Was bringing these two back Gord’s smartest move?
November 17th, 2008
Are the Tories being out-classed in the spin wars?
One of big decisions that Gord took during his summer holiday was to beef up Labour and the government’s whole PR operation in order to compete with the Tory threat. Result: the return of perhaps the most successful political spin team ever - Mandelson and Campbell.
And over the past six weeks we have seen a transformation in the way Team Brown is getting its message across and its ability to undermine the opposition.
We’ve often talked about the media narrative here - and how things have changed so much for the government since the start of October. Labour’s now on a roll and what’s becoming apparent is that the Tory team is no match for them.
All this is not about media bias, as many PB contributors seem to suggest, but that Labour has become a whole lot better at getting its message across and undermining the Tories.
Could it be that the narrative stays with Labour right up May 2010? With Mandy and Campbell charged up then it might well do. Anybody interesting in betting on the next election or forecasting its outcome has to take this into consideration.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
You’re probably right that it’ll have an impact though I’m betting nowhere near enough to overturn the Tory lead. Definitely has an impact for those of you spread betting on seats though. Might even be helpful if the back and forth in polls produces enough volatility that you can buy and sell pretty regularly and close down each section with a profit.
First? And yes they are, but on the other hand you can’t polish a turd.
No. It will end in tears. They have been given far too much time to blot their already mucky copy books yet again. It might have worked three months before an election but not now.
Yesterday’s spin:
Gordon Brown’s £1,000 Christmas present to poor families hit by the credit crunch.
“Gordon Brown is planning a ‘Christmas bonus’ for taxpayers in an attempt to kick-start the flagging economy. The cash handout plan, which has been driven personally by the Prime Minister in the face of resistance from the Treasury, will be targeted at low-income groups.”
is already beginning to unravel in the face of reality:
“Gordon Brown needs to cut the tax bill of the average British family by at least £1,000 next year to help avert a severe recession, the International Monetary Fund has warned.”
Christmas has been cancelled!
Let’s beat Ed Balls with boughs of holly instead.
Interesting article.
There were two periods of Brown hype. June-October 2007. September-October 2008. The media narrative has already changed against Brown.
Brown’s incredibly poor performance over the Baby P tragedy at PMQ’s last Wednesday was his undoing. Brown is incapable of performing well, and Campbell and Mandelson have long lost their touch in propaganda. Remember that Campbell more or less destroyed Blair through his spin operation as it backfired over the Iraq dossier. Campbell is the declared enemy of the BBC, and still has much explaining to do over the death of Dr Kelly for which Campbell is largely responsible according to many in the media. Mandelson is described in the media as one of the most corrupt politicians in history - he is literally Mr Sleaze.
I won’t bother to go through Mandelson’s long list of allegations, investigations and censure for corrupt practices while in the Labour Party, government and at the EU. Campbell and Mandelson are toxic and for Brown to bring them in shows how desperate he has become. His is now a government based on spin, deception and subterfuge, which borders on criminality.
In terms of why Brown has had his recent period of positive coverage this has got nothing to do with Campbell or Mandelson. People are afraid of losing their jobs. In this context of panic and fear people are more willing to accept the ‘white lies’ they would normally reject. Brown as saviour was a white lie.
Eventually we recognise that it is doing more harm then good. The patience of the public is wearing out as the economy goes from bad to worse. At the recent G20 conference Brown was virtually ostracised. This was obvious to all.
Returning to the theme of the economy Britain is in a uniquely precarious position.
House prices remain overvalued by over 50% in the UK compared to historic measures, and cause Britain’s high cost of living. This makes our economy uncompetitive internationally. Will L law, the higher the cost of living, the more uncompetitive an economy.
Housing is the biggest component of the cost of living, and so if housing costs are high, the economy must suffer stagnation in the long-run. This explains why Japan experienced 20 years of economic stagnation following a period of high house price inflation, and Britain is now beginning to experience the same. The recent correction has made actually made little difference to the overvaluation.
It’s a catch 22 situation. We bring down house prices, to become a competitive company in the long-run. But in the short-run many are plunged into negative equity. The medicine will hurt, and the patient would rather die in the long-run then take a little pain in the short-run. This is the current situation in Britain. Very different from most many other economies, where property never became as overvalued as it did here and only small corrections are needed.
Then there is the fact that Britain is technically bankrupt – almost unique in the world were most other economies have had years of surpluses. A fact which is only just beginning to be recognised by the media and economists. The real figures on national debt are at levels Treasury insiders describe as ‘eye watering’. Adding in all ‘off-balance sheet’ debt UK debt is approaching 200% of GDP, levels that are far higher than any other G20 nation or developed country in the world. Add in personal debt, one of the lowest saving ratio’s in the world (itself caused by too low interest rates combined with years of under-reporting of the true rate of inflation) and we begin to see why Brown has been such a disaster.
Brown was handed a golden legacy by the Conservatives and Kenneth Clarke, and Brown has utterly squandered it. From exam grade inflation, to dumbing down, to attacks on the independence of the BBC, to spin, to under-reported price inflation, to low saving, to high debt, to low interest rates, to this we owe 3 million unemployed and the status of basket case economy of the world. Brown has his fingerprints on it all.
Britain itself is now ‘toxic’ from an investor’s point of view and this fact cannot be ignored by the media. That anyone buys our bonds is amazing. We can either sleep-walk to our deaths, or wake up and change the ship’s captain before it goes over the edge. That is the media narrative that is already appearing this November.
The media will not be fooled again.
More insomnia. Will L says
First, bonds can be sold (at some price) so long as people believe that the Government can meet the interest on them. And if that’s not true, it will have ceased to be a Government, and we’ll all be living inside some Hollywood disaster movie.
As for changing the captain, what are you suggesting? You don’t think for one moment that things can be fixed by Labour dumping Brown and installing someone else in No. 10, do you?
I sense a growing anger on here with the Tory leadership’s acceptance of the British constitution, which gives Brown the right to stay until mid-2010. Could it be that what right-wing posters on here want is for the Queen to do a Kerr? John Kerr was the Governor-General of Australia who sacked a Labour Prime Minister who had a working majority and called a snap General Election himself against all constitutional convention. Which the right-wing Opposition won.
I can’t see the Queen sacrificing her reputation in that way for one moment.
There’s not a whisper of this kind of talk in the MSM, for obvious reasons: a good many people on here have lost touch with reality. To the extent, of course, which expats and footloose software consultants - who seem to be most of the rightists on here - ever were in touch with it in the first place.
Technical note: this post will be listed as “awaiting moderation”. This is because I’ve used the “blockquote” HTML tag to produce the green line at the start of the post.
4. Some decent points in there but it sounds very much like the stuff that used to be levelled at Blair - full of outrage about scandals and economic cover ups, media resentment etc.
I think large parts of the public don’t care about a lot of it. They think he’s a bit of a slimeball but he’s good at his job. They thought the same about Tony Blair - Smarmy and cocky but pretty competent. That’s one of many reasons why the 2005 attacks on Blair’s cocky smile come election day never worked.
I think it’d be a mistake to go back to arguing about slimy spin ministers. The public will tell you they hate it (just like they do with negative advertising) but I don’t think it changes minds.
Gordon is much more of a godsend for the Tories - His bumbling around on various issues gives the Tories a legitimate line of attack. Competency. You wouldn’t have thought so at the end of his reign at the treasury but he squandered that reputation. It’s easy to paint him as out of touch, dithery and bumbling in a modern age.
I agree with mirthios, they will have hung themselves by 2010.
They no doubt boosted a weak PR effort and the Tory machine used to dealing with amateurs has been struggling.
However, the reality is that however you spin it, Turds are brown, and Brown’s a turd and as Ed B said, they can’t be polished.
5. “They think he’s a bit of a slimeball but he’s good at his job.” - I meant Campbell, Mandelson etc. All ministers that seem to be hit by scandal. That’s why it’s worth bringing them back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7732223.stm
3 Million jobless by 2010 according to CBI (actually 2.9 million).
That’d be a nasty state of affairs to run for re-election in.
I don’t think it was McBean’s idea, (I think Campbell came back on his own and he recalled Mandy), but they’re obviously very good at what they do. The proportion of friendly, neutral and hostile media each party has does matter though. People talk about the Tories saying nothing on the economy and about how often Vince Cable is on telly as an opposition spokesman and don’t notice there might be a connection between those two things.
Easiest way for Osborne to get on the BBC is to say something that MandyCampbell think is a gaffe. Vince gets cancelled, Osborne gets dragged in front of the cameras for a shoeing and then oops, not such a gaffe after all.
Looking at that picture at the top I am reminded of when Michael Howard was on Newsnight (no, not that time) and he was right, they did and are ruining the political process:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=z-QxBTR9_HU
Yes - it was a daring and courageous move for Brown to bring them back. It ran the risk of looking weak but has more than delivered a good return. Those who advocate not sacking under-performers because ‘it might look weak’ would do well to consider the example: the strength of the whole is more important than the odd short-term hit.
I agree with Scott at [5]: while Will L makes many good points in a fine critique, if they’re not being accepted by the public at large - even if its wishful thinking and a deliberate turning of a blind eye (or deaf ear?) to troublesome information - then it won’t matter that much politically until the effects are fully felt.
That’s the issue with Osborne’s sterling comments. There is still a narrative that ‘he might be right but he shouldn’t have said it’, which is patently silly but may yet be accepted by enough to make a difference. If he’d restricted himself to commenting on the sterling collapse that had already taken place, it would have been much more difficult to level these allegations at him.
Ultimately, the real world will win out - people cannot be hidden from the truth indefinately - but getting the blame game right early on and establishing the terms of debate are critical; Labour’s winning that battle at the moment.
Strangely though, that opens up the game to a much bigger level. Up until the financial crisis broke, the Conservatives were largely accepting of Labour’s settlement (not that surprising as Labour was largely accepting of the Conservative settlement in 1997). Since then, Labour has moved rapidly leftwards and opened up clear blue water. The next election will now be about much more than competent management; there will be genuine philosophical differences and an option for the public on the kind of Britain they want to see.
Part of the rhetoric at the next GE will be “it’s time for a change” which if an electorate agree is very difficult to counter. The extra problem for Labour is that Brown will be quizzed about his own personal intentions in terms of retirement. The Labour party will therefore spend the next eighteen months playing the man, attacking individuals rather than defending their own policies or record. In Campbell and Madelson they have the two experts at this field.
In the polls the Conservative vote share appears made out concrete in the low 40s, Labour’s recent increase has come mainly from the Lib-Dems and the minor parties. That will change closer to the election since the Lib-Dems poll shares always go up when people get reminded that they exist.
Has the Dark Lord’s return made a difference? Certainly, Labour’s media operation has become significantly better over the last few months. Not that it could really have been much worse than it was over the summer.
Will it last until 2010? Probably not, as seen over the Baby P case they are not infallible and can get blindsided by events (particularly when these events need a quick responds by Gordon Brown himself rather than the spin doctors). It is not even certain that Peter Mandelson at least will still be there in 2010 given his record.
13. He might not be a minister, but surely even Mandy won’t get de-lorded.
Remember July 2007 and how the media gushed at Gordon Brown’s declaration that his was to be a Government without spin, how Parliament would get announcements before Today etc. Jackie Ashley & Polly Toynbee lauded the unspun Gordon. We knew it was rot, the speech itself spin but here we are 16 months later and the Observer eagerly took Labour’s much spun line on Osborne breaking convention as it main story, the journalists who claimed relief the Age of Spin was over eagerly lap it up and write of how great is the Prince of Darkness.
The political commentators, reporters of the left and Labour MPs are pleased to see Mandelson & Campbell back because they saw without them that the unburnished Brown was a disaster. The two have been effective in throwing overboard unpopular policies, in getting everything organised around the simple message of “No time for a novice” and in targeting George Osborne.
The bigging up of Brown as a globally acclaimed leader is in itself a masterclass. Effective, supported by carefully selected bits of overseas media, managing the political correspondents.
Scott is right that its no good attacking the spin meisters, the Conservatives need to attack the lack of substance at the centre. That’s difficult though because its counter narrative and the Conservatives operation hasn’t yet responded to the much harder political game.
12. “The Labour party will therefore spend the next eighteen months playing the man, attacking individuals rather than defending their own policies or record.”
Spot on. Going to be very rough imo.
Well I agree they’ve sharpened things up for Labour, but now it’s time for Caulson to raise his game. The weekend defence of Osborne with Clarke and the gang defending the comments could be an example for that.
Howevr as stated upthread, you can’t polish a turd and Brown’s unattractive personality will show itself through. Even Campbell can’t spin him out of that.
15/16. Actually, that’s exactly what the Conservatives ought to be doing, alongside the more serious matter of opposing bad or dangerous policies. They need to identify the weakest member of the cabinet and launch an all-out assualt on him / her. When that is successful and he or she has resigned or been sacked, move on to the next one and so on. The pressure can be maintained through to 2010.
17. Wars are not won by well-managed retreats, as Churchill said about Dunkirk.
1. From the Guardian, Tuesday October 2 2007
“The prime minister paid a glowing tribute to British troops in Basra today after announcing 1,000 personnel would be home for Christmas.
2. From the Mail on Sunday, November 17 2008
“Gordon Brown’s £1,000 Christmas present to poor families hit by the credit crunch. Gordon Brown is planning a ‘Christmas bonus’ for taxpayers in an attempt to kick-start the flagging economy. The cash handout plan, which has been driven personally by the Prime Minister in the face of resistance from the Treasury, will be targeted at low-income groups.”
Christmas + 1,000 = yet another lie.
19. Churchill wasn’t much of a general though.
18. I think that has the same problem though. You need friendly media who are prepared to provide the platform for a continuing attack. The Cameroons don’t even have the Tory media on their side as they had to scrap all the actual Tory stuff to appease the ***.
They have to dance around trying to avoid getting hit and throwing the occasional well-targeted jab.
Seems to me, anyway.
18 Thought we had identified the weakest member of the Cabinet but didn’t want Gordon to resign
Yes to the article theme: I know left-wingers who loathed Mandy for his part in New Labour who now think he’s a miracle-worker.
Um, might it be possible to raise the level of debate just slightly above the point where we call each others’ leaders turds? One seanT can be entertaining, but half a dozen of them is boring. The evident loathing by some posters here for GB has reached silly levels again.
But David Herdson is right about the philosophical choice opening up. Both main parties seem to me to be moving away from each other: the Conservative equivalent is the downgrading of green pledges and the flat rejection of Keynesian counter-cyclical spending. I don’t think either move is going to be easy for them to defend electorally, but we’ll see.
Incidentally, Mirthios, an IMF call for tax cuts for 2009 is effectively identical to cutting them for Xmas 2008 (gosh, that’s a whole week difference), though for practical reasons I’d have thought that personal taxation is more easily changed in the spring. The IMF is certainly not saying ‘cut taxes but wait a year before you do it’.
I do think that Labour has sharpened up its presentation - to a point. However, the particular controversy at the moment, the idea that it is somehow inappropriate for Shadow Chancellors to comment on a plunging exchange rate, is so silly that it is bound to boomerang on Labour at some point (Wednesday at 12 noon is my ETA of the boomerang). More than one newspaper has commented on the idea that Gordon Brown is uncomfortable with any opposition: even journalists can remember as far back as last Wednesday lunchtime.
Labour would have done better to ridicule the idea, claiming that there was nothing wrong in present circumstances with a falling exchange rate (whether or not that is actually true). By concentrating on whether it was appropriate for George Osborne to comment, which seems odd given that the public will instinctively feel that public comment should be allowed, the argument that the exchange rate is plunging inappropriately is being won by the Tories by default. The intention appears to be to try to fix the blame for any further fall on George Osborne, but that requires limitless gullibility on the part of journalists - actually now you come to mention it…
“One of big decisions that Gord took during his summer holiday”
Not sure about that, at the time he appeared to be incapable of deciding which socks to put on. I have always suspected (on no evidence, admittedly) that it was the price he paid to avert a Blairite coup. Or, assuming no-one actually wanted the poisoned chalice of the top job, the coup itself.
I do wonder if Mandy is doing anything to earn his ministerial salary or if we are paying for him to work full time on Labour Party business.
While I would have personally preferred to see 20% Tory leads continue, it has undeniably made politics more interesting. And, to try to find a silver lining, it looks as if Cameron & co might have to come up with some policies rather than just wait while the Government tears itself apart.
The question is, whether this amount is spin is an inescapable (and arguably desirable) element of a free political system, or whether actions should be taken to combat it. I would certainly like to see all Government announcements made on the floor of the House, restrict the staffing of departmental press offices to the minimum that allows for 24/7 coverage (four people should do it), and for political parties, not the taxpayer, to pay for anyone whose job is to promote Government policies rather than implement them.
When quoting the government’s assessments of the number of “unemployed”, we should not forget that more than half of the 2,400,000 people claiming incapacity benefit have been off work for more than five years.
In some parts of the country, long-term incapacity benefit claims are endemic. Some 4,960 people in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney are long-term claimants. In the Liverpool Riverside constituency, 5,490 people have been on incapacity benefit for more than five years.
Incapacity benefit costs the taxpayer more than £7 billion a year, prompting the government to make a string of promises to cut the number of people officially designated as too sick to work.
In 2005, the Government announced plans to reduce the number of people claiming incapacity benefit by one million, with claimants considered to have only minor ailments threatened with benefit cuts if they did not try to find suitable work.
Clearly, they haven’t worked.
So the real number of unemployed is likely to rise to 5,300,000 - compared to the employed total (including part time) of around 25,500,000.
However much Mandy and Campbell try to spin it, that’s 17%.
24. I’m with you on this Nick. The language on this board in the past couple of weeks has been disgraceful. Words like “vile”, “scum”, “moron” and of course “turd” are bandied around far too often.
I partly disagree with the article. The notion the media are all neutral and objective and the sole reason Labour’s getting better coverage now than in the recent past is due to superior PR is tosh.
Labour’s PR has become better since Brown welcomed back some of the more odious members of Blair’s team. But the media is biased, sometimes very biased.
In fact, since becoming PM Brown has never had fair coverage. The first 3 months were little more than verbal fellatio. Then we had almost a year of him getting blamed for everything, and now the media have gone back to licking his balls.
It really is most peculiar.
The phrase used was “you can’t polish a turd”, I think that’s a little different to actually calling someone a turd.
“Gordon Brown is planning a ‘Christmas bonus’ for taxpayers in an attempt to kick-start the flagging economy. The cash handout plan, which has been driven personally by the Prime Minister in the face of resistance from the Treasury, will be targeted at low-income groups.”
Labour party spokesman:
“an IMF call for tax cuts for 2009 is effectively identical to cutting them for Xmas 2008″
Beyond parody.
Remember that parody of Lincoln,
“You can fool some of the people all the time and they’re the ones to focus on!”
That’s what the Labour spin machine and their friends in the media are doing, and it’s brought the Labour core vote back onside.
It will have an effect - it will save Labour from the Canadian- Progressive-Conservative-style wipeout that they richly deserve. And in the face of this spin machine the Conservatives cannot afford to be complacent.
But unless the Conservatives screw up as badly as Kinnock screwed up a winning hand in 1992, it won’t save Labour from losing.
29 Surely this is because the media want to be on the right side of whoever’s in power. Now it looks like Labour might win an election, they want to make sure they’re in with the winners.
Which is a worrying in itself: in a free country, the press should feel free to say whatsoever it likes and screw the government.
Maybe the Tories should announce an overdue revision of the libel laws, that would get the press on their side…
Couldn’t disagree more Mike..
Brown has had a bounce in the polls due to his handling of the economy…very little to do with Mandy. In fact every time Mandy gets a mention in the paper its nearly always of a scandalous nature.
Labour is doing disastrously…they’re leading the world on ‘beating the crunch’ and yet are still 11pts behind!!! Don’t know about you but I’d say that’s terrible.
The bubble will not last especially when it is made clear why we are all in this mess! This is the very best it gets for Brown and Labour in the build up to the next election.
It’s his smartest move, however he will still lose. Labours spin offensive has been working, however the tory position is set in concrete now. They will stay above 40%, while labour run at top speed just to stand still at around 31-35%. During a GE campaign Cameron will be an excellent asset, being able to deal with various interviews etc etc. Brown will retreat to friendly interviewers and news outlets, conceding masses of airtime to the tories.
Labour have undoubtedly sharpened up and Mandelson and Campbell probably deserve the credit - and Brown for using their talents.
If the Conservatives cannot stick the ongoing recession on GB’s shoulders and make it stick, then they do not deserve to win a General Election. Period.
I have every confidence that:
Gordon Brown will continue to provide hostages to fortune.
David Amercon will continue to win the personal battel vis a vis Gordon.
But the Conservative Party have enough MPs or grandees who are stoopid or insensitive enough to provide Labour with another Osborne. yacht saga..
As for the media, the Government are in power and hold lots of aces. Journalists are lazy and work of handouts. Labour evidently give lots of quotable handouts.
29 & 35
The Tories are yet to really say anything on policy or show any clue to what’s in their hand…and they have an 11pt lead in the polls at the worst coverage in a year for them!
Imagine when the Tories actually do start on the offensive and releasing competent strategies and policies…The press WILL turn by 2010 for a long loooooong time over to Camo and friends.
36. (Madasafish) Did we miss your Gabble checklist this morning?
On a related note, Sterling is up against the dollar this morning. Does that mean Osborne gets sacked or not?
28. Oh stop being such a milk monitor Stickers. Whether language is robust or downright insulting all depends on context. In this case I was no more calling GB a turd than the Democrats were calling Sarah Palin a pig (as in You Can’t Put Lipstick On…)
All we know is that Brown and Labour’s renaissance dates from the welcoming on board of Campbell and Mandelson. We have no direct evidence that either have contributed to Labour’s PR effort.
The idea that-to use the ugly expression-you can’t polish a turd is simplistic and irrelevant. Politics isn’t a beauty contest. Most products have a USP and the Party that can identify and promote the most important one is likely to be successful. What Labour have done is to become relentlessly focused on theirs which is something that has the hallmark of Campbell and Mandelson.
The Tories by contrast are struggling to identify a USP. The days when visiting glaciers and cycling round Parliament Square got the public going are long gone.
Well, I’m still placing bets on a 2010 election and an overall Tory majority … I do hope that the Tories take their revenge on the BBC, who have so flagrantly breaching their Charter for years and have been going even further pro-Labour in recent weeks.
39 Roger, I would love to know what you consider the Labour Party’s USP to be.
41, authoritarian incompetence, obviously. Haven’t you been paying attention?
35 40% plus is not set in concrete - the Conservatives need to work to keep their support.
There is volatility in economic forecasting - in a couple of months they have worsened considerably, based on expectation that this quarter will be worse than last, that Christmas and post Christmas retail sales will be bad. Assumptions aren’t reality. Gordon’s actions might change business and consumer confidence significantly, Kaletsky could turn out right in his view that the UK will not be the worst hit.
Being passive isn’t the way to win.
Great example of this new media spin this morning. All the British press are quoting a modified version of the IMF statement from Strauss Kahn - missing out completely the caveat about debt sustainability:-
http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/11/osborne-and-emperors-new-clothes.html
24. It does amuse me to read all these correographed references to ‘Keynesian counter cyclical spending’ and similar guff from people who don’t have the slightest understanding of macroeconomics and in particular, of Keynes’ writings.
41. New Labour’s USP=Lying
For me the underlying story here is that the media has learned lessons from their feting of Blair, and are determined not to make the same mistake with the Tories. Large swathes of the media suspended their critical faculties during Labour’s first term (in particular), failing in their duty to hold the Government to account. When it went wrong, as it did spectacularly over the Iraq dossier, the media’s approach changed. The two consequences of that were an almost relentless hounding of Blair and a clear understanding that the media must not make the same mistake again.
Compare and contrast the column inches devoted to the Ecclestone affair (at the time) and the Osborne affair. In the former case a prime minister accepted a million pound donation to party coffers at approximately the same time as his Government made a policy decision to the financial benefit of the donor. In the latter case the shadow chancellor was involved in a conversation about a possible donation which would have been legal but ethically dubious, and turned it down. See what I mean?
The result is that the Tories are under more scrutiny now than the Labour opposition was in 1995-1997, and any support offered by the media is tepid, qualified, conditional or matched by criticism. It’s frustrating for Tory supporters, I’m sure, but speaking as one I wouldn’t have it any other way; it is much better for democracy.
On the specific point, I think it is a fair point that Coulson et al have been a little slow to respond to the change in narrative - no doubt because it came as a huge surprise given the vitriol that had been aimed at Brown from across the media spectrum. But will the new narrative last? Unlikely. Brown the Champion of the World is a mantra that will only alienate him from other world leaders and which will look increasingly empty as one economy after another slides into recession. Nor will it be sustainable if, for example, the new president of the United States decides to prioritise three million jobs by rejecting Brown’s stance on protectionism. Finally, it will be of little value in this country when the jobs go.
Ultimately this Labour government will implode for good reasons. If it ever governed well, it did so on credit. We could all live the life of riley if we decided (and it was legally possible) to leave the debt to the children.
The Tories do need to give some idea of what they will do on the economy - or, for short term stuff, what they would have done if they were in power. Fairly detailed tax proposals before the PBR would be good. I was going to say let’s have a Shadow Budget come next March, but as Gordon might conceivably produce an election budget and immediately ask the Queen for a dissolution, that might be a bit sticky.
Kaletsky has been wrong to date but i guess past performance is no guide to future….etc.
More troubling is the Bank of England’s regular drip drip downgrade of our future prospects - first, a dip in growth, then, a narrowly missing recession, then a shallow but short lasting recession, then a shallow but risk of a longer recession. The latest is that it will be a deep but short lasting recession. Any guesses where the next pronouncement is headed?
43 - Ted
I agree with you. No party’s position is set in stone. We saw in the conference season of 2007 Labour’s lead in the opinion polls vanish in the course of a week. They haven’t regained it either. I remember arguing that this was the start of something big with Peter the Punter.
However, nothing is forever and no party has a right to its position in the polls for good or ill. The Conservatives have to work to keep the traction that they have built up. Labour have certainly sharpened up their presentation and their aggression. They have regained much media interest but I feel that their house is built on sand. And the tide is coming in.
47. It’s all very well saying that, but any firm proposals you make now are likely to be a) out of date within a few months, given the fluid economic situation and b) probably largely irrelevant - the recession is on and will have to run its course now. Government only has the power to act at the margins in these situations.
I think the idea that you can produce some rolls-royce set of wonderful proposals for instant recovery, that will catch the public mood, is a fantasy. I also think it is unnecessary as the damage Labour will suffer over the next few months from the deteriorating real economy will be huge.
[49] Indeed. Why is the recession worse here than elsewhere? Because NuLab’s economy was based on the financial services sector and zooming house prices. In other words, gambling.
You’d think posters on a betting site would appreciate that
24/28/34-True indeed. Although the language is “colourful” perhaps it just shows the utter loathing (sic) and contempt held for this government. For that matter if vile, scum, moron, turd, etc were attached to Tory, Republican, BNP, American (in pre Obama times of course!), etc would there be so much squaeling?
Like the R word it should be treated as a snapshot of public atittude to Labour.
According to the BBC, the pound has risen 1% against the dollar this morning. Shadow Chancellor speaks, and sterling soars!
53, but I thought sterling would collapse if Osborne talked it down?
Morning all
A last word from me before I head off on my hols to Las Vegas for some SERIOUS gambling
I’m no more a believer in the instant cure of tax cuts than I was in the instant cure of Government spending. I’m now of the view that the only way to rebuild the public finances will be tax rises AND spending cuts. Now, that’s about as unpopular and unpalatable as it gets but I don’t see any of the other panacea on offer having anything more than a short-term limited effect and leaving some longer-term problems.
We know, however, that there is a growing public willingness to accept spending cuts so that will be easier to “sell” thanb tax rises but I can’t see how the circle can be squared without cuts in spending being accompanied by some tax rises.
Anyway, I shall be off now to spend my last few pre-Crash dollars but in the knowledge that even at $1.40 you can still eat better and cheaper in Vegas than in London.
54, this is actually quite a weird moment. Whether it goes up or down, both Tories and Labour can argue they’ve been proved right.
Up =
Labour: Osborne was scare-mongering, behold his wrongness!
Conservative: Osborne’s words did not collapse the exchange rate, Labour were scare-mongering!
Down =
Labour: Look what evil Osborne has done by talking down the pound!
Conservative: the Shadow Chancellor accurately foresaw the effects of Brown’s recklessness.
41. ed. Labour’s USP is being SEEN to be better able to deal with the economy.
43. Very astute post Ted.
Mmm - add an alcoholic and a proven liar to the team - surely can’t end well.
55. There’s a glorious opportunity for the Tories, post a GE win, to dismantle Labour’s bloated client state using the cover of the need to restore the health of the public finances.
Privatise the Beeb and Channel 4, slash the civil service by a third, abolish 90% of quangos, shake out the vast overmanning in local government etc. etc…..
It’s a once in 50 years opportunity to cut Britain loose from the deadweight of public sector waste and hammer Labour’s long-term electoral propsects at the same time. I do hope they take it…
50 In many ways I agree, but it would be nice to know if they’re going to fall in with all the neo-Keynesian stuff or if there’s still a streak of classical/liberal economics in there somewhere.
They also have to counter the idea that if this happened on their watch, they wouldn’t have had a clue what to do about it.
The economy is important, with other important things you can give a general idea where you stand (eg personal liberty) so if something changes (eg a terrorist attack) people know how you will probably respond, and you can announce a policy based on your general principles. I don’t see why econmics should be different.
“Roger, I would love to know what you consider the Labour Party’s USP to be.”
Tax.
Spend.
Spy.
Roger doesn’t get it but I do.
+
I you want to hear odious spin, listen to Msndleson on 5 live this morning claiming that Osborne was talking down sterling because he was in trouble with his own party.
Mandleson is truly ODIOUS
60. No problems with outlining general principles - but getting into serious detail is very risky indeed in the current situation. You will likely end up announcing a series of footling measures each of which will be quickly superseded by events.
You will end up looking like the laughable Lib Dems with their endless series of silly tax plans that no-one takes a blind bit of notice of.
NY Times covers the G20 important meetings - no mention of Brown..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/worldbusiness/16summit.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&oref=slogin
62. I also heard the Pope is catholic and water has a certain wetness to it. Reports as to bears toilet habits are as yet unconfirmed, but a preference for large areas of aboreal verdance is rumoured.
61. Silly post Horse. We’ve had eleven years where our collective cup has overflowed. I can’t remember a Tory administration which achieved this for more than four. If we have one or two years of austerity it will have been ‘a price worth paying’ (as a sweaty chancellor with a silly sidekick once said!)
Incidentally I heard an economist say yesterday that if you include Northern Rock our borrowing is ALMOST at 1997 levels!
61 Control
The Conservatives are firmly entrenched in the low 40s% in the opinion polls despite Brown’s resurrection of Mandy and Campbell, despite ‘Yachtgate’, despite the win in Glenrothes, despite near universal favourable coverage in the ‘meja’ of his ’saviour of the Universe’ posturing.
The poisonous pair might sharpen up the Labour circus but, at rock bottom, they are working with ‘Crash’ Gordon. After wednesday’s PMQs they may be crying in their Krug.
66 Too much Krug for breakfast Roger? Jeeves needs a telling off.
66, that economist was obviously ignoring reality. Coffee House has explained why debt ‘is’ 37%: it’s a fiddle.
66 — “One or two years of austerity,” why am I reminded of Gabble’s notorious claim that “There will be no bust”?
I agree with Mikes premise that messers Mandelson and Campbell have helped the Labour mesage. They have done a great job on ressurecting Brown.
My main beef with the Conservatives though is, whatever happended to those two great media specialists who were supposed to be superior to Campbell; Andy Coulson and Stephen Carter?
They are obviously not doing their job. And isn’t one of them working from America, FGS! To have an effect on the media surely one need’s to be on tap and closer to home? E-mails are no substitute for sniffing the political air and having a finger on the westminster pulse.
Flockers makes a fair point about the Ecclestone donation - which bought a change in policy - and the Osbourne non-donation.
60 A Shadow Budget, or a Shadow PBR, has the benefit that it’s a one-off, it can be spun as “what we would do now, if we were in this situation and in power”. When asked “is this what you will do in your first budget in 2010/11?” the answer can be given “no, we will obviously be in a different situation then, but it’s an example of our thinking”.
I suppose the difficulty is getting it right. Maybe all Labour needs to do is tax the 49% of better off people and give the money to the other 51%.
57 Roger, to my mind, Labour’s USP has been to move Britain from being an individualist country governed by the principles of common law towards being a collectivist country more like much of Europe. It seems strange to say this, when it is such a right wing labour government, but the evidence is there. Middle class people can claim tax credits and are therefore drawn into becoming part of the tax-and-spend client state. Employment law has become so pervasive that it doesn’t just protect the weak from, the unprincipled, it now permeates the whole employment relationship. Detention without trial is proposed without a thought for the consequences, or seeking an alternative. The government tells us what we can eat, what car we can drive, whether we can get pissed, etc. Rather than take action against criminals, everybody’s freedoms are restricted. Cretinously stupid regulation ties up businesses large and particularly small. The public sector takes the smug view that it is entitled to soak us for eye-watering sums in tax, and then piss it up against the wall. The principle of common law used to be that if something was not banned, it was legal. That is being turned arse about face. Britain (and this is the first time I have ever said it) is being turned into somewhere I’m not sure I want to live.
62. I’m surprised that someone who calls themselves Maggie Thatcher fan can really be so green. I suggest you read some of (the presumably odious!) musings of Chris Grayling!
57 Roger, Labour governments always - always - run out of money in the end. It seems unlikely that the current lot have a chance of breaking this duck, if the collapse in sterling plus the obstinate refusal of the long end of the yield curve to listen to Gordon is anything to go by.
What everybody was discussing here a few days ago:
“If there is, as Labour claims, a convention that senior politicians don’t raise fears about the health of our currency the last Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke made clear yesterday he’d never heard of it.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086426/MAIL-COMMENT-Mr-Osborne-inconvenient-truth.html
76. Ah but Brown has an answer to the knotty problems of the long-end too - massive purchases of bonds by the Bank of England using printed money. That’s what Labour tried in the mid-1970s too, as I recall.
On topic. If Labour lose the next election what will happen to the Brown Mandy/Campbell pact. It could be carnage although I think the breakdown will start to appear sooner than later especially if there is a sudden downturn in Labour polling numbers.
79, Brown would surely be doomed anyway. Even the craven creatures in the Cabinet would not baulk at ousting a loathed, incompetent and defeated leader.
#66 And if you include Bradford and Bingley, the bank recap and our IMF mandated stimulus you arrive at a figure of around £770bn or around 50% of GDP, and we are not technically in recession yet.
So there you go - today proves that opposition politicians cannot talk down a currency.
The only thing that can devalue a currency is a cr*p economy and cr*p economic policy from government.
USA Today (a paper Americans actually read) covers the G20 important meetings - mention of Brown..
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2008-11-16-g20-analysis_N.htm
From an economic viewpoint there are a few important points to be made about the great tax cuts debate.
The Janet Daley’s of the world seem to think that all tax cuts are equal. They arent. The kind of tax cut that Gordon Brown is supposed to favour (and that I favour for stimulus purposes) is to give tax cuts to the poor. Mainly for equity and also for high marginal propensity to consume reasons.
The Daleys of this world seem to think that this is the same as any other tax cut. But, it isnt. If you want to boost long term growth, you need to cut capital gains and dividend taxes, you actually want to concentrate on the high end tax bracket rather than giving a helping hand to the poor. This is bad for equity, but does boost growth - the US Treasury did a dynamic model of this back in 2007.
Secondly, tax cuts of the second sort (boosting economic growth rates) only work if it is accompanied by a reduction in government spending - debt financed versions are much more questionable.
Large unfunded tax cuts will tend to suffer from precautionary saving - even if the consumers and the savers are different. A big splurge aimed at the poor will make the better off save in preparation for the eventual tax rise. Ideally a package would include commitments for spending cuts in future (to pay for the cost of the tax cuts today) that will reassure markets and taxpayers about medium term fiscal policy - and make the job of the BoE much easier.
On this latter point, it would be far more helpful if the government didnt spend all this effort on rubbishing every policy suggestion made by the Opposition and screaning “unfunded” every time, if they showed a bit more bi-partisanship and talked about the need for medium term fiscal responsibility. You can’t scream unfunded at the unemployment JSA scheme and then rabbit on about prudent tax cuts. It just makes the market nervous. The government should go on the record to say that it will be making spending cuts in future to help pay for the cost of the tax cuts today. It was the height of hypocrisy to attack Osborne for his warning about the currency market (although we need to keep an eye on gilts rather than Sterling), when the government should be doing something to reassure markets. But, these are political economy questions and Labour seems to only understand tribal politics.
On topic, I think Mandelson and Campbell are doing an amazing job. They manage to deflect attention from the gaping holes in the government’s (and Brown’s) competence and policies.
86. Ken, your economics posts are excellent. I’d say the average BBC reporter has about 10% on the insight you have.
Ed. Labour running out of money is only relevant if enough people can be convinced that the Tories have a plan or couldn’t do worse. At the moment the economy is far and away the issue that most people are concerned about and Labour lead on it. If there was an election in a months time I think Labour could win. The Tories best chance is fresh faces/time for a change. Exactly what people don’t want at a time of crisis.
88, actually, no. If the government cocks up hugely, they’ll get punished at the ballot box. Labour supported ERM entry but didn’t suffer electorally because the Tories were the ones in power.
66 Roger - 1997 was the peak of the deficit after 5 years of growth and Ken Clarke’s tax increases and controls on spending growth. At start of downturn in 1989 deficit was below 30%.
Returning deficit to the level it was in 1989 took until 2001 (with Gordon following Ken’s spending plans). Brown then over 6 years increased deficit towards the peak when in it should have been either stable or preferably reducing.
Talk is of adding 1 or 2% GDP of additional borrowing, up to £30bn, on top of the additional 4% of GDP deficit already forecast this year. Next year without additional spending deficit is expected to be £100 bn - another 6% of GDP on debt. Bringing it down to manageable levels again will take several more years so where will the peak National Debt stand this time round?
81. The deficit level is the bigger problem though. Were we running a surplus as was the case in 1999-2000 at the end of the previous period of strong growth, the government would be able to support the economy without a massive expansion of borrowing.
But instead, we start from a position where the deficit is already large, and will (at least) double merely due to the automatic effects of the downturn - higher welfare payments and lower tax receipts. On top of that, Brown and his circle are speculating about huge additional spending, implying a public sector deficit in excess of 10% of GDP.
Borrowing on this scale risks pushing up bond yields and short-circuiting the recovery. That problem wouldn’t exist if the government were able to draw down past accumulated surpluses.
The apparent fallback plan based on massive purchases of long-term debt is reckless in the extreme.
We can only hope that most of the crazed ideas swirling around at present prove to be the usual spin and dissembling.
87. Can I suggest that this more than anything is behind their general parroting on the economy rather than criticising.
74
Of course as we all know, when it comes to, ‘donations’ the Tories are squeaky clean?
http://tinyurl.com/5jo67e
p.s.
It always seems to be the Mail, that gives this stuff precedence: Dacre really doesn’t like Cameron does he!
90 Rubbish error in my post - Deficit should read debt ( distracted by audio call in background)
87. Don’t flatter them Ghost.
24 - I am sorry to upset your delicate sensitivities. I accept that liberal use of boorish language in the hands of those of us not as talented as the amusing SeanT, is neither big nor clever.
However, the reality is that the government which you represent has wreaked havoc on our country and the current Prime Minister bears the greatest responsibility. He has no thought other than to tax us to death, waste the money on buying support, follow our every move and expect a grateful tugging of the forelock if he should as much as smile in our direction, let alone return a small proportion of our pillaged cash, minus the handling costs.
If we cannot be angry about that, what does it take. To see the most irresponsible Chancellor in our history after wasting our birthright through his profligate ways and irresponsibility be feted as some kind of economic superman is more than some of us can take.
After more a decade of growth, our economy is extremely fragile. Its the result of an attitude toward risk that would get Mr Brown fired from the most rapacious hedge fund.
106 on last thread - Nick P
Nick,
Thanks for the info. I am happy to stand corrected, naturlich.
Rob
Mandelson and Campbell are a formidable team, but it is the outrageous bias from the BBC that is really doing the damage. Until that it dealt with, the Conservatives are going to struggle badly.
Many of the Conservative mistakes from recent weeks are entirely their own doing.
http://www.lettersfromatory.com
I definitely think that Campbell and Mandy are media savvy and have the inside contacts to get their message in the press. However, they may be good, very good in fact, at spinning stories and getting plenty of the right media attention, but they aren’t miracle workers.
The reason it worked so successfully with Blair was that he be briefed with some keep lines and put into operation the advice he was given. The ability to be quick on his feet to get around the likes of the Baby P issue allowed him to get out of many sticky points. Finally, he was also running on a feeling of “at last we good rid of the damn Tories, so give him a chance”.
As the past week has shown, Brown, whatever the advice he is given, he is always a fag paper away from a PR disaster. You can be briefed up to the eye balls, but if you get thrown a curve ball and if you swing and miss are only going to look a bit of a fool. If swing, miss, and fall on your arse, people to start to forget what you were saying and ask if you were fit to be at the plate in the first place. You know Blair would have thrown himself (or more likely somebody else) in the way of the curve ball to make sure it didn’t pass.
We know now why while Chancellor, Brown pretty much only ever spoke at set piece events, such as the budget, where he had months to prepare and had little direct incoming fire to respond to there and then. Whenever possible he side stepped a grilling, instead sending the likes of Timms in his place.
During an election campaign, it will be interesting to see if the spin twins can keep it going day in day out for a month. They certainly have their work cut out. One thing is for certain, after looking fairly close to having the introduction of US presidential style debates, there isn’t a cat’s hell chance of one this time around. More’s the pity IMO, not because Cameron would likely batter Brown, but I actually think from a voters point of view they allow them to get a better feel of who is the better leader (Yes I know we don’t elect a PM, we elect an MP who forms a government etc).
Osoborne talks a bit of long needed sense and the pound rises almost 3 cents against the dollar!
100. Or perhaps it’s just another example of how when the mainstream media and the wider public start talking about currency moves, those moves are almost certain to go into reverse…
The expression “you can’t polish a turd” was first coined by Lorraine Langham, then Assistant Chief Executive with Hackney Council, who went on to etsablish verve Communications, a company with extensive links to Labour controlled local authorities.
100 Or, Labour narrow Tory poll lead and the pound rises almost 3 cents against the dollar!
100. Yes, I did point out that Osborne’s intervention might draw attention to the need for the government to keep an eye on the markets - and could well reassure the markets. No doubt he will be attacked for
1) Driving up sterling and hurting exporters
2) Talking nonsense (there never was a problem)
3) For having driven down Sterling (???)
4) Being a rich git
Or all of the above. The “convention” is such tosh. The latter had Mandelson/Campbell’s touch btw.
99 - I should have expanded on my final points. What I meant was that it was good thing for now and the future of politics. To see how a possible PM with deal with been under fire, as they will be on many occasion as leader. Also it highlights the differences and also allows the either possible leader to be grilled on things that maybe they wouldn’t like to talk about, but are important issues, like the UK place in the EU. Neither Brown or Cameron like talking about Europe, but it is important issue, which at election time I am sure both will avoid at all costs.
From the Times.
Pound’s fall may herald recovery not doomAnatole Kaletsky: Economic view
It’s an ill wind that blows no good. The US Treasury’s decision to bankrupt Lehman Brothers and expropriate the shareholders in Fannie Mae caused the worst financial crisis in history, but it also secured the presidency for Barack Obama and is now transforming the economic and political landscape of Britain. The dithering incompetence of Henry Paulson has, by force of contrast, restored the credibility of Gordon Brown, both as Prime Minister and as an international leader. The UK economy, which had previously looked more vulnerable to the global recession than any other G7 country, is now likely to suffer less than the rest of Europe, as a result of unprecedented policy stimulus from the lowest interest rates in history, a super-competitive currency and a big reduction in tax. Meanwhile, the Conservative Opposition in Britain has been confused, discredited and splintered by the financial crisis as badly as John McCain’s campaign.
Hmmm obviously hasn’t been reading the comments on PB!
Morning all,
Mandelson and Campbell being back in town has had a huge impact. Brown having an economic crisis has given them good material to work with, but they’ve still done extraordinarily well.
It’s been two pronged - making Gordon look good as PM (which will continue as long as possible, but will probably run out of steam in the next couple of months when the recession gets better/worse), and making the Tories look bad. There no end in sight to the second one, because it doesn’t require consistency, just vitriolic fervour and energy.
The ‘increase Gordon’s favourables’ is a tough job but has been well covered here. I’m more interested in the ‘increase Tory unfavourables’ side of the equation.
They’ve picked on Osborne - specifically Osborne - leaving Cameron well alone. This is an instinctive argument, with only a passing acquintance with reason. The scrabble-around-and-find-a-rationale is “GO isn’t ready to be Chancellor”, but in reality it’s because he’s from a posh background, ha a squeaky voice, and is unlikeable. None of that needs ever be said, but that’s why he is the one they are targetting.
The other reason is they recognise that he is the biggest figure who is vulnerable. You’d never get Hague, in the same way you’d never topple David Davis. Osborne is the most vulnerable of the Tier 1 Conservatives. That’s why they’ve gone for him.
In his first PMQs, Cameron went in having said that he would co-operate with the Gvt on certain things, no more Punch & Judy politics, and there was talk that he would help Blair pass the Education Bill that was seeing a big Labour rebellion.
The rebellion was likely because the Chief Whip, Hillary Armstrong, was not up to the role. Cameron made a point, before his first question, about her acting like a child (heckling etc) and named the Chief Whip. Having attacked her, Blair couldn’t sack her (as had apparently been on the cards) because it would look like capitulation to the new Leader of the Opposition, to give him the scalp of the first person he named.
By attacking her, Cameron ensured that Blair would keep Armstrong as Chief Whip, meaning Blair would have to rely on Cameron’s votes to pass the Education Bill. Brilliant.
In the same way, I don’t think GO should be Shadow Chancellor, but by attacking him, Labour force Cameron to keep him there or face a very serious embarassment. If he stays, the net unfavourables grow; if he goes, they get a month of news cycles about Cameron’s ’settled Shadow Cabinet’ coming off the rails. It doesn’t have to be true, it has to be spinnable.
Oh, and this has s*d all to do with BBC ‘bias’ - *if* it exists, it is cultural and has minimal impact. Wipe the froth off your mouths and get over it.
I think Mike’s article raises some valid concerns. So far the narrative has been pro-Labour and very hostile [not just negative] to the Tories.
But drawing on Rawnlsey’s article - it’s easy when you wait with baited breath for the next poll to become short sighted.
The real question posed is whether it will continue.
Sky news are already backing off today on Osborne, not for the first time. Their city expert has pretty much put Osborne’s side of the argument ‘explaining he is only stating the facts’. Oglaza who may not have too much time to do anything than read press releases seems to be backing off.
The Times etc have come out in support.
Mandy and co were great at short term narrative and but really never had much to contend with.
Here’s the rub. They are still good at the short term and in a 24 hour news feast are good at getting ill-considered ‘immediate to camera’ responses.
However, they are not as good at getting considered ones.
Over the past months we have had occasions when the TV press has had a knee jerk Labour reaction followed by a more considered dead tree press response [Gordon's speech, Cameron's speech, Osborne/Corfu/Sterling].
Sky look silly this morning. Can they continue to accept the ramping with out losing face.
107. “Oh, and this has s*d all to do with BBC ‘bias’” - agreed otherwise Tories would be winning the media war elsewhere instead, which they aren’t. Your point about Osborne is spot on, regardless of whether you think he should be there or not, Cameron can’t move him as it will be seen as a victory for his opponents.
[86 - Ken] I want to be sure that I’ve understood you. You seem to be saying that economic growth depends on increasing inequality. Can you point to any graphs of long-term economic performance in real economies that substantiate this?
In my experience, the actual data rarely fit theories particularly well.
Oh, looks like Brown is picking another fight over presumed consent. After the government quango has rejected his idea, he has said he won’t rule out it. To me that is always coded language for sod the quango advise its my way or the highway. I do wonder why he sets up all these quangos reviews, if like the drugs finding on cannabis he is going to ignore them. Why doesn’t he just do what he thinks his moral compass tells him is the right thing to do.
I do find it really odd that in a time when you popularity is showing some signs of recovery, you go picking fights like the 42 day one again. Being on the wrong side of the argument for no reason like week with Baby P, now if he does try to push through presumed consent I can see it adding just more trouble by dividing opinion.
I think it does show another fundamental character flaw, one of not being able to lose a small battle in order to win the war. Again something Blair excelled at. He could easily let it drop and come back to it another day (when the quango has been cleaned of people off message :-)). Furthermore, although personally I think it is a very important issue, again I am sure the public want to see stuff about the economy and jobs everyday, not what many will see some side issue.
106. That’s bonkers.
I may be alone here but I don’t detect any real problem for the Conservative. The idea of the Tories being on the rack whilst Labour surges is, to me at least, a little behind the curve. The media narrative, particularly at the BBC, has shifted somewhat and the Conservatives are now successfully articulating an alternative economic view. Likewise, despite Labour’s improvement, the Tory poll rating has remained above 40%. The party has emerged intact from what could have been a potentially destructive few weeks.
O/T - this should just about make Seant’s day:
http://tinyurl.com/5gg5dk
(Poll showing a very narrow lead for a ‘yes’ vote on a rerun of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.)
The poll lead seems far too low for the government to risk it right now in my opinion, Fianna Fáil are absolutely tanking in the polls thanks to their perceived mishandling of the financial situation and they hardly want to hand the electorate an opportunity to whack them. But they also have to propose a resolution to the situation at next month’s council of ministers. No market on it yet that I can see.
Looks like Yougov have been doing some push polling for Barnardos. I hate these dishonest exercises.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/11/17/charity-shocked-by-animal-children-tag-91466-22271874/
“Charity shocked by ‘animal’ children tag”
No they weren’t. That’s why the commissioned the poll, because that’s what they wanted people to say, so they’d get their name in the papers.
The findings:
‘According to a YouGov poll commissioned by the children’s charity Barnardo’s, 53% of adults thought children were beginning to behave like animals, while 49% said children were increasingly dangerous both to each other and to adults.’
Unfortunately the actual questions that were asked doesn’t appear to have been published. Can anyone find a copy, so I can laugh at how pathetic the polling certainly was?
I guess the media publish this garbage because they need to fill space
107. I think your desperate defence of the BBC would be easier to accept if we didn’t see, over and over again, BBC presenters and journalists repeating Labour spin lines and faithfully following the Labour script on so many issues.
Perhaps it is ‘cultural’ - the large number of BBC current affairs staff who are either open Labour supporters or closely related to senior Labour figures might produce a similar effect.
But it is real and tangible, and does have an effect. If it didn’t, Labour wouldn’t expend the time and effort that it does to maintain this bias - indeed, it wouldn’t bother with media management at all, and this whole thread would be pointless.
106-Coldstone-A little late with that article,I posted this article in the other thread!
Just a coincidence that as soon as Osborne says something that they think is a gaffe he’s given a big interview.
115. The problem is that the Beeb was running with Labour’s spin on Osborne’s article as the main story. “George Osborne has come under fire blah blah….” - that is not news.
109 The Tories are doing reasonably well with ITV, The Times, The Sun.
The mail is hit and miss for both parties [and is supportive of Osborne today].
The problem is with the Telegraph [pretend right wing variety], the BBC [radio and TV] and Sky news.
The later has a bigger effect overall - in the short term.
The pound having risen after Osborne spoke, if it should slide again in say the next few weeks* will he be (i) immunised from blame and/or (ii) be seen as a great prophet for pointing out Labour’s financial folly?
* After a Chancellor’s Statement, say….
39 Scott
I don’t do Gabble rubbish. Mirthios?
The Economy?
Think 1971 to 1981..but worse is my view…
98
BBC bias?
Of course the BBC are biased.
What would you think of a poltical party whose more vociferous members called for the privatisation of the BBC, cutting the license fee etc..?
If you were the BBC you would think they were your sworn enemies and treat them as such.
If you were Labour you would assure the BBC they are safe with you.
If you are David Cameron you would tell the BBC they are safe… and possibly change your mond if and when you win power.
It’s a simple fact of life that most Conservative posters do not seem to learn: attack a news organisation and threaten it and it will respond. It’s simple Pavlovian reactions.
But as the more right wing Conservative agitators appear to be less sensible than a poodle
111. When its not on the economy - he is pants. Day time telly having a go at this policy now.
[116 - Me] It simply isn’t possible to read everything that’s written on here and have a life at the same time.
The only reason why Campbell and Mandelson’s spin works is that it seems the only requirement to be a journalist these days (with due respect to our host) is to have one’s brain taken out and the inability to think taken away.
Many of Brown’s facts are demonstrably untrue - so transparent that a thick 5 year old could spot them - yet the journalists swallow them wholesale. I have never heard any journalist question Brown and Darling on the grotesque Enronesque accounting responsible for the splurge of school and hospital building.
Oh, and this has s*d all to do with BBC ‘bias’ - *if* it exists, it is cultural and has minimal impact. Wipe the froth off your mouths and get over it.
I think the bias is very real and recently much greater than ever before. The BBC over the past 2-3 months overall couldn’t have been any more pro-Labour if they tried. They always try and put a positive spin on pretty much everything. Furthermore, as we discussed on this site last week, name a paper is that out and out Tory anymore. The Express was the only answer, and it is debatable if it is a newspaper :-).
The old Tory cheerleaders of the Telegraph, The Mail (plus probably The Times historically), all have given Labour, especially Brown, more than enough positive cover, while blowing up the YachtGate/Osborne story completely out of proportion.
I’m not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I think it is definitely real.
112 Agree - the real narrative is “Labour doing very badly - just not doing quite as badly as they were this summer. For now. Until the upcoming recession bites them in the arse. And when everyone realises that their “world-leading” answer to get us out of the problem caused by a massive mountain of personal debt is to incur the Himalayan range of state debt. To be paid off over not just one economic cycle - but over several generations.”
119. I think by and large all will choose what to report and how depending on the nature of the story and the force of the spin from the relevant sources. At present I go along with Mike’s view that Labour have bucked up their spin operation.
Howver, I also think that the media like to create circumstances for a decent scrap. e.g. it’s far better to watch two closely matched boxers pummel eachother for 12 rounds in an orgy of conflict and blood as opposed to a quick first round knockout where the obvious favourite wins.
re 15 I am sure that there are scores at Westminster who would be happy to sponsor the necessary Bill of Attainder.
110
“You seem to be saying that economic growth depends on increasing inequality.”
Facts of life:
People generate ideas and money.. Entrepreneurs.
They grow comapnies and become very rich.
Their employees become richer.
But the wealth of the owner is based on wealth of the company. See Bill Gates and Microsoft.
See Chinese millionaires
See Indian ditto,
See russian ditto.
See US millionaires on 19th century.
Wealth creation depends on key gifted and riven individuals. THEY make the ideas work. They ensure they are rewarded.
See Dyson worth £1 billion.
Equality is for the birds in economic growth.
Of course if you want real equality try N Korea…No growth, no millionaires. All equal. Poor.
(John Lonny will no doubt disagree)
Peston’s blog:
‘So some will feel it’s a little unfair that so much opprobrium has been heaped on the head of George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, for warning that there’s a risk of a damaging run on the pound, in the event that our national debt was perceived to have escalated to worryingly high levels.
Maybe, locked in the bowels of the Treasury, there is a secret book of fiscal and monetary etiquette that defines what chancellor and shadow chancellor may say at times of economic crisis. Maybe Osborne has committed a terrible breach of the Treasury’s club rules, the equivalent of passing the port in the wrong direction.
That said, perhaps it was the furious reaction of ministers to Osborne’s remarks that was more telling, in what it implied about their fears for sterling’s vulnerability.’
29
Sorry John Loony not Lonny.
maybe people should stop attacking the BBC. But it is hard when bias is very clear. I love the Beeb but it has a serious blind spot about bias. it is ingrained. not sure how you alter it and get it back to impartiality. certainly not by threatening it. but also somethings do need saying.
100/103. The reason the £ put on cents this morning while all markets are falling is that someone/ some group are making a play with the £/$ this morning.
Bet’s as to the outcome?
re the Telegraph - the business section is still excellent. The political section is a disaster.
126. I agree and what has taken me by surprise is the argument, put forward by the Conservatives, that this package will merely postpone tax rises until another day, is actually being conveyed by the MSM. That alone is an achivement. I expected it to be completely glossed over but the Conservative message is now getting across.
re 134..
By Damian Reece
Last Updated: 7:07AM GMT 12 Nov 2008
Comments 1 | Comment on this article
In his Budget speech of 2001, Gordon Brown identified for the benefit of Parliament what he saw as the “short-termist mistakes of the 1980s”.
Chief among them was “unfunded, unaffordable tax cuts”. His analysis back then was right. Pity he’s decided it’s now expedient to change that view, arguing that unfunded tax cuts are affordable and good for the long term.
His excuse is the onset of recession, a recession he and his profligate borrowing and spending helped bring about. Brown identifies a consensus among world leaders that says borrowing even more to pass on as tax cuts is the only way to deliver a meaningful economic jump start. It’s also a conveniently timed way of bribing people for votes, a Labour bung disguised as an economic rescue package.
But do you really fancy borrowing more at the moment? That’s simply what Brown and Alistair Darling will be proposing in the forthcoming Pre-Budget Report, borrowing on your behalf on the glib assumption that you, your children and grandchildren will somehow pay at a later date.
Brown is ignoring the evidence. Households and companies are making cutbacks to repay debt and conserve cash to see them through the inevitable bad times. They’ve learnt expensive lessons from the credit boom and are changing. A recidivist Brown is merely seeking refuge in his worst socialist instincts. At the least the Tory tax plans announced yesterday to boost employment have the advantage of being thought through and funded. Labour should be reshaping the economy by cutting money from the wasteful and unproductive areas of the public sector and transferring it to the wealth creating private sector through a combination of targeted tax cuts plus spending on future growth areas. All this would take some thought however, a skill Labour is lacking in when it comes to managing our economic affairs.
I forgot to say about the YouPoll thing. According to BBC phone in this morning, the comment was made by one of the panel (and not challenged) “it’s discrimination, the same people who have answered the poll are the same ones who have messed up our economy and messed up our planet. They have no right to discriminate against young people have they”. Got to get the BBC hourly quota of the GLOBAL financial meltdown and global warming in (just joking :-)).
132. The bias cannot be shifted without massive intervention. I’m afraid the Conservatives have to try to bypass the BBC and other institutionally Labour-supporting media as much as possible in the runup to the GE. The reckoning can come later.
123-InnocentAbroad- I know! I usually post links that I think other people already posted. In this I’m just pointing out to him that it was already posted in the other thread.
As I have said for many months, Ozzie is an electoral liability. Rightly or wrongly, he lacks credibility and his public image is completely shot. And he is simply not tough enough to take on Campbell and Mandelson – Dennis the Menace and Gnasher to his Walter the Softie.
The Tories could knife poor Ozzie now, take a short term poll hit, and get a Ken Clarke figure in and waltz to a 60 majority in 2010.
But does Cameron have it in him to sack his friend?
139-Should read in this case….
140, I couldn’t disagree with you more.
His performance does need to sharpen up, but we’ve seen possibly the beginning of that with the sterling warning and a good performance on the Andrew Marr Show.
Ken Clarke won’t come back, except as leader, I think.
Osborne should stay where he is, but not slide back into the lethargy which preceded his recent strong media appearances.
Phil C at 31 - refer you to post 7, which most of the ‘turd’ posts followed. Of course Serf is entitled to his views, but posts that rely on calling opponents turds, morons, retards etc. drag the site down and don’t do much for their own credibility. And yes, that would also apply if we were discussing David Cameron or indeed Nick Griffin. It’s playground stuff.
140. This Osborne out, Ken Clarke in is standard Labour spin and about 6 months old. Only spouted by lefties.
I’m going to start a new one - Smith is a liability as Home Secretary - only “tough on the causes of crime” Tony Blair can save Labour in 2010.
Smith out, Blair in.
140 - well, he seems to have come out well enough after this weekend.
46 / Flockers - “Large swathes of the media suspended their critical faculties during Labour’s first term (in particular), failing in their duty to hold the Government to account”.
This is a serious misreading of roles, though one widely shared, not least in parts of the media. It is the opposition’s role to hold the government to account; it is the media’s role to report the news.
110. Innocent abroad. Too much inequality is bad. Too little inequality is also bad.
Economic growth is boosted by increasing rewards to the suppliers of capital and the most productive (eg highly remunerated individuals). That taxes are spent on public goods and to an extent on redistribution can be positive, better infrastructure = higher potential growth, providing education to the poor who dont have access to capital markets to pay for education = higher potential growth. But, taxes spent on more “equality” managers = drag on growth. I am not one of the people who says “cut taxes and tax revenues rise” - the whole Laffer curve thing - it generally isnt true. I am also not saying that cutting taxes is always the right thing to do. But, if you want to enhance growth you cut tax on capital gains and dividends - it results in more productive investment. (This is an economic given).
So if you take a look at the growth rates of countries with low tax rates, they tend to outperform those with higher tax rates. Think Asian miracle vs South America. So for a very extreme view of this you can go to the following:
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html
Imagine a country with no taxes. No education for the poor. No roads. No enforceable contracts. Lots of inequality. Really lousy growth rates. (Basically think of African basket cases). Obviously too much inequality.
Now imagine a country with very high tax rates. Everyone is educated, the roads are good. But, you dont get to keep anything you make. Everyone is equally poor. You cant leave to maximise your returns. (North Korea - also lousy growth rates).
Now think about Sweden vs US. Sweden has very redistributive policies. It grows, but a bit more slowly than the US, which has less redistribution. Could the Swedes get a bit more growth by cutting taxes, yes. Would it increase inequality, yes, a bit. Is that acceptable? Not in the Swedish system (although they lose lots of people to emigration). The relationship between lowering taxes and increasing economic growth isnt linear and there are trade-offs, but it does exist. And yes, it will increase inequality - and I am not convinced by trickle-down. (The other Reaganite myth).
The rise in sterling against both dollar and euro is sustained. Impossible now to blame Osborne, plenty of time for maket to have digested his comments, which were justified. From now on, it seems to me, currency movements will be market reaction to government policy.
143. Quite right. Incompetent, semi-autistic lying misanthrope is a far better description of Brown.
[129] I’m in no position to speak for them, but I think that Bill Gates and James Dyson would be most upset to be compared to post-Soviet kleptocrats, for a start.
It’s certainly an arguable position to hold that human history suggests that either everybody is dirt poor or else almost everybody is merely poor, but that doesn’t strike me as anything for anyone to crow about. I find Bill-the-Plumber fantasies of future wealth as a determinant of current political allegiance pathological. Most people here don’t - but, hey, you’re gamblers and I’m not, so where’s the surprise…
142 I think you will see the best of Osborne once he can react to the upcoming Chancellor’s Statement. Like a frenzied terrier opening the post, he should be able to tear Labour’s eceonomic credibility into tiny little bits - and leave it in shreds on the carpet.
He’s just waiting for the postie to arrive…waiting…waiting….
I agree with a lot of the earlier posters who say that the effect of Mandy and Campbell will not stretch for another 18 months.
All the more reason, therefore, to have an early election next year, while Labour are still within a few points of the COnservatives in the polls.
Observers of the Next Election odds on Betfair yesterday afternoon might have noticed bets matched briefly at less than 2/1 for the first half of 2009 and the odds of a 2010 election matched at almost evens.
If the general collective on here don’t think the Mandy/Campbell effect won’t last for another 18 months, it is reasonable to assume that there are those in the Labour Party who will also share that view.
The 2010 odds are still far too low imo.
129. Madasafish. Ah, so we both default to N.Korea as the ultimate high tax state. So high is its tax rate that you cannot even emigrate without the risk of being shot.
Morning all,
Yes, there is no doubt that Labour’s presentation has been dramatically improved over the last couple of months. I’ve no idea whether Campbell and Mandelson are the main people behind this, or whether there are others, but whoever is responsible is doing a good job. The contrast with last summer - when they were doing a spectacularly bad job - is extraordinary.
It’s not just media spin and placing of stories. It’s also keeping MPs and other spokesmen ‘on-message’. That is also being done well. For example, the (admittedly absurd) line of attack on Osborne’s warnings about Sterling has been consistently applied. Although it is manifest nonsense, by repeating it clearly and consistently, Labour have managed to give it some credence in the media. This is not media bias, necessarily; it’s good news management by Labour.
Conversely, I have to admit the Tories have been doing less well in this respect. A good example is countering Brown’s lies about public borrowing. EVERY Conservative spokesman or MP should have the figures at his or her fingertips, and immediately nail the lies in clear and simple language (and that means avoiding terms like ‘off-balance sheet financing, which most people won’t understand). They really need to get this message across consistently and strongly.
How much difference will Labour’s improved news management make in the medium term? Clearly some, but I think reality will kick in. As I have posted before, the fundamentals haven’t changed, Brown is still Brown, and the economy is in a bad way - and will get worse.
147 Another tip-top post, sir. A credit to the site.
Ho ho!
Much preciousness from Nick P I see, just because he doesn’t want us to remind him that Brown is an incompetent, dangerous smelly stool, that some diarrhetic sod has dumped in the middle of Whitehall and expects the rest of us to avoid stepping in it.
146 - It is, however, the media’s role to report the news accurately. The ears of far too many journalists should be burning beetroot this morning having fallen for the suggestion that George Osborne had broken any kind of convention. I don’t blame Labour for putting the suggestion out there (though it was a dangerous ploy for it to take), but 30 seconds’ thought should have made it abundantly clear that it was rubbish and 5 minutes’ research should have confirmed its non-existence.
re 136 Ghost of HF we’ve been borrowing ever since this lot came in. Every single school, surgery and hospital since 1997 has been bought on the never never.
155, aye. Ken’s economic posts are very insightful, and far better than the primary school reports put forward by most of the media (and without the market-destroying effects of moronic Peston).
157. ‘research’??? don’t be silly…
156, that’s an appalling post. Surely it’s diarrhoetic?
140 What if he turns out to be right about a few things?
Cameron would sack him if he thought it was the right thing. There is mileage in attacking Osborne now, but the media are thick: if it starts to go wrong for Gordon, they will start on him, declaring Osborne the boy genius.
You can’t have knee jerk reactions to short term narrative the media. That’s the job of spread betters do!
Does Peston feel he has to explain himself on sterling?
‘Which is why on the Ten O’Clock News last Thursday I highlighted sterling’s weakness against the euro as a particular concern.’
I wonder if both sides will be put just because they don’t really know what is happening and are frightened of having to say ‘Oh I did tell you about this, honestly!’
After failing to spot this comimg, having rather complacient about our debt, they will look abit siily if they dismiss theories getting attention which then turn out to be right.
137 - Oracle, you’ll like this - it generates BBC message-board comments, very authentically: http://tinyurl.com/5f4hbg
Nick Palmer:
Gordon Brown *is* a turd, a moron, an emotional retard. He’s a dangerous, incompetent, socially inept, lying, intellectually stunted liar.
I know he’s *your* turd, but he’s a turd nonetheless.
re 154 not so. It is not news that people like McFall think this ot that about Osborne’s views on the currency. There is no convention, there never has been, and Brown just wants to stifle all opposition. That is news and the media should have been putting it across loud and clear.
Pressed accidentally…..yikes.
Right I’m going to deliver some Tory literature.
If you can’t get it on the news, get it in the letter box.
154 - Another excellent post (like Ken’s) that goes right to the quick and correctly so.
158 Rawnsley’s comment this weekend nailed the Labour economic model in one short line - “the never never is the new prudence”.
There must be so many comments which will come back to haunt Brown on the subject of economic management. I suspect a Tory Task Force is compiling them this very moment…and ultimately, they will have more effect than anything Mandy and Campbell can spin.
“Brown - five more years!” No ta….
I hope this hasn’t already been posted!
From the Standard.
Get your story straight, George Osborne is told
Joe Murphy, Political Editor
SHADOW chancellor George Osborne came under renewed pressure today when a Tory MP urged him to “find a narrative” to explain his policies to voters.
Westminster and Cities of London MP Mark Field said Labour was beating the Tories on economic arguments because it had a clear analysis to offer voters.
“Labour have a narrative they’re very comfortable with, more intervention, more state spending… and the Conservatives have got to find a narrative too,” Mr Field said. His comments came after Mr Osborne caused a political storm at the weekend by predicting that Gordon Brown’s plans for a tax and spend giveaway funded by higher borrowing could cause a run on the pound.
But the markets showed no sign of panic at today’s opening. Sterling rose slightly and then dropped back, falling against the dollar by 0.65 cents to $1.4725. Against the euro, s terling was down 1.08 cents to $1.2602.
Mr Osborne defended his comments against Labour accusations that he had risked making the economic crisis worse. “My job as shadow chancellor is to tell the British people the truth about the British economy,” he said. Tory leader David Cameron is expected to use a speech tomorrow to make clear that he supports Mr Osborne’s policies. Tory sources have dismissed claims of a threat to Mr Osborne’s position. Business Secretary Lord Mandelson today said Mr Osborne’s remarks were “reckless”, adding: “Both he and David Cameron at different times over the last couple of months have advocated quite different policies.”
Mr Osborne used weekend interviews to step up his attack on Labour for borrowing too much. “We are warning the country that Gordon Brown is abandoning fiscal responsibility,” he told the BBC.
I don’t know what happened there, beter go for coffee!!
163 - That is superb.
154 Quite so. There is no point in having political and economic analysts if they don’t analyse.
The argument that its the opposition’s fault they can’t get a fair hearing when they are trying to get air time is wrong.
The public are the jury but the media act as the judge. If they don’t allow the other side time on the sofa, quote selectively, choose expert witnesses from one side only, use one side’s argument in the summing up, you are not going to win the case.
Yes - Gordon Brown is a turd.
However i don’t think this site is the place for such coarse language. Take it to Guido!
171. Recently the BBC has been reaching for the black cap even before the trial has started, Melchett-style.
115 - The attack is too pathetic to warrant a ‘desperate defence’.
I’m prepared to meet you half-way: there is a cultural lefty bias in most public service media, more ‘anti-Tory’ than pro-Labour, but many of those guilty would deny it, and genuinely believe they are being neutral.
What I don’t accept is that the bias of the BBC, which is nowhere near as extreme as is claimed, is responsible for the Tories poor coverage.
How about the centre-rght media? ITV? Sky? All British newspapers except the Guardian, Independent and Mirror?
The BBC is a great big distraction. Win the game, stop moaning about the pitch.
152. Yes - thanks to those who think 2009 is a go-er I’ve been topping up my 2010 at over 1.7.
As Nick Palmer says - why would Labour go early just to lose by less ?
129 Madasafish. Yes. Totally correct!
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. ”
-AND-
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Both quotes by Winston Churchill, of course.
[147] Thanks, Ken.
Couple of thoughts. First, as you have offered a global reach, suppose you were hired as an economic adviser to the first post-Castro government in Cuba (which, with an Obama presidency, may get a fair wind). AIUI Cuba ought to be a “tiger” because it has the best-educated workforce in the region. Would you suggest it went for the American or the Swedish model?
Second, none of your excellent analysis really bears directly on the choices facing our government to-day. As you suggest, these things are clearer at the extremes. I found the link delightful - revenue-maximising tax rates exist, and are known - yet governments diverge from them! I wonder why…
140: Osbourn has shot up in my estimation with his fightback about the £, about which he is absolutely correct.
On topic, yes they are the spinmeisters, but they cannot spin 3 million unemployed and -1.7% growth plus ballooning debt and a collapsing pound. If the public fall for it and vote this lot back in, emigration might be the only course left.
174. Sorry but if you start abusing your opponents by telling them to wipe the froth from their mouths (bit early in the day for me) then I think you are indeed getting a little desperate.
But I agree with you 50% nevertheless - there’s little mileage in just complaining about bias because it won’t be shifted. I think the Tories probably thought six months ago that the BBC might have altered its attitudes - that was complacent. Under pressure, the Beeb has reverted to its default position of slavish support for Labour.
As I said upthread, this is a fact of life and the Conservatives need to bypass the BBC as much as possible now, including via developing alternative channels of communication at the local/cyber level. The drawing and quartering of the Beeb can come later.
Osbourne has done well over the last few days, his appearence on Marr was particularly good, as he had Marr all ends up throughout. Labour desperately want Osbourne out, however they’ve underestimated his political aptitude and his closeness to Cameron.
148: “from now on”?
Please explain how in any way shape or form, the markets could even theoretically have moved in response to the comments of a poltiician who has no executive power?
George Osbourn can no more “talk the pound down” than I can, it is ridicuous to suggest it. The markets move according to facts, not Osbourn’s opinion (which IMHO is correct, if a little late)
Osbourn would have had more credibilty had he said what he did at around $1.70 and sliding, when he would have been proved entirely correct. In fact we have to hope that the collapse of 30% is as bad as it gets, although if Brown continues talking down the pound with any more unguarded comments about further interest rate cuts I wouldn’t bet on it.
Market WILL respond to Brown’s comments, since he actually has power…
143 OK I missed that one, I agree it’s a bit more ad hominem but still along the lines of not polishing poo…
But this is an internet bulletin board and people use robust language, much as they do in the pub. While I don’t usually go as far as some, if someone is promoting a really stupid policy then I think moron or retard is fair comment.
UBS’s take on the G20:
Overall, the G20 meeting was largely a re-statement of already implemented or muted policy responses.
While it re-affirmed the necessity for strong national counter-cyclical monetary and fiscal responses, it offered little in the way of new initiatives to support growth. The considerable
attention paid to financial regulatory and supervisory policy was to be expected (and is appropriate), but the implications for the financial sector are unlikely to be clear until specific measures are adopted within the framework of the Financial Stability Forum and in accordance with national regulations and legislation. In short, the G20 statement provided precious little guidance for investors, even though it provided a reaffirmation of ‘best practice’ across various policy responses.
153
Ken
Tell you what: you emigrate to North Korea and tell me what it’s like after 5 years
On the other hand that may not be so bad,,
OT Markets.
The Dow bounce on Thurday off support was weaker thn the prior teo and the reaction the day after much weaker.
I expect us to fall through support and test the 2003 lows … c3300 on FTSE and then have a Christmas rally lasting inot January (new POSUS etc).
Then Q4 reporting starts and reality intervenes.
That’s what my charts suggest… but like all things pragmatism is all…
Dow futures currently -165
With regards the BBC, I never understand why the Tories not learn from the Democrats handling of Fox News. Whenever I saw that, the Democrats fought fire with fire, making it clear that they thought the interviewer / channel was bias, in fact they would openly say so (or word to that that effect), but going to have a strong message to pump out regardless.
Morning all,
I think quite simply that Mandelson and Campbell should crawl back under the rock that they crawled out from, as I said on another thread last week that they are part of the Labour lying, spinning machine that I despise so much for destroyed this country. The words that I use to describe the 2 individuals really cannot be posted without being moderated. I would have thought that Cameron’s party conference speech comments about judgement & character being more important than experience will resonate because Brown has proven by bringing these 2 back into the political arena that he does not have any judgement skills.
174 Sky is as Labour as the BBC.
Some of their staff have links with the Labour Party.
Do you remember the ‘immigrants’ row with dear Julie - who now lives at ITV?
The Mail has Dacre, god father to Brown’s son. The commentators can be sympathic, but no one doubts Dacre’s power
The Telegraph is full of former Mirror journalists and Heffer [centre-right - I don't think so!]. If you want an opinion on the Telegraph’s attitude to Cameron read Bill Deedes condemnatory letter left to his biographers on his death on the subject of the paper’s failure to train journalists and its attitude to Cameron. It’s simply not centre right in many of its writings.
It’s no accident that Gordon’s honeymoon ended when he made those who were on his side [like Boulton] look like wallies.
Cameron has done pretty well against a negative media backdrop. But the game has changed again. They have to deal with it.
174 - I only meant your morning cappucino remains that might have gotten stuck in your moustache! That was me being friendly - you’ll know when I start *abusing* my opponents!
I remember I used to consort with a stunning young lady who was so far to the left that she made Rosa Luxembourg seem a bit Toryish. She, and all her associates, thought the BBC was the most ludicrously biassed organisation in the UK, more so for not being openly corporate and proud of its population-manipulating effect.
They found it slavish and hypocritical, with bias so obvious that anyone who couldn’t see it was either a cretin or a subversive.
They thought it completely and deliberately antagonistic to the Left, belonging as it did to the Centre-Right orthodoxy of the Establishment. It reported the markets, but never Trade Union deals. Its ‘vox pop’ always came out 2-1 against whoever was on strike. It was ‘balanced’ about American elections, however loony the Republican candidate, and it actively supported Capitalism. It refused to cover the Stop the War marches in half the level of detail given to the Countryside alliance, and was fastidious in reporting the Police’s ‘official’ number for demonstration attendance (the police routinely take the true figure and divide by five). I would never give equal coverage to the Socialist candidates, preferring the pro-establishment Labour party and Liberal centre-right candidates to be the token ‘Lefties’. It villified people like George Galloway and Tony Benn whilst reporting unfavourably on Latin American freedom fighters. It accorded with Thatcher in banning the IRA from having their voices heard, and was in favour of the occupation of Northern Ireland, where it maintained an outpost, even though they should have ceded to Irish television.
Sound familiar? The BBC isn’t perfect, and might tilt one way or the other occasionally, but the conspiratorial claims of genuine, undeniable bias belong to the fringe-worthy extremists of the political spectrum, and not to those of us who like living in the reality-based community.
181 - “Osbourn would have had more credibilty had he said what he did at around $1.70 and sliding, when he would have been proved entirely correct.”
Except then he really would have been accused of talking the pound down, and with some justification (PR wise at least)
It’s all about timing.
177. For Cuba, a Singaporean single party system, open trade, moderate taxes. So somewhere in between. Sweden works because it is very developed and also because there is social consensus.
For the UK. My original post was about the differences between types of tax cut. For emergency stimulus, tax cuts for the working poor, paid partly through future spending cuts is the way forward. I’d like to see lower taxes to enhance growth, but it’s not exactly the priority at the moment. Give tax cuts the rich at the moment and they will tend to save them and not to increase investment.
182 - They may take the opinion that the medium term economic management in the country will be in safe hands.
I have asked this many times on here but we keep getting told the tories dont have a plan, but what is labours plan. I still have no idea.
Happened to listen to any questions on friday and the labour mp tried to spin the line that we could have tax cuts now, but the economy will improve sufficiently in the medium term that no tax rise will be necessary. As you can imagine she couldnt get much more out at that point over the sound of laughter in the audience.
Why is the government so keen on introducing organ harvesting? Presumed consent is presumed ownership of a corpse by the state. If they force it through, I’d have to seriously considering going out of my way to opt out.
186 That is a really interesting idea.
Recent polling has suggested that many right leaners do think the BBC has a left wing bias.
Anger has spread recently.
We have to arrive at a tipping point where they Tories would just be vocalising a concept that is already in the public’s consciousness. Of course you have to have reached a point where you feel they will never get a fair hearing and have given up on it. I am not sure Cameron has reached that point even if Murdoch would love it.
188 - I don’t buy that Sky is even in the same ballpark as BBC. They may have staff that are Labour-ish (like Boulton, Holmes), but I have heard some very negative anti-government (and actually very unfair) and very righty Daily Mail at its worst stuff on Sky too.
For instance, during the conference season, they had a reporter waiting for Brown to arrive in Manchester. He was running late for whatever reason, and the guy outside said to the studio, “Sorry he isn’t here yet, he is probably dithering about whether he should turn up or not”. In a previous thread I also gave the example of Boulton setting up Brown (post speech) about mis-quoting Osborne. He firsly made him look like a fool and secondly made him look like a liar. I don’t remember Boulton doing the same to Cameron about the NHS patient who may or may not have died from MRSA, but Cameron claimed they did.
25. We’ll call Gordon whatever we want and right here is where you start getting over it.
196, I say we call him Prunella.
Any comrades around to give a brief synopsis (5 lines) of labour economic policy?
194 - You suggest that Murdoch isn’t a fan of Cameron. Is it not that some of the Murdoch family are very friendly with the Blairites, but also with the likes of Osborne (and I would guess by the closeness of Osborne / Cameron, Cameron too). Often, as Yatchgate shows, where there is a big function, as likely as it is that you will find Blair or Mandelson, you will also find an Osborne type.
Also, I think The Sun, the paper which Murdoch gets most involved with, really seems to have changed its tune to backing the Tories. Of all the main papers, during conference, it gave it support to Cameron, rather than Brown’s speech, and during this economic crisis is seems extremely critical of Brown and the government approach in general.
The think the issue with ITV has really put big man Murdoch’s nose out of joint. There was money to be made and power to be had, but the paper pushers stopped him, and when he hoped for government to over-rule it, he got little support.
189 “The BBC isn’t perfect, and might tilt one way or the other occasionally, but the conspiratorial claims of genuine, undeniable bias belong to the fringe-worthy extremists of the political spectrum, and not to those of us who like living in the reality-based community.”
Thank you Morus. Nails and heads come to mind.
Endless posts about BBC bias are becoming the equivalent of the endless Eurorants that were posted after Lisbon - tedious, unimaginative and unreal.
190. The evidence of bias is there for all to see, and simply repeating over and over again that it isn’t doesn’t change that. Nor does quoting the views of some fruitcake ex-squeeze of yours, or implictly labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a fruitcake.
201 Its interesting that the recent survey - it was reported but I can’t remember where [could have been PoliticsHome] found that most left leaner didn’t think it was biased and most right leaners did.
Cough cough.
201. …yes, and the trouble with constantly blaming the media is that you sink all your energies into attacking the BBC and now it seems Sky, the Telegraph (!) and the Daily Mail (!!) that rather than winning back the narrative. Reminds me of Labour in the 1980s – infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me.
175 Morus. This post seems to have it about right.
In between the obsession about all things Tory on here I am more perturbed about the Lib Dem poor poll ratings. Just 12% and 14% in the two weekend polls is alarming. While they continue to do well locally, if those figures are reflected in a GE they will be squeezed out of sight.
201. …yes, and the trouble with constantly blaming the media is that you sink all your energies into attacking the BBC and now it seems Sky, the Telegraph (!) and the Daily Mail (!!) rather than winning back the narrative. Reminds me of Labour in the 1980s – infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me.
121. (Madasafish) My apologies, I got confused.
202. “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”
In the Osborne Sterling debacle, the BBC should have asked “what convention?” instead of parroting the Labour party line, but that speaks more to lazy journalism than active bias IMHO.
[192] Cheers. Gotta go. By “the rich will only save tax cuts” I assume you mean they will buy government bonds - the same ones everyone else is telling me are worthless
204 Indeed. Hint to righties, foaming at the mouth about the BBC and the NHS won’t win you a general election.
200 Murdoch likes Brown’s ’story’ but not necessarily his politics. He doesn’t like Cameron’s back story but prefers his politics [[generally].
James, Murdoch’s son doesn’t have a problem with Cameron’s well-to-do background for obvious reasons.
I think James is pretty fond of the Cameroons, but I am not sure he is out from under Dad’s influence yet.
bob crow on daily politics just said that we should be thinking of baby p’s family at this time. oh dear…sometimes when stuff just comes out in autopilot it doesn’t work
207. Perhaps - but lazy journalism becomes an implicit bias if it takes the form of the media simply accepting the stories being fed to them by the government spin machine and not bothering to assess their validity.
205… yes could be down to 20-25 seats. It’s a-coming but as you say, don’t expect that debate to get oxygen on here, all we ever talk about of the prospects of the Tory party.
203, 204 - Quite so. There is not a shadow of doubt that the BBC is biased. This can be shown quite objectively, I believe, by analysing the interviews with Cameron and Brown. You will find that Cameron is interrupted far more often. An objective measure, not dependent on subjective opinion about the nature of the questions asked. I have asked the BBC to do exactly this comparison in respect of two interviews on successive days just before the May local elections. Naturally, I just got waffle by way of reply.
HOWEVER - moaning about it is a complete waste of time and energy, and may even be counter-productive. Conservatives should be concentrating on their own performance and media management.
Obviously its not all gloom and doom for some.
The data gives a worrying picture of the nation’s sexual predelictions. Requests for pole and lap dancing outlets were up 469%, calls for escort agencies increased by 40%, while calls for sex shops increased by 1,312%. “I hesitate to say that the UK has gone sex mad, but the figures do seem to paint their own picture,” said Ostrom.
The increase in requests for lap dancing clubs in particular reflects a worrying trend, said Sandrine Levêque, from anti-sexism campaign group Object. She said this “sexist culture” was fuelled by a loophole in the law that enables the clubs to be licensed in the same way as cafes.
Requests for other leisure activities are also surprisingly buoyant, with calls for karaoke bars up 96%. It all adds up to a picture of a nation in denial, said Arek Ohanissian, economist at the centre for economics and business research.
“It will be interesting to see the figures for the second half of this year when I think we will see the effects of the global economic crisis really hit home,” he said.
seant must be in his element!
202 190
Bias?
Well one thing is for sure. The BBC’s bloggers Robinson and Peston showed a complete lack of balance re the Osborne affair.
Balance being assigning the appropriate time and effort to what was - effectivley a minor story.. Two Mps on yacht etc.
Robinosn is excusable : he’s a political journalist. Political story.
Peston? He’s a business journalist . Where is the correlation. None.
Oh but the Conservatives under Osborne reported Peston to the FSA over the leaks on banks.
It’s called REVENGE.
(which is why I say ranting about the BBC and what you plan to do to it is plain stupid politics. The BBC will respond.. it’s human).
It’s like abuse: people respond..
209 We don’t foam about the NHS.
We are doing quite well on there these days.
On the BBC, you are right, foaming will not get us anywhere - but nor will the failure to face the institutional bias or as Scott says, the laziness. I think both things work together [we can't be bothered =let's just read the Government press release]
But as Morus says, we have to deal with it.
202 - It isn’t there for all to see - those of us who aren’t solidly on the right find it perfectly reasonable 99% of the time. You see bias where it is against you - the point of the story was that the girl I used to walk out with was of the hard left, so she saw bias against the hard left. You are on the right, so you see bias against the right. The people who don’t see the bias are those in the Centre, with a tinge of Leftism.
203 - Proves my last sentence - those on the hard left would claim that Establishment centre-lefties (who by suporting capitalism are actually centre-right) are being called ‘Left’ by a blatantly biassed pollster that only canvasses Establishment position from centre-left to far right.
The point is, this is a facile game, so can we stop playing. Monaning about the BBC being anti-Tory was bad enough, but claims that the Telegraph, the Times, Sky, ITV and the Sun are all Commies under the bed *is* deranged, and is bad politics to boot.
208 As was pointed out last night why bother with Government bonds, when you can buy similar products from others such as the Nationwide that give a much higher return over the same time frame. These have the security of Government backing.
195. The choice is no longer Camerons, if the conservatives win the next election, the BBC will have to change, the Conservative activist base will demand it. No change is not an option, it has gone too far.
This doesnt of course, mean the end of the license fee or the end of the BBC, but something will be done.
212. Don’t believe it. I think the most accurate poll will be the big marginals one politicshome did a while back. The nature of it will hold it above national polls even with the time gap. 40-50 seats is where we’ll end up I reckon.
219 - I think Cameron needs to put his ‘activist base’ back in the box on a number of issues, but that’s another story…
217. Hmmm so people who share the BBC’s viewpoint don’t find it biased. That is hardly very surprising, is it?
And why the sudden shift to talking about newspapers? Do you perhaps feel the need to alter your ground a little ,having demonstrably failed to advance your original argument?
217 snap-ish, see 206.
I’ve read the 1st half of the thread this morning ( I haven’t got time for the whoe thing) and I do think there is one point that is being ignored about Osborne. The guy is 37 ears old and if pushed much of the public would probably think he was younger than that. He just doesn’t look like a Chancellor in waiting. Many Tories will think that highly unfair - but then, how many of them were jumping with glee to be up against ‘2 old men from Fife’ in Gordon and Ming.
Cameron showed a lack of understanding of public feeling by allowing himself such a young team - just as he didn’t understand the problems with privilege - the young, slick, wealthy, GQ reading new tory image might have been more appealing than Howard and IDS etc, but it had its weaknesses. I think you can say the Government (Campbell and Mandelson?) have become much sharper in their attacks now.
However, Osborne may be playing a longer game than Brown. He might not be saying what the British people currently want to hear (deaf ear as David Herdson said) but if this downturn is a good deal worse than people are expecting and I think it will be - Osborne will look like the person who had a grasp of the situation and Brown as a deluded has been. I think Darling might understand this but any attempt he makes to sound sober and talk down the situation is immediately rebuked by his boss. This could seal Brown’s fate when the real recession arrives and the pubic simply have to confront reality.
I’ll stick to my view that buying Tory seats is probably a good long term investment now.
The trouble with Osborne is that he’s Cameron-lite. All his advantages (from a PR perspective) are done better and with fewer drawbacks than Cameron. As such his contribution is very limited. A Hague or similar to balance the ticket a little would bring something to the table.
222 - What shift? First post, I said slight leftward bias, but nothing to get excorcised about. I say the same now.
What I’m disputing is that bias is extreme or undeniable - I think that’s a ridiculous case to make, simply for being impossible to objectively prove, including on Richard Nabavi’s measure.
Compare to a Fox News or MSNBC, the fact is that the BBC is free of significant bias the vast majority of the time, and this debate always says far more about the people complaining than the BBC.
I moved onto newspapers to show the extent of the lunacy - to say the Beeb is a little lefty is fair enough, but to claim institutional anti-tory bias (as has been done on here recently) from the Telegraph, Daily Mail and the Murdoch papers is just paranoid.
And bad politics.
179 I think more important in the BBCs political reporting has been that political commentators are out of their comfort zone reporting economics, much happier reporting about political gossip, intra-party disagreements, who is up and who is down.
Mandelson & Campbell know their audience. So they have built a narrative not around the substance of the argument but around the personalities. They have created a Gordon fightback, based on the normal Conference bounce but extended by Saviour of the World, they have trashed Osborne, not only on those points Morus points out but knowing from last summer that within the wider Conservative Party there are “useful idiots” who aren’t bought into the Cameron project and so are easily stirred into print if “tax cuts” are mentioned.
So Nick R, Adam B etc are provided with stories they are happy to run with.
On economics they are getting a simple easy to understand story from Labour, that its all about freeing credit and boosting demand through public spending. That the situation is so critical that golden rule, policy against unfunded tax cuts etc. are all not applicable. That unless these measures are taken it will be 1929 again.
They don’t have the knowledge to critically question what they are being fed, because to a large extent the Conservatives are failing to feed them the right questions in a form that they understand. So they go and ask Vince Cable, who gives them a quote, whether apposite or not.
When, as over sterling, the Conservatives do explain that value of the pound has fallen, that it isn’t an unalloyed good, and the commentators see both sides then the reporting becomes less “biased” and more factual.
Bias still exists - no-one expects Gordon’s cheerleaders in Jackie Ashley or McGuire to be critical - but in the case of BBC, ITV, Sky I think it reflects more on failings of the Conservative operation than just a simple “they are agin us”.
212 OK I’ll bite. But you won’t like it.
They will do better than the polls predict. Have you seen Anthony Wells on the conflicting state of Labour in the polls?
It seems to come down to the difference in methodology between those who tend to show higher 3rd party support and those who tend to squeeze it. Seeing as the LibDems do tend to do better in elcetions than pollsters predict, it seems reasonable to believe the pollsters giving higher ratings are nearer the mark.
The problem is that even these are not good scores but then the LDs are either:
a. invisible
or
b. supporting Labour/attacking the Tories.
Clegg seems out on his own attacking the Government but his efforts are split. Everyone else seem to belong to Labour’s little sister party.
221. No. You throw your activist base some red meat now and then, it keeps them happy.
The Tory activist base will be very happy at the prospect of the BBC getting its wings clipped, and a bit of meat on Europe, and that will keep them happy.
That would be enough to get him through a parliament or two. Reform of the BBC could be done entirely below the waterline, with the wider population not knowing or caring.
Irish banks looking wobbly today -
224, can’t blame Cameron for Davis deciding to go though. Grieve’s not exactly a whippersnapper (or doesn’t seem to be), and Hague’s not a youngster either (or not seen as one anyway).
225. I honestly think that if Clarke won’t come back, Willets would be Cameron’s best bet. Osborne is too like Cameron, although even younger than his boss. Hague is a part-time politician and I really don’t understand the following he has amongst grassroots Tories.
On topic, I agree - getting some smart media manipulators brought in, even his historical enemies, was a good move on Brown’s part - a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for winning the next election. Also one that doesn’t really fit in with the picture of a clueless bully stuck in his bunker that Gordon-hostile posters have tended to push here.
BTW, Tories who are feeling victimized by the British media for repeating an obviously stupid narrative about Osbourne talking down the pound might like to recall how eagerly they lapped up Cameron burning a load of fossil fuels flying around the place doing photo-opportunities with Huskie dogs. I’m not sure it does much good blaming the media for this kind of thing; The fundamental problem is that their customers, the British electorate, are a bunch of gullible cretins.
226. I think the BBC is (usually) a great deal more subtle than Fox News, but no less biased. And that subtlety makes its bias all the more problematic. I’m not much interested in the other media outlets you mention.
crikey just watching the daily politics. Are all trade union leader as thick as this muppet?
I met people like him on my local council, of generally low intelligence, hard working and meaning well, but unable to grasp difficult concepts, and keep repeating cliché slogans.
230. Uk banks not much better..
228. No I do like it Sally – decent analysis. I am thinking of voting for Clegg as there’s nowhere else for me to go, but he is a terrible leader. Awful choice, and I really wonder if the Liberal vote will hold up again this time. Two [party 180s style freezeout. Still think it’s a-coming. Remember the London mayoral election? Liberal vote: 9 Per cent. Even if they poll 5pts higher than that in an GE, they are inn deep, deep trouble.
235, not watched the Daily Politics: which one was it? Derek Simpson?
238 Bob Crowe, i believe.
237, serves them right for deceit over the referendum vote, EU-phile traitors.
The CBI goes on the list of evil leftists to be purged after opposing Osborne’s funded tax cuts on the Daily Politics.
232 - Willets. Deary me. That is a sure fire way to lose an election. He makes Dominic Grieve look media friendly.
238 Bob Crowe - he said life was better when the Soviet Union was around and implied that they provided better benefits for people and jobs for life (or something like that anyway). Andrew Neil was stunned!
LOL! So, the markets have reacted to what Osborne said, not by selling the Pound in a mad rush as Labour spinners claimed they would, but by actually buying Sterling?
Meanwhile, the reaction to the G20 meeting is for the FTSE to drop sharply and it looks like the DOW may also drop sharply.
Not a good morning for Mr Saviour Of The World!
239, doesn’t ring a bell. I can well believe the lack of intelligence though. One of the Unite co-leaders (Woodley, I think the name is) kept banging on about ‘greedy oil companies’ and windfall taxes, totally ignoring the facts that:
a) business exists to make a profit
b) any unforeseen losses would be made up for by an increase in prices
234 - You think the BBC is no less biassed than Fox News?
That’s where our conversation breaks down. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one!
240. No point worrying about idiots.
243, he sounds like a powerful argument against the theory of evolution.
224 …Osborne may be playing a longer game than Brown…
Yes, I agree. What strikes me about Labour’s policy is its lack of flexibility in dealing with untoward events. Some commentators are starting to make the point that we don’t really know how severe this recession will be, indeed, whether it will become a slump.
So what happens if there is another banking crisis or a major industrial sector requests financial support in the first part of next year? Will the Government just keep on borrowing? Given the nature of the current debate, one has to question the credibility of such a move.
The Conservative position is more flexible in the face of a highly uncertain future - they can fund additional support to the private sector through more cuts in public spending.
247, no, but I will enjoy laughing at Clegg if he loses half his seats.
Forgive me if I haven’t been paying attention, but why not Oliver Letwin, if the Tories think they need a new Shadow Chancellor? He has banking experience, after all…..
251, because he’s pathologically nice.
245. Well there was never any prospect of us agreeing.
247. Socialism is in it’s very essence a war against Darwin.
It tries to slows down evolution by slowing down the strong and propping up the weak.
Doomed to failure obviously.
251 Hmm, yes, now you mention it I can see the problem.
253 Idiotic post of the month.
114 Matthew.
When I heard the Barnardos plonker going on about his poll on the radio this morning, I had exactly the same thought. Unworthy polling and lazy journalism.
Rob
PS still no puppy breed market!
245 - I agree with 234 to a certain extent. The bias, is much more subtle and not always there. You get many many balanced pieces from the beeb, and when Labour were going well they felt able to be fairly critical of certain aspects of policy. However, as shown with Operation Save Brown, when it was forced to decide which side its bread was butter it instinctively went one way. If the BBC had gone for Brown is useless narrative there is no way he would still be in power.
Fox news on the other hand is so openly bias it is a joke to anybody with half a brain.
240. I dont think thats what the CBI rep said. He said that he believed the situation was now *so* bad that some kind of economic stimulus is necessary, he made two caveats:
i) The government must be careful about the amount they release, and not go mad, he suggested that the rumours from government are to high
ii) It is essential that what Osbourne says is taken on board, that the Government have a clear and managed path back to fiscal stability.
225. I’ve been one of Osbornes biggest critics on here in recent weeks and have made several posts calling for him to be removed from the shadow chancellor position. However, I’ve been VERY impressed with him this weekend. I think he showed courage in sticking his head above a parapet on Sterling. I was impressed that he didn’t buckle under the torrent of negative reaction he got from Labour and the Labour supporting media. He came out fighting and stuck to his guns on the Maar show. And now here on Monday morning, the Pound is NOT collapsing as Laboiur said it would, I think Ozzies stance has been entirely justified.
I now think Osborne has earned a second chance. I think this will have improved his self confidence and I expect him to go on to bigger and better things from the PBR.
199.
Buy votes
253 That must come from the Ladybird version of Origin of the Species, as it certainly isn’t what Darwin wrote.
253. I certainly think socialism is more of a religious phenomenon than a scientific one. Some of Marx’s ideas have about as much validity as risible stuff like transubstantiation.
237 I am not sure he is that bad.
The LDs are a terrible party to lead in the current circumstances.
The LDs reject the left-right axis.
The problem is that economically, the public haven’t.
They had a choice either to be seen to outflank Labour on the left or position themselves in the middle [soft Tory]. They have fudged it by getting Clegg seen, as right leaning, to offer tax cuts for the poor and hikes for the well off [left leaning] in a country that is mostly in the middle [who see it as a threat or irrelevant].
Having banged on about Tory coverage, it’s worse for the LDs. They don’t have the air time to do subtle.
237 Clegg and Cable deserve credit, they are far more credible and have a narrative on the economy.
Were first to call for intrest rates cuts, and tax cuts to the low paid.
To nationalise northern rock.
They were in front of the chuckle brothers Cameron and Osborne, at every stage, who are allover the place, on how to react to a possible depression.
255, 261. One large piece of bait reels in 2 big flounders
250 - Oliver Letwin, has the “£20 billion of cuts” spin still hanging around his neck, and probably always will have. If he replaced Osborne, Labour could re-open the “if the Tories get in they will cut the everything, school, hospitals etc, narrative”. Absolute non-starter.
Strictly: Betfair has Snowdon 2/1 to be top female.
Given the Sergeant Effect (ie two good dancers going into the danceoff) it’s entirely possible any of the good dancers could be eliminated until he goes, as people assume they’re safe and don’t vote. If someone goes to pieces in the danceoff they’re out (unless up against Sergeant who is a dead cert to leave if he’s in the bottom two).
264. The first to poll <15% ?
253. I think there is certainly a case for claiming that the process of natural selection and survival have been corrupted by civilisation. But that isnt a modern thing, its possible that evolution (as a natural action) stopped from the moment we learned to put a plough in the soil.
The social darwinist issue about societys’ degrading as a result of the feckless, the useless and the lame in a modern post industrial society breeding more then those who are successful and educated also has merit.
However, the latter isnt about genetic evolution, but about cultural evolution.
266. The only real alternative to Osbourne is Clarke, but he doesnt really want it. He might be persuaded, for the good of the nation, stroke his ego etc.
You want credibility? He has it in buckets…
267. I’m heavily on Snowdon but I think she may struggle to reach the final 3 where her odds will come in strongly regardless of Sergeant (who will be gone within 2 weeks).
Still think Chambers is the best price. Healey will struggle with the salsa this week.
259 Good man.
265 The ghost can do irony, nice work!
273. I was slightly disappointed nobody compared me to Adolf but the day is young..
233
I think most people do not have any truck with the idea of Brown as clueless.
11 years at the pinnacle of power was not achieved by accident. He is fully capable of pulling the levers to stay in No.10, just as he organised Blair’s ejection from Downing Street.
274 Ok, he was a better dancer.
274. No nibbles at my hook yet…
274
Jawohl mein Fuhrer!
66 N Y Times even manages to snub Brown in description of “.. the next meeting, which Mr. Sarkozy proposed to hold in London…”
268 Agreed its a bad poll rating.
However in a close GE both could be possible future cabinet ministers if a 74 situation ever arises again.
And I am certain they won`t do a Thorpe and walk away.
259. Osbourne has had a very good weekend, especially now the labour spin that he broke a mythical convention has been flushed out as rubbish. If he keeps attacking and making good points he could turn the economic narrative around. At the moment Labour are stuck, they keep going on about spending their way out of the recession, but most people would rather they made cuts in the government and made tax cuts that way. Borrowing even more is becoming frowned upon.
270 - I wouldn’t disagree with that. Clarke is the only person whose record / story works for the current climate, as well as being a political heavyweight. He isn’t seen as yet another ex-Eton / posh Oxbridge type (although he did go to Cambridge), he sounds much more down to earth and speaks a lot of common sense, as chancellor led the economy out of recession, and managed to escape pretty much unscathed by the disaster that was Major’s time in office (in fact with some credit for the state of the economy as of 1997).
267. Do you think Lisa is value at that price? I wouldn’t be sure.
Next G20 in London - will Brown use it as a springboard to a GE ?
Brown standing beside Obama ?
I suspect the spinmeisters may not be too happy about this piece in the Independent
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/11/trouble-ahead.html
263. Oh he is truly awful, sorry. He was only chosen because he looks and ‘feels’ a bit like the infinitely superior David Cameron. Clegg cannot speak in public for starters, and that’s a prerequisite for a party leader. Saw Paddy Ashdown speak at a conference the other day – what a difference.
Plus, as you say, Cleggy’s policies are hopelessly muddled. Cable should be leader.
282
Cameron could bring back Clarke as a ‘Recession Tsar’ to bite lumps out of the Brown/Darling narrative.
Keep him limited to the relevant areas and out of European matters.
270. Agreed. Try telling your fellow Tories that Gaz… not sure they will listen.
270 He is a great support act. He would lose some of his status if he got his hands dirty again.
We need him though. Very much.
If Osborne is going to keep his head above the parapet, he needs the weight of Clarke [often], Major [occasionally] to back him up. The grey beards [assorted other ex-Chancellors] need to come out and suggest the ‘boy’ is correct, just as they did this weekend.
I suspect Major’s article in The Times was a build up to Osborne’s. Now they have seen the response, they need to be ready with the counter in future.
Now the news outlets look a bit silly this am. They bought the over hype.
I think Osborne has come out ahead.
Some media personnel will not withdraw gracefully this time but they might be more wary next.
He has shored up his position within the Tory ranks.
Some bits of the media are reacting to Gordon’s gagging in the national interest. He’s thrown that punch and it missed.
284, if I didn’t have anything on that market, I’d be tempted.
Happily I win a tenner or so if either she or Stevens is the Top Female. What I really want is for Healey and Chambers to have a terrible week, so I can get better odds for laying Sevens/Snowdon.
283. Bleakley is overpriced after being overscored on an easy dance this weekend.
Michael White in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/nov/17/george-osborne-david-cameron
287 Great Idea. Email it to CCHQ!
290. If the judges really want to punt Sargeant off then they should score the others as a tie (hence 6 couples on 7pts, Sarge on 1pt). Sarge then automatically in the dance off.
289 Please can we have Major and Lamont standing shoulder to shoulder with Osborne. Such a great photo op.
Mandelson went very hard on Osborne trying to destabilise the economy - problem i if Osborne’s remarks don’t depress the pound but the PBR does then the spin is exposed.
On G20 Der Speigel (English) has a good summation of G20 as the “The Good Intentions Summit”, pointing out that there was little concrete but that it’s importance was that it probably marks the point where G8 is replaced by G20.
They do say “There was no announcement of a global stimulus package, only initiatives by individual states” and I see Gordon Brown now refers to ““The outlines of a global route map for recovery” so recognising his objective, so widely promoted, of leading the world in agreeing to co-ordinated immediate action has become the outline of a plan.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,590871,00.html
295, would work, but the public would be livid.
I agree Bleakley’s overpriced. She’s the one female I really don’t want to come top. Stevens and Snowdon get me a little, plus the chance to lay them (odds are stupidly long at the moment), and I’ve got a covering bet for Kidd at 50/1 should that, admittedly unlikely, turn of events occur.
Ideally I’d like Healey to be in the danceoff and choke, but I can’t see it happening.
re 261 and Darwin didn’t write the “Origin of the Species” either!
292 - how true
286 OK he is poor. But the alternative was quite aggressively unpleasant.
291. Told you David Davis was trouble. What they are not reporting is that there seems to be some anger at Davis. He will come out worse than Osborne.
To Morus - a very fair article by Mr White [whispers to other Tories - 'for once' :-)]
re 270/281 Has Ozzy gone into politics then? I’d though we’d got over this rock obsession.
@292:
It is slightly concerning that hardcore Labour monkeys like White now want Osborne to stay. Presumably the Guardian set have now decided that Osborne will do most damage where he is.
303, the media world is a bit wonky. The Guardian has been nicer to the Tories, the Mail’s staff hate Brown but Dacre loves him etc etc.
Osborne should stay, regardless of what Sir Michael White (whose cockney rhyming slang name is actually identical to his real name) says.
289 you certainly need a new spinmaster if you need Major to defend Osborne.
Gideon even failed to mention Major regarding white wednesday, yesterday on the Marr show, he did mention other PM`S though.
302 - you sure?
This bit says it more than most:
“Much more important to my mind than Labour attacks is that the people pushing hardest to get Osborne out are on his own side. And most of them are just the kind of Tories whose advice has helped keep their party in opposition for 11 years and counting.
They’re at the ConservativeHome website, in the No Turning Back group, at the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. Just try a spoonful of Simon Heffer, but be careful to spit it out quickly.
Last paragraph quite astute as well
296 I wondered whether there would be a Government ‘announcement’ that would affect sterling and then they would blame it on Osborne.
A big statement by Brown on having a big green light on borrowing after the weekends summit might have done it.
295 We got out of that recession OK.
306. ‘We got out of that recession OK’
Only after Major and the euro-idiots tried as hard as possible to keep us in it. Credit for the recovery in 1993-1997 should rather go to currency desks in London for forcing the change of policy…
190 Morus on supposed media bias - Top man, on the button
Another take on the G20, as European credit spreads widen to their highest levels in two weeks:
href=”http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/11/17/18316/cds-report-g20-fails-to-sooth-sentiment/”>CDS Report: G20 fails to sooth sentiment
302 This is just being seen to get things right ahead of the curve - now it’s obvious anyway.
But I think Mr White quite likes George anyway. Although Osborne can be quite sniffy, he isn’t with Mr W.
I heard White on the late night paper review repeat a chat he had had with George saying ‘he really isn’t a bad chap you know’.
They seem to get on pretty well.
Just a spoonful of Heffer helps the puke come up
In the least delightful waaaaaay.
@308:
Lefties see no leftie bias in leftie biased media.
THIS IS THE NEWS.
304 Your great leader didn’t do too well the last time he had a spat with him.
#309 Link again
CDS Report: G20 fails to sooth sentiment
310 That is low. Now you are seriously trying to get GO the sack. Leave the guy alone.
146 - David Herdson. Are you seriously suggesting any of the following:
(1) that the media has no role in holding the Government to account (and if so, how does the concept of investigative journalism sit with that view?)
(2) that the Ecclestone affair was not news worthy of reporting, or at least was lesser news than the Osborne affair?
(3) that the Tory party in 1998, facing a Government with a majority of 179(ish), had any real prospect of holding the government to account over the Ecclestone affair?
I don’t believe you are naive enough to believe any of those things. The media does have a duty to hold the Government (and the Opposition) to account. It is too much to hope that every outlet will exercise that duty in an even-handed way, but it is essential to the operation of a democratic society that the media discharges its duty irrespective of which party is in power. Put another way, if Ecclestone had happened on the Conservatives’ watch, or happened to them in Opposition now, I would be delighted if the media unearthed the story - and I’d expect it to be a huge story even if it was discovered by the Telegraph or Spectator.
Besides, my point was not so much that the media was wrong to suspend its critical faculties in 1995-2000 (ish) (although it was) but that the media eventually realised they they had been made fools of, hence the almost animalistic pursuit of Blair in his last months in office, and hence their refusal to adopt the same obsequious posture for the Tories now.
296
That is a line tried on Labourhome as well so it’s clearly a spin-idea-of-the-week.
It of course has one major flaw: the economy is doing it’s best to collapse of its own free will.
So it will come home to roost..
The economy has three major issues Neither party is addressing:
1. We are fighting two wars. In good time affordable. it bad time.. imbecilic.
2. Our economic model - depend on financial services to replace manufacturing - is broke and is not going to work. PERIOD.
We need a new economic model.
3. We cannot afford the welfare state with 3 million unemploted and no new economic model. £100buillion Government borrowing for 2 to 4 years is not sustainable. It will not work. No one will lend.
So it’s 10 years of pain… about 5 years to regnise the above and do something.
No wonder I think most politicians are useless.
The above are key issues for the next decade. And no-one is addressing them.. well not in public.
I don’t think any Tory could argue with White on that one.
[add 'reasonable' in front of 'Tory'].
I reckon £15Bn stimulus will be given in tax credits (spread over 2 years) - ie targeted at those least likely to save or spend abroad (and likely to vote Labour).
The middle classes can have their interest rate cuts, some winter fuel one off/con for the pensioners and its a “giveaway” PBR.
304 Your posts on this subject were mind numbingly dull yesterday. Don’t you have anything interesting to say?
OT
Barclays
Just lost support today and is now 151p.
I still do not think it’s a buy… maybe at 80p?
320. I sometimes think the ‘Dez’ comments are generated automatically, including the spelling & punctuation errors.
321, 314, stop picking on me or I’ll start dancing.
321. Rogers said buy Barc at £5 this time last year as the NRK story wouldn’t last until the weekend.
RBS sub 50p !
SEXY DANCING?
307. Really interesting article by William Buiter in his FT blog today “Could the UK face a Sterling crises or are we in already?”
Unfortunately I cannot yet get a link but:-
1. He supports Osbourne’s views regarding Sterling and his right to say them.
2. He thinks the UK’s creditworthiness is worst it has been since the days of the Stuarts.
3. He thinks a new sterling crises is threatening if there is a large fiscal stimulas and it’s impact for the UK could be horrendous.
4. He is highly critical of the methods the authorities have used to support banks as the liabilities taken on are huge. He would have preferred the Tory approach of putting the banks in administation without taking on their liabilities.
5. His proposals still include the UK joining the EMS.
259. I agree, Osborne has had an excellent weekend & when I heard about Osborne’s comments over the weekend my first thoughts were go George because there is no way that his remarks can do any damage to the pound given that Osborne is not in a position of responsibility - yet, but Darling’s ‘the worst economic conditions in 60 years’ interview was far worse as he is obviously in a position of responsibility - for now his comments did effect the pound the next day. Osborne could well force the narrative to change about Brown a lot sooner by ramming home his valid points regarding spending our way out of a recession & he will get a chance next week with the PBR with which I fully expect Cameron & Osborne to rip to shreds because we know it will be a tax con & not a tax cut, we all know by now that the devil is firmly in the detail of any Labour proposals. I look forward to Cameron & Osborne particularly ripping the arse out of the VED stealth tax U-turn with Labour trying to spin a line on not going ahead with it being a tax cut because this one issue is an open goal for the Tories to ram down Brown & Darling’s neck.
300. David Davis’ interview in the New Statesman where he effectively trashed Cameron - subtly, but unmistakeably - shows what his true intentions are. It was quite an eye-opener.
319. If the words “tax credit” pass Darling’s lips I am going to be really really miffed. The words - bureaucratic, disaster, bad for incentives, all cross my mind. A simple tax cut. Not a further disincentive to work. As a stimulus plan it would really rate lowly.
323 - As long as you don’t start hitting people on the head with a pig’s bladder…
One for Coldstone
MP abuses communications allowance..
http://machiavellitheprince.blogspot.com/2008/11/exclusive-labour-mp-abuses-commons.html
331, an Englishman’s pig’s bladder is his castle, I’ll do with it what I please?
326, all morris dancing is sexy. No-one can resist it!
327 Theoretical question?
What will happen if the pound does a nose dive when Darling’s announcement is made/ fine print revealed.
Would they have to backtrack?
One commentator [?] said today that Labour’s over the top response actually revealed their nervousness.
333, um, ignore the ?, it was meant to be a !. Treacherous leftwing keyboard.
327
I am more impressed with Osborne’s timing. He chose to speak on sterling on the day that sterling bottomed - temporarily.
(the bounce is pruley technical and has nothing to do with his speech)
That suggests to me there is someone in the sahdows with real market nous and smarts. Which suggests there is more to this speech than meets the eye…
328 David Davis?
Who is he? Some washed out MP?
329. From the Telegraph
Government sources have sought to play down suggestions that ministers will offer the £30 billion in tax cuts called for by the IMF with most experts forecasting a total tax cut of less than £15 billion.
The Government is understood to be planning to target its multi-billion pound tax cut at lower earners. It may distribute the money by increasing tax credits and winter fuel payments. The money - which is unlikely to benefit wealthier families - could be paid before Christmas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3468937/Gordon-Brown-needs-to-cut-average-familys-tax-bill-by-at-least-1000-warns-International-Monetary-Fund.html
328 An eye opener? Not to me.
332 OK, as long as you take it out of the pig first.
335 I read a report that said he had been working frantically behind the scenes and has extended his circle of unofficial advisers -including city types ex-Chancellor’s [including Clarke] etc.
337 Sally C No chance for David Davis to return to the shadow cabinet then under Cameron`s watch?
Citigroup set to cut 75,000 jobs (worldwide I presume) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
300 Sally. If you are referring to Chris Huhne it could be argued he was a better choice to tackle the myth of Gordon Brown and at the same time he could never be accused of being a Cameron-lite figure. Clegg isn’t getting good or bad press - he is getting no press at least in the popular media.
339
I should hope so. Conservative economic policy is in limbo
Barclays.
Triangle break suggest target price 118p..
Tell Roger someone:-)
340. I don’t see why he should, resigning out of the blue does tend to harm your chances of returning to the shadow cabinet.
324….how much of RBS do the Treasury own?
337. Yes, I remember you were on to him for some time. It confirmed it to me though.
Citigroup to shed 75,000 jobs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7733575.stm
333. Getting close to the truth here. The best possible outcome for the Conservatives over the coming months is that Labour is forced into a rerun of the late 1970s course of events - gilt strike leading to forced spending cuts. Politically catastrophic.
Anything that helps that process along is positive. Labour have of course done themselves no favours in this regard by spreading rumours about possible debt monetisation…
I am an activist - Party Chair or Cameron’s hairdresser. But I would only handle him with gloves on.
349 should say NOT Party chair…
#345 Govt offer price 65.5p current price 46p. Taxpayer paper loss ~ 30% or around £5.1bn on our £17bn (iirc).
350 There is more to you than that SallyC. Tell the whole story.
347 That 75,000 is a huge jump from the 23,000 job losses previously announced. Surely world economic prospects can’t have got worse? Not after Gordon has saved the planet?
348 One thing is for sure; all eyes will be on the pound then and for the days thereafter.
More I think about it, the more reason I can see for their nerves.
353…that 65.5p is a done deal,yes?
353 The real price of the Glenrothes by-election! Look - Labour can save Scottish jobs, the SNP can’t…. Makes the £2.3 billion they spent trying to save Crewe & Nantwich look cheap.
“Pound rebounds despite Osborne’s warning”, today’s online Times
Now this is getting stupid, and I expect better from the Times. If it tanked it would have been because of him, now because it has gone up slightly, it is despite of Osborne. If you read what he said was, pound has tanked, and it will get worse in the near future, if the government borrow recklessly. Not it will tank on Monday….
344. I and several other Tories blogged at the time saying we thought he might be the better choice. I don’t like him - but perhaps coming form a Tory, that is a no bad thing.
I am afraid they thought were trying to put them off Clegg because we were jealous.
296. Great idea. Please write to the BBC and tell them!
356 Better been nervous than put into the straight jacket of the Eurozone.
336. It’ll be £15bn now and £15bn in the spring budget in March. Then Brown will have his G20 meeting and be pictured talking to Obama, then soon afterwards he’ll call an election. Brown is SO transparant!
359. The press are just bitter that the forecast disaster hasn’t struck today.
The main thing though, is that Labours spin about Osborne talking down the Pound has been shown to be complete nonsense. Now if/when the Pound tanks next week the responsibility will be entirely down to Brown.
From the Independent again
Today in Politics: Osborne fights back
By Andrew Grice
Normally, it is opposition frontbenchers who claim the scalp of a government minister by forcing them to resign. Today the politician who appears to be fighting to keep his current job is George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor. And ministers are doing their best to push him out. His foe Lord Mandelson, who knows a bit about being forced to resign (twice), has accused him of being “reckless and irresponsible” and to “undermine the confidence of markets” by predicting a run on the pound at the weekend.
Osborne has fought back by issuing a graph showing the value of sterling. It shows it sliding after the Chancellor Alistair Darling announced that Gordon Brown’s fiscal rules were under review on July 18; a further slump after Darling warned that Britain faced arguably its worst economic crisis for 60 years on August 29 and another blip after the Chancellor hinted he would spend his way out of recession in October 19. No doubt the markets were taking account of other factors too. So far, sterling is up today. So Osborne can’t be blamed by Labour for another slide. No doubt ministers will accuse him of getting it wrong, though. A win-win situation for them.
357 - Don’t think the government are going to renegotiate - deal completes by 1st Dec.
344 - I do feel sorry for Huhne; at least he had the cullions to stand against Ming. Perhaps he just needed a little more polish (he does come across as overly combative at times).
But essentially the election came down to whether the LD members were more comfortable competing with the Tories or with Labour. It seems they weren’t swayed by the much-rehearsed argument on here that your ideological opponents are not necessarily the same as your tactical opponents.
364 Unless sterling has regained 30% then I don’t see how it can be a ‘win-win for them’.
Nothing has changed since Friday.They are the ones who said it would.
36.. Guess they are OK if it doesn’t fall any further.
Reuters: G20 summit shows lack of resolve
LONDON, Nov 17 (Reuters) - The G20 summit must be considered a disappointing failure, even by the relatively low expectations set for the event…
Sky blogs seem to have had a change of heart
http://blogs.news.sky.com/cityblog/Post:3b312343-8ea5-4d51-bd1d-0208de089cf6
“No doubt ministers will accuse him of getting it wrong, though. A win-win situation for them.”
This was my theory – that whatever happens to the pound Ozzie can be attacked.
It goes down - it’s his fault.
It goes up – he’s wrong.
Alistair Campbell is a monster, but he’s a clever monster.
370 We’ve seen this before - lazy journalists parrot Mandy/Campbells official spin from Number 10, and scream blue murder. A day or so later they carry out a proper analysis of Osborne’s article, and do a massive U turn. Didn’t the same happen with IHT?
Brown and Co are good at short term tactics, Osborne is excellent at long term strategy. This will be Labours undoing.
3709. “Oh and a weaker pound is not all bad news. This morning we’ve learnt that UK food and drink exports are up 15.5% on this time last year. Alcohol sales in particular have soared, little surprise, perhaps, in the current climate.”
Now that brings me to a discussion I was enjoying on here just the other day…
304. Bang on right again on this issue Martin. My take is that Campbell and Mandelson are pretty keen for Ozzie to remain exactly where he is, not least because they suspect Clarke could actually be given the job (for purely electoral reasons) if Ozzie is knifed. Campbell and Mand know that Clarke is a heavyweight and would spell game over in the GE.
371 Yes but [at the risk of Morus's wrath] that’s from a tame perspective.
There is still much to be said for their hype being nonsense and a short term strategy - as sky news blog suggests all eyes will be on the pound next week.
Either a damp squib or a market mover? Either a loss for Labour or a ‘win’ for Osborne?
Labour’s proper response to Osborne’s remark should have been a firm shrug of the shoulders. They gave him credibility by effectively saying it might precipitate a run on the pound (coughs and sneezes spread diseases etc).
Nobody in the markets gives a stuff about Osborne’s half-baked views on anything, as evidenced by the fact that far from causing concern with his remarks amongst people who matter, the pound is quite strongly up today.
374 Clarke is 68 and has done 18 years in various ministerial positions (the last 5 of course as chancellor). Do you really think he will be motivated to come back again even if he was asked?
Here’s a disgusting bit of propaganda from GM showing that, if nothing else, they’re still solvent enough to pay for youtube propaganda:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72cHfOKoA1c&eurl
Their scare tactic is to present a false dichotomy: give them $25 billion now or face the collapse and total cessation of the U.S. automobile industry. Funny how many times the airlines have gone through bankruptcy without a cessation of that industry…
374 They are going to great effort to remove someone they want there.
373 Exactly. A weaker pound is very good news, especially when commodity prices are falling even faster - imports of raw materials are getting modestly cheaper in sterling terms and exports are massively cheaper. Win win really.
Never did understand all this stuff about maintaining a high exchange rate being some kind of patriotic duty - complete nosense.
I think it was only going to be a stick to beat Osborne with if the market had tanked this morning or tomorrow. Instead, long term it is at the very least probably going to be something he can call on in the future. If sterling doesn’t tank anymore, well he was wrong, nobody will remember it come an election. However, at the very least he managed to bring to the fore the weakness of the pound. If it does drop say a 3-6 months from now, he will be able to say, see I told you so, and crow on about it.
I think he might have taken a lesson or two from Cable, who goes on the media all the time saying the government needs to do x or y. Most of the time nobody listens, nothing happens, but then when his prediction comes true, e.g NR, how many times did he say well I was right, I correctly said the only option with to nationalise it etc.
The problem with Osborne is that often he isn’t careful enough about how he makes his point. In his article with the Times he should have made sure that the main thrust was look at how weak the pound was, and be the way it could get a lot worse in the “medium term” if the government take their planned course of action. Maybe thats what he said, and his words were spun against him, but having seen Osborne more than enough, I get the feeling he might have been lack with his words.
374
Would that be the Ken Clarke who cut nurse training, the NHS etc?
What short memories people have! (Or maybe long ones.)
Ken Clarke would be a gift to the Government spinmeisters…
Maybe the pound went up today because Osborne has put the issue in the frame and now the markets feel the Gov daren’t let it tank!
380. You should have been on here yesterday morning – quality discussion there about the weak pound. It’s worth looking up actually – the difference between the older Tories, who actually understand economics, and their rather naive younger brethren was astounding.
380 - Well it’s not cheaper for me to go on holiday or buy Japanese electronics or European cars, is it? A moving exchange rate is never win-win, but neither is it ever lose-lose…
[383] - If the markets felt that the government were in such a position, wouldn’t it be an opportunity for people to make their fortune as Soros did in 1992?
380…exports may be massively cheaper,but you have to sell a greater volume to receive the same amount of foreign exchange.
377. Yes I do actually. Only the other week he was making noises about “not time to write my memoirs yet” or some such.
BTW, read this post from the Times blog:
“Typical Labour blaming all their problems on the Tories! I just can’t believe the media buys into this spin that has been generated ever since Mandy came back. If they carry on like this we will be stuck with these imbeciles for another four years! People open your eyes!!”
Quite extraordinary that a big Tory win no longer looks like a stone cold certainty. Step forward Campbell and Mandelson.
384. What was also notable was that none of the Labour posters, young or old, had any understanding of economics at all.
383 - Being pretty widely credited to profit-taking on last week’s fall. The reality is that Osborne has nothing to do with it either way - opposition spokesman’s “views” are simply irrelevant in a global market.
377 - I doubt Clarke would come back, but he would probably quite like bookending the Brown years and no doubt delight in saying, “I gave him a golden legacy and of course had to do my duty and come back to sort it out when he screwed it all up.”
389 LOL
387 - But you don’t want foreign exchange to pay British workers and shareholders. You want pounds.
385. “Well it’s not cheaper for me to go on holiday or buy Japanese electronics or European cars, is it?”
Well precisely. Presumably you will now contemplate a UK built car and holidaying in that posh B&B in the Cotswolds, rather than heading for Malaga?
391. Don’t encourage the grumpy old coot Sally!
380. No. Imports are getting more expensive - commodity prices are falling, but overall a weaker pound means that we have upward pressure on prices. Substitution will help in some cases, in others it will simply mean higher prices - some things have to be imported and the UK has a high marginal propensity to import. It is good for exports as long as the currency doesnt move too fast and spook gilts. The major issue isnt the forex market, it is the gilts side. Which is looking a little rocky, but hasnt fallen in the way Sterling has. But, one should be careful and watch the markets, something that Merv wasnt doing last week and which Gordon seems to have forgotten.
Do stop trying to pretend that the criticisms of Labour’s stance are some form nonsense “patriotic duty” - there are relevant issues that Osborne was right to raise. Just as it would behoove the morons of the right to stop pretending that Britain is the next Argentina. Or to pretend that the UK doesnt benefit from export.
384 Sorry I missed it - I’m not usually here at weekends - running a taxi service for the kids etc etc.
385 No, but in the current circumstances I think a devaluation is a win-win because it will mitigate the recession in the UK at a relatively limited cost to UK consumers. IMO the government would not get worried unless sterling fell below it’s previous low point which, IIRC, was about $1.05 which was reached in 1984 or thereabouts.
By reducing ineterst rates below Euro rates the BoE gave a pretty firm push toward a fall in sterling.
395. This guy Ken was one of the best centre-right posters yesterday.
I can’t read the pictures any more on PB.com - mmph…
387. NOOOOOO. Exports are basically denominated in the foreign currency in which they are sold. So either the exporter can cut prices to gain market share (and increase volume) or can sell for the same export price in Dollars and get 1/3 more pounds for it.
397. I’m sure he’s thrilled to be considered so by such an esteemed expert on the subject as yourself.
394. I am a modern Tory. Encouraging grumpy old coots is my bread and butter.
395 Politicians - of both parties - have tried to maintain the exchange rate as a virility symbol going right back to Churchill in 1925 when he went back to the pre-1914 exchange rate. Wilson desperately tried to avoid devaluation for the same reason, as did Major. But in each case when devaluation fianlly came the UK economy benefited.
400. You’ll be unhappy to hear that I also consider your good self to be very clued-up on this issue, Runnymede!
401.
380. Just illiterate.
A falling currency has downsides and upsides as discussed here ad nauseam. Eventually it has only downsides - the question is where the tipping point is reached.
A fast-falling currency is also an expression of global investor confidence in a particular economy: to that extent a free-falling currency is, unquestionably, an ominous sign.
To say a weaker pound is “very good news”, and leave it at that, is notably imbecilic, even for a lefty.
To try and talk you through the issues - look at two of our European neighbours. Before the euro, whenever Italy faced economic problems, it would solve the situation by devaluing the lira. This worked, to a certain extent - it was a nice quick fix. But remember all the zeroes on the notes…
Germany, by contrast, refused to devalue the Mark and instead made its workers and manufacturers cope with the problems of a hard currency - by making higher quality goods, at greater levels of productivity.
In the long run, which economy was run better? Italy devalue-happy economy, or Germany’s hard-currency economy?
End of argument.
ON-topic. Yes Brown was right, in the short term, to bring back these guys. The party’s day-to-day spinning has improved very considerably.
In the long term, who knows. Mandy and Campbell think from day to day, not strategically. They discomfited Osborne for a weekend, but in doing so they have permanently focused attention on the exchange rate. Not so good for Labour, as the £ has dropped by so much.
But the Tories do need to find some super-spinners of their own: the opposing team has upped its game.
393 - No thanks, I’d rather not have my standard of living reduced by the government’s perceived uncreditworthiness.
People don’t import things for fun, they import because they are better value (either cheaper, better, or both) than domestic produce.
A falling £ thus does mean consumers are worse off, though not necessarily consumers who are also employees of exporting firms…
403. I have no interest in what you think.
407. So if you are not interested, why comment?
“397. I’m sure he’s thrilled to be considered so by such an esteemed expert on the subject as yourself.”
Anyway, have a good day.
Nick Robinson’s update
UPDATE: Speaking in the House of Lords earlier this month (3 November 2008) Lord Burns warned of Sterling problems, though in a rather less graphic way than George Osborne.
He said: “Each of the three serious downturns that I have observed at close quarters –1974-75, 1980-81 and 1991-92 — have had two striking characteristics: namely, the emergence of a budget deficit that increased to a point where the restoration of structural balance was a long and painful process; and at some point a depreciation of Sterling that moved from just about being welcome to becoming very painful. Let us hope that we are not forced to repeat those experiences.”
406 - But that’s fully reflected in inflation figures isn’t it? Devaluation is potentially inflationary but probably not so much in the present climate.
408. I’m sure your opinion of him means so much.
405 Blimey things are very black and white for you aren’t they? Perhaps it’s also because the Germans have more clever scientists, work harder or don’t gun down their judges - who knows. There’s more to it than meets the eye - just maybe.
405 I mean very good news for the UK in the current current circumstances - not that devaluation is always and everywhere a great thing.
Although if Germany had devalued at the time of reunification and not tried to maintain the value of the DM in the face of the massive costs of absorbing the DDR they would probably not have had the slow growth and high unemployment that they have had for the past 15 years. It’s not only the UK that sees the exchange rate as a virility symbol….
And since Italy lost its ability to devalue its ecomonic performance has worsened considerably.
41,, Crikey – it’s Grumpy Day today on here. Remind me in the future not to compliment other posters.
Mandelson and Campbell obviously have their limits. One of the lead articles in Le Monde today about dire state of the French PS finishes by saying that Gordon Brown’s Labour party is hardly in a better position.
http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2008/11/17/le-bucher-des-vanites-socialistes-inspire-la-presse-europeenne_1119411_823448.html
I think we may come to see Mandy and Campbell as a mistake - here is my reasoning. Whilst they were successful in spinning labour when they were on the up, their day to day decisions didn;t really have much of an effect. A bit like the property developers on property ladder who make all the wrong decisions yet still turn out with a profit in a housing market boom. Now labour are on the slide, a short term decision may be a quick fix, but strategically they are offering many hostages to fortune for the tories. To continue the house analogy, if they decide to proceed with planning permission, it might keep them going, but they might end up bankrupt.
405
In the long run, which economy was run better? Italy devalue-happy economy, or Germany’s hard-currency economy?
So if you had to choose to live in either country, which one would you choose?
http://playpolitical.typepad.com/political_comedy/2008/11/rory-bremner-on-gordon-browns-miracle-economy.html
Bremner = linked from Tory home [what an odd world!]
300 “re 261 and Darwin didn’t write the “Origin of the Species” either!
by Chris A November 17th, 2008 at 1:05 pm”
Are you trying to be funny with some obscure joke that I don’t get? Maybe you’re making reference to the fact that the full title is actually “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”? Otherwise who the hell do you think wrote it?
413. More illiteracy.
The currency problem during reunification was nothing to do with Bonn “refusing to devalue the DM” it was because a rash political decision was made by Kohl, to overrule the Bundesbank and offer East Germans currency equivalence - i.e. that one Ostmark would equal one Deutschmark.
412. Yes, clearly, when I say there are “downsides and upsides” I am obviously seeing things in “black and white”.
Wipe your drool off your chin, and go back to the retards’ dayroom. I think someone has blown up some balloons to entertain you.
416 There is no bought they are skillfil but it always strikes me as odd that they are acclaimed for winning an election against a very unpopular long in the tooth Government.
The electoral system then stuffed things up big time for the Tories [though not without help].
417. Is that the best you can do? lol.
I would far rather live in Thailand (GDP per capita $9000 a year) than Norway (GDP per capita $46,000 a year) but, as you can probably guess, that has nothing to do with which country has the better-run economy.
420
Then again there’s this, an upside perhaps?
Defiant shoppers head for Oxford St
Jonathan Prynn, Consumer Affairs Editor
SHOPPERS are defying the recession and have been flocking to the West End since the Christmas lights were turned on last week.
The number of bargain hunters in Oxford Street, Regent Street and Bond Street was up 11.6 per cent on last year between Friday and Sunday. Sunday was the best day with 17.4 per cent more people crowding into central London’s shopping district.
On Oxford Street shopper numbers were up 20.1 per cent. Store managers said the strength of the euro and that the lure of the Oxford Street and Regent Street lights had attracted more people than expected.
French, Italian and German visitors are in London in record numbers, taking advantage of the 20 per cent devaluation of the pound against the euro over the past week. With promotional price cutting on top, some luxury goods are 30 to 40per cent cheaper in sterling terms than a year ago.
Selfridges said it was able to price a D&G Lily bag selling for £863 in Paris at £695, or 20 per cent less, in London due to the weak pound.
There has also been a surge in tourism from the British provinces in recent days with large numbers of coach parties coming in to see the lights and a West End show. Richard Dickinson, chief executive of the New West End Company, which represents traders in the three main shopping streets, said: “Fashions sold well yesterday, with fashion accessories continuing to perform well across the area.
“Retailers reported a continued strong international presence but said that UK domestic shoppers were also notably out in force with gift selections selling in respectable quantities.”
p.s.
See you in Amalfi??
413 nickc, if that is the case, why was it bad for Osborne to be ‘talking down the pound’? The Labour line seems to comprise wanting to have your cake, eat it, and rent it out for someone else to eat:
- Osborne is a lightweight that no-one takes seriously;
- Anything he says might so spook the markets that sterling will fall.
- In any case he was irresponsible because he might have caused sterling to fall
- A lower exchange rate is a good thing.
- Britain is best placed to whether the economic downturn
- We have cleverly engineered a fall in sterling (which means we’ve cleverly convinced the markets to think we’re amongst the worst-placed).
The fact that the media have at least partly swallowed this nonsense proves that the Labour news-management operation is working well.
420 - No point trying to argue - they will try and argue black is white if they think the tories are arguing the opposite.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions.shtml
Rosie Winterton tried to claim that taxes might not have to go up in the medium term on any questions. SHe is responisble for pensions!!!!!!!!
422. Strange fellow - I prefer Norway!
The prostitutes woulb white as well!
Not that i woyld pay for it anyway!
Well I’d choose to live in Italy rather than Germany without hesitation - for cultural and climate rather than economic reasons.
I would say that from 1950-85 West Germany was unquestionably run better. However converting the old DDR mark to West German marks at 1 to 1 was crazy and accounts for Germany’s poor performance since 1990. But I do not accept the idea that devaluation is bad - it is merely a tool of economic management, like interest rates and fiscal policy. It’s a normal market function, just like any price mechanism.
423. The London retail sector has been doing very well from Eurozone dwellers for a while now – it’s just that the other parts of the UK don’t get much benefit as all the Euro fashionistas only ever visit Londres.
Still, it all helps.
423 - Ever heard of Christmas shopping? It is this thing that happens generally in the run up to the end of december.
I predict we will have scores of retailers going out of business in the new year. Sales will be off a cliff after Christmas / Jan Sales have worked through.
423. This is all anecdotal blather. Actual retail results in recent weeks have been terrible.
425
they do. they do…
Best placed - my arse!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7732223.stm
25.”The evident loathing by some posters here for GB has reached silly levels again.”
Oh, I wouldn’t call it silly at all. While Brown boasts in the Sun about his new British made *BOMB PROOF* car, we had 3 soldiers killed when their *vehicles* hit road mines. I notice that the MOD didn’t go into as much detail about these vehicles.
414. Benbobjim.
It was a bit over the top for a compliment.
Maybe to be generous he misread it.
427. But previously you said that Germany’s problems stemmed from “refusing to the devalue the DM” in 1989 - whereas, in fact, their problems came from offering East Germans 1 DM for one Ostmark.
Three minutes later you have wholly changed your position, after I pointed out this error.
How strange.
My compliments to Ken and Runnymede were genuine. I’m no fan of Runnymede as he is a partisan grouch, but my compliment about his economic knowledge was genuine.
424 IMO the main problem about Osborne’s remarks is that they are those that would be expected of an opposition. They were obviously aimed at bringing about a drop in sterling which the Tories could then criticise the government for presiding over. This is all part of the political game of course, but IMO the Tories need to consider whether they need to look more like a government in waiting and I am not sure if Osborne’s remarks will help them do this.
423
So we can safely say the, ‘Evening Standard’ can be put down on the list of, ‘Labour supporting rags’.
Funny I always thought it was a Tory supporting newspaper, wrong again!
sorry 428
423
been to westfield twice (round the corner) - restaurants doing a roaring trade - people gotta eat - but an absolutely miniscule proportion of shoppers actually carrying purchases. they ain’t buying
433. Gordon Brown is a duplicitous monster, their is no doubt about it. Maybe someone should get an old ‘Snatch’ and ask Brown to use it on a daily basis instead of his well oiled, well protected new acquisistion at public expense.
Brown really does have no shame, this vehicle issue is a perfect example of his perverted prorities.
New thread: Is Osborne’s scalp a proxy to get at Cameron?
437 They were obviously aimed at bringing about a drop in sterling which the Tories could then criticise the government for presiding over.
You’re seriously suggesting that Osborne thought he could single-handedly change the value of sterling?
421 Sallyc that is correct.
However it wasn`t just winning the election by a landslide in 97.
It was getting the electorate to give them a chance after a demoralising deafeat in 92.
Philip Goulds book The Unfinished Revolution seems required reading for New Conservatives.
399…do you understand what you have written? i certainly don’t and i deal in commodity markets for a living! whatever does “basically denominated” mean?
438. Evening Standard, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail. All Labour rags. Every last miserable one of ‘em.
443 Of course - he’s the Chancellor in waiting - his remarks are very important - I would certainly expect them to have an effect on sentiment.
447 - that’s pretty risible, Nick. Especially when Osborne was implying that his fiscal policy (hypothetically the UK’s from 2012) would be tighter.
445. Graham - when I sell whiskey in France, I sell it to the retailer in Euros, he doesnt buy it in pounds. Some trade will be sterling denominated, but most of it is denominated in the foreign currency - exporters are price takers in the foreign currency, not in their home currency. Some of the gain may be taken by the foreign consumer/retailer, but most of the gain accrues to the exporter. He can then choose to cut the price in Euros and gain market share (and volume) or he can choose to take the existing price and get many more pounds.
Your argument seems to be - you need to sell more volume to get the same amount of foreign currency. This would require that exporters only sold in Sterling, with fixed prices, so as Sterling drops you would need to sell more whiskey to get the same number of euros. This isnt the case and why I said “basically denominated”. Why isnt this the case? Because when I sell to the foreign retailer, he has a price in his own currency that he wants to sell at - he isnt interested in the Sterling price - and in a normal market, I must accept the price offered in the foreign currency.
423 retailers arent doing too well and the new year will see many bankrupties and closing down sales. westfield has meant footfall in oxford street has actually fallen, i would take the figures as the usual christmas retail puff. although there are probably more european shoppers about, the idea that everyone’s awash with money to spend in the uk is , given europe is in recession. there are “sale” 20- 50% off signs plastered over shop windows (even in luxury brand stores - just take the bus through knighstbridge and chelsea). tourism is important but its not going to outweigh the fact that the 7.5million population of london are skint and simply cannot max out their credit any more.
423 retailers arent doing too well and the new year will see many bankrupties and closing down sales. westfield has meant footfall in oxford street has actually fallen, i would take the figures as the usual christmas retail puff. although there are probably more european shoppers about, the idea that everyone’s awash with money to spend in the uk is , given europe is in recession. there are “sale” 20- 50% off signs plastered over shop windows (even in luxury brand stores - just take the bus through knighstbridge and chelsea). tourism is important but its not going to outweigh the fact that the 7.5million population of london are skint and simply cannot max out their credit any more.
re 419 there is no such book “Origin of the species”. What does it mean anyway? Which species?
Re NickC @437 - oh the dark arts of spin as spun by NickC. What Osbourne was saying was true and has been evident for weeks and oppositions have a duty to say this. Me thinks NickC is after a job with Mandy and Campbell.