Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is why you should be laying Boris as next Tory leader/PM
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is why you should be laying Boris as next Tory leader/PM
Video: Boris Johnson being by Eddie Mair a few years ago, the interview did not go well for Boris.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Boris has instinct, but no political judgement whatsoever.
What you appear to be saying WO, is the that the UK should not honour its debts
Byyyeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (for now)
Kicking DD upstairs could put someone more administratively competent in charge at DEXEU.
The truth of the matter is almost certainly* that legally we'll owe precisely zero on exit day, in the absence of any agreement otherwise. The treaties fall away, and that's it. If our EU friends want us to make some chunky payments to cover the ensuing black hole in their budget, then they'll need to offer us a trade deal which makes it worthwhile for us to do so.
* see: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/125.pdf
That might make him very popular...
What he needs to do is to replicate his recent LOTO style of ideas and passion, and appoint underlings like McDonnell, Starmer and Milne to the apparatchik roles, as admin is not his strength.
The theoretical is crossing my mind, must admit.
Similarly, there is no housing shortage, just too many well-paid people especially in the south-east. Wreck the economy and the City, and the house price problem goes away (though not for millennials because they'll be the ones getting sacked or told to pony up an even bigger deposit and thus still unable to buy).
You should also read today's centre for policy studies report 'Abandoning Austerity is no solution'
Since 1973 we've been in an EEC, an EC, and an EU, which has gone from having 7 to 27 members, and from veto to QMV. Is it all now going to freeze and not change further? If not, will it be possible to bale later?
I would note, of course, that this is only a very small portion of the total. Indeed, the sum would likely be smaller than the compensation we would be due for our share of the EIB. But it is a mistake to assume that the EU is not due some monies from us.
"Boris’s Falstaffian coming-of-age moment is overdue."
Falstaff never 'came of age' (that would be Prince Hal) - and like him, Johnson is likely to remain a bragging Bufflehead.
A good dose of inflation is what indebted Britain requires to clear its debts, reduce the real price of housing etc. It is either that or default.
Instead of whistling out of our backsides.
What's more, if we were subject to a share of the liabilities, then by the same reasoning we'd be entitled to the same share of the assets. Unless the EU is bankrupt, that must be a net positive number in our favour.
And finally, the EU cannot take us to the International Court in the Hague, because it's not a signatory (this comes back, again, to the legal entity argument). It would have to be the EU27 countries - but they've signed a treaty saying that the ECJ is the only court with jurisdiction over EU matters, and we'd no longer be subject to that.
Gummer was said to be being lined up for the job, before he lost his seat.
Another example: Hong Kong. There's very limited space, it's an international city, there's substantial net migration and very large numbers of both Chinese and foreigners want to live there. Between 1997 and 2003, prices fell 70%.
I mention these things because there is good reason to think that UK - and particularly London - house prices will come down a long way.
And that'll be good for people in their late 20s and early 30s who haven't bought homes. And it'll be absolutely awful for those who are mortgaged up to their eyeballs. They would never forgive the government.
And you have ignored Corbyns student fee fiasco and public sector pay rises
The real hurdles to this are firstly that the voters have to substantially change their minds, which hasn't happened yet, and secondly it has to suit the British Prime Minister, who only really seems to be interested in internal party politics.
"It's a divorce" - no it's not. What other marriage involves 28 people? And usually in a divorce, the financially weaker person gets a payoff from the stronger.
"Leave the club but still want access to the bar" - Again, it's not. Quite a few clubs do offer (more expensive) access to the bar, and also charge day rates for people who just want a round of golf once in a while. Plus, what club, as well as forgoing the rest of that years subs, demand anywhere between 3 and 10 years FULL subs before they accept your resignation?
Let's call it what it is. A modern state leaving an economic and political union, in which this state has already so integrated its own economy and political make up, that leaving it is going to cause years and years of economic uncertainty and political turmoil.
It's NEVER been attempted before, and I suspect it never will again (unless it turns out to be a roaring success). It also doesn't help that the EU set the rules in such a way as to basically try and prevent anyone leaving. Doesn't really smack of being a very good union if you can't get out.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting we shouldn't do it.
Luton still seems affordable down there. https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc401update/map.html?initialWidth=700&childId=cea-49b4-8ac1-28a89adb16cb#
"Devil in the detail" of course being the major caveat to everything i've just said...
It was very clear Scotland would have to do so had IndyRef gone yes.
For most of my life (and for most of Britains post war prosperity) inflation was in the 5-10% range, as were interest rates. Inflation is the way to write down debts without default, though carries other baggage.
Writing off (or at least writing down) student debt is going to happen, either now or in 30 years, the only question is how much misery to inflict first by usorious debts for our childern that end the year bigger than they start despite repayments.
Fox jr will be accummulating £200 per month interest added to his account from this September.
In house price crashes several things happen that all make buying cheap houses harder (for some people) than before.
1/ Nobody knows when the crash is over until a few years afterwards, so buyers don't want to buy in case prices worsen, and discretionary sellers don't want to sell in case prices improve. So the amount of stock falls, and so do transactions. In 1990, a two-bedroom flat in Little Venice that was £150k in 1988 could be had for £120k. Except it couldn't, because there were none for sale. Ask me how I know.
2/ Next, mortgage lenders want bigger deposits because a 10% deposit and 10% annual depreciation turns a 90% mortgage into a 100% mortgage (and after 2 years into a 110% mortgage). They also curb the salary multiples they'll consider, for the same reason.
3/ The ability to amass such deposits falls, however, because equity has been eroded among existing owners. Among FTBs and non-owners the problem is that their rent goes up. If you can avoid a £10k loss by paying £9k more rent, that's what you do.
4/ We saw all the above in 1988 to 1996. An extra bit of spice this time is that if house prices halved, and volumes halved as well, stamp duty would have to quadruple. That can only mean higher levels further down, so see 3/. Alternatively borrowing or some other tax would have to go up.
The above is without considering the implications of higher rates should those be a factor in triggering this conjectural crash.
If crashes were good and benign things they'd be called something like puppies, or unicorns, or something.
The "give it to the NHS instead" was a lie. Whatever the number, it will never be spent exclusively on the NHS
It's not the same as Corbyn. Corbyn said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did not vote for his plan. Boris said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did vote that way. Boris deserves all the criticism he gets
* Of which the EU has relatively little
This is different. there is little net EU debt to speak of, and we are leaving according the Article 50 provisions. These simply say that the treaties cease to apply on Brexit date. End of story, in the absence of any agreement otherwise. If those drafting Article 50 had wanted to include some guff about liabilities, they could have done so. They didn't.
I've just been reading a couple of books, and it's staggering to think that the electron was discovered only 120 years ago, the atomic nucleus 106, and the neutron 85.
We've come a long way since then, but the 1900-1950 period must have seen one of the biggest rates of change in science and engineering ever. Probably society as well.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
I had my own "lay Boris" moment yesterday after the Barnier gag "I am not hearing any whistling, just the clock ticking" - a clever but annoying child being slapped down by a much cleverer, bored adult, or the "big, clunking fist" which Blair hoped Brown would deploy against Cameron.
I sold it in 96, for what I paid, but the house that I bought in '96 doubled in price in 5 years.
When comparing public and private sector pay they don't control for the fact that there are different levels of qualifications needed between the the two.
When looking at the impact of austerity on growth they start the clock at 2010 and seem to exclude countries with a budget deficit less than 5%?
They say Ireland has averaged 6% growth since 2010... I suppose that is based on the highly dubious 26% growth recorded in 2015...
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
* Another possibility is Jeremy Hunt but he has some baggage and may not be seen as a "safe pair of hands"
Bojo will be toast at stage 4, but Jezza will be the winner at stage 6...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Defence_White_Paper
That ended well, didn't it?
The idea that a base rate of 10%+ is a norm to which we are sure one day to revert is a frequently-heard one, but is completely unfounded. It was those 18 years that were themselves the aberration.
The mode rate since 1694 has been around 4%, with typical mortgage rates maybe a point or two above that, not that mortgages were typical until the 20th century. So today's mortgage rates, while low, aren't that low. They're not as low as people who think 12 or 15% is normal imagine, for example.
What was worst about the 1973-1991 era was not just the absolute level that rates got to, but the volatility. Rates went from 5% in October 1977 to 14% by February 1979 and 17% by November 1977; from 7.375% in May 1988 to 14.875% in October 1989. Essentially, rates could triple within 16 to 18 months, and did so several times. In era in which fixed-rate mortgage products didn't exist, this had a lot to do with low property prices (sexist taxation of wives didn't help either).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/india-sues-the-queen-for-return-of-stolen-100m-koh-i-noor-diamond-a6725951.html
You'll get many more White Elephants going down that route than if you remain substantially grounded in a nearer future based on current trends.
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS, because this would require a government decision, and a government was not being voted for. I get that you would like people to have thought this a promise, so that it can be characterised as a lie, but the comparison with Corbyn is exact.
(Not serious, but it was too good to miss)
On the basis that she has almost no black marks on any of these tests, perhaps we should be paying much closer attention to Amber Rudd as a contender than is normal on these threads.