Politics Thread!

[merman]

0.7% growth last quarter, but just an excuse to post this clip of Ed Balls being upstaged by a spider.

Which means growth fell 0.2%

Cameron's ridiculous posturing over the EU demands for more money are not going to save the Rochester by-election.

[pogo]

Growth was 0.9% the previous quarter, 0.7% the most recent. 3% over the whole year, which puts us ahead of most if not all other developed economies. You have to have a pretty warped set of priorities to see that as bad news.

As for the EU's reassessment of Britain's contribution I think any government would feel obliged to challenge it. It does seem a bit fanciful, this new EU budgetary requirement. Even Greece, as well as Cyprus, Italy and Holland has been assessed as performing better than previously thought so has to pay more. That's three of the six main crisis countries. Germany and France meanwhile get the largest reductions. It looks not so much like sound accounting as a stitch-up between those two countries.

[VNVObit]

Growth was 0.9% the previous quarter, 0.7% the most recent. 3% over the whole year, which puts us ahead of most if not all other developed economies. You have to have a pretty warped set of priorities to see that as bad news.

As for the EU's reassessment of Britain's contribution I think any government would feel obliged to challenge it. It does seem a bit fanciful, this new EU budgetary requirement. Even Greece, as well as Cyprus, Italy and Holland has been assessed as performing better than previously thought so has to pay more. That's three of the six main crisis countries. Germany and France meanwhile get the largest reductions. It looks not so much like sound accounting as a stitch-up between those two countries.

The portrayal of this in the media is interesting. Fact is that UK understated its GDP by using a methodology inconsistent with the rest of Europe so suppressed its contribution for over 10 years. They reassess the GDP using the consistent methodology and apparently feel offended for being asked to pay their fair share. The timing of the payment, I agree, is a bit harsh since the liability accrued over several years, but the liability is actually fair. It's a bit like repeatedly making an error in your tax return and then being found out.

You're also forgetting the money the EU wastes on MEPs who take their allowances and use them to campaign against the EU. The contribution wouldn't be so big if the EU cut those people off (marginally of course but hey we should get a £ for £ reduction for every UKIP member )

[zip accident]

This could be fun.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29765415

Apparently, Labour in London fired the Scottish Labour party's general secretary, without telling the Scottish Labour party.

[Ratsoap]

She has been utterly fucking useless, this can only be good for Scottish Labour. And let's face it, they need all the help they can get at the moment.

And a high profile member of the 'Better Together' campaign complaining about Scotland being treated like a branch office? She's changed her tune.

[zip accident]

She has been utterly fucking useless, this can only be good for Scottish Labour. And let's face it, they need all the help they can get at the moment.

And a high profile member of the 'Better Together' campaign complaining about Scotland being treated like a branch office? She's changed her tune.

All of that may well be true, is it untrue that a local official was fired by London without consultation, or was it only she herself who was out of communication?

[merman]

Growth was 0.9% the previous quarter, 0.7% the most recent. 3% over the whole year, which puts us ahead of most if not all other developed economies. You have to have a pretty warped set of priorities to see that as bad news.

As for the EU's reassessment of Britain's contribution I think any government would feel obliged to challenge it. It does seem a bit fanciful, this new EU budgetary requirement. Even Greece, as well as Cyprus, Italy and Holland has been assessed as performing better than previously thought so has to pay more. That's three of the six main crisis countries. Germany and France meanwhile get the largest reductions. It looks not so much like sound accounting as a stitch-up between those two countries.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

EITHER

The economy is doing badly and we don't owe the EU all that money

OR

The economy is doing great and we owe the EU that money.


Cameron is trying to say "we didn't know about it" when the Treasury has known for months. And Osborne told a blatant lie yesterday when he said the UK was "leading" growth among leading industrialised nations. Canada, France, New Zealand and the US are all growing faster and have recovered stronger since 2008.

[pogo]

Cameron is trying to say "we didn't know about it" when the Treasury has known for months. And Osborne told a blatant lie yesterday when he said the UK was "leading" growth among leading industrialised nations. Canada, France, New Zealand and the US are all growing faster and have recovered stronger since 2008.

Now you're simply spouting nonsense. France?!? They're in recession, or close to it. Here's the BBC report on this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29752338

However, the UK still looked set to be the fastest-growing advanced economy this year.

So is the BBC lying too ?

It would be nice if we could grow faster given the depth of the recession, but our export growth is severely constrained by the fact our main trading partners are either in recession or toying with it.

edit: here's some actual figures for 2014

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/update/01/

They're predictions made in Jan 2014 so should be taken with a pinch of salt. The current UK prediction of 3% for 2014 is it ahead of France (1.0%), USA (2.8%) and Canada (2.2%).

Not only is the UK doing well but its prospects have improved markedly; the "Difference from October 2013 WEO Published" column shows how much predictions changed from Oct 2013, and the UK's expected growth in 2014 was up by 0.6% (to 2.2%). We now know even that was much too conservative, with growth now expected to be more like 3%. No other advanced country has seen anything like this improvement.

[pogo]

Elected senate would replace House of Lords under Labour

Oddly something I agree with Labour on. In fact if you'd asked me what should be done with the Lords it's this. A few gotcha's though
* The commons should still have precedence, anything else would lead to gridlock
* This could be a way of revitalising the regions, put them on a similar footing to Scotland, Wales. But if they do that they also have to deal with the West Lothian question, this doesn't solve that
* It's unclear what electoral system will be used but if it's done by 'regions' it could be like the system for MEPs, so PR. This is probably unavoidable, as it would be silly to have a similar system and makeup to the commons. But that and the timing makes it look like a sop to the Lib Dems.
* UK governments have a recent history of failing to pass constitutional reform. The vote on AV, English mayors, regional assemblies, boundary changes, have all failed either in parliament or when presented to voters. This would probably not end up being put to voters but it could still die in the horse-trading that always accompanies such reforms.

[Harlequin]

While I agree about the potential benefits for regional representation, I do not like the idea of having another publicly elected House. People vote for a mass of silly reasons and are in general easily manipulated by PR and the machinations of career politicians.

[pogo]

The Lords is horribly broken though at the moment, so bad that almost anything would be an improvement. So how would you change it?

[Harlequin]

I have little idea how I would change it (or rather, a few loose concepts which I have not much thought through). I think the current system works far better, though, than another publicly elected House would.

As one idea, how about a change to the Honours system so that the local Government of each region chooses its own share of the peerage candidate list?

[pogo]

The curent House of Lords is not fit for purpose. It includes judges, bishops (of just the CoE), hereditary piers. None of them should play any role in government. The majority, life peers, are chosen by the PM of the day, though they usually include peers put forward by other parties too. Not only is this unaccountable but it lags, due to peers being appointed for life, so is not representative of voters wishes.

The problem arises when the Lords decide to oppose something. By convention they should let through anything that was in a government's manifesto but they don't always. They memorably kept rejecting bills to ban fox hunting, despite it being a Labour manifesto commitment and having broad public support. But the tory-dominated Lords kept rejecting it. The govt. had to use the parliament act to force it through.

It's hard to think of anything useful or positive it does. This is partly by design, as legislation they introduce has little chance of passing. But every time it's in the news it seems to be for obstruction, simply opposing the govt. for political reasons, not making a good-faith attempt to improve legislation or collaborate with the Commons.

[Harlequin]

I find it hard to think specifically of anything useful or positive done by the U.S. senate or, indeed, the upper houses of most "democracies". I still think, however, that in the creation of national legislature the overview of two houses is better than one and that the membership of those houses should be vastly different in selection and composition. I only trust the general public to do half the job.

[merman]

Turnout in the South Yorkshire Police & Crime Commissioner election?

15%


Even with the high profile of the election because of the Rotherham abuse scandal, that is a shocking figure. Glad that Labour are pledging to get rid of the position. Newly released figures show just how costly these positions are - in Lincolnshire it cost £15 per vote cast. Then there's the £100,000 salary for the PCC, £60,000 for the deputy PCC and thousands of pounds each time the PCC advisory committee meets.