Tonight’s YouGov/Sun poll has topine figures of CON 37%, LAB 41%, LDEM 9%. The four point lead is well within the margin of error of the six point Labour lead YouGov have been showing of late, so it is far too early to suggest any sort of conference boost for the Tories. If there is any conference effect, we would expect it to show up after Cameron’s speech, so watch for the figures tomorrow night and in the Sunday Times.


532 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 37, LAB 41, LDEM 9”

1 9 10 11
  1. Wiki:

    Clegg was born in Chalfont St Giles in Buckinghamshire, in 1967, the third of four children. His father, Nicholas Clegg CBE, is chairman of United Trust Bank

    Cameron’s paternal forebears also have a long history in finance. His father Ian was senior partner of the stockbrokers Panmure Gordon, in which firm partnerships had long been held by Cameron’s ancestors, including David’s grandfather and great-grandfather,[8] and was a Director of estate agent John D Wood. David Cameron’s great-great grandfather Emile Levita, a German-Jewish financier (and descendant of Renaissance scholar Elia Levita) who obtained British citizenship in 1871, was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which became Standard Chartered Bank in 1969.[13] His wife, Cameron’s great-great grandmother, was a descendant of the wealthy Danish Jewish Rée family on her father’s side.[14][15] One of Emile’s sons, Arthur Francis Levita (died 1910, brother of Sir Cecil Levita),[16] of Panmure Gordon stockbrokers, together with great-great-grandfather Sir Ewen Cameron,[17] London head of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, played key roles in arranging loans supplied by the Rothschilds to the Japanese Central Banker (later Prime Minister) Takahashi Korekiyo for the financing of the Japanese Government in the Russo-Japanese war.[18]

    Osborne is the eldest of four sons. His father, Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet, co-founded the firm of fabric and wallpapers designers Osborne & Little.[6][7] His mother is Felicity Alexandra Loxton-Peacock, the daughter of artist Lady Clarisse Loxton Peacock.[2][8] He has an estimated personal fortune of around £4 million, as the beneficiary of a trust fund that owns a 15-per-cent stake in Osborne & Little, the wallpaper-and-fabrics company co-founded by his father, Sir Peter Osborne, Bt.[103][104][105]

  2. @ ALEC

    Thanks for your long answers on the other page. I presumed you would have insight into energy issues, as you have mentioned such issues before.

    Not sure I share your optimism on fossil fuels. From what I had read, the most optimistic assessment was for 104 years supply a few years back. But others suggest 40-50 years supply based on current population trends, plus barriers to extract some reserves. For example the shale gas is controversial because some believe it is dangerous and could cause local eathquakes.

    In regard to raw materials, I understand that some of the minerals used in some technology are getting extremely scarce. An example was given the other day of a mineral used in MRI scanners which is now scarce. So as time goes on they will either have to find a replacement material or different technology.

    In respect to Africa David Cameron raised concerns about Chinese involvement there a few months ago, but did not expand on it. From what I have heard, I am not sure the people living in some of these countries are going to benefit from the money made from the mining that is taking place. Once the minerals are gone, they will be left with Chinese railway that they have no money to maintain. Also as always with African states, the money will be made by their corrupt leaders and people who don’t live there.

  3. r huckle

    “Also as always with African states, the money will be made by their corrupt leaders and people who don’t live there.”

    Just in African states, then?

  4. NickP

    “No, they will never “cancel the cash”. How can they do that? ”

    They will cancel the electronically created “cash” they created through QE

    “if you think they are going to sell assets and effectively burn the proceeds then you are kidding yourself.”

    Thats how it works.

    “Besides what are the bonds they are buying? Government bonds they issue themselves to raise cash? ”

    Yes.

    Weird isn’t it.

    In effect the Gilts which the Treasury has already sold into the market for “real” cash are “bought back ” by BoE ( an arm of the Treasury) for electronic cash.

    In effect the Government has funded part ( £275bn) of its borrowing , without depleting money supply-by parking that amount of Gilts in a corner for a while.

    But they will have to be redeemed-if only at redemption date , and the cash ( which UK Government has already spent) withdrawn from money supply.

    It is all about liquidity-because interbank lending is freezing through fear .

  5. @ HENRY

    @”Such as stamp duty and Council tax, possibly capital gains and inheritance tax I assume.”

    Yes-thats what I meant.

    @”Perhaps; it seems to me that we are asking the thrifty to pay for the greed, stupidity and wastefulness of others.”

    Yes-I share your reservations.

    But there is megabucks real estate being exchanged through corporates , which , it seems is escaping existing property taxes.

    I’m happy to hammer a few Russian oligarchs.

    I’m happy to see Council Tax ( or equivalent ) racked
    up for very expensive houses.

    …but its not going to raise what the lefties want.
    Its not going to be a substitute for prudent State spending & a competitive economy.

    But it answers questions about fairness.

  6. So, assuming that the whole £75bn went on newly issued Government Bonds (which is not my ubnderstanding, but understanding is very sketchy and far from acute), why are they giving money to the banks to buy bonds they already own?

    the Bank of Englamd issues the bonds normally to raise cash. This time they get the cash from the Government (or the printing press).

    So now the Government has bonds that it can redeem…with itself? at a later date. Who will actually pay that cash? the Bank of England?

    It’s all smoke and mirrors. Theya re printing money they don’t have to buy bonds they made up and you reckond they’ll get the money back in due course, from themselves presumably.

    Reminds me of Dr Who going back in time to kill himself. A paradox that doesn’t make sense.

  7. @ Colin

    Whatever Mervyn says, the governments of the world are going to write-off their own & each other’s debts. It is inevitable. They will purchase assets by QE. And what will be done with those assets? Will the state nurture our investment & ensure it doesn’t go bad? Will they heckers like. That would be state interference in the markets (but QE isn’t?).

    So the debt which the BoE purchases will never be repaid; one way or another, it will be written-off. I am merely suggesting that the common man (e.g. people like your son) get to share in the benefits of this massive write-off.
    8-)

  8. yeah the only people who will never ever have their debts written off will be the mortgage payers. If they stop paying they lose their houses.

    Printing money will help mortgage holders by reducing the value of the debt. But it will also reduce the value of their wages so they will have to worry about food and stuff.

    In the end we might as well nationalise all the banks and let each country have its own bank and printing press. Let’s not pretend that banks are “wealth creators” any more. If Europe likes, it can have one great big bank to go with its Euro printing press.

    It is already relying on the Sate far worse than British Leyland or British rail or British Telecommunications used to. If we are going to print £75bn let’s use it to set up a proper Bank of England where we can all deposit our money and run a current account and borrow sensibly.

  9. Here some great stuff from an earlier era which faced similar problems

    Before effective action can be taken to stop the devastating effects of the depression, it must be recognised that the breakdown of our present economic system is due to the failure of our political and financial leadership to intelligently deal with the money problem. In the real world there is no cause nor reason for the unemployment with its resultant destitution and suffering of fully one-third of our entire population. We have all and more of the material wealth which we had at the peak of our prosperity in the year 1929. Our people need and want everything which our abundant facilities and resources are able to provide for them. The problem of production has been solved, and we need no further capital accumulation for the present, which could only be utilised in further increasing our productive facilities or extending further foreign credits. We have a complete economic plant able to supply a superabundance ofnotonly allthe necessities of our people, but the comforts and luxuries as well. Our problem, then, becomesone purely of distribution. This can only be brought about by providing purchasing power sufficiently adequate to enable the people to obtain the consumption goods which we, as a nation, are able to produce. The economic system can serve no other purpose and expect to survive.

    If our problem is then the result of the failure of our money system to properly function, which today is generally recognised, we then must turn to the consideration of the necessary corrective measures to be brought about in that field; otherwise, we can only expect to sink deeper in our dilemma and distress, with possible revolution, with social disintegration, with the world in ruins,the networkofitsfinancial obligationsinshreds, with the very basis of law and order shattered. Under such a condition nothing but a primitive society is possible. Difficult and slow would then be the process of rebuilding and it could only then be brought about on a basis of a new political, economic and social system. Why risk such a catastrophe when it can be averted by aggressive measures in the right direction on the part of the Government?

    * * *

    [page 9]

    The debt structure has obtained its present astronomical proportions due to an unbalanced distribution of wealth production as measured in buying power during our years of prosperity … The time came when we seemed to reach a point of saturation in the credit structure where, generally speaking, additional credi was no longer available, with the result that debtors were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin to apply on the reduction of debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds, bringing about what appeared to be overproduction, but what in reality was underconsumption measured in terms of the real world and not the money world. This naturally brought about a falling in prices and unemployment. Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus bringing about a continuing decline in prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds – decreases in wages, salaries, and time of those employed.

    [page 10]

    The debt structure, in spite of the great amount of liquidation during the past three years, is rapidly becoming unsupportable, with the result that foreclosures, receiverships and bankruptcies are increasing in every field; delinquent taxes are mounting and forcing the closing of schools, thus breaking down our educational system, and moratoriums of all kinds are being resorted to – all this resulting in a steady and gradual breaking down of our entire credit structure, which can only bring additional distress, fear, rebellion, and chaos.

    * * *

    [page 11]

    How was it that during the period of the prosperity after the war we were able in spite of what is termed our extravagance – which was not extravagance at all; we saved too much and consumed too little – how was it we were able to balance a $4,000,000,000 annual Budget, to pay off ten billion of the Government debt, to make four major reductions in our income tax rates (otherwise all of the Government debt would have been paid), to extend $10,000,000,000 credit to foreign countries represented by our surplus production which we shipped abroad, and add approximately $100,000,000,000 by capital accumulation to our national wealth,represented by plants, equipment, buildings, and construction of all kinds? In the light of this record, is it consistent for our political and financial leadership to demand at this time a balanced Budget by the inauguration of a general sales tax, further reducing the buying power of our people? Is it necessary to conserve Government credit to the point of providing a starvation existence for millions of our people in a land of superabundance? Is the universal demandfor Government economy consistent at this time? Is the present lack of confidence due to an unbalanced Budget?

    What the public and the business men of this country are interested in is a revival of employment and purchasing power. This would automatically restore confidence and increase profits to a point where the Budget would automatically be balanced in just the same manner as the individual, corporation, State, and city budget would be balanced.

    [page 12]

    During the past three years there has been such tremendous liquidation and scaling down of debts that extraordinary measures have had to be taken to prevent a general collapse of the credit structure. If such a policy iscontinued whatassurance is there that the influences radiating from a marking down of the claims of creditors will not result in a further decline of prices? In other words, after we have reduced all debts through a basis of scaling down 25 per cent to 50 per cent, what reason have we to expect that prices will not have a further decline by like amount? And then again, the practical difficulties of bringing about such a adjustment on a broad scale seem to be insurmountable.

    [page 15]

    … I see no way of correcting this situation except through Government action.

    … Of course, we are losing $2,000,000,000 per month in unemployment. I can conceive of no greater waste than the waste of reducing our national income about half of what it was. I can not conceive of any waste as great as that. Labor, after all, is our only source of wealth.

    [page 22]

    We now see, after nearly four years of depression, that private capital will not go into public works or self-liquidating projects except through government and that if we leave our “rugged individual” to follow his own interest under these conditions he does precisely the wrong thing. Each corporation for its own protection discharges men, reduces pay rolls, curtails its orders for raw materials, postpones construction of new plants and pays off bank loans, adding to the surplus of unusable funds. Every single thing it does to reduce the flow of money makes the situation worse for business as a whole.

    [page 33]

    Senator Shortridge: Then I take it you would have the tariffs reduced?

    Mr Eccles: No. Debts cancelled. Then I think with the prosperity that you would get in this country you can collect more than that in income and inheritance taxes when you stop this loss of $2,000,000,000 a month through unemployment. You start the process of wealth, and even a capitalist is far better off. I am a capitalist.

    * * *

    Such measures as I have proposed may frighten those of our people who possess wealth. However, they should feel reassured in reflecting upon the following quotation from one of our leading economists:

    It is utterly impossible, as this country has demonstrated again and again, for the rich to save as much as they have been trying to save, and save anything that is worth saving. They can save idle factories and useless railroad coaches; they can save empty office buildings and closed banks; they can save paper evidences of foreign loans; butas a class they can not save anything that is worth saving, above and beyond the amount that is made profitable by the increase of consumer buying. It is for the interests of the well to do – to protect them from the results of their own folly – that we should take from them a sufficient amountof their surplus to enable consumers to consume and business to operate at a profit. This is not “soaking the rich”; it is saving the rich. Incidentally, it is the only way to assure them the serenity and security which they do not have at the present moment.

    See: http://goo.gl/bJHJX

    Of course what appeared to work in the past might not be the right solution now but it is interesting

  10. Chrislane1945,
    ‘And Heath would have stayed PM id he had not alienated the Ulster MP’s by insisting on equality of voting etc for catholics, and closing Stormont.’
    It is unlikely that Heath would have survived as PM after the Feb 1974 election even if the Unionists had still taken the Tory whip.Whilst the Tories would indeed have been the largest party with 308 to Labour’s 301, it would still have been well short of a majority.. Labour would have counted on the support of Gerry Fitt as sole SDLP as well as Eddie Milne and Dick Taverne..On a Queen’s Speech vote Wilson would have been joined by 2 Plaid- 7 SNP – and almost certainly the 14 Liberals. Heath would not have lasted beyond mid – March 1974.

  11. Which is exactly what I have been saying.

    “It is utterly impossible, as this country has demonstrated again and again, for the rich to save as much as they have been trying to save, and save anything that is worth saving. They can save idle factories and useless railroad coaches; they can save empty office buildings and closed banks; they can save paper evidences of foreign loans; butas a class they can not save anything that is worth saving, above and beyond the amount that is made profitable by the increase of consumer buying. It is for the interests of the well to do – to protect them from the results of their own folly – that we should take from them a sufficient amountof their surplus to enable consumers to consume and business to operate at a profit. This is not “soaking the rich”; it is saving the rich. Incidentally, it is the only way to assure them the serenity and security which they do not have at the present moment.”

  12. On QE2 – someone asked how much it would be for each taxpayer. I’m not sure about that, but it amounts to around £1,150 per man, women and child in the UK, so perhaps not as much as we might think.

    What would be quite interesting is that if the £75b was used to pay off people’s mortgages it would yield an annual boost to the economy of around £4b, based on current repayments of 5% including capital repayment and interest on outstanding loan.

    Slightly more whimsically, we’re told that the £75b will be created by ‘the click of a button’.

    Perhaps they could have an auction on Ebay or some form of lottery to raise a little cash, for the privilege of being the person who hits the button.

  13. Alec

    But there are far fewer taxpayers than people. Let’s assume there are 10 milliion taxpayers (no idea if that’s close).

    that’s more like £7500 each.

    That might provide a boost to the economy. Much more than giving it to the banks, anyway.

    But I like your idea of paying off all household mortgages. Let’s do it!

  14. @NICKP

    “So, assuming that the whole £75bn went on newly issued Government Bonds ”

    No-QE is about taking already issued Gilts back from the Institutions which bought them……………in order to provide them with liquidity.

    The Treasury Government Debt people are still merrily funding our deficits with new Gilts.

  15. Colin

    ah! So the Governemnet buy back bond they issued with printed money. So what do they cancel? And when?

  16. Alec

    “What would be quite interesting is that if the £75b was used to pay off people’s mortgages it would yield an annual boost to the economy of around £4b, based on current repayments of 5% including capital repayment and interest on outstanding loan. ”

    How so?

    If BoE pays off £75bn of mortgage debt-Banks get £75bn in cash-good I suppose-increased liquidity for more lending.

    You are not proposing that this is an asset purchase-so the real estate value doesn’t pass to BoE-it stays with the former mortgagees.

    So this isn’t asset purcase -its an addition to Government Debt-with an interest charge of say £2.5bn pa to the State.

    What was an interest charge to private individuals is replaced by an interest charge to the taxpayer.

  17. @ Billy Bob

    “Thank you for a noteworthy episode of surreality on UKPR.”

    I’ve never actually baked cupcakes. I mean, I’m sure I could if you gave me a recipe and the cupcake baking dish (which I don’t have). I have baked other things but never cupcakes. So I’m in no position to open up a cupcakery and come up with recipes of my own and compete on a show. So it’s surreality all around. :)

    “There is a theory that Callaghan would have had a better chance of holding Thatcher at bay (hung parliament at least) if he had gone to the country in the Autumn of 1978. Labour was holding up in the polls, the economic figures were not that bad, and the “winter of dsicontent” had not yet started.”

    If he had called an election in the fal of 78′ would Labour have been considered to have held a full term?

    @ Valerie

    “Just as long as he is not convicted of a crime he did not commit. I would hate him to be a victim of an American miscarriage of justice!”

    I think that can happen anywhere.

    @ Alec

    “China has deep financial woes of it’s own just around the corner. I doubt we’ll be getting much long term support from them.”

    I’ve heard this too and it does make me worry. Of course, China has been out criticizing us for our economic woes in an attempt to play a game of one upsmanship. Of course if the U.S. defaulted, China would be royally screwed since they own so much of our treasury bonds.

  18. NICKP

    Either BoE sell the Gilts purchased in the market , back to the market-receiving cash-which is cancelled to contra with the cash created to buy them

    or

    BoE holds them to maturity & the Treasury arm of the State redeems them in cash with a payment to the BoE arm of the State-and BoE cancells the cash to contra with the QE cash created to buy them.

    Interestingly Mervyn King part justified QE2 because he said “money supply” was low at present.

    But thats getting into monetary theory which is beyond me :-)

  19. So they sell the gilts again and burn the cash received? Then the gilts stay with the new owner until they want to reddem them…again?

    So in QE the Government buys gilts issued by the BoE. How does the BoE get that money into the greater economy?

  20. @ Colin

    You say we have a debt problem then you admit you lack of understanding of monetary theory.

    Here’s a wee money supply exercise for you:

    If all the government debt was repaid with actual earned cash where do you think that money would go? What would happen to it? Having got it back from the ‘feckless’ states which borrowed it, paid it back & are now not going to borrow any more; what would the lenders do with it?
    8-)

  21. Nick P

    I think it best you Google for some QE explanations now.

    There’s a good animation on BoE website & there are plenty of other good articles.

    :-)

  22. Colin

    to be honest I don’t think I’d make sense of it wherever I went.

  23. “QE involves electronically creating money, which the Bank uses to buy assets – mainly government bonds, known as gilts – from investors in financial markets. That pushes down long-term interest rates – a bonus for the economy – and gives the banks more money to lend out. The Bank doesn’t actually print banknotes, it just credits investors’ accounts. Its governor, Mervyn King, hates the phrase “quantitative easing” and prefers to call it credit easing.”

    So investors in financial markets get their hands on the printed cash. What’s to stop thm using it for what they do..invest in financial markets?

    Why should they lend to small businesses? They haven’t done up to now.

  24. Amber

    @”You say we have a debt problem then you admit you lack of understanding of monetary theory.”

    Yes we have a debt problem.

    Yes-or do I mean no :-)-I don’t understand Money Supply-all those M1s & M5s-do you by any chance ?

    @”what would the lenders do with it?

    Would depend on the lenders .

    The Fred Goodwin types would lend it out to some more dodgy borrowers-though I suppose even Fred in his EdinburghIvory Tower read the Sovereign Credit Rating changes.

    The Sensible Bankers ( there must be some I guess ?)who have been burned by all their bad debt write offs would lend it with more caution in future-thus helping to spread a culture of prudence & caution which would help return the global economy to some semblence of sanity.

    But of course -There isn’t enough “earned cash” to pay it all off-it was only borrowed in the first place because “earned cash” wasn’t enough to provide us all with our “expectations & entitlements.”

    I have no doubt though that you have a little answer up your sleeve.

    :-)

  25. NICKP

    “Why should they lend to small businesses? They haven’t done up to now.”

    Yeah-good question.

    Answers ?? :-

    They have changed from complete gung ho lending to ultra cautious lending because their balance shets have been hammered with asset write downs.

    They don’t really know how much some of their investments are worth, so they don’t know whether they are solvent or not-and they just want cash to sit on.

    There aren’t any proper Bankers left like Mr Mainwaring-they don’t really understand normal businesses and their requirements any more .

    ……………?

  26. Colin

    Yes, we agree.

    So the solution (if there is one) is not to give more money to the massively in the red Banks.

    Gotta get the money out there more directly. 0% increase immediately to all public service employees together with a big recruitment drive?

    Get construction going paid for with printed money.

    Build schools with printed money (better than PFI, perhaps?)

    Pay for university fees with printed money?

  27. that 0% should have read 10%…0% is what we are getting.

  28. GRAHAM.

    John Smith made a major contribution to the 1992 defeat.

    His Shadow Budget

  29. Chrislane1945,
    I am well aware of the view that the Shadow Budget cost Labour dearly in 1992..On its own ,however, it was not the cause of defeat. Had Kinnock not lost control of himself at Sheffield he would have denied Major an overall majority – and ,perhaps, survived to fight another election given the likelihood of a further dissolution in the near future.Major would probably not survived as a minority Govt beyond early 94.

  30. @ Colin

    Yes-or do I mean no -I don’t understand Money Supply-all those M1s & M5s-do you by any chance ?
    —————————————-
    Broadly speaking: yes.
    8-)

  31. @ Colin

    The Sensible Bankers ( there must be some I guess ?)who have been burned by all their bad debt write offs would lend it with more caution in future-thus helping to spread a culture of prudence & caution which would help return the global economy to some semblence of sanity.
    —————————————————–
    It seems you agree, that all the repaid debt would simply be leant again. So, we don’t actually have a debt problem per se. Lending is okay; therefore borrowing must be okay.

    Thus, by your logic, there is: Good debt/ borrowing & Bad debt/ borrowing.

    What do you consider to be responsible lending/ borrowing? Companies hoping that their innovative new product will be a hit & make a profit? That’s rather speculative, is it not?

    Would be landlords buying properties to rent where all the forecasts show that the rent will cover the borrowing & perhaps even generate a nice capital gain in, say, 10 years time. That’s rather speculative is it not?

    Families who’d like to have a home that isn’t rented from the state; they have enough income now to cover it because the private landlord rent that they pay each month is 20% more than the mortgage payments would be. But they might have less income in the future so that’s rather speculative, is it not?

    How about governments, because that’s the debt that people seem to be really inflamed about. e.g. Should there be borrowing for welfare payments during economic downturns? I bet you’ll say “no”, they should’ve ‘saved’ for a rainy day. Except, if the government was taxing you at 50% & sitting on a big cash pile for the coming rainy day, what would you say, Colin?

    And where would the government keep this big pile of cash? In a bank? And what would the bank do with it, Colin?
    8-)

  32. Amber

    Thanks.

    I can see why you would nationalise the Banks -you would , wouldn’t you?

    Life would be so simple then eh?

    :-) :-)

1 9 10 11