552.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

There are some English / grammar mistakes, but if the salient points and figures are correct then I can see why people are sharing this.

The general gist of it is this:



He goes on to try and debunk each of the claims. He links to these sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AQYfPhtWpy8 (George in front of the Treasury Select Committee)
http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/public-debt-how-does-the-uk-compare/

http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_33733_20347538_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture
http://www.citywire.co.uk/wealth-ma...s/a495048?ref=wealth-manager-latest-news-list​

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_224167.pdf
http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2012/
http://twitpic.com/8tpev3
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/10/19040/

thanks for this.

After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7?

I'm surprised, surprised that more wasn't reported on this at the time. he said it back in 2010 according to the video date stamp, how on earth wasn't this reported?

is this claim true?

Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?

I don't have a lot to time to read all the links and such, will read it more thoroughly when I have some free time, but it seems pretty explosive if everything the author is claiming is true.

 

[Jezbollah]

I have heard from media that .5 of the 1% can be put down to the Olympics.

 

[War Peaceman]

Yes, if you take away the good things that happened in the period the statistics will not look so positive.

 

[dalin80]

And if you take away all the bad things those numbers would be awesome.

It is what it is, good news for a change.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

1% growth, not bad mostly from Olympics obviously

Wow, actually getting out of the decimals. As you say, mostly Olympics but it's still good as it might push sentiment and give retail a good Christmas / Q4 if nothing else.

The Olympics added 0.2% onto the figures this quarter according to the ONS (and City figures) there was also a 0.4-0.5% deferral from the previous quarter as well because of the extra bank holiday.

There is also a mistake of some sort as the ONS say the headline GDP figure is the same as the start of Q3 2011 but the contraction was 1.1% and growth this Q was 1%. There is a rounding error in there somewhere as the two figures don't line up.

Overall a decent set of figures, but they come with the same massive health warning as the other preliminary figures the error margin on preliminary figures is about 0.5% in either direction but it lines up with our figure of 0.9% growth so I don't expect too many revisions.

The ONS are still missing around 0.3-0.5% from their figures, they will eventually work it out of the system by revising past figures, this suspicion was confirmed by the massive reworking of the public sector finance figures which puts the government almost on track to meet the borrowing target for this year and lowered last year's borrowing to £120bn vs £127bn (again lining up with out figures better than their original ones) and the continual rise in employment over the last 4 months.

Overall, the 1% headline is only really useful for politicians, underlying growth is probably about 0.3-0.5% and we should expect Q4 to be around 0.2-0.4% on the trend (0.1%, 0.3% for Q2 and Q3) which is decent enough.

Anyway, it's been a good week economically (I'm not surprised that none of it was posted on this thread though) and the 1% headline will make for good reading. I just hope the government doesn't blow it with talk of "green shoots" or "out of the danger zone".

I have heard from media that .5 of the 1% can be put down to the Olympics.

0.2% according to the ONS. Anyone who says otherwise is talking rubbish.

 

[Dambrosi]

Yeah, this is, for once, a move in the positive direction. Let's just hope that the economy continues to steadily improve like this, for all our sakes

Spoiler

even though we all know it won't

.

I swear, though, if we get a triple-dip out of this, I...won't know what to do.

 

[Clay Davis]

Anyway, it's been a good week economically (I'm not surprised that none of it was posted on this thread though) and the 1% headline will make for good reading. I just hope the government doesn't blow it with talk of "green shoots" or "out of the danger zone".

has there been other news about the economy that hasn't been covered?

anyway, what's everyone's thought son this.

a plan to limit child benefit to two children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20077758

I fully support such a move but I also feel it's a little late. it's something the labour government really should have looked into introducing.

 

[Clay Davis]

Yeah, this is, for once, a move in the positive direction. Let's just hope that the economy continues to steadily improve like this, for all our sakes

Spoiler

even though we all know it won't

.

I swear, though, if we get a triple-dip out of this, I...won't know what to do.

if there is a triple dip (hope it never happens), it would most likely be blamed on christmas.

seriously, I think a triple dip is inevitable mainly due to what's happening in the eurozone as well as the potential fallout from the us election and with china and india not growing as much as everyone thought they would. not looking very bright, but this is good news, so let's enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Just reading through the PDF, this caught my eye:

"The current estimates for September 2012 (compared with August 2012) for the main GDP(O) components are falls in output of 0.5 per cent for services, 0.8 per cent for production and 1.0 per cent for construction."

Which is very cautious. If services and production just stagnate the GDP figure will be revised upwards by around 0.2%, if they grow by the current trend then we will have an upwards revision of around 0.3%.

This quarter being cautious hasn't made much of a difference, but last quarter it made big headlines as the contraction was reported as -0.7% (much worse than consensus and larger than the bank holiday deferral) and uprated to -0.4% because the ONS were being overly cautious pegging services and production at below the quarterly trend.

 

[kitch9]

I have heard from media that .5 of the 1% can be put down to the Olympics.

There's also the -/+ 0.5% that can happen from "revisions."

 

[SteveWD40]

It's like people are willing it to decline. Nothing is inevitable, remember the Eurozone would be "gone by September", it was inevitable if you recall.

has there been other news about the economy that hasn't been covered?

Unemployment fell, something else iirc

(I'm not surprised that none of it was posted on this thread though)

I was going to, but remembered I would be laughed at / shouted down by the echo chamber that are terrified the torys will cling to power if the economy improves in spite of them.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

has there been other news about the economy that hasn't been covered?

Unemployment down to 7.9%, claimant count down, youth unemployment down below 1m again, Inflation down to 2.2%, retail sales up 0.6%, public sector borrowing down year on year by £700m and the whole series revised downwards by around £8bn for the year (last month's record borrowing which was posted, is now in fact not a record).

It has been a pretty good economic week, as Steve has pointed out, good news tends not to be posted here and when someone does they get called a shill or partisan...

 

[Clay Davis]

thank you both. that is very good news. a shame then that more attention hasn't been paid to it in the news. it's understandable though, the savill story is saturating the news with more revelations each day as well as developments in the hillsborough story.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Regarding those historic deficits up there, it is worth noting that there is a big difference between a cyclical and a structural deficit. After the recession of the early 90s, the trajectory of borrowing was a healthy one - sloping down quickly, a trend that continued into the Labour years. The problem is that there were so few surpluses during 'the good years'. Not many really crow at deficits during a recession, but the idea is that you balance that with surpluses during the good times. That didn't happen, which goes some way to explaining why the deficits now are so monstrously high, as we are paying for a structural overspend *and* the inevitable cyclical increase in spending via benefits etc.

Edit: that huffpo article makes a few weird claims, such as 'Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending.' - it isn't implausible or ludicrous at all. I mean firstly, 'overspending' is a subjective term. Any objective sense of the word would have to mean spending more than one has, which was still happening so that's not what he means. Overspend is a subjective term that suggests you're spending more *than is wise*, and using a relative measure (ie it's half what it used to be!) says nothing to that.vfinally, he omits the fact that whilst it went from 3.9% in 1997 to 2.1% in 2008, it also went into a surplus in the early 2000s. So it went down, and then - even during a period of strong (albeit somewhat faux) economic growth, they went back and chose to spend more. Now you can debate all day about whether their spending consists of overspending, but to say that it's 'implausible and ludicrous' based upon those two numbers is not only incorrect, it's actively employing the same tactics he is criticising Osborne for using.

 

[nib95]

Good news. I'm assuming somewhat affected by the recent changes and improvements in the US. Hopefully the trend continues.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Good news. I'm assuming somewhat affected by the recent changes and improvements in the US. Hopefully the trend continues.

Not really. The figures are backed by domestic demand rising (employment up), and demand rising for British goods in Asia (exports up in Asia by around 15%). However this can't continue forever, eventually the EU economy needs to pick up if we are going to turn our economy around.

 

[nib95]

Not really. The figures are backed by domestic demand rising (employment up), and demand rising for British goods in Asia (exports up in Asia by around 15%). However this can't continue forever, eventually the EU economy needs to pick up if we are going to turn our economy around.

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. And yes, guess we'll just have to see about EU. I'll be honest, I've been so focused on the US election I've dropped the ball on domestic affairs lol.

 

[dalin80]

Reading the comment sections on other sites has been disturbing, some people seem genuinely angry and appalled that we aren't in recession any more. I know misery loves company but FFS I can believe the glee in seeing the country fail.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Reading the comment sections on other sites has been disturbing, some people seem genuinely angry and appalled that we aren't in recession any more. I know misery loves company but FFS I can believe the glee in seeing the country fail.

Don't let small minded people get you down. I just find it sad that these people want the country to fail and for more people to be unemployed so they can post about how much they hate Gideon on Twatter.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Reading the comment sections on other sites has been disturbing, some people seem genuinely angry and appalled that we aren't in recession any more. I know misery loves company but FFS I can believe the glee in seeing the country fail.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/25/uk-emerges-from-double-dip-recession-george-osborne

 

[Psychotext]

I really hope that this bumps confidence somewhat. Could really do with riding this a bit to get out of this shit streak.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I really hope that this bumps confidence somewhat. Could really do with riding this a bit to get out of this shit streak.

Handy that it has occured before Christmas. The reality is that you can't reasonably expect an economy to shrink for 9 months and then immediately bounce back to its highest growth in years. I suspect it'll be revised down slightly, and next quarter will be growth of a lower percentage, but I do think this may well be the beginning of the end in terms of trajectory. Subject to Eurozone shitting itself.

 

[Little Old Man]

It is promising to see that only a small proportion of the 1% growth was from the Olympics- though I have read conflicting sources that the 0.2% contribution was just from ticket sales, and others that it was everything related to the Olympics (hotel bookings, merchandise etc).

Now if we can avoid a downwards revision and this quarter shows positive growth we may be eventually getting somewhere. I'd put money on that the air of confidence GB has had over the past several months has contributed to these figures. Today's news can only help that.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Handy that it has occured before Christmas. The reality is that you can't reasonably expect an economy to shrink for 9 months and then immediately bounce back to its highest growth in years. I suspect it'll be revised down slightly, and next quarter will be growth of a lower percentage, but I do think this may well be the beginning of the end in terms of trajectory. Subject to Eurozone shitting itself.

Take a look at the detail, if anything the figure will be revised upwards as the September estimates are pencilled in at below current trend.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Take a look at the detail, if anything the figure will be revised upwards as the September estimates are pencilled in at below current trend.

Oh really? That's interesting. Though I suppose that the caveats from last quarter (lowered due to bank holidays) combined with the caveats from this quarter (Olympics) mean that even if it is revised up, the actual jump may be smaller than it seems based purely on the growth figures.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Ed Balls got flayed by Andrew Neil and Adam Boulton today, finally journalists have decided not to take Labour's spurious figures at face value. It's just a shame that it took 10 years.

 

[Clay Davis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/25/uk-emerges-from-double-dip-recession-george-osborne

I like this one.

This despite the libdems blocking the tories plans to make hiring and firing easier?

 

[travisbickle]

Reading the comment sections on other sites has been disturbing, some people seem genuinely angry and appalled that we aren't in recession any more. I know misery loves company but FFS I can believe the glee in seeing the country fail.

Yeah, it's not as if the current government have done anything to make people angry? but I guess the reductions in benefits for the disabled directly helped the increase in Asian market spending on luxury British goods.

 

[Yen]

I just pray Northern Ireland never puts the voting age down to 16.

Mark Devenport ‏@markdevenport
Sinn Fein and Greens have secured an Assembly debate early next month on lowering voting age to 16

oh joy