The full tables for YouGov’s Sunday Times poll are now up on the YouGov website here.

The questions on the spending review have results very much in line with YouGov’s poll straight afterward Osborne’s announcement – time to digest newspaper reactions and an extra day’s new coverage don’t seem to have changed opinion as they sometimes do. 43% thought the announcements the government made were right, 43% wrong, 45% thought they went too far, 43% thought they got the balance right or didn’t go far enough (33% and 10% respectively). 51% thought they were unfair, and 45% continue to blame the last Labour government the most compared to 17% blaming the coalition.

One notable change from last week is to perceptions of who will suffer most from the cuts. A week ago YouGov found that 48% thought middle income households would suffer the most, ahead of low-income households on 35%. Presumably this was the result of the child benefit announcement and, perhaps, the tuition fees announcement. This week YouGov repeated the same question and people saw the poorest as likely to suffer the most by 48% to 36% (only 6% think the rich will suffer the most).

Looking at the polls on the spending review as a whole there seems to be a pretty coherent pattern. People are either evenly divided or positive about the cuts themselves, evenly divided over their size, and continue to see them as both unavoidable and more the fault of Labour than the Conservatives. However, they also tend to see the way the coalition have carried them out as unfair, and expect the poor to suffer more than the rich.

On other questions in the YouGov poll, the majority of respondents supported the decision to protect the NHS and schools from cuts, but opposed the decision to protect international development. 70% expect to be worse off from the changes.

There was little sympathy for the BBC – 48% thought the freeze on the licence fee and the end of government funding for the World Service got the balance about right, 31% thought the BBC should face larger cuts, with only 13% thinking the cuts went too far.

There is a continuing appetite for banker-bashing. We asked people if they thought George Osborne had succeeded in getting right what he called the balance between making the banks pay their share and not driving them abroad. Only 5% thought Osborne had gone too far, 31% thought he had got it right, a majority (52%) thought he had not gone far enough and taxes on banks should be even higher.

There was also a BPIX poll in the Mail on Sunday. The quoted shares of the vote in the paper are CON 35%, LAB 37%, LDEM 10%… but this implies others at 18% which would be a sharp contrast with other pollsters. In the past the Mail on Sunday have published figures from BPIX that weren’t repercentaged to exclude won’t votes, so this could be the case here, meaning all three parties are actually higher. BPIX don’t publish tables so we’ll never know.

349 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times post CSR poll”

1 3 4 5 6 7
  1. @ R in N

    “is there a civil war going on or just some political hyperbole”

    Political hyperbole, but by 2012 who knows? The Mayans did say that that was when the world would end ;)

  2. @ Éoin

    Did you hear about the pupil premium debacle? David Cameron, Osborne, Clegg & Laws (in the Guardian), all insisting that it is new money for education.

    Gove then admitted that it isn’t new money at all. He said that the money came, at least partly, from ‘his’ education budget. 8-)

  3. @Jay Blanc

    ‘Apparently, fast reduction of the deficit is less of an appealing issue to the people who buy government bonds as some said prior to the election.’

    The fall in gilt yields suggests the opposite.
    The 10 yr gilt yield has fallen from 3.80 on 6th May to 3.00 on 19th Oct and down to 2.95 on 21st.
    As for the currency the big game in town is the fall in the dollar. We are just a sideshow.

  4. A poll of GPs shows only 23% believe that Lansley’s NHS reforms could lead to improved patient care.

  5. @Zeph

    I think the best way of interpreting TellYouGov is to divide the net negative (it almost always is for politicians on there) by the total responses. On that measure Clegg at about -0.5 hasn’t changed for a while. But it does seem that a lot more people are offering opinions on him so he’s now topping the poll for the number of responses.

    Cameron for a long while was only very slightly negative, which was encouraging for him given that negative ratings for politicians seems the norm. But coinciding with the SR his rating seems to have moved quite rapidly into net negative territory, so currently he’s about -0.4. Could perhaps indicate that the likeable Tory image isn’t a strong enough brand to outweigh strong opinions on coalition policies one way or the other.

    As Anthony notes, we’ve got to be very wary of drawing conclusions from quantative data on TellYouGov. But there might just be something behind this as the scale of the change of opinions on Cameron is really quite stark.

  6. @Éoin…..Freud would certainly have a chuckle at my acronymic mishap, but only if he knew what Chorionic Somatomammotropin A , ( CSA) was. :-)

  7. @ Aleksandar

    The fall in gilt yields suggests the opposite.
    The 10 yr gilt yield has fallen from 3.80 on 6th May to 3.00 on 19th Oct and down to 2.95 on 21st.
    I don’t disagree with your numbers; I do disagree with your analysis that this is down to the CSR/ deficit cutting agenda. 8-)

  8. @Anthony……My 11-40 post to Éoin in moderation, que ?

  9. @Amber

    Could you expand on that pls?

  10. @ Aleksandar

    Asian governments are buying up bonds in an effort to keep their exchange rates artificially low and boost their exports. There is also a ‘savings glut’ by Asian consumers that is being reinvested in the bond markets. The Asian flight from the USD has driven the falling yield, not GO’s budget or CSR.

  11. UK GDP figures are expected to show that growth has slowed from 1.2% in the second quarter of this year to as low as 0.4% in July, August and September, the months after the coalition made its first big announcements on the economy in June’s emergency budget.

  12. @Roland
    good to see you back. I missed you…even though this was because I usually disagree with everything you say! :-)

    Re your comments about the Con party’s love for DC and GO…I’m always incapable of understanding the Con mindset, (I’m blessed that way), but I do think there is something in this rift idea between GO and DC even if it originates from their public school days when GO was an “oik”.

    Anyway, an interesting ‘balance’ has emerged or is emerging in the Con gov. The right wing perhaps most loves GO, whereas DC and the rest of the Cons love the LDs.

    Bad news on the economy, the rising prospect of double-dip, plus growing clamour that the cuts are too much too quick will lead to greater tensions between the PM and the CoE.

    But perhaps it’s wishful thinking on the parts of the media (and us reds).

  13. Amber

    “UK GDP figures are expected to show that growth has slowed from 1.2% in the second quarter of this year to as low as 0.4% in July, August and September,”

    This was presaged when those crazy Q2 numbers came out.

    They were said to be suspect, statistically.

    Still-we need to improve on Q3

    I am staggered by what the CBI have said about our poor credentials for attracting manufacturing to UK.

    A poor skills base !!.

  14. Colin
    “A poor skills base !!.”

    Code for “relax the immigration cap” perhaps?

  15. @Colin
    “They [Q2 figures] were said to be suspect, statistically.”

    Have (or had) they been revised? If not drastically revised downwards, I don’t understand the basis of your comment.

  16. Amber,

    The premium in itself is not a new idea. All sorts of schools receive targetted cash for a variety of reasons. Poverty vis a vis school meals, special needs cash through SENCO funding, Specialist status, or beacon status funding, or even extracuricular training provision funding.

    The critique I would offer, is the same I would offer to any of these investments/targetted inducements: Does it go where it says it goes? Answer: No, it goes into the pot used to pay the general repiar/maintenance/ running costs. Ie.. it goes in to make up the shortfall or day-to-day running of the school.

    So: not only will

    a) schools with no poor kids suffer


    b) even schools with poor kids will not receive adequately targetted support.

    If they really are serious about helping the poor kids, they need to give the money to them so they can decide how best to spend it. Materials, additional tuition, support grants for extra-curricular participation. Any of these types of assistance ventures would be mor effective.

    My son’s local school has a partnership with the local uni’s physical recreational facilities. They run training camps that invite international soccer, rugby, gaelic coaches. If there was a subsidisd scheme for poor kids to participate, they might not have esteem issues that are known to prohibit fulfilling learning potential. You can quickly, and sadly, denote the have & have nots as the queue for monday morning roll call filters into the classroom. Putting extra money into the school pot, will not alleviate the starkness of that monday morning sight.

  17. @Eoin Clarke

    “You can quickly, and sadly, denote the have & have nots as the queue for monday morning roll call filters into the classroom.”

    I’m intrigued by this observation and, while I think I may know what you mean by it, I’d be interested to hear from you about what the unmistakeable tell-tale signs may be as the children queue for the Monday morning roll call. Are the outward demarcations between the haves and the have nots that obvious?

  18. @Mike H

    “….DC and the rest of the Cons love the LDs”.

    Following the past few days, I suspect that Osbourne also loves Clegg.

    Clegg is clearly willing to perform the “useful idiot” role aassigned to him by the coalition in response to criticisms of the Spending Review from highly respected sources. First in claiming on Friday that the IFS was wrong in its analysis that the SR was regressive. Then by claiming on Sunday that the latest Nobel laureate for economics at the LSE was wrong in his critique that Osbourne had greatly exaggerated the risks of the deficit.

    Both criticisms were aimed at Osbourne, so why does Clegg feel the need to step in and take the flak? Perhaps misguided vanity, to try and show he is not being marginalised, but I am really struggling for a rational explanation. What opposing such expert independent opinion does do is further shred Clegg’s reputation, if that were possible following all the u-turns and broken pledges.

  19. @Amber

    Thanks for your reply.
    I don’t deny that there has been an increase in overseas holdings of gilts. However if Asia has been diversifying out of the dollar one would expect an outperformance of non-dollar bonds over US Treasuries. This hasn’t happened. One would also expect a uniform performance between those non-dollar bond markets. The fall in yields in basis points since the GE for the following markets is US (83), UK (85), Germany (31), Japan (39), Spain (30), Italy (35) and France (26).
    This would suggest that the UK has outperformed Europe and Japan since the GE by around 50bp. Yields fall because someone is buying them for some reason. It could be the prospect of more QE that has encouraged them or it could be the CSR.

  20. @Phil,

    I think Clegg stepped in because the greatest risk to the Coalition from criticism, especially “quality” criticism, is the haemorrhage of LibDem support.

  21. Nick H, (observations on an underclass’s kid start to a monday morning)

    Infants making their own way, without a parent to wave them off. Idle parents with medicinal or substance dependancies to help deal with their own depression and poor life chances. Razor sharp tongues, and weathered faces grimly shouting their children off. Half complete school uniforms or ill suited weather protection. Poor footwear, What I call the ‘blue look’ That pale expression, with blue noses and dead pan eyes as the child makes the best use of a sleeve for a hanky, if at all they bother.

    Contrast that with four bu fours, new haircuts, yummy mummies, extra toys or footballs under arm, the latest Wayne Rooney trainers, the latest soccer players hair styles, the chubby red cheeks, the exchange of pleantries with the head master/ teacher, the last minute scramble for the bike locks or collection of cycling helmets. The golf umberellas, the north face kackets.

    Need I say more?

  22. @Eoin and Nick

    Its a cliche but the grammar school abolition was an act of gross vandalism which helped to blight the working class experience and opportunity. I know sec mods and the eleven plus were flawed but neighbourhood comps are worse.
    Second point, there are still too many teachers, and I have been in this game since 1997, who lack the passion of high expectaions for our young people and give them second best.
    Third point, why is it that so often a child who attends a church (often rc) school does better than a neighbouring child who attends a ‘secular school’
    Third point; why is it that almost all state school children are not able to play saturday morning school sport, study Latin, the three sciences, a linear History curriculum, experience a classroom where indiiscipline is zero tolerated.
    Ernest Bevin bemoaned the ‘poverty of aspiration of our people’.
    The Left should grasp this issue. Blar wanted to but he chickened out.
    Half term reflections! amdg

  23. @Phil
    “Following the past few days, I suspect that Osbourne also loves Clegg.”

    Yes, maybe. But the peculiar thing with NC’s ‘bizarre’ comments re the IFS is that they have drawn attention to the regressive nature of the CSR…so it could be argued that NC’s comments criticise the cuts in an indirect way. Is NC that clever/devious? Evidence suggests the contrary of course.

  24. @Eoin

    Re the pupil premium, you’re spot on, in that the cash disappears into the pot once it hits the school’s budget.

    In fact, the pupil premium could prove to be worse than useless, when you look at what would have happened without it…..

    As Gove has now admitted that schools budgets will not increase even with the pupil premium, clearly the money found for it will have come at the expense of other funding for schools. So the question for each school serving a deprived neighbourhood has to be “would my school have received more had the cash for the pupil premium instead been paid for through the general formula allocations to local authorities and then to schools?” The answer is quite possibly yes, because the general formula allocations already targeted deprivation, whereas the spread of the pupil premium cash across local authorities is reported to be quite uniform. Pupil premium could well be a case of the spin not only coming before substance, but actually making the substance worse.

    On funding directly targeted at poorer pupils, perhaps the best current example of what you advocate is the Educational Maintenance Allowance, currently paid to 16-18 year old sixth formers from poorer backgrounds to encourage them to stay in school. Not for much longer, as the coalition has just abolished it.

  25. Just remembered. Osborne not Osbourne. Sorry.

  26. Phil,

    Good post. How much does the EMA cost per annum I wonder? How feasible would it be to extend it to younger children- say 13/4yr olds (perhaps link it to truancy/effort)?

  27. If someone gets a moment will they take a look at the ComRes tables for the independant poll, that are now up on their website.

    Their unweighted base seems a little odd. Totalled to 1003, the three parties and others added together do not come to that. I’m interested in the genuine sample size. It is only one of many queries I have with that poll, but it is theone that stood out.

  28. oops here is the link

    h ttp://

  29. Eoin – the rest of the sample will be didn’t votes, won’t says and can’t remembers.

  30. @Eoin

    Your observations on the school have and have nots is a bit simplistic.

    My wife is a TA in a primary school and I am one of those dads that is quite happy to drop off or pickup the kids from school.

    There are a few issues that schools have to deal with now that they didn’t. In my opion these are caused by overdependance on the state.

    As you state there is a rough deviding lines. Here are a few observations from myself and my wife.

    a) Lack of parental involvement in learning is becoming a big problem. Traditiaonally this is regardless of class\status or wealth. Teachers are frequently told its there jobs not the parents. This extends to reading at home ( a noticable divider in ability is the amount of time spent reading with parents ) and even to discipline – including out of school.

    b) Kids who arrive at school who have never held a knife or fork ! – its the schools responsibility to teach them – is the common reply

    C) kids who arrive at 4 or 5 who aren’t actually toilet trained. its the schools responsibility to teach them – is the common reply

    d) Parents who refuse to keep their children at home if ill. Now this shocked me, predomentatly this is children who’s parents are at home all day. Schools open bye bye kids.

    Now I don’t pretend to have any solutions to these problems, but this has been a growing problem, at least locally, for 10 years.

    If I was to say the breakdown by income bracket I would say that they all split around 70/30 low-no income / middle income.

    Always an I opener spending any time in a priamry school.

    I nearly got into trouble with another parent a few weeks ago when walking home with my youngest. when I tutted at a conversation in front and was overheard explaining to my daughter what was wrong with it. It went like this “Dad, I told the teacher to F right off”, “Good lad she probably f in deserved it”

    Luckily for me my broad teesside accent saved me from a nasty situation.

    No answers just observations, maybe they’ve always been a problem.

    But putting into contect for CSR, I think that there is great swathe of the public who enjoy seeing benifit cuts.

  31. Thanks Eoin.

    EMA is £30 per week for household incomes below £20k per annum. Entitlement is phased out with income and ceases for household incomes above £30k per annum. Payment is conditional upon attendance and it must have an effect as the eligible sixth formers are really concerned to ensure that they are registered each day! About 1/3 of Year 12 in my school receive it.

    It’s helped increase the number of pupils staying on beyond the age of 16, which was its key purpose. Happily (or sadly depending on your point of view) this purpose isn’t really relevant to 13/14 year olds as they’re no longer sent down the pit at that age.

  32. Anthony,

    Thanks for that,

    The weighted scores on the ComRes table are logically enough roughly tied to GE 2010 (37/31/25 but others a bit low at 7).

    The difficulty then is this; of the weighted yellows ie 25% of the elctorate – only 6% of them want to leave the coalition. That would leave a figure of 16% supporting it and 3% DKs. That still leaves the yellow score looking stubbornly high at a figure of 19%. Given that YG are down at 10% with even then 1-2% of that ten wanting to pull the plug, I just wonder how rigorous that figure is. LDs unwieghted tally was a bit lower, and had to be re-weighted up. Blue / Red had to be re weighted down. My simple question (I hope) is this;

    If telephone pollsters are struggling to get the numbers of respondents willing to admit the voted yellow in 2010, wont the type of respondent who IS prepared to admit it, be skewed from the sterotypical LD of May 2010.

    If the answer is yes, does this invalidate or somewhat distort the veracity of the responses of non VI questions also asked in commissioned polls?

    Had ComRes known the may 2010 VI’s of their poll respondents, would they have returned as high a figure as the 19% of the electorate who did not object to yellows joining a blue coalition?

    I suspect there are a significantly higher portion of reticent Libs (if not ex-Libs), than the telephone pollsters are now returning.

  33. Simon,

    Your wife has valuable experience inside the primary school classroom, that I do not have. (My in class experience is in the second and third sectors). But it was very interesting. And yes, for no minute was I saying other classes (social) do not have children problems of course they do. The difficulty here is how best to target cash for the poor ones. Generalsiations are by there very nature simplisitic but you right to point that out.


    Ahh, I understand now. I did not know it was meanstested.

  34. @Eoin
    This is a link to an article about the effect of CSR on housing in Northern Ireland:-

    h ttp://

  35. Elite foundation hospitals already in the red. An interesting discussion of what can happen when the emphasis within a trust shifts from clinical care to financial management.


  36. Sorry to bore you all with more of this ComRes stuff :)

    ComRes conducted three cuts-related-polls last week. Two by telephone, one by an online database.

    The online databse one is for ITV. They are conducting a once-weekly yearlong poll for ITV. I have two small queries, if anyone wants to take a look:

    1. Only 3 of the 30 questions they ask (and will be asking henceforth), are weighted by past vote ‘recall’. Does it matter that the other 27 are not?

    2. The questions that are weighted by past vote recall eg. 1, 2, 9 we are not given a breakdown of what that was.

    In fact in this year long poll, of which will contain 30 questions over 17 slides, there is to be no Voting Intention and no mention throughout the tables of the three biggest UK political parties…

    I am very tempted to ask what is the point of the poll then, but perhaps I am more inclined to think that there is something I am missing in the value of the poll?


    Cozmo- Ta for that.

  37. Eoin
    “…that there is something I am missing in the value of the poll?”

    What is ITV getting from the polls? Possibly, obtaining VI and past vote will confuse the results? Maybe they are saving costs? I suppose there are costs attached to each Q asked?

    Otherwise, I dunno.

  38. ICM tables are now up. Some very important data – I feel contained within it. ICM are better than most at tracing past vote and where it has gone. The thing I am most interested in thi smorning table with ICM, is their tracing of where that 24% yellow vote in May 2010 has gone. For me it makes fascinating reading.

    Okay… of the 24% of LDs in May 2010, ICM record that

    10% would still vote yellow (suspiciously close to YG’s figure)

    3% would go blue
    4% would go red

    The rest are made up of Don’t Knows, would not votes etc.. (and others).

    It is the guesswork that ICm do into the preferences of the don’t knows that end up affording yellows the higher figure.

    Ordianrily I was openminded on ICM’s guesswork into the DKs. They do some prompting, and in the past it has brought them quite close (it might even do so again who knows?) but the difficulty I have this time around is that the % figure of dont knows who previously voted yellow is, for example, double the % of Dont Knows who previously voted blue (12% of blues/ 24% of yellows). It is the high % of Dks that have in effect raised the stakes of ICM’s guesswork. This is further compounded by the fact that the %s are weighted to May 2010 %s recroded for each party.

    Thus, trying to guess what 10% of LD voters who are now DK in 2006 say would have meant 2.2% of the electorate.

    But trying to rejig a quarter of the LD vote base who are now DKs based on 2010 weightings is in effect playing God with 6% of the electorate. Low and behold that is the figure ICM are consistently above YouGov in the % figures they give for yellow.

    I am not saying ICM are wrong- maybe these DKs will return in 2015 to vote yellow. Who know’s?

    But maybe, as I have long suspected, many of them will not vote at all.

  39. Considering DC’s commitment to “Relentless Forensics”, I find it increasingly hard not to make some joke about CBI: Park Lane, and DC taking off his sunglasses.

  40. @Eoin Clarke

    “Nick H, (observations on an underclass’s kid start to a monday morning)”

    I hear some of what what you say, but it’s a bit too “Daily Mail-ish” for my liking. I was privately educated (not much choice about that, I’m afraid!) but I’ve sent both my children to state schools in my local catchment area and I’m not sure that I recognise the picture you’re painting. It sounds like there are wide variations in the social make-up of your area with extreme deprivation sitting alongside considerable affluence. If so, that’s a little different to the area I live in which, or so I thought, was a fairly typical mix of social class, income, housing etc. Accordingly, the comprehensive schools my children attended were a good cross section of the local community (although the top income earners were probably sending their children to private schools) and, as such, all manner of life was represented therein. Ironically, I found that the attitude and commitment to the children’s education was much more related to family stability than income or wealth, with the children of some of the relatively poor parents, in income and affluence terms, being amongst the very best. Feckless parenting, and the disastrous results that inevitably ensue, didn’t seem to be either income or social class related in my experience and the long list of symptoms you have described as witnessing, claiming as you do that these are the unmistakeable signs of being a “have or a have not”, sound a bit too trite and class formulaic to me.

    I must live in a much more nuanced and stubbornly contradictory world than the one you describe where the shade of grey appears to be the predominant colour, never black or white!! It’s certainly a world where cliches like “yummy mummies and Wayne Rooney trainers” only exist on the pages of our tabloid newspapers.

  41. @MIKE N
    Thanks for your kind welcome Mike. I am sorry that I cannot throw any light on our mindset. I just don’t know why you find it difficult to see what we see in two patricians from Eton at the top of the party. You will appreciate they are not quite the first from such a background. As for any “issue” between them, I really feel such stuff is below the likes of us on this board.
    Its just like this business of “do David & Ed still love each other”. I for one dont care, its not as if its Cheryl and Ashley, when all said and done.

  42. @Roland
    Nice post ;-)

    I find your comment @11.41 regarding feckless parenting NOT being wealth or class related very interesting. My experience is the complete opposite.
    Of course, I make no claim that every child from a well healed household has perfect parents, far from it , but as a strong generalisation, I would disagree on this point.

  44. Nick H,

    Like Simon, I would tend to accept much of your comments. Both of you make good general points. My focus, and Amber/Phil’s was on targetting underachievement among the poor. As for the nuances of exposure to poverty, I envy you. See the links for the Holylands, Belfast

    h ttp://

    Then ask yourself, would you send you child to this school? Botanic Primary School Belfast BT7 1QY

    That is black and white. There is a lot hard evidence to suggest that poor kids perform worse for a whole host of reasons. I first had my attention drawn to it studying Bernstein at Undergraduate level but in my Secondary teaching career I encountered it as well. I tuaght in the East Midlands, which scores very highly on the indices to deprivation see [ h ttp:// ]

    Now the point of focus in my case is will the Pupil Premium target the 30% of kids on school meals in School X or will it go into the school pot? Most crucially, if I give school X £100,000 to be spent on the poorest 30% of the kids how I do ensure that the top 70% of the kids do not benefit equally from the investment? My contention is that it is almost impossible to target in the way the government forsee. It will go into a general pot, pay for another teacher perhpas, reduce class sizes by 2 or 3, perhaps pay for a new gate, a teacher assitant etc. The urchins will not see, sniff, or catch a wink of that cash.

  45. @Jay Blanc

    Does that mean all the Ladies in the coalition will have to start wearing white linen trousers like they do in Miami… Not sure the look would suit Mrs T or Ann Widdies!


  46. Nick H,

    the pupil premium if/when it materialises will amount to a £1,700 payment per child. There are approx. c.1mill children on school meals. In truth the sum will turn out ot be lower because Clegg is trying to extend that sum to include toddlers and students.

    Would it not be better spent setting up a central fund similar to the payments/grants for school uniforms, bus passes etc.. (maybe even through the same channels) but add to the list of things poor kids can apply for: discounted sport clud tuition, free musical instruments, include trendy footwear and school bags in the grant list, maybe pay off their year’s milk money- perhaps contribue a yearly sum for non uniform days, school day trips- even dare I say it the sumemr class trip to Paris.

    You do no thave to go very far down the social ladder before a child/adult will tell you of a story relating to the esteem impact poverty had on their school lives.

    The embarassment of turning up on non-uniform day with your uniform on because it was the only non-withered outfit, or binnign the school trip letters before mum has had a chance to see them for fear of ruining her day with guilt. These types of ‘have not experiences’ impact dramatically on a child fulfilling their potential or developing aspiration.

  47. @ Roland Haines

    I find your comment @11.41 regarding feckless parenting NOT being wealth or class related very interesting. My experience is the complete opposite.
    Therefore the solution is make the feckless parents wealthy & all will be resolved. ;-)

  48. @ Aleksandar

    I don’t deny that there has been an increase in overseas holdings of gilts. However if Asia has been diversifying out of the dollar one would expect an outperformance of non-dollar bonds over US Treasuries. This hasn’t happened.
    Comparing UK & US bond performance to try to disprove my point that Asian buyers have shifted to buying non-US bonds for political reasons is not valid. You are ignoring the difference in the number of bonds in issue. A shift towards UK out of US could be large enough to have an impact on the UK bonds that is significant, whilst being a drop in the ocean for the total USD bonds market. You need to consider the relative market sizes. 8-)

  49. According to ww
    “The Government has announced a £100 million fund to bring empty homes back into use as part of the comprehensive spending review.” :)

    Fascinating. Tucked away in the same CSR it says that all receipts from right-to-buy over the next four years must be surrendered to the Treasury – over £200 million. :(

    To be fair Lab used to put out some claims that this-or-that would be funded, and it sometimes turned out it was not new money at all. Kettle & teapot.

  50. @ Colin

    This was presaged when those crazy Q2 numbers came out.
    They were said to be suspect, statistically.
    The initial release of GDP numbers is always draft & subject to review. There was surprise about how strong they were. The final numbers, post review, turned out to be 1.2%. It is what it is, Colin.

1 3 4 5 6 7