Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Graham Brady – 1922 committee chairman and the only one who kn

13»

Comments

  • Graham Brady always reminds me of Tim Nice-But-Dim.
  • AndyJS said:

    "The new feminist war: young women vs old women

    Attempts by older women to moderate youthful anger are often seen as a gross abuse of their power

    Jenny McCartney"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-metoo-fury-has-spilled-over-into-a-feminist-war/

    I think my favourite part of that is:

    "Gersande La Flèche, a Montreal-based writer, tweeted: ‘I cannot bring myself to read that Margaret Atwood shitpiece’ but accused the author of ‘calling rape survivors liars’."
  • Dura_Ace said:



    Things are going to be rocky, but hardcore Remainers need to beware they don't sound like they're siding with the EU against the UK.

    Why do they need to "beware"? Are the Taleaveban going to come round and brick my windows for insufficient patriotism?

    The family of Jo Cox will sadly tell you happens when you’re viewed as a traitor by extremists
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    In day 624 of a campaign that ended in June 2016, Remainers still don't seem to understand that people don't all make decisions based upon macro GDP growth figures.

    #nowondertheywerebeatenbyabus
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Ace, because the polarisation in our politics can get much worse, and persuading people is difficult when you're pointing at them telling them how thick thinking the EU has too much power whilst at the same time saying how it is to leave because we're so integrated.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. CD13, quite. Following all the rules and having no say whatsoever is drunken madness.

    So the possibilities are:

    the Conservative government is mad.
    Or you’re wrong and there’s a good reason why they want this transition deal.
  • It might all blow over but I get the impression that ZombieMay is now taking fire from all sides and doesn't have the bearded one and the Scottish pixie to protect her. Given her cringey "performance" at Davos just brought back into full focus how utterly shit she is, I'm expecting the transition to (civil) war not to stop this time.

    But in what circumstance does "a man who has neither the warmth nor depth to be a" Williamson become the Mad Frankie Howerd style unity candidate?

    Boris wants the gig - backed by Gove properly this time. JRM also wants it but will probably jomp on the BoJo bandwagon for DexEU Secretary. And on the other hand I keep hearing about Hunt or Rudd for camp continuity Cameroon.

    Williamson? I know we all loved House of Cards. But it was fiction. Wasn't it...?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    No idea if people want to read into this but the Jan-Mar market for the PM to leave on Betfair has fallen from about 12 yesterday to 6 just now.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It would be useful as a thought experiment for Leavers to define the maximum amount of economic damage Britain might suffer post-Brexit for them to regard it as a success. If there is no limit to that damage that would change the mind of Leavers, that too would be instructive.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Mortimer said:

    In day 624 of a campaign that ended in June 2016, Remainers still don't seem to understand that people don't all make decisions based upon macro GDP growth figures.

    #nowondertheywerebeatenbyabus

    Tory Remainers*
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Meeks, will you be arguing Remainers should define the maximum amount of political sovereignty we should lose to the EU?

    I suspect this leak will have great impact in the media and less elsewhere, given growth is so-so but miles ahead of forecasts, and employment remains very strong. Osborne's overblown fear-mongering means current and future warnings of economic harm will be taken far less seriously.
  • Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:

    What's that burning smell?

    Is it just rubber from the Brexiteers' swift course direction, who went from "Brexit will be brilliant" to "Brexit won't be quite as shit as you thought" ?

    Looks pretty good to me at present.

    Economy rebalancing, trade and budget deficits at their lowest as a proportion of GDP for about 15 years, manufacturing and house construction having their best periods for at least 20 years, stock markets at new highs.
    I struggle to see why those should all be regarded as bad things.
    The irony is that if George Osborne was still Chancellor the rebalancing economy would be lauded to the skies by his fanclub.

    I suspect that there are some people who are annoyed at which parts of the country are benefiting from the economic rebalancing - many of those 60% Leave industrial towns have had a good year which is certainly not what we were assured would happen.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    It would be useful as a thought experiment for Leavers to define the maximum amount of economic damage Britain might suffer post-Brexit for them to regard it as a success. If there is no limit to that damage that would change the mind of Leavers, that too would be instructive.

    Leavers seem to flit between:
    - there is no economic damage
    - the economic damage is trivial
    - it’s impossible to predict economic damage
    - economic damage might happen in the aggregate but has no effect on individual experience
    - economic damage is not as important as taking back control

    Rinse and repeat...

    It’s depressing.
    It’s less money for health, housing and end of life care. It’s less opportunity for the young. That’s the reality.
  • Who says romance is dead?

    Greggs is offering a Valentine's Day four-course candlelit dinner with prosecco and table service - in Manchester

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/greggs-valentines-day-dinner-manchester-14215310
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    rkrkrk said:


    Mr. CD13, quite. Following all the rules and having no say whatsoever is drunken madness.

    So the possibilities are:
    the Conservative government is mad.
    Or you’re wrong and there’s a good reason why they want this transition deal.
    The good reason is surely that none of them have a clue what they are doing - still less that there is any agreement in government ranks about what that ought to be.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    It would be useful as a thought experiment for Leavers to define the maximum amount of economic damage Britain might suffer post-Brexit for them to regard it as a success. If there is no limit to that damage that would change the mind of Leavers, that too would be instructive.

    I would say if the unemployment rate has increased by a noticeable amount - say, a point - due to Brexit after ten years after the new trade deals have bedded in, that would be a failure.

    What would you have to see for you to regard it as a success?
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    No idea if people want to read into this but the Jan-Mar market for the PM to leave on Betfair has fallen from about 12 yesterday to 6 just now.

    It's madness. Why would they want to clobber the new leader with the compromises of Brexit?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Mr. Ace, because the polarisation in our politics can get much worse, and persuading people is difficult when you're pointing at them telling them how thick thinking the EU has too much power whilst at the same time saying how it is to leave because we're so integrated.

    Who's persuading? Nobody is going to persuade anybody at this point. There is now a social and cultural schism that runs orthogonal to the conventional party lines and, at some point, there is going to have be a reordering and a reckoning.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Elliot said:

    It would be useful as a thought experiment for Leavers to define the maximum amount of economic damage Britain might suffer post-Brexit for them to regard it as a success. If there is no limit to that damage that would change the mind of Leavers, that too would be instructive.

    I would say if the unemployment rate has increased by a noticeable amount - say, a point - due to Brexit after ten years after the new trade deals have bedded in, that would be a failure.

    What would you have to see for you to regard it as a success?
    Nothing before Leavers acknowledge and apologise sincerely for stirring up xenophobia to win a vote.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Hard leavers view themselves as patriots rather than ideological zealots.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    "I se that Brexit has once again this morning become a holy grail for Leavers."

    It's becoming that way. It's a sign that the ignored still have a say, despite the superior prognostications of the self-elected elite. A beacon for true democracy.

    I voted Leave and would vote Leave again, but why should I have to?

    Nobody is asking anyone to vote on the same question again. The disingenuous comments on those advocating a "Second Referendum" start with calling it a second referendum because it implies all that happens is the same question will be asked again. More accurately, the 2016 Referendum was the Second Referendum following the first in 1975.

    The term "Second Referendum" has been jumped on by those desperate for us to leave the EU as some form of subversion of democracy and we've had months on here of people banging on ad nauseam about "defying the will of the people".

    What was suggested was a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations and only then IF a treaty had been concluded between the UK Government and the EU.

    Sounds reasonable - superficially perhaps but the gaping hole in the argument is what would rejecting the Treaty mean. One interpretation of the A50 process is if the British people rejected the negotiated Treaty the UK would leave the EU without any form of agreement and it would be WTO rules etc. Another is the rejection would send the process back to the beginning and would be an instruction to the Government to continue negotiation until an acceptable Treaty could be produced. Yet another interpretation could be the UK had decided to stop the whole thing and remain in the EU on the terms prevailing on 23/6/16.

    None of these contradictory interpretations can be tested and verified - just as people voted LEAVE for a myriad of reasons so rejecting an A50 Treaty could be for many and varied reasons and without knowing what those were the referendum isn't a referendum at all.

    So if you don't want to crash out of the EU without an agreement, you have to accept whatever gruel May and Davis dish up.

    There is a converse here - let's say we do crash out without an agreement. IF, and it's a big if, that proves to be the economically dislocating event some believe it to be, the argument for seeking to re-join the EU might start to look attractive.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Elliot, presumably they feel the costs of keeping May exceed the benefit of her taking the bullet. Also, if the transition is getting close to the election they'll either have a new leader with little time to get to grips with the position or have to stick with May. If that's the case, better to replace her sooner than later. Probably.

    Mr. Ace, I agree the trenches won't be shifting for some time yet. That doesn't mean that throwing up barbed wire and planting mines will make a rapprochement easier.
  • NEW THREAD

  • rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    All this stuff about economic forecasts is rubbish.

    Let me give two examples, and two warnings.

    1. Ireland substantially underperformed the UK economically in the fifty years following independence (and that despite not having an economy destroyed by the second world war). There was no great "Oh my! Independence from the UK was such a mistake!" movement in Ireland.

    2. The success, or failure, of Brexit Britain depends far, far more on domestic policy decisions than it does on our future relationship with the EU. This doesn't mean our future relationship isn't important (it is), but the decisions made by our politicians regarding the tax system. welfare policy and education all matter far more.

    All that being said...

    1. There will be Brexit losers, and they will be mad as hell. Even if Brexit is positive economically in the next three years, the losers will be sore, and the winners won't care.

    2. When the next recession comes, it will be blamed on Brexit.

    British voters were told they would be better off as a result of Brexit: wages would rise, public spending would increase, none of the benefits of EU membership would be lost. That will not happen. On the plus side, there is every chance that I will be a big Brexit winner - so it’s not all bad news!

    Economically, I think the good news has outweighed the bad over the past 18 months. I cannot categorically say that this is due to the Brexit vote, or that it will continue in the future, or that the news would not have been better still if the vote had gone the other way. But, it's been a lot better than most forecasters expected.
    The developed world, and in particular the Eurozone, has put on a significant spurt of growth in the last 18 months.

    I don't think that's due to Brexit, more to savings rates across the world now returning to more normal levels after having been elevated for some time.
    So increased consumption across the world which should allow the UK economy to continue to rebalance.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    By the way, the analysis leaked to Buzzfeed does not just talk about an aggregate loss of GDP in the future.

    The negative impact - of any form of Brexit - will be on places and people least able to cope with economic hardship.

    From the report:

    • Almost every sector of the economy included in the analysis would be negatively impacted in all three scenarios, with chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, and cars and retail the hardest hit. The analysis found that only the agriculture sector under the WTO scenario would not be adversely affected.

    • Every UK region would also be affected negatively in all the modelled scenarios, with the North East, the West Midlands, and Northern Ireland (before even considering the possibility of a hard border) facing the biggest falls in economic performance.

    The report even assumes an agreement can be made with the US, but that the economic effect of such would be neglible (+0.2%).
  • DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Economically, I think the good news has outweighed the bad over the past 18 months. I cannot categorically say that this is due to the Brexit vote, or that it will continue in the future, or that the news would not have been better still if the vote had gone the other way. But, it's been a lot better than most forecasters expected.
    The developed world, and in particular the Eurozone, has put on a significant spurt of growth in the last 18 months.

    I don't think that's due to Brexit, more to savings rates across the world now returning to more normal levels after having been elevated for some time.
    I agree.

    It is yet another level of complication for Brexit performance. When Osborne took over in 2010 the policy of "austerity" was substantially overstated compared to the reality. The result was that the UK economy continued to be stimulated by very large government deficits. This could have been offset by very poor wage growth but the Great British consumer dug into their already meagre savings to keep consumption growing. The result was that the UK outperformed the rest of the EU (where the German dominated ECB was imposing a much harsher regime) by a considerable distance.

    In more recent times our deficit has in fact fallen to more "normal" levels. At the same time the consumer has found it more difficult to maintain spending after a very prolonged fall in real wages. The BoE has also stopped QE. All of these have resulted in a slow down in the UK economy although they have been offset by the fall in Sterling after the Brexit vote to some extent. In contrast the ECB has relaxed monetary policy somewhat on the continent belatedly taking up QE and the EU consumer has picked up the baton from the UK consumer to some degree. The result is that their growth has accelerated.

    This really emphasises Robert's main point. The domestic policies of governments are vastly more important to growth than any possible friction arising in trade. Trying to identify a Brexit effect on growth will be impossible because domestic policy will completely swamp the marginal effects.
    For all the talk of 'living within your means' most people want to spend more than they earn and want the government to provide the means for them to do so.

    Two decades of that being put into practice is now finally coming to an end.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    It’s highly annoying to read the overnight threads and see the same voices denying the economic downside of Brexit.

    The Irish example is apposite. When you leave a larger market, you suffer - all things being equal. We are already some billions down where we would have been, according to the OBR and the IMF. You can rubbish that if you like but I’d rather take their econometric analysis than your armchair scoffing.

    That’s money we could be spending on health, housing, or end-of-life care.

    What the new analysis tells us is that any other FTAs will not compensate for the loss of the single market. Even Fox gets it. Time some of the PB Tories did!

    The "all else being equal" is the critical bit. As Ireland found when it woke up from its slumber, they could develop new policy that allowed them to economically succeed during the Celtic Tiger period, something that would have been impossible without independence.

    I know Remainers find it frustrating when their favoured econometric studies aren't taken as gospel, but after their failure to predict the Eurozone problems, their failure to predict the financial crisis and their failure to predict the impact of the Brexit vote, you would think there would be some humility about them by now. However a certain type of person is always victim to a person who gives off the right cultural clues about being a serious academic type, regardless of their actual track record.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Elliot said:

    It’s highly annoying to read the overnight threads and see the same voices denying the economic downside of Brexit.

    The Irish example is apposite. When you leave a larger market, you suffer - all things being equal. We are already some billions down where we would have been, according to the OBR and the IMF. You can rubbish that if you like but I’d rather take their econometric analysis than your armchair scoffing.

    That’s money we could be spending on health, housing, or end-of-life care.

    What the new analysis tells us is that any other FTAs will not compensate for the loss of the single market. Even Fox gets it. Time some of the PB Tories did!

    The "all else being equal" is the critical bit. As Ireland found when it woke up from its slumber, they could develop new policy that allowed them to economically succeed during the Celtic Tiger period, something that would have been impossible without independence.

    I know Remainers find it frustrating when their favoured econometric studies aren't taken as gospel, but after their failure to predict the Eurozone problems, their failure to predict the financial crisis and their failure to predict the impact of the Brexit vote, you would think there would be some humility about them by now. However a certain type of person is always victim to a person who gives off the right cultural clues about being a serious academic type, regardless of their actual track record.
    It’s very basic trade economics that dictates that Brexit - all things being equal - is a negative drag on growth.

    If you believe that free trade improves economic outcomes - as does pretty much everyone outside of North Korea - then you must also believe that a restriction on free trade is economically detrimental.

    You don’t actually need an Economics PhD to get that.

    Even the the mad economists for Brexit guys don’t deny this.
    However they believe that they can compensate for this loss through freer trade elsewhere, and significant economic deregulation.

    We now know that the positives of the first are actually quite marginal, and it’s highly unlikely the electorate would vote for the second (and we are already less regulated than most of our peer economies).
This discussion has been closed.