Jonathan Jones

When challenged on the Bank of England's poor record of economic forecasting by Ed Conway of Sky News this morning, Mervyn King said: 'This isn't a spot the ball contest where you're trying to hit one point on the picture. This is a question of assessing the balance of risks…  We don't pretend to have a crystal ball to see the future. All we can do is assess the balance of risks. I think this is a reasonable judgment about the balance of risks. It doesn't say that there will be a recovery. It says that in our central view there will be a recovery, and there are risks on both sides to that — both on the upside and on the downside.

It's coming up fast: there are now just three months to go to Election Day in the United States. And right now, Barack Obama's looking a good bet — although certainly not a safe one — for re-election. The forecasting model designed by the New York Times's Nate Silver — which accounts for both polls and economic data — currently puts Obama's chances of victory at 72.4 per cent, his strongest position so far. Interestingly, though, Obama's lead in the polls is not all that big. Silver's model, which includes national and state-level polls and takes into account the house effects of each pollster as well as the difference between polls of 'registered voters' and those of 'likely voters', puts Obama's lead at about 1.5 percentage points nationally.

'It is clear that urgent reform of the Libor compilation process is required,' says Martin Wheatley of the Financial Services Authority. Hardly a revelation: it's been clear since Barclays was fined for its part in the manipulation. Some were even pushing for reform back in 2008, such as the then-president of the New York Fed (now Obama's Treasury Secretary) Tim Geithner. But it is significant that Wheatley is saying this now, as he's been tapped by George Osborne to lead a review of how Libor is set. The FSA hardly has much credibility on this — even Mervyn King is keen to pass the buck to them — but Wheatley only joined in 2011, and so is one of the few unsullied people at the top of the financial regulation world.

'If you treasure it, measure it.' So Gus O'Donnell said when addressing the All Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics in November. Well, the government has decided it treasures our well-being, and so is determined to measure it. It's an incredibly tricky task — as I've noted before — but it's a significant step forward that the Office for National Statistics has at least begun to try, and has finally started collecting a wealth of well-being data. In April, the ONS began asking people four questions to measure their subjective well-being on a scale of one to ten: Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?

What's HSBC done wrong? Put simply, HSBC was not rigorous enough in preventing money laundering through its banks. Last week, the United States Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a damning report finding that HSBC had 'exposed the US financial system to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money laundering controls'. In particular, the committee criticised the way HSBC treated its Mexican arm.

So the IMF has revised its forecasts for the UK's GDP growth downwards — to 0.2 in 2012 and 1.4 in 2013 from the 0.8 per cent and 2.0 respectively it predicted in April. It's bad news, certainly — not least because we've been downgraded more than most other countries, and we're now forecast to grow more slowly than Germany and (this year) France. But it's worth bearing in mind that the IMF — for all its ability to drive headlines — is just one of many organisations playing the forecasting game, and these downgrades actually just bring them into line with the average.

The battle for control of the White House is, of course, the big US politics story of the year. But what about the building at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue — the Capitol, which houses Congress? All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for re-election, as well as 33 of the 100 Senate seats. Currently, the Democrats control the Senate, with 51 Senators and two independents who caucus with them. But it will be tough for them to retain control, as they are defending 23 seats this time to the GOP’s 10 — and most of the seats up this time were last up for election in 2006, which was a very strong year for the Democrats.

The coalition’s backbenchers have already proven the most rebellious of any government. There have already been — by my count, adding the 239 rebellions up to the end of April listed in Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart’s Bumper Book of Coalition Rebellions to the eight listed on the Public Whip since then — 247 votes on which at least one Tory or Lib Dem backbencher has cast their vote against the government whip. That's not quite the most of any parliament — there were 309 against Wilson and Callaghan in the 1974-79 parliament, 259 against Blair from 2001 to 2005, and 365 against Blair and Brown in the last parliament — but then this one's just over two years in.