Thursday 13th August

[AnatolyKasparov]

Just not so you'd notice.

I am, I confess, very surprised at Brown and Miliband. Why have they said nothing?

Blair's interventions are a sign he knows Corbyn has won. He knows as much as everyone here that anything he says will be counterproductive for the candidate(s) he would prefer. But, he also knows he can't now say nothing. If, say, Burnham were ahead we would not have heard a peep out of him

The other striking things is how quickly politics have moved. It was only two months ago when all of us here were hoping and generally expecting Ed Miliband to now be PM. A different and more harmonious world.

Because they think 1) it won't work and 2) its not their job to interfere?

The one person who could - COULD - halt the Jezza bandwagon is, of course, your old mate EM (I don't think Brown could, and he didn't intervene in 2010 either)

But maybe Ed takes the view this is a phase that the party has to go through (he has read Gramsci and all that stuff) and maybe, being human after all, he isn't unhappy to see a kind of "revenge" dished out to certain people (it is fairly well known he was *very* fracked off with Kendall undermining both him and Burnham on health policy with *that* high-profile interview not long before the GE)

Just a few thoughts.....

maybe.

I think that is selfish, and a bit juvenile of him. If true.

Well, even an admirer like me recognises that he is human and not a saint

(of course, certain people dancing on his grave within hours of the election result is unlikely to have helped there either)

I don't say that is his sole or even principal motivation for remaining schtum, but it is very likely a factor.

Though his current feelings may be summed up by the old Latin phrase "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" - I must admit I am tending that way as well.

[PorFavor]

When is "the letter" going to be unleashed? Or is it in the pending tray awaiting a suitable psychological moment?

This one?

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/stat ... 36/photo/1

It was out last night.

It very likely is that one - but I can't get the link to work. It's probably a problem here - my internet connection doesn't take kindly to "weather". I'll try it again in a bit.

Thank you.

[mikems]

I remember, back in the late 70s, when Labour was losing all those by-elections and the end was in sight for the Callaghan government - this was before the break-down of the Social Contract aka 'the winter of discontent' - that there was some ineluctable change in things, and that no amount of argument or will was going to stop it. Dreadfully depressing, and I can only be grateful that I didn't then know it would be nearly forty years before it would, somehow, ineluctably, swing back in the other direction.

The real tragedy, for me, was that I was right to feel foreboding and dread at what was to come. Our country was wrecked and democracy nearly fatally beaten.

So I can feel for those on the other side of things now, but, really, such people will not be facing the turmoil and hardship we were all put through, and now our children are suffering from.

[Tubby Isaacs]

What if you honestly believed the Labour party, which you had led, was headed for disaster. Could you say nothing?

Well, I don't believe a word he says. If he says the Labour party is heading for disaster, he means something else from what most people understand by those words.

He wants to put the Labour party in aspic and keep it forever unchanged from when he was in charge, regardless of the simple fact that time moves on, and it has moved on beyond even 1983 by now.

I think it's heading for disaster, and I'm no Blairite.

[PorFavor]

Because they think 1) it won't work and 2) its not their job to interfere?

The one person who could - COULD - halt the Jezza bandwagon is, of course, your old mate EM (I don't think Brown could, and he didn't intervene in 2010 either)

But maybe Ed takes the view this is a phase that the party has to go through (he has read Gramsci and all that stuff) and maybe, being human after all, he isn't unhappy to see a kind of "revenge" dished out to certain people (it is fairly well known he was *very* fracked off with Kendall undermining both him and Burnham on health policy with *that* high-profile interview not long before the GE)

Just a few thoughts.....

maybe.

I think that is selfish, and a bit juvenile of him. If true.

Well, even an admirer like me recognises that he is human and not a saint

(of course, certain people dancing on his grave within hours of the election result is unlikely to have helped there either)

I don't say that is his sole or even principal motivation for remaining schtum, but it is very likely a factor.

Though his current feelings may be summed up by the old Latin phrase "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" - I must admit I am tending that way as well.

Well, it would go a long way to accounting for the weather . . . .

[mikems]

I think it's heading for disaster, and I'm no Blairite.

We have just had the disaster, surely.

[ohsocynical]

Nobody cares what the government did or didn't do, they won't understand it anyway. They will understand the simple message Corbyn supports terrorists.

They won't really go for Corbyn on foreign policy, even though his track record is dire. They will simply hammer him into the dust on the economy, see 83 and 87 elections for how well that works.

If Labour supporters like Tubby and myself can pull his program to pieces as sound bites and impractical dreaming in five minutes you can bet the Tory party can and you can absolutely be certain that the public at large won't vote for it.

This sort of policy works really well for the Greens (except for the citizens income which was too far even for them) because nobody who votes Green expects them to form a government. They know therefore it would never be implemented. It absolutely doesn't work for a party that they are voting for to actually form the government.

Given the erosion of the Labour base if he gets 20% he will be doing very well. Expect UKIP to win a huge chunk of Labours heartland.

I for one can't see the point in supporting a contender or party that are wishy-washy about issues that will be even more desperate five years down the road.

Many people don't want a Torylite government.

The Tory party is already hard at work. Misinformation is their forte.

I refuse to be suckered in or driven away by it.

Not enough people want a Corbyn government. Standing on a losing platform is in my view conning the people you claim to be helping.

Sorry but you're implying people are incapable of logical thought, common sense or have the wits to know if they're being conned.

It's just as careless for me to say that you are being conned by the right wing press.

[refitman]

When is "the letter" going to be unleashed? Or is it in the pending tray awaiting a suitable psychological moment?

This one?

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/stat ... 36/photo/1

It was out last night.

It very likely is that one - but I can't get the link to work. It's probably a problem here - my internet connection doesn't take kindly to "weather". I'll try it again in a bit.

Thank you.

[RogerOThornhill]

It very likely is that one - but I can't get the link to work. It's probably a problem here - my internet connection doesn't take kindly to "weather". I'll try it again in a bit.

Thank you.

Here you go - save trying again.

Beaten to it...

[PorFavor]

@RogerOThornhill

The link's now working.

Apostrophe fail in the first part of the first sentence. The final paragraph is a mess. Very impressive. I hope they didn't spend too long drafting it.

(I hope tinyclanger2 is around!)

Edited

Actually, "first sentence" only as the missive appeared in the version my computer allowed me to see! Oh, well . . .

[Tubby Isaacs]

Just taking up what HindleA said last night about Liverpool and Militant.

Just read the Michael Crick book on it, and though Crick is no lefty, thought some of it was very interesting.

As Hindle A says, Hatton was basically a PR man in very expensive suit. Even in Merseyside, they weren't that popular until they took on the government the first time and won a small dispensation. They were absolutely correct about the condition of the city because, unlike other decaying cities, low-spending Liberals had run it before. Patrick Jenkin allowed that point and sensibly conceded to them- though their ambitious plans had to be dropped to get that money.

Unfortunately, they acted like silly arses after this, humiliated Jenkin and talked like they'd overthrown the government. The government made sure they fell flat on their faces next time.

The objection to them wasn't that they were left wing, it was that they were sectarian. They used to oppose progressive stuff on occasions because the other progressives didn't support their broader analysis.

No doubt lots of people who got purged weren't Militant true believers, but good leftwinger who'd worked with them to get good stuff done. But the problem (for Labour) was genuine and something needed to be done.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think it's heading for disaster, and I'm no Blairite.

We have just had the disaster, surely.

We had Cameron winning on the back of personal ratings and the SNP, by 6%. They won by more than that in 1992.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I remember, back in the late 70s, when Labour was losing all those by-elections and the end was in sight for the Callaghan government - this was before the break-down of the Social Contract aka 'the winter of discontent' - that there was some ineluctable change in things, and that no amount of argument or will was going to stop it. Dreadfully depressing, and I can only be grateful that I didn't then know it would be nearly forty years before it would, somehow, ineluctably, swing back in the other direction.

The real tragedy, for me, was that I was right to feel foreboding and dread at what was to come. Our country was wrecked and democracy nearly fatally beaten.

So I can feel for those on the other side of things now, but, really, such people will not be facing the turmoil and hardship we were all put through, and now our children are suffering from.

Many people think Callaghan would have won if he'd called an election in Autumn 1978.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Another policy of Corbyn's I don't like. This "People's QE".

The Bank doesn't want to do more QE. He'd be basically forcing it to, and telling it what to buy. That's the end of Bank independence the governor would resign, and whatever arguments there are against central bank independence (some of them good), the cost of borrowing would go up if politicians could tell it what to do.

We need a left candidate who'll state clearly they would invest, not cut while rates are cheap. I'm absolutely fine with that.

About all Corbyn's missing is Positive Money and the Citizen's Income.

[PorFavor]

@Tubby Isaacs

Yes - you were right, yesterday. We should have waited to see the letter before condemning it. The points made appear to be reasonable.

[ohsocynical]

From last night.

@TechinicalEphemera

A lot of people hate the Labour Party in this country. Admit it if you could spend £3 and get IDS elected as leader if the Tory party wouldn't you?

Sorry but I can't let that one pass. That really is insulting and does you no credit.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Where does Michael Meacher think the extra spending for the NHS and Education came from if Blair/Brown were running a purely Thatcherite government?

Increasingly, I think there's an argument that Brown blindsided Murdoch. Major was a state shrinker, once he'd got over the nineties recession. The state was settling down way below 40. Brown, after the first term, shifted it upwards again so that it actually looked like it could do what it was supposed to do. I don't think Rupes quite had that in mind. Probably he bought into the myth that Major was particularly useless and that Blair would run about the same sized state but better.

[mikems]

The Bank doesn't want to do more QE.

Well, so what? I think handing control of interest rates to the BoE, and from there to the city and its markets, was a strategic error of the worst sort.

It was a tory policy, and it completed the deregulation of the bond system, preferred brokers etc, which used to be used to regulate the wider economy.

Now interest rates, and economic activity generally, and investment, are all decided by private markets and individuals who can shift their wealth wherever they like in the world. It's a lamentable position for any country to find itself in, and worse that we have been driven to it by bi-partisan agreement.

How the hell can we invest in the infrastructure of the country or in skills if such investment is decided by people who have no interest in it, except for short-term gain?

We've had investment banks before, we've had nationalised industries before, and control of the bond system and higher direct taxes and the sky did not, repeat not, fall in.

[mikems]

I mean you could tell it was a dreadful policy because the media, the city and the tories all welcomed it

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Bank doesn't want to do more QE.

Well, so what? I think handing control of interest rates to the BoE, and from there to the city and its markets, was a strategic error of the worst sort.

It was a tory policy, and it completed the deregulation of the bond system, preferred brokers etc, which used to be used to regulate the wider economy.

Now interest rates, and economic activity generally, and investment, are all decided by private markets and individuals who can shift their wealth wherever they like in the world. It's a lamentable position for any country to find itself in, and worse that we have been driven to it by bi-partisan agreement.

How the hell can we invest in the infrastructure of the country or in skills if such investment is decided by people who have no interest in it, except for short-term gain?

We've had investment banks before, we've had nationalised industries before, and control of the bond system and higher direct taxes and the sky did not, repeat not, fall in.

I just explained why it was bad. We'd pay more for borrowing for the long term, and would probably hit business investment too.

It isn't the central banks job to fund infrastructure. It's the government's. Borrow in the conventional way.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Not enough people want a Corbyn government. Standing on a losing platform is in my view conning the people you claim to be helping.

How do you know that "not enough people want a Corbyn government"?
You may believe that, Hugo may believe that, lots of people may believe that.
There are others who do not believe that.

The voters will decide if or when he leads the Labour Party in a General Election.

Until then, your crystal ball is no better than mine.

No, but as I pointed out last night if you look at the results of the last election, and consider the shy Tories are back, and the fact the drift was to a large degree Lib Dem to Tory it doesn't suggest a country yearning for radical change on the left. Nobody here (or anywhere) has offered any sort of reasoned analysis indicating the country is indeed crying out for a radical alternative and that Miliband lost because he was too right wing.

It rather suggests a country still voting for the economic status quo. Now in five years Osborne will have created more losers, but not enough to generate a rush to a candidate whose economic policies look both radical and poorly thought out. Policies that collapse on serious examination aren't great.

If Corbyn was proposing a moderate approach to the economy and fixing one big issue, e.g. housing plus offering a serious overhaul of say taxation and landowner subsidies then it might go down rather well (although the law of unintended consequences may apply to the second).

Where I differ from SH is I believe the answer isn't a move to the right but a degree of core continuity whilst looking at immigration and the kipper voters again. This is also why Harman did so much damage with her stupid abstention on welfare. That said I get repeatedly hammered by people because of all the free stuff Labour gave the feckless unemployed..... Welfare is not popular with the working poor.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That said I get repeatedly hammered by people because of all the free stuff Labour gave the feckless unemployed..... Welfare is not popular with the working poor.

It isn't, that's right.

I thought the compulsory jobs thing was potentially a good policy. Miliband/Reeves sold it in a punitive way, because they were mindful of the way lots of core working class voters see out of work benefits. (This is often wrongly referred to as pandering to the Mail- it isn't).

But equally, it was paid work (for 25 hours only, could maybe have been 35) for people who wouldn't have any otherwise. I'm not sure what people getting the hump with it wanted to happen instead.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Another policy of Corbyn's I don't like. This "People's QE".

The Bank doesn't want to do more QE. He'd be basically forcing it to, and telling it what to buy. That's the end of Bank independence the governor would resign, and whatever arguments there are against central bank independence (some of them good), the cost of borrowing would go up if politicians could tell it what to do.

We need a left candidate who'll state clearly they would invest, not cut while rates are cheap. I'm absolutely fine with that.

About all Corbyn's missing is Positive Money and the Citizen's Income.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... eoples-qe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which is why I (Richard Murphy) have been, and Jeremy Corbyn has also been, very keen to make clear that the Bank of England will not be investing in roads, or houses, or green energy. It would in fact be buying bonds from a National Investment Bank which would, under government direction and subject to government guarantees, engage in such investment issues. All that the Bank of England would do would buy some new forms of bond: it would not manage a single project or decide upon any investments.

Ah, apologies. That is clearer.

But Murphy is off into strawman territory typically there- nobody said the Bank would be directing projects. The objection is to the government direction bit and what that means in the context of the independent bank. That's extra borrowing costs, for as long as Corbyn or whoever is around.

[PorFavor]

Not enough people want a Corbyn government. Standing on a losing platform is in my view conning the people you claim to be helping.

How do you know that "not enough people want a Corbyn government"?
You may believe that, Hugo may believe that, lots of people may believe that.
There are others who do not believe that.

The voters will decide if or when he leads the Labour Party in a General Election.

Until then, your crystal ball is no better than mine.

No, but as I pointed out last night if you look at the results of the last election, and consider the shy Tories are back, and the fact the drift was to a large degree Lib Dem to Tory it doesn't suggest a country yearning for radical change on the left. Nobody here (or anywhere) has offered any sort of reasoned analysis indicating the country is indeed crying out for a radical alternative and that Miliband lost because he was too right wing.

It rather suggests a country still voting for the economic status quo. Now in five years Osborne will have created more losers, but not enough to generate a rush to a candidate whose economic policies look both radical and poorly thought out. Policies that collapse on serious examination aren't great.

If Corbyn was proposing a moderate approach to the economy and fixing one big issue, e.g. housing plus offering a serious overhaul of say taxation and landowner subsidies then it might go down rather well (although the law of unintended consequences may apply to the second).

Where I differ from SH is I believe the answer isn't a move to the right but a degree of core continuity whilst looking at immigration and the kipper voters again. This is also why Harman did so much damage with her stupid abstention on welfare. That said I get repeatedly hammered by people because of all the free stuff Labour gave the feckless unemployed..... Welfare is not popular with the working poor.

Well, perhaps someone should explain to the "working poor" what "welfare" actually encompasses, then. That would be a start - ie that it's not really the Conservative fiction of millions of lazy smokers lounging around in front of enormous plasma TVs.

[TechnicalEphemera]

The Bank doesn't want to do more QE.

Well, so what? I think handing control of interest rates to the BoE, and from there to the city and its markets, was a strategic error of the worst sort.

It was a tory policy, and it completed the deregulation of the bond system, preferred brokers etc, which used to be used to regulate the wider economy.

Now interest rates, and economic activity generally, and investment, are all decided by private markets and individuals who can shift their wealth wherever they like in the world. It's a lamentable position for any country to find itself in, and worse that we have been driven to it by bi-partisan agreement.

How the hell can we invest in the infrastructure of the country or in skills if such investment is decided by people who have no interest in it, except for short-term gain?

We've had investment banks before, we've had nationalised industries before, and control of the bond system and higher direct taxes and the sky did not, repeat not, fall in.

Most people would agree an industrial investment bank is a good idea, I actually am shocked the Tories are against it.

We are not going back to nationalised industries, possibly Rail being the exception because of the way it is franchised. There is no money to renationalise stuff and in most cases the returns won't match the investment. Higher direct taxes wouldn't be a bad thing but it is electorally difficult (it probably cost Labour the 92 election). In fact these days money is best raised on taxes the rich actually have to pay.

Similarly we are not going back to political control of interest rates, the decision was taken in an era when government messing with interest rates for political reasons had stolen a huge property bubble. Debt relief to individuals is interesting and might stimulate the economy, but you have to explain to tax payers why you are giving their money to individuals to pay off debts. These same tax payers will argue nobody gives them free stuff.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I mean you could tell it was a dreadful policy because the media, the city and the tories all welcomed it

The Tories, to be fair, actually had the best policy on the Bank. The Bank's minutes were all published and the Chancellor (Clarke) made the final decision. With the minutes published, the Chancellor couldn't do blatantly political interest rate cuts, like Lawson did in 1987. Clarke actually did better than the Bank in his decisions and I'll always respect him for that.

So I opposed Brown's decision at the time. But it's something that once it's happened, hard to go back without being seen as a sign of weakness and that effecting borrowing costs and business investment.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Debt relief to individuals is interesting and might stimulate the economy, but you have to explain to tax payers why you are giving their money to individuals to pay off debts. These same tax payers will argue nobody gives them free stuff.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what Icelanders voted for last time. The Independence Party who presided over the disaster and only saved from much, much worse stuff by the generous loans provided by the other Nordics. Back in power to cancel debts the helped create.

Worth a bet on Fianna Fail?

[AnatolyKasparov]

The "evidence" for the return of "shy Toryism" was collated by the Number Cruncher Politics blogger just days before the GE.

It caused a bit of a stir then, and unsurprisingly still more so after the result.

But IMO it only accounts for a small part at best of the polling "error" - NCP cited mainly "second order elections", where the lower turnouts mean the built-in Tory advantage there (not always huge, but a long standing historic thing) is magnified.

The polls were "wrong" for three main reasons IMO:

1) a very VERY late swing - we are talking during polling day itself basically, "undecided" voters went massively for the Tories (Great Scots Scare has to be pivotal there)
2) sampling and methodology defects;
3) differential turnout - the polls by the last week were consistently predicting a 70-75% turnout, as we all know it was only 66% (a mere one point up on 2010 - in contrast they then correctly said it would be 65% or so; it is no coincidence they got much closer to the actual result too) If the polls had got turnout right this time, the Tories would certainly not have had an OM and there is at least a fighting chance Miliband would have emerged as PM.

People (especially Corbyn's internal opponents in Labour) need to stop saying there is "no point" in chasing people who didn't vote last time. There is a hard core (20% or so) who won't vote in almost any circumstances, but the rest *are* reachable. There have been a few people at JC's packed rallies who admit they didn't vote in May - they are now embarrassed about it and are determined not to make the same mistake again. That, at least, is a positive

[SpinningHugo]

Another policy of Corbyn's I don't like. This "People's QE".

The Bank doesn't want to do more QE. He'd be basically forcing it to, and telling it what to buy. That's the end of Bank independence the governor would resign, and whatever arguments there are against central bank independence (some of them good), the cost of borrowing would go up if politicians could tell it what to do.

We need a left candidate who'll state clearly they would invest, not cut while rates are cheap. I'm absolutely fine with that.

About all Corbyn's missing is Positive Money and the Citizen's Income.

Whatever its pros and cons, calling it quantitative easing is deliberately misleading. QE is balance sheet neutral, and involves swapping short term debt for long term in the hope that this increases the money supply. It is balance sheet neutral and is an imperfect substitute for lowering interest rates when you are at the zero level bound.

What Corbyn is suggesting is just money printing by another name. now there can be a case for printing money in emergency conditions (maybe sensible in 2007). Nobody serious thinks we should be doing it now.

(Leslie explained all this poorly, and left Corbyn with wriggle room. Leslie should have got a proper economist to write that bit for him.)

[TechnicalEphemera]

Without generating the whole history again, the shy Tories thing is seen by looking at the discrepancy in the exit poll and the result (which as per 92 had a pro Labour bias). However it isn't really central to the argument, it is the collapse of the lib Dems driven by a desire to lock the genuinely radical SNP out of power. Surely those yearning for a genuinely left wing government would have welcomed them with open arms.

[Tubby Isaacs]

People (especially Corbyn's internal opponents in Labour) need to stop saying there is "no point" in chasing people who didn't vote last time. There is a hard core (20% or so) who won't vote in almost any circumstances, but the rest *are* reachable.

We had 66 or so voting last time. 80% turnout looks extremely unlikely to me.

If we go for, say 75- how likely is that Labour cleans up those extra 9%? I'd say pretty much the square root of zilch.

There's a reason people go after swing voters. They're like away goals- worth double.

[TechnicalEphemera]

AK above.

There was no very late swing. All the polls moved Tory to Labour at the very latest, so the genuinely undecideds broke Labour. The leak about polling returns the week before was interesting (and bang on as it turned out).

[AnatolyKasparov]

People (especially Corbyn's internal opponents in Labour) need to stop saying there is "no point" in chasing people who didn't vote last time. There is a hard core (20% or so) who won't vote in almost any circumstances, but the rest *are* reachable.

We had 66 or so voting last time. 80% turnout looks extremely unlikely to me.

If we go for, say 75- how likely is that Labour cleans up those extra 9%? I'd say pretty much the square root of zilch.

There's a reason people go after swing voters. They're like away goals- worth double.

Nobody is saying Labour would "clean up" then, but it would almost certainly benefit Labour (and other anti-Tory parties, UKIP quite possibly included here)

Tories got their vote out *hugely* successfully in May - bribing pensioners, stoking up a house price boom, telling floating voters that Scary Scots would kill them all.

(and using the most newfangled, US derived targeting techniques - this completely blindsided their opponents)

Any improvement into the 70s turnout wise would be concentrated amongst demographic groups that tend to favour Labour.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Another policy of Corbyn's I don't like. This "People's QE".

The Bank doesn't want to do more QE. He'd be basically forcing it to, and telling it what to buy. That's the end of Bank independence the governor would resign, and whatever arguments there are against central bank independence (some of them good), the cost of borrowing would go up if politicians could tell it what to do.

We need a left candidate who'll state clearly they would invest, not cut while rates are cheap. I'm absolutely fine with that.

About all Corbyn's missing is Positive Money and the Citizen's Income.

Whatever its pros and cons, calling it quantitative easing is deliberately misleading. QE is balance sheet neutral, and involves swapping short term debt for long term in the hope that this increases the money supply. It is balance sheet neutral and is an imperfect substitute for lowering interest rates when you are at the zero level bound.

What Corbyn is suggesting is just money printing by another name. now there can be a case for printing money in emergency conditions (maybe sensible in 2007). Nobody serious thinks we should be doing it now.

(Leslie explained all this poorly, and left Corbyn with wriggle room. Leslie should have got a proper economist to write that bit for him.)

Aren't proper QE bonds there to be sold, at least in theory?

[PorFavor]

It's stopped raining here.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Nobody is saying Labour would "clean up" then, but it would almost certainly benefit Labour (and other anti-Tory parties, UKIP quite possibly included here)

Tories got their vote out *hugely* successfully in May - bribing pensioners, stoking up a house price boom, telling floating voters that Scary Scots would kill them all.

(and using the most newfangled, US derived targeting techniques - this completely blindsided their opponents)

Any improvement into the 70s turnout wise would be concentrated amongst demographic groups that tend to favour Labour.

But they wouldn't deliver votes where Labour needs them, even if that's the case.

Lowest turnouts are in Labour safe seats.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... voting-all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Forget about them. They don't vote. And someone else will always be able to promise them more, like UKIP or the Greens.

Stick where Miliband was, with Burnham or Cooper, and make sure no-one thinks you'll be pushed about by Scots next time.

[ohsocynical]

The "evidence" for the return of "shy Toryism" was collated by the Number Cruncher Politics blogger just days before the GE.

It caused a bit of a stir then, and unsurprisingly still more so after the result.

But IMO it only accounts for a small part at best of the polling "error" - NCP cited mainly "second order elections", where the lower turnouts mean the built-in Tory advantage there (not always huge, but a long standing historic thing) is magnified.

The polls were "wrong" for three main reasons IMO:

1) a very VERY late swing - we are talking during polling day itself basically, "undecided" voters went massively for the Tories (Great Scots Scare has to be pivotal there)
2) sampling and methodology defects;
3) differential turnout - the polls by the last week were consistently predicting a 70-75% turnout, as we all know it was only 66% (a mere one point up on 2010 - in contrast they then correctly said it would be 65% or so; it is no coincidence they got much closer to the actual result too) If the polls had got turnout right this time, the Tories would certainly not have had an OM and there is at least a fighting chance Miliband would have emerged as PM.

People (especially Corbyn's internal opponents in Labour) need to stop saying there is "no point" in chasing people who didn't vote last time. There is a hard core (20% or so) who won't vote in almost any circumstances, but the rest *are* reachable. There have been a few people at JC's packed rallies who admit they didn't vote in May - they are now embarrassed about it and are determined not to make the same mistake again. That, at least, is a positive

Russell brands endorsement for Labour came too late for many to register. I wonder how many votes were lost thanks to him...

[ohsocynical]

People (especially Corbyn's internal opponents in Labour) need to stop saying there is "no point" in chasing people who didn't vote last time. There is a hard core (20% or so) who won't vote in almost any circumstances, but the rest *are* reachable.

We had 66 or so voting last time. 80% turnout looks extremely unlikely to me.

If we go for, say 75- how likely is that Labour cleans up those extra 9%? I'd say pretty much the square root of zilch.

There's a reason people go after swing voters. They're like away goals- worth double.

Nobody is saying Labour would "clean up" then, but it would almost certainly benefit Labour (and other anti-Tory parties, UKIP quite possibly included here)

Tories got their vote out *hugely* successfully in May - bribing pensioners, stoking up a house price boom, telling floating voters that Scary Scots would kill them all.

(and using the most newfangled, US derived targeting techniques - this completely blindsided their opponents)

Any improvement into the 70s turnout wise would be concentrated amongst demographic groups that tend to favour Labour.

I'm sure the Conservatives were wrong footed over voter turnout numbers. They had banked on well over 75% and were also taken aback on gaining a majority. They were already talking about a second election while the first was taking place.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Another reminder of Corbyn's judgement.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/venezue ... ent-budget" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Venezuela- deficit in 2014= 11.5%
3 years of contraction in a row.
10 year bonds= 10.34%
Inflation 68.5%
Credit rating CCC

cf Uruguay, Brazil, Bolivia- all in much better shape.

[RogerOThornhill]

Whatever its pros and cons, calling it quantitative easing is deliberately misleading. QE is balance sheet neutral, and involves swapping short term debt for long term in the hope that this increases the money supply. It is balance sheet neutral and is an imperfect substitute for lowering interest rates when you are at the zero level bound.

Sorry but that's just wrong.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary ... fault.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is Quantitative Easing?
Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional form of monetary policy where a Central Bank creates new money electronically to buy financial assets, like government bonds. This process aims to directly increase private sector spending in the economy and return inflation to target.

Thus, there is now £375bn of debt sitting within the Bank of England's subsidiary company (created for this purpose) which could - and there have been people who've suggested this - be simply written off.

Now, instead of buying debt, that money could have been used elsewhere. It's just that at the time the BoE wanted to encourage bank lending so bought up government bonds so that banks could lend elsewhere.

Funny, someone calling themselves DennisHeal posted exactly the same as you did elsewhere earlier...

[Tubby Isaacs]

But those government bonds have a value. They can be traded, they (in theory) bear interest.

UK Investment bank bonds aren't like that.

[RogerOThornhill]

But those government bonds have a value. They can be traded, they (in theory) bear interest.

UK Investment bank bonds aren't like that.

Yes they could be traded. At some point I think there was an idea that the BoE would start to re-issue them instead of the usual situation of debt being issued by the Debt Management Office.

Incidentally, creating the DMO as a separate entity was an idea of Brown's that seems to have been very successful...it must have been a bit galling to him that people like Osborne were going round saying that "we were like Greece" when the DMO over the years have made sure we're anything but.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yep, the DMO seem to have been excellent.

You saw this article I put up lots of times before? Doubt anything like it made it anywhere near the main news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15717770" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The success of the DMO is another reason I worry about politicians getting all over the Bank.

But back to the other question- what value do Corbynesque investment bank bonds have?

[RogerOThornhill]

Looking at the latest issuance calendar at the DMO, their last issue was 0 1/8% Index-linked Treasury Gilt 2058 - now that is what you call long-term...

[Tubby Isaacs]

That is long term.

Looking at that article, it seems odd how Spain got so caught out. Its deficit, at its worse, was about what the UK's was, with its housing crash and all. Why was there so much debt coming up so quickly?

[Tubby Isaacs]

[SpinningHugo]

But those government bonds have a value. They can be traded, they (in theory) bear interest.

UK Investment bank bonds aren't like that.

Yes they could be traded. At some point I think there was an idea that the BoE would start to re-issue them instead of the usual situation of debt being issued by the Debt Management Office.
.

And they will be once we are away from the zlb.

I am not at all sure why you think anything you said refuted my (simple) explanation of QE.

The point of QE is that you can (and are expected to) reverse it. it isn't just cash given to banks. It is an asset purchase scheme, that will go into reverse.

[SpinningHugo]

Here is the link



http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/14214 ... ust-answer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Temulkar]

Here is the link



http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/14214 ... ust-answer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Penned by a man who said the "Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy".

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is the cartoonist they object to.

https://latuffcartoons.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First glance, he looks OK to me.