Oooh-wee, it’s Paul Thomas Anderson’s best since There Will Be Blood. Daniel Day Lewis is a genius, Lesley Manville *must* get the Supporting Actress Oscar, and newcomer Vicky Krieps is sublime. And the Johnny Greenwood score? Wow.
The Good Lady Wifi cast her BAFTA vote for each of DDL and Lesley Manville. She (rightly) didn't expect either to be winning votes, but thought they were just stunning performances in a film that really stays with you. One of the most rewarding films of the whole award season I thought.
Phantom Thread is brilliant - and strangely hilarious. I saw it at a press screening and bits of the film genuinely reduced the room to hysterics. Jonny Greenwood is a genius. He's also done the score for Lynne Ramsay's new film and it couldn't be more different to his work for PTA.
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
But, surely, it is Brexit which is stopping the government thinking about all these things let along coming up with sensible solutions?
And, indeed, Brexit may well make much of these matters worse. Eg the trade deficit. Making it harder to trade with the EU is not really going to help, is it?
I hope not but I fear so.
Anyway, bye. Off to listen now rather than opine......
It is the incompetence of our political class that means we have Brexit paralysis, not the process itself. We have seen the same in Scotland where generations of politicians have obsessed with constitutional arrangements instead of doing the day job.
Sloppy thinking. Brexit is inherently navel-gazing, and the incompetence of our political class was and is a known constraint.
You are close to claiming that Brexit is perfect in theory but just hasn’t been implemented properly.
Nope. I am simply saying that Brexit will have almost no detectable effect (in the event of a good deal) or an absolutely minimal effect (in the event of a poor deal). Either way everything on my list and John M's point about the inability of our politicians to make a decision will have much more impact on how our economy performs.
On your point that Brexit will have a non detectable effect, not a single economist alive agrees with you.
I mean, even Patrick “Close down the North” Minford predicts an effect, albeit with the wrong sign.
These are the economists who are forecasting that the economy would be 5% smaller in 15 years time when they can't get growth in the current year right? So far, since the vote, we have had growth of 1.9%, then 1.8% (it will be revised up in due course) and next month we will be told that growth this year will be around 1.9% again. When are we supposed to be seeing these effects?
For a start, the forecasts are relative levels of growth, rather than absolute. And I would guess that you'd see significant effects post rather than pre Brexit.
Growth rates compared to our continental partners would probably be a fair indication of outcomes, since you can only run the experiment once.
Its probably the best indicator we will have, I agree. But it will be argued about forever because there are so many confounding factors.
Like the inability of people to admit they were wrong....
New sealed criminal charges have been filed in federal court in the criminal case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller against Donald Trump’s former senior campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, a court record seen by Reuters on Wednesday showed.
But, surely, it is Brexit which is stopping the government thinking about all these things let along coming up with sensible solutions?
And, indeed, Brexit may well make much of these matters worse. Eg the trade deficit. Making it harder to trade with the EU is not really going to help, is it?
I hope not but I fear so.
Anyway, bye. Off to listen now rather than opine......
It is the incompetence of our political class that means we have Brexit paralysis, not the process itself. We have seen the same in Scotland where generations of politicians have obsessed with constitutional arrangements instead of doing the day job.
Sloppy thinking. Brexit is inherently navel-gazing, and the incompetence of our political class was and is a known constraint.
You are close to claiming that Brexit is perfect in theory but just hasn’t been implemented properly.
Nope. I am simply saying that Brexit will have almost no detectable effect (in the event of a good deal) or an absolutely minimal effect (in the event of a poor deal). Either way everything on my list and John M's point about the inability of our politicians to make a decision will have much more impact on how our economy performs.
On your point that Brexit will have a non detectable effect, not a single economist alive agrees with you.
I mean, even Patrick “Close down the North” Minford predicts an effect, albeit with the wrong sign.
These are the economists who are forecasting that the economy would be 5% smaller in 15 years time when they can't get growth in the current year right? So far, since the vote, we have had growth of 1.9%, then 1.8% (it will be revised up in due course) and next month we will be told that growth this year will be around 1.9% again. When are we supposed to be seeing these effects?
For a start, the forecasts are relative levels of growth, rather than absolute. And I would guess that you'd see significant effects post rather than pre Brexit.
Growth rates compared to our continental partners would probably be a fair indication of outcomes, since you can only run the experiment once.
Its probably the best indicator we will have, I agree. But it will be argued about forever because there are so many confounding factors.
... like the inability of people to admit they were wrong.
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
I'm afraid I think that's far too optimistic. Like creating a cathedral in 1 to 8 scale out of Red Leicester, the endeavour is pointless and frankly starting to smell a bit, but is immensely time-consuming owing to the scale of the project. Even if every Remain supporter was subdued to passive obedience to Leave by caps installed by Tripods, the workload would be vast and not allow for time for other subjects to intrude.
And I return to the theme of my piece this morning. Leave have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain supporters to acquiesce in Brexit and everything they can to antagonise them.
And then they wonder why it isn't a glorious success.
You're taking this Brexit stuff far too seriously. Here is a brief list of the things that will make a much bigger difference to our economy and standard of living that the government should be focussing on: The Trade deficit. In the longer run very little will have as big an impact on the standard of living of our children. Inevitably none of our politicians even seem to want to talk about it.
Public sector borrowing. 10 years after the last recession we are still borrowing almost £40bn a year. And the demand for increases in large and expensive parts of the welfare state are becoming irresistible. In reality our state runs a significant structural deficit that we have not fixed.
Private sector borrowing. Encouraged by over low interest rates for a decade, our economy lives off credit spending like a heroin addict on smack. In both cases it usually does not end well.
Productivity. Reflecting serious deficiencies in education, training and investment, recent improvements notwithstanding.
Housing. You cannot invite several million immigrants to work in your economy without a massive housing program. If you do you end up in the mess we are in right now.
Infrastructure. One of the underlying causes of poor productivity but also a major problem in an overcrowded island (generating huge costs) with the demands of current spending on available budgets.
It is of course concerning how little attention these are all getting but Brexit is a side issue.
Everyone, not just the EU, but third parties like Japan, India, the U.S, will see Brexit as an opportunity to widen the trade deficit in their favour. That's their job.
Brexit will lead to a fall in tax revenue, particularly on financial services.
Brexit, far from being a side issue, will have a major and direct effect on your first two issues. It will affect your other issues as well, perhaps less directly. Brexit is also the consuming issue. It's all very well saying it's a side issue but renegotiating 800 multilateral treaties with people who aren't minded to make life easy for you isn't a trivial task, especially when you don't have a consensus on anything on your side.
Anyway, bye. Off to listen now rather than opine......
It is the incompetence of our political class that means we have Brexit paralysis, not the process itself. We have seen the same in Scotland where generations of politicians have obsessed with constitutional arrangements instead of doing the day job.
Sloppy thinking. Brexit is inherently navel-gazing, and the incompetence of our political class was and is a known constraint.
You are close to claiming that Brexit is perfect in theory but just hasn’t been implemented properly.
Nope. I am simply saying that Brexit will have almost no detectable effect (in the event of a good deal) or an absolutely minimal effect (in the event of a poor deal). Either way everything on my list and John M's point about the inability of our politicians to make a decision will have much more impact on how our economy performs.
On your point that Brexit will have a non detectable effect, not a single economist alive agrees with you.
I mean, even Patrick “Close down the North” Minford predicts an effect, albeit with the wrong sign.
These are the economists who are forecasting that the economy would be 5% smaller in 15 years time when they can't get growth in the current year right? So far, since the vote, we have had growth of 1.9%, then 1.8% (it will be revised up in due course) and next month we will be told that growth this year will be around 1.9% again. When are we supposed to be seeing these effects?
It’s time to end this dodgy idea that 15 year economic projections should somehow be discounted (excuse the pun).
It’s anti-rational.
For a start, the economics of Brexit are pretty uncontroversial. Just as free trade, ceteris paribus, increases wealth, so does friction in free trade reduce it.
Secondly, you mistake short-term forecasts (which have to take into account various factors, including unpredictable ones like the weather, or consumer confidence) with estimates of a long term effect, which need only take into account a small set of basic variables and the relationship between them, ie trade volumes and growth; FDI and growth.
By all means advocate Brexi, but please do so responsibly. Don’t be a flat-Earther about it.
There is little publicity that isn't good publicity. Something for the Sun et al to reflect upon. Corbyn's been out of the news for a while: a reminder that he can deal with pressure calmly doesn't do any harm.
That's probably one reason why UKIP being in disarray doesn't seem to have harmed their poll rating recently.
I see Jezza was in Chesterfield at the exact time he supposedly was meeting the Czech liar according to Tony Benns diary
But Jezza doesn't deny meeting him? The difference is over what was said.
Tony Benns diaries End of an Era. Entry for 24th October 1987. Page 524. Corbyn mentioned in the diary entry that he was indeed in Chesterfield at a Socialist meeting that day
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
But, surely, it is Brexit which is stopping the government thinking about all these things let along coming up with sensible solutions?
And, indeed, Brexit may well make much of these matters worse. Eg the trade deficit. Making it harder to trade with the EU is not really going to help, is it?
I hope not but I fear so.
Anyway, bye. Off to listen now rather than opine......
It is the incompetence of our political class that means we have Brexit paralysis, not the process itself. We have seen the same in Scotland where generations of politicians have obsessed with constitutional arrangements instead of doing the day job.
Sloppy thinking. Brexit is inherently navel-gazing, and the incompetence of our political class was and is a known constraint.
You are close to claiming that Brexit is perfect in theory but just hasn’t been implemented properly.
On your point that Brexit will have a non detectable effect, not a single economist alive agrees with you.
I mean, even Patrick “Close down the North” Minford predicts an effect, albeit with the wrong sign.
For a start, the forecasts are relative levels of growth, rather than absolute. And I would guess that you'd see significant effects post rather than pre Brexit.
Growth rates compared to our continental partners would probably be a fair indication of outcomes, since you can only run the experiment once.
Its probably the best indicator we will have, I agree. But it will be argued about forever because there are so many confounding factors.
... like the inability of people to admit they were wrong.
A twitter worthy quip. Look at some recent stats.
EU GDP growth by country, Q3 2017, from Eurostat. The range was -0.3% (Denmark) to 2.6% (Romania). The EU average was 0.6, as was the overall Eurozone.
The 2016 annual stats give growth ranging from 0.1% (Greece) to 5% (Romania).
Individual country performance is dominated by factors other than the Single Market or even Euro membership. I don't think that's particularly controversial - check out Italy since 1999 as one example of a country failing to take advantage of its opportunities.
I see Jezza was in Chesterfield at the exact time he supposedly was meeting the Czech liar according to Tony Benns diary
But Jezza doesn't deny meeting him? The difference is over what was said.
Tony Benns diaries End of an Era. Entry for 24th October 1987. Page 524. Corbyn mentioned in the diary entry that he was indeed in Chesterfield at a Socialist meeting that day
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
I CAN CONFIRM I DID NOT ORGANIZE LIVE AID though.
Jezza should have denied meeting him then. But perhaps Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box. On more than one occasion he has been a useful idiot.
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
I'm afraid I think that's far too optimistic. Like creating a cathedral in 1 to 8 scale out of Red Leicester, the endeavour is pointless and frankly starting to smell a bit, but is immensely time-consuming owing to the scale of the project. Even if every Remain supporter was subdued to passive obedience to Leave by caps installed by Tripods, the workload would be vast and not allow for time for other subjects to intrude.
And I return to the theme of my piece this morning. Leave have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain supporters to acquiesce in Brexit and everything they can to antagonise them.
And then they wonder why it isn't a glorious success.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that some Remain supporters like yourself have been antagonistic and offensive from long before the actual vote and have done absolutely nothing to make us want to have anything to do with you.
You may not be surprised to find that your moronic behaviour has led some Leave supporters to actively seek ways to annoy and upset you because frankly you have behaved like a bit of a twat.
It is not just London that Jezza's shtick is working. Look at the likes of Bristol, in areas of well to do highly educated folk, they appear to love the sound of reheated 70s socialism.
Just because people are highly educated does not mean that (a) they have any common-sense or (b) any knowledge of history.
I think that is rather more likely that, by comparison with May and the likes of JRM/Boris/Davis/Fox and other loons, Labour sounds more normal, more in tune with what most people are bothered about and appears to have come up with some answers, however rubbish they may turn out to be in practice.
The fault is entirely with the Tories who are trashing their economic reputation, generally painting themselves into a corner and coming across as the sort of person you do not want to find yourself sitting next to on a long train journey.
It depends where you are. The Conservatives have never been more popular in great swathes of provincial England. There it is they who seem normal, and Labour who seem weird.
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
I'm afraid I think that's far too optimistic. Like creating a cathedral in 1 to 8 scale out of Red Leicester, the endeavour is pointless and frankly starting to smell a bit, but is immensely time-consuming owing to the scale of the project. Even if every Remain supporter was subdued to passive obedience to Leave by caps installed by Tripods, the workload would be vast and not allow for time for other subjects to intrude.
And I return to the theme of my piece this morning. Leave have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain supporters to acquiesce in Brexit and everything they can to antagonise them.
And then they wonder why it isn't a glorious success.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that some Remain supporters like yourself have been antagonistic and offensive from long before the actual vote and have done absolutely nothing to make us want to have anything to do with you.
You may not be surprised to find that your moronic behaviour has led some Leave supporters to actively seek ways to annoy and upset you because frankly you have behaved like a bit of a twat.
I see we're back to the idea that Brexit is floundering because of Remain supporters. Vote Leave Avoid Responsibility.
I see Jezza was in Chesterfield at the exact time he supposedly was meeting the Czech liar according to Tony Benns diary
But Jezza doesn't deny meeting him? The difference is over what was said.
Tony Benns diaries End of an Era. Entry for 24th October 1987. Page 524. Corbyn mentioned in the diary entry that he was indeed in Chesterfield at a Socialist meeting that day
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
I CAN CONFIRM I DID NOT ORGANIZE LIVE AID though.
Jezza should have denied meeting him then. But perhaps Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box. On more than one occasion he has been a useful idiot.
FFS! Can you remember what you wer doing on 24th October 1987? I certainly can't!
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
I'm afraid I think that's far too optimistic. Like creating a cathedral in 1 to 8 scale out of Red Leicester, the endeavour is pointless and frankly starting to smell a bit, but is immensely time-consuming owing to the scale of the project. Even if every Remain supporter was subdued to passive obedience to Leave by caps installed by Tripods, the workload would be vast and not allow for time for other subjects to intrude.
And I return to the theme of my piece this morning. Leave have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain supporters to acquiesce in Brexit and everything they can to antagonise them.
And then they wonder why it isn't a glorious success.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that some Remain supporters like yourself have been antagonistic and offensive from long before the actual vote and have done absolutely nothing to make us want to have anything to do with you.
You may not be surprised to find that your moronic behaviour has led some Leave supporters to actively seek ways to annoy and upset you because frankly you have behaved like a bit of a twat.
Whereas you have been the epitome of sweetness and light throughout...
I see Jezza was in Chesterfield at the exact time he supposedly was meeting the Czech liar according to Tony Benns diary
But Jezza doesn't deny meeting him? The difference is over what was said.
Tony Benns diaries End of an Era. Entry for 24th October 1987. Page 524. Corbyn mentioned in the diary entry that he was indeed in Chesterfield at a Socialist meeting that day
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
I CAN CONFIRM I DID NOT ORGANIZE LIVE AID though.
Jezza should have denied meeting him then. But perhaps Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box. On more than one occasion he has been a useful idiot.
FFS! Can you remember what you wer doing on 24th October 1987? I certainly can't!
It was the weekend after the Great Storm. I expect a lot of people will be able to remember what they were doing by reference to that.
Anyway, bye. Off to listen now rather than opine......
It is the incompetence of our political class that means e day job.
Sloppy thinking. Brexit is inherently navel-gazing, and the incompetence of our political class was and is a known constraint.
You are close to claiming that Brexit is perfect in theory but just hasn’t been implemented properly.
Nope. I am simply saying that Brexit will have almost no detectable effect (in the event of a good deal) or an absolutely minimal effect (in the event of a poor deal). Either way everything on my list and John M's point about the inability of our politicians to make a decision will have much more impact on how our economy performs.
On your point that Brexit will have a non detectable effect, not a single economist alive agrees with you.
I mean, even Patrick “Close down the North” Minford predicts an effect, albeit with the wrong sign.
These are the economists who are forecasting that the economy would be 5% smaller in 15 years time when they can't get growth in the current year right? So far, since the vote, we have had growth of 1.9%, then 1.8% (it will be revised up in due course) and next month we will be told that growth this year will be around 1.9% again. When are we supposed to be seeing these effects?
It’s time to end this dodgy idea that 15 year economic projections should somehow be discounted (excuse the pun).
It’s anti-rational.
For a start, the economics of Brexit are pretty uncontroversial. Just as free trade, ceteris paribus, increases wealth, so does friction in free trade reduce it.
Secondly, you mistake short-term forecasts (which have to take into account various factors, including unpredictable ones like the weather, or consumer confidence) with estimates of a long term effect, which need only take into account a small set of basic variables and the relationship between them, ie trade volumes and growth; FDI and growth.
By all means advocate Brexi, but please do so responsibly. Don’t be a flat-Earther about it.
It seems to me that acting as the EU's consumer of last resort is an unsustainable economic model, and that post the Brexit vote, we have begun to move away from that economic model.
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
I'm afraid I think that's far too optimistic. Like creating a cathedral in 1 to 8 scale out of Red Leicester, the endeavour is pointless and frankly starting to smell a bit, but is immensely time-consuming owing to the scale of the project. Even if every Remain supporter was subdued to passive obedience to Leave by caps installed by Tripods, the workload would be vast and not allow for time for other subjects to intrude.
And I return to the theme of my piece this morning. Leave have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain supporters to acquiesce in Brexit and everything they can to antagonise them.
And then they wonder why it isn't a glorious success.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that some Remain supporters like yourself have been antagonistic and offensive from long before the actual vote and have done absolutely nothing to make us want to have anything to do with you.
You may not be surprised to find that your moronic behaviour has led some Leave supporters to actively seek ways to annoy and upset you because frankly you have behaved like a bit of a twat.
Whereas you have been the epitome of sweetness and light throughout...
I am not the one making fatuous comments about how my opponents are all xenophobes and fascists and then wondering why no one is reaching out to me. I don't want Alastair to reach out. He is a hypocritical tosser.
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
Accept what decision? As far as I can tell, Mrs May's government accepts the decision to leave the EU but seems to have difficulty moving on. There must be something else.
e.g. As discussed, does the decision include staying in the SM and CU? Who makes the decision?
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
And I return to the theme of my piece this morning. Leave have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain supporters to acquiesce in Brexit and everything they can to antagonise them.
And then they wonder why it isn't a glorious success.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that some Remain supporters like yourself have been antagonistic and offensive from long before the actual vote and have done absolutely nothing to make us want to have anything to do with you.
You may not be surprised to find that your moronic behaviour has led some Leave supporters to actively seek ways to annoy and upset you because frankly you have behaved like a bit of a twat.
I see we're back to the idea that Brexit is floundering because of Remain supporters. Vote Leave Avoid Responsibility.
I think any deficiencies can be laid at the door of PM May. However, I feel no need or moral obligation to 'reach out' or whatever ghastly phrase we're using these days.
I enjoy most of your posts, but you're still a semi-anonymous stranger on the Internet to me; if you dislike Brexit, which appears to be the case, then fair enough, you're entitled to your view. What is that to me? I don't require you to 'get behind' Brexit, rather the opposite, I expect you to exercise your democratic right to reverse the decision. It is entirely up to you.
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
I'm afraid I think that's far too optimistic. Like creating a cathedral in 1 to 8 scale out of Red Leicester, the endeavour is pointless and frankly starting to smell a bit, but is immensely time-consuming owing to the scale of the project. Even if every Remain supporter was subdued to passive obedience to Leave by caps installed by Tripods, the workload would be vast and not allow for time for other subjects to intrude.
And I return to the theme of my piece this morning. Leave have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain supporters to acquiesce in Brexit and everything they can to antagonise them.
And then they wonder why it isn't a glorious success.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that some Remain supporters like yourself have been antagonistic and offensive from long before the actual vote and have done absolutely nothing to make us want to have anything to do with you.
You may not be surprised to find that your moronic behaviour has led some Leave supporters to actively seek ways to annoy and upset you because frankly you have behaved like a bit of a twat.
I see we're back to the idea that Brexit is floundering because of Remain supporters. Vote Leave Avoid Responsibility.
How exactly did you get that garbage from what I wrote?
I made no comment at all about whether or not Brexit is floundering (it isn't) or who is to blame one way or another. I was specifically addressing your stupid comments about how no one wants to reach out to you.
I would tell you to stop making things up but I know you are incapable of honesty when it comes to Brexit.
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
I'm afraid I think that's far too optimistic. Like creating a cathedral in 1 to 8 scale out of Red Leicester, the endeavour is pointless and frankly starting to smell a bit, but is immensely time-consuming owing to the scale of the project. Even if every Remain supporter was subdued to passive obedience to Leave by caps installed by Tripods, the workload would be vast and not allow for time for other subjects to intrude.
And I return to the theme of my piece this morning. Leave have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain supporters to acquiesce in Brexit and everything they can to antagonise them.
And then they wonder why it isn't a glorious success.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that some Remain supporters like yourself have been antagonistic and offensive from long before the actual vote and have done absolutely nothing to make us want to have anything to do with you.
You may not be surprised to find that your moronic behaviour has led some Leave supporters to actively seek ways to annoy and upset you because frankly you have behaved like a bit of a twat.
Let me get this right, it’s all the fault of Remain supporters for being antagonistic and offensive, because they are “moronic” and “twats”.
Ok.
Meeks does go on a bit, even for me, but he’s not wrong. After May’s gracious first speech as PM-presumptive when Leadson pulled out of the race, it was all downhill.
She had to be pulled kicking and screaming toward the proper (and democratic) exercise of Article 50 by Gina Miller. Her rhetoric was divisive. And her silence as various nutters yanked the Brexit Ovenden window to the hard right was frankly scary.
It’s time to end this dodgy idea that 15 year economic projections should somehow be discounted (excuse the pun).
It’s anti-rational.
If you are so convinced the model is right, then publish the model.
Make the computer code available to everyone so they can play with the input parameters & check the assumptions & content themselves that the model works.
I am not impressed when someone says I’ve got a model and it predicts this, and you’ve gotta take it all on trust. That isn’t science. It isn’t even economics. It is religion
Anyway, bye. Off to listen now rather than opine......
It is the incompetence of our political class that means e day job.
Sloppy thinking. Brexit is inherently navel-gazing, and the incompetence of our political class was and is a known constraint.
You are close to claiming that Brexit is perfect in theory but just hasn’t been implemented properly.
Nope. I am simply saying that Brexit will have almost no detectable effect (in the event of a good deal) or an absolutely minimal effect (in the event of a poor deal). Either way everything on my list and John M's point about the inability of our politicians to make a decision will have much more impact on how our economy performs.
On your point that Brexit will have a non detectable effect, not a single economist alive agrees with you.
I mean, even Patrick “Close down the North” Minford predicts an effect, albeit with the wrong sign.
These are the economists who are forecasting that the economy would be 5% smaller in 15 years time when they can't get growth in the current year right? So far, since the vote, we have had growth of 1.9%, then 1.8% (it will be revised up in due course) and next month we will be told that growth this year will be around 1.9% again. When are we supposed to be seeing these effects?
It’s time to end this dodgy idea that 15 year economic projections should somehow be discounted (excuse the pun).
It’s anti-rational.
By all means advocate Brexi, but please do so responsibly. Don’t be a flat-Earther about it.
It seems to me that acting as the EU's consumer of last resort is an unsustainable economic model, and that post the Brexit vote, we have begun to move away from that economic model.
But that’s a different point.
Although if you want to make it, I’d suggest the onus is on you to explain exactly how Brexiting does reduce the British love of consumption and commensurate trade deficit.
I rather suspect that “consumer of last resort” is one of these things that sounds nifty but doesn’t stand up to a decent prod.
Let me get this right, it’s all the fault of Remain supporters for being antagonistic and offensive, because they are “moronic” and “twats”.
Ok.
Meeks does go on a bit, even for me, but he’s not wrong. After May’s gracious first speech as PM-presumptive when Leadson pulled out of the race, it was all downhill.
She had to be pulled kicking and screaming toward the proper (and democratic) exercise of Article 50 by Gina Miller. Her rhetoric was divisive. And her silence as various nutters yanked the Brexit Ovenden window to the hard right was frankly scary.
No it is specifically Mr Meeks who indulges in being moronic and a twat. Most Remain supporters argue their case reasonably. He is the exception rather than the rule which is why he deserves to be taunted and ridiculed as often as possible.
Edit: oh and in case you missed it I supported Miss Miller in her court case.
I see Jezza was in Chesterfield at the exact time he supposedly was meeting the Czech liar according to Tony Benns diary
But Jezza doesn't deny meeting him? The difference is over what was said.
Tony Benns diaries End of an Era. Entry for 24th October 1987. Page 524. Corbyn mentioned in the diary entry that he was indeed in Chesterfield at a Socialist meeting that day
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
I CAN CONFIRM I DID NOT ORGANIZE LIVE AID though.
Jezza should have denied meeting him then. But perhaps Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box. On more than one occasion he has been a useful idiot.
FFS! Can you remember what you wer doing on 24th October 1987? I certainly can't!
It’s time to end this dodgy idea that 15 year economic projections should somehow be discounted (excuse the pun).
It’s anti-rational.
If you are so convinced the model is right, then publish the model.
Make the computer code available to everyone so they can play with the input parameters & check the assumptions & content themselves that the model works.
I am not impressed when someone says I’ve got a model and it predicts this, and you’ve gotta take it all on trust. That isn’t science. It isn’t even economics. It is religion
It’s not my model. It’s the Treasury’s. And I seem to recall it’s the Brexiting government that is keen to keep the details schtum.
However, I think you *can* find the key parameters if you dig about. And if not Treasury’s, then one of the many others that have reached very similar conclusions.
There is little publicity that isn't good publicity. Something for the Sun et al to reflect upon. Corbyn's been out of the news for a while: a reminder that he can deal with pressure calmly doesn't do any harm.
I have to say, Corbyn has handled the PR superbly on the spy stuff.
I see Jezza was in Chesterfield at the exact time he supposedly was meeting the Czech liar according to Tony Benns diary
But Jezza doesn't deny meeting him? The difference is over what was said.
Tony Benns diaries End of an Era. Entry for 24th October 1987. Page 524. Corbyn mentioned in the diary entry that he was indeed in Chesterfield at a Socialist meeting that day
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
I CAN CONFIRM I DID NOT ORGANIZE LIVE AID though.
Jezza should have denied meeting him then. But perhaps Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box. On more than one occasion he has been a useful idiot.
FFS! Can you remember what you wer doing on 24th October 1987? I certainly can't!
I really don't understand why people are still pursuing this. If being a friend and supporter of the IRA had no traction with the public why do people think some dodgy 30 year old claims out of Tinker Tailor are going to shift opinion?
Let me get this right, it’s all the fault of Remain supporters for being antagonistic and offensive, because they are “moronic” and “twats”.
Ok.
Meeks does go on a bit, even for me, but he’s not wrong. After May’s gracious first speech as PM-presumptive when Leadson pulled out of the race, it was all downhill.
She had to be pulled kicking and screaming toward the proper (and democratic) exercise of Article 50 by Gina Miller. Her rhetoric was divisive. And her silence as various nutters yanked the Brexit Ovenden window to the hard right was frankly scary.
No it is specifically Mr Meeks who indulges in being moronic and a twat. Most Remain supporters argue their case reasonably. He is the exception rather than the rule which is why he deserves to be taunted and ridiculed as often as possible.
Edit: oh and in case you missed it I supported Miss Miller in her court case.
I would second that. Meeks has been a bigot himself in his ridiculous smearing of Leave Voters.
Carrot Munchers, as I recall he derisively called the rural poor.
Let me get this right, it’s all the fault of Remain supporters for being antagonistic and offensive, because they are “moronic” and “twats”.
Ok.
Meeks does go on a bit, even for me, but he’s not wrong. After May’s gracious first speech as PM-presumptive when Leadson pulled out of the race, it was all downhill.
She had to be pulled kicking and screaming toward the proper (and democratic) exercise of Article 50 by Gina Miller. Her rhetoric was divisive. And her silence as various nutters yanked the Brexit Ovenden window to the hard right was frankly scary.
No it is specifically Mr Meeks who indulges in being moronic and a twat. Most Remain supporters argue their case reasonably. He is the exception rather than the rule which is why he deserves to be taunted and ridiculed as often as possible.
Edit: oh and in case you missed it I supported Miss Miller in her court case.
I did miss it, and thank you for putting it on record.
There is little publicity that isn't good publicity. Something for the Sun et al to reflect upon. Corbyn's been out of the news for a while: a reminder that he can deal with pressure calmly doesn't do any harm.
I have to say, Corbyn has handled the PR superbly on the spy stuff.
Corbyn the spy is the new Birther movement.
It pains me because I detest Corbyn and everything he stands for, but this story is poisoning the well of democratic debate.
It’s time to end this dodgy idea that 15 year economic projections should somehow be discounted (excuse the pun).
It’s anti-rational.
If you are so convinced the model is right, then publish the model.
Make the computer code available to everyone so they can play with the input parameters & check the assumptions & content themselves that the model works.
I am not impressed when someone says I’ve got a model and it predicts this, and you’ve gotta take it all on trust. That isn’t science. It isn’t even economics. It is religion
It’s not my model. It’s the Treasury’s. And I seem to recall it’s the Brexiting government that is keen to keep the details schtum.
However, I think you *can* find the key parameters if you dig about. And if not Treasury’s, then one of the many others that have reached very similar conclusions.
You are the one repeating claims about the future as Gospel based on the model.
So, I would have thought you might be interested in how the model works.
If someone makes a model available to me, I’ll take a look, but I am not impressed by Gardenwalker saying “The sky is falling in, the sky is falling in, The model said so”
I see Jezza was in Chesterfield at the exact time he supposedly was meeting the Czech liar according to Tony Benns diary
But Jezza doesn't deny meeting him? The difference is over what was said.
Tony Benns diaries End of an Era. Entry for 24th October 1987. Page 524. Corbyn mentioned in the diary entry that he was indeed in Chesterfield at a Socialist meeting that day
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
I CAN CONFIRM I DID NOT ORGANIZE LIVE AID though.
Jezza should have denied meeting him then. But perhaps Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box. On more than one occasion he has been a useful idiot.
FFS! Can you remember what you wer doing on 24th October 1987? I certainly can't!
I really don't understand why people are still pursuing this. If being a friend and supporter of the IRA had no traction with the public why do people think some dodgy 30 year old claims out of Tinker Tailor are going to shift opinion?
AS I have said from day one, the whole thing is weird. The timing for starters makes no sense.
I see Jezza was in Chesterfield at the exact time he supposedly was meeting the Czech liar according to Tony Benns diary
But Jezza doesn't deny meeting him? The difference is over what was said.
Tony Benns diaries End of an Era. Entry for 24th October 1987. Page 524. Corbyn mentioned in the diary entry that he was indeed in Chesterfield at a Socialist meeting that day
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
I CAN CONFIRM I DID NOT ORGANIZE LIVE AID though.
Jezza should have denied meeting him then. But perhaps Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box. On more than one occasion he has been a useful idiot.
FFS! Can you remember what you wer doing on 24th October 1987? I certainly can't!
I really don't understand why people are still pursuing this. If being a friend and supporter of the IRA had no traction with the public why do people think some dodgy 30 year old claims out of Tinker Tailor are going to shift opinion?
It has plenty of traction among the 40% who support the Conservatives, and none whatsoever among the 40% who support Labour.
It’s time to end this dodgy idea that 15 year economic projections should somehow be discounted (excuse the pun).
It’s anti-rational.
If you are so convinced the model is right, then publish the model.
Make the computer code available to everyone so they can play with the input parameters & check the assumptions & content themselves that the model works.
I am not impressed when someone says I’ve got a model and it predicts this, and you’ve gotta take it all on trust. That isn’t science. It isn’t even economics. It is religion
It’s not my model. It’s the Treasury’s. And I seem to recall it’s the Brexiting government that is keen to keep the details schtum.
However, I think you *can* find the key parameters if you dig about. And if not Treasury’s, then one of the many others that have reached very similar conclusions.
You are the one repeating claims about the future as Gospel based on the model.
So, I would have thought you might be interested in how the model works.
If someone makes a model available to me, I’ll take a look, but I am not impressed by Gardenwalker saying “The sky is falling in, the sky is falling in, The model said so”
I’m not trying to impress you.
Simply to explain that economic forecasts are a thing, and cannot be handwaved just because you don’t like them.
I know you’re a Bard, but I prefer reason to story-telling.
I’m one of those who’s a Brit abroad making his way somewhere else in the world. That’s not who she was getting at.
Mrs May was highlighting individuals and companies who are making huge amounts of money in Britain but not paying taxes there. She was right to do so.
One of the massive positives from a no-deal brexit is that Google and Facebook will have to have British companies paying British taxes to the satisfaction of British tax inspectors.
I would seriously doubt any Brexit scenario where Google and Facebook pay more taxes to the UK Exchequer.
A “No-deal” scenario absolutely results in this, as does any deal with the EU that doesn’t incorporate intangibles such as software and services.
I don't see how a No Deal changes the relationship with Google and Facebook.
If we end up in the situation where the EU prevent the UK selling services and intangibles to the EU post-Brexit, we could and should insist that various Irish and Luxembourg companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple incorporate in the UK (and subject themselves to UK corporation tax) in order to sell services and intangibles (advertising, software etc) into our market.
Corbyn took two IRA people into parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing. Given that, I wouldn't care if he was the Czech Bill Haydon and Aldrich Ames rolled into one.
Let me get this right, it’s all the fault of Remain supporters for being antagonistic and offensive, because they are “moronic” and “twats”.
Ok.
Meeks does go on a bit, even for me, but he’s not wrong. After May’s gracious first speech as PM-presumptive when Leadson pulled out of the race, it was all downhill.
She had to be pulled kicking and screaming toward the proper (and democratic) exercise of Article 50 by Gina Miller. Her rhetoric was divisive. And her silence as various nutters yanked the Brexit Ovenden window to the hard right was frankly scary.
No it is specifically Mr Meeks who indulges in being moronic and a twat. Most Remain supporters argue their case reasonably. He is the exception rather than the rule which is why he deserves to be taunted and ridiculed as often as possible.
Edit: oh and in case you missed it I supported Miss Miller in her court case.
I would second that. Meeks has been a bigot himself in his ridiculous smearing of Leave Voters.
Carrot Munchers, as I recall he derisively called the rural poor.
It’s time to end this dodgy idea that 15 year economic projections should somehow be discounted (excuse the pun).
It’s anti-rational.
If you are so convinced the model is right, then publish the model.
Make the computer code available to everyone so they can play with the input parameters & check the assumptions & content themselves that the model works.
I am not impressed when someone says I’ve got a model and it predicts this, and you’ve gotta take it all on trust. That isn’t science. It isn’t even economics. It is religion
It’s not my model. It’s the Treasury’s. And I seem to recall it’s the Brexiting government that is keen to keep the details schtum.
However, I think you *can* find the key parameters if you dig about. And if not Treasury’s, then one of the many others that have reached very similar conclusions.
You are the one repeating claims about the future as Gospel based on the model.
So, I would have thought you might be interested in how the model works.
If someone makes a model available to me, I’ll take a look, but I am not impressed by Gardenwalker saying “The sky is falling in, the sky is falling in, The model said so”
I’m not trying to impress you.
Simply to explain that economic forecasts are a thing, and cannot be handwaved just because you don’t like them.
I know you’re a Bard, but I prefer reason to story-telling.
And I am explaining to you that economic forecasts depend on an underlying model (which is subject to assumptions).
To convince people, the model needs to be available for everyone to check & test.
A model is worthless if it has not been calibrated on real data, and validated. Explain to me how the model was validated. Explain to me how robust are the conclusions.
As I said the other day, no economic model forecasted the Great Financial Crash. If economists cannot successfully predict the major financial event of the last 50 years, why should we trust their model for the next 10 years?
You have accepted a model on trust. Fine, you may have biblical faith.
Others, reasonably enough, may wish to look at the details of the model, test the assumptions and calibrate it against data.
When the next recession comes then that's only going to be 3 categories the Tories are ahead in.
Any update on Scottish employment figures ?
The next recession will be in Scotland.
Ah.....
Hardly surprising given the continued job losses in the Oil and Gas industry. Currently somewhere north of 150,000 jobs lost in the North Sea and I suspect even with the current pick up in activity it will be a long time before we see any real move towards more recruitment.
I thought that the more recent numbers were better there? I was speaking to some solicitors from Aberdeen and they were telling me that recruitment had picked up in the last few months, presumably on the back of the oil price rise. There is still optimism that the clean up costs of the North sea are going to be a money spinner for some time, albeit that is not thought to be quite the goldmine that was once thought.
It is undoubtedly the case that the North Sea has been a drag on Scottish performance over the last few years and it is encouraging that despite that employment is (just) still higher than 12 months ago but the trends are not great and making Scotland the most heavily taxed part of the UK is just bloody stupid.
Come come David, 70% will pay less tax and if you count everything in the whole we are lower overall.
These subjects are getting next to no attention because some ideological lunatics are determined to press ahead with their mad hobbyhorse as the absolute top priority for the indefinite future.
And because another bunch of ideological lunatics are equally obsessed with stopping them. You used to call the EU a second order problem Alastair. I agree.
It is a second order problem. It's a second order problem consuming all the energies of government for the indefinite future. It's the most appalling example of prioritisation undertaken by a government in living memory (and arguably since Henry VIII let his libido set foreign and religious policy).
Dare I suggest that if people just accepted the decision and moved on that would not be the case? Bill Cash and his ilk could probably start a fight in an empty room but at the moment that theory does not need to be tested.
There would be much less angst over Brexit if the upper middle classes had been on the winning side and the poor had been on the losing side.
It’s time to end this dodgy idea that 15 year economic projections should somehow be discounted (excuse the pun).
It’s anti-rational.
If you are so convinced the model is right, then publish the model.
Make the computer code available to everyone so they can play with the input parameters & check the assumptions & content themselves that the model works.
I am not impressed when someone says I’ve got a model and it predicts this, and you’ve gotta take it all on trust. That isn’t science. It isn’t even economics. It is religion
It’s not my model. It’s the Treasury’s. And I seem to recall it’s the Brexiting government that is keen to keep the details schtum.
However, I think you *can* find the key parameters if you dig about. And if not Treasury’s, then one of the many others that have reached very similar conclusions.
You are the one repeating claims about the future as Gospel based on the model.
So, I would have thought you might be interested in how the model works.
If someone makes a model available to me, I’ll take a look, but I am not impressed by Gardenwalker saying “The sky is falling in, the sky is falling in, The model said so”
I’m not trying to impress you.
Simply to explain that economic forecasts are a thing, and cannot be handwaved just because you don’t like them.
I know you’re a Bard, but I prefer reason to story-telling.
And I am explaining to you that economic forecasts depend on an underlying model (which is subject to assumptions).
To convince people, the model needs to be available for everyone to check & test.
A model is worthless if it has not been calibrated on real data, and validated. Explain to me how the model was validated. Explain to me how robust are the conclusions.
As I said the other day, no economic model forecasted the Great Financial Crash. If economists cannot successfully predict the major financial event of the last 50 years, why should we trust their model for the next 10 years?
You have accepted a model on trust. Fine, you may have biblical faith.
Others, reasonably enough, may wish to look at the details of the model, test the assumptions and calibrate it against data.
The “model” is pretty basic macroeconomics.
You lose points for claiming all economics can be handwaved for not predicting the GFC.
I’m one of those who’s a Brit abroad making his way somewhere else in the world. That’s not who she was getting at.
Mrs May was highlighting individuals and companies who are making huge amounts of money in Britain but not paying taxes there. She was right to do so.
One of the massive positives from a no-deal brexit is that Google and Facebook will have to have British companies paying British taxes to the satisfaction of British tax inspectors.
I would seriously doubt any Brexit scenario where Google and Facebook pay more taxes to the UK Exchequer.
A “No-deal” scenario absolutely results in this, as does any deal with the EU that doesn’t incorporate intangibles such as software and services.
I don't see how a No Deal changes the relationship with Google and Facebook.
If we end up in the situation where the EU prevent the UK selling services and intangibles to the EU post-Brexit, we could and should insist that various Irish and Luxembourg companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple incorporate in the UK (and subject themselves to UK corporation tax) in order to sell services and intangibles (advertising, software etc) into our market.
... and the UK Government should not let the Financial Services Compensation Scheme stand behind customer accounts where the banks are not headquartered and pay corporation tax in the UK.
When the next recession comes then that's only going to be 3 categories the Tories are ahead in.
Any update on Scottish employment figures ?
The next recession will be in Scotland.
Very poor. 14K increase in unemployment and even more alarming a 30K fall in employment (as opposed to the 88K increase for the UK as a whole). It's just as well the Scottish Parliament is about to approve an enterprise friendly, business friendly, investment attracting budget in Holyrood isn't it?
Ah.....
Tories demanding Hard Brexit will really help. When will we leave the sinking ship.
Unfortunately Malcolm, Scotland is the bit that is taking in water at the moment. Lowest growth, as of today higher unemployment, above average share of public sector employment, weaker investment. And the clowns in Holyrood think the answer is to increase taxes on an already weak tax base.
David , Unfortunately I do not see any better ideas coming from opposition , they want to spend lots more money without increasing taxes. Do you know of any realistic Tory or Labour plans that would be better.
Corbyn took two IRA people into parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing. Given that, I wouldn't care if he was the Czech Bill Haydon and Aldrich Ames rolled into one.
A lot of voters don't seem to care about things like this.
It seems to me that acting as the EU's consumer of last resort is an unsustainable economic model, and that post the Brexit vote, we have begun to move away from that economic model.
Employer of last resort as well:
' The ONS labour market figures published on Thursday show the total number of EU nationals working in Britain rose by 101,000 in 2017 to 2.3 million. This is almost half the 196,000 increase in 2016, confirming the slowdown in the rate of growth of EU worker migration.
The figure of 101,000 compares with an increase of 294,000 in the number of UK workers in the British labour force. EU migrants accounted for just over 50% of the increase in employment in Britain in 2016. That has now fallen to 25%. '
Note that the link mentions a fall in WESTERN EU nationals in the UK workforce but the article says their number employed increased and its EU8 nationals who decreased.
I'm sure that the Guardian have had to rewrite their article after getting their facts wrong earlier.
I can imagine the glee they must have had when they thought that a Brexodus of Germans, French etc had begun and the horror when they realised they had got it the wrong way round.
It seems to me that acting as the EU's consumer of last resort is an unsustainable economic model, and that post the Brexit vote, we have begun to move away from that economic model.
Employer of last resort as well:
' The ONS labour market figures published on Thursday show the total number of EU nationals working in Britain rose by 101,000 in 2017 to 2.3 million. This is almost half the 196,000 increase in 2016, confirming the slowdown in the rate of growth of EU worker migration.
The figure of 101,000 compares with an increase of 294,000 in the number of UK workers in the British labour force. EU migrants accounted for just over 50% of the increase in employment in Britain in 2016. That has now fallen to 25%. '
Note that the link mentions a fall in WESTERN EU nationals in the UK workforce but the article says their number employed increased and its EU8 nationals who decreased.
I'm sure that the Guardian have had to rewrite their article after getting their facts wrong earlier.
I can imagine the glee they must have had when they thought that a Brexodus of Germans, French etc had begun and the horror when they realised they had got it the wrong way round.
You lose points for claiming all economics can be handwaved for not predicting the GFC.
Do some basic reading and come back to me.
I see. You can’t explain it. Do some “basic reading and come back to me”.
You have repeatedly used the phrase "hand waved away”
I haven’t hand waved anything away. I merely asked for the model to be made available, or the evidence (including the validation) to be summarised.
Any handwaving has been done by you.
I am unclear why you want me to dig up the Treasury’s Excel spreadsheets.
Why don’t you go and find them yourself?
The onus is on you - who seem to be skeptical of what should be very unsurprising forecasts - to go and debunk them, if you think they’re somehow fudged or faulty.
You keep changing your tune, first the Treasury had it wrong, then you’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t show its working, then all economics is fake because GFC.
I can see right through you, and what I see ain’t good.
It seems to me that acting as the EU's consumer of last resort is an unsustainable economic model, and that post the Brexit vote, we have begun to move away from that economic model.
Employer of last resort as well:
' The ONS labour market figures published on Thursday show the total number of EU nationals working in Britain rose by 101,000 in 2017 to 2.3 million. This is almost half the 196,000 increase in 2016, confirming the slowdown in the rate of growth of EU worker migration.
The figure of 101,000 compares with an increase of 294,000 in the number of UK workers in the British labour force. EU migrants accounted for just over 50% of the increase in employment in Britain in 2016. That has now fallen to 25%. '
Note that the link mentions a fall in WESTERN EU nationals in the UK workforce but the article says their number employed increased and its EU8 nationals who decreased.
I'm sure that the Guardian have had to rewrite their article after getting their facts wrong earlier.
I can imagine the glee they must have had when they thought that a Brexodus of Germans, French etc had begun and the horror when they realised they had got it the wrong way round.
'A slowdown in the rate of increase'.
Fuck. Somebody hold me, I'm frightened.
If we had been told, on 22nd June 2016, that over the next 18 months, the economy would grow by 2.8%, manufacturing output would grow by 5%, the public sector deficit would continue to fall, house building would reach it's highest level for 20 years, 400,000 net jobs would be created, the stock Market would bound ahead, I think most people could have lived with that.
You lose points for claiming all economics can be handwaved for not predicting the GFC.
Do some basic reading and come back to me.
I see. You can’t explain it. Do some “basic reading and come back to me”.
You have repeatedly used the phrase "hand waved away”
I haven’t hand waved anything away. I merely asked for the model to be made available, or the evidence (including the validation) to be summarised.
Any handwaving has been done by you.
I am unclear why you want me to dig up the Treasury’s Excel spreadsheets.
Why don’t you go and find them yourself?
The onus is on you - who seem to be skeptical of what should be very unsurprising forecasts - to go and debunk them, if you think they’re somehow fudged or faulty.
You keep changing your tune, first the Treasury had it wrong, then you’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t show its working, then all economics is fake because GFC.
I can see right through you, and what I see ain’t good.
It would be useful if those claiming to see 15 years into the future had a reasonable record at predicting the key economic data of the last 15 months.
You lose points for claiming all economics can be handwaved for not predicting the GFC.
Do some basic reading and come back to me.
I see. You can’t explain it. Do some “basic reading and come back to me”.
You have repeatedly used the phrase "hand waved away”
I haven’t hand waved anything away. I merely asked for the model to be made available, or the evidence (including the validation) to be summarised.
Any handwaving has been done by you.
I am unclear why you want me to dig up the Treasury’s Excel spreadsheets.
Why don’t you go and find them yourself?
The onus is on you - who seem to be skeptical of what should be very unsurprising forecasts - to go and debunk them, if you think they’re somehow fudged or faulty.
You keep changing your tune, first the Treasury had it wrong, then you’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t show its working, then all economics is fake because GFC.
I can see right through you, and what I see ain’t good.
It would be useful if those claiming to see 15 years into the future had a reasonable record at predicting the key economic data of the last 15 months.
I already explained why that’s a fallacy, upthread.
As others have said, if you keep eating this way you’re likely to die of a heart attack. However it’s difficult to predict whether you’ll have fish n chips or salad for dinner tomorrow night.
You keep changing your tune, first the Treasury had it wrong, then you’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t show its working, then all economics is fake because GFC.
I can see right through you, and what I see ain’t good.
I have never said the Treasury had it wrong.
I said that, if you want to convince people that your model is correct, you make it available to everyone on github.
You said (i) it is not my model, then (ii) it is pretty basic stuff, then (iii) you lied about me hand-waving forecasts aways and (iv) finally told me you can see right through me.
All interesting stuff. A bit too much bluster perhaps, I thought you’d have the arguments at your fingertips.
And I loved the “do some basic reading and get back to me”. It was very much the testy seigneur dealing with a difficult underling.
But, like a good scientist, I just want to see the data and the model, and understand how the model was validated against the data.
I haven’t dismissed the forecast, I merely asked for the evidence & the validation. A pretty reasonable request.
You lose points for claiming all economics can be handwaved for not predicting the GFC.
Do some basic reading and come back to me.
I see. You can’t explain it. Do some “basic reading and come back to me”.
You have repeatedly used the phrase "hand waved away”
I haven’t hand waved anything away. I merely asked for the model to be made available, or the evidence (including the validation) to be summarised.
Any handwaving has been done by you.
I am unclear why you want me to dig up the Treasury’s Excel spreadsheets.
Why don’t you go and find them yourself?
The onus is on you - who seem to be skeptical of what should be very unsurprising forecasts - to go and debunk them, if you think they’re somehow fudged or faulty.
You keep changing your tune, first the Treasury had it wrong, then you’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t show its working, then all economics is fake because GFC.
I can see right through you, and what I see ain’t good.
It would be useful if those claiming to see 15 years into the future had a reasonable record at predicting the key economic data of the last 15 months.
15 months - there are times when the Treasury forecasts have been wrong 15 seconds later.
You lose points for claiming all economics can be handwaved for not predicting the GFC.
Do some basic reading and come back to me.
I see. You can’t explain it. Do some “basic reading and come back to me”.
You have repeatedly used the phrase "hand waved away”
I haven’t hand waved anything away. I merely asked for the model to be made available, or the evidence (including the validation) to be summarised.
Any handwaving has been done by you.
I am unclear why you want me to dig up the Treasury’s Excel spreadsheets.
Why don’t you go and find them yourself?
The onus is on you - who seem to be skeptical of what should be very unsurprising forecasts - to go and debunk them, if you think they’re somehow fudged or faulty.
You keep changing your tune, first the Treasury had it wrong, then you’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t show its working, then all economics is fake because GFC.
I can see right through you, and what I see ain’t good.
It would be useful if those claiming to see 15 years into the future had a reasonable record at predicting the key economic data of the last 15 months.
I already explained why that’s a fallacy, upthread.
As others have said, if you keep eating this way you’re likely to die of a heart attack. However it’s difficult to predict whether you’ll have fish n chips or salad for dinner tomorrow night.
Why don’t you try making a probabilistic statement, in the manner of Bayesian inference.
What is the probability of the forecast 15 years in the future being correct?
A good model should provide a forecast and a confidence interval,
What is the confidence interval?
(Please, please let it be the standard Gardenwalker response to a tricky question, “Stop bothering me. Go away and do some basic reading”).
You lose points for claiming all economics can be handwaved for not predicting the GFC.
Do some basic reading and come back to me.
I see. You can’t explain it. Do some “basic reading and come back to me”.
You have repeatedly used the phrase "hand waved away”
I haven’t hand waved anything away. I merely asked for the model to be made available, or the evidence (including the validation) to be summarised.
Any handwaving has been done by you.
I am unclear why you want me to dig up the Treasury’s Excel spreadsheets.
Why don’t you go and find them yourself?
The onus is on you - who seem to be skeptical of what should be very unsurprising forecasts - to go and debunk them, if you think they’re somehow fudged or faulty.
You keep changing your tune, first the Treasury had it wrong, then you’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t show its working, then all economics is fake because GFC.
I can see right through you, and what I see ain’t good.
It would be useful if those claiming to see 15 years into the future had a reasonable record at predicting the key economic data of the last 15 months.
15 months - there are times when the Treasury forecasts have been wrong 15 seconds later.
I think we're going down a rabbit hole.
Surely it's just common sense that if we're going from frictionless trade to destination where x is currently unknown, then economic growth is going to be less than the base case. We're really arguing about how much drag there will be. Only the Panglossian fruit loops are arguing that we'll be better off.
Based on the figures I've seen, both from the Treasury model and the IFS model survey, that drag, over the period 2016 - 2030 is going to range from -2% to -5%, which is a quarterly drag over that same period of between 0.033% and 0.083%, crudely assuming that it's a linear phenomenon (which it isn't).
Can we agree that this is the ballpark macro effect? Or is it pistols at dawn ad nauseam?
Hello all: just popping in to say that off to an Intelligence Squared debate this evening with Stella Creasy, Roger Scruton, George Monbiot and Kwasi Kwarteng. First time I've ever been to one of these so not sure what to expect. Anyway I will report back if anything of interest emerges.
May still crap I see......
Curious to hear what you make olf them. I'm a big fan of Stella - she electrified a sleep meeting of Broxtowe members that she attended, and I supported her unsuccessful bid for deputy leader. Scruton and Monbiot are both considered provocateurs by their opponents. No clear impression of Kwasi.
I am unclear why you want me to dig up the Treasury’s Excel spreadsheets.
If they're using excel for something this complicated, we're all utterly ####ed. It's hopelessly basic.
Here you go. You'll be relieved to know it's not just a bunch of macros. Note that NIESR's model is more extensive than the treasury model, but less detailed on the giblets of UK public expenditure.
Surely it's just common sense that if we're going from frictionless trade to destination where x is currently unknown, then economic growth is going to be less than the base case. We're really arguing about how much drag there will be. Only the Panglossian fruit loops are arguing that we'll be better off.
Based on the figures I've seen, both from the Treasury model and the IFS model survey, that drag, over the period 2016 - 2030 is going to range from -2% to -5%, which is a quarterly drag over that same period of between 0.033% and 0.083%, crudely assuming that it's a linear phenomenon (which it isn't).
Your argument is difficult to follow because you are making a firm predict (-2 % to -5 %) on going from “a frictionless trade to destination X, where X is unknown".
If X is unknown, I can’t see how the figures can be anything other than rough guesses.
I am actually trying to help the GardenWalkers of this world..
If you want people to believe a bunch of numbers, all I said was the pretty innocuous make the model available so people can play with it,.
Importantly, we have to be able to change the assumptions, change the model parameters and see how robust it all is, so we need the whole model not just some Treasury spreadsheets.
My guess is that the Treasury doesn’t want release the model, because the model is probably naive.
You keep changing your tune, first the Treasury had it wrong, then you’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t show its working, then all economics is fake because GFC.
I can see right through you, and what I see ain’t good.
I have never said the Treasury had it wrong.
I said that, if you want to convince people that your model is correct, you make it available to everyone on github.
You said (i) it is not my model, then (ii) it is pretty basic stuff, then (iii) you lied about me hand-waving forecasts aways and (iv) finally told me you can see right through me.
All interesting stuff. A bit too much bluster perhaps, I thought you’d have the arguments at your fingertips.
And I loved the “do some basic reading and get back to me”. It was very much the testy seigneur dealing with a difficult underling.
But, like a good scientist, I just want to see the data and the model, and understand how the model was validated against the data.
I haven’t dismissed the forecast, I merely asked for the evidence & the validation. A pretty reasonable request.
The problem is not that you wish to drill into the detail. There are a load of - remarkably similar - forecasts on the web by reputable economic institutions. By all means have a surf and see what you can find.
The problem is that you are handwaving a perfectly reasonable projection (because both similar to a large number of forecasts, and because tallies with what I hope is a basic economic principle, ie that reducing trade reduces growth) because you wish to discount it from the argument against Brexit.
Surely it's just common sense that if we're going from frictionless trade to destination where x is currently unknown, then economic growth is going to be less than the base case. We're really arguing about how much drag there will be. Only the Panglossian fruit loops are arguing that we'll be better off.
Based on the figures I've seen, both from the Treasury model and the IFS model survey, that drag, over the period 2016 - 2030 is going to range from -2% to -5%, which is a quarterly drag over that same period of between 0.033% and 0.083%, crudely assuming that it's a linear phenomenon (which it isn't).
Your argument is difficult to follow because you are making a firm predict (-2 % to -5 %) on going from “a frictionless trade to destination , where is unknown".
If is unknown, I can’t see how the figures can be anything other than rough guesses.
I am actually trying to help the GardenWalkers of this world..
If you want people to believe a bunch of numbers, all I said was the pretty innocuous make the model available so people can play with it,.
Importantly, we have to be able to change the assumptions, change the model parameters and see how robust it all is, so we need the whole model not just some Treasury spreadsheets.
My guess is that the Treasury doesn’t want realise the model, because the model is probably naive.
That's the range of estimates using the Treasury model, which is what HMG is using. It's broadly in line with other reputable models - low single digit fiscal drag over the medium term. I've provided a link to said model; source code isn't readily available.
The government's objection to the draft forecasts being released was that no modelling of our 'ambitious economic partnership agreement' had taken place. However, we do have estimates for Single Market membership through to WTO terms. I've chosen not to include the 'no deal' estimate, because I'm betting we'll get one.
Surely it's just common sense that if we're going from frictionless trade to destination where x is currently unknown, then economic growth is going to be less than the base case. We're really arguing about how much drag there will be. Only the Panglossian fruit loops are arguing that we'll be better off.
Based on the figures I've seen, both from the Treasury model and the IFS model survey, that drag, over the period 2016 - 2030 is going to range from -2% to -5%, which is a quarterly drag over that same period of between 0.033% and 0.083%, crudely assuming that it's a linear phenomenon (which it isn't).
Your argument is difficult to follow because you are making a firm predict (-2 % to -5 %) on going from “a frictionless trade to destination X, where X is unknown".
If X is unknown, I can’t see how the figures can be anything other than rough guesses.
I am actually trying to help the GardenWalkers of this world..
If you want people to believe a bunch of numbers, all I said was the pretty innocuous make the model available so people can play with it,.
Importantly, we have to be able to change the assumptions, change the model parameters and see how robust it all is, so we need the whole model not just some Treasury spreadsheets.
My guess is that the Treasury doesn’t want release the model, because the model is probably naive.
The known unknowns are fairly well understood and can be estimated. It's why most of the serious analysis comes up with similar figures - ranges in low single digits of percentage of GDP growth forgone, depending on the scenario. My suspicion is that the models don't allow for buggeration. E.g.delay and argument, that we might need to go through No Deal before getting to an FTA, waste time negotiating a deal an end up with Norway anyway.
By all means have a surf and see what you can find.
The problem is that you are handwaving a perfectly reasonable projection (because both similar to a large number of forecasts, and because tallies with what I hope is a basic economic principle, ie that reducing trade reduces growth) because you wish to discount it from the argument against Brexit.
It’s an underhand tactic.
I don’t want to surf. I want to calculate. I am Pro-Arithmetic.
I don’t believe the forecasts because I don’t believe anything unless I have convinced myself of the evidence.
If you believe that asking for the evidence is an “underhand tactic”, then your spiritual forebears are the magicians and alchemists who held sway before the Age of Rationalism.
By all means have a surf and see what you can find.
The problem is that you are handwaving a perfectly reasonable projection (because both similar to a large number of forecasts, and because tallies with what I hope is a basic economic principle, ie that reducing trade reduces growth) because you wish to discount it from the argument against Brexit.
It’s an underhand tactic.
I don’t want to surf. I want to calculate. I am Pro-Arithmetic.
I don’t believe the forecasts because I don’t believe anything unless I have convinced myself of the evidence.
If you believe that asking for the evidence is an “underhand tactic”, then your spiritual forebears are the magicians and alchemists who held sway before the Age of Rationalism.
It seems that @John_M has done the hard work for you. Crack away and let us know what you come back with.
By all means have a surf and see what you can find.
The problem is that you are handwaving a perfectly reasonable projection (because both similar to a large number of forecasts, and because tallies with what I hope is a basic economic principle, ie that reducing trade reduces growth) because you wish to discount it from the argument against Brexit.
It’s an underhand tactic.
I don’t want to surf. I want to calculate. I am Pro-Arithmetic.
I don’t believe the forecasts because I don’t believe anything unless I have convinced myself of the evidence.
If you believe that asking for the evidence is an “underhand tactic”, then your spiritual forebears are the magicians and alchemists who held sway before the Age of Rationalism.
It seems that @John_M has done the hard work for you. Crack away and let us know what you come back with.
And the validation? How has the model been validated?
I think there may be a mistake in the model equation (2.1) in the seventh line -- the 0.004 should be a 0,0067.
How can we tell if I am right or if the OBR are right?
I see Jezza was in Chesterfield at the exact time he supposedly was meeting the Czech liar according to Tony Benns diary
But Jezza doesn't deny meeting him? The difference is over what was said.
Tony Benns diaries End of an Era. Entry for 24th October 1987. Page 524. Corbyn mentioned in the diary entry that he was indeed in Chesterfield at a Socialist meeting that day
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
I CAN CONFIRM I DID NOT ORGANIZE LIVE AID though.
Jezza should have denied meeting him then. But perhaps Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box. On more than one occasion he has been a useful idiot.
FFS! Can you remember what you wer doing on 24th October 1987? I certainly can't!
I really don't understand why people are still pursuing this. If being a friend and supporter of the IRA had no traction with the public why do people think some dodgy 30 year old claims out of Tinker Tailor are going to shift opinion?
It has plenty of traction among the 40% who support the Conservatives, and none whatsoever among the 40% who support Labour.
But it needs to have traction amongst the 20% who support neither and I see no sign of that at all. I would absolutely hate Corbyn becoming PM but this sort of raking over ancient history (or in this case as it appears ancient mythology) does not change in any way at all how I regard him.
It seems to me that acting as the EU's consumer of last resort is an unsustainable economic model, and that post the Brexit vote, we have begun to move away from that economic model.
Employer of last resort as well:
' The ONS labour market figures published on Thursday show the total number of EU nationals working in Britain rose by 101,000 in 2017 to 2.3 million. This is almost half the 196,000 increase in 2016, confirming the slowdown in the rate of growth of EU worker migration.
The figure of 101,000 compares with an increase of 294,000 in the number of UK workers in the British labour force. EU migrants accounted for just over 50% of the increase in employment in Britain in 2016. That has now fallen to 25%. '
Note that the link mentions a fall in WESTERN EU nationals in the UK workforce but the article says their number employed increased and its EU8 nationals who decreased.
I'm sure that the Guardian have had to rewrite their article after getting their facts wrong earlier.
I can imagine the glee they must have had when they thought that a Brexodus of Germans, French etc had begun and the horror when they realised they had got it the wrong way round.
'A slowdown in the rate of increase'.
Fuck. Somebody hold me, I'm frightened.
If we had been told, on 22nd June 2016, that over the next 18 months, the economy would grow by 2.8%, manufacturing output would grow by 5%, the public sector deficit would continue to fall, house building would reach it's highest level for 20 years, 400,000 net jobs would be created, the stock Market would bound ahead, I think most people could have lived with that.
It seems to me that acting as the EU's consumer of last resort is an unsustainable economic model, and that post the Brexit vote, we have begun to move away from that economic model.
Employer of last resort as well:
' The ONS labour market figures published on Thursday show the total number of EU nationals working in Britain rose by 101,000 in 2017 to 2.3 million. This is almost half the 196,000 increase in 2016, confirming the slowdown in the rate of growth of EU worker migration.
The figure of 101,000 compares with an increase of 294,000 in the number of UK workers in the British labour force. EU migrants accounted for just over 50% of the increase in employment in Britain in 2016. That has now fallen to 25%. '
Note that the link mentions a fall in WESTERN EU nationals in the UK workforce but the article says their number employed increased and its EU8 nationals who decreased.
I'm sure that the Guardian have had to rewrite their article after getting their facts wrong earlier.
I can imagine the glee they must have had when they thought that a Brexodus of Germans, French etc had begun and the horror when they realised they had got it the wrong way round.
'A slowdown in the rate of increase'.
Fuck. Somebody hold me, I'm frightened.
If we had been told, on 22nd June 2016, that over the next 18 months, the economy would grow by 2.8%, manufacturing output would grow by 5%, the public sector deficit would continue to fall, house building would reach it's highest level for 20 years, 400,000 net jobs would be created, the stock Market would bound ahead, I think most people could have lived with that.
By all means have a surf and see what you can find.
The problem is that you are handwaving a perfectly reasonable projection (because both similar to a large number of forecasts, and because tallies with what I hope is a basic economic principle, ie that reducing trade reduces growth) because you wish to discount it from the argument against Brexit.
It’s an underhand tactic.
I don’t want to surf. I want to calculate. I am Pro-Arithmetic.
I don’t believe the forecasts because I don’t believe anything unless I have convinced myself of the evidence.
If you believe that asking for the evidence is an “underhand tactic”, then your spiritual forebears are the magicians and alchemists who held sway before the Age of Rationalism.
It seems that @John_M has done the hard work for you. Crack away and let us know what you come back with.
And the validation? How has the model been validated?
I think there may be a mistake in the model equation (2.1) in the seventh line -- the 0.004 should be a 0,0067.
How can we tell if I am right or if the OBR are right?
If it’s a simple arithmetical error you’ve spotted, publish your findings.
Or, follow my simple rule of thumb: Is claim X made by @YBarddCwsc? If so, it is FALSE.
It seems to me that acting as the EU's consumer of last resort is an unsustainable economic model, and that post the Brexit vote, we have begun to move away from that economic model.
Employer of last resort as well:
' The ONS labour market figures published on Thursday show the total number of EU nationals working in Britain rose by 101,000 in 2017 to 2.3 million. This is almost half the 196,000 increase in 2016, confirming the slowdown in the rate of growth of EU worker migration.
The figure of 101,000 compares with an increase of 294,000 in the number of UK workers in the British labour force. EU migrants accounted for just over 50% of the increase in employment in Britain in 2016. That has now fallen to 25%. '
Note that the link mentions a fall in WESTERN EU nationals in the UK workforce but the article says their number employed increased and its EU8 nationals who decreased.
I'm sure that the Guardian have had to rewrite their article after getting their facts wrong earlier.
I can imagine the glee they must have had when they thought that a Brexodus of Germans, French etc had begun and the horror when they realised they had got it the wrong way round.
'A slowdown in the rate of increase'.
Fuck. Somebody hold me, I'm frightened.
If we had been told, on 22nd June 2016, that over the next 18 months, the economy would grow by 2.8%, manufacturing output would grow by 5%, the public sector deficit would continue to fall, house building would reach it's highest level for 20 years, 400,000 net jobs would be created, the stock Market would bound ahead, I think most people could have lived with that.
The pound down 15%, manufacturing up 5% - genius.
22nd June 2016 - dollar 1.46 - today 1.39 circa 5%
"Coffee House The destructive culture of perfection We are all capable of good and evil, and what we do, how we choose to act, is sometimes a matter of circumstance. Mark Piggott"
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/21/manafort-mueller-charges-new-rick-gates-trump-investigation-fbi-latest
And I return to the theme of my piece this morning. Leave have done absolutely nothing to persuade Remain supporters to acquiesce in Brexit and everything they can to antagonise them.
And then they wonder why it isn't a glorious success.
Brexit will lead to a fall in tax revenue, particularly on financial services.
Brexit, far from being a side issue, will have a major and direct effect on your first two issues. It will affect your other issues as well, perhaps less directly. Brexit is also the consuming issue. It's all very well saying it's a side issue but renegotiating 800 multilateral treaties with people who aren't minded to make life easy for you isn't a trivial task, especially when you don't have a consensus on anything on your side.
It’s anti-rational.
For a start, the economics of Brexit are pretty uncontroversial. Just as free trade, ceteris paribus, increases wealth, so does friction in free trade reduce it.
Secondly, you mistake short-term forecasts (which have to take into account various factors, including unpredictable ones like the weather, or consumer confidence) with estimates of a long term effect, which need only take into account a small set of basic variables and the relationship between them, ie trade volumes and growth; FDI and growth.
By all means advocate Brexi, but please do so responsibly. Don’t be a flat-Earther about it.
That is the day the Sun said the meeting happened. It was a Saturday in all likleyhood i was there but as i dont keep a diary i cant confirm.
I CAN CONFIRM I DID NOT ORGANIZE LIVE AID though.
EU GDP growth by country, Q3 2017, from Eurostat. The range was -0.3% (Denmark) to 2.6% (Romania). The EU average was 0.6, as was the overall Eurozone.
The 2016 annual stats give growth ranging from 0.1% (Greece) to 5% (Romania).
Individual country performance is dominated by factors other than the Single Market or even Euro membership. I don't think that's particularly controversial - check out Italy since 1999 as one example of a country failing to take advantage of its opportunities.
You may not be surprised to find that your moronic behaviour has led some Leave supporters to actively seek ways to annoy and upset you because frankly you have behaved like a bit of a twat.
Mueller files more (sealed) charges in Manafort case:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/paul-manafort-rick-gates-new-charges-criminal-case-419685?lo=ap_a1
.... It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear . And it absolutely will not stop, ever...
e.g. As discussed, does the decision include staying in the SM and CU? Who makes the decision?
I enjoy most of your posts, but you're still a semi-anonymous stranger on the Internet to me; if you dislike Brexit, which appears to be the case, then fair enough, you're entitled to your view. What is that to me? I don't require you to 'get behind' Brexit, rather the opposite, I expect you to exercise your democratic right to reverse the decision. It is entirely up to you.
I made no comment at all about whether or not Brexit is floundering (it isn't) or who is to blame one way or another. I was specifically addressing your stupid comments about how no one wants to reach out to you.
I would tell you to stop making things up but I know you are incapable of honesty when it comes to Brexit.
Ok.
Meeks does go on a bit, even for me, but he’s not wrong. After May’s gracious first speech as PM-presumptive when Leadson pulled out of the race, it was all downhill.
She had to be pulled kicking and screaming toward the proper (and democratic) exercise of Article 50 by Gina Miller. Her rhetoric was divisive. And her silence as various nutters yanked the Brexit Ovenden window to the hard right was frankly scary.
Make the computer code available to everyone so they can play with the input parameters & check the assumptions & content themselves that the model works.
I am not impressed when someone says I’ve got a model and it predicts this, and you’ve gotta take it all on trust. That isn’t science. It isn’t even economics. It is religion
Although if you want to make it, I’d suggest the onus is on you to explain exactly how Brexiting does reduce the British love of consumption and commensurate trade deficit.
I rather suspect that “consumer of last resort” is one of these things that sounds nifty but doesn’t stand up to a decent prod.
Edit: oh and in case you missed it I supported Miss Miller in her court case.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-czech-spy-jan-sarkocy-meeting-chesterfield-derbyshire-mp-mother-commons-a8221321.html
However, I think you *can* find the key parameters if you dig about. And if not Treasury’s, then one of the many others that have reached very similar conclusions.
Carrot Munchers, as I recall he derisively called the rural poor.
It pains me because I detest Corbyn and everything he stands for, but this story is poisoning the well of democratic debate.
So, I would have thought you might be interested in how the model works.
If someone makes a model available to me, I’ll take a look, but I am not impressed by Gardenwalker saying “The sky is falling in, the sky is falling in, The model said so”
Simply to explain that economic forecasts are a thing, and cannot be handwaved just because you don’t like them.
I know you’re a Bard, but I prefer reason to story-telling.
To convince people, the model needs to be available for everyone to check & test.
A model is worthless if it has not been calibrated on real data, and validated. Explain to me how the model was validated. Explain to me how robust are the conclusions.
As I said the other day, no economic model forecasted the Great Financial Crash. If economists cannot successfully predict the major financial event of the last 50 years, why should we trust their model for the next 10 years?
You have accepted a model on trust. Fine, you may have biblical faith.
Others, reasonably enough, may wish to look at the details of the model, test the assumptions and calibrate it against data.
You lose points for claiming all economics can be handwaved for not predicting the GFC.
Do some basic reading and come back to me.
' The ONS labour market figures published on Thursday show the total number of EU nationals working in Britain rose by 101,000 in 2017 to 2.3 million. This is almost half the 196,000 increase in 2016, confirming the slowdown in the rate of growth of EU worker migration.
The figure of 101,000 compares with an increase of 294,000 in the number of UK workers in the British labour force. EU migrants accounted for just over 50% of the increase in employment in Britain in 2016. That has now fallen to 25%. '
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/21/number-of-western-eu-nationals-in-uk-workforce-falls-by-5-percent
Note that the link mentions a fall in WESTERN EU nationals in the UK workforce but the article says their number employed increased and its EU8 nationals who decreased.
I'm sure that the Guardian have had to rewrite their article after getting their facts wrong earlier.
I can imagine the glee they must have had when they thought that a Brexodus of Germans, French etc had begun and the horror when they realised they had got it the wrong way round.
You have repeatedly used the phrase "hand waved away”
I haven’t hand waved anything away. I merely asked for the model to be made available, or the evidence (including the validation) to be summarised.
Any handwaving has been done by you.
Fuck. Somebody hold me, I'm frightened.
Something to ponder:
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/966000707961872384
Why don’t you go and find them yourself?
The onus is on you - who seem to be skeptical of what should be very unsurprising forecasts - to go and debunk them, if you think they’re somehow fudged or faulty.
You keep changing your tune, first the Treasury had it wrong, then you’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t show its working, then all economics is fake because GFC.
I can see right through you, and what I see ain’t good.
As others have said, if you keep eating this way you’re likely to die of a heart attack. However it’s difficult to predict whether you’ll have fish n chips or salad for dinner tomorrow night.
I said that, if you want to convince people that your model is correct, you make it available to everyone on github.
You said (i) it is not my model, then (ii) it is pretty basic stuff, then (iii) you lied about me hand-waving forecasts aways and (iv) finally told me you can see right through me.
All interesting stuff. A bit too much bluster perhaps, I thought you’d have the arguments at your fingertips.
And I loved the “do some basic reading and get back to me”. It was very much the testy seigneur dealing with a difficult underling.
But, like a good scientist, I just want to see the data and the model, and understand how the model was validated against the data.
I haven’t dismissed the forecast, I merely asked for the evidence & the validation. A pretty reasonable request.
What is the probability of the forecast 15 years in the future being correct?
A good model should provide a forecast and a confidence interval,
What is the confidence interval?
(Please, please let it be the standard Gardenwalker response to a tricky question, “Stop bothering me. Go away and do some basic reading”).
Surely it's just common sense that if we're going from frictionless trade to destination where x is currently unknown, then economic growth is going to be less than the base case. We're really arguing about how much drag there will be. Only the Panglossian fruit loops are arguing that we'll be better off.
Based on the figures I've seen, both from the Treasury model and the IFS model survey, that drag, over the period 2016 - 2030 is going to range from -2% to -5%, which is a quarterly drag over that same period of between 0.033% and 0.083%, crudely assuming that it's a linear phenomenon (which it isn't).
Can we agree that this is the ballpark macro effect? Or is it pistols at dawn ad nauseam?
http://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Final_Model_Documentation.pdf
If X is unknown, I can’t see how the figures can be anything other than rough guesses.
I am actually trying to help the GardenWalkers of this world..
If you want people to believe a bunch of numbers, all I said was the pretty innocuous make the model available so people can play with it,.
Importantly, we have to be able to change the assumptions, change the model parameters and see how robust it all is, so we need the whole model not just some Treasury spreadsheets.
My guess is that the Treasury doesn’t want release the model, because the model is probably naive.
The problem is that you are handwaving a perfectly reasonable projection (because both similar to a large number of forecasts, and because tallies with what I hope is a basic economic principle, ie that reducing trade reduces growth) because you wish to discount it from the argument against Brexit.
It’s an underhand tactic.
The government's objection to the draft forecasts being released was that no modelling of our 'ambitious economic partnership agreement' had taken place. However, we do have estimates for Single Market membership through to WTO terms. I've chosen not to include the 'no deal' estimate, because I'm betting we'll get one.
I hope that clarifies things.
I don’t believe the forecasts because I don’t believe anything unless I have convinced myself of the evidence.
If you believe that asking for the evidence is an “underhand tactic”, then your spiritual forebears are the magicians and alchemists who held sway before the Age of Rationalism.
I think there may be a mistake in the model equation (2.1) in the seventh line -- the 0.004 should be a 0,0067.
How can we tell if I am right or if the OBR are right?
Or, follow my simple rule of thumb: Is claim X made by @YBarddCwsc? If so, it is FALSE.
"Coffee House
The destructive culture of perfection
We are all capable of good and evil, and what we do, how we choose to act, is sometimes a matter of circumstance.
Mark Piggott"
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-destructive-culture-of-perfection/
They are projections. They project the effect of the assumptions and inputs.